Re T (A Child) [2017]

Key Points:

• Case Background:

◦ The case involved a discussion on the interpretation of the term “molestation” in legal judgments.

• Legal Decision: Sir McFarlane’s Ruling:

▪ Sir McFarlane emphasised that judges should exercise "common sense" when interpreting and applying legal terms such as “molestation.” He advised against overly restrictive definitions that could limit the term’s application.

Impact and Analysis:

• Judicial Approach:

◦ Sir McFarlane's guidance reflects a pragmatic approach to judicial decision-making, advocating for flexibility and practical judgment over rigid interpretations.

• Broader Implications:

◦ This stance encourages judges to consider the broader context and nuances of cases involving terms like “molestation,” ensuring that legal outcomes align with the real-life experiences and impacts on the individuals involved.