TW v A City Council & Ors

TW v A City Council & Ors

The judge's finding that TW sexually abused LR was unsafe because it relied primarily on a manifestly flawed ABE interview, failed to resolve key factual disputes on oral evidence, and did not properly analyse or explain the preference for one version of events over another. The evidential deficiencies and lack of proper evaluation vitiated the finding.

Parties
Appellant: TW; 1st Respondent: A City Council; 2nd Respondent: TT; 3rd Respondent: MW; 4th Respondent: SW (by a Children’s Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (care Proceedings) / Appeal From Fact Finding Judgment in Care Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Fact Finding Hearings, Children Act 1989, Evidential Standards in Child Abuse Cases, Achieving Best Evidence (abe) Interviews
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Fact Finding Hearings Children Act 1989 Evidential Standards in Child Abuse Cases Achieving Best Evidence (abe) Interviews

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

TW

Appellant

A City Council

1st Respondent

TT

2nd Respondent

MW

3rd Respondent

SW (by a Children’s Guardian)

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (care Proceedings) / Appeal From Fact Finding Judgment in Care Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in relying on a flawed ABE interview to find sexual abuse by TW
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to properly evaluate and explain her findings on disputed evidence (including the condition of the child's clothing)
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to consider or analyse the oral evidence of TW and other witnesses

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's finding that TW sexually abused LR was unsafe because it relied primarily on a manifestly flawed ABE interview, failed to resolve key factual disputes on oral evidence, and did not properly analyse or explain the preference for one version of events over another. The evidential deficiencies and lack of proper evaluation vitiated the finding.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The finding against TW that he sexually abused LR is set aside.
  • The allegation against TW is not remitted for re-hearing.