Defence in Child Sexual Abuse Investigations

By Dr. Julius Hagen, Attorney at Law

Defence Against Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse

Proceedings involving child sexual abuse are often not based on a single piece of objective evidence, but rather on a child’s statements - including how they were formed, relayed, and subsequently reinforced.

Those who react without preparation can quickly find themselves caught up in proceedings where initial assumptions take hold long before the evidence has been thoroughly and legally examined.

Circumstances Surrounding a Child’s Statement Are Important

In proceedings involving allegations of child sexual abuse, much depends on how a statement was first made. It is relevant whether a statement was made spontaneously, in what context it was made, who asked about it, and how the content was subsequently relayed. Especially in family, school, or care-related contexts, a suspicion can solidify early on, even though the criminal validity of the allegation is still open.

Suspicions Become an Incriminating Procedural Framework

Often, it is not a single piece of conclusive evidence that shapes the proceedings, but rather an early commitment to a specific interpretation. An initial report, a conversation within the family, or a report to child protective services, a school, a counseling center, or the police can lead to subsequent information being interpreted solely through the lens of that initial assumption.

What the Allegation Specifically Relies On

In these proceedings, it is not sufficient for a serious suspicion to exist. What is decisive is which specific act is alleged, how it is described, and on what this description is based. It is therefore important to examine early on whether the allegation is based on an independent account by the child, on third-party reports, or on an interpretation that was solidified later.

Particularly in cases involving long time periods, family-related circumstances, or multiple consecutive conversations, a clear distinction must be made between what is supposed to be direct perception and what is a later interpretation.

The Legal Implications of Early Investigative Measures

House searches, seizures, interrogations, or restrictions on contact do not mean that the allegation has already been proven. Initially, they merely indicate that the investigative authorities wish to substantiate their suspicions. Whether the allegation is valid depends on whether the statement, the development of the statement, and other findings together provide a reliable basis.

Why hasty statements always do more harm than good

Many defendants want to clear the allegation immediately. This is understandable, but often risky. Anyone who explains how a situation “really” was without having reviewed the case file often knows neither the exact account nor the course of previous statements nor the accompanying circumstances already documented. Particularly in proceedings where much hinges on the initial formation of testimony and the subsequent evaluation of evidence, hasty statements can unnecessarily limit the defence’s options.