BALANCE NEEDED Following the collapse of another case of alleged child abuse, I noted with interest the comments of Stephen Pollard of Kingsley Napley solicitors, who represented the defendant, David Jones (see [2000] Gazette, 15 December, 5).

Mr Pollard is reported to have called for 'proper rigour in the process to ensure that only those against whom there is really strong evidence are charged in the first place'.I was recently involved with a case in which a defendant videoed his rape of the child victim.

However, it was decided that there was insufficient evidence to lay a charge of rape or attempted rape, partly because it was thought that the child, who was of low intelligence, would make a poor witness.While I accept that the charges in Mr Jones's case were rightly thrown out, it seems to me that this is an area where the law needs to reconcile the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty with the obligation to see that justice is done.

Adults who do abuse children generally employ manipulative and insidious methods to ensure that the abuse takes place in secret, and remains secret.Whether such an abuser is tried on the basis of a child's evidence or on the basis of an adult's recollection of childhood abuse, the balance of power in the legal arena is likely to replicate that of the original abuse.In the interests of justice, perhaps we should be calling for the law to redress this imbalance, rather than calling for the existing evidentiary requirements to reduce the number charges of child abuse brought in the first place.Carolyn McKee, solicitor, Oxford