England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT BRISTOL

		Bristol Civil Justice Centre, 2 Redcliffe Street, Bristol
		23rd January 2015

J U D G M E N T

JUDGE RUTHERFORD:

1. This is a fact-finding hearing which has occupied the court for a number of days. It is part of care proceedings involving two children, CB, born on 19th April 1999 so she is 15, and RC, born on 14th October 2012 so he is two years of age. The mother of the children is KL. For present purposes we are not concerned with the father of CB. The father of RC is Mr C. It is against him that the local authority seeks findings and findings of a very serious nature, namely of the sexual abuse of young girls.
2. The allegations the local authority seek to prove involve three girls. They are CP, who is known as T - and throughout this Judgment I shall call her either T or C (redacted version she will be known as CP). It is alleged that in respect of her between 2002 and 2003 when she was 10 or 11 Mr C sexually abused her and attempted to rape her on two occasions and did rape her on one occasion. The second girl is LM. The allegations here are that in 2006 and 2007 when she was about 11 or 12 Mr C sexually assaulted her short of having sexual intercourse with her. Last of all, Miss FL, and it is alleged that in 2003 when Miss FL was 13 or 14, Mr C engaged in sexual behaviour with her including sexual intercourse. Mr C completely denies every allegation. Indeed, he denies ever having met FL.
3. I have to weigh up all the evidence that I have heard and decide where the truth lies. This is a difficult forensic exercise and I think it is important from the outset that I should give myself various directions which I must keep in mind at all times, and those directions are as follows. First of all, the burden and standard of proof. The local authority makes these allegations and it must prove them. Mr C does not have to prove anything, and it is of course very difficult to prove a negative. The standard of proof is the normal civil standard, the balance of probabilities. Is it more likely than not that something happened? Then the allegations: This is not a criminal trial and the allegations are not the same as counts on an indictment. However, I should, I think, direct myself that the fact that I may believe the evidence of one of the young women does not mean that the allegations are proved in respect of all three, and vice versa. I must look at each allegation separately. Then there is the question of lies. Mr C was not a convincing witness. He was not, in my judgment, a truthful witness. He has, in my judgment, clearly lied about some matters. He has also maintained that this was all a conspiracy by these young women to, if I may use the vernacular, stitch him up. He maintains the same thing about evidence from hospital staff at Frenchay. I cannot accept this, at least as regards the latter, and his counsel, wisely, did not adopt that approach, However, the fact that a witness has lied is not the end of the matter. I must ask myself, why did the defendant lie? The mere fact that a person tells a lie is not in itself evidence of guilt. A person may lie for many reasons and they may possibly be innocent ones in the sense that they do not denote guilt. For example, lies to bolster a true defence, to protect somebody else, to conceal some disgraceful conduct other than the commission of an offence or out of panic or confusion. If I think that there is or may be an innocent explanation for his lies then I should take no notice of them. It is only if I am sure that he did not lie for an innocent reason that his lies can be regarded by me as evidence going to prove the allegations. I also remind myself that Mr C is having to dealt with events which took place at best seven and at worst 11 years ago. This equally applies to all of the witnesses and the fact that a witness may not be telling the truth about some matters does not necessarily make that witness unreliable about everything.
4. Then I must look at all the evidence, the whole of the jigsaw if you like, before coming to any conclusions. But not all evidence can have or should have the same weight. The starting point must be the evidence given to the court from the witness box and the statements made by witnesses for the purposes of this case. All three of the young women, as they now are, made such statements and gave such evidence. I can and should receive hearsay evidence where it is relevant. In this case these witnesses, with the exception of Miss FL, and other witnesses were interviewed at the time and we have transcripts of their interviews. These to some extent support the case of the local authority but in other respects they do not. They are previous statements which I can and should take into account, but the weight I give to them is a matter for me. In any view, these statements may show consistency and they may negative any suggestion that stories have been made up recently. However, the mere fact that a witness repeats an allegation again and again over a period of time does not make it true. There was a time when, if a witness was shown to have made inconsistent statements - and this is certainly the case here with LM - then that witness's evidence was treated as unreliable and ignored. That is no longer the case necessarily because even in criminal proceedings nowadays it is open to a jury to accept as true one version of events even if the witness has also given an opposite version at another time.
5. One witness, MP, the brother of CP, made a statement for these proceedings and was due to give evidence to this court. He also was interviewed back in 2003, and we have a transcript of that interview. He did not attend to give evidence to this court even after a witness summons had been issued. It seems to me that in those circumstances I should give very little weight to his statements insofar as they support the local authority case. On the other hand, where his statements support Mr C it would be wrong not to take that into account, but again the weight I can give must be limited. In the case of MP this is important because in his police interview he makes no mention of Mr C behaving inappropriately with CP, although he does mention such behaviour by Mr C with FL. In his statement for these proceedings he talks about catching Mr C having sex on one occasion with CP. He (MP) then rugby tackled Mr C so that both of them went through the bedroom window -- and the impression I got was that the bedroom was on the first floor, and landed somehow on top of a freezer on the ground floor. There is no support for this incident from any other witness, dramatic though it must have been, and the fact that MP was not prepared to attend to give evidence about it leads me to take the view that I cannot rely upon what he says in that respect.
6. Then there is the issue of corroboration. I remind myself that, while it is no longer necessary to look for corroboration of an allegation of a sexual nature, nevertheless, in deciding what evidence I can rely upon, it is important to see if there is any independent corroboration of the allegations these young women make. While, strictly speaking, in this case the evidence of one complainant does not necessarily corroborate the evidence of another, it may well be that the accounts make allegations of a very similar nature and demonstrate a pattern of behaviour. That is part of the jigsaw which I can put into the balance when I consider where the truth lies.
7. Finally, speculation and suspicion. I must also be very careful in this case to avoid falling into two traps. While I can draw proper inferences from the evidence, I must not speculate. Speculation is not a proper basis upon which to make findings. Secondly, while the totality of the evidence may lead to considerable suspicion as to Mr C's behaviour, suspicion is not fact and that again is no basis for making factual findings.
8. So what are the findings I am asked to make? I turn now to look at those and they are set out in an amended schedule which appears at the end of section A of the bundle. I am going to start by taking allegations 6 and 7 as there is an agreed basis upon which I can make findings in respect of those. Allegation 6 says that on 13th June 2013 Mr C in the presence of RC used threatening and abusive behaviour towards KL and caused criminal damage to a door and other property at the home he was then sharing with CB, RC and their mother. That is accepted by Mr C in its entirety and I therefore find it to be proved in the wording I have just read out. Allegation 7 is that on 7th April 2014 Mr C in the presence of RC assaulted the children's mother and caused criminal damage at the homes of the children's mother and of their maternal grandmother. I have read that allegation by leaving out of account one part of it which is the part that Mr C does not accept but he does accept it in the terms in which I have read it out and I find it, therefore, in those terms.
9. I turn now to the allegations which relate to the three young women as they now are, young girls as they were then. It is important to note that CP and FL were roughly of a similar age (FL was a little bit older) at the time of the allegations. It is also important to note that FL did know CP as she (Miss FL) was MP's girlfriend for a while, but for many years, indeed since 2003, she has had no contact with CP and I fully accept that is the case. She was not interviewed by the police at the time and she formed no part of the care proceedings and police investigation which took place in 2003.
10. Against that background I observe that CP and Miss FL are making very similar allegations and there is absolutely no evidence whatever upon which I could find that they have conspired or colluded to put forward false accounts. The similarity in their accounts is striking and I can properly take that into account when considering where the truth lies. The reason why I have not mentioned Miss LM in this context will become apparent later in this Judgment.
11. So let me start with allegations 1 to 3 which relate to CP. Allegation 1 is a general allegation that during the period between the summer of 2002 and the summer of 2003 Mr C, who at that time was living with DP as her partner, sexually abused CP on numerous occasions. Allegation 2 amplifies that as follows. The sexual abuse perpetrated by Mr C against CP included (a) indecently touching the tops of her legs on a number of occasions, (b) rubbing her vagina with his hand inside her underwear, (c) on 11th January 2003 at Frenchay Hospital, Bristol behaving towards her in an indecent and sexual manner and encouraging her to respond in kind, (d) attempting to rape her on two or more occasions, and (e) raping her on at least one occasion; and allegation number 3 says this: "Mr C threatened CP that, if she told anybody about what he was doing to her, he would harm her with a knife".
12. I propose to look first at allegation 2(c), namely that on 11th January 2003 at Frenchay Hospital Mr C behaved towards CP in an indecent and sexual manner and encouraged her to respond in kind. This is a convenient starting point because, although CP does possibly make reference to this in her police interview, she does describe such behaviour at Frenchay but says that she was the patient when it seems on balance that it was in fact her brother MP. You will find that in the bundle at L104. The main evidence and that upon which I rely comes from entirely independent witnesses, namely NL, a paramedic with the Ambulance Service (his statement is at page C1167), JP, a receptionist with North Bristol National Health Service Trust (and her statement is at C149 and in it she confirms the statement she made to the police which you will find at L46), and Staff Nurse B (whose statement to the police is at page L43). All those say exactly the same thing, namely that on the day in question they observed a young girl on the lap of an older man engaging in sexualised behaviour, wholly inappropriate for a relationship of stepfather and stepdaughter. Indeed, as Mr NL put it in evidence, it was like boyfriend/girlfriend. This is what Staff Nurse B says at L43 and L45. She says this: "The first person to speak to me was an ambulance driver called NL. I'm not sure of his surname. NL expressed concerns about the behaviour between a stepfather and his daughter. He said that he had witnessed totally inappropriate behaviour which was touchy feely. I asked him what he had seen and he said that he had seen the young girl sitting on her stepfather's knee and she was kissing him on his neck. A few minutes later JP spoke to me separately. JP told me the same thing. She said the same as NP", and at L45 she talks about the man who was involved in this incident showing her a letter which he had received from South Gloucestershire Council, and she says this; "I then noticed there were two names on the letter, Miss DP and Mr C. I assumed that he was Mr C. Mr C also told me that he was new to the area having just moved from Southmead where he was living with his mother". CP says this in her police statement at L47: "I asked the adult if he was responsible for the child who was reporting the injury to which he replied, 'Yes, I am their stepfather'. I asked the stepfather some questions about the relation to the patient and I can remember him being a little evasive in his answers but he did say that he was staying with his family at the Hanbrook Grove Hotel. The name that the stepfather gave for the patient was MP. I know this because I produced a casualty card when the patient came into the department." At page L48 she says, "I then observed the girl sat on the adult's lap and they both appeared to be behaving in a totally inappropriate manner. The girl was sat with her arms and legs wrapped around the adult and she was kissing the adult's neck which he appeared to do back to her on several occasions. This continued for approximately three quarters of an hour. At one point they moved to the right hand side of the room where the inappropriate behaviour continued. I then", she said, "spoke to one of the paramedics who I know to be called NL and said to him, 'Am I being a little over-protective, but I'm not happy with the way the stepfather is behaving towards his daughter. Could you please observe them for a while?' NL then observed them for approximately five to 10 minutes and then came back to me saying that he agreed that the behaviour was inappropriate." CP, in addition to those statements, also gave evidence before the court. NL at page C167 says that he entirely confirms the statements of Staff Nurse B and JP insofar as they relate to him and he maintained this position in his evidence to me; and, as I have already said, he it was who described what he saw as being more like boyfriend/girlfriend than stepfather/stepdaughter.
13. Now, Mr C's evidence was that he did go to Frenchay on an occasion but that he remained outside and did not enter the hospital so it could not have been him. He also maintained that these three witnesses were in a conspiracy against him. Wisely, his counsel did not adopt that latter position but said that the issue for me was one of mistaken identity.
14. I have no doubt whatever, let alone on the balance of probabilities, that what was witnessed by these three witnesses was behaviour between Mr C and CP. There are a number of reasons for this. The patient is MP, so described to the nurses by a man calling himself MP's stepfather. He produces a letter with the names of DP and Mr C on it. He describes where the family was living at the time, in the Hanbrook Hotel, which indeed was the correct address for the family.
15. I have no hesitation whatever in finding that allegation 2(c) is proved. Mr C clearly lied about this and, in my judgment, there can be only one reason for so doing, namely to seek to exculpate himself.
16. There are also other matters in which he has lied in the past. He told me that he had never lived at 3 MS or that he had a stepmother, although it is clear from the evidence and the notebook of Detective Constable G that in 2003 he told the detective constable that he did move in to MS and that he did have a stepmother. Again, it seems to me - and I remind myself of the Lucas direction I gave myself earlier in this Judgment - that his lies have no innocent explanation and that I can take them into account in considering where the truth lies in this case.
17. So I return to the other allegations, numbers 1 to 3 in the schedule, all of which relate to CP. There is no doubt whatever in my mind that the household in which CP lived with her mother in 2003, lived there with her mother, her brothers and her stepfather, Mr C, was one in which there were few, if any, sexual boundaries. That is dramatically illustrated by the Frenchay incidents and the obvious and noticeable sexual interest Mr C displayed towards CP on that occasion.
18. Her evidence for this case appears in her statement which is to be found at pages C96 to 106 in the bundle. She also gave evidence before the court and of course back in 2003 she was interviewed by the police on two occasions. We do not have the first of those police interviews but it is accepted on that occasion she made no allegations against Mr C. However, that was in February 2003 when she was still living in the house with her mother and Mr C. Her second police interview in July 2003 contains graphic allegations against Mr C but by the time of that interview she was out of the family home and living with her uncle and aunt. She was, therefore, much freer to speak about these matters. What then is her evidence? In her statement for these proceedings she begins by saying that she first met Mr C when she was living in Wigan at 3 MS. As I have already indicated, Mr C denies ever living at 3 MS, so that is wholly contrary to what he told Detective Constable G in 2003. I have no doubt that she is truthful about this and, as I have already said, he is lying. The first suggestion of anything untoward you can find on page C97 in her statement. She says this: "One day I had a sore tummy; I had my period, and he started rubbing the top of my leg. I felt uncomfortable but when I told him he said he was comforting me. Matters get more serious later and she deals with this at page C98. "A couple of days later the full extent of the abuse started. Mum and the boys had gone to bed. I was in bed. Mr C came into my room. I was asleep. He shook me and was calling me Bella. He put his hand over my mouth and told me not to worry. He put his hand under my knickers and he started rubbing my vagina." Again, at C99 she says this, "On another occasion I was in my room. I can't remember what I was doing. He knocked on the door. I didn't answer. He said, 'Bella' so I opened the door. He pushed me onto the bed. He closed my door. He pulled my trousers and my knickers down. He started to climb on top of me. He had got undressed when he came in. I mean he had taken his trousers off. He still had his pants on when he climbed on top of me. I begged him to get off and I would do anything if he didn't touch me. I shouted at him to get off. I told him I didn't like it. MP came in. He grabbed hold of him and tried pulling him off me. I got away then and Mum came back." At C100 she says, "Later that night C (Mr C) came into my room. I was asleep. I was in my nightgown and underwear. He was in his boxers. He was whispering 'Bella' to wake me up. I woke up. He told me to keep quiet because I would wake everybody up. I went to shout for my mum and he put his hand over my mouth. He told me to get undressed. I told him 'No' and then he said, 'If you don't do it something bad is going to happen to you'. I got undressed. He told me to get back in bed so I did. He made me watch him get undressed. He started to climb on top of me. He tried putting his penis inside me. I told him to stop because it was hurting. He told me to shut up because I was a stupid little girl. I started to hit him, wriggled, kicked, everything I could to get him off me. He eventually got off." The last one I am going to read is at page C103, again an incident where she begins by saying, "He came in and said, 'it looks like it's just me and you, Bella'. He pushed me onto the bed, he lifted up my nightgown, he took my underwear off. He was still fully dressed. He told me to get my pillow and cover my eyes. When he told me to remove the pillow he was completely naked. He kept checking the time on his watch. He climbed on top of me. I was begging him to stop. I said I was only a little girl and it hurts. He put his hand over my mouth and told me to shut up or he can't do it. I cried. I was trying to push him off. He told me to stop fighting or it would just hurt more. He put his penis inside my vagina. He moved his hand away from my mouth before he had finished. I asked him what I could do to stop him doing what he had been doing to me. He replied, 'Go away'. He then got off me. I asked him why he was doing it to me. He said it was because I was a silly slag. I didn't know what that meant when I was a girl but I do now." I have to say that that last exchange about what could she do to stop him and he simply said "Go away" and why was he doing it and he said because she was a silly slag, I have to say, has the ring of truth to me and does not sound like something that would be made up by an 11 year old. Her statement to the court was of course made some 11 years after the event she describes. Her police interview, of which we do have a transcript as it is the one in July 2003, was made at the time. In it she does make a number of allegations against Mr C and describes his behaviour in graphic detail including being sellotaped and tied to a bed and having masking tape over her mouth, and you will find that at L95. At L100 she mentions being tied with a white rope. When the police searched the house - and I think they did this the day after her interview - it is right to say that a length of thin white rope was found in CP's bedroom so I suppose this could be regarded as corroborative. At L104 she describes an attempt by Mr C to have sexual intercourse with her and I just want to read that. She is talking about it and she is talking about a particular occasion when he is trying to have sexual intercourse with her, and she says this: "Because he shouted it out, not really loud. He just goes, 'For God's sake, it's too thick but still remember the knife'" and she goes on to say later on, "He said like when he got frustrated, he said, 'For God's sake it's too thick' but it nearly went in, that's how I know". Is it really likely that at the age of about 11 CP in describing this incident would make up her stepfather saying, "It's too thick"? I think not and I think that has the ring of truth about it.
19. Now Mr C says that his relationship with CP was always and only that of a stepfather and daughter. I reject that and I reject because it simply does not accord with the Frenchay Hospital evidence which I have dealt with. He also says that in her police interview she mentioned sexual abuse by her stepfather, DS, who was 19 at the time, and Mr C says that what is being attributed by CP to him is in fact what DS did to her and she has confused the incidents. CP could not remember saying anything about DS but you will actually find the reference in her police interview at pages O128 and 129. Talking about DS she says this. She talks about him coming into her bedroom. "DS said... he didn't say anything but he took my clothes off me and then tried having sex with me and then he said, 'I've got a lock knife in my bag'. I was quiet a bit and then I said, 'What are you going to do with it?' and he goes, 'Well, if you don't shut up I'll stab you with it'. I didn't say anything. I just said, 'What are you going to do with it?' and he goes, 'If you don't shut up I'll stab you with it' and I pushed him off me and ran in to my brother's and said to MP, 'DS's just threatened me with a knife and tried to have sex with me'." At page O129 she said this rather revealingly. The police officer asks: "How did he (that is DS) try to have sex with you?" to which she answers, "The same way as Mr C did. But he didn't tie me up (that is DS)." "So what did DS do?" "Well, he just took my clothes off like I said and then tried having sex with me with his clothes off and then he said, 'I've got a lock knife in my bag' and I say, 'What are you going to do with it?' and he said, 'If you don't shut up I'll stab you with it'"
20. For what it is worth and, as I have already indicated, I do not attach much weight to MP's interview with the police. MP does describe CP having sex with DS. MP describes CP as indeed being tied up by DS which of course CP says the opposite. MP does not mention in that interview Mr C having sex with CP but he does do so in his statement for these proceedings, and you will find that at page C94.
21. I must approach these allegations with considerable caution. MP might have been a vital witness if he had been prepared to give evidence, but I have reached the conclusion that my safest course is to attach no weight to his statements, whether the statement prepared for these proceedings or, indeed, his police interview.
22. So I am left with the evidence in these proceedings given by CP and her police interview and the denials of Mr C. The police interview with CP does not in any way exonerate Mr C but in fact elaborates on the incident she now describes. It may be that there was some confusion in her mind back in 2003 as to what Mr C did and what DS did. Did they both tie her up? Did they both threaten her with a knife? But I do remind myself of the passage I read a moment ago that in describing to the police what DS did she says, "He tried having sex with me in the same way as Mr C". I also take into account the fact that her evidence in these proceedings is given some 11 years after the events and when she has nothing to gain from making the allegations now. On the other hand, as I have already found, Mr C has lied in these proceedings for reasons which can be explained only as to exculpate himself, and where there is a conflict between Mr C and other witnesses I unhesitatingly prefer the evidence of the other witnesses.
23. There is also the evidence of Miss FL which I shall deal with in due course but which I do find to be true and which shows a very similar course of conduct by Mr C; and I note that in her evidence to me CP said that she had spoken at the time to FL about what Mr C had done to her and Miss FL had said he had done things to her (Miss FL) and that Miss FL had slept with him.
24. I have concluded on the balance of probabilities that I can make the following findings, that I can find number 1, namely that during a period between the summer of 2002 and the summer of 2003, Mr C, who at that time was living with DP as her partner, sexually abused CP on numerous occasions. I am satisfied that I can find 2(a), namely that he indecently touched the tops of her legs on a number of occasions and, 2(b), that he rubbed her vagina with his hand inside her underwear. The only other finding - and I have of course already found 2(c) - that I am prepared to make is that on at least two occasions he did attempt to have sexual intercourse with CP. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not making any findings that CP was tied up by Mr C with ropes or sellotape or that he stuck masking tape over her mouth. This may be true but she makes no mention of it in her statement for these proceedings and I think it would be unsafe for me to accept it as true. I also do not think that it would be safe for me to find allegation number 3, namely that he threatened to harm her with a knife. Again, this may also be true but she, again, makes no mention of it in her statement for these proceedings, although she did mention it in the course of her evidence. But also in her statement at page C104 she explains why it is that she did not feel able to tell anybody about certain things at the time. What she says is: "I couldn't tell anyone because he had told me that my mum wouldn't believe me over him", and indeed that is exactly what happened. No mention there, "I couldn't tell anybody because he was threatening me with a knife", so I do not find allegation number 3 proved.
25. I turn now to Miss FL and the allegation that I am being asked to find there is number 8 in the schedule, that in 2003 Mr C engaged in sexual behaviour, including sexual intercourse with FL when she was 13 or 14, and I am dealing with her now because the allegations she makes are at the same time as the allegations CP is making. Miss FL was not interviewed by the police at the time. Her name does feature in both CP's and MP's police interviews but she was not part of the police investigation or, indeed, the care proceedings, and the only reason she came to give evidence in this court was that she was traced by the local authority for the purposes of this case. I fully accept that since 2003 she has had absolutely no contact with the P family and that there is no question here of any collusion between her and CP. Indeed, she was first interviewed about these matters and made a statement in December of last year. Her statement is at page C166. It is quite short and I intend to read it in full. "When I as about 13 or 14 I was friends with TP. I would visit the house and stay overnight sometimes. MP was my boyfriend at the time. Mr C was flirtatious towards me. I feel physically sick thinking about it. It started off flirtatious like banter. He would offer me alcohol. Sometimes if I came round and CP wasn't in he'd let me in anyway. He would touch my arse if we were in a room on our own. Within a couple of months he would do other things, touch me and kiss me. The main incident towards the end, six or seven months, everyone else, CP, MP, CP's mum, were in bed, he put a lot of pressure on me to take it further. We had sex. We were sat on the settee having a drink, alcohol and a ciggie. He lent in and started touching me. He grabbed my hand and put it down there", and she clarified this was touching his penis underneath his clothes. "I said, 'No, you can't do that'. He would egg me on saying, 'Come on. No one will know about it'. It felt really uncomfortable and forceful. I can't remember exactly what happened afterwards. I don't think I told anybody about it. That week I had an argument with CP and I didn't ever see her again. I think she up and moved. I feel bad about it now. I look back and think I should have put it together, what was happening. I knew it was wrong." There is of course no previous statement here, but I consider her to be a compelling witness who was clearly doing her best to remember what had happened 11 years ago having not been asked to do so in the intervening years, and of course there is some support to be found in the evidence CP gave to me and, indeed, when confirmed what she had said to the police in interview at L106. She says this - this is CP being interviewed by the police: "She (that is FL) says to CP, 'What's happened to you?' 'cos I was crying. She goes, 'What's happened?' and I go, 'Nothing. It doesn't really matter'. And then she goes, 'Well, if it's anything about Mr C what's he done?' and then she started telling me what Mr C was doing to her and what she was doing, what Mr C was making her do and she did it, and then FL started saying she's going out with him".
26. Mr C of course denies any misbehaviour with Miss FL and says he has never met her but she was MP's girlfriend for a while while he was living with the family. I cannot accept that he never met her and this denial of ever meeting her, it seems to me, cannot be for any innocent reason.
27. I accept the evidence of Miss FL and I make the finding that in 2003 Mr C engaged in sexual behaviour, including sexual intercourse, with FL when she was aged 13 or 14.
28. I come finally to Miss LM - and you will notice I have deliberately excluded her so far from anything I have said. Miss LM makes allegations which relate to 2007 and her statement for these proceedings is at page C109. In 2007 there were care proceedings involving her family and she was interviewed by the police. The transcript of her interview begins at page L360. I have found this very difficult. On the one hand all the allegations I am asked to find - and they are allegations 4 and 5 in the schedule - are borne out by her witness statement in these proceedings and the evidence she gave to me. As against that, her police interview in 2007 reveals no more than kissing and cuddling and she does not suggest any more than this in that interview. And there are some specific contradictions. She says in her statement for these proceedings - and you will find this at page C111 at paragraph 9 - that she told her school helper, EG, everything. However, when you look at Miss G's police statement - and you will find that at page L157 - Miss G makes it clear that LM has never admitted to having sexual intercourse with Mr C and that the most she ever told Miss G was that she and Mr C had kissed and cuddled, entirely, indeed, in accord with what Miss LM told the police. And then there is what she told the social worker, Mr. GT, at the time - and this you will find at page L231 where he records this: "LM also talked about Mr C. She says she really likes him and that over the weekend she and K (that, I think, is her older sister) had arguments because they both wanted to have sex with him. L thinks he will prefer K because she is older. She said they had kissed and cuddled and Mum was happy for this to happen but not for it to go any further." So that really again accords with everything that she was telling the police and Miss G. Furthermore, in her statement for these proceedings at paragraph 7 on page C111 she describes in detail a camping expedition when she says that she was made to share a tent with Mr C, that they were both in the same sleeping bag and that he was wanting to have sex with her and put his finger in her vagina. The difficulty I have with this is that the police questioned her about going camping, and that you will find at page L395. So the policewoman says, "Okay. How many times have you been camping?" LM says: "Two this year." "Right". Then LM says: "But in January we had the tent so it was fine then." And in January you went in the tent", says the police officer. LM nods. And then the police officer said: "Tell me about that when you went in the tent", and this is what LM says: "Well, I was scared of the tent so I slept in the van but the rest slept in the tent." "Okay" says the police officer. "You don't like it. Why don't you like tents?" I don't know", says LM, "Just 'cos they're horrible". And, again, talking about the camping expedition, again, LM makes the point that she was sleeping in the van on her own. I slightly telescope things here. She talked about two occasions. On the first occasion everybody slept in the van and she says how uncomfortable that was, and that is why she says on the second occasion it was better because they had the tent, she had the van to herself, the others were in the tent. So no mention whatever in the police interview about her and Mr C sleeping in a tent together, let alone sharing a sleeping bag.
29. Of course, I am highly suspicious. I am highly suspicious because of the findings I made in respect of CP and Miss FL, and of course there may be a perfectly rational explanation as to why she said nothing to the police at the time but does reveal all these matters seven years later. However, she could not really explain this in evidence and at one point in her evidence she was maintaining that both what she was now saying and what she said to the police were both true, which of course cannot be the case, and the difference between what she now alleges and what she told the police and her school helper and the social worker at the time is so stark and so irreconcilable that I do not think that I have sufficient evidence upon which I could safely make any of the findings in respect of LM that the local authority seek, and I, therefore, do not find allegations 4 and 5 proved.
30. Those are my findings.