The camera shots provide a prima facie case that one has broken the law.
Prima facie ...the literal translation would be "at first face", prima first, facie face, both in the ablative case. It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence which – unless rebutted – would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. The term is used similarly in academic philosophy.
Most legal proceedings require a prima facie case to exist, following which proceedings may then commence to test it, and create a ruling.
I would go with "following which proceedings may then commence to test it"
"It is logically and intuitively clear that just because a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts that both the notion of the evidence presenting a case in a self-evident manner and the facts actually being facts (which, presumably, would require evidence of at least a minimum degree of quality) can often be reduced to entirely subjective interpretations that are independent of any truthful merit by sufficiently skilled individuals.
That is to say, appearances can be deceptive even to the objectively minded, and they can be subjectively interpreted (meaning that what amounts to a
prima facie case for one judging individual would not do so for another). Just because a matter appears to be evident from a certain presentation of the facts it does not follow that that matter has any truthful validity - which would limit the common sensical utility of prima facie evidence.
As an example, consider the following:
Statement I: "John has been shot dead. Joe has been found near John with a smoking gun. Therefore, this is prima facie evidence of Joe having shot John with a smoking gun." [the infamous Smoking Gun example]
Apparently, this (in an overly simplified manner) indicates that we have a prima facie case for arresting (and convicting) Joe for shooting John.
However, add the following piece of evidence to the prima facie case calculations:
Statement II: "Both Joe and John were within a shooting club at the time at which John was shot dead. "
This example indicates that it is far from clear that Joe actually shot John dead due to certain facts having been selectively highlighted and presented for the purposes of the prima facie case. That is to say, because relevant circumstances are either omitted or illogically/irrationally presented for the purposes of the prima facie case - it appears as if the statement made amounts to a prima facie case. This is because sufficient evidence has apparently been presented for the purposes of the prima facie case, but necessary evidence has been omitted (a reasonable argument would be that as much evidence concerning the particulars of the case are presented within a prima facie case as possible).
Given our informal presentation of the prima facie case in Statement I, we have not contradicted any of the evidence by introducing the facts of Statement II. However, it is clear that a reasonable person would find Statement I unpalatable as a prima facie case as it contains no information relating to the particulars of a case - and it seems clear that Statement II provides sufficient reason to throw out Statement I out as being a sufficient basis for a prima facie case on reasonable grounds.
These criticisms are conceptually inherent to the notion of a prima facie case or evidence. They do not relate to the example or the quality of the evidence. The situation arises because all (or, at least, a reasonably water tight amount) of the relevant particulars of the case are not presented in an objective manner."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie_case
