E.A., AGAINST G.N.

[2] The defender has reclaimed against that decision, and the pursuer has lodged a cross-appeal.

[6] Having accepted the evidence of expert witnesses to the effect that the abuse perpetrated against her when she was a child had resulted in the respondent suffering a severe limitation of functioning, that she had been exploited by him as an adult and that she had difficulties in the areas of social perception and interaction, it was illogical and perverse for the Lord Ordinary not to find that any apparent consent on the part of the respondent was vitiated.

Answer to cross-reclaiming motion [7] The reclaimer’s answer to the cross appeal was that the Lord Ordinary had been entitled on the evidence to reach the conclusion which he did, taking into account his assessment of the respondent as a “not wholly satisfactory” witness. The nature of any delictual wrong alleged by the respondent after her sixteenth birthday, in circumstances in which she did not maintain an absence of consent, or an inability to do so, was obscure.

[9] In paragraph 158, the Lord Ordinary does indeed refer to the conduct as reprehensible, but that is a precursor to his setting out the core elements of the abuse with a view to explaining the consequence thereof, and the effect the conduct had upon the respondent as a child. He concludes the paragraph by saying:

“The defender preyed on the pursuer’s vulnerability. He sexualised the pursuer when she was still a young child. She became habituated to his sexual conduct and emotionally dependent on him.”