|
|
Child sex
abuse hysteria and the Ellis case |
|
|
|
|
The wisdom of
Gordon Waugh - Index |
|
|
Had law commissioner Donald
Dugdale (July 30) done his homework, he would realise I've studied Report No
61: Tidying the Limitation Act. While wrongly castigating me, he has
sidestepped the main issues. Sexual abuse is a
criminal matter demanding the highest standards of evidence. It must remain
wholly in the criminal courts. Opening a 10-year window for women to sue for
alleged historical sexual abuse in civil courts allows complainants to dodge
rigorous examination in criminal trials. Acceptance of
scientifically unfounded or dubious psychological concepts in civil cases
seriously dilutes standards of evidence and shifts the burden of proof. They
are dangerously poor substitutes for testable evidence in criminal trials. Post-traumatic stress
disorder, which Dugdale cites, is one such concept now open to misuse. It has
a shared history with "repressed memories". The mere diagnosis does
not substantiate the occurrence of the claimed event. It has no place in our
courts. Reparation for genuine
victims would be better handled as an adjunct to criminal sentencing. Sexual
cases should be specifically excluded from the Limitation Act. Sunday Star Times In his letter
"Dangers for men in sex law changes" (July 23) Gordon Waugh has
made the elementary blunder of firing off an attack in reliance on a short
newspaper account without reading the Law Commission's report Tidying the
Limitation Act that he criticises so vehemently. The commission's
precise proposal is that in calculating time for limitations purposes you
leave out any period during which a plaintiff "is unable, by reason of
some or all of the matters on which the action is founded, to make reasonable
judgments in respect of matters relating to the bringing of such
action". If, as Waugh believes,
the notion that post-traumatic stress disorder can prevent a female victim of
sexual abuse from summoning up the resolution to sue her abuser is simply an
example of the "irrational beliefs held by some women's groups",
then a plaintiff who is out of time will be unable to bring herself within
our proposed formula and her action will fail. Should it be, however, that
his belief is a mistaken one, then the plaintiff may be able to succeed in
surmounting the time bar. Either way justice will be done. |
