A (A Child) (Vulnerable Witness), Re

The judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report no person other than the advocates or the solicitors instructing them (and other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by name or location and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved.

The applicant, mother, appeared in person The first respondent, father, appeared in person via a telephone link Mark Twomey represented the first intervenor, Surrey County Council Sarah Morgan QC and Andrew Bagchi (pro bono) represented X, the second intervenor Paul Storey QC and Camille Habboo represented A by her Children's Guardian Hearing date: 12th June 2013 ____________________

• The importance of the issue as to whether or not X's allegations are true. Findings one way or the other are pivotal to resolving the dispute between F and M in relation to A.

• Putting the matter bluntly, there must be a possibility that justice cannot be achieved for A unless X participates by providing evidence. There is no ABE interview. Such 'evidence' as exists is sketchy; many questions arise as to its overall quality.

• Doing the best I can to forecast the way in which the hearing will / could proceed, I envisage X's contribution to be central. The more she is able to say, indicate and participate the better able will I be to achieve a just result for A.