nt Construction 222

Chapter 6: Legal Ar,

gument that

:This is the minor proposition (or premise) of an deductive ar

nductive

"'Ircady noted as inevitably becoming the thesis of the necessary 1

Theft is contrary to 51 of the Theft Act 1968

Anna stole a book —» Thesis of inductive argument

Anna is guilty of theft

The formulation of the penultimate probanda

roven to'a certain

the UP above
king at the
ken into its

cribes the specific points, or elements that must be p:

(standard of proof) to prove the UP. For example looking to
emind ourselves of the definition of theft given above. Loo!
Dn of theft again, and reminding ourselves how itis to be bro!
elements we can see that our PP are those four elements.
is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another

intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

estly appropriates
(a) This is the physical element the act of

“ taking — the actus reus

(6) Thisis the

mental element
— the mens rea

Formulation of the theory/theorem and choice of the interim probanda

n in Anderson and Twinini

tion of the Wigmore Chart Method. They conclude most correctiy tha
'as well as practitioners, find the time reguired fora whole chart too muci
templated. They vastly simplify the range of symbols and aspects that wi
ed in the body of the chart. The propositions linking the evidence to tt
P are called interim probanda. These set up the inferences betwec
can be assertions, generalisations, facts or other data. The
laims about the streng

the main deviatio!

point one comes to

th of weakness of the fin

e source of Our C
t If these are placed appropriately on the chart we can assess t

It, see gaps and doubts.