Submitted by BU family member

Ignorantia juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. Translation: “Ignorance of the law excuses nothing”. This internationally settled principal of law means that you cannot go and break the law and then tell people, “Sorry, but I didn’t know”. The burden is on you to know the law.

Does our basic educational system assist in this? Hell, no.

In these days, our schools have as a part of the curriculum such subjects as cooking and other ‘household sciences’ and from their inception the Scouts and the Guides have taught First Aid and survival techniques in the wild. Yet nowhere in our current educational system is the one thing that governs all our lives taught – unless you go to university or law school with the intention of becoming a lawyer or paralegal.

Understand me, I am not talking about specialist knowledge. I am talking about basic knowledge of law.

We all know (and probably have been guilty of it ourselves) that EVERYBODY is a legal expert, when it suits them, and the varied and sometimes unbelievable interpretations of law are usually based, like pre-history, on word of mouth, embellished, misinterpreted and passed down from generation to generation, so that it bears little or no resemblance to the actual facts of law as it has EVER stood.

That these days we have the internet and can go online and check if what we have always believed to be the truth is indeed the truth, and not rely on what we have always been told, simply because a relative or admired friend who was successful, largely in days before the internet, has told us with the authority of their success and/or age and perceived experience, that such and such is the case. They may be talking absolute garbage, but we, doggedly, believe them – no matter what. Indeed, to quote the King and I, “we will fight to prove that we don’t know for sure, is so.”

So, at school we are taught history, language, sciences (including household), but not basic law. Before we leave school, we can get our licenses to drive – yet most of us, including members of the Police, only know the Road Traffic Act from the questions we have had to answer on the written portion of the driving test.

Here is an illustration. A couple of months ago, I was stopped (at night obviously) by a very polite police officer who advised me that it was illegal for me to have the fog lights on my vehicle on. They seemed confused as to whether having them turned on or having them on the vehicle in the first place, was illegal. I know that, because I asked the question. Of course, I turned them off as, had I known they were on, out of courtesy to other drivers, I would have turned them off. However, as it was a new vehicle and these fog lights were built in by the manufacturer, I could easily have refused – neither the lights nor the fact that they were turned on was illegal. I had breached no laws. NOW, had I gone and added those lights to a vehicle that did not have them installed by the manufacturer, then the police officer would have been correct and an offence would have been committed.

That was a few months ago and it exactly mirrored a similar situation that had occurred to me over 10 years previously where the police officer had been exceedingly rude and me, Bajan that I am, had told him exactly what part of my anatomy he could kiss, invited him to meet me in court and placed him on legal notice (in the presence of witnesses including the other police officer accompanying him) what would happen to his sorry ass if he arrested me for refusing to adhere to his mis-reading of the law. Muttering threats like, “Well, we may or may not decide to prosecute you,” he took his ruffled dignity off and guess what? I never heard any further – but I would certainly have felt much better not to have the confrontation forced on me in the first place.

But most Bajans wouldn’t know their rights and clearly neither did the Police in these instances at least 10 years apart. Understand me, I mean no disrespect to the Police whom I generally believe do a really fine job, but I do have a lot of questions about their training and education.

Another illustration. A friend of mine arriving from one of the other islands, was charged at the airport by the Police because they were wearing camouflage clothing. A call to their lawyer in Barbados and the case ended up in court and the charges were dismissed. Why? Where in the law does it state what constitutes camouflage clothing – more specifically, what specific and exact colours constitute camouflage clothing? Without that definition, the law is made to be an ass and is unenforceable. In any case, maybe our lawmakers should seriously consider the infringement to our civil liberties posed by them trying to become arbiters of fashion.

I would also note that the last time I was travelling in to Barbados from overseas, the airline staff were making people wearing camouflage clothing go and change them. It seems that ALL the Caribbean countries have had their governments assert a right to be arbiters of fashion and camouflage is outlawed – EXCEPT IN CUBA!!!! Go figure. But if you go into a Police Station and question them, as I have, on the subject, you will discover that no one has let them in on the decision of the Barbados High Court. And it isn’t bloody-mindedness on their part, you know. It is lack of information provided to them.

However, I digress.

These days, a person leaves school well enough prepared for life, I suppose. Except in the area that governs all society, the LAW. They then complains bitterly about the legal profession and how expensive it is and how long everything takes and how overcrowded the courts are, without trying to lay the blame squarely where it belongs – the failure of our educational system to incorporate classes in basic law so that people know what they can and cannot do from a young age. The maxim “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” seems not to have been considered.

A few more illustrations:

A young man, having just got his license and full of the joys of young manhood and his own invincibility and immortality (we all know the type) has his car (a very nice car and quite expensive) break down (it happens). In an effort to show off what a big, rich person he is, he says that his car is no good and he will sell it to anyone who wants it for $50. Someone accepts the offer and agrees to buy it and they offer him $1 as a deposit, the rest to be paid thereafter – all in the presence of witnesses. The next day, of course, ego having gone into hiding, the young man doesn’t want to sell and thinks he is safe, because there is nothing in writing. WRONG!!!! It is an enforceable contract with all the elements in place. Now, if the purchaser had said that they thought the price was too high and would pay only $25, this would be a counter-offer and would invalidate the contract. But, as they agreed to the offer and accepted it and paid a deposit, it is an enforceable contract.

The same young man, having learned his lesson as far as chattels are concerned, attends another gathering where someone, not happy with their real property, offers to sell it for $50. Quick as a flash and now knowing the law (he thinks) our friend forks out his $1 and doesn’t bother to get it in writing, because it doesn’t matter and there are witnesses. WRONG AGAIN!!!! For any contact for the sale of land to be enforceable, IT HAS GOT TO BE IN WRITING. And you can trot in as many witnesses as you like. If you don’t have it in writing, it is invalid.

Then too, people go to lawyers and pay to have wills drawn up, when actually all they need to do is write their wishes clearly in their own hands in simple and unambiguous terms, sign and date it, preferably in the presence of two witnesses, and that is a will. I do not necessarily advocate that anyone does this for themselves – far better that they spend the money IF THEY CAN AFFORD IT on a lawyer – just in case. But if you cannot afford it, just keep it simple, concise and clear. Also remember to name an executor/trustee so that your inheritors do not have to go to the expense of having the court name one for you after you die.

You next have to deal with the inheritors and executor(s). Most lawyers will waive their fees in respect of entering an estate for probate (except for the filing fees). However, some will not. So, what is wrong with the inheritors/executors doing this without a lawyer? NOTHING!!! In Canada, this is facilitated with online guidance. In Barbados, not only has our educational system let us down on what is an inevitable part of life, but our courts provide no guidance either. Why not?

In these days as Barbados follows our North American cousins in becoming more litigious, surely it is of advantage to our courts and government (in that order) to have a citizenry that is au fait with basic law. Negligence is an area that can rear its head at any time and yet most people have no idea when they are being either civilly or criminally negligent and, as we have seen before, Ignorantia juris non excusat. You are liable (or guilty, as the case may be) whether you know it or not.

There is also the case of some bright spark who parks is car right next to a cricket pitch. Someone hit’s a really good six and the ball damages the car. “Aha”, he thinks. “They got to pay for that or their insurance company does”. WRONG. By parking the car where you did, you consented to the risk.

And we have not even touched on contributory negligence where, by one’s actions one may have contributed significantly to the negligence complained of. For instance, the general rule of thumb in road accidents is that the guilty party is the one that runs into the other – but if you swing out into the traffic at the last minute and allow no chance for oncoming traffic to stop, you will not get the result you want in court. Because you will have contributed to the accident.

So, in all these instances, you, confident that you are right, because you have relied on the interpretation of law passed down from generation to generation, go to a lawyer, expecting him/her to confirm your sagacity and that of your ancestors. But they do not. They tell you that you are wrong and then add insult to injury by charging you a few hundred dollars for the advice that you would probably not have sought, had your education at school properly prepared you for this integral part of life.

Finally, there is the area of internet defamation so admirably discussed here on BU. But how many people have any clear idea of what actually constitutes defamation? Surely this is something that ought to be taught in general terms in schools, particularly with the ease of publishing offered by the internet?

These are but a very few examples and I am asking BU and the BU family to use its contacts and persuade government to consider instituting compulsory basic law studies in schools for children from age 12 to 16. Give our children the chance to have a sound, basic knowledge of what rules every aspect of their lives from cradle to grave and what rules their belongings after they are gone.

It probably will not happen, but maybe we should aim at knowing the law to such an extent that our judges and magistrates and lawyers have little to do and can return to our beautiful old Court and allow the new one, with all its mod cons, to be turned into an internet café.

Instead of adhering to the maxim “Ignorance of the law is no excuse,” let us aim towards a new maxim “Knowledge of the law makes life easier – and cheaper.”