W (A Child)

W (A Child)

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge relied heavily on untested hearsay threats from the mother, which emerged during the trial and were not subject to cross-examination or judicial assessment, creating a fundamental risk of injustice.

Parties
Appellant: Mr and Mrs J; Respondent Mother: JW; Respondent Local Authority: Essex County Council; Respondent Child Guardian: Child Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Care Order, Placement Order, Child Protection, Parental Rights, Welfare Checklist, Human Rights
Family Law Child Welfare Care Order Placement Order Child Protection Parental Rights Welfare Checklist Human Rights

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr and Mrs J

Appellant

JW

Respondent Mother

Essex County Council

Respondent Local Authority

Child Guardian

Respondent Child Guardian

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the care and placement orders were justified given the evidence and expert opinions
  2. 2 Whether sufficient weight was given to the desirability of the child being raised by her natural father
  3. 3 Whether the judge relied on untested hearsay threats in reaching his decision

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge relied heavily on untested hearsay threats from the mother, which emerged during the trial and were not subject to cross-examination or judicial assessment, creating a fundamental risk of injustice.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order for retrial before a judge of suitable experience and in a court convenient to the parties
  • Priority and expedition for the listing of the retrial