Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Miss AJB, counsel , for the Applicant Mr JKR, counsel , for the First Respondent Mr MC, counsel , for the Second Respondent Mr JV, counsel , for the Third Respondent Ms LKn, solicitor,, for the Fourth Respondent Ms LKi, solicitor, , for the Fifth to Tenth Respondents, by their Children's Guardian ____________________
(1) On a date in 2020 M sexually abused R by way of touching (the detail of which it is not necessary to set out in this judgment) :
(2) In sexually abusing R, Mr M has put the other children of the household at risk of sexual harm and emotional harm.
(3) Mr M has caused R emotional harm in allowing the 5 children, including R's brother, to ostracise her from the family.
"the standard of proof in finding the facts necessary to establish the threshold under section 31(2) or the welfare considerations in section 1 of the 1989 Act is the simple balance of probabilities, neither more nor less. Neither the seriousness of the allegation nor the seriousness of the consequences should make any difference to the standard of proof to be applied in determining the facts. The inherent probabilities are simply something to be taken into account, where relevant, in deciding where the truth lies."
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.