Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Family analysis: Maud Davis, partner at TV Edwards LLP looks at the issues raised by the case of Re W; Re F (Children)  EWCA Civ 1300 where the court described breaches that resulted in two of the Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) interviews with the children falling ‘woefully short’ of the requirements set out in the guidance.
Re W; Re F (Children)  EWCA Civ 1300,  All ER (D) 59 (Jan)
The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appellant’s appeal against findings made in the course of care proceedings that he had sexually abused three children, held that no court could have reasonably found that he had abused any of those children on the basis of the evidence adduced before the recorder.
What were the evidential problems in this case?
The evidential problems fall into three categories. Firstly, ‘wholesale and serious’ breaches of the 2011 ‘Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings—Guidance on interviewing victims and witnesses, and guidance on using special measures’ (the guidance). These breaches resulted in two of the Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) interviews with the children falling ‘woefully short’ of the requirements set out in the guidance. Baker J refers to the interviewing officer asking ‘blatantly leading’ questions when introducing the topic of the allegations, then continuing to lead the child by referring to what had been said in earlier conversations; and to other examples of leading questions that ‘littered both interviews’.
Allied to that, the evidence of the oldest child, M, was challenged, partly because of the failure to comply with the guidance in interviewing him. It was submitted, on behalf of the appellant, that a number of other explanations for the children’s sexual knowledge and behaviour were possible, and M’s account could not be relied upon.
The second evidential problem was the failure of police officers and social workers to take adequate notes of conversations with the children, for instance when two of the children were visited at school as part of an
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234