Factual and Procedural Background
This case involves an application by a father (F) seeking contact with his two children, aged 6 and 3. The application was initially filed in October 2017. The Court of Appeal reviewed and overturned a case management decision made by HHJ Jacklin QC concerning the admissibility of similar fact evidence in civil and family proceedings. The case was transferred to the High Court for a fact-finding hearing to be conducted under clarified guidance. The procedural history is described as extremely difficult, with the case having been heard by sixteen judges and involving multiple hearings and voluminous documentation. Both parents have at times been unrepresented, and the fact-finding hearing had been listed on seven occasions before being concluded by Mr Justice Hayden.
The mother (M) was provided with an intermediary during the hearing due to cognitive difficulties affecting her verbal comprehension and reasoned decision-making. A non-molestation order against F, based on allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour, was granted and remains in effect.
The evidence considered two distinct family units involving F, with the Court of Appeal having found the exclusion of similar fact evidence relating to the second relationship to be incorrect. The combined consideration of both relationships illuminated a pattern of coercive, domineering, and tyrannical behaviour by F.
Legal Issues Presented
- What is the correct approach to the admissibility of similar fact evidence in family proceedings?
- Whether the evidence of coercive and controlling behaviour by F towards the mother and children in two separate relationships is proven on the balance of probabilities.
- How to evaluate allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour within the framework of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 PD12J and Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015.
- The appropriate method for assessing complex patterns of domestic abuse in family law cases, including the utility of Scott Schedules.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The father’s representative accepted that the entirety of the evidence filed was relevant and admissible.
- It was submitted that the court should identify and assess the alleged coercive and controlling behaviour as a pattern or series of acts rather than isolated incidents.
- It was argued that the court should balance the distinguishing factors that make the behaviour specifically coercive and controlling before weighing the evidence.
- The father denied the allegations of rape and coercive control, contending they were fabricated or malicious.
Respondent's Arguments
- This information was not available in the provided opinion.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] UKHL 26; [2005] 2 AC 534 |
Admissibility of similar fact evidence in civil cases; relevance and probative value; balancing justice and fairness. |
The Court of Appeal's analysis in O'Brien was applied to family proceedings, affirming that evidence is admissible if relevant and in the interests of justice, considering potential prejudice and burden. |
| Director of Public Prosecutions v Kilbourne [1973] AC 729 |
Definition of relevant evidence as logically probative or disprobative of a matter requiring proof. |
Referenced in O'Brien for the principle of relevance guiding admissibility of evidence. |
| Re BR (Proof of Facts) [2015] EWFC 41 |
General approach to evaluating evidence in fact-finding hearings. |
Supported the court’s approach of evaluating separate strands of evidence in the context of the whole. |
| Devon County Council v EB and Others [2013] EWHC 968 |
Assessment of evidence in family law proceedings. |
Endorsed the method of considering individual evidential features within the wider evidential canvas. |
| A County Council v LW & Anor [2020] EWCOP 50 |
Identification and evaluation of coercive and controlling behaviour in vulnerable adults. |
Provided guidance on the nature of coercive control relevant to the case’s findings on domestic abuse. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court undertook a detailed fact-finding exercise, applying legal principles from leading authorities on similar fact evidence and coercive control. The Court of Appeal’s guidance in O'Brien was adopted, requiring a two-stage test for admissibility: first, relevance and probative value; second, whether it is in the interests of justice to admit the evidence, balancing potential prejudice, burden, and fairness.
The court accepted the relevance and admissibility of evidence relating to two separate relationships involving F, considering the combined evidence illuminated a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour. This pattern was found to be consistent and indicative of the true nature of F’s conduct.
The court examined the statutory and procedural definitions of coercive and controlling behaviour under the Family Procedure Rules 2010 PD12J and Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. It emphasized the importance of evaluating behaviour as a pattern over time rather than isolated incidents, recognizing the insidious and complex nature of this form of domestic abuse.
In assessing the evidence, the court noted the significant challenges faced by professionals in identifying such abuse, including cultural sensitivities and the manipulative tactics employed by F, such as false allegations and controlling communication. The court found F to be an unreliable and manipulative witness, while the evidence from M, her family, and other witnesses was credible and consistent.
The court further considered the limitations of formal tools such as Scott Schedules in capturing the nuances of coercive and controlling behaviour, cautioning against overly formulaic approaches that may obscure the broader pattern of abuse.
Holding and Implications
The court found that the father (F) engaged in a sustained pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour towards the mother (M) and children in two separate relationships. The evidence was accepted on the balance of probabilities as demonstrating emotional, psychological, financial, and sexual abuse, as well as controlling conduct that severely restricted the autonomy and wellbeing of the victims.
The court concluded that F poses a significant risk of harm to vulnerable women and children, highlighting the seriousness of coercive control as a form of domestic abuse requiring greater professional awareness and forensic scrutiny.
The decision directly impacts the parties by supporting the continuation of protective measures such as non-molestation orders and informs future case management in similar complex family law proceedings. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application and reinforcement of existing principles regarding similar fact evidence and coercive control.