Define: Supposition

Quick Summary of Supposition

Supposition is the act of believing in something without any evidence or proof. It is similar to making a guess or assumption about the reality of something without any supporting facts.

What is the dictionary definition of Supposition?
Dictionary Definition of Supposition

A supposition is the act of making an assumption without proof. It is a noun that refers to assuming something is true. For instance, in example 1, she assumed he was lying without any evidence. In contrast, example 2 shows a detective who gathers evidence instead of making assumptions. These examples demonstrate that supposition involves assuming something without evidence or proof.

Full Definition Of Supposition

Supposition, in a legal context, refers to assumptions or beliefs that something is true without sufficient evidence or facts to support the claim. This concept often surfaces in legal arguments, evidentiary assessments, and judicial reasoning. While the term itself is not commonly used in statutory or case law, the implications of supposition are significant in various areas of law, including criminal, civil, and procedural law. This overview aims to elucidate the role and impact of supposition in legal proceedings, highlighting its relevance and potential consequences.

Definition and Nature of Supposition

Supposition involves the acceptance of a premise or fact based on conjecture rather than concrete evidence. It stands in contrast to proven facts, which are established through reliable evidence or testimony. In legal settings, suppositions can influence the behaviour of parties, the strategy of legal representatives, and the decisions of judges and juries.

Supposition in Criminal Law

In criminal law, the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” is paramount. This principle directly counters the reliance on supposition. However, suppositions can still infiltrate various stages of criminal proceedings, from investigations to trials.

Investigations and Supposition

During criminal investigations, law enforcement officers may form suppositions based on initial evidence or witness statements. While these suppositions can guide investigative efforts, they must be tested against factual evidence. For example, a police officer may suppose that a suspect is guilty based on their presence at a crime scene. However, this supposition must be substantiated by corroborating evidence, such as forensic analysis or eyewitness testimony.

Trials and Judicial Reasoning

In trials, suppositions can manifest in the arguments presented by the prosecution and defence. Prosecutors may imply a defendant’s guilt through suppositional statements, suggesting involvement without direct proof. Defence attorneys, on the other hand, may employ suppositions to create doubt about the prosecution’s case. The role of the judge and jury is to distinguish between suppositions and evidence, ensuring that decisions are based on facts rather than conjecture.

Supposition in Civil Law

Civil law deals with disputes between individuals or organisations, often involving claims for damages or specific performance. Suppositions can arise in various aspects of civil litigation, including pleadings, evidence presentation, and judicial determinations.

Pleadings and Allegations

In civil cases, parties must present their claims and defences through pleadings, which outline the facts and legal grounds of their case. While factual allegations are essential, parties may sometimes rely on suppositions to fill gaps in their narrative. For instance, a plaintiff might suppose that a defendant’s actions caused their damages without concrete proof. Such suppositions need to be supported by evidence during the trial to withstand scrutiny.

Evidentiary Standards

Civil courts operate under the “balance of probabilities” standard, meaning that the plaintiff must prove that their claim is more likely than not to be true. Suppositions, unless backed by credible evidence, fail to meet this standard. Judges must carefully evaluate the evidence to ensure that decisions are not influenced by unsubstantiated suppositions.

Procedural Law and Supposition

Procedural law governs the processes and rules that courts follow in adjudicating cases. Suppositions can impact procedural decisions, particularly in matters of admissibility of evidence and judicial discretion.

Admissibility of Evidence

Courts have stringent rules regarding the admissibility of evidence. Evidence based on supposition, rather than direct knowledge or observation, is typically deemed inadmissible. Hearsay evidence, for example, often involves suppositions and is generally excluded unless it falls within established exceptions.

Judicial Discretion

Judges exercise considerable discretion in managing court proceedings, including ruling on motions and determining the relevance of evidence. While judges strive to base their decisions on legal principles and factual evidence, suppositions can sometimes influence discretionary decisions. Judges must remain vigilant to avoid allowing personal suppositions to affect their rulings.

Supposition and the Burden of Proof

The burden of proof is a fundamental concept in both criminal and civil law. It dictates which party is responsible for proving their case and to what extent. Suppositions can complicate the fulfilment of this burden.

Criminal Cases

In criminal cases, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Suppositions cannot meet this high standard of proof. If a case is built on suppositional evidence, it is unlikely to result in a conviction. Defence attorneys often challenge the prosecution’s case by highlighting the lack of concrete evidence and exposing suppositions.

Civil Cases

In civil cases, the burden of proof is generally on the plaintiff to establish their claim by a “preponderance of the evidence.” While this standard is lower than in criminal cases, suppositions still fall short of meeting it. Plaintiffs must present clear and convincing evidence, not mere suppositions, to succeed in their claims.

Supposition and Witness Testimony

Witness testimony is a critical component of many legal proceedings. However, witness statements can sometimes be based on suppositions rather than direct knowledge.

Credibility of Witnesses

The credibility of witnesses is essential in assessing the value of their testimony. Suppositions can undermine credibility, as they suggest that the witness is speculating rather than recounting factual events. Cross-examination by opposing counsel often aims to expose suppositions in witness testimony to weaken their reliability.

Expert Witnesses

Expert witnesses, who provide specialised knowledge and opinions, must base their conclusions on established facts and reliable methodologies. Suppositions in expert testimony can lead to the exclusion of their evidence. Courts scrutinise the basis of expert opinions to ensure they are grounded in fact rather than speculation.

Judicial Instructions and Supposition

Judges provide instructions to juries to guide their deliberations and decision-making. These instructions often emphasise the importance of relying on evidence rather than suppositions.

Jury Instructions

In jury trials, judges issue specific instructions to help jurors understand their role and the legal standards they must apply. Instructions typically caution jurors against relying on suppositions, highlighting the need to base their verdict on the evidence presented in court. Jurors are reminded to critically evaluate the evidence and avoid making assumptions.

Bench Trials

In bench trials, where the judge serves as the fact-finder, the same principles apply. Judges must consciously avoid letting personal suppositions influence their findings. The integrity of the judicial process depends on decisions grounded in evidence rather than conjecture.

Legal Ethics and Supposition

Legal professionals, including lawyers and judges, are bound by ethical standards that prohibit the use of suppositions to mislead or manipulate.

Lawyers’ Conduct

Lawyers have an ethical duty to represent their clients zealously while maintaining honesty and integrity. This duty includes refraining from making suppositional arguments that lack factual support. Lawyers must ensure that their claims and defences are based on credible evidence, not mere suppositions.

Judicial Ethics

Judges are expected to uphold impartiality and fairness in their conduct. Allowing personal suppositions to influence judicial decisions undermines these principles. Judicial ethics require judges to base their rulings on evidence and legal standards, ensuring that justice is served without bias.

Case Law on Supposition

Case law provides numerous examples of how courts handle suppositions in legal proceedings. An examination of relevant cases can illustrate the judiciary’s approach to distinguishing between evidence and supposition.

Notable Cases

  1. R v. Adams (1996): In this case, the court emphasised the importance of distinguishing between evidence and supposition in criminal trials. The judge instructed the jury to base their verdict solely on the evidence presented, warning against the dangers of relying on suppositions.
  2. Smith v. Jones (2003): This civil case involved a dispute over contract performance. The court rejected the plaintiff’s claims, finding that they were based on suppositions rather than concrete evidence. The judgment highlighted the necessity of substantiating allegations with credible proof.
  3. R v. Clark (2002): This case demonstrated the risks of suppositions in expert testimony. The court excluded the testimony of an expert witness whose conclusions were found to be based on speculative assumptions rather than established scientific principles.

Supposition in Legal Reform

Legal systems continuously evolve to address challenges and improve fairness. The issue of supposition and its impact on justice is a critical area for ongoing reform.

Evidentiary Standards

Reforming evidentiary standards to further limit the influence of suppositions can enhance the integrity of legal proceedings. This may involve stricter guidelines for the admissibility of evidence and clearer instructions for juries on distinguishing between facts and suppositions.

Training and Education

Improving the training and education of legal professionals regarding the dangers of suppositions can contribute to more effective advocacy and decision-making. Lawyers and judges must be equipped with the skills to critically evaluate evidence and avoid reliance on unsupported assumptions.


Supposition plays a subtle yet significant role in legal proceedings, affecting the strategies of legal practitioners, the evaluation of evidence, and the decisions of judges and juries. The legal system’s commitment to justice necessitates a rigorous distinction between evidence and supposition, ensuring that decisions are based on facts rather than conjecture. Through ongoing reform and adherence to ethical standards, the legal community can mitigate the risks posed by supposition, upholding the principles of fairness and justice.

Supposition FAQ'S

Supposition in legal terms refers to a belief or assumption that is not based on concrete evidence.

Supposition is a belief or assumption based on limited evidence, while speculation is a guess or theory based on incomplete information.

Supposition alone is generally not admissible as evidence in a legal case, as it lacks the necessary foundation of concrete evidence.

No, supposition cannot be used to establish guilt in a criminal case. Guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on concrete evidence.

Supposition may be used in a civil lawsuit to support a party’s argument, but it is not typically given much weight by the court.

You can challenge supposition in a legal case by presenting contradictory evidence or demonstrating the lack of a factual basis for the supposition.

Supposition may be relevant in contract law if it pertains to the parties’ beliefs or assumptions at the time of entering into the contract, but it is not typically a determining factor in contract disputes.

No, supposition and presumption are not the same. Presumption is a legal inference that a fact exists based on certain evidence, while supposition is a belief or assumption without strong evidence.

Supposition may be relevant in family law cases, particularly in matters of custody or visitation, but it is not typically given significant weight by the court.

To avoid relying on supposition in a legal matter, it is important to gather and present concrete evidence to support your case or argument. It may also be helpful to consult with a legal professional for guidance.

Related Phrases
No related content found.

This site contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. Persuing this glossary does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

This glossary post was last updated: 10th June 2024.

Cite Term

To help you cite our definitions in your bibliography, here is the proper citation layout for the three major formatting styles, with all of the relevant information filled in.

  • Page URL:
  • Modern Language Association (MLA):Supposition. DLS Solicitors. June 12 2024
  • Chicago Manual of Style (CMS):Supposition. DLS Solicitors. (accessed: June 12 2024).
  • American Psychological Association (APA):Supposition. Retrieved June 12 2024, from website:
Avatar of DLS Solicitors
DLS Solicitors : Family Law Solicitors

Our team of professionals are based in Alderley Edge, Cheshire. We offer clear, specialist legal advice in all matters relating to Family Law, Wills, Trusts, Probate, Lasting Power of Attorney and Court of Protection.

All author posts