Ben Jonas Alcott v Katy Elizabeth Ashworth & Anor

In domestic-abuse fact-finding, allegations must be assessed on the balance of probabilities by reference to the totality and context of the evidence. Propensity evidence may assist, but individual incidents need not each be proved in every detail. A rehearing after findings have been reopened is conducted afresh on the whole evidence, without presumptive weight being given to earlier findings. In child-arrangements proceedings, fact-finding should address only allegations necessary to assess welfare and risk. Coercive or controlling behaviour requires consideration of the alleged pattern, the perpetrator’s intention and the harmful impact; assertive, stubborn or selfish behaviour is not automatically abuse.

The father sought contact with his eight-year-old son after prolonged Hague Convention and child-arrangements proceedings. A 2019 fact-finding hearing had rejected the mother’s allegations. Further disclosure from Australian police and family-court authorities led to the fact-finding being reopened and transferred to the Family Division of the High Court.

The court considered allegations of physical abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour, manipulation, intimidation and obstruction of disclosure concerning the mother, the father’s current partner and former partners. The central issues were whether the allegations were proved on the balance of probabilities and how the new material and propensity evidence should be evaluated.

1. The court applied the three-stage approach in Re CTD (A Child: Rehearing) [2020] EWCA Civ 1316. The reopened hearing was a rehearing, not an appeal or review. The issues were determined afresh on the whole evidence, without presumptive weight for earlier findings.
2. Findings had to be based on evidence assessed in context. The court could draw inferences, but speculation, suspicion, surmise and assertion were insufficient. Similar-fact evidence could establish propensity where the proven facts supplied a sufficient basis, although every detail of every incident did not require proof. The court applied the Lucas guidance: a lie on one issue did not establish a lie on another, and the reason for the lie had to be considered.
3. The court followed Practice Direction 12J and Re H-N and others [2021] EWCA Civ 448. Fact-finding should determine only allegations necessary for welfare, risk assessment or child-arrangements decisions. Where coercive or controlling behaviour was alleged, the overall pattern was primary, with individual allegations selected for their probative relevance. Intention and harmful impact were material; directive, assertive, stubborn or selfish conduct was not automatically abuse.
4. On the balance of probabilities, the father had engaged in a prolonged pattern of physical, coercive and controlling abuse, had manipulated and intimidated the mother, had repeatedly lied to professionals and courts, and had attempted to prevent disclosure of relevant Australian material. The judgment recorded the findings in the schedule of allegations.

The judgment describes earlier Hague Convention proceedings before Deputy High Court Judge Verdan QC and a 2019 fact-finding hearing before HH Judge Jordan. The earlier findings were reopened after further Australian disclosure. The present judgment records the resulting rehearing and findings of fact.