[2024] UKUT 379 (AAC)

LM gave oral evidence on these issues, as did his wife. LM’ s evidence was that he did not hit his partner. He recognised that he and his partner were arguing at the time, largely because their accommodation was unsatisfactory (they were living in a studio flat with a small baby with very bad mould) and this meant they had no space which made them stressed. He said, however, that the police were not involved and there was no record of domestic violence recorded by the police. He also said that he did visit the police to indicate his unhappiness with his life, accepting that he went to the authorities that he wanted to take his own life, and they just gave him a pamphlet. When cross examined, he accepted that he did want to take his own life to the police (despite denying saying this earlier in his cross examination). He also accepted in cross examination that he had a poor memory and that “a lot of things have happened here". He did deny, however, in cross examination that he did have an argument and hit his wife and threatened to kill her.

He also gave further evidence about the stressful relationship between himself and his wife in 2013. He identified that his wife was not working, as she was a student, LM was having to support a family in South Africa alongside sending money by way of remittance to the Philippines for his wife’s family, and that they were struggling financially. LM told us that he suspected that his wife had post-natal depression after the birth of their son, TM, and that part of their problems were caused by a cultural clash. He told us that he was “African and from a strong traditional background” and so was keener on saving money than his wife who wanted possessions.

He described their lives living in the flat as very difficult and that was why he applied in February 2013 to have TM taken into short term foster care so that he could earn sufficient money to return to South Africa. He described being stressed and depressed with his financial and housing difficulties, and that he felt like sleeping most of the time during that period.

His wife, who I shall call CP, supported her husband’s evidence. She recognised that they had relationship difficulties in 2013 involving poor housing, a small baby, LM having to work very hard, and cultural differences between them as they had just moved in together and were “learning each other’s culture”. His wife described LM as more conservative and more mature than her at that time. She accepts that they were having verbal arguments at the time in question, and that an outreach support worker from Hampshire Children’s Services was involved at that time. She denied that LM had ever hit her. She also told us that she had never spoken to the police in her life. She identifies that the outreach worker was engaged by the local authority after the health visitor contacted children’s services because of the poor accommodation where they were living with a baby. She was adamant that LM had never hit her and that he was a very kind gentleman. She denied minimizing abusive behaviours because she was a healthcare professional, and she was concerned that accepting such may impact upon her and her husband’s employment (as was stated by Hampshire Children’s Services in their assessments in 2020).

The material upon which the DBS based their conclusions was that from Children’s Services. The CAF assessments in 2019 and 2020 record in summary form what was said about the incidents in 2013 (there is no direct evidence/assessments provided by Hampshire from that time). The 2019 CAF assessment said that an initial assessment was undertaken in respect of TM in 2013 because of “father’s indications of ongoing domestic violence and his partner and himself”. It also says that he raised concerns about his relationship with his partner which had deteriorated to the point “where he wanted to kill her himself and everyone.” In July 2013, an outreach support worker contacted Children’s Services and said that LM and CP had an argument, and that LM had hit his partner, and that both had spoken to the police about the incident. The DBS in their letter recognised that there was no information from Hampshire Constabulary about this and took this into account in their overall assessment.

We consider that there was no mistake of fact in the DBS reaching this conclusion. The Appellant and his wife recognised that at the time in question they were under significant stress and strain – such strain that LM requested that his son is taken into short term foster care. We do not consider that LM was intentionally seeking to mislead us about the event, but it was plainly a very stressful time in LM’s and CP’s life. The fact that there is no information supplied by Hampshire Constabulary is not conclusive. The evidence was that they were “spoken to by the police” which may not have involved any formal engagement or complaint to have led to a record. We also take account of the fact that during periods of stress – as can be seen in LM’s behaviour towards his son, TM – he can lash out. On that basis, we consider that on the balance of probabilities this event did occur. We do not consider that the threat to kill his partner was serious but was simply a mechanism to display his despair and unhappiness to social services.