A (A Boy), Re

A (A Boy), Re

The court ruled that transcripts from the previous hearing and relevant WhatsApp evidence are admissible, subject to strict relevance and proportionality controls. The Father’s statement must be redrafted to remove irrelevant, prejudicial, and excessive material. Cross-examination on sexual history is permitted only insofar as it contextualises the allegations of sexual violence and coercive control, not to explore general sexual history. Breach proceedings are to be separated from the fact-finding hearing on sexual violence and coercive control.

Parties
Applicant: Father; 1st Respondent: Mother; 2nd Respondent: A (a boy)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Family Law Children Act 1989 / Ground Rules Hearing (pre Retrial of Fact Finding Hearing)
Outcome
Interlocutory orders made; directions for evidence and case management issued.
Legal Topics
Fact Finding Hearing, Evidence Admissibility, Coercive and Controlling Behaviour, Sexual Violence Allegations, Case Management, Cross Examination, Witness Statements
Family Law Child Law Fact Finding Hearing Evidence Admissibility Coercive and Controlling Behaviour Sexual Violence Allegations Case Management Cross Examination +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Father

Applicant

Mother

1st Respondent

A (a boy)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Children Act 1989 / Ground Rules Hearing (pre Retrial of Fact Finding Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of transcripts from previous hearing
  2. 2 Inclusion and scope of WhatsApp evidence
  3. 3 Permissibility and scope of cross-examination regarding sexual history

Ratio Decidendi

The court ruled that transcripts from the previous hearing and relevant WhatsApp evidence are admissible, subject to strict relevance and proportionality controls. The Father’s statement must be redrafted to remove irrelevant, prejudicial, and excessive material. Cross-examination on sexual history is permitted only insofar as it contextualises the allegations of sexual violence and coercive control, not to explore general sexual history. Breach proceedings are to be separated from the fact-finding hearing on sexual violence and coercive control.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders made; directions for evidence and case management issued.

Orders

  • Mother to have benefit of an intermediary at the fact-finding hearing.
  • Core bundle to be reduced and locked 7 days pre-trial; extraneous documents including previous judgment to be removed.