H (Children) [2006] EWCA Civ 1875 (19 December 2006)

H (Children) [2006] EWCA Civ 1875 (19 December 2006)

The judge's decision to adjourn care proceedings pending the criminal trial was a case management decision within his discretion, given the exceptional vulnerability of the witnesses and the risk of harm in requiring them to give evidence twice. The decision to refuse cross-examination at this stage was premature...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1875
Parties
Intervenor/appellant (b4/2006/2238): Mr P; Appellant (b4/2006/2344): Guardian; Local Authority/respondent: Kent County Council; Respondent: Mother; Respondent: Father
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal (care Proceedings) / Appeal From Medway County Court Orders Dated 13 October 2006
Outcome
Appeal in B4/2006/2344 (guardian's appeal) dismissed; Appeal in B4/2006/2238 (Mr P's appeal) allowed.
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Adjournment Pending Criminal Trial, Cross Examination of Vulnerable Witnesses, Hearsay Evidence, Best Interests of the Child
Family Law Child Protection Criminal Procedure Care Proceedings Adjournment Pending Criminal Trial Cross Examination of Vulnerable Witnesses Hearsay Evidence Best Interests of the Child

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr P

Intervenor/appellant (b4/2006/2238)

Guardian

Appellant (b4/2006/2344)

Kent County Council

Local Authority/respondent

Mother

Respondent

Father

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (care Proceedings) / Appeal From Medway County Court Orders Dated 13 October 2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether care proceedings should be adjourned pending outcome of criminal trial
  2. 2 Whether vulnerable witnesses (children) should be compelled to give oral evidence and be cross-examined in care proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's decision to adjourn care proceedings pending the criminal trial was a case management decision within his discretion, given the exceptional vulnerability of the witnesses and the risk of harm in requiring them to give evidence twice. The decision to refuse cross-examination at this stage was premature and should be revisited after the criminal trial, when circumstances may have changed.

Court Disposition

Appeal in B4/2006/2344 (guardian's appeal) dismissed; Appeal in B4/2006/2238 (Mr P's appeal) allowed.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order of 13 October 2006 set aside (i.e., refusal of cross-examination and admission of evidence by video/hearsay discharged).
  • Care proceedings to follow the criminal trial.