A (A Child) (Fact-Finding: Head Injury), Re
[2024] EWCA Civ 327
R (Children: Findings of Fact), Re
22 February 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 153
Court of Appeal
A baby got hurt. The judge said someone in the family shook the baby but couldn't say who. The family said the baby fell. A higher court said the judge didn't properly look at the evidence, so they threw out the judge's decision. Now we still don't know what happened to the baby.
Key Facts
- •8-month-old C suffered a serious head injury at home in the presence of six female maternal relatives.
- •The judge found the injury was inflicted by shaking but the perpetrator could not be identified.
- •The mother appealed, supported by the father and other family members.
- •The family's account described C falling from a low height.
- •Medical evidence suggested the injuries were more likely caused by shaking than a fall, but wasn't conclusive.
- •The judge found the family's accounts unreliable but did not find evidence of collusion to cover up the incident.
Legal Principles
Appeal courts must show high caution when disturbing considered findings of fact.
Re T (Fact-Finding: Second Appeal) [2023] EWCA Civ 475 at [56-57], Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5 at [114] and Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464 at [2]
In care proceedings, the inherent improbability of an event is irrelevant once the event is established; the balance of probabilities test applies.
Re B [2008] (House of Lords)
The court must thoroughly evaluate the cases presented by all parties, including assessing the credibility of witnesses and providing clear reasons for rejecting their accounts.
This case
A finding of collusion is not a 'bolt-on' to a finding of inflicted injury but a natural inference from the evidence, particularly where a cover-up is implicated.
This case
A Lucas direction is only applicable after the court has found that a witness has lied.
R v Lucas [1981] QB 720
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The judge's reasoning did not sustain his conclusions because he did not adequately evaluate the evidence for and against the local authority's case, nor did he meaningfully synthesize an assessment of the probabilities. He failed to explain why he disbelieved the family's account of a fall, and the finding of inflicted injury without a finding of collusion was incoherent.
The findings of fact were set aside.
The judge's assessment of the family's evidence was flawed and insufficient to justify his conclusions. The court concluded the lack of explanation for the disbelieved family account and the inconsistent handling of the collusion allegation amounted to legal error.
The supervision orders were discharged.
The underlying proceedings were concluded and the children were at home under a supervision order. The local authority chose not to seek a retrial.
The local authority was granted permission to withdraw its application for public law orders.
The local authority proposed to work with the family under a Child in Need plan.