A Local Authority v SH & Ors

A Local Authority v SH & Ors

The Local Authority failed to discharge the burden of proof to the civil standard that M's injuries were inflicted by a parent. The evidence established two plausible hypotheses—non-accidental injury and accidental fall with arachnoid cyst rupture—neither of which could be preferred on the balance of probabilities. The parents' account was consistent, supported by contemporaneous evidence, and there were no other features typical of abusive head trauma. Accordingly, the threshold criteria under s.31 Children Act 1989 were not met.

Parties
Applicant: A Local Authority; 1st Respondent: SH; 2nd Respondent: SB; 3rd Respondent: M (the child, through Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (children Act 1989) / Fact Finding Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; threshold not met
Legal Topics
Non Accidental Injury, Burden of Proof, Expert Evidence, Threshold Criteria, Children Act 1989 S.31
Family Law Child Protection Non Accidental Injury Burden of Proof Expert Evidence Threshold Criteria Children Act 1989 S.31

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Local Authority

Applicant

SH

1st Respondent

SB

2nd Respondent

M (the child, through Guardian)

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (children Act 1989) / Fact Finding Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injuries suffered by M were caused by non-accidental injury (NAI)/abusive head trauma (AHT) or by accidental fall and rupture of an arachnoid cyst
  2. 2 Whether the Local Authority has discharged the burden of proof to the civil standard that the injuries were inflicted by a parent

Ratio Decidendi

The Local Authority failed to discharge the burden of proof to the civil standard that M's injuries were inflicted by a parent. The evidence established two plausible hypotheses—non-accidental injury and accidental fall with arachnoid cyst rupture—neither of which could be preferred on the balance of probabilities. The parents' account was consistent, supported by contemporaneous evidence, and there were no other features typical of abusive head trauma. Accordingly, the threshold criteria under s.31 Children Act 1989 were not met.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; threshold not met

Orders

  • No findings of non-accidental injury made against the parents
  • No public law orders to be made; proceedings concluded