Today post deal with an important issue and the issue is child raises. This is a complex issue and for that it is necessary to have strong evidence. Without evidence this complex issue are not able to taking into consideration. Evidence in proceedings relating to children raises complex issues. It is necessary to consider how the court is to be satisfied of the basis for making an order, the nature of evidence required by the courts, rules of evidence peculiar to children's proceedings, the sources of evidence, the way in which that evidence is obtained, in particular from experts, disclosure of information and documents for the purpose of proceedings, withholding of information or documents on the basis of confidentiality and privilege or self-incrimination. Evidential practice under the CHILD ACT 1989 can labour under the disadvantage of certain myths, for example that there are no rules of evidence in children proceedings. This myth encompasses the idea that, in contrast to proceedings in the criminal and commercial jurisdictions, anything is admissible at any point and in any format in children proceedings regardless of the quality, source or timing of the evidence it is sought to have admitted. The second popular fiction is that all proceedings relating to children are procedurally informal in nature. This myth propagates and perpetuates the notion that the court will permit almost any procedural or evidential irregularity within the context of proceedings concerning children, provided that the same is in the children's best interests. Whilst the court will, of course, not let procedure stand in the way of a child's welfare, this myth of informality can militate against the timely prosecution of cases and runs the risk of reducing the welfare test to an excuse for procedural sloth. These two myths, which are without foundation, tend to operate against the proper presentation of cases, and in particular the proper gathering and presentation of evidence to prove cases.
On the hand not only evidence it is necessary to have burden of proof and standard of proof.
The legal burden of establishing the existence of the threshold criteria rests on the applicant. The general principle is that he who asserts must prove. The applicant must establish the existence of the pre-conditions and the facts entitling him to the order he seeks[1]. The standard of proof thus remains the balance of probabilities, as distinct from the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt[2] . Indeed, it is entirely appropriate for a judge in family proceedings to arrive at a different conclusion from a jury in a criminal trial given the wider range of evidence upon which the family court is concerned in respect of the child[3].
So for the complex issue like child raises not evidence is sufficient, also the burden and standard of proof is necessary.
Link: Evidence of child raises http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/results/pubTreeViewDoc.do?nodeId=TAALAAB&pubTreeWidth=23%25
[1] Re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 563, [1996] 1 All ER 1, [1996] 1 FCR 509, HL.
[2] See Re U and Re B [2004] EWCA Civ 567, [2004] 2 FLR 263 and Re T (Abuse: Standard of Proof) [2004] EWCA Civ 558, [2004] 2 FLR 838. In Re ET (Serious Injuries: Standard of Proof) [2003] 2 FLR 1205n the Court of Appeal expressly rejected a statement by Bodey J that the difference between the civil standard of proof and the criminal standard of proof is 'largely illusory.'
No comments:
Post a Comment