[2025] EWHC 2637 (Fam)

Fecha: 25-Jul-2025

The video

The video

124.

In the mother’s schedule of allegations dated 25 October 2024, she alleged that ‘in or around 2020’, as shown in the video, the father sexually assaulted ‘an unknown girl’. The schedule is inconsistent with the case now advanced by the mother, which is that the girl in the video is somebody she recognised who has the name ‘F’. The mother further alleges that her viewing this video resulted in a ‘big argument’ between the father and her siblings culminating in the assault on 26 December 2020 (the schedule says 2022 but this must be a mistake) and the subsequent criminal investigation.

125.

As I have set out above, the video was sent by the mother to AD on 20 May 2024. AD’s evidence, which I accept, is that it was sent to her after she raised with the mother in a telephone call the fact that a video showing her father engaging in the sexual abuse of a girl had been sent to one of her brothers in 2017.

126.

I have seen the video. There is an agreed description of it in the bundle. It shows or appears to show a scene taking place in a room in the father’s house. An adult male who looks like the father is in the video as is a girl who appears to be in her early teens. In view of the agreed description, it is unnecessary for me to set out in great details what occurs. It is relevant to record that the adult male and the girl are clothed. The recording shows them on a bed with him touching and kissing her inappropriately and pulling her towards him. She is resistant, flinching, pulling away from him and kicking her legs. The man eats some melon in the video and offers a slice to the girl, which she refuses. At one stage the man appears to attempt to put cream on the girl.

127.

There is a point in the video when the man can be seen walking out of a door following which he appears to speak to a third party (probably another male). On his re-entering the room, the camera is covered by a black blanket or shawl, which had previously been seen on the table. When the image returns the blanket/shawl can be seen in exactly the same location it had been previously. The melon is also in the same location as previously.

128.

The images in the video are of poor quality.

129.

The video bears a date from 2016 and has a time recorder. The first recorded time is 23.31:00. The latest recorded time showing in the video is 23.39:28 (some eight and a half minutes later). Towards the end of the video, however, it cuts back in time jumping to 23.32:16. The final five seconds of the video appear to be in double speed as over that five second period the time stamp accelerates by ten seconds to 23.32:26.

130.

The father’s case is that the video is ‘a fake’ and/or the male person shown in the video is not him.

131.

The version of the video sent to the police by AD was analysed by an expert in video forensics from Verden Forensics. Their report dated 2 December 2024 contains the following conclusions:

(a)

The ‘observations’ (by which, in ordinary language, the expert means ‘images’) in the video are ‘much more probable’ if the video is not an original recording. In support of this conclusion, the expert notes features of the video such as a sudden transition from a black frame to an interior environment, a jump backwards in the screen time, the sped up section of the video and the appearance of duplicate frames in the video.

(b)

The observations are ‘much more probable’ if the video has been subject to an edit operation. The expert again refers to the sudden transition and the jump backwards in time, an event associated with a splice operation.

(c)

The observations are ‘more probable’ if the video does not contain artificially generated content. The expert notes in this context that the video contains no specific indication that it contains artificially generated content, but acknowledges the possibility that it could include such content, a possibility that could only be refuted by considering the original recording (which this is not).

(d)

It is not possible to determine when or where the recording was made.

I accept the expert’s conclusions set out above.

132.

The expert also stated that to opine further about the authenticity of the video, further information would be needed about ‘the source of capture’ and the chain of custody.

133.

Verden forensics were then instructed to prepare an addendum report considering another version of the recording, this time provided to them directly by the mother from her device, and to address certain questions. These included consideration of whether the recording provided by the mother was the same as the version analysed by the police. The expert’s conclusions in this addendum report were as follows:

(a)

The ‘file container’ in the version sent by the mother is not the same as in the police version.

(b)

The ‘video stream’ is the same in both versions.

(c)

The ‘audio streams’ in the two versions are different.

(d)

It is not possible to determine whether the video was in the mother’s possession before 20 May 2024.

Based on my understanding of the technical sections of the report and what is set out in a second addendum report, my conclusion is that the two versions are likely to be the same; the differences in the so-called ‘file containers’ and ‘audio streams’ result from the process of transmitting the video between devices.

134.

In her first statement, the mother said very little about the circumstances in which she came to be in possession of the video. As I have already set out, she said she had first seen it in 2020 when it ‘popped up’ while A was watching cartoons on the father’s phone. She referred to it as being one of many similar videos that the father would make and use to blackmail young girls. As I noted, she did not name the girl but referred to her as being a member of a religious studies group.

135.

In the mother’s second statement dated 25 October 2024, made in support of her schedule of allegations, she elaborated on the circumstances in which she had found the video [321]:

‘In or around 2020, [A] would always be playing games on the Father’s phone. On one occasion as she finished playing, I noticed that on his photo album he had an unusual video. I opened the video to see what he had recorded, and I noticed that there was a young girl in the video. I could clearly see that the Father was touching the young girl on the chest, vagina and thighs. I was mortified by what I had watched.’ (my emphasis)

She further said:

‘In around December 2020, I asked the Father about the video of the underage girl on his phone. I did mention this to my brothers. My brothers were mortified by what I had told them. As a result, my brothers confronted the Father which resulted in an argument….[SHE THEN SETS OUT DETAILS OF THE INCIDENT ON 26 DECEMBER 2020]’ (my emphasis)

I observe that on a reading of this statement and in particular the dates I have highlighted, the mother appeared to suggest that some time elapsed between her first seeing the video and speaking to the father about it.

136.

On 6 December 2024 the mother filed a third statement, four days after the report from Verden Forensics which had highlighted the importance of the chain of custody and after the father had filed a statement dated 26 November 2024 to which he had exhibited police reports about the incident on 26 December 2020, none of which make reference to the video. She said the following at paragraph 5 [399]:

‘At paragraph 44 of my first statement dated 7 July 2024, my statement did not translate well and I want to clarify how I come to find the video of [the father] and the young girl. [A] would always watch cartoons on [the father] mobile phone. Whilst downloading a cartoon video for her I noticed the video in his downloads. I sent the video to myself via WhatsApp. It took me a few days to ask [the father] about this video. When I finally built up the courage to do so he physically abused me. I recognised the girl in the video as she was a student at the Madarsa school. I did tell her Mother but she did not want the police to be told. She was very poor and could not deal with potential costs, and culturally it was embarrassing for her family.’ (my emphasis)

137.

I do not attach any particular significance to the inconsistency between the references to the video having been found in the ‘photo album’ versus the ‘downloads’ folder as this could easily have occurred as a result of a miscommunication with a translator. The suggestion that the mother recognised the girl in the video is, however, wholly inconsistent with the mother’s previous case that the girl was ‘unknown’. In my judgement, it is something she invented to explain away the surprising fact that no mention had been made to the Pakistani police about the video, despite the fact that on the mother’s evidence it had been a central cause of the incident on 26 December 2020, an incident which had led to her arrest and that of her brothers and mother.

138.

On 20 January 2025, I made a direction for the mother to file a statement addressing a number of issues about the video as I considered that her evidence left unanswered important questions about the chain of custody. My direction required the mother’s statement to address, inter alia, the following:

(a)

How soon after seeing the video she had sent it to herself and how she had done so;

(b)

To whom and how she sent it on thereafter;

(c)

Whether she sent it to any other device of hers;

(d)

In view of her evidence that her phone had been damaged by the father in January 2024 causing her to lose her photos, how she had been able to access the footage to send it on to AD.

139.

In response to this direction, the mother filed a further short statement dated 30 January 2025. In that statement she said the following:

(a)

In around December 2020 A had accessed the father’s phone and was watching cartoon videos on it (I note that the reference to this having occurred in December is a departure from her previous evidence).

(b)

The father had downloaded other cartoons on his phone and these had gone straight to his phone gallery.

(c)

When she clicked on the phone gallery she saw ‘a video briefly’. The father was in the bathroom and she had limited time so she sent it to herself via WhatsApp and deleted the video from the father’s WhatApp messages so that he could not see what she had done.

(d)

She showed the video to her brothers on her phone but did not sent it to them.

(e)

She was nervous about the father finding the video on her phone and questioning her and so on an unspecified date she transferred the video to her laptop and then on to a USB stick.

(f)

She deleted the video from her laptop and phone retaining just a copy on her USB stick, which was kept in a safe place.

I later gave directions for the USB stick allegedly containing the video to be brought to England for analysis. For reasons relating to the law in Pakistan this has not been possible.

140.

The mother also said the following about the sending of the video to AD in her statement dated 30 January 2025:

‘In May 2024 after [A] was removed from my care, I was terrified of what could happen to her given that I had been poisoned by [the father]. I tried seeking help from the police, but they did not assist me. I reached out to [AD] [who] asked me if I had any proof of [A]’s abduction by [the father]. I confirmed that I did not have any evidence of the abduction however, I did have a video of [the father] abusing a young child. I decided to share the video with [AD] in they hope they could assist me and provide the video to the UK police and assist me with [A]’s return to my care.

I asked my brother … to help me transfer the video from the USB stick onto my [smartphone]. I then shared the video on WhatsApp with [AD]’

141.

I regret to say that I find that this account has been invented by the mother. I also find that she has been untruthful about the circumstances in which she first came across the video:

(a)

I find it implausible that the father would have stored this video on his phone if he was allowing the mother and A to use the phone on a regular basis to watch videos. The risk of discovery would have been high.

(b)

I find it even more implausible that the father would have stored it in a place where it could be seen easily by the mother while accessing cartoons which had been downloaded for A to view.

(c)

The mother gives no explanation as to how she initially viewed the video while at the same time managing her two and a half year old daughter and preventing her from seeing its content.

(d)

In circumstances where she and her brothers and mother had been arrested for assaulting the father on 26 December 2020, I find it highly unlikely that none of them would have made any mention of the video if it was a central feature of the incident.

(e)

I reject the mother’s claim that she recognised the girl in the video. It is unlikely given the poor quality of the video and the fact that it was filmed in 2016 but, on the mother’s case, observed by her in 2020. It is also inconsistent with the schedule of allegations where she said the identity of the girl was unknown. As set out above, this claim has been invented by the mother to explain away the absence of mention of the video to the police.

(f)

I find it highly implausible that the mother would choose to store the video on a USB stick as opposed to sending it to her brothers (to whom she had showed it) if she was concerned about the father finding it.

(g)

On the mother’s case, one of the reasons for putting the video on the USB stick was to avoid the risk of the father finding it on her phone. If so, it does not make sense that she retained the video on her phone and showed it to her brothers after the transfer (her oral evidence was to this effect). It would have made far more sense for her simply to forward the video to one of the brothers.

(h)

I consider that the elaborate explanation about the USB stick has been invented to explain away the fact that on the mother’s evidence all of the photos on her phone were destroyed in January 2024.

(i)

The mother’s evidence about the reloading of the video onto her phone in May 2024 with the assistance of her brother is consistent with there having been a short gap of just 10 minutes between her conversation with AD and the sending of the video. This strongly suggests that the video was either or already on the mother’s phone or that she was able to ask somebody to forward it to her from another device.

(j)

I am also troubled by the mother’s failure to make any mention of the video or at least ‘a video’ having been sent to AD’s brother in 2017, although I do not attach much weight to this as I accept the submission made on the mother’s behalf about the potential for miscommunication between the mother and AD.

The fact that the mother has lied about the provenance of the video does not of course mean that it is a faked video, still less that she has been involved in faking it.

142.

I am also satisfied that the father has told lies about the video. He has lied in pretending not to recognise the room in which it is shot which is clearly a room in his house and in his reluctance even to acknowledge that the man shown in the video purports to be him. As I set out above, in one of his answers to the police he made what I consider to be an admission about room being at his home in Pakistan. I also find that the father was aware of the existence of the video prior to his arrest by the police. He made comments at the time of his arrest, as shown in the bodycam footage, which suggest that this is so. I find the father’s lies highly suspicious, but this does not mean that I should find that the mother’s case is established.

143.

I have read and re-read the evidence about the video several times. Ultimately, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot safely make any findings about it and I determine that the mother’s case that father is the man shown in the video is not proved:

(a)

I have found that the mother has been untruthful about the provenance of the video and I do not know why. I suspect that she is covering up for somebody, perhaps a member of her family, but I cannot make a finding about this.

(b)

I take into account that no other incriminating material has been found on the father’s phone.

(c)

The video has clearly been edited in some way. There is no reason the father would have edited it. The fact that it contains time splicing is highly suspicious. In my view this increases the chances that it may have been altered in other ways which Verden Forensics are unable to detect without considering the original.

(d)

It does not have the character of a video that would be kept by the father for sexual gratification. I am unable to determine how the video came into existence, but it has the character of something created to blackmail the father. The potential for blackmail to lie behind the creation of the video is consistent with it having been sent to the father’s son in 2017, but I do not have sufficient evidence to make a finding about why or how it was created or by whom.

144.

On the balance of probability, I do think it is more likely than not that the video sent to AD in May 2024 is the same video that was sent to AD’s brother in 2017; it seems too much of a coincidence for there to have been two such videos in circulation and the mention of the 2017 video by AD is what prompted the mother to send her the video which was passed to the police. It follows that it was created before the parents even knew each other and the mother cannot have been involved in its creation. It remains unknown to me how or when it came to be in her possession.

145.

I am unable to make a finding that video has either been ‘faked’ (in the sense of altered with AI-generated content) or is genuine in the face of so many unanswered questions. I do consider it unlikely that the mother would have allowed A to continue to stay with the father at the home where the video was shot, if she had been provided with concrete proof of his nefarious activities there in 2020 and I consider it likely that either it has come into her possession much more recently or that she has harboured her own doubts about its authenticity.