M (Children), Re

M (Children), Re

The trial judge failed to adequately explain how she moved from acceptance of unexplained injuries to a finding of non-accidental injury, given the expert evidence that the injuries were medically inexplicable; this omission vitiates her findings and requires a retrial.

Parties
Appellant: Father; Appellant: Mother; Respondent: Local Authority; Interested Party: Children's Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Non Accidental Injury, Fact Finding, Expert Evidence, Burden of Proof
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Non Accidental Injury Fact Finding Expert Evidence Burden of Proof

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Father

Appellant

Mother

Appellant

Local Authority

Respondent

Children's Guardian

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in finding non-accidental injury despite unexplained medical evidence
  2. 2 Whether the judge properly addressed the possibility of unknown medical causes
  3. 3 Whether the judge's reasoning was sufficient given the expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge failed to adequately explain how she moved from acceptance of unexplained injuries to a finding of non-accidental injury, given the expert evidence that the injuries were medically inexplicable; this omission vitiates her findings and requires a retrial.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • judgment set aside
  • case remitted for retrial before a Family Division judge