A Mother v A Father & Ors

A Mother v A Father & Ors

The judge erred in terminating the risk assessment and ordering disclosure without sufficient investigation into the risks of serious harm to the mother, sister, and aunt. The balancing exercise was flawed as the judge discounted expert evidence, failed to consider the Article 2 and 3 rights of all affected, and did not ensure all relevant evidence was before the court. The appeal was allowed, the disclosure order set aside, and a full risk assessment directed.

Parties
Appellant: A Mother; First Respondent: A Father; Second Respondent: A Local Authority; Third Respondent: ‘A’ A Child, by her Children’s Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal (care Proceedings) / Appeal From High Court (family Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Evidence, Non Disclosure Orders, Article 2 ECHR, Article 3 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Care Proceedings, Risk Assessment, Domestic Violence, Cultural Issues in Family Law
Family Law Human Rights Disclosure of Evidence Non Disclosure Orders Article 2 ECHR Article 3 ECHR Article 6 ECHR Article 8 ECHR +4 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Mother

Appellant

A Father

First Respondent

A Local Authority

Second Respondent

‘A’ A Child, by her Children’s Guardian

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (care Proceedings) / Appeal From High Court (family Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court judge erred in directing disclosure of highly sensitive evidence to the father without completion of a professional risk assessment.
  2. 2 Whether the rights under Articles 2, 3, and 8 ECHR of the mother, sister, and aunt were adequately considered.
  3. 3 Whether the balancing exercise between disclosure for a fair trial and protection from harm was properly conducted.

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in terminating the risk assessment and ordering disclosure without sufficient investigation into the risks of serious harm to the mother, sister, and aunt. The balancing exercise was flawed as the judge discounted expert evidence, failed to consider the Article 2 and 3 rights of all affected, and did not ensure all relevant evidence was before the court. The appeal was allowed, the disclosure order set aside, and a full risk assessment directed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the High Court order dated 3 July 2009 set aside.
  • Direction that Mrs Hossain be authorised to interview all relevant family members and complete her risk assessment.