A Local Authority v C & Ors

In a fact-finding rehearing, fresh medical evidence and later-discovered evidence affecting parental credibility may require earlier findings to be re-evaluated on the whole evidential picture. Lies must be assessed cautiously under the principles in R v Lucas, including the reasons for the lies and the issues to which they relate. A finding that a witness lied about one matter does not automatically establish that the witness lied about everything. However, sustained and deliberate deception may undermine earlier assessments of reliability and materially affect the evaluation of other evidence. Welfare conclusions founded on credibility findings must likewise be reconsidered when those findings are materially undermined.

The local authority sought a rehearing of findings made in February 2011 concerning injuries suffered by a young child. The earlier judgment had found bruising and a laceration to the posterior fourchette, but had not found a hymenal laceration or concluded that the injuries were caused by the father. The children were subsequently rehabilitated to their parents.

Fresh medical evidence established a healed hymenal laceration. Further evidence showed that the parents had concealed the father’s arrest, convictions and community-service sentence, and had given misleading evidence about those matters and his cannabis use. The central questions were whether the earlier findings should be re-evaluated, whether the injuries were more likely than not caused by sexual abuse by the father, and what effect the revised findings had on the welfare decision.

1. Rehearing and fresh evidence. The court was required to reconsider the earlier fact-finding decision in light of the newly established hymenal laceration, the evidence concerning the parents’ deliberate non-disclosure, and the parents’ evidence about cannabis use. The assessment had to be made on the evidence as a whole and against the wider canvas.
2. Lies and credibility. Applying the principles in R v Lucas [1981] QB 720, the court considered the reasons for the lies and the matters to which they related. The parents’ deception went beyond an isolated attempt to withhold information. It involved sustained and coordinated conduct over several months, including misleading the court, professionals and contact supervisors. Their credibility as reliable historians was therefore materially undermined.
3. Revised factual findings. The healed hymenal laceration was a significant injury. The expert evidence made sexual abuse more likely, and the court accepted that the combined injuries were more likely than not caused by the father’s attempted penile penetration of the child. The mother’s precise knowledge of the father’s role could not be established, but she was likely to have accepted and repeated explanations directed by him.
4. Welfare consequences. The earlier welfare decision had materially depended on the parents’ truthfulness and ability to co-operate with professionals. Since that assessment had been seriously undermined, the welfare conclusions also required re-evaluation. The court directed that the revised schedule of findings be attached to the order and invited submissions on the timetable and directions for the next hearing.

The judgment was a first-instance rehearing concerning findings previously made by the same court in A Local Authority v C [2011] EWHC 231. The court revised the factual findings and directed that the welfare conclusions be re-evaluated.