Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
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