Y v Medway Council

In fact-finding care proceedings, an appellate court should respect a trial judge’s assessment of witnesses and cumulative evidence, particularly after a lengthy hearing. The judge need not identify the precise time of each injury where responsibility can be determined on the balance of probabilities from the evidence as a whole. An error affecting one possible chronology is not fatal if the judge made no binding finding on that chronology and considered alternative scenarios supporting the conclusion. Loose ends, contradictions and limitations inherent in a long judgment do not justify appellate intervention unless a material error is shown.

A baby sustained multiple injuries and care proceedings followed. After an 18-day fact-finding hearing in Medway County Court, HHJ Cameron found that some injuries were non-accidental and that the mother caused them. The mother accepted that the injuries were non-accidental but challenged the finding that she was responsible. She argued principally that another carer was more likely to have caused the injuries, that the judge mishandled the timing of the femur fracture, and that the assessment of witnesses and explanations was flawed. The central issue was whether those matters undermined the integrity of the factual findings.

1. Appeal dismissed. Black LJ gave the judgment, with Hughes LJ agreeing.
2. The judge’s conclusion that the mother was responsible was based on the evidence as a whole, including medical evidence, opportunity, the mother’s conduct and explanations, witness credibility, and the child’s presentation. The judge was entitled to draw together these cumulative strands and reach a conclusion on the balance of probabilities.
3. It was highly unlikely that the femur fracture had occurred before the child left her grandmother on 3 November. To the extent that the judge considered a single earlier episode capable of causing all the recent injuries, that possibility was probably against the weight of the evidence. However, the judge made no specific finding fixing the injuries to that chronology. She considered alternative scenarios, including injury at bath time and injuries inflicted in two stages. Her conclusion was not tied to one precise time frame, so the possible error did not undermine the judgment.
4. The judge was entitled to accept the explanation that the nose injury was accidental. The evidence concerning the other possible nasal injury and the carer’s lies, drug use and previous conduct did not compel a different conclusion. The location of a passage in the judgment did not demonstrate that the judge had reached a premature decision.
5. An appellate court should not interfere with findings made after a lengthy hearing involving extensive evidence and direct assessment of witnesses merely because unresolved contradictions or loose ends remain. In the absence of a demonstrated material error, the findings stood.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2011] EWCA Civ 1416, the appeal against the finding that the mother caused the injuries was dismissed.
• Medway County Court: On 8 April 2011, HHJ Cameron found that certain injuries were non-accidental and that the mother was responsible. The proceedings were identified as case no ME09C00115.