A v B (Appeal: Domestic Abuse)
[2023] EWHC 1499 (Fam)
IJ v KL
10 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 3335 (Fam)
High Court
A dad appealed a court decision saying he was abusive to his wife and kids. The judge who heard the case had lots of evidence, and a higher court said the judge made a fair decision, so the dad's appeal was rejected.
Key Facts
- •The appellant (father) appeals findings of fact made by HHJ Gibbons in private law proceedings concerning the parties' two sons.
- •The fact-finding hearing lasted 11 days and involved allegations of domestic abuse, including marital rape.
- •The father made numerous requests for clarification (65 points) of the judgment.
- •The appeal concerns three grounds: procedural irregularity, findings contrary to the weight of evidence, and defective decision-making process.
- •The judge found the father had engaged in controlling behaviour towards the mother and that some allegations of physical abuse against the children were proven.
Legal Principles
Appeals to the Family Division are reviews, not rehearings. The court only allows appeals if a decision was wrong or unjust due to procedural or other irregularity.
Re A and R (Children) [2018] EWHC 2771 (Fam)
Appellate courts should be slow to interfere with findings of fact and only do so if the decision is plainly wrong or the decision-making process was plainly defective.
AA v NA (appeal: fact-finding) [2010] 2 FLR 1173
In domestic abuse cases, the court should focus on identifying patterns of behaviour, not just isolated incidents.
Re H-N and Others (children) [2021] EWCA Civ 448
Permission to appeal will only be granted if the appeal has a real prospect of success or there is some other compelling reason.
Part 30 FPR 2010, r.30.3(7)
Appellate courts should avoid narrow textual analysis of judgments unless there is a compelling reason.
Gabriele Volpi & Delta Ltd v Matteo Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464
The Lucas direction must be tailored to the facts and circumstances of each witness.
A, B and C (Children) [2021] EWCA 451
Outcomes
Permission to appeal refused on all grounds.
The judge's approach was in line with developing jurisprudence; the father's challenges lacked merit and did not demonstrate a real prospect of success.
Ground 1 (procedural irregularity) rejected.
The judge's approach to the evidence was not wrong and the father had a fair opportunity to present his case.
Ground 2 (findings contrary to the weight of evidence) rejected.
The judge carefully considered the evidence and her findings were reasonable and supported by evidence; the criticisms of the Lucas direction were unfounded.
Ground 3 (defective decision-making process) rejected.
The judge's decision-making process was not plainly defective, and her findings were those a reasonable judge could have reached.