of a human the likely explanation is that it is familiar the person. This was the
case here. The person who took away the horse was the trainer John Straker.
Proving Facts: Patterns of Behaviour
To even a casual observer, humans and the world they inhabit do not function
in a totally random way. Instead in a significant amount of activity they exhibit
patterns of behaviour that recur. Some patterns of behaviour apply generally,
although not necessarily to all people at all times. Other patterns apply to a
particular individual. Patterns of behaviour may occur because of some
custom or social practice. They can also occur because they represent a
rational way of doing things.
In a contested case in court it commonly happens that some of the facts that
constitute a pattern are established by some means. Then a party will seek to
establish the missing facts are established by reference to the patterns by a
process that is popularly called joining the dots. The reasoning is that the most
plausible account of the events is that they happened according to a common
pattern. This pattern describes how people behave and how events happen.
In formal terms the reasoning process of filling in the gaps by joining the dots
is called induction or inductive reasoning. Courts commonly refer to it as
inference. In discussion of proving facts these terms are used interchangeably.
To illustrate inference in abstract form, assume that the pattern involves three
facts, Fact A, Fact B and Fact C. On an occasion Facts A and C may be
established by direct evidence that is credible. Fact B might then be
established by inference from Facts A and C. Put broadly, the reasoning
proceeds on the basis that in ordinary circumstances at least, Facts A, B and
C occur together. When Facts A and C and there is a gap in the facts the most
plausible possibility is that Fact B has also occurred. Essentially the argument
is that any other fact would make the events pointless and disconnected
unless, perhaps, there were some special circumstances.
Now let us illustrate inference with a factual example. Assume that there is a
robbery at the North West Bank from which the robber took $65,000. Assume
that John was found by police counting a pile of bank notes on his kitchen
table one hour after the robbery, and the notes totalled $65,000. These items
taken together create some inference that John committed the robbery.
What is the basis of this inference? It is that it is rare for people to have vast
sums of cash in their physical possession. Therefore a highly plausible
explanation is that John had the $65,000 in his possession because he
committed the bank robbery. Since he did not know at the time of the robbery
how much money he was taking, it was necessary to count it after the robbery.
 |
 |
 |