Gloucestershire County Council v JD & Ors

Gloucestershire County Council v JD & Ors

The court could not, on the balance of probabilities, identify either JD or JL as the perpetrator of B's injuries in August 2016. Both remain in the pool of possible perpetrators as there is a real possibility that either might have inflicted the injuries. The Local Authority did not discharge the burden of proof to...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Gloucestershire County Council; 1st Respondent: JD; 2nd Respondent: AC; 3rd Respondent: JL; 4th Respondent: The Children (represented by Guardian Liz Cowan)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (children Act 1989) / Fact Finding Rehearing Following Setting Aside of Previous Findings
Outcome
Neither JD nor JL identified as perpetrator on balance of probabilities; both remain in the pool of possible perpetrators.
Legal Topics
Non Accidental Injury, Care Orders, Threshold Criteria, Burden and Standard of Proof, Reopening Findings, Article 6 ECHR (fair Hearing), Identification of Perpetrator, Pool of Possible Perpetrators
Family Law Child Protection Non Accidental Injury Care Orders Threshold Criteria Burden and Standard of Proof Reopening Findings Article 6 ECHR (fair Hearing) +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gloucestershire County Council

Applicant

JD

1st Respondent

AC

2nd Respondent

JL

3rd Respondent

The Children (represented by Guardian Liz Cowan)

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (children Act 1989) / Fact Finding Rehearing Following Setting Aside of Previous Findings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mother (JD) or JL inflicted non-accidental injuries on B in August 2016
  2. 2 Whether either or both remain in the pool of possible perpetrators
  3. 3 Whether the mother failed to protect B from harm

Ratio Decidendi

The court could not, on the balance of probabilities, identify either JD or JL as the perpetrator of B's injuries in August 2016. Both remain in the pool of possible perpetrators as there is a real possibility that either might have inflicted the injuries. The Local Authority did not discharge the burden of proof to identify the perpetrator. The mother did not meet the threshold for being found as the perpetrator, but her actions and prior findings place her in the pool. JL's state of mind and actions also place her in the pool, but not to the threshold of probability.

Court Disposition

Neither JD nor JL identified as perpetrator on balance of probabilities; both remain in the pool of possible perpetrators.

Orders

  • Findings that both JD and JL remain in the pool of possible perpetrators of B's injuries in August 2016.
  • No finding on the balance of probabilities against either JD or JL as perpetrator.