The presumption of regularityFor this name, see Cooper, Simon & Murphy, Peter & Beaumont, John. Cases & Materials on Evidence. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press. 1994. p. 86 is a presumption that forms part of the law of evidence of England and Wales. It also plays a role in some other countries.

It is expressed by the maxim of lawArchbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 1999, para 10-5 at p. 1130 omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta donec probetur in contrarium,For this version, see Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 1999, para 10-5 at p. 1130 (); which may be shortened to omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse actaFor this version, see Simon Cooper, Peter Murphy, & John Beaumont, Cases & Materials on Evidence, 4th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 86. () or omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta ().For this version, see Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 1999, para 10-5 at p. 1130

Official actions Where it has been proved that an "official act" has been done, it will be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the said act "complied with any necessary formalities" and that the person who did it was "duly appointed".Cooper, Simon & Murphy, Peter & Beaumont, John. Cases & Materials on Evidence. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press. 1994. p. 86Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 1999, para 10-5 at p. 1130

This is a presumption of law.Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 1999, p. 1130, see heading "B" to paras. 10-4 and 10-5

The following cases are relevant to this presumption:

R v Gordon (1789) 1 Leach 515, (1789) 1 East PC 315 R v Jones (1806) 31 St Tr 251, (1806) 2 Camp 131 R v Verelst (1813) 3 Camp 432 R v Catesby (1824) 2 B & C 814, (1824) 4 Dow & Ry KB 434, (1824) 2 Dow & Ry MC 278 R v Rees (1834) 6 C & P 606 R v Murphy (1837) 8 C & P 297 R v Townsend (1841) C & Mar 178 R v Newton (1843) 1 C & K 469 R v Manwaring (1856) 26 LJMC 10, (1856) Dears & B 132, (1856) 7 Cox 192 R v Cresswell (1876) 1 QBD 446, (1876) 33 LT 760, (1876) 40 JP 536, (1876) 13 Cox 126 R v Stewart (1876) 13 Cox 296 R v Roberts (1878) 14 Cox 101, (1878) 42 JP 630, (1878) 38 LT 690, CCR Gibbins v Skinner 2 K.B. 379, 1 All E.R. 1049, 1 T.L.R. 1159, (1951) 115 J.P. 360, 49 L.G.R. 713 Campbell v Wallsend Shipway and Engineering Co Ltd Crim LR 351, DC Dillon v R AC 484, 2 WLR 538, 1 All ER 1017, 74 Cr App R 274, Crim LR 438, PC Gage v Jones RTR 508, DC Kynaston v Director of Public Prosecutions, 87 Cr App R 200, DC

Business transactions Where it has been proved that "necessary business transactions" have been carried out, it will be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the said transactions were carried out in the order (if any) that they are required to be carried out.Cooper, Simon & Murphy, Peter & Beaumont, John. Cases & Materials on Evidence. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press. 1994. pp. 86 and 91 See Eaglehill Ltd v J Needham (Builders) Ltd AC 992, HL.

Mechanical contraptions Where it has been proved that a "mechanical device" is normally in "good working order", it will be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that it was in good working order on any relevant occasion.Cooper, Simon & Murphy, Peter & Beaumont, John. Cases & Materials on Evidence. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press. 1994. pp. 86 and 90 See Tingle Jacobs & Co v Kennedy 1 WLR 638, CA

In the United States

In the United States, the presumption of regularity is a principle of deference that narrows judicial scrutiny over executive decisions. It applies to "a subset of factual disputes about administrative motivations and internal processes".Harvard Law Review, The presumption of regularity in judicial review of the executive branch, Volume 131, Issue 8, June 2018, accessed 2025-07-28

References

Further reading Best. A Treatise on Presumptions of Law and Fact. 1844. Chapter 2 of Part 2. pp 74 to 86. Best. The Principles of the Law of Evidence. 8th Ed. 1893. Subsection 4 of Section 2 of Part 2 of Book 3. pp 330 to 336. Jones. The Law of Evidence in Civil Cases. 1896. Volume 1. p 55 et seq.