Local Authority B v BD & Ors

In a family fact-finding hearing, the local authority bears the burden of proving allegations on the balance of probabilities. Findings must rest on evidence and proper inferences, rather than suspicion or speculation. A witness’s lies do not automatically invalidate all of that witness’s evidence, but repeated lies and materially inconsistent accounts may make reliable fact-finding extremely difficult. The broad definition of trafficking in Article 4 of the Warsaw Convention applies, including exploitation through coercive control. Positive interaction between a parent and child does not determine whether trafficking occurred. The court must assess the evidence in the context of the child’s welfare, while keeping the burden of proof on the local authority.

The local authority sought findings concerning the circumstances in which a mother and father came to the United Kingdom and whether the mother had been trafficked or exploited. The child had been placed in foster care shortly after birth under an interim care order. The hearing was limited to the alleged trafficking issues, including whether the father had trafficked or controlled the mother.

The court heard evidence principally from both parents. Their accounts differed materially from each other and from accounts previously given to the Home Office and other agencies. The central questions were whether the mother was under the father’s control, whether that control was for exploitation, and whether the evidence established trafficking on the balance of probabilities.

1. Burden and standard of proof. The local authority retained the burden of proving the alleged facts on the balance of probabilities. Findings had to be based on evidence and properly drawn inferences, not suspicion or speculation. The absence of direct evidence did not prevent adverse findings where the evidence as a whole justified them.
2. Assessment of lies. The principles in R v Lucas applied in family proceedings. Lies may arise for different reasons, and a lie about one matter does not necessarily mean that everything said by the witness is untrue. Here, however, the parents’ repeated lies and inconsistent accounts made it effectively impossible to separate truth from fabrication in much of their evidence.
3. Trafficking and exploitation. Applying the broad definition in Article 4 of the Warsaw Convention, the court found that the father remained linked to criminality in the United Kingdom and that the parents’ route to, and accommodation in, the Midlands was connected with those links. The mother was under the father’s control and, on the balance of probabilities, that control was for a form of exploitation.
4. The court placed significant weight on the mother’s failure to obtain antenatal care, her very late presentation at hospital, the lack of preparation for the baby, and the unexplained false trafficking account. These matters supported the conclusion that the control was coercive. The fact that the parents had positive contact with the child did not determine the circumstances in which they came to the United Kingdom or currently lived.
5. The court therefore made the trafficking finding sought in respect of the mother, while acknowledging uncertainty about some subsidiary matters, including the father’s precise reason for leaving his criminal associates.