Re W (Minors) (Sexual abuse: standard of proof)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 December 1993 |
| Date | 01 December 1993 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Children - evidence - standard of proof of sexual abuse
The burden of proving an allegation of sexual abuse of a child was on the party making the allegation and the standard was the balance of probabilities. Possibly some lesser degree of probability was required if a court merely had to be satisfied that a child had been a victim of sexual abuse. But any such lower standard was not applicable if there was only one possible candidate for the role of perpetrator.
The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Balcombe and Lord Justice Beldam) so stated in a reserved judgment on November 26 when dismissing a father's appeal from the refusal by Mr Justice Wilson to allow him contact with his four children but holding that, because the judge had not applied the correct standard of proof, his finding of sexual abuse by the father against two of his daughters could not stand.
LORD JUSTICE BALCOMBE said that the standard of proving sexual abuse was the balance of probabilities. The more serious the allegation the more convincing was the evidence needed to tip the balance in respect of it.
It had been suggested that a lesser degree of probability was require to satisfy the court that a child had been the victim of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re H and R (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof)
...((1990) Fam 86),In re M (a Minor) (Appeal) (No 2)FLR ((1994) 1 FLR 59) and In re W (Minors) (Sexual abuse: Standard of proof)FLR ((1994) 1 FLR 419,424). The Court of Appeal were of the same view in the present case. It followed that the contrary observations in In re G (a Minor) (Child abus......
-
R (Director of the Assets Recovery Agency) v Jia Jin He
...allegations of sexual abuse of children: see In re G (A Minor) (Child abuse: Standard of Proof) [1987] 1 WLR 1461, 1466 and In re W [1994] 1 FLR 419, 429. So I must pursue this a little further. The law looks for probability, not certainty. Certainty is seldom attainable. But probability ......
-
Lillie v Newcastle City Council
...[1990] Fam. 86, 94, 100, Re M (A Minor) (Appeal) (No.2) [1994] 1 F.L.R. 59, 67 and Re W (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1994] 1 F.L.R. 419, 424. It was also made clear that contrary observations in Re G (A Minor) (Child Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1987] 1 W.L.R. 1461, 1466 and R......
-
Baker v Baker
...cases such as Bater v Bater [1951] P35; Hornal v Neuberger Products Ltd [1957] 1 QB 247; Re W (Minors)(Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1994] 1 FLR 419 per Balcombe LJ at page 424. In Bater v Bater, an allegation of cruelty by a wife, Denning LJ said at page 37:- "As Best CJ and many other......
-
Standards of Proof in Civil Litigation
...Juvenile Court, ex pS[1984] Fam 93; Re G (A Minor) [1987] 1 WLR 1461; HvH (Minor), K vK (Minors) [1989] 3 WLR933; Re W (Minors) [1994] 1 FLR 419; Re L [1996] 1 FLR 116 (flexible standard).51 n 49 above, 16. Lords Goff and Mustill gave judgments concurring with Lord Nicholls. Lord Lloydexpre......
-
Finding that a Child is at Risk from Sexual Abuse:Re H (Minors)(Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof)
...again. The House of Lords, again rejecting the appeal,by a majority of three to two,18considered three main questions:10 Per Balcombe LJ [1994] 1 FLR 419, 424.11 [1995] 1 FLR 643, 652.12 Re H and R (child sexual abuse: standard of proof) [1995] 1 FLR 643 (Sir Stephen Brown and MillettLJ, wi......