C, D & E (Radicalisation: Fact-Finding)

In family fact-finding proceedings, allegations of radicalisation must be proved by the local authority on the balance of probabilities. The court must decide disputed facts as either proved or not proved and must rely on evidence and proper inferences, not suspicion, speculation or assertion. The evidence must be assessed on the wider canvas of the case, including the parties’ conduct, associations and electronic communications. Religious belief and expression engage Articles 9 and 10 of the ECHR, but those rights do not prevent findings of extremist or radicalised beliefs where the evidence establishes opposition to fundamental British values or support for terrorism. The court must distinguish between parental extremism and actual exposure or promulgation of those views to children, while assessing the resulting risk of significant harm.

A local authority issued Part IV applications under the Children Act 1989 concerning three children who had been removed from their parents after the family was stopped at the Eurotunnel terminal. The local authority alleged that the parents intended to travel to ISIS-controlled territory with the children and held or promoted extremist and radicalised beliefs.

The fact-finding hearing concerned the purpose and destination of the journey, the parents’ beliefs and online activity, whether their views had been promulgated to the children, and the implications for the children’s welfare. The court also considered issues concerning electronic tagging and disclosure of sensitive counter-terrorism material.

1. Fact-finding principles. The local authority bore the burden of proving the facts relied upon on the balance of probabilities. The court had to determine whether facts happened; there was no intermediate finding that an event might have happened. Findings had to be based on evidence and proper inferences, not suspicion, speculation or assertion. Credibility had to be assessed separately on each issue, since a lie on one matter did not establish dishonesty on every matter.
2. Assessment of the journey. The parents’ account that the journey was a short family holiday in north-west Germany and the Alps was rejected. The evidence, considered cumulatively, established an intention to leave the United Kingdom for a significant period and to escape increasing official scrutiny. The ultimate destination remained unidentifiable. The court was suspicious that ISIS-controlled territory might have been a later or intended destination, but declined to find that immediate travel there had been proved.
3. Radicalisation and extremism. Applying the definitions adopted from Re M and the Prevent and Channel guidance, the court found that both parents held, or had held, beliefs of an extremist or radicalised nature. Their social-media activity and associations demonstrated vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values and support for terrorist activities, individuals and organisations. Their reliance on religious education, research, Articles 9 and 10, and the context of social media did not explain or justify the material proved.
4. Children. There was no evidence that the parents had actually promulgated their views to the children, and the children showed no sign of having been radicalised. Nevertheless, unless checked, the parents’ conduct created a likelihood of significant harm. The court identified concerns including the children’s exposure to extremist material, involvement in chanting associated with jihadist activity, the use of the children to carry money, and the proposed removal of their home, education and social contacts.
5. Ancillary matters. GPS electronic tagging was continued by agreement as part of the arrangements supporting the children’s return home under interim orders. The disclosure issue was approached by balancing fair-trial rights against national security and the integrity of counter-terrorism investigations. The fact-finding judgment was to be followed by a welfare hearing.

This was a first-instance fact-finding judgment. The welfare issues were reserved for a later hearing.