The fair trial of those accused of historic child sexual abuse

The question which this research addresses is whether recent developments in law and practice concerning the prosecution of those accused of historic child sexual abuse (HCSA) especially taking into account the heightened public concern with this issue, may operate to compromise the right of the defendant to a fair trial in such cases, particularly with regard to the procedural and evidential safeguards which support that right. An historical and sociological survey of the problem of child abuse and a consideration of the impact on the criminal justice system of the intense public concern about child abuse provide the context for a forensic examination of four specific areas of concern: the investigatory methods of the police in such cases; particular problems arising from the delay in the allegations being made; changes to the rules relating to 'bad character' evidence about the complainant (Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 and Sexual Offences Act 2003); and changes to the rules relating to 'bad character' evidence about the defendant in sexual offences cases (Sexual Offences Act 2003). The study considers the available data and the extensive legal, historical and sociological literature concerning child sexual abuse, relevant international and municipal statute and case law and the case papers of some men convicted of historic child sexual abuse who maintain their innocence and volunteered their assistance to this study. It concludes that heightened public concern about child abuse has played a significant role in developments of relevant law and practice which may at times give rise to significant miscarriages of justice; that a long period of delay before charges are brought presents significant evidential challenges to a fair trial; that police methods of 'dip sampling' and interviewing in the investigation of such cases may operate to compromise the reliability of the evidence obtained; that current restrictions on the questioning complainants about their past character and sexual history may hinder the proper testing of prosecution evidence; and that the current rules on the admissibility of evidence about the past character of the defendant may have an unfairly prejudicial effect. Suggestions are offered as to how the current law and practice might be improved to address some of these issues