MR v Habboo for Kent County Council

In care proceedings involving alleged non-accidental injury, the local authority bears the burden of proving the facts on the balance of probabilities. The court must identify the probable perpetrator where the evidence permits, but should not strain to do so. If an uncertain-perpetrator finding is sought, each potential perpetrator must present a real possibility on the evidence. A lie is not, by itself, evidence of guilt; its significance depends on the reason for it and the surrounding evidence. Medical evidence, the nature and distribution of injuries, the parties’ accounts, conduct and timing may be assessed cumulatively.

The local authority sought findings concerning the causes of severe injuries suffered by a one-month-old child before admission to hospital. The father contended that the principal thoracic injuries were caused accidentally during an attempted resuscitation. The mother denied involvement and said she was unaware of what had occurred. The court considered the medical evidence, the parents’ accounts, their conduct, the timing of events and evidence from hospital staff and a police officer. The central issues were whether the injuries were accidental or inflicted, who caused them, whether the mother was a possible perpetrator, and what the mother knew about the events and the delay in obtaining medical attention.

The court made findings for the local authority on the principal fact-finding issues.

1. The burden lay on the local authority. The applicable standard was the balance of probabilities, in accordance with Re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2009] AC 11. Inherent improbability did not justify applying a heightened standard once the evidence established that the injuries had occurred.
2. A judge need not identify the perpetrator where the evidence does not permit a safe finding. If an uncertain-perpetrator finding is considered, each potential perpetrator must represent a real possibility on the evidence. A person’s lies are not, standing alone, proof of guilt; their significance depends on the reasons for the lies and the wider evidential context.
3. The thoracic injuries, including multiple rib fractures and associated chest injuries, were inconsistent with the father’s account of ordinary attempted CPR. The medical evidence established that the posterior fractures required substantial compressive force. The injuries resulted from a sudden and excessively forceful compression of the child’s chest.
4. The fractured humerus and penile injury required mechanisms not explained by the father’s account. The father was responsible for those injuries and for the earlier frenulum injury, which was caused by forcefully pushing a feeding bottle into the child’s mouth.
5. The mother was not included within the pool of possible perpetrators. Nevertheless, she knew that an incident had occurred, saw the child’s injuries, lied about changing his nappy and the appearance of the penile injury, and failed seriously in her duty to obtain prompt medical attention. Both parents delayed seeking medical assistance for an unacceptably lengthy period, apparently because of self-interest.