Case No. LS21C00341
Family Court

Case No. LS21C00341

Fecha: 12-May-2022

The Evidence

R10.I have viewed R’s police interview with care and evaluated it alongside all the other evidence in this case including evidence about the allegations made by R from CY, Ms A (R’s previous Children’s Guardian), and Ms K. The police interview took place on the same day that R had first made her allegations to Ms K at her school. The mother and father’s evidence was that R was a good daughter: she worked hard at school and helped her mother at home. Neither they nor T nor any other witness gave any evidence that R had a history of making up allegations, lying, fantasising, or otherwise being unreliable in what she said to others. 11.R elected not to have a responsible adult present at the interview. The first part of the DVD film of the interview shows R alone in the interview waiting for the interviewing officer to arrive. She is seen to be blowing and taking deliberate, deep breaths and appears to be preparing herself for the interview ahead. On being asked to introduce herself for the recording she gives her name and adds, “and I am a survivor of sexual abuse”. Early in the interview she speaks more or less continuously for about fifteen minutes setting out all the allegations against T which are now for the court to determine. It is clear that T had given a lot of thought to the allegations before the interview. By her own evidence during the interview she had researched the issue of sexual abuse on the internet. Initially she had been researching the Black Lives Matter movement, then the Me Too movement. She had spoken to a school friend about her experiences over a period of at least six months. She chose to make her allegations on the day she finished her last GCSE. Evidently she wanted to focus on her examinations before sharing her allegations. There is no evidence that R had spoken to a counsellor or to any professional about the alleged abuse prior to 7 June 2021. She may have been influenced by her friend or by what she had read on the internet, but the impression watching and listening to the interview is that she is speaking her own mind, for her own reasons, having given a great deal of thought before reporting the allegations to the school and the police. She appears to me to be very aware of the importance of the allegations she is making and of the possible ramifications for her and the family.12.R speaks intelligently about the events in question and perceptively about her feelings. She does not show any particular animosity to T but rather states clearly that what he did is wrong. She is sympathetic to her mother even whilst telling the police that her mother did nothing to protect her. Once R has spilled out her account in her initial long answers, and begins to be questioned in detail, she appears to be spontaneous and direct, she is able to give details in many of her answers, and, when asked, she draws sketches to assist without hesitation. Furthermore, she begins to grimace when remembering certain unpleasant details, pauses to compose herself and then, about fifty minutes into the interview, she becomes very upset and has to take a 15 minute break. The immediate trigger for her becoming overwhelmed with emotion at that point is when she says that she loves her mother. 13.R gives pertinent details about how she felt at the time, about what she felt when he guided her hand onto him, and about the rooms where incidents occurred. It would be surprising if she could give a precise chronology of events but she is able to put events in sequence and give approximate dates, and she is consistent in that respect. 14.There is no sense of exaggeration and she does not over-dramatise her account. It is noteworthy that she makes no allegations from the time when the family moved to England. Furthermore she is very specific about the lack of penile penetration.15.R states that in 2018 the family, then living in Bradford, had visitors including a young girl aged about 3 to 4 years old. R was asked to help the girl go to the toilet. When in the toilet R says that T was looking through the door into the toilet so R stood in front of the girl to protect her and T moved away [G144, line 11]. This caused her concern that T might turn his attentions to other children. For the same reason she was concerned that T would bathe S who was vulnerable and unable to verbalise.16.One discordant note in R’s allegations is that when referring to T licking her ear and kissing her on the lips she said that he smelled of sex. It is an odd expression for her to have used in all the circumstances. On the one hand it might be said to demonstrate authenticity – that she remembered a smell – on the other it is a very adult expression for a young and inexperienced person to make. There is also an apparent inconsistency in R’s account of the bathroom incident when she was nine years old. In her police interview at [G157, line 26 onwards] R describes what happened. As set out in the confidential Appendix Two to this judgment, when she described that incident to Ms K there was an additional important detail that she did not mention to the police.17.R says that she alerted her mother to the fact that T had spied on her, R, when she was in the bathroom in Pakistan. She told the police that her mother had advised her against telling the father and that her allegation was just laughed off, leaving R feeling that it was her who was “filthy” [G142, line 40]. However, in her first statement CY says that R had informed her that in 2015 her mother had said “boys will be boys” and that she should tell her father. R told CY that she had told her father during the holiday in Pakistan and that he had told T off in a “laughing way”. So R has been inconsistent as to whether she told her father about the spying incident in 2015.18.During lockdown, R spent a lot of time alone in her room and she used the internet to research sexual abuse. She told the police that she decided to confront her brother and to tell her mother about what had happened. She says that she told her mother “everything” [G144, line26]. CY’s note of her conversation with R on 10 June is that R said that when she told her mother, her mother “hugged her because she was crying.” [C157]. However, R then confronted her brother, accusing T of having stolen her innocence. Her mother called her “crazy” and said she was destroying the family and that no-one would marry her. R felt suicidal. [G144, line 22]. This happened in 2020. R said that she did not blame her mother who was brought up in an “ignorant” household. 19.R did not tell the police that she had spoken directly to her father about what T had done, but she presumed that her mother had told him. Also, R made references in family conversations, in front of her father, about T going to prison. R told the police of a culture that did not tolerate children who brought dishonour on their family – they could be killed. She was asked about whether that had been said to her,Er, my father like, you know, he, he just, he used to say stuff like, you know, “We can kill you off,” er, like, “We can kill, we can kill you and throw you in a lake and no one would know. Like, if you go out, er, like, if you, er, if you tell someone and all this, er, send you to a foster house and you’ll just get abused there.” DC GW: Did your dad know what was happening as well then? R: No. I think, I think my mum probably told him cos, you know, I just used to make… after the, er, incident, like, after I told my mum about it, er, I started making jokes about it, like I started making jokes about like, you know, my brother going to jail, like, you know, let’s just say, er, what is my, what shall I give to my brother as a birthday gift and obviously you know he shall go to prison and my parents used to get angry at me but I just thought, you know, like, why, why can’t I say, like, he deserves to be in jail. DC GW: Yes. You know when your dad used to talk about throwing you in a lake and no one will know and we’ll kill you— R: Yeah, like, I don’t think he actually meant it.20.At some point in the summer of 2020 R contacted the NSPCC helpline or possibly Childline. On her own account she discussed feeling trapped within her family but not the allegations of sexual abuse nor the alleged threats from her father.21.I have a statement given to police on 1 July 2021 from a school friend of R’s whose identity remains confidential. I shall refer to her as G. She says that in or around November or December 2020 R confided in her that when she was about 7 or 8 years old and living in Country A her brother had told her to go to the bathroom with her and to get undressed. She then reports an account that is similar to the one given by R to the police. A day or so later R then told G that her brother had been threatening and blackmailing her to take naked pictures of herself to send to him. G could not recall if R had told her when this had happened. R also told G that her brother had asked her to touch his penis when she was about 10 years old, and that on another occasion she had seen her brother looking “inappropriately” at a young girl visiting with her family, when she had been in the bathroom. G told the police that R had told her that she had informed her mother about what her brother was doing but her mother had said that it was normal for boys to do that and had blamed R for what had happened, telling her it would damage the family honour. G tried to persuade R to speak to the safeguarding teacher but R wanted to wait until after her examinations and so it was in early June that G went with R to speak to the Ms K. G’s evidence that R told her she was 6 or 7 years old when the bath/shower incident occurred is inconsistent with R’s account to the police that she was 9. However, I do not regard that as a significant inconsistency: G may have misremembered what R had told her. Alternatively, R may have reflected more on the timing of the incident before giving her considered account to the police.22.Ms K was the first professional person outside the family to whom R made her allegations. Ms K was the safeguarding lead at R’s school. R went to speak to Ms K with her friend, G, on 7 June 2021. Ms K told the court that she made contemporaneous notes by typing them into the Child Protection Online Monitoring System (CPOMS) record during the discussion. She contacted the police and then children’s social services. She did not discuss the allegations further with R. She did return to her CPOMS record, which she had left open to add to it. She referred to these additions as “elaboration” but she meant that she added comments about R’s demeanour and about what comments R herself had made during the meeting. She closed the CPOMS record in the early afternoon of 8 June 2021 and she made a police statement using the CPOMS record that same day. There are inconsistencies between the CPOMS record and the police statement including an important detail of the incident R had alleged had occurred in the shower/bath when she was nine. This is addressed in the confidential appendix two to this judgment. It is regrettable that Ms K did not record her contemporaneous notes of the discussion on 7th June 2021, close that record, and then open up another record to write up her reflections, the context, how R had presented and so forth. Then the court would know more clearly what was said by R on 7th June and what was comment by Ms K. Some criticism was made of Ms K for referring to R’s allegations as “disclosures”, but I do not find that Ms K pre-judged the truth of the allegations made. Her role, which she fulfilled, was to listen to and record the allegations and to alert the appropriate authorities whilst looking after R’s welfare. She did that, albeit her notetaking might have been more transparent if she had done it in the manner I have suggested. Given the way in which the notes were recorded I find it difficult to rely on any apparent discrepancies between what she recorded and what R subsequently said to the police save that I accept that what she recorded in quotation marks was what she contemporaneously recorded R as saying to her.23.The social worker, CY, attended the school and spoke to Ms K. R had already been taken to the police station so CY followed her there. She made arrangements for R and S to be placed with foster carers that night. She visited R on two or three subsequent occasions. Her involvement ended on 11 August 2021. On 10 June 2021 she visited R and noted:“R said she told mum again in lockdown 2020 and told her everything from the beginning, she said mum hugged her because she was crying. R said she confronted her brother and she shouted at him, which mum said to her your crazy and destroying the family. R discussed the comments she alleged her father says to her about shame and people end up in the lake, R said that dad would always make comments like this and dad would say comments like this about her wanting to wear skirts and he wouldn't let her wear things like this.”It was pointed out that R was wearing a skirt during the police interview – in fact, she was wearing her school uniform which included a skirt over thick leggings.24.R has not waivered in maintaining her allegations. Even when she knew that S had been returned home with protective measures including T having moved out of the family home, and when she had been advised that whether or not her allegations were believed by authorities, she would not be compelled to return home and could live independently, she did not withdraw her allegations. She has had some difficult experiences to confront whilst in a foster placement. She has been distressed to be apart from her family, including S and she took the view that she did not want her parents to be questioned in court about the allegations she had made. However, she has maintained the allegations throughout.T25.T was a thoughtful and intelligent witness who gave careful consideration to the questions asked. T was interviewed by police on the same day as R. He elected not to have a solicitor present. Early in the interview he was asked if he knew anything about assaulting his sister in a sexual way and he answered, “No, I don’t think so.” [G217, line 13]. He was later asked whether he recalled showing pornography to R when she was younger, and was given a specific detail about the pornography that R had said she recalled. He replied, “Not really, no.” [G231. Line 13]. He was asked about the shower/bath incident which R had alleged had occurred when she was 9 years old, “I don’t think I remember it.” [G231, line9]. Later at [G234, line 25] he said, he did not think it had happened, “but I can’t say that with certainty because I can’t sort of remember anything from those years …” He was asked about the “fashion games” during which R alleged he had stroked her vagina. Was that true? He initially responded, “No I don’t think so.” [G232, line 15] before clarifying that it was not true.26.At court, T emphasised that when he told the police he did not “remember” an alleged incident, he had used that word because the interviewing officer had specifically asked him if he had “remembered”. In fact, the incidents he said he did not remember did not happen. 27.Less equivocally, in interview T denied “with certainty” that he had placed R’s hand on his penis [G232, line 2] and that he had taken photographs of R.28.As to the allegation about sucking R’s ear and kissing her neck and lips, T said to the police, “Oh yeah, I think that happened, yeah. Yeah that was …. Er I think I was. I don’t know, 15/16 or something, not 15/16, 13 or 14.” [G232, line 21]. At G233 line 21 he said, “I think, it wasn’t intentional, I didn’t plan to do that, er, I never looked at my sister like that. I used to, I know I shouldn’t say… I shouldn’t speak like that each other but yeah, we had a good relationship before, we used to play football and stuff. We, yeah, used to tease each other, tease each other, you know, watch the same shows and movies and stuff but I think because we had such a, a physical proximity and, er, my age, er, I think teen years, I think puberty hitting and stuff, I think it’s just animalistic of me, you know, just letting my emotions take over and stuff and I couldn’t see, I was sort of blind, I couldn’t see the relationship that we had. I just saw that as a body next to me, you know, and I think that’s why that happened.”29.When asked about this at court, T denied that he had sucked R’s ear. He accepted that he had kissed her on the lips. He said that when, in his police interview, he had accepted that what R had alleged had happened, he was simply accepting that an incident of the kind she had alleged had occurred, not the details of what was being put to him. However, later in the interview he said, “The ear thing happened….” [G235, line 20]. He denied that his “animalistic” impulse had been sexual, it was just an unthinking spur of the moment movement which he had immediately regretted.30.In his witness statement and oral evidence T admitted only that on one occasion, in Pakistan, in the early hours of the morning, he had kissed R on the lips when they had been sharing a bed, in their Uncle’s room. He denied all other allegations. He said that the events alleged did not happen. Indeed he did not recognise the “fashion games” R had referred to, and he denied ever having shared a shower or bath with his sister. In his police interview, by contrast, he had said,Right. I’m not saying she’s not, she’s lying or anything, I’m just saying I can’t remember the things that happened and I can also remember the things that did not happen and they would never happen, you know, those things that she’s talking about me filming her, I would never film her, never did. [G235 line 15]31.T denied that there was any row in front of his mother or otherwise in which R confronted him about what he had done. The first he knew about any such allegations was on 7 June 2021 when the police asked to interview him. However, T did say that “obviously” his parents would have kept it within the family had R made the allegations to them [G235, line 29].