Section 4 of IEA : Section 4: "May Presume".

Explanation using Example

Example 1:

Scenario: A person is found in possession of stolen property shortly after a theft.

Application of Section 4:

• May Presume: The court may presume that the person in possession of the stolen property is the thief, unless the person can provide a satisfactory explanation for how they came into possession of the property.
• Shall Presume: If the law directs that possession of stolen property shortly after a theft shall be presumed to be evidence of theft, the court must regard the person as the thief unless they can disprove it.
• Conclusive Proof: If the law states that possession of stolen property shortly after a theft is conclusive proof of theft, the court must regard the person as the thief and cannot accept any evidence to the contrary.

Example 2:

Scenario: A registered letter is sent by post and is not returned to the sender.

Application of Section 4:

• May Presume: The court may presume that the letter was delivered to the addressee, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
• Shall Presume: If the law directs that a registered letter sent by post shall be presumed to be delivered to the addressee, the court must regard the letter as delivered unless it is disproved.
• Conclusive Proof: If the law states that a registered letter sent by post is conclusive proof of delivery, the court must regard the letter as delivered and cannot accept any evidence to disprove it.

Example 3:

Scenario: A person is found with a large sum of unexplained money.

Application of Section 4:

• May Presume: The court may presume that the money is the proceeds of illegal activity, unless the person can provide a legitimate explanation for the money.
• Shall Presume: If the law directs that unexplained possession of a large sum of money shall be presumed to be from illegal activity, the court must regard the money as such unless it is disproved.
• Conclusive Proof: If the law states that unexplained possession of a large sum of money is conclusive proof of illegal activity, the court must regard the money as from illegal activity and cannot accept any evidence to the contrary.