H-C (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 136 (10 March 2016)

H-C (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 136 (10 March 2016)

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's reasoning was internally inconsistent, particularly in his treatment of the medical evidence and the weight placed on the neighbours' testimony. The judge's findings on smothering were not adequately supported by a clear and logical evaluation of the evidence, and the fresh evidence regarding the credibility of the neighbours would probably have had an important influence on the result. The appeal was therefore allowed and the finding of deliberate smothering set aside.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 136
Parties
Appellant: Mr C; First Respondent: Lancashire County Council; Second Respondent: Children's Guardian; Third Respondent: Mother of the children
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court, Family Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Fact Finding Hearing, Expert Evidence, Appeal Against Factual Findings, Children Act 1989 S.31, Death of a Child, Assessment of Evidence, Fresh Evidence on Appeal
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Fact Finding Hearing Expert Evidence Appeal Against Factual Findings Children Act 1989 S.31 Death of a Child +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr C

Appellant

Lancashire County Council

First Respondent

Children's Guardian

Second Respondent

Mother of the children

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court, Family Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge was plainly wrong in finding that Mr C deliberately smothered child A
  2. 2 Whether the judge's reasoning was internally consistent and justified by the evidence
  3. 3 Whether the judge properly evaluated and reconciled conflicting expert and lay evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's reasoning was internally inconsistent, particularly in his treatment of the medical evidence and the weight placed on the neighbours' testimony. The judge's findings on smothering were not adequately supported by a clear and logical evaluation of the evidence, and the fresh evidence regarding the credibility of the neighbours would probably have had an important influence on the result. The appeal was therefore allowed and the finding of deliberate smothering set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The finding of deliberate smothering by Mr C is set aside
  • The case is remitted for reconsideration in light of the fresh evidence