header-logo header-logo

24 July 2008
Issue: 7331 / Categories: Features , Public
printer mail-detail

Doc brief

STANDARD OF PROOF
CAPACITY
UNLAWFUL DETENTION

A lesson in logic from the lords
In terms of civil and criminal standards of proof, the gravity of the allegation made (fraud, sexual abuse etc) may be an important consideration deserving greater “cogency” of evidence to prove the allegation. There is a simple mathematical aid to the resolution of this difficulty but that device does not find favour with the courts. This device may be expressed as follows: imagine that the civil standard of proof runs from 51% to, say, 90%. Where a simple issue is involved, whether or not a collision took place, any proof above 51% will suffice. If, however, fraud or sexual impropriety is alleged, one may ask for 70-80% proof. It is still the civil standard and these computations are for the mind of the judge alone but employing this device may help make sense.

The matter came up in a slightly different form in Re B (children) (sexual abuse: standard of proof ) (2008) UKHL 35, [2008] All ER (D) 134 (Jun). In the Family Division

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll