CD v The Catholic Child Welfare Society (Diocese of Middlesbrough) & Anor

Ms Kama Melly QC and Ms Susannah Johnson (instructed by Switalskis LLP) for the Claimant Mr Michael Kent QC and Mr Nicholas Fewtrell (instructed by Hill Dickinson LLP) for the Defendants Hearing dates: 31st October to 21st November 2016 ____________________

I intend to give a summary of the facts which form the background to this case. Many of them are uncontroversial although the facts surrounding the alleged abuse are all disputed. The Claimant made two witness statements in these proceedings and I also had sight of a statement given to the police on 20 th February 2003. The following summary is taken from the Claimant's evidence together with the documents that were referred to me during the trial. At the end I will give a brief summary of the evidence called by the Defendants.

In many cases the assessment of the credibility of competing witnesses is crucial to the proper consideration of the evidence in the case. This is particularly true of allegations of sexual abuse which, by their nature, are unlikely to be capable of independent verification either by a witness or a recording in a document.

In his instructive article entitled The Judge as Juror: The Judicial Determination of Factual Issues , published in Current Legal Problems 38, Mr Justice Bingham (as he then was) made this observation:

Mr Justice Bingham went on to conclude that the first three of the tests may be regarded in general as giving a useful pointer to where the truth lies, whereas the fourth test is more arguable. As regards the fifth, he was of the view that: