Case No: CV12P00533

IN THE COVENTRY COUNTY COURT

140 Much Park Street
Coventry
West Midlands
CV1 2SN

Wednesday, 11th December  2013

Before:

HER HONOUR JUDGE WATSON

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

B E T W E E N

W

and

P

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Transcript from a recording by Ubiqus
61 Southwark Street, London, SE1 0HL
Tel: 020 7269 0370

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MS WALSH appeared on behalf of the Applicant Mother
MS VERNON appeared on behalf of the Respondent Father

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT
HHJ WATSON: 
1.	I have before me todayMs Walsh who represented the Applicant, KW, during the fact-finding hearing and  Ms Vernon who  represented, the Respondent, DNP,  during the fact-finding hearing.
2.	There are cross-applications for residence orders and prohibited steps orders on behalf of the Applicant, Ms W, and contact orders in relation to two children of their relationship: O born on 2 February 2007 and S born on 20 April 2008.  
3.	Because there are disputed issues of fact it has been necessary to have a fact-finding hearing and the allegations have been set out in a Scott Schedule and at the outset of the hearing, before evidence was called, there was an element of agreement in relation to some of the allegations in the Scott Schedule.  These, of course, are Allegations six, seven and 12 which are admitted by Mr P.  
4.	Allegation number six is an allegation of domestic violence which is admitted.  The allegation is said to be that the Respondent would intimate that he was play-fighting with the Applicant.  However, this would escalate and the Applicant would be hurt as a result.  She in the Scott Schedule set out that she sustained bruises to her body and also injured her arm on occasion.  This occurred in July 2012, which led to Mother refusing the Respondent Father attendance at her property at that time.  That is admitted by Mr P to the extent that he has engaged in 
play-fights with the Applicant and that they both have been injured as a result.
5.	In relation to allegation seven in the Scott Schedule, Mr P told Ms W that he had taken an overdose of sixteen Paracetamol tablets whilst at her property.  This occurred whilst both O and S were present in the property.  Mr P says that he admits threatening to take an overdose, but did not take an overdose and in his statement indicated it was 10 and not 16 tablets.  The admission of allegation number seven is of a threat to take an overdose.  The date of it 31 July 2012 is perhaps significant in the light of the finding of allegation six because, of course, this was during the period when Mother had refused Father attendance at her property.  In my finding, the threatening to take an overdose although not taking the overdose is evidence of manipulative behaviour by Mr P who was, in my finding, applying emotional pressure to Ms W on that admitted occasion.
6.	In relation to allegation 12; this is an admission – and indeed recognised by a conviction – that Father was producing cannabis within the family home where the children reside and was arrested in relation to that matter.  It is said – and this is a matter which I shall return to – in the Scott Schedule that Ms W had no knowledge of Mr P’s behaviour during this time.  It is fully accepted and admitted and, indeed, as I understand it Mr P is now serving a prison sentence which relates partly certainly to the production of cannabis.  What is said in the Scott Schedule is that he regrets his actions; no doubt, the fact that it was production of cannabis while the children were present in the property. 
7.	Those are the agreed admitted facts and I turn now to those areas which are in dispute between the parties.
8.	The parties separated in June/July 2012.  There was a brief reconciliation, as I understand it, in July 2012 when the mother of the children allowed the children’s father, Mr P, back into the family home.  On 3 August 2012 Mother took S to the general practitioners with vaginal soreness and the general practitioner examined S and found, according to the medical report, an ‘obvious vulvovaginitis’.  Dr Champion was concerned and said although uncommon, child abuse was at the back of his mind.  Mother had not thought this herself and was more concerned that S had not been wiping herself properly after going to the toilet.  Later the same day S told her aunt, JG, that she did not like her dad and when asked why said that he had touched her where her wee came from.  JG, when giving oral evidence, had used the word “floof” which is the name that the girls use for their vaginal area; indeed, it was a name that the family used for that area.  S was talking to her aunt about a time when she and her sister stayed with their father at father’s friend’s home.  She describes her father during that contact visit as being ‘naked’.  
9.	The general practitioner had been so concerned that he requested a consultation with a consultant.  This took place on 8 August 2012 with Dr Callaghan.  The result of that consultation was that vulvovaginitis was confirmed, but was described as a ‘common problem in young girls’ and the opinion of Dr Callaghan was that the examination neither confirms nor refutes S’s disclosure to the police.
10.	S’s aunt, JG, had accompanied S to that appointment and gave oral evidence to the court that S was sitting on her aunt’s lap with her legs open and when the doctor gave S the swab to look at, she put the swab between her legs and poked it towards her vagina.  I remind myself that I am looking for cogent evidence in relation to these allegations and that the test in all matters in these courts is the test of the balance of probabilities; in short, that it is more probable than not that an event occurred.  What is said in Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33 by Hale J is that the more serious the allegation, the more cogent is the evidence required to overcome the unlikelihood of what is alleged and thus to prove it, but the balance remains the balance of probabilities.
11.	Mr P vehemently denies that he has behaved in any way inappropriately with S, but in his oral evidence to the court he did not dispute the truthfulness of the witnesses’ account of what S had said.  He does not dispute that she has said these things and he is unable to offer any explanation for why she would have said these things.  Indeed, he describes S as a truthful girl who sometime tells fibs.  S had not said anything else to her aunt, JG.  
12.	JG, I am satisfied, was a witness who came to court to be completely frank and truthful.  She did not exaggerate or embellish her account; she told it how she remembered hearing it from S and gave an account of what she herself had observed at the consultation at the hospital.  I am quite satisfied that when S said on 3 August 2012 ‘Daddy touched me where I wee from’, it was a spontaneous account and was not referring to an occasion when cream was put on her vagina.  
13.	In his oral evidence Father described how S had a rash on the top of her legs indicating in the groin area and he had applied cream to that rash, but this he said in his oral evidence was several weeks before the disclosure and even on his account did not involve touching the vagina.  He also said in his evidence that he would touch her in that area to make sure she wiped herself properly.  
14.	I am satisfied this was a spontaneous disclosure from S.  I am satisfied that it is a disclosure which is consistent with the medical findings at the time of vulvovaginitis.
15.	Aunty JG is not the only one to whom the disclosure was made.  During the course of her ABE interview on 4 September 2012, S was asked about what she had told her aunt and she said, ‘I told my nan too.’  She was asked, ‘What did you tell your nan?’ and she replied, ‘My secret.’  She was asked, ‘What is your secret?’ and she said, ‘Daddy poked me in the floof.’  When S was asked what the floof was, she became upset and wanted her mother.  S had told the police that her daddy poked her in the floof and her aunt had also described a poking movement with the swab.  It was said on behalf of Mr P that S’s distress on that occasion could equally have been because she had just told an untruth about her father or it could be distress in her recollection of what had occurred.  I shall return to that.
16.	S said to Mother’s new partner, KM, ‘I want to hurt my daddy because he stroked my bum and hurt my middle with his magic sword.’  KM came to court and gave oral evidence and he said these words stuck in his mind because it was unusual for a four-year-old to say such a thing.  
17.	S had on two occasions said to another witness (whose evidence was read) that, ‘Daddy touched me down there’, pointing to her private parts.  And on another occasion in November 2012 , this being the occasion in the presence of KM and also Mother, when S said, ‘My daddy strokes my bum like this’.
18.	CS, another witness, recalled the words used as, ‘My daddy used to poke me here’ and pointed between her legs.  This was said in November, present on the occasion were KM, when she also said that ‘Daddy used to hide his magic sword in my bum’.
19.	I have recorded the words used by the different witnesses in respect of the disclosures made by S.  It is quite apparent and was raised by Ms Vernon in her closing submissions that there are inconsistencies in what these witnesses say they heard, but the core disclosures remain consistent and I remind myself that Father did not challenge the truth of the witnesses in what they were reporting that S had said.  It is, in fact, his case not that she did not say these things, but his denial is vehement that anything of this nature ever happened.  The inconsistencies in the accounts in my finding are equally supportive of a finding that there has been no collusion between the witnesses.  Witnesses who put their heads together in order to invent or to fabricate accounts are less likely to be inconsistent and more likely to be speaking from the same account and giving the same description and words.  I am satisfied on the evidence I have heard that S has said these things on a number of different occasions to a number of different individuals but the recollections of the exact words used by the child differ.  
20.	I have to have regard to the vehement denial of Mr P; I have to be satisfied that there is no innocent explanation for what S was saying.  Although I have indicated that S makes no mention of cream, but because that is one of the explanations put forward by Father, I have to consider it in my judgment.  That explanation is simply not the most probable account because it does not accord with what S has said.  When considering the evidence of a child I have to anxiously scrutinise the evidence to ensure that it is both truthful and reliable.  The wording is childish, but S is four years old.  It is not suggested that she is lying, nor is it suggested that she is referring to anyone else.  S is very clear; she refers to her daddy.
21.	There is not any corroborative evidence, but there is some supporting evidence for what S has said in the medical evidence which I have already referred to, but also in the very late evidence that was filed in the case by KR.  I heard evidence from Mother and Father that S, unlike O, is a naughty child.  I have also heard from K R that S has begun to act in a very sexual manner in recent times.  She has touched another five-year-old on the vagina in the family home.  The young child, known as K, told K R that S had touched her ‘in my middles’.  ‘My middles’ is accepted by all the witnesses as another word used within the family to describe the floof, to describe the private parts, to describe the vaginal area.  K R said that when K said that  is what S had done, that K appeared very upset and she describes how K had both her palms (the palms of her hand) covering her vaginal area.  Also, the evidence of K R was that when the two children (the two sisters, O and S are in the bath together, O has complained to her mother that ‘S has touched me down there again’.
22.	This evidence was given, as I have already indicated, very late.  At the final hearing a statement was taken from K R and evidence was given by K R in support of that statement.  Mother  was asked about that evidence and she confirmed that K R’s account was true and accurate.  Mother was, therefore, challenged why she had not reported these matters.  K R in her statement indicated that Mother had told her she was scared she would lose her children and that Social Services would become involved and remove the children if S’s behaviour came to light.  Mother confirmed that that was her understanding and her fear and her reason for not reporting the matters.
23.	In my finding this is significant evidence because it is evidence of sexualised behaviour where S is shown to be touching another child and, indeed, her sister in the vaginal area.  In my judgment this behaviour is supportive of the allegations made by S.  In all probability I am satisfied that S is mimicking behaviour she describes her father engaging in with her.  As such, it is capable of supporting her account and the allegation that she makes.  This becomes cogent evidence, which coupled with other aspects of the undisputed evidence, such as S’s distress at the police interview and the medical evidence; in my finding the evidence is credible, cogent and consistent with S’s account to her aunt, to KM, to K R and to CS.
24.	Further, in my finding, Mother appropriately challenged Mr P about what S was saying.  I find her evidence compelling when she says that Mr P had said to her when challenged, ‘You believe her over me’.  I am quite satisfied that Ms W would have no reason to misunderstand or to misinterpret his response.  This is a mother who filed a statement on the morning of the final fact-finding hearing to say that on the Friday before, following telephone contact with Father, S had told her mother that she had been lying and then her mother asked her whether she was telling the truth about daddy or fibbing, S had replied that she was only joking.  Mother would have no reason to report this if she was intent on lying to the court and persuading the court that S had made allegations which were in fact unsupported and untrue.  I am quite satisfied that this was all part of the disclosure and is further evidence of a very confused and distressed child, but not one who saying she has lied. I am not satisfied that a statement that she had been joking should be held to undermine her previous disclosures made to a number of different people.  I am quite satisfied that this is all part of the distress and confusion of a child who has been abused in the way that she described but also retains affection for her father.
25.	I have now made the findings sought in relation to allegations eight, nine, 10 and 11 in the Scott Schedule of vaginal touching S, now aged five.  On the balance of probabilities the symptoms described by Mother and diagnosed by Dr Callaghan and Dr Champion as vulvovaginitis were the result of interference with the vaginal area by touching or stroking.  So that the allegations made on 3 August 2012 and, indeed, the child’s description on 8 August 2012 are the most likely cause of the vulvovaginitis. 
26.	Further, that this occurred on more than one occasion as described by S and as evidenced by her repeating the behaviours with her sister and the five-year-old visitor to the home.  K R describes K as holding her vaginal area with both palms and that was following her describing S having touched her in the vaginal area.  Mother describes a smelly vaginal discharge and soreness when she went to the general practitioner.
27.	I, of course, have to consider the evidence in relation to each of the allegations separately, but I am entitled to have regard to the findings I have made in relation to S when considering the other allegations in the Scott Schedule, particularly allegations one and two and three.  My findings in relation to eight, nine, 10 and 11 from the S disclosures are of assistance to me in reaching conclusions in relation to those other allegations.
28.	I deal first with allegation number two, which relates back to 11 February 2006 when the Respondent was arrested in relation to sexual activity with a child after babysitting the child of a friend; the parents of the child noticing that the baby had a sore vagina, was in discomfort and taken to her GP.  The Respondent, Mr P, strenuously denies the allegation, saying that the child was examined by a general practitioner and the general practitioner could not see anything abnormal when she did an internal or initial examination concluding she may have had a urine infection.  The mother of the child reported the incident after finding out that the Respondent was on bail and not to have any contact with his sister in relation to an earlier allegation of abuse.
29.	I make the following findings: G, the child in question, was aged two in February 2006 and was too young to make any formal disclosure, but her mother SP took her daughter to the doctor because G was acting strangely.  She would not sit down properly.  She began holding her vagina and her thighs and making a noise as if she was in pain.  The doctor was unable to see anything and took swabs for a possible water infection.  At the time no diagnosis was made, but the symptoms mirror the symptoms of S and also of the child K as observed by K R.  I have to ask myself whether the relationship between the finding I have made in relation to S and the circumstances of the other allegations are so close that I am satisfied that they are a series of similar acts committed by the same person.  I have to ask myself whether there is a reasonable explanation for why these allegations have been made, other than that they were acts committed by the same person.
30.	S touched K in her vagina.  S complains that her father ‘touched her floof’ and ‘poked her in her middle’.  I have now made findings in relation to S’s allegations.  G was babysat by DP in the days before she described showing signs of pain in the vaginal area.  Mr P denies any sexually inappropriate behaviour with G; in his oral evidence saying he did not have any opportunity because he had been at the park with G and had then locked himself out of the flat.  G had been in his care from 6.15 until 8.00pm and was described as ‘playing up’.   Mr P was unable to continue to care for G who went to her maternal grandfather’s home.  G was described as having ‘a restless night’.  I, of course, have not heard any oral evidence in relation to these matters, nor of course have I had the opportunity of seeing those witnesses cross-examined.  I am, therefore, dealing with the matters, as often is the case in family matters, by the written evidence and the statements of the witnesses at that time.  I have to ask myself whether the correlation of the similar symptoms at a time when a two-year-old child is left in the sole care of Mr P is purely coincidental.  On the balance of probabilities I am not so satisfied; the similarities in the circumstances are such that I am satisfied on the balance of probability that Mr P also touched G in the vaginal area.
31.	I have also had cause to revisit the allegations in relation to Mr P’s half sister, VW, and to his sister, AW, in the light of the findings that I have made in relation to S.  VW was 12 when she made her ABE interview and was recalling events which occurred when she was little that had stopped some two years previously.  DP was seven years older than her, so if she was seven or eight he would have been 14 or 15.  
32.	I have now made findings that Mr P has crossed sexual boundaries; that he has a sexual interest in respect of prepubescent girls and that he has, on the balance of probabilities, touched or poked the vagina of S, aged four, and G, aged two.
33.	Was VW a truthful and reliable witness?  The Crown Court proceedings were discontinued without the hearing of any evidence.  In his oral evidence Mr P indicated that it was the absence of medical evidence that had been crucial in that decision.  I have not heard evidence from V, but I have the transcript of her video interview.  I also have the medical evidence from Mr Gavin Sheeney, the consultant paediatrician, who was given a copy of V’s diary and also read the transcript of her video interview when she described vaginal and anal penile penetration.  The vaginal penetration made her sore afterwards when she went for a wee and the penetration of her anus did not hurt so much, as she described her bum as ‘throbbing’.  V had not started her menstrual cycle at the time of the ABE interview and, indeed, at the time of the medical examination.  Dr Sheeney had been treating V for a few years because of a complaint of soiling and completed a full medical examination of V with a colposcope and took photographs.  His examination described the external genitalia as looking normal.  He described how the hymen was entire and present.   The examination of the anus found plenty of soiling.  His conclusion, his opinion, was that V has made a written disclosure of having been sexually abused.  He said there are no physical findings apart from the soiling that corroborate her allegations; however it is possible that this child may have been sexually abused.  V has been soiling since the age of five to seven.  She has also disclosed she has been sexually abused from that time onwards and, therefore, it is possible that the soiling was caused as a result of the abuse.
34.	It is not unusual for the results of a medical examination to neither rule in nor out sexual abuse.  Here there is nothing to exclude vaginal and anal abuse, but there is physical evidence capable of corroborating abuse in the form of soiling.  It is said by Ms Vernon on behalf of Mr P that V was vague about her recollection and I accept that there were occasions when she indicated that she could not recall events, but I remind myself that she was giving evidence about events that occurred when she was little, some years earlier; and in my finding, having carefully analysed the transcript of her ABE interview, there were also some very compelling details in that transcript.  I have, of course, in mind her ability to describe the different experiences of pain, her description of how her assailant would re-arrange her clothing and his own; that she described gripping the pillow because what was occurring hurt her, how she would put the pillow in her mouth, how she would be told to be quiet and how her 
half-brother, DP, would ‘blackmail’ (is the word that she used) her to make her do things for him.
35.	It was said on behalf of Father that all the allegations of abuse in this case emerge from the accounts of VW, which was an account that was thrown out at trial.  As I have already indicated, there is nothing to suggest that VW gave any evidence to the contrary.  The case was thrown out before she was given the opportunity to give evidence.  The case was discontinued without hearing this evidence.  Neither S nor G could have been influenced by what V said; neither would have been aware of what V had said.  SP took her daughter to the doctor before having heard about the charges brought by VW.  KW knew of the allegations made by V, but it is not suggested that KM, K R,or CS were influenced by VW.  Indeed, the allegations that they report were of the family disclosing matters to them and nobody within these proceedings has suggested that their accounts were untruthful; that they were not telling the truth and not reporting exactly what S had said.
36.	I am satisfied that V’s evidence stands alone as a truthful and credible account, but there are features of my findings in relation to S and, indeed, KW in her oral evidence, which in my judgment support V’s account.  Ms W gave evidence that DP liked to have anal sex.  V alleges that DP had anal sex with her.  S and KW are described as having ‘vaginal soreness’; that is both mother and daughter.  KW, in her oral evidence, described how she woke up feeling sore after what she believed to be night time vaginal penetration.  G too was demonstrating signs of vaginal soreness.  This evidence in relation to the other supports what V said about her soreness after vaginal penetration, but the most significant common indicator is that all of these individuals named their perpetrator or were in the care of the perpetrator known as DP (referred to as DW in the interview with VW) the father of S and O.
37.	On the balance of probability I am satisfied that DP also abused his much younger half sibling, VW, by penetrating her anus with his penis and on occasion also her vagina, causing her vagina to become very sore.
38.	In March 2006 Mr P is accused of raping his sister, AW, in the presence of her eleven month old daughter.  This allegation was made very close in time to the allegations made by V and it is more difficult in the light of the closeness of the sisters and of the allegations to rule out the possibility of collusion or, at the very least, jumping on the bandwagon of events.  In A’s case she has further been found to have made false reports of rape on three separate occasions. She has also been found to have made false reports of arson, indecent assault and has been charged with perverting the course of justice and wasting police time.  She has, on the other hand, always claimed that the allegations that she made against her father and her brother were true, but I cannot be satisfied, even on the balance of probability, that she is a truthful and credible witness and I make not finding in relation to allegation three.
39.	Allegation four was retracted by A in her police interview and was, in any event, not pursued during the fact-finding hearing.
40.	I turn now to the evidence of mother, KW who was visibly distressed at times when giving her evidence.  She was described by K R as not wishing to disclose for fear of being disbelieved and petrified that if the  sexualised behaviour of S came to light her children would be taken into care by children services.  She began her oral evidence by telling a lie.  She repeated that she did not know Mr P was growing cannabis in the loft of the family home.  That, of course, is a matter which she was challenged about and she admitted that she had indeed lied on oath and that of course she did know about the cannabis being grown in the loft of the family home.  Her explanation for lying was that Mr P had told her that he would take full responsibility for the production of cannabis because he feared that if she were involved she would lose the children.
41.	I remind myself that people lie for a number of different reasons and it is not solely because they wish to mislead and misrepresent.  A person may lie to support another or to ensure that another does not get into trouble.  In this case Ms W admits that she has lied.  She says that she lied so as to support what DP was saying and this was confirmed by Mr P when he gave his oral evidence.  He confirmed that he had asked her not to admit knowledge about the cannabis.  He wanted to take sole responsibility.  He did not want her to lose the children.  In those circumstances I accept her explanation for why she lied and in my finding the explanation does not undermine the credibility of her evidence in relation to other matters.
42.	Allegation number five is that Mr P had sexual intercourse or sexual activity with Ms W when she was asleep.  Her evidence to the court was that she was taking medication on a daily basis for agoraphobia and depression.  She said that when she took it, it would knock her out.  She said that she has now changed her medication because sometimes she would be in such a deep sleep that she did not hear her daughter cry and now that there is nobody else in the house she needs to be alert for her children.  She described how she would wake up in the morning and find Mr P touching her in her private area.  She described how he would have his hands inside her pants, playing with her private area and she believed that he was having sexual intercourse with her when she was fast asleep.  She said that she woke up when he was doing it ‘once or twice’; in other words that he was on top of her when she woke up.  Once she described how she woke up to find him wiping her vagina.
43.	Her evidence was that she begged him to stop.  She said that she was waking up in the morning sore.  She was asked quite properly why if this was happening did she not take some action to bring it to an end; why, she was asked, did she not move out of the bed or the bedroom or, indeed, ask him to move out of the bed or the bedroom.  She had no explanation for that.  She indicated that she continued to sleep with him, but nevertheless continued and persisted in her evidence to say that he should stop behaving in this way.
44.	She said that during the period of their relationship they would have, occasionally, consensual anal sex; she said because Mr P liked it.  Mr P in his evidence also agreed that there was consensual anal sex, although he indicated that this was usually when both were drunk. 
45.	During her police interview on 23 October 2012, Ms W referred to her gynaecological problems and these are recorded in her medical notes which were produced within these proceedings.  There are a number of entries for gynaecological related difficulties.  The first in time on 2 November 2010 where a vaginal prolapsed was diagnosed.  Those problems persist through 2011 and include a bladder prolapsed.  And on 21 November 2012 there was an entry that the abdominal pains had been better since she had had a change of partner namely that she had ceased to be in a sexual relationship with father.
46.	The allegations are very unusual.  What did Mr P say in relation to those matters?  He said when asked what he would do if she said she did not want sex.  He said he would sulk and go to sleep.  He was asked if he was aroused and wanted sex what he would do and he said, ‘I would try and wake her up; I would kiss her neck and ask her for sex.  If she didn’t wake up, I’d leave it.’  He admitted in his oral evidence that she was very sleepy but not after twenty minutes, as she had indicated, but after one and a half hours she would be fast asleep.  He was asked why he did not mention the effect of the medication upon her when he spoke in his police interview.  Indeed, in his police interview he said that the medication had no effect on her.  His answer to that was to say that he was not asked that question.  What he did say in his oral evidence was this; that Ms W was nagging him, asking him for months and months, ‘Did you have sex with me last night when I was asleep?’ and he said it was after being worn down by the nagging that he said, ‘Yeah, whatever, fuck off’ to her.  This was said when she challenged him about sexual activity when she was asleep.  It was suggested to him that it would have been easier if he had not engaged in sexual activity when she was asleep simply to say no.  When it was put that she was complaining and sore and had a vaginal discharge, he responded by saying, ‘Well, if that was the position, why did she let me stay at the house?’. 
47.	In his police interview Mr P said that sometimes they shouted and argued over her not wanting sex.  He described how she had always used to want to have sexual relations, but  that changed after S was born.  In his police interview there is a significant piece of evidence in my finding when at page 503 where he was asked by the interviewing officer about an occasion when Ms W in her police interview had said there was an occasion where she woke up and found Mr P having sex with her and Mr P’s response to that was ‘No.’  He was asked, ‘And that you were penetrating her vagina with your penis?’  He responded, ‘No.’  It was persisted with by the police officer who said, ‘And moving up and down?’ and his response was this, ‘No, go and arrest her for sucking my cock when I’m asleep or giving me a hand job when I’m asleep, so it’s all right for her to do it to me but I’m not allowed to come on to her.’  That, rather like the response after a nagging when frustrated, when pushed the truth begins to come out and I am satisfied that when Mr P referred to her behaving in that way he was talking about an occasion when he supposedly was asleep when that being done to him that he also had very much in mind occasions when he had similarly engaged in sexual activity when she was asleep.
48.	I found Ms W to be a credible witness who did not exaggerate.  She admitted lying, but I have accepted her explanation.  She readily acknowledged consensual sex, including anal intercourse and on two occasions when it was put to her in January 2013 during proceedings, she admitted that she had consensual sexual relations with Mr P.  What she has never admitted to and what she has maintained throughout the proceedings and throughout her police interviews was that she did not consent to sexual relations when she was asleep.  In my finding Mr P knew that and ignored her pleas to desist.
49.	I am satisfied that the evidence is true and accurate; that Ms W was a credible witness; that she was deeply asleep – whether or not she was knocked out or unconscious she was certainly in a deep sleep – so much so that she was not fully aware of what was happening to her.  When she woke up she described herself as being sore; that she felt like she had been sexually abused.   On occasions she woke up and found Mr P on top of her or wiping her vagina.  I am quite satisfied that her gynaecological problems, as referred to in the police evidence and as now evidenced before the court, are capable of supporting her account.  There is also the acceptance of Mr P that when challenged he agreed ‘whatever’ was said when she was nagging him.  During his police interview he referred to occasions when she supposedly was having sexual activity when he was asleep and said, ‘But I am not allowed to come on to her’, which is again very suggestive of an admission that some activity took place.  
50.	In my finding, he took advantage of her drowsiness.  His behaviour has been throughout the trial uninhibited.  He took what he wanted when he wanted and he said at the end of his police interview something which I am satisfied is indicative of his view of Ms W and his approach to the allegations that she has made.  I am looking at page 517 where the police officer at the end of the interview asked Mr P if there was anything that he wanted to say and he said, ‘No, I’ll kick her fucking head in’ to which he was told not to make threats.  He responded, ‘But it’s pissing me off.  How would you feel if every fucking time, I’m fucking sick of it.’
51.	I do not accept Mr P’s explanation that this account by KW was all made up to strengthen S’s case.  I am satisfied Mr P did not recognise the moral and sexual boundaries in relation to sexual intercourse with a sleeping person.  I am satisfied that he sought only to gratify his sexual needs at that time.  He, in my finding, has been prepared to manipulate Ms W.  I have already referred to the allegations in the Scott Schedule where he threatened suicide at a time when he wished to return to the home.  Ms W, on the other hand, I found to be a highly vulnerable and dependent witness; one who is dependent upon Mr P in many ways.  I believe her when she says that when in January 2013 he asked her for sex which she agreed to – not just on one but on two occasions – that he also asked her to discontinue the proceedings.  In my finding, he knew that Ms W was deeply asleep.  He knew that she had taken medication.  She may not have been unconscious because there were occasions when she was awakened to find him having finished having sexual intercourse with her, but in my finding she had not and could not consent to that sexual activity.  On the balance of probabilities her gynaecological problems were if not caused by were certainly exacerbated by Mr P’s violent, abusive and coercive acts of sexual intercourse.  She was not consenting to sexual relations of which she was unaware and when challenged Mr P denied that he had done this.  It is not coincidental the gynaecological problems resolved when they ceased to be sexual partners.  I therefore make the finding as set out in allegation five of the Scott Schedule and I have now dealt with all of the findings of the Scott Schedule.  
52.	Indeed, very significant findings have been made and I am very concerned that S is exhibiting explicit sexualised behaviour in the family home.  S is disinhibited and persistent in her sexualised behaviour.  O referred to S having touched her again.  K and O have been subjected to sexual touching by S.  In my finding this is learned behaviour as a result of the sexual abuse at the hands of Mr P; a finding which I have now made.  Because of those findings it is now important that the matter is properly investigated and I am going to direct there is a Section 37 inquiry by Children Services to urgently consider the level of support for the family; whether these children are children in need or whether there is a need for any statutory intervention and also to reconsider the level of contact with Mr P, who in my finding is the perpetrator of the abuse set out in the Scott Schedule. 
End of Judgment.