Section 184 Data Protection Act
Ignorance of the law is no excuse (Latin: ignorantia juris non excusat) is a long-established principle in English law and most legal systems, for several compelling reasons:
Legal Certainty and the Rule of Law
The law must apply equally and predictably to everyone.
If people could avoid liability by claiming ignorance, the law would become uncertain and unenforceable.
Justice would favour only the informed, making the system unfair and chaotic.
Presumed Knowledge of Published Law
In England, laws are published and accessible. Citizens are expected to make reasonable efforts to know the law, especially when engaging in regulated activities e.g. policing.
New laws are announced in Parliament, recorded in Hansard, and published online or in the*London Gazette, they are not kept secret.
Preventing Abuse and False Claims
If ignorance were a valid defence, anyone could misrepresent; claim they did not know their actions were illegal. This would invite fraud and make enforcement nearly impossible.
Encouraging Personal Responsibility
Citizens are expected to take responsibility for their actions, including learning relevant legal obligations. Especially in regulated fields such as law; ‘professionals’ are held to a higher standard.
My arguments were clear and legally supported – yet dismissed. I:
- Provided clear legal reasoning
- Cited the two required conditions of Section 184
- Explained why your actions could not amount to the offence
The failure to engage with my reasoning shows:
- Either an intentional refusal to acknowledge the legal limits of Section 184, or
- A deliberate attempt to intimidate or silence me, possibly in reprisal for uncovering sensitive truths, holding authorities to account or for the constabulary to gain financially.
It is difficult to conclude this was not an innocent mistake.
It beggars’ belief trained police professionals, experienced in data protection law, could misapply such a simple statute, especially after receiving clear legal clarification from me.
The continued accusation, in the face of clear statutory limits and rebuttals, suggests:
- Either a complete institutional failure to understand basic law, or
- A deliberate, coordinated effort to abuse a criminal provision to deny rights or silence criticism.
This is deeply inappropriate conduct, possibly amounting to:
- Misfeasance in public office
- Perverting the course of justice
- Abuse of process
- Fraud