W (Appeal: Fact-Finding), Re

W (Appeal: Fact-Finding), Re

The appeal was dismissed because, despite a procedural unfairness in the judge's reliance on photographic evidence not tested in cross-examination, the judge's findings on non-accidental injury, the mother's responsibility, and the father's knowledge were amply supported by the totality of the evidence, including the parents' credibility, inconsistencies, and failure to act in the child's best interests. The procedural error did not vitiate the overall findings.

Parties
First Appellant (mother): CW; Second Appellant (father): DW; First Respondent (local Authority): Royal Borough of Greenwich; Second & Third Respondents (the Children): HW and JW (by their Children’s Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family/care Proceedings) / Appeal Judgment (fact Finding)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fact Finding Hearing, Non Accidental Injury, Care Proceedings, Children Act 1989, Standard of Proof, Credibility Assessment, Medical Evidence in Child Protection
Family Law Child Protection Fact Finding Hearing Non Accidental Injury Care Proceedings Children Act 1989 Standard of Proof Credibility Assessment +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CW

First Appellant (mother)

DW

Second Appellant (father)

Royal Borough of Greenwich

First Respondent (local Authority)

HW and JW (by their Children’s Guardian)

Second & Third Respondents (the Children)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family/care Proceedings) / Appeal Judgment (fact Finding)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in fact-finding regarding non-accidental injuries to a child
  2. 2 Whether the judge's reliance on photographic evidence was procedurally unfair
  3. 3 Whether the judge properly assessed the credibility of the parents

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because, despite a procedural unfairness in the judge's reliance on photographic evidence not tested in cross-examination, the judge's findings on non-accidental injury, the mother's responsibility, and the father's knowledge were amply supported by the totality of the evidence, including the parents' credibility, inconsistencies, and failure to act in the child's best interests. The procedural error did not vitiate the overall findings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; findings of fact by the trial judge stand; care proceedings to continue as scheduled.