This paper deals with the distinction between law and fact. In the article ‘The myth of the law-fact distinction’ (Allen and Pardo, 2003a), Ronald Allen and Michael Pardo argue that there is no ontological, epistemological or analytical distinction between law and fact. Instead, they claim that the distinction ought to be understood pragmatically, by considering whether the judge or jury is in the best position to decide the question. The problem with this is that it does not add to the understanding. In a soon-forgotten passus they suggest that the distinction is between legal and non-legal facts, rather than between law and fact. In this paper I revise the article by Ron and Pardo and make an argument in favour of the distinction between legal and non-legal facts. The notion of ‘legal’ and ‘non-legal’ underlines the fact that the dichotomy is relevant specifically from a legal point of view. In the legal context different consequences apply to law and fact, the same is not true in a non-legal context.

中文翻译：

---

非法律事实如何：修正艾伦和帕尔多对法律与事实的分析区分

本文主要讨论法律与事实的区别。在“法律与事实区别的神话”（Allen 和 Pardo，2003a）一文中，Ronald Allen 和 Michael Pardo 认为，法律与事实之间没有本体论、认识论或分析上的区别。相反，他们声称应该通过考虑法官或陪审团是否处于决定问题的最佳位置来务实地理解这种区别。问题在于它不会增加理解。在一个很快被遗忘的传票中，他们建议区分法律和非法律事实，而不是法律和事实。在本文中，我修改了 Ron 和 Pardo 的文章，并提出了支持区分法律事实和非法律事实的论据。“合法”和“非法”的概念强调了这样一个事实，即从法律的角度来看，二分法是特别相关的。在法律语境中，不同的后果适用于法律和事实，在非法律语境中则不然。