Re T & Ors (Children) (Adequacy of Reasons)

A fact-finding judgment must give sufficient reasons to show how the court evaluated the decisive evidence and why it preferred one case to another. It need not rehearse every argument or item of evidence, but evaluation and explanation are essential, particularly where serious and life-changing findings are made.

A reserved oral judgment cannot properly be an overview to be supplemented with reasons if requested. Where omissions make the judicial reasoning impossible to discern, clarification is inappropriate because it risks an impermissible ex post facto rationalisation. The findings must be set aside and any further fact-finding considered afresh under the established welfare, necessity, fairness and justice criteria.

In public law proceedings concerning four children, the local authority sought findings that S had sexually abused his sister T and that their mother had failed to protect T and influenced her to withdraw her allegations. After a twelve-day fact-finding hearing, HH Judge Oliver gave a reserved oral judgment and made substantially the findings sought.

S and the mother appealed. They contended that the judgment did not adequately analyse T’s evidence, the ABE interview, the evidence of the appellants and other material, or explain the serious findings. The central issue was whether the inadequacy of the reasons required the findings to be set aside and, if so, whether further fact-finding should occur.

1. Appeals allowed. Baker LJ, with whom Simler and Warby LJJ agreed, set aside the fact-finding judgment and its findings. The omissions and deficiencies in the reasons were extensive and significant.

2. The guidance in Re B (A Child) (Adequacy of Reasons) [2022] EWCA Civ 407 did not prescribe a rigid structure. A judge need not deal with every argument or every evidential point. However, the judgment must identify and evaluate the key written and oral evidence, explain the weight given to it, and show why the selected outcome was preferred. Evaluation and explanation are the critical elements.

3. The trial judge’s analysis fell materially below that standard. It did not analyse the ABE interview, T’s credibility and reliability, the appellants’ detailed evidence, the safeguarding evidence, the psychiatric report, or the parties’ submissions. The description of S’s case as a bare denial was inaccurate. A reader could not understand how the judge had resolved the contradictory evidence or reached findings of such gravity.

4. Time pressure did not justify the procedure adopted. This was a reserved judgment delivered orally months after the hearing, not an ex tempore judgment. A short overview, with fuller reasons to follow only if requested, was irregular. A complex case involving life-changing findings required a properly reasoned judgment when the decision was made.

5. Clarification could not fairly cure the defects. The court would otherwise have been asking the judge to supply the whole analysis after making the decision, creating a risk of ex post facto rationalisation.

6. The court did not determine the evidential complaints in grounds 3 and 4. Whether a rehearing is justified must be decided under the established fact-finding criteria. It remitted the proceedings to the Designated Family Judge for Central London for an urgent issues resolution hearing, in the hope that safe threshold findings and care plans could be agreed without a rehearing.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the appeals, set aside the fact-finding judgment and findings, and remitted the proceedings for an urgent issues resolution hearing.
• Central Family Court: HH Judge Oliver made substantially the local authority’s requested findings of fact in a reserved oral judgment delivered on 21 March 2023.