IJ v KL
[2023] EWHC 3335 (Fam)
A v B (Appeal: Domestic Abuse)
20 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1499 (Fam)
High Court
A wife accused her husband of years of sexual abuse within their arranged marriage. The judge didn't believe her because she didn't fight back or tell anyone. The appeal court agreed, even though they had some concerns about how the judge explained his decision. They decided the judge was mostly right.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against factual determinations in private law Children Act proceedings concerning allegations of domestic abuse by the respondent father against the appellant mother.
- •Allegations included sexual, physical, psychological, and emotional abuse, and physical abuse of the child.
- •The judge found none of the allegations proved.
- •The appeal focused primarily on allegations of sexual abuse.
- •The appellant argued the judge applied rape myths and a higher standard of proof than appropriate.
- •The judge considered the appellant's education, profession, and cultural context but found her allegations improbable due to a lack of resistance and reporting.
Legal Principles
An appeal may be allowed where the decision was wrong or unjust due to serious procedural irregularity.
FPR 30.12(3)
Appellate courts should be slow to interfere with findings of fact unless the decision is one that no reasonable judge could have reached.
G v G (Minors: Custody Appeal) [1985] FLR 894, Fage UK Ltd & Anor v Chobani UK Ltd & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 5, Volpi and ors v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464
Domestic abuse includes any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, or threatening behaviour, violence, or abuse between intimate partners or family members.
PD12J of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, para 3
In considering allegations of domestic abuse, courts should consider the behavior of the parties and what they did to each other, rather than whether that behavior constitutes a specific crime.
Re H-N and Others (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448
Outcomes
Permission to appeal refused on Ground 7 (vulnerability and isolation).
The judge considered the appellant's vulnerability but found she was not particularly vulnerable due to her circumstances and connections in England.
Appeal dismissed in relation to Grounds 1 and 3 (rape myths and higher standard of proof).
While the judge's reasoning on certain points was questionable (e.g., inherent improbability of silent submission), his overall findings were supported by the evidence and were not rationally unsupportable.