The High Court has ruled that a judge was wrong to dismiss a woman’s allegations that her estranged husband subjected her to domestic and sexual abuse. 

Case Background 

The issue arose during a fact-finding hearing intended to help determine a father’s contact with the couple’s two-year-old child. The mother and father married in 2019 and separated in 2021, with the child living with the mother. The parents could not agree on contact arrangements for the father. 

The mother alleged that the father’s behaviour was undermining, coercive, and controlling. She claimed he pressured her into sex and was sexually aroused by or in the presence of their child. Additionally, she expressed concern that he posed a risk of sexual harm to the child. 

Initial Court Decision 

At the fact-finding hearing, the judge found inconsistencies in the mother’s evidence, deemed her lacking in credibility, and ruled that none of her allegations were substantiated. 

The mother argued that giving evidence in front of the father was very distressing and that the court failed in its duty under the Family Procedure Rules 2010 Pt 3A. These rules include procedural safeguards to help domestic abuse victims participate more effectively in legal proceedings. 

High Court Ruling 

The High Court upheld the mother’s appeal, highlighting the court’s clear obligations under Pt 3A concerning allegations of domestic abuse. If a party or witness is a victim or at risk of domestic abuse, they are considered vulnerable. Their evidence quality and participation are assumed to be diminished, requiring the court to consider participation directions to ensure a fair trial. 

Procedural Failures 

The High Court noted a significant failure to consider Pt 3A in this case, resulting in a lack of procedural safeguards for vulnerable parties and witnesses. The judge did not consider whether participation directions, such as turning off the father’s camera while the mother gave evidence, altering the questioning method, or managing breaks, were necessary. 

Given the intimate nature of the allegations and the impact on the mother, these procedural failures rendered the hearing unfair. Consequently, the findings on the mother’s allegations could not stand, and the case was remitted to a different judge. 

Legal Implications 

This ruling emphasizes the importance of proper procedural safeguards in cases involving domestic abuse allegations. It highlights the judiciary’s responsibility to ensure that vulnerable parties can participate fully and fairly in legal proceedings.