Legal Definitions - Presumption

In law, a presumption is a rule that requires a court or jury to assume a certain fact is true once another set of basic facts has been proven. It acts as a starting point for legal reasoning, establishing a conclusion unless it is challenged or disproven.

Presumptions are generally categorized into two types:

• Rebuttable Presumption: Most presumptions are rebuttable. This means that while the law initially assumes a fact to be true based on certain evidence, the opposing party has the opportunity to present their own evidence to prove that the assumed fact is false or at least cast enough doubt on it that the assumption can no longer stand. If sufficient counter-evidence is presented, the presumption is "rebutted" or overcome.
• Conclusive Presumption: A few presumptions are conclusive. These are absolute assumptions that, once the underlying facts are established, must be accepted as true without any possibility of being challenged or disproven by evidence. No amount of counter-evidence can overcome a conclusive presumption.

Here are some examples to illustrate how presumptions work:

• Example 1 (Rebuttable - Ownership):

  Imagine a situation where a person is found in possession of an item that was recently reported stolen. The law often includes a rebuttable presumption that the person in possession of recently stolen goods either stole them or received them knowing they were stolen.

  This illustrates a rebuttable presumption because while the court initially assumes guilt or knowledge based on possession, the person can present evidence to explain their possession. For instance, they might prove they bought the item innocently from a reputable seller, found it, or were simply holding it for someone else without any knowledge of its stolen nature. If their explanation is credible and supported by evidence, the presumption is rebutted, and the initial assumption is overcome.

• Example 2 (Rebuttable - Family Law):

  When a child is born to a married couple, there is a legal rebuttable presumption that the husband is the biological father of the child.

  This is a rebuttable presumption because, while the law makes this initial assumption based on the marriage, it can be challenged. For example, if the husband or another party presents DNA evidence proving he is not the biological father, or if it's shown the couple was legally separated for an extended period before the child's conception, this presumption can be rebutted and overturned by the evidence.

• Example 3 (Conclusive - Criminal Capacity):

  In some legal systems, there is a conclusive presumption that a child below a certain age (for example, under seven years old) lacks the mental capacity to form criminal intent (often referred to as mens rea).

  This is a conclusive presumption because, regardless of any evidence that might suggest the child understood the wrongfulness of their actions, the law absolutely assumes they cannot be held criminally responsible due to their age. No evidence, no matter how compelling, can be presented to argue otherwise; the presumption cannot be rebutted, and the child cannot be charged with a crime requiring criminal intent.