Key Facts
- •Mother (AZ) applied to reopen a fact-finding judgment concerning sexual abuse allegations against her daughters (ZY and YY).
- •The original judgment found ZY had suffered sexual abuse, with the Mother, EX (father of a third child, ZX), and an unknown individual as potential perpetrators.
- •The Mother presented two grounds for reopening: a newly discovered Snapchat message suggesting a later date for EX's first meeting with ZY and YY, and concerns about the reliability of medical evidence from Nottingham SARC.
- •Concerns arose regarding the reliability of evidence from Nottingham SARC, based on criticisms in other cases reviewed by the court.
- •The court considered several other cases where Dr Gray, an independent expert, criticized SARC findings, highlighting inconsistencies and potential flaws in the SARC process.
Legal Principles
Reopening findings of fact in family cases involves a three-stage test: (1) permission to reconsider; (2) determining the scope of investigation and evidence; (3) the review hearing itself.
Re CTD (A Child: Rehearing) [2020] EWCA Civ 1316; Re J (Children) [2023] EWCA Civ 465
The court must be satisfied that the challenged finding has actual or potential significance; it must make a significant legal or practical difference.
Re E (Children: Reopening Findings of Fact) [2019] EWCA Civ 1447
Solid grounds are needed for believing that earlier findings require revisiting. Reopening is for genuine new information, not re-arguing lost causes or appealing past decisions.
Re W (Children: Reopening: Recusal) [2020] EWCA Civ 1685
Outcomes
The application to reopen the fact-finding judgment was refused.
The court found that the grounds for reopening, as set out in Re CTD and Re E, were not met. The Snapchat message, while potentially altering the timeline of EX's involvement, did not significantly affect the other findings of the original judgment, including the Mother's dishonesty and the finding of sexual abuse. The concerns about the Nottingham SARC, while noted, did not demonstrate systemic failures or impact the overall conclusion. The original judge's findings were considered sound and supported by sufficient evidence.