Unconsciousness of illegality of a prohibited act

An unawareness of the illegality of a prohibited act assumes that no criminal offence is committed by a individual who commits a criminal offence in the justified unawareness of his illegality. In the event that the wrongdoer's mistake is not justified, the court may apply an exceptional leniency.

Unconsciousness of illegality of a prohibited act It's a countertype that excludes criminal liability for a prohibited act.

Unawareness of illegality or mistake of law

An mistake in law occurs erstwhile the offender, being aware of the performance of a peculiar act, has, however, Mistaken image of the legal value of your behavior (so-called primary error).

In order to accept the absence of error, the perpetrator does not gotta think with the "words of the bill", internalising its verbal content. It is adequate that He is mostly aware that what he does is prohibited by law. In the doctrine of Polish criminal law and jurisprudence practice, the view that it is adequate to know that the conduct is prohibited by any branch of the law, and not only that it is prohibited by law (yes: judgement of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw of 6 March 2017, Act II AKa 10/17).

This thesis was confirmed by the Court of Appeal of Warsaw in its judgement of 1 April 2014, Case No II AKa 432/13 stating that the word ‘unawareness of illegality of a prohibited act“ means that the perpetrator does not realize that his act is contrary to applicable law, i.e. with any area of action, and so the awareness of the illegality of the act does not necessarily mean that a given act is prohibited under a circumstantial penalty, it is adequate for the perpetrator to be aware that act is not permitted under the law.

Unawareness of illegality and work to know the law

In its judgement of 26 November 2015, AKa 197/15, the Court of Appeal stated that if the perpetrator was under force obligation to become acquainted with the applicable provisions (e.g. in connection with professional activities), and the offender failed to comply in a faulty way, unawareness of illegality It'll be unfair. It is not possible to trust effectively on innocent ignorance of the law, if it is apparent from the facts established that the perpetrator not only did not search to be sufficiently acquainted with the government in force, although he was able to do so with representatives of the competent authorities, but even expressly waived that possibility.

Unawareness of crime a decision of the Authority

Unable to trust on unawareness of the crime (a collision of his conduct with legal order) if he intended to violate the decision of the body which in that order settles legal disputes (yes: judgement of the territory Court of Piotrków Trybunalski of 15 July 2014, No. IV Ka 362/14).

Unawareness of the illegality of the act and guilt of the perpetrator

The provision of Article 30 k.k. is undoubtedly based on the explanation that awareness of illegality is treated as a problem of guilt. It so affects the presumption of conduct and, consequently, allows the individual afraid to be released from work on grounds of No guiltif her unawareness of illegality was innocent (yes: order of the ultimate Court of 14 May 2003, act No. II KK 331/02).

Unawareness of the illegality of the act and reasonableness of the perpetrator

No mistake in law (unawareness of the crime) justify the circumstances applicable to the assessment of the individual responsible. specified a concept would lead to absurd results, namely the designation that the circumstances which exclude or restrict justice at the same time find an mistake in the legal assessment of the act, and furthermore justify this mistake (yes: judgement of the ultimate Court of 26 July 2001, No. V KKN 153/01).

It is simply a misunderstanding to identify an mistake in the circumstances of a prohibited act with a deficiency of ability to decently interpret the content of a provision (a correct explanation of the meaning of the phrases defining the character of the act).

Assessment of the perpetrator's behaviour in the context of unawareness of the illegality of the act

The fact that the unawareness of illegality is justified or not justified must be assessed in the context of an individualised, comprehensive assessment of the circumstances of a peculiar act, specified as the social and cultural environment of the perpetrator, the level of his legal awareness, the cognition of standards in society, the degree of ease of designation of the norm by the offender, taking into account his profession, education, the degree of diligence in getting to know the legal standard.

The incorrect belief of the offender that a prohibited act is not unlawful is justified only if the perpetrator cannot be accused that if he had exercised due diligence, he would have made a appropriate legal assessment of the act and thus avoided error.. The procedural body, in making arrangements in this respect, should analyse the full scope of factors (objective and subjective) that may have influenced the improvement of this misconception.

The emphasis besides requires that only the justified unawareness of the illegality of the act is released from criminal liability, for in the event of an mistake of the wrongful person, the court may avail itself of the anticipation of an exceptional relaxation of the penalty. An innocent ignorance of the law cannot be relied upon effectively by a individual who has not tried to decently realize the laws in force or who has been aware of specified a possibility (yes: judgement of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw of 6 March 2017, Act II AKa 10/17).

Unawareness of illegality and evaluation criteria

The criteria for justifying unawareness of illegality are primarily objective, which means that erstwhile they are recognised and determined, use the normative criterion of a valid (model) citizen, and then besides taking into account the subjective criterion circumstantial to the problem of error, it should be assessed whether it would be possible to avoid an mistake in the form of unawareness of the illegality of the action

The usage of an unconscious illegality plan determines whether the perpetrator could have avoided the error, it must be based not only on the full circumstances of the event, but besides on an in-depth analysis of the perpetrator's personality, his ability to actually measure the situation and anticipate (yes: ultimate Court judgement of 13 March 1974, ECR I KR 362/73).

Unawareness of the illegality of the act – examples from the case law

• The ultimate Court, in its judgement of 7 May 2002, Case No. II KK 39/02, accepted that if the suspect was aware that he was not returning to and remaining outside the prison within the prescribed time limit, he would not comply with the prescribed regulation of conduct allowing the suspect to stay legally outside the penal establishment only in the period marked by that establishment and the work to return to the prison after that period, he did not fulfil the conditions of unconscious unlawful conduct.
• If the perpetrator was able to measure the degree of intellectual development the victim of her full increasing up from the minute of her birth, knowing that she was mentally retarded, has led her to sexual intercourse—does not meet the conditions of unconscious illegality of the act described in Art. 30 k.
• Since S. J. was aware that he was cooperating with SB as a consultant, he was acquainted with the mirror law, which qualified him as an assistant in the operational acquisition of information, the issue of mistake was not updated at all. The first condition for sine qua non of mistake in law is the occurrence of a sign of "informedness" (Art. 30 k.k.) (yes: order of the ultimate Court of 1 February 2007, act No. II KK 410/06).