Presumption of regularity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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]

Official actions[edit]

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
  • Gibbins v Skinner [1951] 2 K.B. 379, [1951] 1 All E.R. 1049, [1951] 1 T.L.R. 1159, (1951) 115 J.P. 360, 49 L.G.R. 713
  • 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

  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