CA-2025-001133 - [2025] EWCA Civ 993

While acknowledging the challenges of appealing against findings of fact, Ms Cheetham KC and Mr Feehan KC make common cause in this appeal. Ms Cheetham identified as the underlying characteristic of all three grounds of appeal a lack of rigorous judicial analysis of the evidence which led the Judge into error in finding that CH had abused H at a Hallowe’en party in 2023. Alternatively she argued that any judicial analysis was essentially flawed, the Judge having failed to take sufficient account of the defective professional assessments (social work and police) and the contamination of all evidence which followed the mismanaged questioning of H.

Mr Feehan specifically invites the Court to accept that if finding 3 is set aside, then a number of the other findings of fact (namely 4, 5, 7, 8, 9) “must be unsafe” and “must” also therefore be set aside. He argues that the evidence adduced by the mother and father as to the events of 27 October 2023 (finding 10) was so compelling that the Judge erred in rejecting it. Ms Isaacs KC and Mr Maynard added their own support to those submissions.

In responding to the appeal Ms Taylor reminded the Court of the particular advantage of the trial judge in seeing and hearing these witnesses, and of the dangers of ‘island hopping’ in a review of a case involving extensive written and oral evidence leading to distinct factual findings; she argued that there was no compelling reason not to assume that the Judge had taken the whole of the evidence into consideration in reaching his conclusions. The Judge had been in a unique position over a number of court days, to assess the evidence, and he had done so with care. While the Judge may have expressed himself better, that is not a reason for disturbing his conclusions.