V v I

In a fact-finding hearing, allegations must be proved on the balance of probabilities by the party making them. The court must assess the evidence as a whole, avoiding speculation and compartmentalised reasoning. A lie about one matter does not establish that a witness has lied about everything; the reason for the lie and its relationship to the wider evidence must be examined. Repeated accounts require careful analysis of discrepancies, memory and the effects of questioning. Demeanour should not receive excessive or exclusive weight. Children’s evidence must be assessed with particular care where interviews are repeated or may have been influenced by adult hostility. Household tensions, arguments, frustration or insensitive conduct do not necessarily amount to coercive control or domestic abuse without evidence crossing the relevant legal threshold.

This was a private fact-finding hearing concerning three children of parents from the Cheredi Jewish community. The mother alleged that the father had coercively controlled and abused her, including by rape and sexual assault, and had physically and sexually abused the children. The father denied those allegations and alleged that the mother had made untrue allegations, influenced the children and damaged their relationship with him.

The court considered the parties’ evidence, the children’s accounts to professionals and police, and the surrounding evidence. The central issues were whether the mother’s allegations were proved on the balance of probabilities and whether the father’s allegations against the mother were established.

1. Standard and assessment of proof. The mother bore the burden of proving her allegations on the balance of probabilities. Findings had to be based on evidence rather than speculation. The court was required to consider each item of evidence in the context of the totality of the evidence and to exercise an overview rather than treating evidence in separate compartments (Re B; Re A (A Child)(Fact Finding Hearing: Speculation); Re T).
2. Witness reliability. A finding that a witness lied about one matter did not mean that the witness lied about everything. The court had to consider the possible reasons for the lie and apply the principle substantively, not merely recite it (R v Lucas; Re H-C (Children)). Discrepancies in repeated accounts could arise from lies, faulty recollection, confusion, inaccurate recording, delay, repeated questioning or the influence of accounts given by others. They therefore required careful evaluation. The fallibility of memory also had to be recognised (Lancashire County Council v C, M and F (Children; Fact Finding Hearing); Gestmin SGPS v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd).
3. Demeanour and children’s evidence. Demeanour should not be given excessive or exclusive reliance, although the impression made by a witness could have weight alongside other evidence in an appropriate case (Re B-M (Children: Findings of Fact)). Children’s accounts should be obtained and evaluated with regard to the ABE guidance. Interviews should generally occur promptly, responses should be neither forced nor led, repeated interviews may attract diminishing weight, and parents should ordinarily not be present. The Cleveland Report guidance remained good practice (AS v TH; Re M (Minors)(Sexual Abuse: Evidence); Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing); Re D (Child Abuse: Interviews); Re X (A Minor)(Child Abuse: Evidence); Re N (Child Abuse: Evidence); Re S (A Child); SR).
4. Application. The mother’s allegations were not proved. The court found that they were more likely to reflect a sinister re-evaluation and exaggeration of events in an unhappy relationship, and that later allegations by the eldest child required reduced weight in light of the surrounding evidence and possible influence. The father’s allegations of malicious conduct were also not made to the extent sought. The father’s lack of empathy, insensitivity and possible crudeness did not, on the evidence, cross the threshold for coercive control or domestic abuse under Practice Direction 12J. No findings sought by either party were made beyond the limited observations recorded in the judgment.