L-B (Children), Re

A trial judge’s decision about whether to obtain additional expert evidence is a case-management discretion. An appellate court should intervene only where that discretion was exercised improperly. Where a jointly selected expert has the relevant experience and qualifications to address both the alleged abuse and the risk posed to the children, the court need not add another layer of expertise merely because the assessment is unfavourable to one party. The central question remains the risk, if any, posed by the parent to the children.

The mother sought permission to appeal an order of His Honour Judge Compston refusing her application to instruct a consultant child psychiatrist in contested residence proceedings. A jointly instructed assessor had reviewed the police material, video evidence and medical evidence, interviewed the father, and assessed both the credibility of the allegations made by another child and the risk posed by the father to his own children. The mother argued that the assessor lacked the qualifications necessary to evaluate the alleged victim’s account, the delay in complaint and possible fabrication.

The central issue was whether further expert evidence was required and whether the judge had properly exercised his case-management discretion.

1. Application dismissed. The refusal of permission to appeal was upheld.

2. The decision whether to admit further expert evidence was a trial-management decision involving the judge’s discretion. The judge had exercised that discretion properly. It was inappropriate to add another layer of expertise to an already difficult case where the existing assessor was suitably qualified and experienced.

3. The jointly instructed assessor had been selected by the mother’s side and had been asked to assess both the account of the alleged victim and the father’s character and risk. His social-work qualifications, together with his specialist experience, were sufficient to provide helpful evidence on those issues.

4. The decision was distinguished from the circumstances discussed in Re N (Child Abuse: Evidence) [1996] 2 FLR 214. The assessor in the present case did not fall within the category of social worker that had prompted the earlier comments.

5. The substantive task on review was to assess whether the father posed a risk to his own children. There was insufficient evidence that he had abused them. If further questions arose, the judge could permit appropriate cross-examination of the jointly appointed expert.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the mother’s application for permission to appeal from the order of His Honour Judge Compston in the Principal Registry of the Family Division.