Proving historical sex abuse in court

Big Gerry

The principal of my old primary school recently got convicted for sexual abusing students over 50 years ago.

This got me thinking how can sexual abuse that was committed decades ago be proven in court.

I knew this individual was as guilty as sin but if I was on a jury and didn't know him I would have no real way of knowing he was guilty.

Also another question I have now that this individual has been convicted does that open the flood gates for people to take cases against him ?

When he was principal there would have been 300 odd pupils under him in any given year. He was also a teacher for over 30 years.

If every former student who came into contact with him claimed to have been abused by him I don't see how that could be proved or disproved.

Peregrinus

It is difficult to prove events that happened long ago - particularly events to which there were no witnesses apart from the participants, as is commonly the case with sex acts.

This conviction doesn't "open the floodgates" for claims against the man concerned, but it certainly makes them easier. Essentially, if I take a civil action against you alleging that you have a liablity to me, it's up to me to satisfy the court as to the facts on which I rely. The standard of proof that I must meet is the "balance of probabilities"; the court has to be satisfied that my verison of events is more likely true than false, and your version(assuming you contradict me) more likely false than true.

If there is a straight conflict of evidence between two equally credible witnesses, so that the court has no reason to find one witness more convincing than the other, I will not have discharged the onus of proof and I will lose my case.

The fact that the defendant in this case has already been convicted of child sexual abuse would weaken his credibility, so it would certainly strengthen the position of anyone suing him for abuse. But the courts will be conscious that, just because he abused child A does not in itself prove that he abused child B. So if now-adult B sues him, his story will still be scrutinised; it wil be taken seriously, but it won;'t be assumed to be true simply because the defendant has alreadsy been convicted of abusing child A.

Claw Hammer

Big Gerry wrote: »

The principal of my old primary school recently got convicted for sexual abusing students over 50 years ago.

This got me thinking how can sexual abuse that was committed decades ago be proven in court.

.

It proved the same way as anything approved in court, by offering evidence.

messrs

I was on a jury for a case of historical sex abuse a few years ago - it was awful.

Claw Hammer

messrs wrote: »

I was on a jury for a case of historical sex abuse a few years ago - it was awful.

Who abused you?

Big Gerry

The teacher in question could not have been a more obvious paedo unless his name was Jimmy Savile.


I don't know how other teachers didn't call him out.


Even as a kid I could see he was paedo.