Presumptions Versus Inferences

Introduction:

This note will highlight the five differences between presumptions and inferences.

Meaning of Presumptions:

In Section 18(1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) , a presumption is defined as:

An assumption of fact that the law requires to be made from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action.

This definition is similar to the common law understanding of presumption of law, which Black’s Law Dictionary defines as follows:

A legal assumption that a court is required to make if certain facts are established and no contradictory evidence is produced <by presumption of law, a criminal defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt>. - Also termed legal presumption;

With the example given, even a person seen in broad daylight shooting another person is presumed to be innocent of any offence (could be murder, manslaughter, or causing harm with an offensive weapon) until proven guilty by the prosecution.

Meaning of Inferences:

In Section 18(2) of NRCD 323, an inference is defined as:

A deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action.

This definition is similar to the common law understanding of presumption of fact, which Black’s Law Dictionary defines as follows:

A type of rebuttable presumption that may be, but as a matter of law need not be, drawn from another established fact or group of facts <the possessor of recently stolen goods is, by presumption of fact, considered the thief>

With the example given, the law does not require it to be concluded that the possessor of recently stolen goods is the thief. However, it may be reasonably inferred that he is the thief.

Differences between Presumptions and Inferences:

1. Requirement versus Discretion:

In subsection 1, courts are mandated or required to make an assumption once the basic facts are proved. This is evidenced by the use of the phrase “the law requires to be made” in the subsection. For example, a court is required to make the presumption that a person is dead if he has not been heard of for seven years despite diligent efforts to find him.

In subsection 2, the court has discretion to make deductions from another fact. This is evidenced by the use of the word “may” in the subsection.

2. Nature of Conclusion: Legal versus Logical Conclusion:

The conclusions drawn under presumptions are in the nature of legal conclusions. Once the basic facts are proved, the law provides a definite conclusion that must be reached. For instance, among all the conclusions that could have been reached if a person is not found for seven years after diligent search, including the conclusion that the person is hiding from the rest of society, the law has provided a definite conclusion that must be reached once the person is not found. It is therefore not up to the court to arrive at a different conclusion.

On the other hand, the conclusions drawn from inferences are based on logic and reasoning. The effect of the conclusion being based on logic and reasoning is that different conclusions can be reached from the same set of facts. For instance, let us say Kwame entered a house at 10:00pm, and by 10:30pm, loud noises and shouting were heard from inside. At 11:00 PM, he was seen running out of the house looking distressed, and later that night, the occupant of the house was found injured. From these facts, one could infer that Kwame assaulted the occupant and fled the scene, or alternatively, that he merely witnessed the assault, panicked, and ran away. Both inferences are logically possible, but the law does not mandate which conclusion must be drawn, as it depends on additional evidence and reasoning.

3. Fixed Versus Open Conditions:

Before a presumption is made, certain fixed conditions must be fulfilled. For instance, before the presumption is made that a child is fathered by his mother’s husband if born during the course of the marriage, the following conditions must be met:

i. That there is a legally recognised marriage between the mother and the alleged father.

ii. That the marriage was subsisting at the time of birth.

iii. That the child was born during the marriage.

These are definite legal conditions that must exist for the presumption to be made.

On the other hand, no definite conditions exist for inferences to be made. A judge may use two facts to make an inference; another judge may need ten facts to make the same inference.

4. Effects on Burden of Proof:

A presumption typically shifts the burden of proof to the opposing party to prove the nonexistence of the presumed fact.

On the other hand, an inference does not shift the burden of proof to the opposing party.

5. Possibility of Challenge:

Some presumptions are in the nature of conclusive presumptions and cannot be challenged by contrary evidence.

On the other hand, inferences are always subject to challenge. An appellate court may conclude that an inference was wrongly made as it did not logically and reasonably flow from the facts.

Note that this distinction applies to only conclusive presumptions.