Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Prima facie (pronounced /pram fei/, from Latin prm faci) is a Latin expression meaning on its first appearance, or at first sight. The literal translation would be "at first face", prima first, facie face, both in the ablative case. It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence which unless rebutted would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. The term is used similarly in academic philosophy. Most legal proceedings require a prima facie case to exist, following which proceedings may then commence to test it, and create a ruling. This may be called facile princeps, first principles.
Contents
[hide]
1 Burden of proof 2 Res ipsa loquitur 3 Criticism of subjective prima facie interpretation 4 Other uses and references 5 See also 6 References
and evidence that the defendant acted with malice aforethought. If no party introduces new evidence the case stands or falls just by the prima facie evidence. Prima facie evidence need not be conclusive or irrefutable: at this stage, evidence rebutting the case is not considered, only whether any party's case has enough merit to take it to a full trial. In some jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, the prosecution in a criminal trial must disclose all evidence to the defence. This includes the prima facie evidence. An aim of the doctrine of prima facie is to prevent litigants bringing spurious charges which simply waste all other parties' time.
Apparently, this (in an overly simplified manner) indicates that we have a prima facie case for arresting (and convicting) Joe for shooting John. However, add the following piece of evidence to the Prima Facie case calculations : Statement II : "Both Joe and John were within a shooting club at the time at which John was shot dead. " This example indicates that it is far from clear that Joe actually shot John dead due to certain facts having been selectively highlighted and presented for the purposes of the prima facie case. That is to say, due to the fact that relevant circumstances are either omitted or illogically/irrationally presented for the purposes of the prima facie case - it appears as if the statement made amounts to a prima facie case. This is because sufficient evidence has apparently been presented for the purposes of the prima facie case, but necessary evidence has been omitted (a reasonable argument would be that as much evidence concerning the particulars of the case are presented within a prima facie case as possible). Given our informal presentation of the prima facie case in Statement I, we have not contradicted any of the evidence by introducing the facts of Statement II. However, it is clear that a reasonable person would find Statement I unpalatable as a Prima Facie case as it contains no information relating to the particulars of a case - and it seems clear that Statement II provides sufficient reason to throw out Statement I out as being a sufficient basis for a Prima Facie case on reasonable grounds. These criticisms are conceptually inherent to the notion of a prima facie case or evidence. They do not relate to the example or the quality of the evidence. The situation arises due to the fact that all (or, at least, a reasonably water tight amount) of the relevant particulars of the case are not presented in an objective manner.
facie, it appeals to the fact that the affirmative team cannot add or amend anything in its plan after being stated in the first affirmative constructive. A common usage of the phrase, which the public may come into contact with, is the concept of a 'prima facie speed limit', which has been used in Australia and the United States. A prima facie speed limit is a default speed limit which applies when no other specific speed limit is posted, and which may be exceeded by a driver. However if the driver is detected/cited/charged by the police for exceeding the prima facie speed limit, the onus of proof is on the driver to show that the speed at which the driver was travelling, was safe under the circumstances. In most jurisdictions, this type of speed limit has been replaced by specific absolute speed limits.