Manchester City Council v M & Ors [2026] EWFC 75

[2026] EWFC 75Case No No. MA24C50995
IN THE FAMILY COURT
Venue Sitting at the Manchester Civil Justice CentreDate 1 April 2026
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HARRISONManchester City Council v M, F, and othersMr Simon Crabtree, instructed by the council legal department, appeared on behalf of the applicant local authorityMs Sasha Watkinson and Ms Katie Lynch, instructed by Bromleys solicitors, appeared on behalf of the first respondent motherMr Andrew Norton KC and Mr Jonathan Jackson, instructed by WTB solicitors, appeared on behalf of the second respondent fatherMs Pauline McHugh and Mr Matthew Carey, instructed by Lord Cox & Salt solicitors, appeared on behalf of the children by their children’s guardian, Faye RobertsonHearing dates: 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 February and 2 and 3 March 2026
Between
Manchester City CouncilClaimantRespondent motherDefendantRespondent fatherDefendantApproved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down remotely at 2pm on 1 April 2026 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
.............................
This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court.

Introduction

[1]On 7 October 2015 a young woman was, as I find, raped by a stranger in the back of a car in the early hours of the morning. She was a student at university in Manchester. It was her first experience of sexual intercourse with anybody. I shall refer to her in this judgment by a pseudonym, Ms Smith.[2]Manchester City Council (‘the local authority’) invites the court to find that the rapist was the person to whom I shall refer in this judgment as ‘the father’.[3]The local authority also seeks other findings including that on multiple occasions the father sexually abused, including by anal and oral rape, a young boy to whom I shall refer as X. He is the son of the father’s former partner, to who I shall refer as ‘Ms R’. These assaults are alleged to have occurred when X was between the ages of three and five.[4]The allegations, which are wholly denied by the father, arise in the context of care proceedings brought by the local authority under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 in relation to four children now aged 10, 6, 3 and 2. They are the children of the father and his wife, to whom I shall refer as ‘the mother’.[5]The local authority’s case is that all four children are likely to suffer significant harm. The risk is said to arise from the father’s lack of sexual boundaries evidenced by the factual matters alleged against him.[6]The local authority has been represented by Mr Simon Crabtree; the mother by Ms Sasha Watkinson and Ms Katie Lynch; the father by Mr Andrew Norton KC and Mr Jonathan Jackson; the children, through their children’s guardian, by Ms Pauline McHugh and Mr Matthew Carey. I record my gratitude to all counsel for the assistance with which they have provided me.

Legal principles

[7]The legal principles relating to fact-finding are well known and agreed by the advocates. It is unnecessary for me to add to this long judgment by setting them out at length. I accept the propositions summarised by Mr Norton KC and Mr Jackson at paragraph 5 of their closing submissions and their submissions as to the need for caution when considering the significance of lies (paragraphs 38 to 41 of their document); these latter submissions are based upon the well known decision in R v Lucas [1981] QB 720. I also agree with the submissions made by Mr Crabtree at paragraphs 1 to 2 of his document and with those of Ms McHugh and Mr Carey at paragraphs 1 to 3 of their closing document.[8]As the authorities make clear there is a need for particular caution in cases involving allegations of sexual abuse made by young children. For example, in Re B (Allegation of Sexual Abuse: Child’s evidence) [2006] EWCA Civ 773, Hughes LJ (as he then was) observed at paras 34, 35 and 43:
“...Painful past experience has taught that the greatest care needs to be taken if the risk of obtaining unreliable evidence is to be minimised. Children are often poor historians. They are likely to view interviewers as authority figures. Many are suggestible. Many more wish to please. They do not express themselves clearly or in adult terms, so that what they say can easily be misinterpreted if the listeners are not scrupulous to avoid jumping to conclusions. They may not have understood what was said or done to them or in their presence.” “… for these and many other reasons it is of first importance that the child be given the maximum possible opportunity to recall freely, uninhibited by questions, what they are able to say and equally it is vital that a careful note is taken of what they say and also of any questions which are asked. …” … “the fact that one is in a family case sailing under the comforting colours of child protection is not a reason to afford unsatisfactory evidence a weight greater than it can properly bear. That is in nobody’s interests, least of all the child’s.”
[9]In Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2019] EWFC 27, MacDonald J said at para 577:
“. . . considering the authorities set out above, the Report of the Inquiry into child abuse in Cleveland 1987 Cm 412 and Report of the Inquiry into the Removal of Children from Orkney in February 1991 among others and the contents of the current ABE Guidance, I am satisfied that this court can take judicial notice of the following matters: i) Children, and especially young children, are suggestible. ii) Memory is prone to error and easily influenced by the environment in which recall is invited. iii) Memories can be confabulated from imagined experiences, it is possible to induce false memories and children can speak sincerely and emotionally about events that did not in fact occur. iv) Allegations made by children may emerge in a piecemeal fashion, with children often not reporting events in a linear history, reporting them in a partial way and revisiting topics. v) The wider circumstances of the child’s life may influence, explain or colour what the child is saying. vi) Factors affecting when a child says something will include their capacity to understand their world and their role within it, requiring caution when interpreting children’s references to behaviour or parts of the body through the prism of adult learning or reading. vii) Accounts given by children are susceptible to influence by leading or otherwise suggestive questions, repetition, pressure, threats, negative stereotyping and encouragement, reward or praise. viii) Accounts given by children are susceptible to influence as the result of bias or preconceived ideas on the part of the interlocutor. ix) Accounts given by children are susceptible to contamination by the statements of others, which contamination may influence a child’s responses. x) Children may embellish or overlay a general theme with apparently convincing detail which can appear highly credible and be very difficult to detect, even for those who are experienced in dealing with children. xi) Delay between an event recounted and the allegation made with respect to that event may influence the accuracy of the account given. xii) Within this context, the way, and the stage at which a child is asked questions / interviewed will have a profound effect on the accuracy of the child’s testimony.”
[10]In Re JB (A Child) (Sexual Abuse Allegations) [2021] EWCA Civ 46 the Court of Appeal considered the significance of the guidance for conducting Achieving Best Evidence or ‘ABE’ interviews. Baker LJ held at para 11:
“The importance of complying with the ABE guidance, which is directed at both criminal and family proceedings, has been reiterated by this Court in a series of cases including TW v A City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 17, Re W, Re F [2015] EWCA Civ 1300, Re E (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 473, Re Y and F (Children) Sexual Abuse Allegations) [2019] EWCA Civ 206 and in the judgments of MacDonald J in AS v TH and others [2016] EWHC 532 (Fam) and Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2019] EWFC 27. It is unnecessary to repeat at any length the extensive comments set out in some of those judgments. For the purposes of this appeal, the following points are of particular relevance. (Save where indicated, the paragraphs cited are from the ABE guidance.) (1) “The ABE guidance is advisory rather than a legally enforceable code. However, significant departures from the good practice advocated in it will likely result in reduced (or in extreme cases no) weight being attached to the interview by the courts.” (Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing), supra, paragraph 856) (2) Any initial questioning of the child prior to the interview should be intended to elicit a brief account of what is alleged to have taken place; a more detailed account should not be pursued at this stage but should be left until the formal interview takes place (paragraph 2.5). (3) In these circumstances, any early discussions with the witness should, as far as possible, adhere to the following guidelines. (a) Listen to the witness. (b) Do not stop a witness who is freely recalling significant events. (c) Where it is necessary to ask questions, they should, as far as possible in the circumstances, be open-ended or specific-closed rather than forced-choice, leading or multiple. (d) Ask no more questions than are necessary in the circumstances to take immediate action. (e) Make a comprehensive note of the discussion, taking care to record the timing, setting and people present as well as what was said by the witness and anybody else present (particularly the actual questions asked of the witness). (f) Make a note of the demeanour of the witness and anything else that might be relevant to any subsequent formal interview or the wider investigation. (g) Fully record any comments made by the witness or events that might be relevant to the legal process up to the time of the interview (paragraph 2.6, see also AS v TH, supra, paragraph 42). (4) For all witnesses, interviews should normally consist of the following four main phases: establishing rapport; initiating and supporting a free narrative account; questioning; and closure (paragraph 3.3). (5) The rapport phase includes explaining to the child the “ground rules” for the interview (paragraphs 3.12-14) and advising the child to give a truthful and accurate account and establishing that the child understands the difference between truth and lies (paragraphs 3.18-19). The rapport phase must be part of the recorded interview, even if there is no suggestion that the child did not know the difference between truth and lies, because “it is, or may be, important for the court to know everything that was said between an interviewing officer and a child in any case” (per McFarlane LJ in Re E, supra, paragraph 38). (6) In the free narrative phase of the interview, the interviewer should “initiate an uninterrupted free narrative account of the incident/event(s) from the witness by means of an open-ended invitation” (paragraph 3.24). (7) When asking questions following the free narrative phase, “interviewers need fully to appreciate that there are various types of question which vary in how directive they are. Questioning should, wherever possible, commence with open-ended questions and then proceed, if necessary, to specific-closed questions. Forced choice questions and leading questions should only be used as a last resort” (paragraph 3.44). (8) Drawings, pictures and other props may be used for different reasons – to assess a child’s language or understanding, to keep the child calm and settled, to support the child’s recall of events or to enable the child to give an account. Younger children with communication difficulties may be able to provide clearer accounts when props are used but interviewers need to be aware of the risks and pitfalls of using such props. They should be used with caution and “never combined with leading questions”
. Any props used should be preserved for production at court (paragraphs 3.103 to 3.112). (9) “The fact that the phased approach may not be appropriate for interviewing some witnesses with the most challenging communication skills (e.g. those only able to respond "yes" or "no" to a question) should not mean that the most vulnerable of witnesses are denied access to justice”. It should not be “regarded as a checklist to be rigidly worked through. Flexibility is the key to successful interviewing. Nevertheless, the sound legal framework it provides should not be departed from by interviewers unless they have discussed and agreed the reasons for doing so with their senior managers or an interview advisor" (paragraph 3.2). (10) Underpinning the guidance is a recognition “that the interviewer has to keep an open mind and that the object of the exercise is not simply to get the child to repeat on camera what she has said earlier to somebody else” (per Sir Nicholas Wall P in TW v A City Council, supra, at paragraph 53). (1) “The ABE guidance is advisory rather than a legally enforceable code. However, significant departures from the good practice advocated in it will likely result in reduced (or in extreme cases no) weight being attached to the interview by the courts.” (Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing), supra, paragraph 856) (2) Any initial questioning of the child prior to the interview should be intended to elicit a brief account of what is alleged to have taken place; a more detailed account should not be pursued at this stage but should be left until the formal interview takes place (paragraph 2.5). (3) In these circumstances, any early discussions with the witness should, as far as possible, adhere to the following guidelines. (a) Listen to the witness. (b) Do not stop a witness who is freely recalling significant events. (c) Where it is necessary to ask questions, they should, as far as possible in the circumstances, be open-ended or specific-closed rather than forced-choice, leading or multiple. (d) Ask no more questions than are necessary in the circumstances to take immediate action. (e) Make a comprehensive note of the discussion, taking care to record the timing, setting and people present as well as what was said by the witness and anybody else present (particularly the actual questions asked of the witness). (f) Make a note of the demeanour of the witness and anything else that might be relevant to any subsequent formal interview or the wider investigation. (g) Fully record any comments made by the witness or events that might be relevant to the legal process up to the time of the interview (paragraph 2.6, see also AS v TH, supra, paragraph 42). (4) For all witnesses, interviews should normally consist of the following four main phases: establishing rapport; initiating and supporting a free narrative account; questioning; and closure (paragraph 3.3). (5) The rapport phase includes explaining to the child the “ground rules” for the interview (paragraphs 3.12-14) and advising the child to give a truthful and accurate account and establishing that the child understands the difference between truth and lies (paragraphs 3.18-19). The rapport phase must be part of the recorded interview, even if there is no suggestion that the child did not know the difference between truth and lies, because “it is, or may be, important for the court to know everything that was said between an interviewing officer and a child in any case” (per McFarlane LJ in Re E, supra, paragraph 38). (6) In the free narrative phase of the interview, the interviewer should “initiate an uninterrupted free narrative account of the incident/event(s) from the witness by means of an open-ended invitation” (paragraph 3.24). (7) When asking questions following the free narrative phase, “interviewers need fully to appreciate that there are various types of question which vary in how directive they are. Questioning should, wherever possible, commence with open-ended questions and then proceed, if necessary, to specific-closed questions. Forced choice questions and leading questions should only be used as a last resort” (paragraph 3.44). (8) Drawings, pictures and other props may be used for different reasons – to assess a child’s language or understanding, to keep the child calm and settled, to support the child’s recall of events or to enable the child to give an account. Younger children with communication difficulties may be able to provide clearer accounts when props are used but interviewers need to be aware of the risks and pitfalls of using such props. They should be used with caution and “never combined with leading questions”. Any props used should be preserved for production at court (paragraphs 3.103 to 3.112). (9) “The fact that the phased approach may not be appropriate for interviewing some witnesses with the most challenging communication skills (e.g. those only able to respond "yes" or "no" to a question) should not mean that the most vulnerable of witnesses are denied access to justice”. It should not be “regarded as a checklist to be rigidly worked through. Flexibility is the key to successful interviewing. Nevertheless, the sound legal framework it provides should not be departed from by interviewers unless they have discussed and agreed the reasons for doing so with their senior managers or an interview advisor" (paragraph 3.2). (10) Underpinning the guidance is a recognition “that the interviewer has to keep an open mind and that the object of the exercise is not simply to get the child to repeat on camera what she has said earlier to somebody else” (per Sir Nicholas Wall P in TW v A City Council, supra, at paragraph 53).[11]Baker J (as he then was) had previously considered ABE interviews in Re W and Re F (Children) [2015] EWCA Civ 1300, holding that:
“The ABE guidance is detailed and complex. But those details and complexities are there for a reason. Experience has demonstrated that very great care is required when interviewing children about allegations of abuse. .... It would be unrealistic to expect perfection in any investigation. But unless the courts require a high standard, miscarriages of justice will occur and the courts will reach unfair and wrong decisions with profound consequences for children and families”
.

Background

[12]The father was born in Somalia. He is now aged 34. He came from Somalia to England with his mother when he was a child. They sought and were granted refugee status in this jurisdiction. He has lived in the Manchester area for over twenty years. My understanding is that he now holds dual British and Somali nationalities.[13]The mother’s age is uncertain but it appears that she is in her late twenties. She too was born in Somalia and is a Somali national. Apart from Somalia, she has also lived in Kenya, Uganda and Turkey. She first came to England in 2023 or 2024 after being granted a spousal visa to join the father. The parents’ three older children were born outside the United Kingdom (precisely where is unclear to me) and their fourth child was born in England. The mother’s command of English is limited and she gave evidence assisted by an interpreter.[14]The parents entered into an arranged marriage in Somalia in January 2015 after meeting over social media. At the time the father was aged 23 and the mother was aged either 16 or 18 (the evidence about this is unclear). According to an account provided by the mother to a local authority social worker in April 2025, after getting married the parents moved from Somalia to Kenya; soon after that the father moved back to England. Thereafter the mother lived over different periods in Kenya, Uganda and Turkey. The father was based mainly in England but would join her from time to time.[15]At the time of the marriage the father had been involved a relationship with Ms R since 2013. When he began his relationship with Ms R, her son X was approximately 6 months old; he is now 13. The father and Ms R went on to have two children together, A and B, who were born in 2014 and 2017 and are now respectively aged 11 and 9.[16]The father did not disclose his relationship with Ms R to his new bride. Nor did he reveal to Ms R that during what she believed to be a holiday he had taken to Somalia he had married another woman. She did come to learn that he had made a woman pregnant while he was abroad, but did not know that he was having an ongoing relationship with this woman, still less that he had married her.[17]Thereafter the father led a double life for several years, dividing his time between England and the various countries in which the mother lived from time to time. Unknown to Ms R he was leading an entirely different family life in other countries for part of the year. The mother was similarly kept in the dark about the father’s family in England.[18]In 2017, while she was pregnant, Ms R learned that the father had married another woman in Somalia. Their relationship came to an end later that year. She gave birth to B in August 2017.[19]After the father’s relationship with Ms R ended he continued to visit her in order to spend time with his children. Ms R formed a new relationship with a person I shall refer to as Mr P. There were two occasions when the father, at Ms R's behest, agreed to babysit all three children while Ms R and Mr P enjoyed a night out together.[20]On 9 August 2020 X provided information to his mother, Ms R, which suggested that he had been sexually abused by the father. I consider this in more detail below.[21]Sometime before X made his disclosure, Ms R’s sister C had made an allegation that she had been sexually abused by the father. No prosecution has resulted from this and the local authority does not seek any findings about C’s allegations. It is the father’s case that the allegations made by X are connected to C’s allegations in that they have all been orchestrated by Ms R in revenge for his betraying her by marrying his wife in secret.[22]The local authority did not become aware of X’s allegations until 2024. On 4 June 2024 the mother telephoned the police and alleged that the father was beating her. The police came to the home and arrested the father after the mother is said to have alleged that he had slapped her in the stomach at a time when she was pregnant. This information was reported to the children’s school (I assume by the police). In turn, the school made a report to the local authority which then learned about the ongoing police investigation into the allegations concerning X. It later also came to learn of the separate police investigation in relation to the rape of Ms Smith.[23]The father was not prosecuted for assaulting the mother as the latter made clear that she would not support criminal proceedings being brought against him. The allegations previously made by the mother have not been investigated before me; no findings are sought by the local authority in relation to these.[24]In December 2024 the father stood trial in the Crown Court at Manchester in connection with X’s allegations. The jury was unable to come to a verdict on any of the counts on the indictment and was accordingly discharged. A decision was taken not to pursue a retrial after Ms R made clear that X was too distressed to go through the process again.

The allegation concerning Ms Smith

[25]As I have recorded above, in October 2015 Ms Smith was a student at university in Manchester. She was living in shared student accommodation with seven other people in a property in Fallowfield, South Manchester.[26]On 7 October 2015, two of Ms Smith’s flatmates were celebrating their twenty-first birthdays and held a small party at the property. A number of friends were invited to the party. A lot of alcohol was consumed and, as Ms Smith later related to the police, ‘we were all quite drunk’.[27]At approximately 11pm the party at home ended. Ms Smith and others decided to continue the celebrations and caught a bus into the centre of Manchester.[28]Ms Smith and a few of her friends made the decision to go a club called Fifth Avenue. Some of the group had entered the club already while Ms Smith was queuing outside with others including her friend Fiona and Fiona’s boyfriend David (not their real names).[29]Ms Smith was to explain to the police when interviewed by them at 1pm on 8 October 2015 that, as a result of her level of inebriation, her recollection of what happened thereafter is limited. The account she provided to the police was based in part upon a narrative communicated to her by the friends who were with her on the night. Fiona and David both made statements to the police and gave accounts which were different in some respects from Ms Smith’s.[30]It is clear from the evidence that there came a point when Ms Smith was queuing to enter the club with others including Fiona and David. Ms Smith needed to use a toilet and so she went to a nearby pub to use their facilities. Thereafter, the three friends bought food from a takeaway outlet and returned to the Manchester Student Village where Fiona was staying at the time.[31]Ms Smith declined an offer from Fiona to stay the night saying that she wanted to go home. Fiona called a taxi for her using the Uber app on David’s mobile telephone.[32]Ms Smith’s recollection, as communicated by her to the police, is that upon the arrival of the taxi, she climbed into the front seat. She said that she did not remember the journey well. Her recollection was that she asked to be taken home, but that the driver was ‘driving around a lot’ claiming that he could not find her address. Ms Smith recalled him putting his hands on her leg and making inappropriate remarks to her about her appearance. Ms Smith had no idea where she was. She remembered that it was dark outside and that she ‘just wanted to go home’ and ‘started to cry’. Her recollection was that the driver then stopped the car and purported to console her, kissed her and stroked her hair. She felt ‘so uncomfortable’ and asked him to stop, but he did not. Her memory is that the driver started driving again and at some point put her hand on his crotch ignoring her protests that she did not want this and her pleas to be taken home.[33]Ms Smith recalls that eventually the driver stopped the car in what she remembered as ‘a dead-end road’ with terraced houses on one side. She ended up moving from the front to the back of the car, although she did not recollect how this happened. She told the police that she did not believe it occurred ‘forcefully’ but she remembered crying and asking to be taken home. She also told the police that she remembered having sex in the back of the car after her tights were down. Her recollection was that:
“I said no, I didn’t want to. I think he was well aware that I didn’t want to, but at the same time, I don’t know. I just, I couldn’t get out of the car. I think, I think it was locked, but I am not sure whether I definitely tried the handle. Like, I don’t know why I didn’t push him off me more, but I just remember being confused. I don’t think I really even knew what was happening. I just remember that it hurt, and then… And it was quick, but it hurt.”
[34]Ms Smith had no recollection of leaving the taxi. She remembered knocking on the door of a house on her road believing it to be her home. The occupier sent her away. She told the police that at this point she did not realise that something had happened with the taxi driver; she just wanted to get home.[35]Ms Smith recalled walking around in a state of confusion. She had lost her mobile telephone and had no way of contacting her friends. Not knowing what to do she went to a bus stop where she took shelter from the rain which was starting to fall. She got talking to a man who turned out to be another student. At her request, he accompanied her home. She remembered that on her arrival home she turned off the burglar alarm, meaning that the other occupants of the property had yet to return. She was later to learn that they came home at 4am. She invited the man who had come home with her to stay the night in her bed and she recalled to the police that they kissed, consensually, but did not have sex. He left the house before she woke up.[36]When Ms Smith awoke the next day (7 October 2015) she discovered that her pyjamas were blood stained and that there was blood in the toilet. She then found her knickers, tights and skirt on the floor all covered in blood. It was then that she had what she described to the police as ‘a flashback’ that something had happened in the taxi and that she realised that ‘something was really wrong’. She spoke to her friends who advised her to go to hospital and call the police. She went to hospital where some time later she was met by the police. She was interviewed at the police station just after 1pm. One of Ms Smith’s flatmates told the police that upon waking Ms Smith had told her ‘I think I slept with somebody last night’; she mentioned a taxi driver and appeared ‘a little panicked’.[37]From accounts provided by other witnesses it is clear that some aspects of Ms Smith’s account are inaccurate.[38]Fiona provided a statement to the police which bears the date 8 October 2014 (sic; the year is clearly a mistake). She said that shortly after midnight on 7 October 2015 she was with Ms Smith and David queuing to get into a bar. The three of them then left the queue and went to a takeaway before going back to her accommodation at the Student Village. Ms Smith was insistent that she wanted to go home. Fiona therefore ordered a taxi for her using the Uber app on her boyfriend’s phone. When the taxi arrived she was able to check that the driver’s appearance matched the photograph on the app. She assisted Ms Smith to sit in the rear of the car behind the driver. She spoke to the driver and confirmed Ms Smith’s address; he said that he would take her there. Her recollection from looking at the app was that the taxi set off at 00.15 hours.[39]David provided an account to the police which was materially the same as Fiona’s. He additionally corroborated Ms Smith’s recollection that before buying food she went to a pub (accompanied by him) to use the toilet. His recollection was that Ms Smith was ‘very drunk and was leaning on people for support. She was staggering everywhere’. Even after eating her food she was ‘still pretty drunk’.[40]David confirmed to the police that Fiona had used his Uber app to book the taxi. He also confirmed Fiona’s account that Ms Smith climbed into the seat behind the driver.[41]At 00.47 hours David received a call from Uber. A man (I assume the driver) told him that during the taxi journey Ms Smith had said that she wanted to be taken to hospital and so the driver changed route. On the way to the hospital Ms Smith changed her mind and asked to be taken home, which the driver said he did.[42]David was able to provide the police with screenshots showing the relevant history on his Uber app. These show that the taxi was booked to pick up Ms Smith from the Manchester Student Village and that it collected her at 00.15 hours. The journey lasted 27 minutes. The app records that the drop off point for Ms Smith was at an address on her street but not precisely at her house.[43]I have seen a screenshot of the route taken by the Uber taxi. It is consistent with the account provided to David by the Uber driver. It appears to show that the car was heading towards Ms Smith’s home before diverting in the direction of the Manchester Royal Infirmary and then changing route again towards the street on which she lived.[44]MG was one of Ms Smith’s neighbours on her road. She lived there with her husband and daughter. On 5 November 2015, as part of their enquiries, the police made contact with her at home and she provided her recollection of events on the night of 6 and 7 October 2015. MG said that she had gone to bed around 8pm as she had to be up for work the following morning at 4am. Some time later (she did not give a time) she was woken up by a knock on the front door. Her husband answered the door and reported that there had been ‘a girl at the front door who was convinced that this was where she lived’. Some twenty to thirty minutes later there was another knock. This time MG answered the door and saw a ‘young girl’ who told her that her name was a shortened version of Ms Smith’s real name. She appeared confused and, from MG’s recollection, spoke about living at either house number 17 or 70. MG sent her in the direction of number 17. It is clear that the person in question was Ms Smith. MG said in her statement to the police that she ‘seemed as though she was drunk, possibly on drugs’; ‘she just seemed disorientated, but not distressed’.[45]MG and her husband were so concerned about Ms Smith that some ten minutes later they decided to look for her. They searched in different directions around their house but were unable to find her. This puzzled them as they did not think she could have gone far in such a short space of time. MG then saw a car drive slowly past them. It reached the hill on the road before turning around and driving past them again. MG observed that the driver of the car was male and Asian in appearance. A white female was sitting in the front passenger seat. MG thought that this was the person who had come to her front door.

The DNA evidence

[46]I heard oral evidence from Mr Christopher McKenzie, a forensic reporting scientist employed by Cellmark diagnostics. He is the author of four reports compiled in connection with the police investigation into the allegation of rape by Ms Smith. These are dated 19 October 2015, 9 November 2015, 13 November 2015 and 18 December 2015. He also filed a short statement dated 15 December 2025 confirming his authorship of those reports.[47]Items of clothing worn by Ms Smith on the night in question (her knickers, skirt and tights) were collected by the police and examined forensically. Aside from Ms Smith’s blood, the presence of semen was found on all three items. Trace amounts of semen were also found in perianal and vulval swabs taken from Ms Smith. The samples taken from these different sources was sent for DNA analysis.[48]Semen collected from the clothing produced a DNA profile recorded by the police as pertaining to ‘Unknown Male 1’. This profile did not match that of the Uber driver who had collected Ms Smith from the Manchester Student Village and the police went on to rule him out as a suspect. The DNA in the semen did not at that stage match any other profile on the DNA database.[49]Mr McKenzie’s evidence is that a significant amount of semen, consistent with ejaculation, was present in the gusset of Ms Smith’s knickers although it was not possible to tell whether this originated from the inside or outside of the garment. It was mixed with blood and consistent with a vaginal discharge following penetrative sexual intercourse. It contained a DNA profile attributed to ‘Unknown Male 1’.[50]A DNA profile matching ‘Unknown Male 1’ was also found in a sample taken from the waistband of Ms Smith’s knickers. Mr McKenzie’s evidence is that it is not possible to tell whether this originates from cellular material or from semen; it could be present either as a result of ‘Unknown Male 1’ touching the waistband or by a redistribution of his DNA from other areas.[51]Ms Smith’s skirt was found to have a heavy blood stain mixed with other material including semen on the bottom of the inside back of the garment. A sample contained a DNA profile matching ‘Unknown Male 1’.[52]Profiles matching ‘Unknown Male 1’ were also found on swabs taken from buttons on Ms Smith’s skirt and ‘minitapes’ from the central areas of its lower front and back edge. Mr McKenzie’s evidence is that it is not possible to determine whether the DNA found in these locations was deposited as a result of the person in question touching the areas or as a consequence of a transfer of sperm from elsewhere.[53]Heavy blood staining was found on the seat and crotch of Ms Smith’s tights. The presence of semen was also detected, but this was not sent for DNA analysis.[54]Ms Smith’s pyjama bottoms were also removed by the police. They were found to be heavily blood stained and the presence of semen was detected in samples taken from the crotch area and the inside centre or back of the waistband. Again, no DNA profiling was attempted in relation to these samples.[55]Mr McKenzie’s evidence is that the forensic investigations into Ms Smith’s knickers and skirt revealed a low level of DNA from at least one other person (not Ms Smith or ‘Unknown Male 1’). The results of the analysis were insufficiently clear to attribute this DNA to any particular individual although they were consistent with a DNA sample collected from Ms Smith’s pillowcase attributable to a person categorised by the police as ‘Unknown Male 2’. It was not possible to determine the date upon which such DNA had been deposited or the biological material from which it originated.[56]The trace amounts of semen in the perianal and vulval swabs produced ‘low level’ DNA profiles which indicated the presence of mixtures of DNA originating from different individuals. Mr McKenzie’s evidence is that ‘[a]ll the results observed in [this] mixture match corresponding results in the DNA profiles of [Ms Smith] and Unknown Male 1’.[57]In his report dated 13 November 2015, Mr McKenzie concluded that while it was not possible to determine whether the blood and semen found on Ms Smith’s clothes had been deposited as a mixture or independently, the distribution and locations of the blood and semen across the three items suggested to him that ‘at least some of the blood and semen has been deposited as a mixture’. This was consistent with semen having drained with blood from the vagina. The findings, in his opinion, were as he might expect if vaginal intercourse had taken place between Ms Smith and ‘Unknown Male 1’.[58]The police investigation came to a halt in 2015 or 2016 and was not reopened until 2024. As a consequence of the father’s arrest in connection with allegations made by X, a DNA sample was taken from him. A routine database search revealed that his DNA matched the DNA profile in the semen found in 2015 on Ms Smith’s clothing which had been recorded at as pertaining to ‘Unknown Male 1’.[59]The local authority’s case is founded almost entirely upon the DNA evidence. They say that the DNA match demonstrates that ‘Unknown Male 1’ is the father and that the presence of his semen in Ms Smith’s clothes can only be explained by him having had some form of sexual activity with her, most probably, on the evidence, vaginal intercourse.[60]As is accepted by the father, there is clear evidence to demonstrate the Ms Smith was too drunk to consent to sexual activity.

The father’s case

[61]The father denies all knowledge of Ms Smith and denies the suggestion that either in October 2015 or at any other time he had any form of sexual activity with a person too drunk to consent. When interviewed by the police and subsequently he suggested that, in an act of revenge, Ms R might have conspired with Ms Smith to plant his semen in her knickers. I consider that suggestion to be preposterous. In 2015 Ms R was involved in a relationship with the father and had no motive to seek such revenge against him. She had no knowledge at that stage about the fact that the father had married another woman. There is in any event not a shred of evidence to suggest that the two women have ever met. From the evidence collected by the police, it is as obvious as it can be that Ms Smith was the victim of a sexual attack and not a party to the type of fanciful conspiracy alleged by the father. In her oral evidence Ms R made clear that she did not know Ms Smith and she was obviously telling the truth.[62]Mr McKenzie was cross-examined skilfully on behalf of the father by Mr Norton KC. Mr Norton invited him to consider other potential reasons for DNA matching the father’s profile to have been found in semen collected from Ms Smith’s clothing. The possible explanations postulated on the father’s behalf included wildly implausible theories that Ms Smith might have sat on a sample of the father’s semen somehow deposited on a bus or in a taxi, perhaps following a vaginal discharge from another sexual partner of the father’s. Mr McKenzie was willing to concede that from the perspective of his own forensic examination it was conceivable that semen could have transferred to Ms Smith’s clothing in such a manner. For my part, I have no hesitation in rejecting what I consider to be wholly fanciful suggestions. Quite apart from their inherent implausibility, the idea that Ms Smith accidentally and without realising managed to sit on a deposit of semen which then transferred from her skirt to her knickers does not sit easily with Mr McKenzie’s findings about the way in which the semen was distributed on Ms Smith’s clothing. The father’s evidence was that he has never left his semen on a bus or indeed in any other public place.[63]Mr McKenzie’s evidence is that the DNA profile is a billion times more likely to originate from the father than from an unrelated person. He accepted in cross-examination that there is a much greater probability of it pertaining to a close relative of the father’s than to somebody wholly unrelated to him. He made clear, however, that it remained the case that the DNA was far more likely to have come from the father than from a relative even as close as a brother. He said that the relevant statistical comparison would lie in ‘the tens of thousands’ as opposed to a billion to one. Mr McKenzie’s evidence was that if the brothers’ parents were themselves closely related (for example, cousins) the relevant statistic calculation would be more complicated, but it remained the case that the DNA was far more likely to have originated from the father than a brother in such a scenario.[64]I accept Mr McKenzie’s evidence.

My conclusions in relation to the 2015 allegation

[65]Having considered the totality of the evidence, I have no hesitation in finding that the semen found on Ms Smith’s clothing originates from the father and that it was deposited there as a result of him ejaculating during sexual activity with her on the night in question.[66]The DNA evidence allows me to make these finding to a high standard of proof although I need only do so on the balance of probabilities.[67]In addition to the very high probability that the DNA originates from the father, it is also relevant that according to Ms R’s evidence, which I accept, at the relevant time the father was living with his mother in a property just over a mile away from the road where Ms Smith was living. He owned a car and held a taxi licence and his working pattern as a pizza delivery driver meant that he will have been out late at night on a regular basis. Of course, none of these subsidiary matters either alone or in combination would come close to proving that the father was the person responsible for committing the rape. They merely establish his opportunity to do so. I regard the alternative theories for the presence of the father’s semen as being so improbable that I can safely discount them.[68]I further find that the reason for the presence of the semen is that father had vaginal sexual intercourse with Ms Smith in the early hours of 7 October 2025. I base this finding on Ms Smith’s account as well as the evidence of Mr McKenzie. Although Ms Smith’s account was in some respects inaccurate, she recalled that sexual intercourse took place. The presence on Ms Smith’s clothes of a significant quantity of blood is consistent with the rupture of her hymen and corroborates her recollection as does Mr McKenzie’s evidence about the distribution of blood and semen on her clothes.[69]In my judgment, it is clear that when Ms Smith spoke to the police, as a result of her inebriation and the traumatic events she endured, she misremembered that on the night in question she had travelled in two different cars and that she was raped in the second car. She also misremembered that her conversation with the neighbours occurred between the two car journeys. She gave an account to the police which had all the hallmarks of being balanced and truthful. She admitted her inebriation and her limited memory of some aspects of the night including her lack of recollection as to how she ended up in the back of car. She nevertheless made plain in her account that she had been visibly distressed during her ordeal, that she had asked the father to stop assaulting her and that she requested to be taken home or to Central Manchester. I find all of these matters to be established on the balance of probabilities.[70]In my judgment, it is more likely than not that the driver of the taxi first booked through Uber grew impatient with Ms Smith as a result of her twice requesting a change of destination. As a result, the driver deposited her on her street but did not ensure that he took her to the specific address where she lived. In her inebriated and confused state, Ms Smith was unable to find her way home and twice rang the bell of a different house on the street, each time being sent away by her neighbours.[71]I find that the father was driving in the area and spotted Ms Smith walking along the street in a state of inebriation. He took advantage of her by picking her up in his car, in all likelihood by representing to her that he was a taxi driver able to take her home.[72]Shortly before being picked up by the father, Ms Smith had been able to tell her neighbours where she lived (merely being unclear as to whether it was number 17 or number 70 of her street). It is likely, in my judgment, that she will have given the same information to the father upon entering his car. Thus, the father will have realised when Ms Smith got into his car that she was virtually at home. Instead of taking her home, in what I find to be an opportunistic act, he drove her away from the area to a quiet street where he could rape her without being disturbed. It must have been terrifying for Ms Smith to have been abducted by a stranger who ignored her pleas to be taken home, or at least to a station in central Manchester, and subjected her to a series of sexual assaults culminating in her rape. It will have been obvious to the father that Ms Smith was far too inebriated to consent to sexual activity. Moreover, I find that that he will have witnessed her distress at being assaulted by him and heard her protests but decided to carry on regardless. Neither her distress nor the potential for her to become pregnant or contract a STI deterred him from acting as he did. It was an attack on a woman incapable of defending herself.[73]The local authority asks the court to make a finding that on 7 October 2015 the father had vaginal intercourse with Ms Smith at a time she was unable to provide valid consent. Although this is plainly established, in my view such a formulation understates the gravity of what occurred. The findings I make, on a balance of probabilities, are as follows:(a) In the early hours of 7 October 2015 the father picked up Ms Smith in his car from a street near her home when she was in an inebriated state.(b) Instead of taking Ms Smith home as she requested he drove her away from the area against her will.(c) During the journey he sexually assaulted her by touching her leg, placing her hand on his crotch and attempting to kiss her.(d) He ignored Ms Smith’s distress and pleas for him to stop and take her home.(e) He drove Ms Smith to a quiet street where he raped her in the back of his car by having vaginal intercourse with her despite it being apparent that she was inebriated and distressed and that she did not consent.(f) The father has shown no remorse for what he did and has lied about his lack of involvement.[74]It is not difficult to imagine that this assault will have had a devastating impact upon Ms Smith which may endure throughout her life. Ten years on she communicated that she wished to give her evidence remotely as she felt unable to set foot in Manchester, so concerned was she about the impact that doing so would have on her mental health. It was brave of her to agree to give evidence. Thankfully, the father did not put her through the ordeal of having to do so.[75]I have reached my findings without taking into account the evidence from the social worker, Ms Norman, about what she was told by the mother during a meeting on 22 April 2025. In discussing the allegation concerning Ms Smith, the mother told the social worker that the father had been sent by Ms R to collect Ms Smith who was drunk in the centre of town, that he had dropped her at a bus stop and that Ms R was responsible for placing the father’s semen in Ms Smith’s knickers. I am satisfied that the social worker accurately recorded what she was told. I also reject the mother’s suggestion that what was recorded by the social worker was the product of a substantial mistranslation by the interpreter. The mother’s account bears a degree of similarity with the explanation given by the father for the presence of his semen in Ms Smith’s knickers, although he has never accepted that he collected her in his car. I am unable to make a finding about whether the mother was repeating something which the father told her or recounting her own understanding of what had occurred based upon a mixture of things told to her and her own conjecture. I have therefore excluded this from my evaluation in making my findings.[76]I do not consider that my findings about this allegation have any forensic relevance to the allegations concerning X. The latter are very different in character. Having regard to the principles in R v Lucas I also do not consider the father’s lies about the rape of Ms Smith to be relevant to the matters concerning X.

The allegations concerning the child X

[77]As I have already recorded, X is the son of the father’s former partner Ms R by whom he has two children. The local authority’s case is that the father has perpetrated various forms of abuse against X. Its case is based primarily upon allegations made by X to Ms R, to the police and in his recorded evidence for the father’s criminal trial. There is no physical evidence to support the allegations.[78]The father gave evidence before me. He has been clear and consistent in denying that he has ever abused X. He has averred a belief that Ms R has caused X to fabricate allegations against him or, alternatively, that X has overheard adult conversations and/or been exposed to adult videos which have led him to make false allegations. I have considered the father’s evidence very carefully. I agree with the submission that he had a tendency to be evasive as a witness. I bear in mind, however, that he was facing distressing allegations and being asked questions about events that happened some years ago. I do not, therefore, attach any weight to the manner in which he gave evidence.[79]Ms R’s written evidence is contained in three statements she gave the police on 10 August 2020, 23 January 2022 and 2 August 2022, the truth of which she confirmed in her evidence-in-chief. She previously gave evidence during the father’s criminal trial over the allegations concerning X and was very obviously bitter about being put through the ordeal of doing so for a second time. It was unfortunate that her evidence had to start later than scheduled. By the end of her cross-examination, she was plainly anxious for it to end, not least because her children were about to arrive home from school and she needed to meet them off the bus. There came a point at the end of her evidence when, in essence, she refused to answer questions other than by saying ‘I don’t remember’. Despite the unfortunate conclusion of her evidence, I formed the view that she was essentially truthful as a witness albeit it was difficult for her to be objective about distressing events concerning her son. In assessing her evidence, I have to bear in mind that she was being asked to remember events which occurred almost six years ago.[80]The father and Ms R were involved in a relationship between 2013 and 2017; they had previously been at school together. As I have already set out, the relationship came to an end after Ms R learned that the father was leading a double life, having married the mother in 2015 and fathered a child with her.[81]The father has said that it was in either 2017 or 2018 that the relationship ended, but based upon the evidence I have heard and read I consider the earlier year to be the more likely. I have seen messages sent by Ms R to the mother on 26 June 2017 (when Ms R was heavily pregnant) in which she made clear that she knew about the mother and the fact that she had a daughter. Ms R was contacting the mother to inform her about the double life the father was leading. It appears from the messages that she had found out about this some time before that.[82]Soon after the relationship first started, Ms R moved into a two-bedroom flat in Moston. X’s bedroom, which he later came to share with his brother, was painted blue. The other bedroom was used by Ms R and was decorated in a predominantly red colour. In cross-examination, Ms R said that after X stopped using a cot he did not sleep in the same room as her. She did not think that he had ever slept in her bed when the father stayed with her. The children were normally put to bed by 6.30pm when the father came to visit or stay. Ms R remained living at the flat until 2016 or 2017 when she moved to a house.[83]Ms R’s evidence, which I accept, is that the father did not live with her; he lived with his mother at the property to which I have referred above. Sometimes he would visit her during the day; on other occasions he stayed overnight, sometimes after finishing at work. She describes their relationship as having been ‘very on off’ and says that the father cheated on her several times.[84]When the father came to visit, Ms R accepted that the two of them would sometimes watch films together in the evening when the children were in bed. Her recollection was that these tended to be romantic comedies, not ‘anything X-rated’. She was adamant in refuting the possibility that X might have come down and seen her watching such a film with the father:
‘he knew bedtime was bedtime’
. I accept this evidence.[85]According to Ms R’s evidence (as set out in her statement dated 10 August 2020):
“At first [X] seemed fine around [the father] and was quite a happy and confident toddler but I began to notice that he started to become a bit withdrawn around [the father] as if he was scared of him or frightened by him. As I couldn't see any reason for [X] to be acting the way he did I didn't think too much about it and put it down to [it] just being one of those things and possibly down to jealousy.”
I agree with Mr Norton KC’s submission as to the need for caution with this evidence and that it may be coloured by a degree of hindsight bias.[86]In her oral evidence, Ms R accepted that the father would do things for her so that she could spend time with X and that ‘in the beginning’ he had treated X like a son. X had started calling him ‘Dad’ and she went along with it. She also accepted that the father took responsibility ‘quite a lot of the time’ for disciplining X. During the evidence she gave to the Crown Court, she accepted that when X misbehaved, she would tell him to ‘watch out’ or she would report his misbehaviour to the father. X himself has described feeling ‘scared’ about this and Ms R accepted in cross-examination that this could be an explanation for his wariness around the father.[87]In cross-examination, Ms R was asked about the circumstances in which her relationship with the father came to an end. She denied the suggestion that she was aware in 2015 that he had got married, making clear that she did not learn of this until later; I accept her evidence. Ms R said that ‘it eventually came out’ that the father had got somebody pregnant but he did not say anything about marriage. She did not know that he had an ongoing relationship with another woman in East Africa, let alone that he had married. Again, I accept her evidence about this.[88]After Ms R learned the truth about the father’s marriage, she frankly accepted in cross-examination that she had self-harmed. She also accepted telling him that she was going to ruin his life. She had spoken to her mother about the problems he caused. She made clear that she has strong negative feelings about the father - ‘currently.. I hate him’ - and that her mother similarly dislikes him as a result of the allegations which have been made.[89]After the relationship came to an end the father continued to visit the mother’s home from time to time to see his own children. Ms R was clearly prepared to put aside her feelings towards the father in the interest of promoting his relationship with his children.[90]In April or May 2019, Ms R commenced a new relationship with Mr P by whom she now has another child. They lived together, according to Mr P, ‘for a short time’. Despite this new relationship, she remained on relatively cordial terms with the father, who continued to come round to the house.[91]Mr P gave oral evidence. I formed the view that he was straightforward as a witness. I consider that he was doing his best to assist the court and able to be more objective about events concerning X than Ms R.[92]Mr P’s evidence was that during his relationship with Ms R he was not close to X, although more recently the two of them get on better than they used to do. He agreed that X was a child who occasionally had difficulties and that he could be ‘oppositional’. Ms R sometimes had difficulties managing his behaviour and spoke to Mr P about this. Mr P’s evidence was that he was aware that X occasionally said things which were not true and that X complained about being bullied at school. X apparently told the school that he felt threatened by Mr P and was scared that he would hurt him; he said that Mr P was being ‘over aggressive’ and suggested that he had been physically violent towards him. Mr P was clear in his evidence that he was not violent but did raise his voice in order to set boundaries. Mr P once took X to a police station ‘to teach him a lesson’, although he did not go inside the station. X told Mr P that he would report to the police that both he and Ms R had been violent towards him, despite this being untrue.[93]Ms R was asked about X’s propensity to say things which are or may be untrue. In response to the suggestion that X had spoken about her hitting him, she acknowledged that she had previously ‘tapped [him] on the bum’. Contrary to what X had said to the police, however, she had not hit him so as to cause bruising to his face. She could not recollect X having been poked in the eye by a teacher (another allegation made by X). Similarly, she had no recollection of the father trashing the house as X once reported at nursery. Nor did she recall X ever biting her, as alleged by him. She was unable to recall whether Mr P told her that X threatened to say that the two of them had hurt him.[94]Ms R said in cross-examination that she did not recall ever seeing X with an injury to his face in circumstances where she was not aware of its cause. She spoke about an occasion when he bruised himself at home. She acknowledged being told that X might be seeking attention from her but did not remember it having been suggested to her that he was a child who required reassurance (she had previously told the police that this might explain his past behaviours). She spoke about getting an assessment for X for ADHD and autism.[95]There were, as I find, two occasions between April and June 2019 when, at Ms R’s request, the father agreed to babysit the children while she went out for the evening with Mr P. Ms R was cross-examined about these occasions. She did not remember anything untoward happening the first time. She said she returned home with Mr P and the father ‘just left’. She recalled that the children were asleep, but when it was put to her that Mr P had a recollection that X was awake she accepted that this must have been the case. Nothing occurred, however, to cause her concern.[96]On the second occasion when the father babysat for Ms R, she said in oral evidence that upon her arrival home ‘[the father] seemed in a rush to leave’ and was ‘acting really weird compared to the first time’. She said that she went to check on X and found him lying under his bunk with his pillow and duvet. She recalled that he was ‘sweating but asleep’. At the time, she did not think that the father had done anything wrong. Mr P’s evidence was that he spoke to X after returning home and asked him if he had been making a den under his bed; X agreed that this was the case.[97]According to Mr P’s evidence, Ms R was happy for the father to come round to visit the children. He did recollect an occasion when the father visited and X appeared scared when he saw him. On this and other occasions X did not want to be around the father when he came to the house; he would leave the room and stay in his bedroom. Mr P spoke to X about this and X told him that the father was shouting at him and hurting him but did not give further details.[98]It is Ms R’s evidence that ‘not long [after]’ the second time the father babysat the children, her sister C made an allegation that she had been sexually abused by the father. According to Ms R, the allegation came to light after her mother saw text messages in which C said that she did not want to see the father. Asked why, C told her mother that he had touched her over her clothes while she was visiting Ms R’s house. Ms R spoke to her sister about what happened and made a note of it. She took her sister to speak to the police. It was suggested to Ms R that she had been cross about the police’s failure to pursue the matter. She said that it had been her sister’s decision not to pursue it. She said she had been cross with the father for what he had done to her sister, but not with the police. I accept her evidence.[99]Mr P made clear in his evidence that he had been made aware by Ms R of the allegation made by C. He remembered speaking to her about it. He also gave evidence that he ‘tried’ to speak to X about the allegation made by C and that Ms R spoke to X about it. He agreed that Ms R was concerned that something similar to what had allegedly happened to C might have happened to X. According to Mr P, Ms R asked X questions about the father, enquiring why he was scared of him. Mr P also spoke to X about how he was around the father. X came to be aware that the father was in trouble with the police.[100]During cross-examination, Ms R accepted that prior to making his own allegations X had come to learn of the allegation made by her sister. She said she had told not him directly, but that it was something he had probably overheard. I prefer her evidence to Mr P’s on this point. X himself told the police that he overheard Ms R speaking to her mother about the allegation. He also said this when he was cross-examined for the purposes of the criminal trial.

X’s initial disclosure

[101]According to Ms R, it was on 9 August 2020 at about 9.30pm that X first disclosed to her information which suggested that he had been sexually abused by the father. At the time, she was at home downstairs and had been speaking to her friend M. X was at the top of the stairs with one of his brothers.[102]After X made his disclosure to her, at 10.22pm Ms R made an emergency 999 call, the transcript of which is in the bundle. At the start of the call she told the operator that ‘my son has just reported a sexual assault’. Asked what happened, she referred to the ‘ongoing investigation’ with her sister and said ‘my son has just opened up about what he’s done to him’. Her initial account to the operator was:
“He told me that he watched gay porn and then he went into the detail and asked him to give him a blow job and a few other things like touching his private parts and trying to get him to get an erection… Then he was saying that he was touching his bum with his thing and it was stinging… It was quite a while ago. But he’s not opened up because he said if he told anyone that he’d get arrested and in trouble, and if he told me, or if he didn’t give him a blow job that he would stab him in the neck with a knife or something, he was saying. It’s been happening over the past few times over the past few years. Pretty much like my sister. As it sounded like around the same times… I asked him to describe where we were. He said one time was here, where I’ve currently been for the last 3 years, when I was with my new partner last year. But we are no longer together. But my youngest’s dad, we went out on a night out and apparently he woke [X] up and brought him downstairs.”
[103]As for how the disclosure came to be made to her, Ms R told the operator the following:
“He's disclosed this tonight. As I was with a friend and I told him to go to bed as he was ear wigging basically, so I told him to go to bed because we were having an adult conversation, so he said what's and adult conversation. Private conversation. So I said it’s when adults talk about things children shouldn’t be hearing. Just to try and get him to go to bed. then he said I’ve got something private, and he was smiling, because I think he was kind of embarrassed. So I said what are you on about [X], what do you mean. Then he said [the father]. So I said what about him? Then he said he put his widgie near my bum. But he was laughing because he thought it was funny at first. Then I said to him do you know how serious that is. Then I got him downstairs at the dining table and I explained to him about what's been happening. Then he came out with all this. Then I couldn’t sit there and listen to it. As I was shocked. So I said to him where did this happen, and he said here. So I said was there any other times or was that it. Then he said there was one time with a door near a garden and it was when we were in a council flat I think a few years back when he must have been about 4. Which was the same place that it happened with my sister. He said he was fully naked and stuff as well, and it was very disturbing what I was hearing, and he was just telling me about gay porn. But he's only 7 and he should not be knowing stuff like that.”
[104]Asked by the operator how many times it had happened, Ms R responded:
“I think he said one time here when I went out with my partner. But then in the flat that I was in, I don’t know many times it happened there, as he was only little. So I was trying to get him to remember things. So I said is there anything else. Then he just came out with more things about being naked and stuff, and I tried looking at him without, you know, but I didn’t know what to do. As the police are not doing much about my sister's case, so I didn’t want to put him through it all and nothing is going to get done. But I said to him if I am going to speak to the police you are going to have to tell them everything you've told me. Then he just burst into tears. As he said what if they don’t’ believe me. What if they think I did it to him.”
[105]Later on during the call, Ms R told the operator:
“Did you hear what he said before about [C]. When I said I wonder if he's done it to the others. When he said no. He'll do it to me and [C] but [A]'s his son so he won’t do it to him. I can’t believe he said that. That's disgusting…”
The most recent, I think was about a year ago. As that was when I went out with my ex partner. As I don’t get out a lot. As when he had him for the night, apparently he woke him up for a few hours whilst I was out. As I’ve only been out like 2 or 3 times in the whole year and it was like in the space of a few weeks together. So it would have been one of those times. I just can’t remember what month it was.”[106]At one point during the call, it is apparent that X was in relatively close proximity to his mother as she interrupted her conversation with the operator to say ‘Are you alright [X]?’. Whatever X may have said at that point is not captured on the transcript, but it is clear that he was upset and the gist of what he may have said can be inferred from the next two comments from the operator and Ms R:
“OPERATOR: Aww bless him he's got himself all upset at the thought of the police getting involved. Ms R: He's getting dead scared. As as soon as I mentioned about the police getting involved he just burst into tears at the dining-room table.”
[107]As submitted by Mr Norton KC, it appears from things said by Ms R to the operator that C may have been present at the home at the time X made his initial disclosure or shortly afterwards. If not, it is likely that Ms R spoke to her sister prior to calling 999 as she told the operator that ‘when [X] spoke about the gay porn’ this prompted her sister to recollect other matters.[108]It is also clear that Ms R questioned X to a significant degree before making the 999 call. As set out above, the transcript makes clear that she asked him questions about where they were living at the time of the allegations and also that she was ‘trying to get [X] to remember things’, although she did also tell the operator that ‘I didn’t really want to go through it all with him because I think he was getting really embarrassed talking about it’. As is also apparent from the transcript, she told the operator that she ‘explained to [X] about what’s been happening’ then ‘[X] came out with all this’. Mr Norton KC submits that what she was explaining to X is not knowable given Ms R’s refusal to answer questions towards the end of her evidence. Having regard to the evidence as a whole, I consider it likely that she was speaking to him about the allegation concerning her sister.[109]When Ms R spoke to the 999 operator, she said (amongst other things) that she did not know what to do as the police were not doing much about her sister’s case. In her oral evidence, Ms R made clear that she had been worried about putting X through ‘it’, meaning the ordeal of a police investigation. I accept this.[110]It was suggested to Ms R by Mr Norton KC that she had asked X to make up allegations about the father and that both she and others with her on 9 August 2020 had encouraged him to do so. Ms R denied this and I accept her denial. Whatever antipathy she may have held towards the father, I do not accept that she would take the extreme step of having her young son falsify allegations against him, not least because of the impact that doing so would have upon X. Ms R also refuted the suggestion that she had put words into X’s mouth. In response to the suggestion that she was prompting X to give more details she said ‘No. I was asking questions… but not forcing him to tell’. I accept her evidence about this, although I also accept Mr Norton KC’s submissions that her untrained questioning of X may have had an impact on the reliability of X’s account which I need to take into account in my overall evaluation. Ms R confirmed in cross-examination that X had been laughing and smirking at the top of the stairs when he made his disclosure, saying that it is something he does when he is nervous. I accept her evidence about this including her assessment of the likely cause of X’s demeanour.[111]As part of her evidence, Ms R produced a contemporaneous note made electronically by her on her mobile telephone after X provided her with the information. It is likely that this was made after the 999 call. It appears that the note was created on 10 August 2020 and modified on that same date. In cross-examination, Ms R suggested that X’s disclosures were going on for ‘quite a while’ and that X was ‘adding more’. The note reads as follows: “[X]’s confrontation to me when asked him to go to bed cause was having private conversations with friend he asked what is private I said things don't want him to hear and he said had something private to say and he said name [of the father] then I said what about [the father] and he said widge in bum… I told him to come down and sit on table and tell me what he means he started to open up nervously about been made to watch a video of a man putting a widge in another mans bum so I was gathering he made him watch gay porn which is disturbing hes come out with a lot of stuff like him telling [X] to suck his widge and not to tell anyone or he will stab in kneck [X] said he did it he been naked in front of [X] he made his bum sting [X] said. If he told anyone he would get in trouble and be arrested. Was a time in flat and current house when I went out for few hours last year and also he tried to make [X]’s widge go bigger he said but [X] didn't want to. [two sad face emojis] he didn't tell me cause was scared he said.he cried when mentioned police cause he thinks won't believe him and think he did to him he scared. He's traumatized.” (all spelling, grammatical and typographical errors in the original)[112]Ms R agreed in cross-examination that she spoke on the night to her friend M about what X had said and that X will have heard this conversation. She also made a telephone call to her mother. It is likely that X will have heard this call too. As I have recorded above, it appears that Ms R also spoke to her sister C prior to making the 999 call (possibly because C was at the home) and it is likely, in my view, that X will have overheard this conversation also.[113]Mr P’s evidence was that he visited Ms R after X had made his allegation on either 9 or 10 August 2020. Ms R’s friend M was also present at the property when he visited. He remembered having a conversation in which Ms R was trying to make sense of what she had been told by X. X was also at the property and came downstairs at one point. Mr P did not remember having a discussion with X at the time although he recalled speaking to him at some point about why men kiss other men and why people hurt other people.

X’s first conversation with a police officer

[114]On 10 August 2020 a police officer visited Ms R at home and spoke to her and X about the allegations. Ms R communicated to the officer that X had made further allegations including that the father had ‘wee’d in his mouth’ and that this had been disgusting and tasted like mud. Ms R also reported X as having said that the father ‘put all of it in and it really hurt’. Ms R gave the officer some details of the flat where some of the abuse was alleged to have taken place. The officer asked X directly how many times the father had been bad to him to which X responded ‘I don’t know how many times cos it’s too much’; he then added ‘It’s to, too much in the flat’. Asked ‘What about here?’ X responded ‘Just one time’. In response to this, the officer inappropriately indicated her approval of what X had said telling him ‘thank you mate, brilliant, good lad thank you, good lad’.

The ABE interviews

[115]On 24 August 2020 X underwent an ‘ABE’ interview with the police. This was the first of two such interviews which have taken place. I have watched a recording of both of them as well as a recording of evidence given by X in connection with the father’s criminal trial. The transcripts are in the bundle. I accept Mr Norton KC’s submission that between 10 August 2020 and the first interview it is likely that there will have been further discussions between Ms R (and possibly others) and X about his allegations.[116]The officer who conducted the first ABE interview was DS Armitage. It was the first time he had ever interviewed a child, although approximately five years previously he had been on a training course for two weeks. The second interview was conducted by DC Hall[117]Both police officers gave oral evidence. DS Armitage in particular rightly acknowledged that a number of criticisms could be made about the way in which the interview was conducted. These defects in both interviews were addressed in detail in the parties submissions – see below.[118]It does not appear that any preparation was undertaken in advance of the first interview. It is clear that the guidance about conducting ABE interviews was breached a number of times, in particular the guidance about allowing a child to provide a ‘free narrative’ and as to the importance of avoiding indicating approval or disapproval to the child in response to information provided. Examples of the latter include telling him that he was ‘very brave’, thanking him after he provided an answer which the officer had been eliciting and calling him a ‘clever boy’. DS Armitage accepted in evidence the suggestion on behalf of the father that X was not given the opportunity to provide a free narrative.[119]So far as the second ABE interview is concerned, DC Hall accepted that it was unusual for a second interview to take place. In this case it was undertaken to seek clarification from X about the homes where he had stayed. DC Hall also accepted that she had not followed all the relevant ABE guidance including that the interview did not provide for any free narrative. She described this as being different from a normal interview as its purpose was to seek clarification as opposed to eliciting information for the first time. She accepted prompting X about matters mentioned by him in his first interview.

The first ABE interview

[120]The first ABE interview lasted for 114 minutes. An intermediary, Rebecca Hughes, was present.[121]Early on in the interview, a discussion took place about the difference between truth and lies. I agree with the submission by Ms McHugh and Mr Carey that this was conducted appropriately.[122]Following the preliminary discussions, it was established that X previously lived in a flat whereas he now lived in a ‘normal house’.[123]After a few further questions, X was asked why he had ‘come here today’. He said that the reason was ‘[t]o tell you what happened.’ Asked who knew about what had happened to him, he identified his ‘mum’, his ‘dad’ (it later emerged that that he refers to Mr P as his ‘dad’), his ‘nana’ and his friend M. X was asked if he could remember what he had told his mother and his response was:
‘you know the one that done it to me… He was named [the father’s first name] and he was an adult. He, he used to be, he used to be here all the time with, erm, my mummy, er, you know, in the flat’
. The conversation then moved to asking X to describe the father, during which X said that he was ‘nervous’.[124]After X had provided a physical description of the father, he was asked what he was like ‘when he was around you?’. X responded that the father was ‘weird’, that he was ‘scared of him’ and that he ‘strangles my neck’ when his brothers are trying to bully him.[125]X was then asked about ‘the flat’ he had already mentioned, DS Armitage noting that he had moved and was now living in a house. In response to the question ‘Who do you live with at the moment?’ X said that ‘I used to live with [the father] in the flat all the time and just at the new house sometimes, but now he’s away’. When the officer the commented ‘[h]e’s away now, isn’t he, yeah?’ X replied:
‘yeah, but he got to mind us and then it, it happened, what happened.’
[126]After speaking about the various people who had lived at the flat, DS Armitage asked X:
‘you know, in the flat… do you think you could tell me now what happened?’
. X’s response was that he was still feeling nervous. The conversation then switched to a discussion about him being bullied by his siblings and the occupants of his new house before X was asked what the previous flat looked like. X’s first response was that the walls were blue. He also spoke about sleeping in a toddler bed and mentioned pictures on the wall of ‘families and stuff’. He said that his brothers were sleeping in there. Asked if the flat had a front door, he initially responded ‘yeah’ before correcting himself and saying that ‘it was at the top so it don’t have a front door’. Asked to describe the flat, X first said that the only thing he could really remember was the bedroom he had share with his brother. When asked about the colour of the walls, X then said that the flat ‘only had two bedrooms’ and spoke of the bedroom in which his mother and the father slept. He said that the walls in his room were blue and that ‘I think’ those in the other bedroom were red. The conversation then moved to a discussion about the size and layout of his bedroom.[127]X was then asked ‘did something happen to you in that bedroom?’. His response was:
‘just dreaming about what [the father] done to me.. But, erm, I don’t dream about it any more.’
DS Armitage then said to X:
‘..we can talk a little bit at a time… I really need to know what happened to you in that, in that room… and then like the boy with the sweet in his pocket, the person who did this to you, I can bring them to the police station, can’t I?’
. X responded:
‘shall I tell you what happened?’, to which the officer inappropriately commented: ‘yeah, I think you’re very brave yeah’
. At this point, X said:
‘it’s it’s… Oh I’m nervous. It’s, it’s in the flat where he, he, he, he was, like, putting his willy in my bum. That’s what he done.’
As submitted by Mr Norton KC, whereas in his initial conversations with Ms R, X is said to have made reference to the father’s ‘widge’ or ‘widgie’, here he referred to his ‘willy’. A few questions later, the officer commented: ‘so it was in the flat’, to which X answered: “But when I was in the new house, he only came one time to, like, mind us and, er, he, he came upstairs in the new, in the new house, he came upstairs, I was afraid (?) to come downstairs, and, and then he, he, he had no clothes on, he was, he was naked, er, and, er, and, er, and it made me scared, er, and then he, he, he told me to get on the bed with him and then he, he showed me videos about a man putting his willy in a man’s bum, he had videos about it”[128]The conversation then switched, with X being asked to demonstrate with models how the father had put ‘his willy up your bum’. X proceeded to do this. X was then reminded about the blue walls in his bedroom and asked:
‘where did it happen in the bedroom?’
. He responded by saying that it had occurred in his mother’s bedroom while she was asleep. When asked expressly which bedroom it had occurred in, X again said essentially the same thing before adding:
“but when… we were in the new house, he, he, instead of showing me videos, he, he also like give, give me, like… He, he also, like… Er, in the flat, he, he, he, like, when he was doing that, he also started, like, putting his willy in my mouth and then he… And then wee… Weeing in it, in my mouth. And that’s what he, he was also doing”
[129]X was then asked where this had occurred, to which he responded: ‘in the flat’. DS Armitage proceeded to ask again about where in the flat the father had put ‘his willy in your bum’, making reference to X’s bedroom and saying ‘did it not happen in there?’. Despite the leading nature of this question, X again reiterated that the abuse had occurred ‘in the bedroom’. He then agreed with several other leading questions which reaffirmed what he had already said about it having occurred in his mother’s bed while she was asleep. As submitted by Mr Norton KC, he proceeded to give a somewhat confused account, explaining that the abuse had not happened in his bedroom as his mother ‘can easily hear what’s happening [there]’; hence, on X’s account, the father decided to ‘do it’ in the bed he shared with Ms R while she was asleep. X spoke about wearing ‘jamas’ which the father would pull down and the father being naked. Asked how it felt, X said ‘it was stinging my bum a little bit, and, er, and, and it hurt me’. He proceeded to describe to the officer an implausible scenario whereby he cried, his mother would wake up and the father would then pretend to be asleep.[130]X was asked the question:
‘did you see his willy?’
His response was:
‘er, yeah, he was also putting it in my mother and told me to suck it, and he was weeing in my mouth then.’
He clarified that this had occurred ‘in the flat’ adding that ‘just in the normal house, he just showed me videos of, like, er, a man putting a willy in a man’s butt.’ X then proceeded to alleged that father ‘tried making my willy hard, … doing that to, to my willy’ (making a gesture). He said that his protests were met with a threat by the father to stab him in the neck with a knife.[131]Asked by DS Armitage if the father had put ‘his willy up your bum the once, or did more things happen in the flat?’ X responded that it had occurred ‘lots and lots of times in the flat, putting his willy in my bum’. He could not remember individual occasions because ‘he just, he just does it too many times’. He claimed that the father said that he would do it to both him and his aunt C, but not to his own son, A. He also said that he had been too scared to tell his mother as the father had threatened to kill him if he did so.[132]X later spoke about the father’s hands ‘hugging me’ and said that he had ‘put his willy right through my bum, right through’. This had ‘hurt me really bad’. He had cried but not ‘that loud’. Having first suggested that the abuse occurred in his mother’s bed, X told the officer that ‘he’s done it in my bedroom as well’, ‘lots and lots of times’. As to where the abuse had occurred, he said that ‘willy to mouth’ and ‘willy to bum’ had happened in the flat, but ‘in the normal house’ he had been shown videos of ‘a man putting a willy in a man’s butt’.[133]X was asked about the ‘willy in the mouth’ and when this had occurred. He said he thought he had been aged five. Asked how it occurred, he said:
“He, he, he, he would open my mouth and I would try to close it, but I can’t. He would just be, like, stretching it, and it will hurt my mouth so… Er, it will hurt my mouth when he start… and he… Er, and, and he only does that when he needs the toilet.”
[134]X then described the father’s ‘willy’ as ‘big and long and hard’ and again told the officer that ‘he will wee in my mouth’. Asked how it had tasted, X said ‘like rotten eggs and stuff’. X was then asked several times what had happened to the ‘stuff’ in his mouth, eventually telling the officer ‘he only tried to stuff it down my neck’. As for the colour, X said that it was ‘green’. Later X said that the ‘wee’ ‘goes down to my stomach’. Asked how many times the father had put his willy in his mouth, X responded ‘six’ although ‘lots of times he’s put his willy in my bum’.[135]X proceeded to describe dreaming about putting his ‘willy’ in his brother’s ‘bum’ and getting into trouble about this. He was adamant that this had not occurred.[136]Following a break, X was asked further questions including how the father’s ‘willy’ had become ‘hard’. He said:
‘he told me to squish it and stuff’
. When asked about how the father’s ‘willy’ had come ‘to the point of putting it in your mouth’, X said that ‘when he was trying to put it in my mouth, er, he, he, he said, “if you bite it, then, er, I’ll, I’ll punch you in the face”’.[137]X was asked questions about being shown the video at his ‘normal house’. He said that this had occurred in the living room while his brothers were upstairs in bed and ‘my mum and my dad were going, were going out and… To, to have some fun with each other, and they got… erm [the father] to mind us.’ Asked what happened in the living room, X first said:
‘I can’t remember. I can’t remember anything else’
. When prompted about the video he said ‘when a man puts a willy in a man’s bum, I know that.’ He said he had watched this on the father’s phone, which he said was a black Samsung. He then described being forced to watch the video while trying to close his eyes while the father was ‘strangling me on the neck’.[138]X was then asked about his aunt C and told the officer that the father told him ‘that’s what he done to [C], everything he done to me’. He said he had spoken to C who told him that it was true.[139]Towards the end of the interview DS Armitage asked X how he would feel about the father coming to the police station. His response was:
‘sad about what, what, about what he done to me’
.

The second ABE interview

[140]The second ABE interview was conducted over two years after the first on 24 October 2022. It lasted for 24 minutes. The same intermediary, Rebecca Hughes, was present.[141]Towards the start of the interview DC Hall introduced the subject of the father and ‘what he’d done’ and the flat where X had previously lived, making reference to its red room and blue room. After a few more questions, X was then prompted to remember things that father had done which might have upset him. X said:
“He, he would just do it to me and then every time I prop (?) my head up he’ll put it down to, to the bed again. And then, and then [A], my brother [A], just, just says, “When’s it lunch time?” and she said, “soon”, he just watching me then looked away then he didn’t really care”
[142]Asked about the things he had previously told DS Armitage about what the father had done, X first said that he could not remembered. He was then asked about when his mother went out and the father came to babysit. X replied:
‘he used to wake me up and then just drag me down the stairs and then do it…he used to force me to wake up and drag me down the stairs and it’s hurt my…it.. And he’s like, scratched my legs and everything.’
Asked what happened, he said:
‘He done the thingy on the couch.’
Prompted for further information, X said that he did not really want to say.[143]X was then asked further questions. In response to the question ‘what else did [the father] do to you that you’ve not told us the last time you was here?’ X said:
“…The first time we met, yeah, mum and him, erm, when he saw me, he smiled at me and he was treating me well. But then after three weeks, for the first time, he dragged me out of bed and was doing that..”
Asked what he did, he referred with a combination of words and a gesture to the father putting his ‘front private part’ in ‘there’, there being the ‘back private place I have’.[144]After referring again to the flat with the red and blue rooms, DC Hall asked X where else he went with the father. X responded that he remembered ‘this very, very, very old house in … Cheshire’, saying that the father ‘only came there, like, a few times and then went but he didn’t stay there. When he was there, he didn’t do anything cos he didn’t babysit anymore.’ Asked further questions about X’s house, X said:
‘he babysitted only twice or once there’
. In response to a question about where else he slept over with the father, he referred to the flat and the ‘very, very old house’, adding ‘he done it twice, I can’t remember, I think he done it twice’. Asked what the father had done twice, X said:
‘the thingy. And the, well, I already told. So after three days, Mum told him that he, he can’t come… He, he doesn’t have to babysit anymore. And he was like this and then he went upstairs and I heard a bang where, like, he… punched the floor or something… And, and Mum went to check on him and he was, like, breathing and, like, mad and he was really sweating…And he just went out again and banged the door.’
X clarified that this had happened at the house.[145]X was asked to clarify that the babysitting had happened twice at the house. Whilst agreeing, he also said:
‘but it was mostly at the flat more.’
Asked what happened when the father babysat at the flat, X responded that the front door would shut when ‘she’ (meaning his mother) went out and that ‘as soon as you hear the noise, you hear footsteps going up the stairs.. Like really loud.. And then he, then he just opens the door and it bangs the wall. And then, yeah, someone… He just drags me off the bed(?).’ Pressed on what the father did, X responded that ‘he did what I said and he also kind of sweared to me sometimes’. X said that this swearing occurred ‘every time he bangs me on the couch’ and while his mother was out at the shops or overnight. Pressed again on what the father did, X said:
‘you know, my back private place and his front private place and then he puts that into my back private place’
. This was accompanied by a gesture. X went on to say that his brother A, who shared a room with him, was woken up when he was dragged from his bed.[146]X was then asked further questions about what had occurred in the house. He said that one night when his mother and Mr P were in Liverpool ‘the way he banged my head onto the couch made me dizzy for a few seconds’. After further questions he again made the allegation about the father putting his ‘front private place’ into his ‘back private place’. He said that it hurt and that he sometimes asked the father to stop but the father ‘would just sometimes punch me in the face, like, so hard. So scary.’[147]X was asked to name the first person he told about his allegations. He said that it was his mother and that he told her in the house. He gave an account, similar to Ms R’s, of trying to come downstairs, being told to go to bed as ‘we’re trying to have something private here’, adding ‘and then I, I said “Well I’ve got something private,” and then I told her and then she was like, “What?” And then she took me downstairs and then we explained.’[148]X then gave an account of the father being nice to him the last time he babysat, asking him to come downstairs, but not dragging him and giving him half an Easter egg.[149]X was asked how was feeling ‘now’ and responded that he was ‘still scared’. He gave an account of having recently seen the father’s car while he was on a bus and feeling frightened by it.

X’s cross-examination for the criminal trial

[150]On 26 April 2023 X was cross-examined by defence counsel for the purposes of the father’s criminal trial. This was pre-recorded and took place via a video link. In response to a number of questions, X said that he was ‘not sure’. In response to the suggestion that the father had never hurt or threatened him, X said that ‘he has been kind to me sometimes, but he has, he has threatened me and hurt me. He has hurt me sometimes as well.’[151]X was asked questions about the allegation that the father put his ‘willy’ in his bottom. He said that this had first happened in the flat, usually at night, in the bedroom the father shared with Ms R, sometimes in the living room. He repeated and elaborated upon what he had said previously about his mother usually being in bed asleep. Asked how many times it had occurred, X responded ‘lots of times’. He explained that the father would take him to his mother’s room, grabbing his arm and telling him to walk there. He thought his mother had not heard what went on as she was a ‘heavy sleeper’. X went on to say that ‘he would, like, hide me under the covers and he would, like, erm do something to kind of, like…sometimes he even used his legs to cover his, erm, to cover my mouth and nose which actually pretty stunk.’ X said that he had been ‘too scared’ to say anything when the father did things to him in bed, but went on to say that he said ‘stop’ some of the time. Apart from the bed, X said that the abuse had sometimes occurred on the living-room couch. When it happened, it was ‘always nighttime. He never done it in the daytime.’[152]X spoke again about dreaming about the father doing things to him but ‘more rapid than he’d done it in real life’. When the father’s denial was put to him and he was asked if it was true or a lie, X responded: ‘he’s telling a lie because I have a memory of the past of him doing that and I can clearly remember it in my head’.[153]Following a short break, X was asked some questions about the father putting his ‘willy’ in his mouth and to identify in which flat or house this had occurred. He responded that ‘the only time he done it was the last time that he ever done it was in [the house]’. He later repeated that this had only occurred in the house and said it happened on the purple couch in the living-room. He did not know how often this had taken place but ‘it was only a few times’. The only adult in the house was the father ‘until my mum came back’. He was not sure whether the father had put his ‘willy’ in his mouth anywhere else. Asked to describe the ‘willy’, X initially said that he was too embarrassed to do so. When pressed he said:
‘it had, like, a long kind of, erm, like a long thick stick? I don’t know.’
He said that he saw hair on the father’s stomach and his belly button, but added that some of the time it was hard to see ‘because he would turn me around to put his private in my back private’. X was asked whether there were times when it was easy to see and responded that this had been the case ‘when he showed me the video’.[154]When asked about his suggestion to the police that the father ‘tried stabbing you in the head’ X clarified that ‘It was just a threat’. He went on to say: ‘if it was something that he wanted me to do but I didn’t do it, he said, “do it or I will stab you”’.[155]Asked whether the father had done anything to him ‘at any other house other than the flat or your house?’ X first replied ‘erm, not really’ before saying ‘no’. He then, however, went on to say that the father had ‘done it a few times at his house’, being ‘his home where he lives and he babysits us sometimes’. He described the bricks on the house as having ‘a really dark colour’. Asked what happened there, he said:
‘what he’s done with his private place in my back private place when he put it in.’
He was not sure how many times something had happened there.[156]X said that the father was telling a lie in denying that he had ever put his ‘willy’ in his mouth. As for the father’s denial about the video, X said:
‘well he’s lying because that’s the closest memory that I’ve got because that’s the last time I ever saw his face.’
He went on to say that ‘the last thing that happened was at [the house]’.[157]X was asked about his allegation that the father touched X’s ‘willy’. He said:
‘I asked him how his is so big and he said that, “Do you want yours big?” and I said “Yeah.” So he, like, touched it and he, like used this thing or his hands, I don’t know. It didn’t really do anything, though.’
He said that this had occurred at the house. He claimed that he had said ‘stop or I won’t call you Dad’ and ‘then he stopped’. It happened ‘just the one time’. He said that the father did not threaten him that time. He also said that he had touched the father’s ‘willy’ ‘once ‘cause he told me to touch it and describe what it feels like’. This had happened ‘on the last day at [the house]’.[158]Asked about watching television, X agreed that his mother let him watch what he wanted. He denied watching horror films including ‘Chuckie’. With his mother and the father, he said he ‘just watched family films, like, Christmas family films’. He did not think he had watched films for grown ups, but during one film his mother had covered his eyes during a particular scene involving kissing. X also denied walking in on his mother and the father having sexual intercourse although he said that he had ‘heard a few noises’. Asked to describe the noises, he said ‘Kind of like the ‘A’ sound’.[159]Following another break X was asked further questions about the times the father had looked after him at the flat and the house. When he was at the flat and his mother went out to the shops, X said that the father ‘didn’t have enough time to do, erm, what he does’. X later once again refuted the father’s denials of placing his ‘willy’ in his bottom and mouth (‘definitely a lie’). He was then asked about his aunt C. He said that the father had not said anything about her; ‘I just heard my nana and my mum in a conversation about it and my nana nor my mum was happy about it, and then a few days later that gave me the courage to tell them what happened about me.’[160]Following further questions X was asked about the time he first spoke about the abuse. He said that he first told his mother and that her friend M was in the living-room. He said:
‘then she went downstairs and told me to sit at the table while we had a chat about it, and then later on when I told her about the video, she started crying and she said “How dare he show, erm, him, erm, videos like that?” And she was swearing and all that and she was really upset.’
When asked if there was any reason he had decided to tell his mother, X said ‘something just made me say it. I don’t know.’ He denied the suggestions that his mother or anyone else had told him to make up a story about the father (‘No never. She would never.’)[161]X was then asked about his making things up. He accepted that he had once told his mother and Mr P that he would tell his school ‘that you guys were being mean to me’ and that this would have been a lie. He said this occurred after he was ‘having one of those moments’ and Mr P was disciplining him. He did not accept telling a teacher that his ‘dad had died in a fire in London’.

Submissions in relation to X’s allegations

[162]Each party filed opening and closing written submissions in which they addressed the allegations concerning X (as well as making submissions about the allegations concerning Ms Smith, which I shall not set out separately). Their closing submissions were amplified orally. I have taken all of the submissions into account, but I shall only summarise briefly the core points made by each of them.[163]On behalf of the local authority, Mr Crabtree acknowledges that before X’s first ABE interview, in addition to his mother it appears that X spoke to his grandmother, Ms R’s friend M and Mr P. He accepts that ‘it is not ideal’ for a child to be spoken to prior to being formally interviewed but submits that such an occurrence ‘is in reality commonplace, completely understandable and somewhat inevitable’. He further submits that while there are some differences between X’s different recorded and reported accounts ‘there is no significant variance between the transcript of the 999 call, Ms R’s note and the ultimate ABE interview save greater detail is provided by [X] as to what he says happened to him and that it is submitted is by no means unusual’. As Mr Crabtree observes ‘sexual abuse is naturally upsetting and unfathomable to most children and specifying exactly what has happened is usually a process rather than an event.’[164]Mr Crabtree submits that whilst X’s apparent prior knowledge of the allegations made by C is ‘not ideal’, such knowledge could not have formed a factual basis for the matters which X alleged given that they are wholly different from C’s allegations.[165]Mr Crabtree acknowledges that the police officers transgressed from the guidance in conducting the ABE interviews but contends that these transgressions are not such as to render the evidence which was gathered valueless. He draws attention to a number of features of the X’s account which, he submits, adds to its cogency. These include:(a) X expressing that he was nervous and might smile as a result;(b) X distinguishing between the type of abuse which occurred in each of the properties in which he lived;(c) His ability to give a spatial description of the properties;(d) Identifying by name that it was the father who abused him and referring to his ‘fear’ due to what he had done;(e) His physical descriptions of the father’s penis and his being required to make it hard;(f) His description of both the act of penile penetration and how it had made him feel;(g) His asserted reluctance to put the father’s penis in his mouth and the stretching of his mouth;(h) His reference to ejaculate as ‘wee’ and his descriptions of how this tasted and smelled;[166]As for the differences in the account X gave in his evidence for the criminal trial, Mr Crabtree emphasises the length of time between the allegations and the recording of his evidence and submits that, given his young age, ‘it is inevitable’ that his recollection would change over that period.[167]Mr Crabtree submits that the father’s suggestion that Ms R and perhaps others have conspired to procure X to provide a false account does not sit easily with the evidence. X does not come across in interview as a child who has been coached to give a rehearsed narrative. Although Ms R admitted having been angry with the father, she rejected the suggestion that there was a conspiracy as alleged by the father. The transcript of the 999 call reads as though Ms R was a mother who was shocked and upset at what she had just been told by her son. As was obvious, Ms R had no wish to be giving evidence at the hearing; this was inconsistent with the notion that she was motivated to ruin the father.[168]On behalf of the mother, Ms Watkinson and Ms Lynch made clear that, as is accepted, she was outside the jurisdiction at the time of the allegations against the father. It was further submitted that it was unnecessary for the court to make any findings about the disputed conversation between the mother and the social worker on 22 April 2025. Ms Watkinson and Ms Lynch further emphasised the issues with interpretation which could well have resulted in errors of translation and misunderstanding by the social worker. As I have already made clear, I reject these explanations.[169]On behalf of the father, Mr Norton KC makes a number of cogent submissions about the allegations concerning X. He emphasises that the circumstances in which the allegations were first made by X, which included what was on any view significant untrained questioning by X’s mother and others, coupled with the deficiencies in both ABE interviews, entirely compromise the reliability of X’s accounts.[170]Mr Norton KC further submits that there is considerable evidence to suggest that X is in any event an unreliable historian. As Mr Norton submits, some matters disclosed by X are so inherently implausible that they cannot possibly be true. The most notable examples are X’s suggestions that the father took X from his bedroom to the bed occupied by Ms R and proceeded to abuse him in that bed while Ms R was asleep. I entirely accept that this will not have occurred. I also accept that X’s allegation that the father once punched him in the face is very unlikely to be true. The same can be said about suggestions made by X at one stage that not only did the father ‘threaten’ to stab him, he actually did so or attempted to do so. As is apparent from the evidence of both Ms R and Mr P, X has made allegations which have been shown to be untrue and has told lies.[171]In a very helpful document to accompany their closing submissions, Mr Norton KC and Mr Jackson trace the chronological development of the accounts which X has given drawing particular attention to things said by him at different stages of the enquiry. It is apparent that from that document and from the more detailed summary of things said by X at different points which I have set out above that there are significant inconsistencies between his different accounts. By way of example, in his first ABE interview X provided a significant amount of detail not related by Ms R in her account of what he first said to her. In that same interview X made clear that the anal and oral abuse had occurred in the flat but not the house, whereas in more recent accounts he suggested that abuse of that type had occurred in the house. In the first ABE interview he said the anal abuse had occurred ‘lots and lots of times’ in his bedroom as well as ‘sometimes’ the oral abuse, whereas in his evidence for the criminal trial he said this had not occurred at all in that location. In his second ABE interview, X suggested for the first time that his brother had been present and witnessed the abuse. As submitted by Mr Norton KC, X used different language at different times to refer to the father’s penis. These are just a few examples of the significant number of inconsistencies which have been noted.[172]On behalf of the guardian, Ms McHugh and Mr Carey acknowledge the deficiencies in the ABE interviews, but emphasise that these are not of such significance that they have the effect of ‘fatally compromising’ the integrity of the interviews.[173]The guardian submits that X’s age is significant in the context of the descriptions he gave. There is no obvious explanation for his apparent knowledge of matters such as anal sex, erect penises, ejaculation or the taste of semen unless derived from his own experiences; neither the father nor Ms R watched pornography with him and he did not watch adult films with them.[174]It is further submitted that the childlike manner in which X has described some of the acts lends credence to his accounts as it would have been difficult to compel him to use a childlike lexicon as part of a forced narrative. By way of example, during the first ABE interview he said that the father only put his penis in his mouth ‘when he needs the toilet’ and referred to a taste of ‘rotten egg and stuff’. He also spoke of the father trying ‘to make my willy big’. During his evidence for the criminal trial he described the father’s penis as a long thick stick.[175]During the course of his different accounts, X repeated his allegation that the father put his ‘willy’ in his bottom. It is submitted that there are ‘inevitably some inconsistencies between the accounts, but … memory particularly in children does not always operate as a linear narrative replete with what adults may perceive as all of the key details reiterated or recalled’. It is further said that some of the particulars provided by X are consistent with his account being essentially truthful. Examples include his explanation for being unable to see the father’s belly button ‘[b]ecause he would turn me around to put his private in my back private’ and the father’s failed attempt to get him to have an erection. It also submitted that there is a degree of balance in X’s accounts. By way of example, X told DC Hall that the first time he met the father, the latter smiled at him and treated him well. In his evidence for the criminal trial he reiterated that the father was sometimes kind to him. He also made clear that the father while had threatened to stab him, he had not acted on this threat, correcting a suggestion in a question put to him that the father had ‘tried’ to stab him. Points such as these lead the guardian to submit that ‘balance is a hallmark of candour and is consistent with providing a truthful account’.[176]It is further submitted on behalf of the guardian that X made ‘eloquent and congruent’ gestures when providing his account. Examples include his demonstration of how the father would stretch his mouth before inserting his penis into it; the touching of his penis to make it hard; the stuffing of ejaculate down his neck.

My conclusions in relation to the allegations concerning X

[177]Having read and heard the evidence I have come to the conclusion, on the balance of probabilities, that the essential elements of what X has alleged are true. In essence, I agree with the submissions made by the local authority and the guardian.[178]I have already made clear that I reject the suggestion that Ms R either alone or with others has procured X to make false allegations against the father. I also accept Ms R’s evidence about the circumstances in which X first made the allegations although she may not be wholly accurate about the precise time of the disclosure. Her evidence about this is consistent with what X himself has said. The transcript of the 999 call reads as though she was in a state of shock having just been given distressing information by her son. I further accept Ms R’s evidence that she did not watch ‘adult’ films at home and that X was not exposed to such films by her.[179]Mr Norton KC has rightly emphasised a number of features of X’s disclosures which have caused me to approach them with particular care. I have taken them all into account in my evaluation. The most significant, in my view, is the extent to which X is likely to have discussed the allegations with his mother and others before the first ABE took place, but this does not detract from the initial information he conveyed to his mother, which was relayed to the 999 operator soon afterwards.[180]It is also plain that there are aspects of X’s accounts which are untrue and which must have been imagined by him, most strikingly his description of the abuse taking place next to his mother while she was asleep. I agree with the submission made by Mr Crabtree about the ‘upsetting and unfathomable’ nature of sexual abuse for a very young child. The confused aspects of X’s accounts and the inconsistencies are, in my view, likely to have resulted from such considerations.[181]Although X was exposed to discussions about the allegations concerning C, what she alleged is very different from the matters disclosed by X. I agree with the submission that there is no obvious explanation for his apparent knowledge of matters such as anal sex, erect penises, ejaculation or the taste of semen unless derived from his own experiences. The detailed and childlike nature of some of X’s descriptions are also consistent with an account based on his own experiences as opposed to something which has been rehearsed. I have also found persuasive the point made by the guardian about the balance in X’s accounts.[182]I have been cautious about giving too much weight to X’s demeanour during his interviews, but he did not strike me as a child relaying a rehearsed narrative. His nervousness about providing information and the positive things he was able to say about the father are, in my view, consistent with his account being truthful.[183]Mr P’s evidence about X’s reaction when the father would come to the house is also consistent with his account being true. Again I have been cautions about giving too much weight to this as I accept the point made by Mr Norton KC about the dangers of hindsight bias.[184]I do not consider I can reliably make findings as to the number of times each type of abuse occurred beyond saying that they occurred at least once.[185]In the end, therefore, I am driven to the conclusion that the local authority has established on a balance of probabilities that the father abused X in the following ways prior to July 2019:(a) On at least one occasion, on a date or dates unknown, he inserted his erect penis into X’s bottom.(b) On at least one occasion, on a date or dates unknown, he inserted his erect penis into X’s mouth and ejaculated in his mouth.(c) On at least one occasion, on a date or dates unknown, he caused X to squeeze and rub his penis.(d) On at least one occasion, on a date or dates unknown, he fondled X’s penis.(e) On at least on occasion, on a date or dates unknown, he showed X a pornographic video.(f) On at least one occasion, on a date or dates unknown, he threatened X to prevent him from disclosing the abuse.[186]It is unnecessary for me to make findings about where the abuse happened, although I think it likely that most of it happened at the flat where X lived before the move to the house. In this context, I consider that the account X gave in first ABE interview is likely to be more reliable than subsequent accounts.[187]For the reasons set out above, I find that the children are likely to suffer significant harm, as contended by the local authority. This likelihood of harm is attributable to the care likely to be given to the children if an order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to the children.[188]Having made by findings, I would invite the parties to consider directions to take the proceedings forward to an IRH.