Finding that a Child is at Risk from Sexual Abuse: Re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof)
In Re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof)' the House of Lords was faced with a case which raised fundamental questions about the standard of proof to be applied by the court to allegations of sexual abuse. Such allegations could form the basis for granting a care or supervision order on the grounds that the child is, in the words of the Children Act 1989, likely to suffer significant harm if the order is not made.2 In the criminal courts, any alleged abuse would, of course, require the criminal standard of proof. However, in civil care or supervision proceedings, should only the ordinary civil standard be required, or should civil courts adopt a standard which reflects the enormity of the allegation and therefore requires more convincing evidence? Furthermore, should the same standard of proof apply to allegations which raise the possibility that abuse would happen in the future as to allegations that abuse had happened in the past? What if, as happened in this case, the trial judge, whilst holding that there was a 'real possibility' that the allegations were true, nevertheless decided that the evidence was not sufficient to satisfy the required standard of proof for past sexual abuse? Could he nevertheless find, on the basis of his strong suspicions, that there was the requisite likelihood of future harm? These were not simply nice points of law but were central to decisions about the lives of children and their families. There is a