![[2024] UKUT 401 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Examination-in-chief
Examination-in-chief
The Appellant’s examination-in-chief began with her adoption of her written witness statement and her confirmation that it remained true and accurate. Apart from that, the examination-in-chief only involved the Appellant giving evidence that, since she prepared her written statement, she had had no contact with D.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to DISMISS the appeal
- D's allegation that she was sexually abused by her mother (the Appellant)
- DBS’ decision-making
- Grounds of appeal
- Additional documentary evidence
- Legal framework
- Examination-in-chief
- The Appellant’s witness statement
- recounts the Appellant’s long history of work in the charitable and caring sectors
- Appellant’s cross-examination
- when D reached puberty in 2014/15 she ‘shut down’ and became very angry
- she denied ever having said that she did not want D to live with her
- the Appellant was taken to the transcripts of D’s ABE interviews. She was asked about D’s statement that the Appellant would be present in the bathroom when D took a bath or shower. The Appellant said
- Re-examination
- Arguments
- The Appellant
- Conclusions
- D’s disclosure of sexual abuse
- multiple sources of evidence showed D’s extreme reluctance to have any contact, even indirect contact, with her mother
- Working Together to Safeguard Children: 2023 Statutory Guidance (HM Gov, 2023) includes advice for practitioners on possible indicators of abuse short of a direct allegation of abuse. These include “c
- Learning for the Future: Final Analysis of Serious Case Reviews , 2017 to 2019 (DfE, 2022) refers to how difficult it is for children to talk about abuse (5.4.2), that disclosure of abuse often follow
- 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 Appellant’s skeleton argument submits that the allegations were fabricated by D and her ex-husband
- Ground 1 – conclusions
- Ground 2 – conclusions
- Conclusions