H-C (Children)

H-C (Children)

The trial judge's reasoning was internally inconsistent, failed to adequately explain reliance on expert and neighbour evidence, and improperly conflated evidence of lies with proof of smothering; fresh evidence further undermined reliability of key witnesses. The finding of deliberate smothering cannot stand and must be set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Mr C; First Respondent: Lancashire County Council; Second Respondent: Children's Guardian; Third Respondent: Mother of A, K, J
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Fact Finding, Care Proceedings, Child Death, Expert Evidence, Appeal, Credibility Assessment

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 A, K, J

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's finding of deliberate smothering was justified on the evidence
  2. 2 Whether the judge's reasoning was internally consistent and adequately explained
  3. 3 Whether reliance on neighbour evidence and assessment of expert evidence was proper

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's reasoning was internally inconsistent, failed to adequately explain reliance on expert and neighbour evidence, and improperly conflated evidence of lies with proof of smothering; fresh evidence further undermined reliability of key witnesses. The finding of deliberate smothering cannot stand and must be set aside.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Finding of deliberate smothering by Mr C set aside
  • No re-trial in Family Court prior to criminal trial