H-M (Children)

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from the refusal to reopen findings of fact made in family proceedings concerning serious injuries sustained by a one-year-old child. The Family Court had found that either the Appellant mother or KF, her then boyfriend, caused the injuries but could not determine which was responsible. In related criminal proceedings, KF was convicted of causing the injuries, while the mother was acquitted on those counts but convicted of child cruelty for obstructing medical treatment.

The family proceedings began in July 2018 with a three-week hearing in summer 2019 culminating in findings of fact in November 2019. The criminal trial occurred in October 2019. The mother initially applied unsuccessfully to reopen the family findings and subsequently appealed. Her appeal was dismissed in October 2020 by a panel including Baker LJ. She then renewed her application to reopen based on new evidence, which was refused by the Judge in March 2021 following a two-day hearing. The mother was granted permission to appeal that refusal, and the appeal hearing took place in May 2021.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the findings of fact in the family proceedings should be reopened in light of different outcomes in the parallel criminal proceedings.
2. Whether the Judge erred in refusing to draw adverse inferences from KF's refusal to give evidence in the family proceedings.
3. Whether the assessment of KF's evidence in the family proceedings was inadequate.
4. Whether new evidence, including expert evidence and additional material from the criminal trial, justified reopening the family court findings.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The mother argued that the criminal conviction of KF and acquittal of herself created an inconsistency with the family court findings, justifying reopening.
• She contended that the Judge applied an overly stringent legal test and failed to properly evaluate the new evidence from the criminal trial.
• She emphasized that the criminal trial revealed new information, including KF's sexual motivation, unreliability of bite mark evidence, and KF's credibility issues such as deleting phone material.
• The mother asserted that these new materials could fill gaps in the original fact-finding and warranted revisiting the findings.

Respondents' Arguments

• The local authority and KF submitted that the Judge made no error of law or procedure and had the advantage of extensive fact-finding before him.
• They argued that the family court had a wider evidential canvas than the criminal court and had considered the relevant evidence, including expert evidence on odontology and phone material.
• They maintained that the evidence of a sexual element and other matters was no more extensive in the criminal proceedings and that the new evidence did not materially affect the family court findings.
• The Children's Guardian supported the Judge's decision, agreeing that there were no solid grounds for reopening.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully analysed the legal framework governing reopening of fact-finding in family proceedings, emphasizing the requirement for "solid grounds" supported by genuine new evidence that might lead to different findings. It acknowledged the procedural history and the wide evidential material before the family court judge, who conducted a substantial fact-finding hearing and was well placed to assess the evidence's strengths and weaknesses.

The court examined the appellant's reliance on the criminal conviction of KF and the new evidence presented, including expert opinions and KF's testimony. It found that the family court had considered comparable evidence, including expert odontology reports and substantial material about KF's conduct and credibility. Differences in evidential focus and standards between the criminal and family courts were noted as explanations for divergent outcomes.

The Judge's refusal to draw adverse inferences from KF's silence and his measured evaluation of KF's evidence were upheld as within judicial discretion. The purported new evidence was analysed in detail, with the Judge concluding it did not materially alter the evidential picture or justify reopening. The court agreed with this conclusion, emphasizing that the mere existence of inconsistent verdicts or new evidence not materially different from that before the family court does not warrant overturning findings.

The court rejected arguments that the Judge had applied an unduly stringent test or failed to engage with the evidence in sufficient detail, finding his approach careful, well-reasoned, and appropriate for the case's gravity. The appeal was dismissed for failing to demonstrate a material error of law or a conclusion not reasonably open to the Judge.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal against the refusal to reopen findings of fact in the family proceedings.

This decision confirms the high threshold for reopening fact-finding hearings in family cases, particularly where there are parallel criminal proceedings with differing outcomes. It underscores that inconsistent verdicts alone do not justify revisiting family court findings without genuinely new and material evidence. The ruling preserves the finality and integrity of detailed fact-finding judgments and affirms the discretion of family court judges in evaluating evidence and procedural applications. No new precedent was established beyond the reaffirmation of existing legal principles governing reopening applications.