R v ATT & Anor

R v ATT & Anor

Section 5(1)(c) requires proof of a significant risk of serious physical harm existing prior to the act causing injury, regardless of whether the defendant is alleged to have caused or allowed the harm. On the evidence, the trial judge was entitled to conclude that no reasonable jury could find such a risk existed prior to the injury, and thus there was no case to answer.

Parties
Appellant: REX; First Respondent: ATT; Second Respondent: BWY
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Terminating Ruling (no Case to Answer) From Crown Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; ruling of no case to answer upheld; acquittal ordered.
Legal Topics
Causing or Allowing Serious Physical Harm to a Child, Statutory Interpretation, Sufficiency of Evidence, Section 5 Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004
Criminal Law Child Protection Causing or Allowing Serious Physical Harm to a Child Statutory Interpretation Sufficiency of Evidence Section 5 Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

REX

Appellant

ATT

First Respondent

BWY

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Terminating Ruling (no Case to Answer) From Crown Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 5(1)(c) of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 requires a pre-existing significant risk of serious physical harm for liability to arise
  2. 2 Whether the evidence established a significant risk of serious physical harm to the child prior to the act causing injury
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in ruling there was no case to answer

Ratio Decidendi

Section 5(1)(c) requires proof of a significant risk of serious physical harm existing prior to the act causing injury, regardless of whether the defendant is alleged to have caused or allowed the harm. On the evidence, the trial judge was entitled to conclude that no reasonable jury could find such a risk existed prior to the injury, and thus there was no case to answer.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; ruling of no case to answer upheld; acquittal ordered.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The ruling of the trial judge that neither defendant had a case to answer is confirmed.