A Local Authority v DB (Mother) & Ors (Rev 2)

In fact-finding proceedings concerning alleged inflicted injury, the court applies the simple balance of probabilities. The seriousness of the allegation or consequences does not alter that standard. Medical evidence is important but must be assessed with the whole evidential picture, including witness credibility and circumstantial evidence. The court should not strain to identify an individual perpetrator where the evidence cannot safely do so. It may instead identify a pool of possible perpetrators where each person presents a likelihood or real possibility of having caused the injury. Proven lies may support findings only where there is no other reasonable explanation for them.

The local authority sought findings concerning the death of a 19-month-old child who had sustained a fatal subdural haemorrhage, extensive retinal haemorrhages and other brain and eye injuries. The child’s mother and the father of his half sister denied causing the injuries. The central questions were whether the injuries resulted from inflicted trauma and, if so, whether the court could identify the perpetrator or perpetrators. The court also had to determine the appropriate pool of possible perpetrators and assess the parents’ inconsistent accounts and alleged lies.

1. Inflicted injury. Applying the simple balance of probabilities, the court accepted the unanimous expert medical evidence that the injuries were caused by inflicted head trauma. The medical evidence was one part of the evidential picture and was considered together with the parents’ accounts, credibility, conduct and the surrounding circumstances.
2. Assessment of evidence. The court applied the requirement for an overview of the totality of the evidence. The absence of external injuries, fractures, certain features of shaking injury and the child’s age did not displace the experts’ conclusion when the whole evidence was considered. Alternative natural explanations were rejected as virtually implausible or incapable of explaining the totality of the findings.
3. Possible perpetrators. The court should not strain to identify an individual perpetrator where identification is unsafe. The evidence established that the mother and father were the only possible perpetrators. It was not possible to determine which of them had inflicted the injuries. The court therefore found that one or other had caused them, and that the other had subsequently colluded in concealing what had happened, without speculating further about the nature of that collusion.
4. Lies. Applying a modified Lucas direction, the court found that the parents’ lies and inconsistent accounts could support the findings because there was no reasonable innocent explanation for them. The lies principally concerned the crucial period during which the child was injured.
5. Orders and consequences. The findings established non-accidental injury but did not identify or exonerate either parent. The unresolved perpetrator issue made the subsequent risk assessment and decisions concerning the care of the surviving child more difficult.

First-instance fact-finding judgment in the High Court (Family Division). No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.