A presumption is an interference of a fact drawn from other known or proved facts. It is a jurisprudential rule under which courts are authorized to draw inference from a particular fact, unless and until the truth of such inference is disproved by other evidence.

The English law recognises 3 kinds of presumptions that is,
i.   Conclusive presumption of law
ii.                  Presumption of law
iii.                Presumption of fact

Presumptions are drawn from the cause of nature or events like night follows day; where a man with bloodstained clothes comes out of a room where another man has been stabbed to death. The inference is that the man coming out from the room is the murderer.

Section 4 sets out what the court may presume. The presumption is used as device to either alter the normal rules on burden of proof or replace the need for evidence to be called on particular issues

The issue of presumption, inference and the federal constitution was considered in the case of PP v. Chung Tshun Tin & Ors [2008] 1 MLJ 559. Hamid Sultan JC (as he was then) held that,
Apart from the presumptions mentioned in s 107 to s 113, of the EA there is a large number of deductions under this section that the court may draw from the common course of natural events, human conduct, and the experience. The presumption here is at the discretion of the court and it is also rebuttable. The illustrations under the section are self explanatory, however they are not exhaustive. It will appear that there are no hard and fast rules with regard to the circumstances in which any fact or facts may be presumed to exist. Thus, the courts have to use their common sense and experience in judging the effect of particular facts and they are not subject to any particular rules to the subject.

 For further observation from the case can view it in Presumption: PP v. Chung Tshun Tin & Ors [2008] 1 MLJ 559 in cases section.


Leave a Reply.

law of evidence