H (Children)

H (Children)

The judge's decision to adjourn care proceedings until after the criminal trial was not plainly wrong given the exceptional vulnerability of the child witnesses and the risk of significant harm if required to give evidence twice. The refusal to allow cross-examination at this stage was premature and should be reconsidered after the criminal trial when circumstances may have changed.

Parties
Intervenor/appellant (b4/2006/2238) and Respondent (b4/2006/2344): Mr P; Appellant (b4/2006/2344) and Respondent (b4/2006/2238): Guardian; Local Authority: Kent County Council; Mother: Mother; Father: Father
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (children) / Appeal From Medway County Court Orders Regarding Evidence and Adjournment
Outcome
Appeal of the guardian dismissed; appeal of Mr P allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Adjournment for Criminal Trial, Vulnerable Witnesses, Cross Examination, Hearsay Evidence
Family Law Criminal Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Adjournment for Criminal Trial Vulnerable Witnesses Cross Examination Hearsay Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr P

Intervenor/appellant (b4/2006/2238) and Respondent (b4/2006/2344)

Guardian

Appellant (b4/2006/2344) and Respondent (b4/2006/2238)

Kent County Council

Local Authority

Mother

Mother

Father

Father

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (children) / Appeal From Medway County Court Orders Regarding Evidence and Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was oppressive to require vulnerable child witnesses to give oral evidence and be cross-examined in care proceedings prior to the criminal trial
  2. 2 Whether care proceedings should be adjourned pending the outcome of related criminal proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in refusing cross-examination of certain witnesses

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's decision to adjourn care proceedings until after the criminal trial was not plainly wrong given the exceptional vulnerability of the child witnesses and the risk of significant harm if required to give evidence twice. The refusal to allow cross-examination at this stage was premature and should be reconsidered after the criminal trial when circumstances may have changed.

Court Disposition

Appeal of the guardian dismissed; appeal of Mr P allowed in part.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the judge’s order of 13 October 2006 set aside (refusal of cross-examination and admission of hearsay evidence).
  • Care proceedings to follow the criminal trial; issue of cross-examination to be reconsidered after the criminal trial.