Spotlight
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Will government vouchers prove a game-changer for family mediation?
Analysis of data to evaluate the government’s £500 family mediation voucher scheme is in full swing. It’s not yet complete but, as the initiative nears an end, the signs appear...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
Recently, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making misogyny a...
Guidance on allocation and gatekeeping for public children proceedings to remain in place
On 5 June 2020, the President of the Family Division made two amendments to his Guidance on Allocation and Gatekeeping for Care, Supervision and other Proceedings under Part IV of the Children...
Key challenges and the role of the family advisor in facilitating a successful succession plan
Kelly Noel-Smith, Private Client Partner, Forsters LLPRosie Schumm, Family Partner, Forsters LLPAnna Ferster, Family Associate, Forsters LLPHow best to pass on wealth to the next generation is a...
View all articles
Authors

SEXUAL ABUSE/FACT-FINDING: Re A (Vulnerable Witness: Fact Finding) [2013] EWHC 2124 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:10 PM
Slug : sexual-abuse-fact-finding-re-a-vulnerable-witness-fact-finding-2013-ewhc-2124-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 25, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 103185

(Family Division, Pauffley J, 15 July 2013)

In the context of contact proceedings between the father and his daughter, allegations of sexual abuse were made against the father by his vulnerable 17-year-old niece. Following the Supreme Court decision [2012] UKSC 60 a fact-finding hearing took place in order to determine the truth of the allegations and the 17-year old was called to give evidence via video-link with the assistance of an experienced intermediary.

There was no ABE interview or narrative statement and the evidence against the father was made up of claims the young woman made to professionals working with her including that the father had sex with her, videotaped her and that the abuse was as a form of punishment for her telling the father's wife when she was younger that the father was having an affair. She later retracted the allegations before reasserting them.

During the hearing the young woman gave evidence over 2 days to her considerable distress. The father was requested to leave the courtroom part way through in order for the task to be made easier for her. The father continued to refute the allegations.

The judge had no hesitation in deciding that the young woman's claims against the father were fundamentally true; that however he began his despicable behaviour he did indeed inflict the most serious kind of sexual, emotional and psychological abuse upon her over a period of about 10 years; and that, even now, he continued to exert some form of sinister controlling influence so that she could not freely speak about what had happened.

 

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