Talk:Prima facie

Unclear Wording
I find the second sentence here confusing:

If the prosecution were to fail to introduce such evidence, then its case would fail on grounds of "failure to make out a prima facie case," even without rebuttal by the defendant. This evidence need not be conclusive or irrefutable, and evidence rebutting the case may not be considered.

What does "this evidence" refer to in the second sentence? The evidence that the prosecution "fails" to introduce? Why is the second sentence referring to "evidence rebutting the case", when the case already "failed"?

It would appear than some re-writing is needed here--and I don't have the expertise to do it.

128.175.13.136 13:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you have another look as I have tried to simplify the text? I didn't discuss it as hardly any discussion has happened for a while, so I just went ahead and did it. If you are still unhappy with it, then it still needs fixed. SimonTrew (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK dunno why I bothered adding this really I was probablly in the middle of editing and didn't notice it was a class B anonymous IP. Which to continue a discussion is about as much use as a snake in a butt-kicking competition. SimonTrew (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, there isn't a singular clear sentence on this page that gives a clear definiton. If you have a certain amount of prior knowledge it's okay, but if it is a clear and concise definiton you want, this page does little to help

I'd like to add to the chorus calling attention to the deplorable writing in this article. What on earth is a lay reader to make of these two sentences:

"It is logically and intuitively clear that just because a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts that both the notion of the evidence presenting a case in a self-evident manner and the facts actually being facts (which, presumably, would require evidence of at least a minimum degree of quality) can often be reduced to entirely subjective interpretations that are independent of any truthful merit by sufficiently skilled individuals.

That is to say, appearances can be deceptive even to the objectively minded, and they can be subjectively interpreted (meaning that what amounts to a prima facie case for one judging individual would not do so for another). Just because a matter appears to be evident from a certain presentation of the facts it does not follow that that matter has any truthful validity - which would limit the common sensical utility of prima facie evidence." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.78.133 (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Is it worth adding a paragraph to the effect that in Commonwealth English this is pronounced prime-a face-y but that in the US it is pronounced pre-ma fas-sha? Avalon 22:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That would not typically be information found in an encyclopedia. It would, however, be an excellent addition in Wiktionary and we should probably cross-link the two entries.  Rossami (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

How is this word pronounced?
 * That would be an excellent question to look up in a dictionary. See prima facie for the answer (where, by the way, you will see that there are two approved pronunciations).  Rossami (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Can this word be used in the beginning of a sentence? Tapas
 * Prima Facie can be totally used at the beginning of a sentence. GoneAFK

Two alternate pronunciations are given at prima facie, which should both be replicated in this article for consistency and accuracy. —sroc (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Prima facie in non-legal situations
User:Radagast83 recently added the text below to the opening section of the article. On first reading, it does not appear to be directly relevant to the legal concept being described in this article. I'm bringing the content here temporarily so that we can more carefully consider where and how the content should be integrated into the article. (I did not copy over the first paragraph that Radagast83 added because it was redundant with content already in the opening section.) Rossami (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * When applied to deontological philosophy, prima facie obligations are those obligations to society that require action, or at least a response on your part. For instance, the obligation to save a blind person from accidentally crossing a busy intersection, when you have the ability to stop the probable ensuing accident, should be a reason enough to act in such a way as to save the blind pedestrian.
 * In any given situation, any number of prima facie obligations may apply, and in the case of an ethical dilemma, they may even contradict one another. The maximization of good is only one of several prima facie obligations which play a role in determining the content of the moral ought (moral obligation) in any given case. W. D. Ross gives a list of other such obligations, which he does not claim is all-inclusive.

end copied content

Should This be added to Wikipedia?
I quickly typed this out. I didn't want to add it to the article straight away to avoid ruffling feathers - but I notice from the article history that other people seemed to have the same idea as me as relates to the whole smoking gun situation, and I thought that I should add this info :

Criticism of Prima facie evidence
It is logically and intuitively clear that just because a matter *appears* to be self-evident from the facts, that both the notion of the evidence presenting a case in a self-evident manner and the facts actually being facts (which, presumably, would require evidence of at least a minimum degree of quality) can often be reduced to entirely subjective interpretations that are independent of any truthful merit.

That is to say, appearances can be deceptive even to the objectively minded, and they can be subjectively interpreted (meaning that what amounts to a prima facie case for one judging individual would not do so for another). Just because a matter appears to be evident from a certain presentation of the facts it does not follow that that matter has any truthful validity - which would limit the common sensical utility of prima facie evidence.

As an example, consider the following:

Statement I : "John has been shot dead. Joe has been found near John with a smoking gun.  Therfore, this is prima facie evidence of Joe having shot John with a smoking gun." [the infamous shooting gun example]

Apparently, this (in an overly simplified manner) indicates that we have a prima facie case for arresting (and convicting) Joe for shooting John.

However, add the following piece of evidence to the Prima Facie case calculations :

Statement II : "Both Joe and John were within a shooting club at the time at which John was shot dead. "

This example indicates that it is far from clear that Joe actually shot John dead due to certain facts having been selectively highlighted and presented for the purposes of the prima facie case. That is to say, due to the fact that relevant circumstances are either omitted or illogically/irrationally presented for the purposes of the prima facie case - it appears as if the statement made amounts to a prima facie case. This is because sufficient evidence has apparently been presented for the purposes of the prima facie case, but necessary evidence has been omitted (a reasonable argument would be that as much evidence concerning the particulars of the case are presented within aprima facie case as possible).

Given our informal presentation of the prima facie case in Statement I, we have not contradicted any of the evidence by introducing the facts of Statement II (which, presumably, would mean that Statement I still holds as a Prima Facie basis for a case - despite the questionable basis upon which Statement I could be held as being a prima facie case).

However, it is clear that a reasonable man would find Statement I unpalatable as a Prima Facie case as it contains no information relating to the particulars of a case - and it seems clear that Statement II provides sufficient reason to throw out Statement I out as being a sufficient basis for a Prima Facie case on reasonable grounds.

These criticisms are conceptually inherent to the notion of a prima facie case or evidence. They do not relate to the example or the quality of the evidence. The situation arises due to the fact that all (or, at least, a reasonably water tight amount) of the relevant particulars of the case are not presented in an objective manner.

ConcernedScientist (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad Wording/Example
"In a murder case, this would include evidence that the victim was in fact dead"

This is not required in all murder cases, in many countries. And should be weasel-worded to "typically", "usually", or "almost always". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_murder_convictions_without_a_body — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.88.158 (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)