B (Children)

B (Children)

The judge was entitled to find, on the balance of probabilities, that the applicant engaged in inappropriate sexual behaviour with the child based on her detailed and spontaneous evidence, and there was no error of law or approach justifying appellate intervention.

Parties
Applicant/intervener: Applicant (name anonymised, referred to as TL or Jaywol); Respondent: Respondent (Local Authority, name not specified)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal (care Proceedings) / Application for Leave to Appeal Against a Finding of Fact in Care Proceedings
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Findings of Fact, Sexual Abuse Allegations, Standard of Proof, Appeals in Family Cases
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Findings of Fact Sexual Abuse Allegations Standard of Proof Appeals in Family Cases

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant (name anonymised, referred to as TL or Jaywol)

Applicant/intervener

Respondent (Local Authority, name not specified)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (care Proceedings) / Application for Leave to Appeal Against a Finding of Fact in Care Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge was plainly wrong in finding that the applicant engaged in inappropriate sexual behaviour with a child based on her police interview
  2. 2 Whether the judge applied the correct standard of proof (balance of probabilities)
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in approach by considering the child's evidence separately from the applicant's denial

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to find, on the balance of probabilities, that the applicant engaged in inappropriate sexual behaviour with the child based on her detailed and spontaneous evidence, and there was no error of law or approach justifying appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application refused