In re K (Children) (Non-accidental injuries: Perpetrator: New Evidence): CA 27 Aug 2004

The children had been taken into care, and freed for adoption. The mother appealed saying the blame for non-accidental injury was misplaced. The court had not thought her responsible for the non-accidental injuries, but she had been unwilling to separate from the assumed perpetrator.
Held: The mother had now taken the step of breaking free. The substantial public interest in identifying the true causers of child abuse required the admission of the evidence, and children should also have the truth available to them. On the facts justice required the question of perpetration to be re-visited. The final outcome remained at large.
‘It is paradigmatic of such cases that the perpetrator denies responsibility and that those close to or emotionally engaged with the perpetrator likewise deny any knowledge of how the injuries occurred. Any process, which encourages or facilitates frankness, is, accordingly, in our view, to be welcomed in principle.’
Lord Justice Neuberge, Lord Justice Wall
[2004] EWCA Civ 1181, [2005] 1 FLR 285
Bailii
Children Act 1989 31(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedLadd v Marshall CA 29-Nov-1954
Conditions for new evidence on appeal
At the trial, the wife of the appellant’s opponent said she had forgotten certain events. After the trial she began divorce proceedings, and informed the appellant that she now remembered. He sought either to appeal admitting fresh evidence, or for . .
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 . .
CitedNorth Yorkshire County Council v SA and others CA 1-Jul-2003
The child was taken to hospital with injuries which the doctors concluded were non-accidental. The identity of the abuser was in doubt.
Held: The court set out to identify the procedures in cases involving suspected non-accidental injuries . .
CitedFrost v Frost CA 1968
Admission of new evidence on appeal in family matters. . .
CitedRe S (Minors)(Care Order: Appeal); Dyfed County Council v S, Re S (Discharge of Care Order) CA 6-Sep-1995
Discharge of care order is the appropriate procedure not an appeal after very long time. The court considered its approach in admitting new evidence on appeal in family law cases: ‘The willingness of the family jurisdiction to relax the ordinary . .

Cited by:
CitedIn re S-B (Children) (Care proceedings: Standard of proof) SC 14-Dec-2009
A child was found to have bruising consistent with physical abuse. Either or both parents might have caused it, but the judge felt it likely that only one had, that he was unable to decide which, and that they were not so serious that he had to say . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 April 2021; Ref: scu.200655