Re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof)
[1996] AC 563
Independent editorial summary — not the official judgment. Read the full judgment via the source link.
Ratio Decidendi
In care proceedings, suspicion alone, however strong, cannot satisfy the threshold in section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989; the facts relied upon to establish a real possibility of future significant harm must themselves be proved on the balance of probabilities.
Facts
A local authority applied for care orders in respect of three younger sisters, relying solely on allegations that the eldest sister, D1, had been sexually abused by their mother's partner since she was seven or eight years old. The father was tried on related rape charges and was acquitted by a jury after a very short retirement, and the trial judge in the separate care proceedings likewise found he could not be sure to a high standard of proof that D1's allegations were true, although he remained suspicious of the father.
Judgment Summary
The House of Lords, Lord Lloyd of Berwick dissenting, dismissed the local authority's appeal. Lord Nicholls held that being 'likely' to suffer significant harm means there is a real possibility of harm that ought not to be ignored, not that harm is more probable than not; but the facts said to give rise to that risk must themselves be proved on the ordinary civil standard, the balance of probabilities, bearing in mind that the more serious an allegation the stronger the evidence needed to establish it. Because the trial judge had not been satisfied on that standard that the abuse had occurred, mere suspicion could not found the threshold finding needed for a care order.
Key Quotes
A conclusion that a child is likely to suffer harm must be based on facts, not just suspicion.
Editorial summary of reasoning attributed to Lord Nicholls(not a verbatim quotation)
Subsequent Treatment
Standard of proof aspect overruled by Re B [2008], but factual basis requirement remains.
What To Do Next
Get Professional Help