GD & BD (Children) (Rev 1)

Public authorities conducting a joint safeguarding investigation must co-operate, share accurate and relevant information promptly, comply with disclosure orders, and maintain balanced evidence. A police investigation cannot justify withholding exculpatory material from family proceedings merely by asserting possible prejudice. Local authorities must review whether continued separation of children from a parent remains necessary as material evidence changes. Children’s evidence must be obtained by trained professionals and without misleading or suggestive questioning. Courts should scrutinise failures in inter-agency communication, disclosure, record-keeping and evidence evaluation where those failures affect the fairness of proceedings or family life.

Two children and their mother brought claims under the Human Rights Act 1998 arising from public law care proceedings. The children had been removed after their parents were arrested following the discovery of indecent images on a family computer. The authorities pursued allegations that the mother and daughter appeared in particular images, although forensic evidence later excluded them and a longer video proved that the short clip originated in the United States and involved different people.

The claims concerned alleged breaches of Articles 6 and 8 through failures in disclosure, investigation, contact decisions, evidence preparation and the handling of an ABE interview. Damages were agreed, but the court was asked to determine the disputed factual and legal issues and whether declarations should be made.

1. The court made declarations that Wakefield Metropolitan District Council and West Yorkshire Police had acted incompatibly with the claimants’ rights under Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR. The agreed damages were approved as necessary to afford just satisfaction under section 8(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998.
2. The authorities had been entitled initially to protect the children and commence care proceedings on the information then available. However, contact should have been reviewed after the mother was excluded as the woman in the video. By 21 August 2015, rehabilitation to the mother should at least have been considered, subject to residual concerns about the mother’s ability to protect the children from the father.
3. The police repeatedly failed to comply with disclosure orders and failed to disclose exculpatory information, including the forensic exclusion of the mother, the longer video, and evidence concerning the date of the Kodak photograph. A generic assertion that disclosure might prejudice an investigation was insufficient. Any withholding had to be justified, raised with the court, and kept under review.
4. The local authority also failed to disclose material information, failed to present balanced evidence, and pursued allegations after the evidential basis had materially collapsed. The selective police witness statement and late amendments to the social worker’s assessment contributed to an unfair and distorted presentation.
5. Facial mapping evidence had to be evaluated with appropriate caution. The court, rather than the expert, determines the weight of expert evidence, but a lay resemblance and an inadmissible or potentially misleading montage could not objectively counter the unchallenged expert report.
6. The ABE interview was fundamentally flawed. Interviews should be conducted by trained professionals, planned properly, and should maximise the child’s opportunity to recall freely. The photograph of Girl Y should not have been shown to GD, and she should not have been misled about its provenance.
7. The failures were both individual and systemic, involving inadequate strategic leadership, communication, record-keeping, supervision and evidence evaluation. No further guidance was required, but existing statutory, procedural and professional guidance had to be understood and implemented.