Presumption of regularity

Presumption of regularity

The presumption of regularity[1] is a presumption that forms part of the law of evidence of England and Wales.

It is expressed by the maxim of law[2] "omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter essa acta donec probetur in contrarium",[3] which may be shortened to "omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter essa acta"[4] or "omnia praesumuntur rite essa acta".[5]

Contents

Official actions

Where it has been proved that an "official act" has been done, it will be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the said act "complied with any necessary formalities" and that the person who did it was "duly appointed".[6][7]

This is a presumption of law.[8]

The following cases are relevant to this presumption:

  • R v Gordon (1789) 1 Leach 515, (1789) 1 East PC 315
  • R v Jones (1806) 31 St Tr 251, (1806) 2 Camp 131
  • R v Verelst (1813) 3 Camp 432
  • R v Catesby (1824) 2 B & C 814, (1824) 4 Dow & Ry KB 434, (1824) 2 Dow & Ry MC 278
  • R v Rees (1834) 6 C & P 606
  • R v Murphy (1837) 8 C & P 297
  • R v Townsend (1841) C & Mar 178
  • R v Newton (1843) 1 C & K 469
  • R v Manwaring (1856) 26 LJMC 10, (1856) Dears & B 132, (1856) 7 Cox 192
  • R v Cresswell (1876) 1 QBD 446, (1876) 33 LT 760, (1876) 40 JP 536, (1876) 13 Cox 126
  • R v Stewart (1876) 13 Cox 296
  • R v Roberts (1878) 14 Cox 101, (1878) 42 JP 630, (1878) 38 LT 690, CCR
  • Campbell v Wallsend Shipway and Engineering Co Ltd [1977] Crim LR 351, DC
  • Dillon v R [1982] AC 484, [1982] 2 WLR 538, [1982] 1 All ER 1017, 74 Cr App R 274, [1982] Crim LR 438, PC
  • Gage v Jones [1983] RTR 508, DC
  • Kynaston v Director of Public Prosecutions, 87 Cr App R 200, DC

Business transactions

Where it has been proved that "necessary business transactions" have been carried out, it will be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the said transactions were carried out in the order (if any) that they are required to be carried out.[9] See Eaglehill Ltd v J Needham (Builders) Ltd [1973] AC 992, HL.

Mechanical contraptions

Where it has been proved that a "mechanical device" is normally in "good working order", it will be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that it was in good working order on any relevant occasion.[10] See Tingle Jacobs & Co v Kennedy [1964] 1 WLR 638, CA

References

  1. ^ For this name, see Cooper, Simon & Murphy, Peter & Beaumont, John. Cases & Materials on Evidence. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press. 1994. p. 86
  2. ^ Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 1999, para 10-5 at p. 1130
  3. ^ For this version, see Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 1999, para 10-5 at p. 1130
  4. ^ For this version, see Cooper, Simon & Murphy, Peter & Beaumont, John. Cases & Materials on Evidence. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press. 1994. p. 86
  5. ^ For this version, seeArchbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 1999, para 10-5 at p. 1130
  6. ^ Cooper, Simon & Murphy, Peter & Beaumont, John. Cases & Materials on Evidence. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press. 1994. p. 86
  7. ^ Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 1999, para 10-5 at p. 1130
  8. ^ Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 1999, p. 1130, see heading "B" to paras. 10-4 and 10-5
  9. ^ Cooper, Simon & Murphy, Peter & Beaumont, John. Cases & Materials on Evidence. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press. 1994. pp. 86 and 91
  10. ^ Cooper, Simon & Murphy, Peter & Beaumont, John. Cases & Materials on Evidence. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press. 1994. pp. 86 and 90

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Поможем написать реферат

Look at other dictionaries:

  • presumption of regularity — The presumption, subject to rebuttal, that a public officer has performed his duty, acting in a regular and lawful manner. The rebuttable presumption that regulations, decisions, or orders of an administrative agency acting within the limits of… …   Ballentine's law dictionary

  • presumption — pre·sump·tion /pri zəmp shən/ n: an inference as to the existence of a fact not certainly known that the law requires to be drawn from the known or proven existence of some other fact conclusive presumption: a presumption that the law does not… …   Law dictionary

  • regularity — I noun balance, clockwork precision, conformity, congruity, consistency, constantia, even tenor, evenness, exactness, harmony, homogeneity, invariability, levelness, method, methodicalness, order, orderliness, ordo, periodicity, precision,… …   Law dictionary

  • regularity of official acts — The validity, reasonableness, and correctness of the act of an administrative agency. 2 Am J2d Admin L §§ 748 et seq. See presumption of regularity …   Ballentine's law dictionary

  • Presumption — Pre*sump tion (?; 215), n. [L. praesumptio: cf. F. pr[ e]somption, OF. also presumpcion. See {Presume}.] 1. The act of presuming, or believing upon probable evidence; the act of assuming or taking for granted; belief upon incomplete proof. [1913… …   The Collaborative International Dictionary of English

  • Presumption of fact — Presumption Pre*sump tion (?; 215), n. [L. praesumptio: cf. F. pr[ e]somption, OF. also presumpcion. See {Presume}.] 1. The act of presuming, or believing upon probable evidence; the act of assuming or taking for granted; belief upon incomplete… …   The Collaborative International Dictionary of English

  • Presumption of law — Presumption Pre*sump tion (?; 215), n. [L. praesumptio: cf. F. pr[ e]somption, OF. also presumpcion. See {Presume}.] 1. The act of presuming, or believing upon probable evidence; the act of assuming or taking for granted; belief upon incomplete… …   The Collaborative International Dictionary of English

  • Conclusive presumption — Presumption Pre*sump tion (?; 215), n. [L. praesumptio: cf. F. pr[ e]somption, OF. also presumpcion. See {Presume}.] 1. The act of presuming, or believing upon probable evidence; the act of assuming or taking for granted; belief upon incomplete… …   The Collaborative International Dictionary of English

  • Hartman v. Moore — SCOTUSCase Litigants=Hartman v. Moore ArgueDate=January 10 ArgueYear=2006 DecideDate=April 26 DecideYear=2006 FullName=Michael Hartman, Frank Kormann, Pierce McIntosh, Norman Robbins, and Robert Edwards v. William G. Moore, Jr. USVol= USPage=… …   Wikipedia

  • conflicting presumptions — Presumptions arising from the same facts which are so opposed in the fact presumed that one of them must give way, to the other and stronger of the two, for example, the presumption of identity of person from identity of name gives way to the… …   Ballentine's law dictionary

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
… Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”