Case No. SE20C00603

of satisfying one or more of these three purposes. So, in a future case about another child such a standard judgment may be admitted in evidence and have some influence on the result. Or it may be helpful in compiling a life-story book for the subject child. Or it may be shared with another local authority to put it on alert to the presence of a child abuser in its domain. But on an application for a fact-finding trial of un-admitted allegations where the admitted allegations amply satisfy the threshold, these possible side-effects cannot legitimately be put forward as the main purposes of such a trial. To do so would be to put the cart of useful side-effects before the horse of legitimate purposes. 26.In Oxfordshire County Council v DP & Ors [2005] EWHC 1593 (Fam) McFarlane J, as he then was, at [24] stated:“The authorities make it plain that, amongst other factors, the following are likely to be relevant and need to be borne in mind before deciding whether or not to conduct a particular fact finding exercise:a) The interests of the child (which are relevant but not paramount);b) The time that the investigation will take;c) The likely cost to public funds;d) The evidential result;e) The necessity or otherwise of the investigation;f) The relevance of the potential result of the investigation to the future care plans for the child;g) The impact of any fact finding process upon the other parties;h) The prospects of a fair trial on the issue;i) The justice of the case.”27.Rightly, having regard to the original authorities, McFarlane J did not include as a relevant factor the different child purpose. However, in [29(iv)] he stated:“The public interest in the identification of the perpetrators of child abuse and the public interest in children knowing the truth about past abuse are important factors”I have pointed out above that neither of these factors was mentioned in the original authorities.28.In Re H-D-H and C (Children: Fact-Finding) [2021] EWCA Civ 1192, [2021] 4 WLR 106 the Court of Appeal considered the subject anew. Unfortunately, neither Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council v D nor Re B (threshold criteria: agreed facts) was cited to it. Peter Jackson LJ held at [21]:“Many of the factors identified in Oxfordshire overlap with each other and the weight to be given to them will vary from case to case. Clearly, the necessity or otherwise of the investigation will always be a key issue, particularly in current circumstances. Every fact-finding hearing must produce something of importance for the welfare decision. But the shorthand of necessity does not translate into an obligation to conclude every case as quickly as possible, regardless of other factors, and that is clearly not the intention of the administrative guidance. There will be cases in which the welfare outcome for the child is not confined to the resulting order.