K (Children), Re

Suspicion, surmise, speculation and assertion cannot establish a factual finding in public law proceedings. The local authority must prove each discrete allegation on the balance of probabilities.

When deciding whether to permit withdrawal of proceedings and abandonment of a fact-finding hearing, the court must assess whether investigation remains necessary and proportionate. Relevant considerations include the evidential result, the likely effect on future care planning, the interests of the children, the prospects of a fair trial, cost, delay and the justice of the case.

Radicalisation involves support for terrorism or terrorist ideologies and is distinct from merely holding extreme religious views.

These public law proceedings concerned three children following a police investigation into alleged parental involvement with terrorism and support for ISIS. The allegations included exposing one child to danger near the Turkish-Syrian border, financial dealings, communications with persons connected to terrorism, and dissemination of material on social media.

The local authority sought permission under Family Procedure Rules 2010, rule 29.4, to withdraw the proceedings and abandon the listed fact-finding hearing. All parties supported the application. The central issues were whether there was a realistic prospect that the threshold under section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 could be established, and whether further investigation was necessary and proportionate.

1. Application granted. Permission was given to withdraw the proceedings and abandon the fact-finding hearing. Future applications were reserved to the judge, and the case was not to be released to another judge of the Division.
2. Suspicion is insufficient to establish a factual finding, but the observation in Re X (Children) (No. 3) [2015] EWHC 3651 did not impose an elevated standard of proof. The applicable test remained the balance of probabilities in relation to each discrete allegation.
3. The court applied the relevant features identified in Oxfordshire County Council v DP, RS & BS [2005] EWHC 1593 (Fam). The principal considerations were the evidential result, the necessity of investigation, and the relevance of any result to future care plans. The court also considered the children’s interests, delay, public cost, the impact of fact-finding, prospects of a fair trial and the justice of the case.
4. The evidence gave rise to a very real prospect that the threshold criteria under section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 might be met. The material concerning the mother’s social-media account indicated a radicalised or extremist perspective, although authorship was disputed and required explanation in evidence.
5. Radicalisation was understood as a process by which a person comes to support terrorism or extremist ideologies associated with terrorist groups. It was not synonymous with extreme religious belief. The court adopted the definition in the Prevent Duty Guidance and noted the similar definition used in Re M [2014] EWHC 667 (Fam).
6. The distinctive risk arose from the combination of radicalisation and active promotion of terrorism, including the possibility that children might be targeted to participate directly in a jihadi agenda. The court rejected the suggested analogy with radical elements of Irish nationalism and loyalism as failing to capture that additional feature.
7. Despite the possible threshold finding, withdrawal was proportionate. The dispute was narrow but important, the evidence risked becoming harder to establish with time, and the issue might be relevant to future care planning. A transcript was ordered to preserve an accessible record.