[2025] EWHC 2637 (Fam)

AD, with the permission of the court, gave her evidence remotely from the offices of the firm of solicitors which has been acting for her pro bono. AD lives near the father and next door to one of her brothers. She works in an administrative capacity at the local hospital.

It is important to record the circumstances in which she came to give her evidence. She was the person responsible for passing to the police in May 2024 the controversial video, an action which led to the father’s arrest, A’s removal from his care and the initiation of these proceedings. As well as passing the police the video, AD also communicated to them certain information about interactions she had witnessed between A and the father. More generally, she has told the police that the father mistreated both her and her late mother during her childhood.

AD believed that she was speaking to the police anonymously and that, as an informant, her identity would be protected. She was given assurances to that effect by the police.

Within these proceedings an order was made against the police to disclose material held by them in relation to their investigation against the father. The police provided a considerable amount of material, but parts of it were redacted in order to conceal AD’s identity (other redactions were also made for reasons which are not material for present purposes). This resulted in a series of hearings at which I had to determine an application advanced by the police to permit them not to make disclosure of the redacted material on the ground of public interest immunity. As part of that process, AD’s views were canvassed. She was strongly opposed to her identity being revealed. She asserted that were her identity to become known, she faced serious risks from her father and the wider community. These included an asserted risk that she might be killed. She further alleged that even if she were not harmed physically, she would be shunned by the community.

When I considered the matter on paper, I initially determined that the matters disclosed by AD to the police were relevant to the issues in the proceedings. I went on to rule, however, that having regard to the nature of the risks alleged the balance came down in favour of withholding her identity from the father and appointing a special advocate to safeguard his interests within the proceedings.

Following my determination, Ms Anita Guha KC came to be appointed as special advocate. She reviewed the entirety of the material disclosed by the police to the parties, including material not contained in the police disclosure bundle with which I had been presented when asked to make my determination of the police’s PII application. Ms Guha KC drew to my attention certain documents which had been redacted by the police in a wholly inadequate way. As a consequence of this inadequate redaction, AD’s identity had been made blindingly obvious. In those circumstances, and after hearing further submissions by the parties and on behalf of AD, I revisited my previous ruling and determined that there was no purpose to be served in preserving AD’s anonymity. Ms Guha KC discharged her responsibilities as special advocate with consummate diligence and skill and I extend the court’s gratitude to her for the important role she played in the process.

AD agreed to give evidence in the proceedings, but only in circumstances where she was compelled to do so by the issuing of a witness summons. She had no desire to become involved in the case.

Having heard AD’s evidence I am entirely satisfied that she was a truthful witness. I find that she was not motivated to come to court and tell lies against her father and reject his suggestion to the contrary. She gave an account of an unhappy childhood in which she and her mother suffered from his abusive behaviour. She did not seek to exaggerate, however. She described only one instance where she was physically abused by him and just one where she witnessed her mother being physically abused.

The fact that AD was honest and truthful does not of course mean that her evidence was accurate. I have borne in mind in particular that much of her evidence relates to events which happened a quarter of a century ago or even longer ago than that. After this length of time her memory will have faded. I am satisfied, however, that she accurately described the core details of the instances of abuse which were a feature of her evidence. I entirely reject the suggestion by the father that she produced falsified documents in respect of injunctive proceedings brought by AD’s mother under the Family Law Act 1996 which took place around the turn of the millennium.

For the purposes of these proceedings the most relevant evidence given by AD concerned essentially three issues: (i) the receipt by one of her brothers in 2017 of a video purporting to show the father abusing a young girl; (ii) her interactions with the mother following the father bringing A to this jurisdiction and the steps she took with the police in response to those interactions; and (iii) her own observations of A and A’s interactions with the father following her arrival in this jurisdiction. I am satisfied that on all of these issues the evidence given by AD was honest and accurate, with the following caveats: