A-H (Children)

A-H (Children)

The absence of the Royal College guidance at trial did not render the process unfair or affect the outcome, as the paediatrician's oral evidence addressed the key issues, and the appellant had the opportunity to obtain the guidance. The trial judge's findings were justified and the appeal is dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: First Appellant father; Appellant: Second Appellant mother; Respondent: First Respondent local authority; Respondent: The remaining respondents
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Abuse Allegations, Expert Medical Evidence, Appeal Procedure
Family Law Child Protection Sexual Abuse Allegations Expert Medical Evidence Appeal Procedure

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First Appellant father

Appellant

Second Appellant mother

Appellant

First Respondent local authority

Respondent

The remaining respondents

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in relying on the paediatrician's report and oral evidence regarding absence of physical signs of sexual abuse
  2. 2 Whether the absence of the Royal College guidance at trial rendered the process unfair
  3. 3 Whether the findings of fact regarding sexual abuse should be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

The absence of the Royal College guidance at trial did not render the process unfair or affect the outcome, as the paediatrician's oral evidence addressed the key issues, and the appellant had the opportunity to obtain the guidance. The trial judge's findings were justified and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed