Two of these methods are commonly used and are the major sources of
problems –
observation by a witness and induction -
so subsequent
discussion focuses on these. There follows a brief illustration of each of these
methods.
Observation by a Witness
In the simple case evidence of a fact is direct where Evidence X is put forward
to prove Fact X. This involves direct proof from observational evidence.
To illustrate direct observational evidence, assume that
Mary White
is a
plaintiff in an action for trespass to land against Derek Blackguard. In her
evidence Mary says: “I saw Derek Blackguard do it. He opened the gate of my
meadow known as Whiteacre, walked onto it and took an apple from the tree”.
This simple example indicates the nature of evidence. It is an account or
version of the facts. Mary’s own words are: “He [Derek Blackguard] opened
the gate of my meadow known as Whiteacre, walked onto it and took an apple
from the tree”.
This is the version of the truth which Mary White puts to the
court in her evidence.
In her evidence Mary also makes a claim that these facts are true. In effect,
Mary asks the court to believe the facts which she recounts because Mary
“saw” Derek Blackguard do these things.
Induction
In the simple case induction involves a court using one fact, Fact A, to prove a
second fact, Fact B. Fact A can be proved by any of several means, but
commonly it is proved by evidence. In this case, Evidence A proves Fact A
and the truth of Fact A proves the truth of Fact B.
Induction is generally based on patterns of behaviour – how things commonly
occur or how things rationally occur. Here patterns of behaviour will be used
to illustrate inference.
Assume in the example above that Mary White did not actually see Derek
Blackguard walk on Whiteacre. Instead she says in her evidence that she saw
the following: “Derek Blackguard was walking along the lane that leads from
my meadow known as Whiteacre
where there is an apple tree. He was eating
an apple and had a satisfied look on his face. For years he has been saying that
he will ‘get’ me”.
In cases such as these where a party relies on induction there are three steps.
First, the court
has to decide whether the evidence given is a true account of
the facts. Does Evidence A prove Fact A? In our example, was Derek
Blackguard walking along this lane eating an apple and wearing a satisfied look
 |
 |
 |