  While statisticians and quantitative social scientists typically study the
"effects of causes" (EoC), Lawyers and the Courts are more concerned with
understanding the "causes of effects" (CoE). EoC can be addressed using
experimental design and statistical analysis, but it is less clear how to
incorporate statistical or epidemiological evidence into CoE reasoning, as
might be required for a case at Law. Some form of counterfactual reasoning,
such as the "potential outcomes" approach championed by Rubin, appears
unavoidable, but this typically yields "answers" that are sensitive to
arbitrary and untestable assumptions. We must therefore recognise that a CoE
question simply might not have a well-determined answer. It is nevertheless
possible to use statistical data to set bounds within which any answer must
lie. With less than perfect data these bounds will themselves be uncertain,
leading to a compounding of different kinds of uncertainty. Still further care
is required in the presence of possible confounding factors. In addition, even
identifying the relevant "counterfactual contrast" may be a matter of Policy as
much as of Science. Defining the question is as non-trivial a task as finding a
route towards an answer. This paper develops some technical elaborations of
these philosophical points, and illustrates them with an analysis of a case
study in child protection.
  Keywords: benfluorex, causes of effects, counterfactual, child protection,
effects of causes, Fre'chet bound, potential outcome, probability of causation
