Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles


Sep 29, 2018, 16:33 PM
Slug : re-m-sexual-abuse-2008-ewca-civ-3
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 15, 2008, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 85407

(Court of Appeal; 15 January 2008; Thorpe and Wall LJJ)

When reviewing findings of fact made by a judge in a sexual abuse context, the appeal court must give great weight to those aspects of the case exclusively within the domain of the trial judge, in particular the judicial assessment of witness credibility, but also findings of fact. Although less confident than the judge about the propriety of some of the questions asked in the interview with a child who had made allegations of sexual abuse, in particular about: two leading questions; the use of a strongly directive technique; and the invitation to the child to repeat what had been said to a third person, the court was not prepared to say that the judge had been plainly wrong in accepting the interview as a skilful one. The judge had been entitled to select those aspects of the child's sexual abuse allegations that met the standard set out in Re H (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 563, and to reject those that did not. It would have been better if the judge had dealt in terms with her assessment of the potential abuser's credibility on the sexual abuse issue, but her failure to do so was not fatal to her conclusion.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from