F and B (Fact-Finding: Gonorrhoea)

In fact-finding proceedings concerning gonorrhoea in a child, the infection is not determinative of sexual abuse, but expert evidence that it is strongly suggestive must be given appropriate weight. The mere non-exclusion of fomite transmission does not make that route an established alternative; where the evidence shows it is rare or theoretical, its unlikelihood must be reflected in the overall assessment. A deliberate lie on a material issue may support an abuse finding, but its weight must be assessed against the totality of the evidence and any explanation. A case-specific list of factors from an earlier decision must not be converted into a general checklist. Each case requires a balanced assessment of all the evidence.

Following F’s diagnosis with gonorrhoea, the local authority brought care proceedings concerning F and her younger brother, B. It sought findings that F had been sexually abused by either her mother or her maternal uncle, X.

After a five-day fact-finding hearing, HH Judge Greensmith found that F’s infection resulted from fomite transmission facilitated by X, rather than sexual abuse. The local authority appealed, challenging the treatment of the expert evidence, the assessment of the wider evidence and lies, and reliance on an earlier Court of Appeal decision. The central issue was whether the judge had lawfully evaluated the competing modes of transmission and the evidence as a whole.

Appeal allowed and fact-finding hearing remitted for rehearing before another judge. Lord Justice Baker gave the judgment, with Lord Justice Lewis and Lady Justice Macur agreeing.

1. The appellate court recognised the restraint required before interfering with factual findings, credibility assessments and the attribution of weight, as explained in Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5. Intervention was nevertheless required because the judge’s reasoning contained material analytical errors.
2. The principal message of the expert evidence was that gonorrhoea in a child was strongly suggestive of sexual abuse. Fomite transmission had not been established. The absence of robust research did no more than leave it as a theoretical possibility, described as rare. The judge instead focused on the fact that fomite transmission was not impossible and failed to reflect its evidential unlikelihood in the overall assessment.
3. A deliberate lie on a material issue may support a finding of abuse or assist in identifying the perpetrator. The court must assess its weight in the totality of the evidence, consider any explanation for the lie and remember that people lie for different reasons. The judge found that X had lied about when he discovered his infection, but failed to explain why he discounted the possibility that the lie concealed sexual abuse.
4. The judge also misinterpreted Re A, B and C (Fact-Finding: Gonorrhoea) [2023] EWCA Civ 437. That decision did not establish a general checklist of factors. Its case-specific list was drawn from counsel’s submissions. Each case must be determined on its own facts and by balancing the totality of the evidence.
5. The Court of Appeal expressed no view on the outcome of the rehearing. That outcome was for the next judge to determine on the evidence and submissions then before the court.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2025] EWCA Civ 340: allowed the local authority’s appeal and remitted the fact-finding hearing for rehearing before another judge.
• Family Court at Liverpool: HH Judge Greensmith, judgment dated 6 November 2024, found that F’s gonorrhoea had been acquired through fomite transmission facilitated by X and did not make the alleged sexual-abuse findings.