“ignorance”, in relation to a law, means complete lack of knowledge that the law exists; “law” means this Code or any other enactment; “mistake”, in relation to a law, means an erroneous impression as to the nature or contents of that law. 236 When mistake or ignorance of law a defence (1) Subject to this Part, if a person (a) does or omits to do anything which is an essential element of a crime in terms of any law; and (b) when he or she did or omitted to do the thing, he or she did not know that his or her conduct was unlawful because he or she was genuinely mistaken or ignorant as to the relevant provisions of the law; the person shall not have a complete defence to a charge of committing that crime unless the person’s mistake or ignorance as to the relevant provisions of the law was directly brought about by advice given to him or her by an administrative officer whom he or she had reason to believe was charged with the administration of the law concerned and was familiar with its contents. [Subsection amended by section 31 of Act 9 of 2006.] (2) In any circumstances other than those affording a complete defence under subsection (1), genuine mistake or ignorance as to the relevant provisions of a law on the part of a person charged with a crime shall merely be a factor to be taken into account in the assessment of sentence. 237 Claims of right and mistakes of mixed law and fact If in any criminal case a person charged with any crime against property raises a defence of claim of right, namely that the person believed he or she had a right to do or omit to do any thing, the court shall determine whether or not the belief arose from mistake or ignorance of fact or law and, if the court decides that the belief arose (a) solely from mistake or ignorance of law, the court shall regard the defence as one of mistake or ignorance of law in terms of this Part; or (b) solely from mistake or ignorance of fact, the court shall regard the defence as one of mistake or ignorance of fact in terms of Part VII; or (c) partly from mistake or ignorance of law and partly from mistake or ignorance of fact, the court shall regard the defence as one of mistake or ignorance of law in terms of this Part. PART IX P ROVOCATION 238 Provocation in relation to crimes other than murder Except as provided in section two hundred and thirty-nine and subject to any other enactment, provocation shall not be a defence to a crime but the court may regard it as mitigatory when assessing the sentence to be imposed for the crime. 239 When provocation a partial defence to murder (1) If, after being provoked, a person does or omits to do anything resulting in the death of a person which would be an essential element of the crime of murder if done or omitted, as the case may be, with the intention or realisation referred to in section forty-seven, the person shall be guilty of culpable homicide if, as a result of the provocation (a) he or she does not have the intention or realisation referred to in section forty-seven; or (b) he or she has the intention or realisation referred to in section forty-seven but has completely lost his or her self-control, the provocation being sufficient to make a reasonable person in his or her position and circumstances lose his or her self-control. [Subsection amended by section 31 of Act 9 of 2006.] (2) For the avoidance of doubt it is declared that if a court finds that a person accused of murder was provoked but that (a) he or she did have the intention or realisation referred to in section forty-seven; or (b) the provocation was not sufficient to make a reasonable person in the accused’s position and circumstances lose his or her self-control; the accused shall not be entitled to a partial defence in terms of subsection (1) but the court may regard the provocation as mitigatory as provided in section two hundred and thirty-eight.