E (A Child)

E (A Child)

The appeal was allowed because the judge failed to properly analyse significant procedural defects in the ABE interviews, wrongly refused to call the police officer, inadequately addressed inconsistencies in the children's evidence, failed to conduct a proper Re W analysis regarding child witnesses, and breached A's Article 6 rights and legal professional privilege. The findings of fact were set aside and the matter remitted for possible retrial before a different judge.

Parties
Appellant: Mr E; First Respondent: X City Council; Second Respondent: Ms F; Third Respondent: A (a child); Interveners: 2nd to 4th Interveners
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal (care Proceedings) / Judgment on Appeal From Fact Finding Determination
Outcome
Appeal allowed; findings of fact set aside
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Sexual Abuse Allegations, Child Evidence, Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial), Achieving Best Evidence (abe) Interviews, Legal Professional Privilege, Due Process
Family Law Child Protection Human Rights Care Proceedings Sexual Abuse Allegations Child Evidence Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial) Achieving Best Evidence (abe) Interviews +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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr E

Appellant

X City Council

First Respondent

Ms F

Second Respondent

A (a child)

Third Respondent

2nd to 4th Interveners

Interveners

Procedural Posture

Appeal (care Proceedings) / Judgment on Appeal From Fact Finding Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fact-finding judge erred in her analysis of the evidence and process in care proceedings involving allegations of sexual abuse
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to properly consider the reliability of ABE interviews and procedural defects
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to properly apply the principles in Re W regarding calling child witnesses

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the judge failed to properly analyse significant procedural defects in the ABE interviews, wrongly refused to call the police officer, inadequately addressed inconsistencies in the children's evidence, failed to conduct a proper Re W analysis regarding child witnesses, and breached A's Article 6 rights and legal professional privilege. The findings of fact were set aside and the matter remitted for possible retrial before a different judge.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; findings of fact set aside

Orders

  • All findings of fact made by the trial judge are set aside
  • Matter remitted to the Family Court for consideration of retrial before a different judge