Proving guilt in prosecution of case of alleged child sex abuse.

political analyst · 03-07-2018 09:55AM #1

In common law - the law in the Republic, Northern Ireland, England & Wales, Australia and other former British overseas territories - it seems to be the case that only the testimony of one witness - an alleged victim - is enough to justify a prosecution in a criminal case concerning an offence that allegedly took place many years ago.

Considering that, in theory at least, the accused has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, how can the testimony of an alleged victim, with no corroboration (including the lack of forensic evidence) be regarded as enough to justify a prosecution and thus create the significant possibility of conviction?

I'm not aware of conviction taking place on the basis of one person's testimony alone in non-sexual criminal cases except when the accused admits guilt.

If uncorroborated testimony isn't acceptable in cases of murder, terrorism and gangland crime, why is it regarded as enough to justify prosecution in cases of alleged child sex abuse?

Has there been a de facto lowering of the burden of proof with regard to alleged child sex abuse?

sexmag · 03-07-2018 11:36AM

Thats for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt but cases of historical child abuse are very hard to get a conviction from just one person alone and it most case's it isnt just the one person who was abused.

Sometimes there are other people who come forward in the cases of saville and cosby, multiple accounts maike convictions easier

political analyst · 03-07-2018 12:20PM

sexmag wrote: »

Thats for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt but cases of historical child abuse are very hard to get a conviction from just one person alone and it most case's it isnt just the one person who was abused.

Sometimes there are other people who come forward in the cases of saville and cosby, multiple accounts maike convictions easier

Try telling that to this guy.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-dorset-43048086

political analyst · 04-07-2018 11:00AM

In Australia, Archbishop Wilson is appealing his conviction on a charge of concealing child abuse (I'm mentioning that case here because Australia is a common-law jurisdiction).

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-04/philip-wilson-to-lodge-an-appeal-against-conviction/9940804

A magistrate convicted Wilson on the charge of concealing an indictable crime, for which the maximum sentence is two years in prison.

Although Wilson wasn't accused of involvement in child abuse I'm mentioning his case here because, apparently, he was convicted on the word of one person.

osarusan · 04-07-2018 12:15PM

political analyst wrote: »

Although Wilson wasn't accused of involvement in child abuse I'm mentioning his case here because, apparently, he was convicted on the word of one person.

Two people mentioned in his case: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-44205985

One of his victims, former altar boy Peter Creigh, told the court he had described the abuse to Wilson in detail in 1976, five years after it took place.
Magistrate Robert Stone rejected Wilson's claims that he had no memory of the conversation, and said he had found Mr Creigh to be a reliable witness.
The priest knew "what he was hearing was a credible allegation and the accused wanted to protect the Church and its reputation", Magistrate Stone said.
Another victim, who cannot be named, told the court he disclosed the abuse in the confessional box when he was 11 years old.

political analyst · 04-07-2018 12:49PM

osarusan wrote: »

Two people mentioned in his case: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-44205985

Wilson was convicted on the basis of the testimony given by Peter Creigh.

The other person made the allegation to Wilson in the confession box and so I don't think it counted in the conviction or the sentencing.

I'm astonished that an omission, as opposed to an act, is enough for a conviction on the charge of concealment because concealment involves making an effort to cover-up a crime, right?!

randomrb · 04-07-2018 01:04PM

political analyst wrote: »

Wilson was convicted on the basis of the testimony given by Peter Creigh.

The other person made the allegation to Wilson in the confession box and so I don't think it counted in the conviction or the sentencing.

I'm astonished that an omission, as opposed to an act, is enough for a conviction on the charge of concealment because concealment involves making an effort to cover-up a crime, right?!

If someone reports something to you in your official position how would that not be concealing? If a person complained to a manager about an employee sexualy abusing them and they did nothing would you say they had nothing to answer to?

ohnonotgmail · 04-07-2018 02:18PM

political analyst wrote: »

Wilson was convicted on the basis of the testimony given by Peter Creigh.

The other person made the allegation to Wilson in the confession box and so I don't think it counted in the conviction or the sentencing.

I'm astonished that an omission, as opposed to an act, is enough for a conviction on the charge of concealment because concealment involves making an effort to cover-up a crime, right?!

why would think it wasn't counted on in the conviction? it was given as evidence in court. The fact it was given in confession is irrelevant.

political analyst · 06-12-2018 03:16PM

osarusan wrote: »

Two people mentioned in his case: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-44205985

Archbishop Wilson's conviction has been overturned.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-06/philip-wilson-former-archbishop-conviction-quashed/10589198

Proving guilt in prosecution of case of alleged child sex abuse.

Comments