ATT & Anor, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 460 (08 May 2024)

ATT & Anor, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 460 (08 May 2024)

Section 5(1)(c) requires a pre-existing significant risk of serious physical harm, 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.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Crim 460
Parties
Appellant: REX; First Respondent: ATT; Second Respondent: BWY
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Terminating Ruling (no Case to Answer) Under Section 58 Criminal Justice Act 2003
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Causing or Allowing Serious Physical Harm to a Child, Statutory Interpretation, Section 5 Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, Sufficiency of Evidence, No Case to Answer, Risk Assessment in Child Harm Cases
Criminal Law Child Protection Causing or Allowing Serious Physical Harm to a Child Statutory Interpretation Section 5 Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 Sufficiency of Evidence No Case to Answer Risk Assessment in Child Harm Cases

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) Under Section 58 Criminal Justice Act 2003

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 5(1)(c) of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 require a pre-existing significant risk of serious physical harm for liability?
  2. 2 Was there sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find a significant risk of serious physical harm to the child prior to the injury?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 5(1)(c) requires a pre-existing significant risk of serious physical harm, 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

Orders

  • Ruling of no case to answer confirmed for both defendants
  • Acquittal of both defendants ordered pursuant to section 61(7) Criminal Justice Act 2003