Lancashire County Council v R

In care proceedings, the local authority bears the ordinary burden of proving allegations on the balance of probabilities. Seriousness may require more cogent evidence, but it does not create a higher standard. Fact-finding remains binary, and the court must not select the least improbable explanation merely because competing explanations appear unlikely. Respondents bear no pseudo-burden to provide an alternative account. Expert evidence is part of the wider evidential picture. The judge must assess it alongside lay evidence, credibility and the possibility that medical orthodoxy may change. Subdural and retinal haemorrhages, even with encephalopathy, establish head injury but do not alone establish abuse or its mechanism.

The local authority commenced care proceedings after an infant suffered subdural and extensive bilateral retinal haemorrhages. A preliminary fact-finding hearing was held to determine whether the injuries resulted from an accidental fall while the father was holding the child, or from a violent abusive assault involving shaking and impact. The father denied assault. The mother supported his account, and the medical experts expressed differing degrees of certainty. The central issues were the reliability and proper weight of the medical evidence, the parents’ credibility, and whether the local authority had proved abusive injury on the balance of probabilities.

The court found that the father had injured the child accidentally in the manner described. The alleged assault was not proved. The mother was found wholly innocent of any participation in, or failure to prevent, the injury.

1. Standard and burden of proof. The local authority had to prove its allegations on the balance of probabilities, applying the principles stated in Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2009] 1 AC 11. The fact-finding process was binary. Although the burden could resolve genuine uncertainty, the judge was able to decide where the truth lay. It was impermissible to choose the least improbable of several improbable causes, and there was no pseudo-burden on the respondents to supply an alternative explanation.
2. Expert evidence. The judge, not the experts, was the decision-maker. The evidence had to be assessed holistically with the lay evidence and credibility. The presence of the so-called triad of subdural haemorrhage, retinal haemorrhage and encephalopathy proved head injury, but did not by itself prove abuse or identify the mechanism.
3. Medical evidence. The evidence from the subdural and retinal disciplines was materially divided. The judge considered it dangerous to rely predominantly on prevailing ophthalmological orthodoxy where emerging research questioned it. The absence of encephalopathy and other characteristic injuries, the predominantly right-sided subdural bleeding, and the facial abrasions were significant. The medical evidence did not provide a firm basis for finding abuse.
4. Credibility. The father’s criminal record and incidents of violence towards the mother did not establish a propensity to assault the child. His account had been given early and remained substantially consistent. The mother’s informed belief in his truthfulness was also relevant. Applying the balance of probabilities, the accidental explanation was more likely than the abusive explanation, although a possibility of deception remained.
5. A copy of the judgment was directed to be supplied to the experts and the Lancashire Constabulary.

1. High Court (Family Division): Care proceedings were commenced by the local authority. A preliminary fact-finding hearing was ordered and the court determined the disputed cause of the child’s injuries at first instance.