Leicestershire County Council v K C & Ors

In care proceedings, the local authority bears the burden of proving the threshold facts on the balance of probabilities. The court must assess the totality of the evidence, including medical, circumstantial and witness evidence. Where expert evidence cannot reliably distinguish accidental from inflicted injury, the court must decide which explanation is more likely, without speculation. If the evidence does not establish non-accidental injury on that standard, the threshold under Children Act, section 31 is not met and the care proceedings must fail.

The local authority brought care proceedings concerning an infant who had sustained three skull fractures and facial bruising after an alleged fall while in her father’s care. The parents maintained that the injuries were accidental, although the father’s account developed over time. Medical experts regarded the injuries and the proposed mechanisms as unusual and could not determine reliably whether they were accidental or inflicted.

The issue was whether the local authority had proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the child had suffered non-accidental injury and that the threshold under section 31 of the Children Act was satisfied.

1. Outcome. The local authority failed to establish the threshold criteria. The care proceedings therefore failed, and there was no reason known to the court why the child could not return to her parents’ care.
2. The applicable civil standard was the balance of probabilities, as stated in Re H and R and affirmed in Re B. The local authority bore the burden of proving that the injuries were non-accidental.
3. The court had to consider the totality of the evidence. That included the medical evidence, the parents’ accounts and conduct, the surrounding circumstances, and the social-work and parenting evidence. The court was required to decide whether inflicted injury was more likely than not, rather than speculate about an uncertain mechanism.
4. The medical evidence showed that the injuries were recent and could be consistent with more than one impact. However, the experts could not say whether the injuries were accidental or inflicted. The explanations were unusual in either event, and the delay in the father’s recollection could reasonably be explained by stress and shock.
5. Taking the evidence as a whole, the court was not satisfied that either parent had lost control and inflicted injury. It found accidental injury more likely than non-accidental injury. Section 31 was therefore not satisfied.

This was a first-instance fact-finding hearing. Care proceedings were issued on 25 September 2008. A case management conference took place on 30 October 2008, followed by the four-day fact-finding hearing before Mrs Justice Hogg.