What does prima facie mean?

Understanding the Role of Prima Facie in Legal Proceedings

In the legal world, prima facie is a Latin term that means “at first sight.” It is used to describe a case where the initial evidence is strong enough to support a claim or an argument. Think of it as having enough evidence to be considered true unless a person or party can prove otherwise.

The term prima facie is fundamental in legal discourse. It carries multiple nuanced meanings depending on the context in which it is used. While, at its core, it refers to something that appears to be true, valid, or sufficient on first impression, before further investigation or evidence is considered, understanding the technical difference between evidence and proof is crucial to grasping the meaning of prima facie.

In essence, evidence refers to the means, that is, the data or facts presented, while proof is the end result, the judicial conclusion that a fact or issue has been established to the requisite legal standard. For example, prima facie evidence, in the absence of rebuttal, can become conclusive proof and thereby discharge the burden of proof.

The concept of prima facie can be understood in several senses:

Prima facie proof, often considered the usual sense of the term, refers to proof of an issue where the burden of proving that issue lies with the party presenting the evidence. In the absence of rebuttal from the other side, this prima facie proof may become conclusive, enabling the party to discharge their onus. For instance, if the State presents prima facie proof of a criminal act and the accused offers no rebuttal, that proof may become conclusive and lead to conviction. This is distinct from a mere prima facie inference, which does not amount to a mandatory conclusion.
A prima facie case arises when a party, such as a plaintiff in a civil matter or the State in a criminal matter, has presented sufficient evidence to justify a finding in their favour if the other side does nothing. It imposes a tactical burden on the opposing party to respond. The expressions prima facie proof, a prima facie case, and prima facie evidence are often used interchangeably in this context.
Prima facie evidence denotes the evidence that a plaintiff or prosecutor must lead to avoid absolution or discharge at the close of their case. If unchallenged, this evidence will generally be sufficient to justify a finding. However, it may also merely mean that the opposing party risks losing if they fail to adduce countervailing evidence. This indicates a tactical choice rather than a strict duty to rebut.

A key to understanding prima facie is distinguishing between the onus of proof, also referred to as the legal burden or overall onus, and the evidentiary burden, or weerleggingslas. The onus of proof refers to the duty of a party to persuade the court, at the close of proceedings, that they are entitled to succeed. This burden never shifts. For example, in a criminal case, the State always bears the burden of proving the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The evidentiary burden, by contrast, is the duty cast on a litigant to adduce evidence to rebut a prima facie case made by the opposing party. Unlike the onus of proof, this burden may shift during the course of proceedings, depending on the strength of the evidence adduced. If a prima facie case is established, the evidentiary burden shifts to the opponent to present rebuttal evidence. For instance, in a murder trial, if the State adduces prima facie evidence implicating the accused, such as multiple gunshot wounds and a prior threat, the evidentiary burden shifts to the accused to raise a defence, such as self-defence. The onus to prove guilt remains with the State. If the accused fails to respond, the prima facie evidence may become conclusive.

When a prima facie case is established, the opposing party must make a tactical decision. A failure to respond may be fatal. An accused’s silence in the face of prima facie evidence may bolster the State’s case. This is particularly so where the evidence directly implicates the accused. If facts lie peculiarly within the knowledge of a party, their failure to provide an explanation, or their provision of a false one, may justify an adverse inference. This does not shift the overall burden of proof, but it may affect the weight of the evidence.

The rule in Galante v Dickinson illustrates this point in civil proceedings. If a driver fails to testify about the circumstances of a motor vehicle accident, and the plaintiff has led a sufficiently strong case, the court may draw an inference adverse to the defendant.

The absence of an explanation, or the giving of a false one, is not in itself evidence, and does not entitle the court to draw an inference unsupported by the existing evidence. An adverse inference is not inevitable and depends on the strength of the case against the party who remains silent. If a party gives completely false evidence, their version may be rejected entirely, potentially with the same consequence as if they had given no evidence at all.

The concept of prima facie also plays a central role in certain procedural rulings. At the close of the prosecution’s case, an accused is entitled to a discharge if there is no evidence upon which a reasonable court could convict. This threshold means there must be insufficient evidence upon which reasonable people, acting carefully, could return a verdict of guilt. If the State fails to meet this threshold, the accused should be discharged without being called upon to present a defence. Failure to discharge in such a case may be unconstitutional, particularly where it may compel the accused to testify and thereby risk self-incrimination.

In civil trials, if the plaintiff’s evidence at the close of their case is insufficient to justify a finding in their favour, the defendant may be entitled to absolution from the instance. This allows the plaintiff to bring another claim based on the same facts. Courts are generally cautious in granting absolution, reserving it for very clear cases where the plaintiff’s evidence is inherently implausible or demonstrably insufficient.

In both civil and criminal trials, the question of who bears the duty to begin adducing evidence may be affected by the presence of a prima facie case. While the party bearing the onus normally begins, an admission on the pleadings or a legal presumption may result in a prima facie case, shifting the tactical burden and the obligation to begin to the opponent.

Some common examples of circumstantial evidence that may constitute prima facie evidence include the following:

Where an accused is found in possession of recently stolen goods and fails to offer a reasonably satisfactory explanation, the court may infer theft or a related offence such as receiving stolen property. This is a matter of common-sense inference, not a rigid legal rule. The onus remains on the State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The presence of a defect shortly after sale may support a prima facie inference that the defect existed at the time of sale.
If a person other than the owner is found driving a vehicle, a prima facie inference may arise that they had the owner’s authority to do so.
A party’s failure to call an available witness or produce a relevant document may lead the court to infer that the evidence would have been unfavourable.

In summary, prima facie is a foundational concept in evaluating whether the evidence at a given stage is sufficient to justify calling upon the opposing party to respond. It influences decisions such as whether to discharge or grant absolution, while leaving the ultimate onus of proof intact. Its application always depends on the specific facts and legal context of the case.

Written by Theo Tembo