‘…this Court considers that [FF’s] application might be better considered by the London Court, an application to wipe the slate clean on the basis of Re B…[I]t is more proportionate…for the London Court to deal with the totality of the allegations, rather than a part of them. That Court can properly consider whether the slate should be wiped clean.’
‘You know ‘Sxxx’ looks 10 times tighter than [‘…another child…’] from what I saw, we was maybe too nice what do you think’ [J232]. I reject the notion that ‘tighter’ was a typo for ‘happier’ as suggested by FF. This is a fanciful explanation for what is a transparently worrying message. I frankly cannot see how one would mistype ‘tighter’ for ‘happier’ and it is striking this suggested error was neither corrected by FF or picked up by CC who received the message. She appears to have engaged with the message in a manner which supports my assessment. I find this was a message seeking to compare the genitalia of two pre-pubescent children. I will return to what, if anything, this tells me about actual abuse later in this judgment. 47. Before moving on I would wish to make three points: a. My rejection of the account around ‘sexybear’ and the threesome is not an out and out rejection of FF’s suggestion of an interest in being involved in such an encounter. Indeed, I am satisfied that FF does have such an interest and he raised the same whilst in relationships with EE, CC and GG. I am satisfied FF was somewhat persistent in this regard but it did not eventuate in an actual encounter in the case of CC. In the case of EE the position is somewhat confused as I understood EE to accept there had been an encounter but that it had not gone as FF expected. This is confirmed by FF’s depiction of that encounter as the occasion on which EE ‘cheated’ on him. Finally I entirely accept the evidence of GG of an actual threesome involving FF and another man. I am left wondering whether it is this factual event which FF has utilised to found his untrue account involving ‘sexybear’ b. I draw nothing of relevance to the allegations I have to decide from FF’s somewhat unconventional sexual interests (excluding his interest in children). The fact he was seeking a threesome has absolutely no bearing or probative value to the allegations in this case. Further, whilst I understand the points put by the Applicant as to other aspects of the evidence which touched upon FF’s expression of an interest in sadistic sexual activity I have ultimately placed no weight upon these matters. I am not satisfied they are in fact probative of the actual allegations placed before me. c. That leaves me to confirm that I have put these issues out of mind when resolving the key issues in the case. It is not my role to engage in social engineering or to make findings which cut across the right of individuals to freedom of expression (to include freedom of sexual expression). I can confirm I have approached the case in such a manner. In the simplest of terms if all this case was about was the threesome involving FF and GG then I would not consider the Applicant has a right to involve itself in this family’s affairs. But sadly it is not simply about that event. The Indecent Images 48. I make a related finding that FF did indeed have indecent images of children upon his phone as a result of his sexual interest in children. There was no issue before 34. Re Z (A Child: Allegations of Sexual Abuse) me that such images were found; that they related to children, and; that they were indecent. The only issue was as to whether they had found their way onto FF’s phone without his knowledge or intent. Whilst I accept there is the potential for such material to be downloaded accidentally as part of a cache of information or otherwise I do not accept this was the case on the facts. 49. I am bound to draw on my assessment of the messaging above in considering this point. FF is on my assessment a paedophile and images of children were found on his phone. The finding of paedophilic interests is a significant factor when considering whether the images were downloaded accidentally or not. However a further supporting factor is the evidence I received as to (a) FF’s computer being ‘factory reset’ in the relatively short period between CC’s arrest and his own arrest; (b) the fact that whereas CC’s phone contained a history of messaging between herself and FF, there was no corresponding message history on FF’s phone; (c) that CC gave evidence (which I accept) of FF making the point that she needed to delete communications between the two of them; (d) that CC gave evidence (which I accept) of FF’s response (‘freaking out’) when he understood the police were looking to speak to her, and; (e) that CC gave evidence evidence (which I accept – and see discussion above re ‘super glue’) of FF seeking pictures of S. 50. I am on balance satisfied that FF has sought to expunge his devices of evidence of his communications relating to his sexual interest in children. The images found represent a likely residue of information previously found upon his devices. I am confident FF sought to equally remove these images but for reasons which I can only guess at failed in this regard. The events of Boxing Day 51. Whilst on this subject I wish to consider the events of Boxing Day (the DD photo). It is suggested that FF’s response to seeing this photo was one of disgust and this provides an insight into his distate as to sexual abuse of children. I disagree. Although FF may have previously sought to have made such a point, in his evidence before me he equivocated as to whether the image was in fact indicative of child abuse at all. It is difficult in that context to take from the event a clear expression of disgust as to the same. But, and in any event, having regard to all the evidence I have reached the conclusion that this event should be assessed in a different way. I have to say I found the evidence of FF surrounding how he came to check the phone most unlikely. He suggested the phone was checked in the sense of a joke to embarrass CC by looking to find information as to DD. However, by the end of the evidence FF agreed he had probably started a sexual relationship with CC by that date. I put to one side the suggestion that this started much earlier. I consider it much more likely FF was seeking to check CC’s phone for his own reasons and did come across a photo which was very evidently improper in suggesting paedophilic interests. In my assessment FF’s emotions were not disgust but rather a likely combination of upset with CC (that she was engaging with DD) and concern (that CC was creating a situation in which FF might end up vulnerable – as he eventually did when her messaging was discovered). As the Applicant contends, and I agree, this was part of a picture which plainly fixed FF with knowledge that the household into which he then moved included worrying evidence of child abuse (by this I mean evidence that CC’s boyfriend was sending pictures of his penis and children’s underwear and the information which 35. Re Z (A Child: Allegations of Sexual Abuse) FF received that DD and CC were having sex with S in the bed with them – a point which FF appeared to struggle to see as problematic). 52. Finally I note the evidence of CC that in her opinion FF is a paedophile. I will return to my assessment of CC below but before moving on I would note this as a further supporting feature. Has FF abused S? 53. On balance I am satisfed FF has sexually abused S. On the evidence it is difficult to provide a clear and full account of the nature and forms of abuse but on balance I find he has on at least one occasion carried out an act of: (i) masturbatory or quasi-masturbatory actions in her presence; (ii) sexual activity with CC in the presence of S [on both occasions with S conscious of his behaviour]; (iii) an act of oral sex on S, and; (iv) an act which was penetrative of S’s vagina. I cannot and need not go any further than this. The essential components of this finding are that: (a) FF is a paedophile; (b) FF knew CC was a paedohpile; (c) FF had a sexual interest in S; (d) FF communicated his interest in S to CC; (e) CC was willing to facilitate the abuse of S; (f) CC used S to keep and please her male partners; (g) FF communicated in such a manner as to encourage CC to facilitate his abuse of S; (h) FF had the opportunity to abuse S; (i) FF and CC messaged with a view to abusing S; (j) FF and CC messaged conveying the impression they had abused S; (k) S alleged she had been abused by FF (l) S has been shown to be a witness of truth as to abuse suffered by her; (m) Concerns as to S’s unreliability/contamination in the process have no bearing on points (a) to (j) above which irrespective of (l) provide a sound basis for a conclusion of actual abuse 36. Re Z (A Child: Allegations of Sexual Abuse) (n) A combination of all the evidence supports the finds as to the nature of the actual abuse (a)FF is a paedophile 54. This follows from the analysis above. (b) FF knew CC was also a paedophile 55. It is quite clear to me that FF knew of CC’s own sexual interests concerning children. I have referred to the Boxing Day photo and my finding that FF was aware at that time that this was wholly inappropriate in its content. I note it was the purchase of children’s underwear on ebay that first led the police to DD. I have also referred to the information supplied to FF by CC’s brother about DD and CC having sex with each other whilst S was sharing the bed with them. I also accept the evidence of CC that by 2015 she was aware that FF had an interest in children as a result of things he had said to her. Frankly though whatever view I took on the above it is clear beyond doubt that by the time FF and CC were messaging each other (in the manner set out in the preceding sections) they were each fully aware the other had a sexual interest in children. (c) FF has a sexual interest in S 56. It is clear beyond doubt that FF expressed a sexual interest in S. See the messaged in which he stated he ‘fancied’
‘And OMG when sucked your boob…holy shit…I know she was trying to steal [T’s] milk…it was so hot’). The conclusion I have drawn from this mixed messaging is that whereas DD was informed about what had happened FF witnessed the event happening. I consider it likely this was experienced remotely and this is perhaps why, due to technical limitations, why it was only him and not DD who witnessed the event. But it seems to me clear FF is detailing something he has experienced. There is nothing in his messaging which would suggest it was otherwise. For instance he doesn’t seek for it to be repeated or suggest he would have like to have been there. He doesn’t ask for pictures or video. Rather he talks about ‘it was (being) hot’