Factual and Procedural Background
These linked appeals arise from care proceedings under Part IV of the Children Act 1989 concerning two children, J and H, aged 2 and 8 respectively, who are the children of the First Appellant (the mother) and the Second Appellant (the father). The children are in the interim care of the First Respondent local authority and placed with a member of the mother's family. The appeals challenge findings of fact made by HHJ Marin at the Central Family Court following an extensive fact-finding hearing and concern allegations of serious non-accidental injuries sustained by J when he was aged 8-10 months.
The care proceedings have been delayed, now in their 80th week, with ongoing independent assessments of the parents and others. A final welfare hearing is scheduled for 31 March 2025. The appeals were brought with permission granted by Baker LJ.
The background facts, largely uncontested in their characterisation, include a history of injuries to J beginning on 24 April 2023 when he sustained a subgaleal haemorrhage (SGH) while in the mother’s care. Subsequent incidents of injury and medical consultations occurred through to 5 June 2023, including hospital admissions, medical examinations, and police involvement leading to the initiation of care proceedings. The fact-finding hearing lasted eleven court days, considering extensive documentary, photographic, and expert evidence from multiple medical specialists. The parents were represented by leading and junior counsel, and the judge reserved judgment after hearing all evidence.
Legal Issues Presented
The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion contains detailed accounts of the appellants' grounds of appeal, which focus on alleged errors by the judge in fact-finding and credibility assessments. These grounds include challenges to the judge's interpretation of photographic evidence, evaluation of medical and lay evidence, assessment of the parents' credibility, application of the burden and standard of proof, and the sufficiency of evidence regarding the father's knowledge of the mother's culpability.
Appellants' Arguments
- The judge unfairly relied on photographic evidence of linear grazes on J’s head without prior notice or opportunity for the mother to respond, undermining the finding that the injury on 24 April 2023 was inflicted.
- The judge failed to apply appropriate forensic diligence to post-24 April events, particularly regarding the possibility that subsequent injuries could be explained by the vulnerability of the tissue following the initial SGH and normal handling.
- The judge lacked sufficient evidential basis to find that the father knew the mother had inflicted injuries on J.
- Additional grounds included alleged errors in rejecting the mother's accounts, reversing the burden of proof, applying an unreasonably high standard to the mother's credibility, insufficient analysis of medical evidence, and failure to properly weigh positive aspects of the parents’ case.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Lucas [1981] 1 QB 720 |
Direction on assessing witness credibility and lying |
The judge applied a clear self-direction on credibility, considering reasons for the parents' dishonesty and making adverse findings accordingly. |
| Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33 |
Standard of appellate review of primary fact findings |
Counsel acknowledged the uphill challenge to overturn the trial judge’s findings; the court applied the principle of deference to the trial judge’s unique position. |
| Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5 |
Appellate approach to factual findings and evidence evaluation |
Referenced to underscore the difficulty of disturbing trial judge’s fact findings and evidential assessments. |
| Volpi & Anor v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464 |
Appellate review of factual and evidential determinations |
Referenced in support of the principle that appellate courts rarely interfere with primary fact findings. |
| Re A (No.2) [2019] EWCA Civ 1947 |
Fairness in fact-finding: requirement to give parties opportunity to respond to adverse findings |
The court considered whether the judge made findings on evidence not sufficiently aired; found limited unfairness but not undermining the overall conclusion. |
| Chen v Ng [2017] UKPC 27 |
Limits on requirement to put every point to a witness in cross-examination |
The court accepted that not every point must be put to a witness and that judges may rely on points not explicitly challenged if appropriate. |
| Re M (Fact Finding: Burden of Proof) [2012] EWCA Civ 1580 |
Correct application of burden and standard of proof in fact-finding hearings |
The judge gave himself unchallengeable legal directions on burden and standard of proof, properly applying them in the case. |
| Gestmin v Credit Suisse [2015] EWHC 3560 |
Assessment of witness credibility and evidence reliability |
Referenced to support the judge’s approach to evaluating the mother’s credibility and inconsistencies. |
| Lancashire County Council v The Children [2014] EWFC 3 |
Credibility and fact-finding in family proceedings |
Used to support the judge’s assessment of the mother’s evidence and the drawing of inferences. |
| London Borough of Southwark v A Family [2020] EWHC 3117 (Fam) |
Role of judge in fact-finding and assessment of evidence |
Quoted to highlight that fact-finding is not driven exclusively by reasoning but also by assessment of witness demeanour and credibility. |
| A County Council v K D & L [2005] EWHC 144 |
Distinction between expert evidence and judicial fact-finding |
The judge weighed expert evidence against other evidence in the case to reach ultimate factual conclusions. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court undertook a meticulous review of the trial judge’s judgment, which was described as thorough and well-structured. The judge considered the medical evidence in detail, noting its unusual nature and the existence of multiple possible explanations for the injuries, including accidental and non-accidental causes.
The judge gave special regard to the credibility and consistency of the parents’ accounts, finding the mother’s explanations of key events riddled with contradictions and serious deficits that could not be attributed to nerves or dyslexia. The father’s evidence was also found wanting, particularly his lack of inquiry into the injuries and his controlling and angry behaviour.
The judge acknowledged positive aspects of the parents’ conduct but found these outweighed by concerning behaviour, including failure to follow medical advice and leaving hospital against medical advice. The judge concluded that the injuries were deliberately inflicted, identifying the mother as the likely perpetrator based on her being the sole carer at the relevant times and her dishonesty.
On appeal, the court addressed the appellants’ arguments, notably the contention that the judge unfairly relied on photographic evidence of grazes without affording the mother an opportunity to respond. While acknowledging a procedural unfairness in this narrow respect, the court concluded this did not undermine the overall findings, which were supported by multiple other significant and independent factors.
The court also rejected submissions that the judge failed to properly consider the vulnerability of J’s injury site to re-injury or that the judge erred in assessing the father’s knowledge of the mother’s culpability. The judge’s findings were upheld as supported by the evidence and consistent with proper legal standards, including the correct application of the burden and standard of proof.
The court emphasized the trial judge’s unique position to assess credibility and demeanour, noting that appellate interference with primary fact findings is rare and not warranted here. The judgment was found to be well-reasoned, balanced, and supported by the evidence in its entirety.
Holding and Implications
The appeals are DISMISSED.
The direct consequence of this decision is that the trial judge’s findings of fact, including the conclusion that the child sustained multiple serious non-accidental injuries inflicted by the mother, stand. The parents’ appeals against these findings have not succeeded, and the ongoing care proceedings will proceed on that basis. No new legal precedent has been established by this decision; it affirms established principles regarding appellate review of fact-finding and credibility assessments in family proceedings.