Y (Children) (Radicalisation) (Finding of Fact 2), Re

In a family fact-finding hearing, the local authority must prove its allegations to the civil standard. It need not establish every individual element of the case. The court must scrutinise the evidence as a whole and decide whether the allegations are made out on the balance of probabilities.

Individual incidents may acquire significance when viewed as part of a coherent pattern. Lies directly concerning the subject matter of the inquiry may have substantial evidential weight, although a lie does not automatically prove the disputed allegation. Evidence of radicalisation may support wider findings, but the court need not determine the precise degree of radicalisation of every individual before deciding the factual issue.

The local authority brought care proceedings concerning five children after the father and three adult children were detained with the younger children at Harwich ferry port while apparently travelling to Holland. The authority alleged that the journey was part of an intended onward trip to the Middle East, potentially involving Islamic State-related activities.

The court had previously made findings concerning radicalisation within the family and removed the three younger children. This further hearing concerned the involvement of the adult children and the father in the alleged plan, and whether the stated Holland holiday was a genuine explanation for the journey.

1. Standard and method of fact-finding. The local authority bore the burden of proving the allegations to the civil standard. It was not required to prove every individual element of the case. The court had to scrutinise all the material and decide, on the preponderance of likelihood, whether the allegations were made out.
2. Holistic assessment. The evidence had to be assessed as a pattern rather than by treating each item in isolation. The court was entitled to draw inferences from the surrounding circumstances, including inherent likelihoods and unlikelihoods. The accepted evidence of a radicalised family environment was relevant background, but it was not necessary to determine the precise degree of radicalisation of each adult or child.
3. Evidence of lies. Applying the principles in R v Lucas, a lie about an extraneous matter did not necessarily prove the issue in dispute. However, where a lie directly concerned the subject matter of the inquiry or matters directly bearing upon it, it could have very substantial evidential significance.
4. Findings. The explanations for the journey, the proposed destination, the camping account, the equipment, the vehicle changes and the adults’ evidence were mutually inconsistent and implausible. Taken cumulatively, the evidence established that the journey was an attempted trip to the Middle East, that all the adults were involved, and that the father had originally intended to travel with the group before arranging to join later. The court also found the seven allegations against A proved and found that B assisted in attempts to take the children to Syria via Holland.
5. The court maintained its earlier findings concerning the radicalised environment and concluded that the findings justified the continued care proceedings. The application for full care orders was not resisted at the final hearing, and directions were given for that hearing.