R (Children: Findings of Fact), Re
[2024] EWCA Civ 153
A (A Child) (Fact-Finding: Head Injury), Re
12 April 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 327
Court of Appeal
A baby got hurt, and a judge said her parents did it. But a higher court said the judge didn't look at all the evidence properly and made mistakes in their reasoning. They sent the case back to be looked at again because the judge didn't follow the right rules in deciding who might be responsible for the injuries.
Key Facts
- •A, a 2-month-old baby girl, suffered a subdural haematoma.
- •The parents' account of the events leading to the injury was inconsistent and not fully accepted by the court.
- •Medical experts agreed the injury was caused by a traumatic event, but disagreed on the nature of the trauma and the presence of additional injuries.
- •The fact-finding hearing spanned twenty months and involved multiple expert witnesses.
- •The judge found that the injury was abusive and inflicted by one or both parents, but could not determine the perpetrator.
- •The parents appealed the judge's findings.
Legal Principles
Evidence in fact-finding hearings must be considered holistically, not in separate compartments.
Re T (Children) [2004] EWCA Civ 558, paragraph 33
The court, not the expert, weighs expert evidence against other findings.
A County Council v K D & L [2005] EWHC 144 (Fam), paragraphs 39 & 49
When identifying a perpetrator, consider each individual separately to determine if they are the perpetrator on the balance of probabilities. Only if this fails, consider if there's a likelihood they were a perpetrator.
Re B (Children: Uncertain Perpetrator) [2019] EWCA Civ 575, paragraph 49; Re A (Children) (Pool of Perpetrators) [2022] EWCA Civ 1348, paragraph 43
Clarification of judgments should follow established principles, potentially in a separate document.
Re YM (Care Proceedings) (Clarification of Reasons) [2024] EWCA Civ 71
In cases involving improbable scenarios, the court must consider all realistic possibilities, even if not raised by parties, aiming for minimal family life interference.
R v Harris and Others [2005] EWCA Crim 1980 and R v Henderson [2010] EWCA Crim 1269
Outcomes
Both appeals were allowed.
The judge's reasoning contained significant flaws, including a linear approach to the evidence, insufficient consideration of the totality of evidence, unsatisfactory treatment of accidental injury, flawed treatment of timing, and an incorrect approach to identifying the perpetrator.
The proceedings were remitted to the Family Presiding Judge for the Western Circuit.
The Court of Appeal could not reach a conclusion on whether the local authority's case was proved without transcripts, and a rehearing was deemed necessary to address the judge's errors.