Case No. EWFC-48

asserted that the judge failed to give adequate reasons for his decision. Mr Latham’s submissions on this point were detailed and numerous but really amounted to the overarching criticism that the judge had failed to consider the submissions advanced by the father particularly with respect to the allegations of sexual abuse. 43.It is important to understand that a judge conducting a fact finding enquiry is not obliged to prepare a detailed analysis of each and every submission or point made by a party. To do so would represent an unsustainable burden for the judiciary. What is required of a fact finding judgment is quite simple: (a) for the parties to understand why they won or lost and (b) to provide sufficient detail and analysis for an appellate court to decide – should it need to do so – whether the judgment is sustainable on challenge. My task is not to grade the judgment and find it wanting because I might have found differently or because I might have structured and expressed myself differently in a judgment. My role is to consider the substance of what the judge said, having regard to the generous ambit of decision making accorded to a fact finding determination by a trial judge. 44.Did this judgment do what it needed to do in a case where, as Mr Latham accepted, it was the mother’s word against that of the father and the allegations were very serious? It is plain that the judge was fully alive to the need to evaluate carefully the credibility of both parties and did so at some length in his judgment. Further, the judge’s conclusions were neither extraordinary nor indefensible given his assessment of the parties’ oral evidence which included admissions by the father of sexual misconduct towards the mother and another woman. 45.Mr Latham submitted that the judge had failed to have regard to the mother’s alleged lies. He asserted that the judge had failed to adequately address four examples where the mother had lied on key issues. Though these four examples were listed in the section of the judgment dealing with the mother’s credibility, Mr Latham said that the judge’s analysis was partial and inadequate.46.With respect to the first example, this being the mother’s failure to realise that the additional allegations of sexual abuse amounted to rape until the evening before the fact finding hearing with this explaining their absence from both her police and her first Children Act statement, Mr Latham submitted that (a) the judge should have referred to the allegedly more “graphic” and thus memorable nature of the new allegations; and (b) the judge should have noted that no film of the rape had been recovered from the father’s phone even though the mother alleged the rape had been recorded. Overall, the judge was said to have failed to critically analyse the father’s submissions on this issue including those matters referred to in his judgment. Having considered this submission carefully, I am not persuaded that the judge’s failure to address each of the points made by the father rendered his overall conclusion on this issue defective. That conclusion took account of the submissions made by Ms Lee and the judge’s characterisation of the mother’s oral evidence as being credible, descriptive, and in alignment with her written evidence.47.The second example was the mother’s allegation that she had spoken to her solicitor about the father having sex with her when she told him to stop but had been advised nothing further could be added to her statement. The judge dealt with it as I detailed in paragraph 16 above. I reject the submission that he was required to do more.48.The third example was the mother’s account of having her face grabbed and bounced really hard off the wall during the alleged physical assault in March 2015. The judge commented that this matter did not fundamentally undermine his assessment of the mother’s credibility and went on to address the alleged assault in some detail later in his judgment. At that point he noted, amongst other matters, the lack of medical evidence and of a witness statement from the neighbour who had allegedly witnessed the incident. The judge’s conclusion was that neither party had “covered themselves in glory” and he found that the mother had failed to meet the evidential hurdle required of her. That finding did not equate to a conclusion that the mother had lied as submitted by Mr Latham. The more detailed consideration contended for by Mr Latham was absent from the judge’s reasoning but this did not fundamentally render his conclusion unsafe.49.The fourth example concerned inconsistencies in the mother’s police statement from 2020 which Mr Latham submitted revealed both her untruthfulness and the alleged tailoring of her Children Act written evidence by what was contained in the police disclosure. He submitted that the judge should have addressed this feature of the mother’s evidence in detail. In response, Ms Lee submitted that the police document to which the mother was taken in cross-examination by the father lacked clarity as to whether it was a verbatim account and how that it had come to be made. There was no statement from the police addressing those matters and no evidence from the officers as to how this statement had been generated. The judge noted some merit in the matters raised by the father but considered this issue to be relatively minor and one which did not undermine the mother’s credibility. Whilst it might have been desirable for the judge to deal with this matter more comprehensively, it seems clear to me that the document relied on by Mr Latham had its own shortcomings and was unlikely to have persuasive weight in demonstrating the mother’s alleged lies. I do not consider the judge’s failure to address this matter as fatal to the judgment overall.50.My conclusions are reinforced by dicta in