A:
A has committed an offence, since a mistake as to the identity of a person is a mistake of law, and not a mistake of fact.
B:
A has not committed an offence, since she was acting under the directions of a superior office.
C:
A has committed an offence as she has disobeyed her superior officer's order to arrest B when she arrested C
D:
A has not committed an offence, since she had made a mistake of fact in good faith, and not a mistake of law, in arresting C instead of B.
E:
A has not committed an offence, since police officers have immunity from prosecution in relation to any act committed in the course of their duties.
Explanation
D: A has not committed an offence, since she had made a mistake of fact in good faith, and not a mistake of law, in arresting C instead of B.
Explanation:
The key principle here is that a person who has done something that is an offense under the law due to a mistake of facts (and not due to a mistake of law), which led that person to believe in good faith that they were bound by law to do such an act, is excused.
In this case, A, a police officer, arrested C, believing her to be B, due to a mistaken identity. This is a mistake of fact, not a mistake of law. A genuinely believed that she was following a lawful order from her superior officer to arrest B.
Since A's action was based on a mistake of fact and she believed in good faith that she was carrying out a lawful order, she is excused from committing an offense under the principle. This is not a mistake of law related to her duties; it's a mistake of fact about the identity of the person to be arrested. Therefore, option D is the correct choice.
Option B, which suggests that A has not committed an offense because she was following orders, is not the most accurate choice in this context because following orders is not an absolute defense if the arrest was made based on a mistaken identity that constitutes a mistake of fact.
