E (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 473 (19 May 2016)

E (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 473 (19 May 2016)

The appeal was allowed and the findings of fact set aside because the judge failed to properly analyse the procedural defects in the ABE interviews, did not adequately address inconsistencies in the children's evidence, and did not conduct a sufficient Re W analysis regarding whether the children should give evidence. These failures amounted to a breach of due process and Article 6 rights, rendering the fact-finding process unsafe.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 473
Parties
Appellant: Mr E; First Respondent: X City Council; Second Respondent: Ms F; Third Respondent: A (child); Interveners: 2nd to 4th Interveners
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Care Proceedings) / Appeal From Fact Finding Determination in Care Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal allowed; findings of fact set aside; possible retrial depending on the Family Court's decision.
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Sexual Abuse Allegations, Children Giving Evidence, Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial), Achieving Best Evidence (abe) Interviews, Due Process in Family Proceedings
Family Law Child Protection Human Rights Care Proceedings Sexual Abuse Allegations Children Giving Evidence Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial) Achieving Best Evidence (abe) Interviews +1 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr E

Appellant

X City Council

First Respondent

Ms F

Second Respondent

A (child)

Third Respondent

2nd to 4th Interveners

Interveners

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Care Proceedings) / Appeal From Fact Finding Determination in Care Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in her analysis of the evidence of the complainant children and A
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to properly apply the principles in Re W regarding children giving evidence
  3. 3 Whether procedural defects in ABE interviews undermined the findings

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed and the findings of fact set aside because the judge failed to properly analyse the procedural defects in the ABE interviews, did not adequately address inconsistencies in the children's evidence, and did not conduct a sufficient Re W analysis regarding whether the children should give evidence. These failures amounted to a breach of due process and Article 6 rights, rendering the fact-finding process unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; findings of fact set aside; possible retrial depending on the Family Court's decision.

Orders

  • Findings of fact made by the judge are set aside.
  • Matter remitted for further consideration; possible retrial of allegations.