![FA-2025-000024 - [2025] EWHC 1500 (Fam)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_0FrGysm.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
My Analysis and Decision
When reaching my decision I have reminded myself that when writing a judgment the task facing a judge is not to pass an examination or to prepare a detailed legal or factual analysis of all the evidence and submissions he has heard - Sir James Munby P in Re F (Children) EWCA Civ 546 para 22. Further, I accept and repeat herein what Mr Justice Hayden stated in F v M(above) at paragraphs 33-35.
When it comes to judgment writing, it is important to recognise and encourage the great variety of differing styles and approach: 'let a thousand flowers bloom!' . However, as Jackson LJ said in Re B (A Child) (Placement Order: Adequacy of Reasons) [2002] EWCA Civ 407 [2022] 4 WLR 42:
…The court's task is not accomplished by handing down a decision that happens to be correct if it is not also properly explained. Fairness to the losing party demands no less."
In that judgment, Jackson LJ also took the opportunity to set out the essential framework required of any judgment. It repays repetition here:
Judgments reflect the thinking of the individual judge and there is no room for dogma, but in my view a good judgment will in its own way, at some point and as concisely as possible:
state the background facts
identify the issue(s) that must be decided
articulate the legal test(s) that must be applied
note the key features of the written and oral evidence, bearing in mind that a judgment is not a summing-up in which every possibly relevant piece of evidence must be mentioned
record each party's core case on the issues
make findings of fact about any disputed matters that are significant for the decision
evaluate the evidence as a whole, making clear why more or less weight is to be given to key features relied on by the parties
give the court's decision, explaining why one outcome has been selected in preference to other possible outcomes."
Significantly, to my mind, Jackson LJ adds a rider to this list as follows:
The last two processes—evaluation and explanation—are the critical elements of any judgment. As the culmination of a process of reasoning, they tend to come at the end, but they are the engine that drives the decision, and as such they need the most attention. A judgment that is weighed down with superfluous citation of authority or lengthy recitation of inessential evidence at the expense of this essential reasoning may well be flawed. At the same time, a judgment that does not fairly set out a party's case and give adequate reasons for rejecting it is bound to be vulnerable."
In order to determine this appeal, I have read and read the judgment many times and reminded myself that I should not make a narrow textual analysis of it. In reaching my conclusion I have not overlooked the clear case law on the proper approach to an appeal against a finding of fact which I have already set out. An appeal court must not interfere with findings of facts by trial judges , including the evaluation of those facts and the inferences to be drawn from them, unless compelled to do so. An appellate court is bound , unless there is compelling reason to the contrary, to assume that the trial judge has taken the whole of the evidence into consideration. In essence the Appellant’s case before me is that in this case there is such a compelling reason, namely that the Recorder did not exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence before making his findings. I have accordingly reminded myself that in Re T (Children) [2004] EWCA Civ 558 at paragraph 33 Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss stated:
"…evidence cannot be evaluated and assessed in separate compartments. A judge in these difficult cases has to have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion whether the case put forward by the local authority has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof."
The judgment of Mr Recorder Stables in most regards followed the essential framework of a judgment as described by Jackson LJ above. However, I have concluded that it failed to evaluate the evidence as a whole, making clear why more or less weight is to be given to key features relied on by the parties. The judgment was written in a linear fashion. The learned Recorder compartmentalised his consideration of each of the allegations he had been asked to determine and his consideration of the evidence in relation to each of the allegations separately. Paragraphs 121-135 of the judgment contain his analysis in relation to the rape allegation. That analysis focuses on the mother’s consistency of evidence in relation to the allegation of rape and the text message sent by the father on the next day. In relation to that text message the Recorder clearly rejected the father’s explanation and accordingly gave himself a Lucas direction. However, the Recorder did not consider the allegation of rape in the context of his other findings namely in relation to A’s paternity; the context in which the mother made the allegation of rape; the father’s case that the mother had previously wrongly accused him of the rape of others; the malicious nature of the mother’s denial of A’s paternity which the Recorder had found had been to prevent contact; and his finding that the mother had been very controlling over contact for non-child welfare reasons, had threatened the father with the police unreasonably and had recently been motivated by a desire to deprive the father and his family of all contact with both children. The Recorder looked at the allegations in compartments and in doing so compartmentalised the evidence. There is no holistic evaluation of the evidence. There is no analysis of how the evidence about the rape sat within the context of the other findings he made within that part of the judgment, nor can such an analysis be inferred from reading the judgment as a whole. In those circumstances, I regret to say that I do not consider the finding of rape can stand, not because the finding is necessarily wrong but because of the way in which the Recorder arrived at his decision. There are three overlapping problems with the judgment. First, the reasoning is insufficient and flawed. Secondly, in reaching his conclusion on the rape, the Recorder did not take into account some material factors. Thirdly, the Recorder looked at the allegations and therefore the evidence in compartments and thus did not have regard to each piece of evidence in the context of the totality of the evidence before making his findings.
Accordingly, I allow the appeal on Grounds 3-5 as set out above. I remit this case for rehearing of the fact-find. I propose it should be heard before another judge to be allocated by the relevant Family Presider.
That is my judgment.