Legal

Reasoning

1
LEGAL REASONING
Law-system of practical reasoning.
It concerns with the doing
Judge gives judgment
Lawyers advise clients
Legislators make and also predict the
impact of the laws they wish to
introduce

2
LOGIC & LEGAL REASONING
REASONING-reflects a particular kind
of decision making process,
the process of deciding on a given
course of action based on rationality
Differ reasoning bet having a reason
Having a reason deals with cause n
effect
Reasoning reflects the ability to arrive
at a rational, calculated decision.
3
 If Aaron punches Frankie becoz
Frankie had called him names(ejek),
Aaron has a reason.
Aaron is angry with Frankie and has
decided to hit him.
This is most probably an emotional
response, it lacks rationality and
anger has got in the way of the
reasoning process.

4
 Now would Aaron still have punched
Frankie if he knew that Frankies
brother was a champion national
boxer? Surely not right, because
logic will apply and Aaron will know
that he will be beaten up by Frankies
brother.
It is a law we all know that surely
Frankies brother will surely knock out
all of Aarons teeth.
It is simply known as the law of
revenge
5
 As such, there is a link between law
and logic
In Hedley Byrne v Heller &
Partners[1964] AC 465 AT Pg 516
where Lord Devlin states, .The
common law is tolerant of much
illogicality, especially on the surface;
but no system of law can be workable
if it has got no logic at the root of it

6
 If I had only 10 ringgit to go back to
melaka after my classes by taxi, logically I
cannot use the money for anything else, if
not I cant go home by taxi.
Logic says this. In a simily, the law also
provides that if u spend the money on
anything else, then surely you wont be
going back by taxi after classes.
Logic therefore provides a commonplace
basis for decision making, by helping us
plan our actions in a way that makes sense.
Hence,Logic plays a big part in legal
argumentation

7
Logical Reasoning Process-
SYLLOGISM
Verbal structure which draws a true
conclusion from a major and minor
premise, each of which is verifiable in
its own right, thus
All men have adams apple in their
throats
Varun is a man
Therefore Varun also has adams
apple in his throat
8
 For Varuns case, the logic is
impeccable
We know as a matter of fact that all
men have the adams apple, we also
know that Varun is a man. The
conclusion of Varun having an adams
apple is inescapable.
This is one of the kinds of logical
reasoning.

9
Logic 2 different processes
Inductive Reasoning and Deductive
reasoning
Robert M Pirsig uses the example of
locating a fault in a motor cycle to
illustrate these logical modes in the
process of scientific method. Do pay
attention as the same analogy also
applies to lawyers

10
Inductive Reasoning
Start w the observation of the machines
and arrive at general conclusions.
Where the motor cycle goes over the bump
and engine misfires, and then goes over
another bump and misfires again and then
goes over a long smooth stretch and there
is no misfiring, and then goes over the
fourth bump and misfires again, one can
logically conclude that the misfiring is
caused by bumps

11
Inductive inference-

Reasoning fr particular experiences to

general truths

12
Deductive
Reverse to inductive. They start with
general knowledge and predict a specific
observation.
Eg- if from reading the hierarchy of fats
about the machine , the mechanic knows
that the horn of the cycle is powered
exclusively by electricity fr the battery,
then he can logically infer that if the
battery is dead, the horn will surely not
work. This is deduction/deductive
reasoning.

13
Distinction between deductive and
inductive
Impt distinction between these
modes of reasoning.
For deductive- so long as the major
and minor premises are correctly
constructed, the conclusion must be
true.
Inductive reasoning does not provide
the same degree of certainty

14
 We can reach an answer inductively on the
basis of an assumption that our particular
experience is of general application.

such as Pirsigs eg earlier, our assumption

is likely to be accurate and the more info
we have supporting our hypotheses, the
more likely it is to stand up in future.
But in terms of formal logic, we cannot say
that our conclusion is conclusive. There is
always the possibility that another
conclusion exists.
Look at Patricks Shaw experiment which
pointed out the relative inconclusiveness of
inductive reasoning. Pg 377 Learning Legal
Rules Textbook.

15
Good Lawyers use both Inductive
and Deductive Reasoning
Legal decision making will usually
involve both modes, used in
conjunction w each other To come up
with a more reasoned conclusion.
In reasoning about legal rules it is
conventionally distinguished bet 2
distinct contexts; the interpreting of
statutes and the use of precedent
through case law.

16
Reasoning & Precedent
Inductive element is most impt
For eg;
Case x- factors A,B & C existed. Judgment
in favour of Claimant.
Case y- factors A,B & C existed, Judgment
in favour of the Claimant.
Case z- factors A,B & C exist. Judgment
should therefore be in favour of the
Claimant.
Case z is a process of reasoning by eg.

17
3 step approach

Edward Levi developed 3 step process

of legal reasoning
1.where a judge sees a relevant
factual similarity bet an earlier
case, or cases with the present one
2.The judge identifies the ROL(Rule
Of Law) on which the previous
case/s rested
3.Judge applies that rule to the
present case 18
Step 3- Deductive reasoning sets in
Only Step 3 is deductive.
Mac Cormick-deduction only comes
in after the interetsing part of the
argument, settling the ruling of law,
has been carried through.
Look up DPP v Morgan on an Eg of
the 3 step approach Pg 377 of
Learning legal Rules

19
Inductive reasoning may have
different outcomes to a similar
matter
Prior to the 3rd step, judges usually
use Inductive reasoning sometimes
also called reasoning by analogy.
Inductive/ analogical reasoning is not
about proof (unlike deductive
reasoning); it is purely about
justification. A case analogy justifies
a later decision, however it is not the
only outcome than can be expected.

20
Reasoning and Statutory
Interpretation

Inductive or Deductive?

21
On the face- Deductive?
On the face, reasoning concerning statutory
interpretation is deductive
Lets look at this syllogism;
An individual who takes anothers property
w the intention permanently to deprive that
other of it, shall be guilty of an offence.
The accused X has committed the
prohibited act.
Therefore X is guilty of the offence

22
The legal syllogism contains the
following elements:
A rule of general application (the
major premise)
The particular fact(s) (the minor
premise(s));
A legal outcome (the conclusion)
Deductive reasoning only applies to
specific fact situations (Mc Cormick)
see Learning Legal Rules Pg 379

23
Statutory interpretation
Often will involve inductive reasoning
notably where;
The meaning of words used may be derived
from analogous statutory provisions
There are doubts about the scope of a
statutory rule which have to be resolved on
the basis of competing precedents Look at
R v Shivpuri and Anderton v Ryan See Pg
380 Learning Legal Rules for a further
analysis on Inductive and deductive
24
The Decision analysis method
Keeny & Raiffa- the major role of
formal analysis is to promote good
decision making As a process, it is
intended to force hard thinking about
the problem area; generation of
alternatives, anticipation of future
contingencies, examination
of.effects, and so forth See
Learning Legal Rules
25
6 step approach
Structure the problem
Identify alternative courses of action
Determine yr objectives
Assess the consequences
Identify and account for uncertainty-
Play Devils advocate here
Evaluate yr remaining alternatives

26
The decision analysis approach-
continued
Remember that a decision making
technique such as this is dependent
upon you doing thorough research
into the issues first, or else any
decision making just like this one
may ultimately fall flat on your face!
For full details of this technique go
study Pgs 393 and 394 of learning
Legal Rules

27
Homework
Go back and study the following;
Denying the premise
Reasoning in Civil law systems
Empirical reasoning
Reasoning about legal Rules/ fact

Al the material can be found on Pgs

380-392 Learning Legal Rules

28