[2025] EWHC 2637 (Fam)

In assessing the mother’s evidence, I bear in mind that she has never previously travelled outside Pakistan. Travelling to England is likely to have been daunting for her, especially when she has come here to have face-to-face contact with her daughter for the first time in over a year and to give evidence in these proceedings where there is a considerable amount at stake for her. She also had to give evidence about personal and sensitive matters in a crowded courtroom populated largely by strangers. The task of giving evidence is likely to have been made more difficult for her by the fact that the father – a man who, as I find, is responsible for perpetrating a very violent and traumatic assault against her – was present in court throughout her evidence. In my view, the use of the courtroom curtain to shield the mother from having to look at him will have mitigated but by no means eliminated the impact upon her of knowing he was there.

I also take into account that the mother gave her evidence through an interpreter and not in her own language. Inevitably, as with any case involving the use of an interpreter, some of the nuances of what she said are likely to have been lost in translation.

I have come to the conclusion that the mother was sometimes truthful as a witness, but sometimes not. Some of her untruthful evidence related to significant matters. She answered most questions that were put to her concisely and in a straightforward manner. In my judgement, however, she was not frank in her evidence about the incident on 26 December 2020; she also sought to minimise the severity of the assault perpetrated against the father on that date and to downplay the impact this will have had upon A. She has embellished aspects of her evidence and allowed herself to recast rumours as fact. Most significantly, in my judgement, the mother has not told the truth about the circumstances in which she came across the controversial video and how she came to send it to AD.

As I find, the mother has suffered the traumatic abduction of her daughter from her care, an experience compounded by the length of time during which she has not seen her other than on video. She is highly motivated to recover her daughter and, in my view, this motivation is primarily what has led to aspects of her evidence being unreliable and/or untruthful.

Although the mother was composed during most of her evidence, there were points when it was obvious to me that she was struggling to hold back her tears. One such point was when she was asked how she felt about finally being able to see her daughter in person. She was barely able to suppress her emotions as she described this as ‘the happiest day’. Her love for her daughter shone through and the pain she must have suffered as a result of their prolonged separation was all too apparent. When the mother was cross-examined about the violent circumstances of the abduction, she again struggled to retain her composure. Having now heard all the evidence, it is obvious to me that in that moment she was finding it difficult having to relive the traumatic assault she endured.

It is also important for me to record that AD gave evidence after the mother. Some of AD’s evidence about the controversial video was not foreshadowed in the statements she had filed and, thus, the mother did not address it when she gave evidence. I do note, however, that the agreed witness template contemplated the possibility that the mother might be recalled to give evidence. No party made an application to recall her.

During Ms Ancliffe KC’s closing submissions, I raised with her the fact that on one view it might be said that there was an inconsistency between the mother’s account of finding the video on the father’s phone in 2020 and AD’s evidence about the video – or alternatively another similar video - having been sent to one of her brothers in 2017. Ms Ancliffe KC submitted that, on a proper analysis, there was in fact no such inconsistency. She further submitted that it was not incumbent upon her to recall her client and that, in the event that I had concerns about any evidential inconsistencies, I should have required her to be recalled. I reject this last submission. A judge trying a case sits as a neutral umpire. So far as lay witnesses are concerned (different considerations may arise with experts), I consider that it would be wrong for the judge to take the initiative in calling or recalling a particular witness. It would also be a recipe for litigation chaos if a judge was precluded from relying upon disparities in the evidence of two witnesses unless the first witness to give evidence was recalled to give evidence about what the second had said.