Question

Wilson claimed on the export register that he was exporting refined flour (baking flour). He was entitled to have the duties reduced, called a drawback. If it was not refined flour, Wilson would have committed a criminal libel and Wilson would forfeit the entire shipment of flour. The flour was not refined flour. Wilson claimed that he was unaware of the law; He thought that the flour he was exporting was classified as refined flour. Wilson was sued in criminal court for criminal libel.

1. In one sentence, explain the issue in this case.

2. Name the rule that applies in this case. (What does the law say?)

3. If you were the judge, would you order Wilson to forfeit his shipment of flour? Why or why not? (Be specific in at least two sentences.)

Answer 1

1. Whether Wilson, has committed a criminal libel and whether the forfeiture of his entire shipment of flour is valid or not?

2. Rules which can be applied in this case are “Ignorance of law is no excuse”, “Negligence”.

Ignorance of law is no excuse- It is well settled that a person cannot plead or use ignorance as a defense to escape his liability and the rigors of law. If this defense would have been allowed then every person would have used it even though they being aware of the law and its consequence. Therefore, to avoid this, ignorance of law is strictly considered to be no excuse.

Hence, the defense taken up by Wilson that he was unaware of the law is not enough to get him out of the rigors of law, as the ignorance of law is not an excuse in the eyes of law. This is because it is presumed that every person knows the laws.

Negligence- Negligence is the failure to exercise appropriate or basic ethical rules which are supposed to be exercised in a specified situation or under specified circumstances.

Here, in the present case Wilson, carry on a business of exporting, was under obligation to get to know the wear-abouts of the business he is dealing in. And any sort of misunderstanding on Wilson’s part is considered Negligence, as it was his duty to get the right information or to have the right information and proceed further with that information only. And hence, at a later stage he cannot claim that he was under misconception that the flour which he was exporting was classified as refined flour.

3. In my opinion, I would have ordered forfeiture of Wilson’s shipment of flour, stating the reason that as already discussed above, ignorance of law is no excuse and a person cannot simply take it up as a defense to get over with his liability or punishment which the law provides. A person before entering into any business is expected to have gone through all the laws applicable to that business. And hence a claim or defense to be unaware of any such law regarding that business cannot suffice.

A person carrying on an exporting business cannot be considered to be under misconception that he thought that the flour he is exporting was classified as refined flour, which in reality is not the case.

Hence, I would have ordered the forfeiture of Wilson’s of flour.

NOTE- If you like my answer please vote/thumbs up, this gives me motivation.