In re A (a Child) (Care proceedings: Non-accidental injury): CA 1 Jul 2003

The 11 year old child had been subject to non-accidental injury. The perpetrator could not be identified form among those who had care of him. The Family Court had held the first part of a split trial. The judge had been unable to exclude the immediate family and carers from the pool of possible perpetratrors.
Held: Where there was not sufficient evidence to make a finding as to the perpetrator the test was that of a real possibility that one or more individuals with access might have caused the injury. The test of ‘no possibility’ was too wide. Here the night nanny and maternal grandmother were clear of any such real possibility. The case showed the difficulty often of having split trials.


Times 22-Aug-2003, Gazette 18-Sep-2003


Children Act 1989 31


England and Wales


CitedRe B (Non-accidental injury: compelling medical evidence) CA 2002
A child had died. Care proceedings were begun for the elder child. It was not clear just who had been responsible for the death.
Held: There were two questions. First, who perpetrated the injuries recorded by the experts? The answer to that . .
CitedIn re O and N (Minors); In re B (Minors) (Care: Preliminary hearing) HL 3-Apr-2003
The appeals were from conflicting decisions in care applications where one or other or both parents were guilty of lack of care, but there was no evidence to say which was responsible.
Held: The threshold criteria had been met, and the court . .
CitedIn re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) HL 14-Dec-1995
Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse
Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.186054