[2024] UKUT 401 (AAC)

Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings (Ministry of Justice, 2022) notes that children who have experienced a traumatic event may need breaks when being interviewed about those events (2.235), the assistance of a registered intermediary may be necessary for a child to communicate about particularly traumatic events (2.264), children may be particularly reluctant to talk freely and openly about allegations of sexual abuse (3.38), it can be less traumatic for children to explain sexual abuse by reference to a prop rather than their own bodies (3.124), psychologically disturbed and traumatised children may present as very reluctant interviewees (E.3.4).

In our judgment, D’s behavioural history and the manner in which she disclosed sexual abuse were consistent with, or characteristic of, the behaviour of children who disclose real sexual abuse by a close family member.

Other aspects of the evidence case also lend weight to the credibility of D’s disclosure of sexual abuse:

there are no significant inconsistences in the accounts given by D at different times (on her iPad, to the foster carer and during the two ABE interviews). Indeed, the Appellant does not argue that D made inconsistent disclosures;

during the second ABE interview, which generated the most detailed account of D’s alleged abuse, there was an identifiable pattern to the way in which D made her disclosures which, in our judgment, added to her credibility. When discussing particularly intimate aspects of the alleged abuse, D’s disclosures tended to be non-verbal, but this was not the case when D was asked to describe the wider context. For example, when discussing alleged sexual abuse in the bathroom, D was unable to say the words ‘breast’ and ‘vagina’. She used props instead or just nod or shook her head. When discussing frequency and location, however, D was able to respond verbally to the interviewer’s questions. The same pattern was evident when the ABE interview turned to alleged sexual abuse in the living room. D was unable to say the word ‘vagina’ but gave verbal answers when asked what she was wearing and when the alleged abuse occurred.

in her police interview, the Appellant said D may have made the allegations because the Appellant was the only person never to have rejected D;

in her DBS representations, the Appellant seemed to suggest that the allegations were linked to years of failure by public bodies to provide D with the help she needed;

in written submissions, the Appellant argued that her history of poor relations with her daughter may have given her a motive to fabricate the allegations;