Prima Facie

[Guest Bluenose80]

Though this might be of interest to everyone in light of today's announcement, The burden of proof is entirely on the SPL we don't have to do anything unless they have concrete evidence without any slip ups and as we know the SPL are not compentent enough to avoid any slip ups:

 

[Latin, On the first appearance.] A fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved.

 

In common parlance the term prima facie is used to describe the apparent nature of something upon initial observation. In legal practice the term generally is used to describe two things: the presentation of sufficient evidence by a civil claimant to support the legal claim (a prima facie case), or a piece of evidence itself (prima facie evidence).

 

For most civil claims, a plaintiff must present a prima facie case to avoid dismissal of the case or an unfavorable directed verdict. The plaintiff must produce enough evidence on all elements of the claim to support the claim and shift the burden of evidence production to the respondent. If the plaintiff fails to make a prima facie case, the respondent may move for dismissal or a favorable directed verdict without presenting any evidence to rebut whatever evidence the plaintiff has presented. This is because the burden of persuading a judge or jury always rests with the plaintiff.

 

Assume that a plaintiff claims that an employer failed to promote her based on her sex. The plaintiff must produce affirmative evidence showing that the employer used illegitimate, discriminatory criteria in making employment decisions that concerned the plaintiff. The employer, as respondent, does not have a burden to produce evidence until the plaintiff has made a prima facie case of Sex Discrimination (Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207 [1981]). The precise amount of evidence that constitutes a prima facie case varies from claim to claim. If the plaintiff does not present a prima facie case with sufficient evidence, the judge may dismiss the case. Or, if the case is being heard by a jury, the judge may direct the jury to return a verdict for the respondent.

 

Prima facie also refers to specific evidence that, if believed, supports a case or an element that needs to be proved in the case. The term prima facie evidence is used in both civil and Criminal Law. For example, if the prosecution in a murder case presents a videotape showing the defendant screaming death threats at the victim, such evidence may be prima facie evidence of intent to kill, an element that must be proved by the prosecution before the defendant may be convicted of murder. On its face, the evidence indicates that the defendant intended to kill the victim.

 

Statutes may specify that certain evidence is prima facie evidence of a certain fact. For example, a duly authenticated copy of a defendant's criminal record may be considered prima facie evidence of the defendant's prior convictions and may be used against the defendant in court (Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-3-412 [West 1996]). A Civil Law example is a statute that makes a duly certified copy or duplicate of a certificate of authority for a fraternal benefit society to transact business prima facie evidence that the society is legal and legitimate (Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 10-14-603 [West 1996]).

[RANGERRAB 3,271]

Hate to say it but we're not dealing with the norm here. We're dealing with individuals & organisations whose aim is to put us out of existence.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

If they are claiming they have evidence or "prima facia" evidence and going to rule on it, then surely our legal representative must have the opportunity to view this evidence for our chance to rebut it. Or they are not in fact being fair in the eyes of the law? that's why we have courts and legal procedures or everyone would be handing out summery justice.

 

They cant have one without the other.

[pete 2,499]

I would take every decision to the court of session now. Fuck Europe and the world cup.

[Guest Dutchy]

Theyt have to show what their evidence is before convicting us, surely???

[GovanAllan 0]

Theyt have to show what their evidence is before convicting us, surely???

 

It's a lynch mob mentality they are going to force this on us.

[der Berliner 3,263]

... and that is what the Court of Session and a good QC is for.

[Guest Bluenose80]

"The plaintiff must produce enough evidence on all elements of the claim to support the claim and shift the burden of evidence production to the respondent"

 

They have to provide cast iron evidence before a court would even accept their case. Only if they can do that do we have respond. Given how they have rushed every decision they have made so far I wouldn't be surprised if they have missed a few things and so the court would have to throw their case out as with a Prima Facie case they must tick all the boxes or get nothing.

[Zappa 0]

"The plaintiff must produce enough evidence on all elements of the claim to support the claim and shift the burden of evidence production to the respondent"

 

They have to provide cast iron evidence before a court would even accept their case. Only if they can do that do we have respond. Given how they have rushed every decision they have made so far I wouldn't be surprised if they have missed a few things and so the court would have to throw their case out as with a Prima Facie case they must tick all the boxes or get nothing.

 

Thanks for the info and welcome to the forum too!

[Owain 0]

I'm not sure how it would work, but in "civil" court (such as family proceedings), the burden of proof lies with the applicant. However "hard evidence" isn't necessary. It is simply enough to convince the judge that something is likely to have happened.

 

When the judge has heard from all parties and examined the arguements presented to him (including facts), he gives a direction/order based on the "balance of probabilities".