BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales Family Court Decisions (High Court Judges) |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (High Court Judges) >> C v D [2020] EWFC 83 (27 November 2020) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2020/83.html Cite as: [2020] EWFC 83 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
FAMILY COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
C |
Applicant |
|
- and - |
||
D |
Respondent |
____________________
Katherine Gittins for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 9-11 November 2020
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
The Hon Mrs Justice Judd
Background
The allegations
The law – fact finding
" To these matters, I would only add that in cases where repeated accounts are given of events surrounding injury and death, the court must think carefully about the significance or otherwise of any reported discrepancies. They may arise for a number of reasons. One possibility is of course that they are lies designed to hide culpability. Another is that they are lies told for other reasons. Further possibilities include faulty recollection or confusion at times of stress or when the importance of accuracy is not fully appreciated, or there may be inaccuracy or mistake in the record-keeping or recollection of the person hearing and relaying the account. The possible effects of delay and repeated questioning upon memory should also be considered, as should the effect on one person of hearing accounts given by others. As memory fades, a desire to iron out wrinkles may not be unnatural – a process that might inelegantly be described as "story-creep" may occur without any necessary inference of bad faith". These words echo the words of Leggatt J in Gestmin SGPS v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 3560 as to the fallibility of human recollection, and the limitations of memory"
Domestic Abuse
"Controlling behaviour means an act or pattern of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour";
"Coercive behaviour means an act or pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten the victim".
The hearing
The evidence
The father
Discussion
"He used to really hurt xx, and hit him on the back of the legs all the time. He would wee and chew something up and he would get a smack….the dog would growl at him and he would hit him more because he would back into a corner".
Allegations 1 to 4
Allegation 5
Allegation 6
Allegation 7
Conclusions