- Cited — RE A (CHILDREN) (POOL OF PERPETRATORS) 2022-10-17
“…[2009] EWCA Civ 472…”
- Cited — RE A (CHILDREN) (POOL OF PERPETRATORS) 2022-10-17
“…[2009] EWCA Civ 472…”
- Cited — RE A (CHILDREN) (POOL OF PERPETRATORS) 2022-10-17
“…This wrong turning on the part of some courts came before the Court of Appeal in Re D (Children) [2009] EWCA Civ 472, (“Re D”). The Court of Appeal was faced with an appeal where the judge had approached the case on the basis that, where there were two potential perpetrators …”
- Cited — RE A (CHILDREN) (POOL OF PERPETRATORS) 2022-10-17
“…Re D (Care Proceedings: Preliminary Hearings) [2009] EWCA Civ 472, [2009] 2 FLR 668…”
- Considered — B (Children : Uncertain Perpetrator) (Rev 1) 2019-04-04
“…It should then consider whether it can identify the actual perpetrator on the balance of probability and should seek, but not strain, to do so: Re D (Children) [2009] EWCA Civ 472 at [12]. Only if it cannot identify the perpetrator to the civil standard of proof should it go on to ask in respect of those on the list: "Is there a likeliho…”
- Cited — B (A Child) 2018-10-04
“…ible on the balance of probabilities. The court should not strain to identify a perpetrator in such circumstances: Re D (Care Proceedings: Preliminary Hearing) [2009] EWCA Civ 472 at [12].…”
- Cited — R (Children) 2018-02-16
“…ike a finding of harm, it is not a necessary ingredient of the threshold criteria. As Lord Justice Wall put it in Re D (Care Proceedings: Preliminary Hearings) [2009] EWCA Civ 472, [2009] 2 FLR 668, at para 12, judges should not strain to identify the perpetrator as a result of the decision in Re B:…”