We argue that the laws of probability promote coherent fact-finding and avoid potentially unjust logical contradictions. But we do not argue that a probabilistic Bayesian approach is sufficient or even necessary for good fact-finding. First, we explain the use of probability reasoning in Re D (A Child) [2014] EWHC 121 (Fam) and Re L (A Child) [2017] EWHC 3707 (Fam). Then we criticise the attack on this probabilistic reasoning found in Re A (Children) [2018] EWCA Civ 1718, which is the appeal decision on Re L. We conclude that the attack is unjustified and that the probability statements in the two cases were both valid and useful. We also use probabilistic reasoning to enlighten legal principles related to inherent probability, the Binary Method and the blue bus paradox.

中文翻译：

---

司法实况中的概率推理

我们认为概率定律促进了连贯的事实发现并避免了潜在的不公正的逻辑矛盾。但我们并不认为概率贝叶斯方法对于良好的事实调查是足够的，甚至是必要的。首先，我们解释了 Re D (A Child) [2014] EWHC 121 (Fam) 和 Re L (A Child) [2017] EWHC 3707 (Fam) 中概率推理的使用。然后我们批评对 Re A (Children) [2018] EWCA Civ 1718 中发现的这种概率推理的攻击，这是对 Re L 的上诉决定。我们得出结论，攻击是不合理的，并且两个案例中的概率陈述都是有效且有用。我们还使用概率推理来启发与固有概率、二元法和蓝色巴士悖论相关的法律原则。