Mistake Of Fact In Criminal Liability
⚖️ Mistake of Fact in Criminal Liability – Overview
The defence of mistake of fact applies when a person commits an offence under a misunderstanding or misbelief about a fact, and that misunderstanding negates the required mens rea (mental element) of the offence.
✅ When Mistake of Fact is a Defence:
The mistake negates intention, knowledge, recklessness, or belief required for the offence.
The mistake was honestly held, even if unreasonable (in some cases).
❌ When Mistake of Fact is not a Defence:
The mistake is about the law (ignorance of the law is no excuse).
The offence is of strict liability, where mens rea is not required.
🔑 Key Principles
Mistake of fact can be a full defence if it prevents the formation of mens rea.
The mistake must relate to facts, not the legal status or interpretation of those facts.
In many cases, it does not need to be reasonable, just genuinely held (DPP v. Morgan).
In some offences (e.g., self-defence), reasonableness is required under statute (Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008).
🧑⚖️ Landmark Case Law on Mistake of Fact
1. DPP v. Morgan [1976] AC 182
Facts:
A man told three others that they could have sex with his wife and that she would pretend to resist, but she had not consented. The defendants believed, based on his word, that she had consented.
Held:
The House of Lords held that an honest belief in consent, even if unreasonable, could negate the mens rea for rape.
Significance:
Established that an honest belief in a mistaken fact (consent) can be a defence.
The belief does not need to be reasonable, only genuinely held (at that time).
2. R v. Tolson (1889) 23 QBD 168
Facts:
The defendant remarried, believing her husband was dead after he had been missing for five years. She was charged with bigamy.
Held:
The court quashed the conviction, ruling that her honest mistake about a material fact (her husband’s death) negated the offence.
Significance:
Classic case of mistake of fact as a defence.
Emphasized that honest mistake in good faith can exonerate the defendant.
3. R v. Williams (Gladstone) [1984] 78 Cr App R 276
Facts:
The defendant saw a man (actually a police officer) attacking a youth and intervened, assaulting the officer under the mistaken belief that the youth was being unlawfully attacked.
Held:
The court held that the defendant’s honest (though mistaken) belief could be relied upon, and he was entitled to have the jury assess the case based on the facts as he perceived them.
Significance:
Confirmed that self-defence based on mistake of fact is available if the belief was honestly held.
Again, reasonableness is not required, though it may affect credibility.
4. R v. Smith (David) [1974] QB 354
Facts:
A tenant damaged property he believed he owned (a wall panel), but it was actually the landlord’s. He was charged with criminal damage.
Held:
The court held that if the defendant honestly believed he had a lawful right to damage the property, he could not be guilty—even if his belief was mistaken.
Significance:
Recognised that an honest belief in a right (mistake of fact) can be a defence to criminal damage.
Subjective belief is key, not objective truth.
5. R v. Kimber (1983) 77 Cr App R 225
Facts:
The defendant had sexual intercourse with a mentally disabled woman and claimed he believed she consented.
Held:
The Court of Appeal ruled that a jury must consider whether the defendant honestly believed the victim was consenting.
Significance:
Reaffirmed Morgan principles.
In sexual offences, mistake as to consent must be genuine, though need not be reasonable.
6. R v. Taaffe [1984] AC 539
Facts:
The defendant believed he was importing foreign currency illegally, but in fact, it was not illegal. He was charged under a different law for drug importation.
Held:
The court found that a mistaken belief that one is committing a crime is not itself a crime—there must be an actual offence committed.
Significance:
Clarified that mistake of fact is not a route to criminalising innocent behaviour.
Reinforces that belief in illegality is not enough—an actual offence must occur.
📊 Summary Table
| Case | Mistaken Fact | Legal Outcome | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|---|
| DPP v. Morgan | Consent to sex | Defence allowed if belief was honest | Honest belief in consent (even if unreasonable) negates mens rea |
| R v. Tolson | Husband presumed dead | Conviction quashed | Honest mistake about fact can negate offence |
| R v. Williams (Gladstone) | Belief someone was being attacked | Defence allowed | Self-defence available if belief was honest |
| R v. Smith (David) | Believed he owned the property | Defence allowed | Honest belief in legal right negates intent |
| R v. Kimber | Belief in consent from mentally disabled woman | Jury must assess belief | Consent-based offences rely on subjective belief |
| R v. Taaffe | Believed conduct was illegal, but it wasn’t | Not guilty | Mistaken belief of illegality doesn’t create guilt |
📝 Conclusion
The defence of mistake of fact is a powerful tool where the defendant genuinely misperceived the situation, and that negated the mental element of the offence.
Courts have consistently held that:
The belief must be honest, even if unreasonable (except in limited circumstances).
It must relate to facts, not a misunderstanding of the law.
In some offences (e.g., self-defence or sexual offences), the jury must assess the defendant’s perception, not just objective truth.
This defence plays a crucial role in ensuring just outcomes in criminal cases by recognising human fallibility, provided the mistake is not reckless or fabricated.
RELATED Blog
0 comments