Proving historical sex abuse in court

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.

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