F (Children)

F (Children)

DNA Diagnostics was not accredited and should not have been instructed to conduct court-ordered DNA testing; their procedural and administrative failures rendered their evidence unreliable for court purposes. Only accredited laboratories may be instructed for such work. The public interest in transparency and safeguarding the integrity of family justice outweighs the company's Article 8 privacy interests, justifying publication of the company's and director's identity in the judgment.

Parties
Applicant: Local Authority; Respondent: First Respondent; Respondent: Second Respondent; Respondent: Third Respondent; Respondent: Fourth Respondent; Respondent: Fifth Respondent
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (family Division) / Judgment Following Fact Finding and Expert Evidence on DNA Testing
Outcome
Declaratory judgment with undertakings; no final care orders made in this judgment.
Legal Topics
DNA Evidence, Accreditation of Expert Witnesses, Procedural Safeguards in Family Proceedings, Open Justice and Anonymity, Human Rights Balancing (article 8 and 10 Echr)
Family Law Child Protection Evidence Law DNA Evidence Accreditation of Expert Witnesses Procedural Safeguards in Family Proceedings Open Justice and Anonymity Human Rights Balancing (article 8 and 10 Echr)

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Local Authority

Applicant

First Respondent

Respondent

Second Respondent

Respondent

Third Respondent

Respondent

Fourth Respondent

Respondent

Fifth Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (family Division) / Judgment Following Fact Finding and Expert Evidence on DNA Testing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether DNA Diagnostics was properly instructed to conduct court-ordered DNA testing
  2. 2 Whether procedural and administrative failures by DNA Diagnostics undermined the reliability of DNA evidence
  3. 3 What are the correct legal and procedural requirements for instructing DNA experts in family proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

DNA Diagnostics was not accredited and should not have been instructed to conduct court-ordered DNA testing; their procedural and administrative failures rendered their evidence unreliable for court purposes. Only accredited laboratories may be instructed for such work. The public interest in transparency and safeguarding the integrity of family justice outweighs the company's Article 8 privacy interests, justifying publication of the company's and director's identity in the judgment.

Court Disposition

Declaratory judgment with undertakings; no final care orders made in this judgment.

Orders

  • DNA Diagnostics and its director named in the judgment; company to cease accepting court-directed work until accredited; undertakings accepted from Mr Thomas and DNA Diagnostics regarding future conduct; breach of undertakings subject to contempt proceedings.