EVIDENCE – PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY – Whether there is a presumption of regularity in favour of judicial acts; how to rebut such presumption


“…There is a presumption that the decision of the trial Court on facts is right. That presumption must be displaced by the appellant seeking to upset the decision on facts. See WILLIAMS v. JOHNSON (1937) 2 WACA 253; Section 168(1) Evidence Act. Displacing this presumption of regularity is not by attacking and ridiculing the Judges of the two Courts below. In advocacy, the appellant’s Counsel speaks only on one side of the case. He is like King James I who (admitting to Lord Coke, his Attorney-General, that he was not adequately equipped to be a Judge) stated that he – – could get on very well hearing one side only, but when both sides have been heard, upon my word, I know not which side is right.” Per EKO, J.S.C. in BEMDOO MINDI v. THE STATE (2020- LCER-39169-SC) at p. 54 – p. 55

Add to LawKit (0)