Summary
30.In conclusion, I would again stress that the purpose of this judgment is to bring a spotlight to bear upon the wholly unsatisfactory delays that are now regularly being encountered in obtaining post-mortem reports in suspected child homicide cases, and to describe possible alternative ways for the Family Court to proceed. 31.Whilst I have been at pains to stress that this judgment is not intended to lay down how any particular future cases should be determined, as it will be a matter for the judges in those cases to evaluate the options available on the facts of each case, I wish to be plain that it is no longer acceptable for the Family Court simply, and passively, to accept that a post-mortem report will take a year and that the Family proceedings must therefore be put on hold. The need to meet the welfare needs of the surviving child(ren) and the statutory duty to conclude the proceedings within 26 weeks impose a requirement on the Family Court to be proactive in considering options by which such evidence as is ‘necessary’ to establish the s 31 threshold and determine the ultimate welfare question can be obtained from other sources. 32.It is a matter for the Police, HM Coroners and others what steps may be taken to alleviate the current extreme reported delays in obtaining post-mortem reports for use in the criminal justice and coronial systems. I am clear that the Family Justice system should no longer passively put up with the consequences of a wholly unacceptable regime. In future the Family Court should only be obliged to delay its proceedings to await receipt of a post-mortem report in a suspected child homicide where it is truly ‘necessary’ to do so in order to achieve the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly, having regard to the welfare issues involved. In all other cases, the court should consider adopting alternative strategies to achieve a more expeditious resolution of the proceedings, whilst still meeting the overriding principles.