Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
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