Medway Council v MI & Ors

This case concerns five children, E 16 years, V born 14 years, M born 10 years, A born 10 years and C born 9 years. All the children live with MI, she is the mother of E, V and A. Their father is PJ who, although aware of these proceedings, wishes to take no part in them. According to MI he has taken no active role in his children’s lives since about 2008. M and C’s mother is IE and their father is CI.

All parents and children are Country A born citizens. Under UK immigration law they require visas to travel to, enter and remain in the UK. The immigration history in this case is marred by deception, which provides an added complexity.

MI and the children have been here since January 2012 on a time limited visa; MI’s student visa expired in November 2015, the children’s six month visa expired in March 2012. MI applied for asylum in October 2015 for her and the children, that application has not been finally determined. CI had a multi entry visa until September 2016, he is currently on bail here in connection with extradition proceedings for him to return to Country A relating to fraud charges. IE has always lived in Country A and remains there. When CI, MI and the children came here in January 2012 two other people came with them, MI’s sister QI then age 22 years and HI who had helped MI with child care, then age 22 years. They were both granted six month visas on 10 November 2011, valid until 10 May 2012. HI left the family home in November 2012 and QI in May 2013, they both still remain in this jurisdiction. HI has been refused asylum but granted leave to remain under family and private life until December 2017, QI has been refused asylum and all appeal rights are exhausted.

This hearing was originally listed as a final hearing of the care proceedings issued by Medway Council (LA) in July 2015. Due to delays in updating welfare assessments it has proceeded as a fact finding hearing, with a welfare hearing fixed to take place in November. All five children remain living with MI with a supervision order in favour of the LA.

The facts I have to determine at this hearing can be summarised as follows.

The LA seek the following findings:

MI denies these allegations. She understood IE consented to the children coming to the UK, she says did not prevent contact between IE and her children, CI was controlling and manipulative of her and the children have thrived in her care.

CI denies all allegations of sexual assault, abducting M and C, and obstructing contact between them and IE.

IE alleges CI was violent to her in 2008, threatened her with violence to vacate the family home in 2012, was financially and emotionally abusive and made or caused to be made threats to harm IE.

In addition to the extensive written material in the court bundle I have heard oral evidence from the following: MK teaching assistant at V’s school; V; RJ social worker January 2015; IE M and C’s mother; PD social worker allocated after EPO; SI CI’s eldest daughter; QI, MI’s sister; MI, E, V and A’s mother; SB current social worker and CI father of M and C.

There have been inexcusable delays by the LA in this case.

Firstly, the six month delay in issuing proceedings following V’s disclosures. She was placed in foster care immediately following her disclosures, returned home on the day of her ABE interview and remained in the family home. The child protection plan, such as it was, following the initial Child Protection Conference on 10 February 2015 was wholly inadequate. I can see no reference to any follow up meetings and apart from some social work visits there appeared to be no structure to the social work intervention. The LA have provided no explanation for the failure to issue proceedings, other than on re-allocation of the case to a new solicitor the LA issued proceedings on 16 July 2015. I strongly suspect this was only brought about by CI being charged with sexual offences relating to V’s allegations. There needs to be an urgent review of LA procedures for protecting children in this type of situation, to avoid any other children being left at such risk in the future.

Secondly, having issued proceedings there were then significant further delays in seeking and managing disclosure from the police. The LA took an inordinate amount of time to secure essential disclosure, with orders being repeatedly breached. The internal procedures within the LA appear to have totally broken down. It now appears the DVDs of the ABE interviews of V and the police interview of CI were sent to the LA on 11 December 2015, the parties and the court were not told they had been received until 6 months later on 12 May 2016. Such mismanagement of a case involving serious child protection allegations is wholly unacceptable. Again I would expect there to be an urgent review of the systems in place to ensure these delays and failures are not repeated. As a consequence of the LA delays and failures this hearing is taking place 12 months after the issue of proceedings and 18 months after the main event that caused the proceedings to be issued.

More recently, under the close supervision of the court, the LA have been more proactive; aided by effective representation by Ms Fisher, supported by her efficient solicitor Ms Sansom. They have had to manage late disclosure and challenging logistics to secure witness attendance at court.

I am very grateful to all counsel for the way they have assisted to enable this trial to remain effective. They have each provided extremely helpful closing submissions and been able to agree the law. Ms Porter, in particular, has willingly taken on dealing with and managing the additional disclosure; she has done so with considerable skill and her assistance has been invaluable to the court and the other parties.

The findings I have made are set out in the schedule at the end of this judgment.

CI is 54 years old, MI 38 years and IE 33 years.

IE and CI met in Country A in 2004 and married in about 2005. M was born in 2005 and C in 2007. They separated in 2008 when, according to IE, CI had started a relationship with MI and when confronted about it by her CI was violent to her. Prior to that, according to IE, MI had been a friend of the family and M was named after her. CI says she was named after his grandmother. By 2008 MI had three children from her relationship with PJ, E born in 2000, V born in 2002 and A born in 2006. They separated in about 2008.

After CI and IE’s separation M and C remained living with IE, with contact with CI.

According to the Home Office in 2005 and 2006 CI’s application for a visitor’s visa to the UK was refused. The third application was granted in July 2006 for six months, extended in 2007 to 2009, with a condition of not staying more than 180 days in any 12 month period. Two visa applications in early 2009 by CI, were refused by the British High Commission followed by one being granted for two years from June 2009, on the same conditions as before. On 12 August 2011 CI applied for a further visa (along with MI and the five children). In September 2011 CI was granted a visa, on the same conditions, for five years from September 2011 until September 2016.

Prior to August 2011 IE agreed she met CI with the children at his request to enable them to get passports, which they did.

On 12 August 2011 CI (as set out above), MI, QI, HI (and probably PI as the date in the Home Office letter should be 12.8.11) and the five children all made applications for visas to come to the UK. On the visa applications CI is named as the father of all children and MI as the mother, save for C. With the exception of QI and HI they were all granted visas on 1 September 2011 for six months.

Between September–October 2011 CI, MI, the five children and PI (then age 7 years) came to the UK. According to CI he only stayed a few days, returning in October to collect MI and the five children. They stayed with PI’s mother and step father in Dagenham. CI states he brought PI here following a meeting with PI’s mother during a previous trip and her request for him to bring her here.

10 November 2011 QI and HI’s applications for six month visas to come to the UK were granted.

When CI, MI and the five children returned to Country A in October 2011 M and C returned to IE’s care and attended school in City A.

On 11 November 2011 CI married MI in a Court in City A, although MI states the marriage was not effective.

In December 2011 M and C went to stay with CI, according to IE this was to attend CI and MI’s traditional marriage and were due to be returned to her care in early January. CI and MI had a traditional marriage in Country A on 31 December 2011.

On 6 January 2012 CI, MI, QI, HI and the five children enter the UK on a KLM flight. They moved to live in London, a property arranged by a Mr E, a friend of a business associate of CI who attends the same college MI is booked to attend. According to CI the family only intended to come for two weeks, to see if MI liked the college where he had booked and paid for her to attend. He has produced return tickets back to Country A on 15 January 2012, the intention was to go back to Country Aa and all the children were returning to school there.

On 9 January 2012, according to IE, she learns the children have gone to the UK and rings CI who informs her he has started a new life with the children in the UK.

CI and MI returned to Country A in January 2012, leaving the five children in the care of QI and HI. On 25 January 2012 MI made an application to the High Commission in City C for entry clearance to the UK as a student. This visa was issued on 27 January 2012 until 31 May 2014, providing there was no recourse to public funds.

MI returned to the UK and resumed the care of the children. The Home Office letter dated 7 June 2016 notes MI last leaving Country A on 27 June 2012. In his oral evidence CI said she returned for a few days then to attend a court case involving PJ. The hearing did not take place, so she returned back here and has not been back to Country A since.

CI is recorded as being in the UK on 1 March 2012 and leaving on 18 March 2012.

May 2012 QI alleges CI raped her at the flat in London.

18 July 2012 is the date on false birth certificates for M and C, showing MI as their mother.

19 July 2012 is the date on false birth certificates for E, V and A, showing CI as their father.

CI returns to the UK on 26 July 2012 and left again on 27 August 2012.

In the autumn 2012 the children start attending school in the UK.

October 2012 QI alleges second a rape by CI took place in the London flat.

On 31 October 2012 MI undertakes a sham marriage to a German national, OJ, according to her and QI this was arranged by CI. CI denies any knowledge of this. CI returns to the UK on 31 October 2012.

On 2 November 2012 HI makes allegations against CI and MI that she was brought here to act as servant, she was arrested and served with notice of person liable to removal. She was released from detention on 20 November 2012.

On 15 November 2012 CI leaves the UK.

In December 2012 CI returns to the UK.

On 28 December 2012 HI makes an asylum application.

On 16 January 2013 CI leaves the UK.

On 19 February 2013 HI provides a statement to the immigration authorities containing an allegation of rape against CI.

On 8 March 2013 HI had her asylum interview.

On 1 April 2013 family (MI, 5 children and QI) move to other accommodation in London.

In May 2013 QI leaves the Peckham flat at MI’s request, QE alleges assault by MI when she informed MI of CI’s sexual assault of her, MI denies this but accepts they had an argument. QI goes to stay with her boyfriend.

7 May 2013 the Home Office makes a positive conclusive ground decision about HI as a victim of trafficking.

15 June 2013 CI returns to the UK.

26 June 2013 CI leaves the UK.

9 July 2013 HI’s asylum application is refused, HI lodges an appeal on 17 July 2013.

2 August 2013 CI returns to the UK.

5 August 2013 the family move to Kent.

22 August 2013 HI’s appeal is allowed on human rights grounds.

16 September 2013 M, A and C start School. MI informs the school M and A are full sisters, which she repeats again on 12 December 2013 at a school meeting.

17 September 2013 HI’s permission to appeal is refused.

31 October 2013 HI’s permission to appeal is granted.

15 October 2013 CI leaves the UK.

31 October 2013 HI’s permission to appeal to First Tier granted.

23 December 2013 CI leaves Country A and enters UK.

4 January 2014 QI becomes homeless.

20 January 2014 CI leaves the UK.

24 January 2014 QI contacts Shelter’s helpline stating she was brought to the UK by CI, MI asked her to leave the home and she has been homeless since 4 January.

28 January 2014 QI attended Croydon Enforcement Unit, makes allegations re CI giving her a different date of birth and he is listed on her visa as her father. Served with removal notice. QI attends a London Police Station and make allegations of sexual assault against CI in video recorded interview.

29 January 2014 QI attends a London Local Authority children’s services stating she has been homeless since 4 January, is 38 weeks pregnant, and alleges physical and sexual abuse by CI. She was accommodated by Adult Social care for one night.

3 February 2014 QI makes an asylum claim to the Home Office.

4 March 2014 QI gives birth to J, she attends an asylum screening unit and made an application for asylum naming dependants as S born in April2015 and J born in March 2014.

6 March 2014 CI was arrested on suspicion of rape of QI and interviewed by the police.

March 2014 MI instructs immigration solicitors Del & Co. c£7,000 paid in advance for fees by CI.

17 March 2014 QI’s statement in support of her asylum claim.

23 May 2014 HI is interviewed at a Police Station in relation to her allegation of rape by CI.

30 May 2014 MI made an application to the Home Office for leave to remain as a student, this was granted on 12 January 2015 until 1 November 2015, on the same conditions as before.

9 June 2014 MI starts an MBA in Strategic Management Pathway at the a London School of Management, due to end on 1 July 2015.

18 June 2014 CI and MI renew M and C passports in the Country A Embassy in London using the false birth certificates.

25 June 2014 MI provides a statement to the police in relation to the allegations made by QI and HI in which she states she was not informed by them of any sexual assaults by CI.

16 September 2014 CI was informed by the police they were not going to charge him regarding allegations made by QI and HI, and his passport was returned. The police decision was based in part on the unreliability of QI and HI, in particular QI had denied any contact with HI prior to her allegations in January 2014 but subsequent evidence proved otherwise and QI then admitted such contact in a letter to the police.

25 October 2014 CI travels to Country B and between then and 30 December he travelled between Country B, London and Country C.

23 November 2014 CI comes to the UK to attend MI’s graduation and a show at V’s school. He alleges it was during this trip when changing MI’s phone he saw intimate pictures and videos of her which he downloaded to his own phone.

7 December 2014 CI leaves the UK. According to CI he had an argument about the intimate pictures on the telephone to MI when he called her from Country B and that he wanted MI and the children to return to Country A.

10 December 2014 QI had an immigration interview at the Home Office.

24 December 2014 CI travels from Country C to the UK and visits the home for a short time as he was in transit and returned to Country C.

30 December 2014 CI returns to the UK having purchased jewellery and he spoke to MI and said he forgave her.

In late December/early January V discloses to a school friend sexual assaults by CI.

12 January 2015 the Home Office grants MI leave to remain as a student until 1 November 2015.

The LA became involved with the family on 20 January 2015 when V’s school became aware she had disclosed sexual abuse of her by CI. She had initially informed her friends about two weeks previously, and one of them had informed the staff at V’s school. MK spoke to V, she described sexual assaults by CI. A s 47 referral was made, RJ and a police officer attended to speak to V. V was placed with foster carers pursuant to a police protection order.

CI was arrested on 20 January 2015 in relation to V’s disclosures.

The LA sought and were granted EPOs on 23 January 2015. V remained placed with foster carers, on the return date EPOs were made in relation to M and A who joined V in the foster placement. A prohibited steps order was made to prohibit the removal of E and C from the jurisdiction. CI was released on bail and returned to the family home with a condition not to contact V.

26 January 2015 QI’s father, JE, signs a declaration to the Home Office that he did not put QI up for adoption and he is the father of QI not CI.

28 January 2015/2 February 2015 the Home Office refuse QI’s application for asylum.

CI left the UK on 29 January 2015 for Country A.

29 January 2015 HI’s appeal rights are exhausted.

30 January 2015 V attended an ABE interview and she, M and A were returned to MI’s care.

30 January 2015 a letter is sent from MI’s solicitors, Del & Co, to the Home Office supporting the application for leave to remain or due to exceptional circumstances. The letter refers to the history, including recent allegations made by V.

10 February 2015 at the Initial Child Protection Conference V, A and M were made the subject of child protection plans under category of sexual abuse, E and C under neglect.

11 February 2015 MI made an application to the Home Office for leave to remain in the UK under family/private life. This application, according to the letter from the Home Office to the court dated 7 June 2016, has not been determined, but appears to have been overtaken by the subsequent asylum application made in October 2015, which is also not yet determined.

17 February 2015 QI appeals against her asylum refusal.

20 March 2015 CI returns to UK and then goes on to Country B.

29 March 2015 CI returns to UK to answer bail on 2 April 2015.

The 14 April 2015 was the last time CI sees M and C.

19 April 2015 CI obtains an extension of bail and returns to Country A and stays there until 12 July 2015.

24 April 2015 the Home Office records PI claimed to be a victim of child trafficking (she would then be age 11 ½ years). That claim was accepted by the Home Office on 10 June 2015.

24 April 2015 QI’s appeal against asylum refusal was dismissed.

On 22 May 2015 CI is alleged in subsequent extradition proceedings in the UK to have conspired with two others to defraud another person, by dishonestly obtaining £2.5m from a company belonging to another person.

8 June 2015 HI’s application for asylum refused but she is granted leave to remain until 7 December 2017.

According to QI on 13 and 16 June 2015 MI contacts her and they start seeing each other.

16 June 2015 the Home Office records all QI’s appeal rights are exhausted.

In July 2015 CI’s father dies and the burial is in Country A. IE attends burial service.

12 July 2015 CI returns to the UK, MI visits him in his hotel.

14 July 2015 CI charged with offences relating to V and remanded in custody.

16 July 2015 care proceedings are issued by the LA.

21 July 2015 directions were made by HHJ Scarratt including an EX660 request and DNA testing regarding MI and the children.

29 July 2015 QI makes further/fresh claim for asylum to consider new evidence of CI’s charge relating to sexual assaults of V.

25 August 2015 DNA tests confirm MI mother of E, V and A.

4 September 2015 the Home Office received fresh/further submissions from QI to remain in the UK under Asylum or Human Rights grounds.

7 September 2015 the Home Office record the trafficking claim is suspended, as PI had absconded.

7 September 2015 directions were made by HHJ Scarratt including repeat EX660 request, CI to provide name and contact details of M and C’s mother. Directions regarding assessments with IRH fixed for 27 November 2015.

16 September 2015 CI attended court regarding extradition proceedings, allegation being that in May 2015 CI together with 2 others dishonestly obtain c£2.5m from a company belonging to another person. CI denied the allegations.

1 October 2015 MI made an application for asylum, which included the five children. In the Home Office letter dated 7 June 2016 that application refers to M and C as step son and step daughter.

4 October 2015 MI makes an application for asylum to the Home Office which includes all 5 children.

9 October 2015 the Home Office refuses QI’s application for further submissions to stay in the UK under asylum or human rights grounds.

30 October 2015 the parenting assessments of IE and MI are positive.

19 November 2015 M and C have telephone contact with IE arranged by the social worker SB. IE states this is their first contact since December 2011.

26 November 2015 the LA parenting assessment of CI is negative.

At the IRH before HHJ Scarratt on 27 November 2015 IE was joined to the proceedings with directions for DNA testing. In addition, there were disclosure orders against the police and directions for a viability of IE’s sister who lived in City C.

2 December 2015 the case was re-allocated to Theis J.

8 December 2015 a further EX660 request was made.

18 December 2015 IE alleged M and C had been removed without her consent and provided what she said were their original birth certificates.

8 February 2016 DNA tests confirmed IE and CI are M and C’s parents.

In February 2016 CI acquitted at the Crown Court following a criminal trial relating to the sexual assault allegations made by V. V, MI and CI gave oral evidence. CI immediately remanded in relation to extradition proceedings.

16 February 2016 directions hearing before Theis J.

22 February 2016 the full viability assessment of IE’s sister and brother in law was positive.

2 March 2016 parenting assessment of IE supported placement of M and C with her sister in City C, as she was not in a position to care for them.

4 March 2016 directions hearing before Theis J.

7 March 2016 MI has asylum interview with the Home Office, refers to M and C as step children and refers to QI’s allegation of rape against CI in Country A.

14 March 2016 hearing before Theis J directions made included transcripts of evidence in criminal trial, further evidence from the parties addressing MI’s sham marriage in October 2012 and CI’s extradition proceedings, directed LA statement addressing reasons for delay and seeking further disclosure and final hearing fixed for 18 July 2016 for 10 days.

25 - 26 March 2016 IE’s sister and her husband, Mr and Mrs A, have contact with M and C.

11 April 2016 CI granted bail in extradition proceedings on condition lives at an address in Kent and reports to police daily. The next hearing in scheduled to take place on 10 October 2016.

25 April 2016 an addendum SGO report regarding Mr and Mrs A, does not support placement due to failure by Mr A to disclose previous convictions.

6 May 2016 CI states this was the last time he spoke to IE.

12 May 2016 further hearing before Theis J where comprehensive directions were made.

On 19 May 2016 there was a further addendum SGO report for Mr and Mrs A.

A further directions hearing took place on 23 May 2016 before Theis J dealing with outstanding disclosure. At this hearing further information was given by MI that she had been in contact with QI since 2015.

7 June 2016 the Home Office provided a detailed letter regarding the immigration history of CI, MI, QE and HJ.

30 June 2016 M informed the social worker during a home visit she was angry with CI for taking her away from her mother. According to MI M said she is sad for not seeing her mother IE and told CI she missed her and he told her not to talk of IE again.

5 July 2016 the Re W hearing was vacated as all parties agreed with assessment that V should give evidence, MI provided a further number for HI at court. LA solicitor rang number and spoke to HI, said she could not remember anything and was in hospital in intensive care.

12 July 2016 final directions hearing before Theis J. QI consents to disclosure of her medical records and is informed by LA of wider disclosure orders made.

14 July 2016 MI accepts in her statement she told the head teacher of primary school that M, A and C are full siblings and she is their mother and that information was untrue. During the hearing she filed a further statement where she accepted she had forged Pastor P’s signature on an indemnity document to enable her to withdraw money from an account as she was short of money.

The hearing started before me on 18 July 2016. Just before that hearing the LA confirmed it sought findings relating to the allegations concerning QI and filed an amended threshold document. Further disclosure orders were made regarding QI, in particular against the police, LA and her GP. This unfortunately resulted in there being a delay before QI could give evidence, but it did mean arrangements could be made for QI to attend court rather than give evidence via a video link. The oral evidence completed on 1 August, the parties provided written submissions on 2 August and I circulated the draft judgment on 3 August. I will hand the final judgment down on 4 August and make further directions for the welfare hearing.

The parties have been able to agree the relevant legal principles. They are set out in a joint document which I have fully considered and taken into account and I need only summarise the points below, rather than over burden this already long judgment.

There is no issue that this court has jurisdiction on the basis of the habitual residence of each of the children in accordance with the principles set out in Re I (A Child) (Contact Application : Jurisdiction)(Centre for Family Law and Practice intervening) [2010] UKSC 10 and Re B (A Child) (Habitual Residence: Inherent Jurisdiction) [2016] UKSC 4. The children have been here since January 2012 and have been attending school since the autumn 2012. They are the subject of an undetermined asylum application.

The burden of proof is on the LA and they must establish the facts they seek to prove to the required standard, namely the balance of probabilities. The inherent probability or improbability of an event remains a matter to be taken into account when weighing the probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred. Baroness Hales in Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35 emphasised the need for the court to survey a ‘wide canvas’ in considering disputed factual considerations.

In Re A (Fact Finding: Disputed findings) [2011] 1 FLR 1817 Munby LJ (as he then was) said ‘it is an elementary position that findings of fact must be based on evidence, including inferences that can properly be drawn from evidence and not suspicion or speculation’.

As has been emphasised recently by McFarlane LJ in Re J (Vulnerable Witness: Sexual Abuse: fact Finding) [2014] EWCA Civ 875 at para 73 and 88 emphasised that no case of alleged sexual abuse where there is an absence of probative medical or other direct physical evidence to support a finding can be regarded ‘as straightforward’ and that ‘the need for care and caution…was…at the extreme end of the spectrum’ and there was a need to engage ‘to the necessary degree’ with issues raised by contradictory evidence.

I must ensure I keep the direction in R v Lucus [1981] QB 720 firmly in mind, namely the fact that a witness has lied about a matter, it does not follow he has lied about everything. A witness may lie for many reasons, for example out of shame, humiliation, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, distress, confusion and emotional pressure.

Guidance about following ABE guidelines give in Re W (Children) (Family Proceedings: Evidence) [2010] UKSC 12 were reiterated in Re E (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 473 and should be borne in mind.

According to the evidence of MK, the family liaison officer at the school, the school were first alerted, on 20 January 2015, to V’s disclosures by the head of year, who had been shown a text exchange between two of V’s friends. The text was from V’s friend C, who she said she had first spoken to. The text refers to the allegations as being ‘like he hasn’t raped her but he has made her suck his dick and he has licked her out’. The text refers to being told by V who ‘burst out crying and told me’

MK then spoke to V, her notes refer to V alleging CI had touched her boob by removing her towel when she leaves the bathroom, at age 8 making her suck his penis, which he did loads of times, the last occasion being two months previously and when she was 10/11 years old living in London he licked her down below. She said she had not told her mother as she was scared she would shout. Following this MK made a referral to social services and two police officers and the social worker, RJ, attended school to speak to V.

RJ spoke to V with the police officers and V repeated the allegations of sexual assault against CI. Her handwritten notes refers to weekly frequency up to time he went on holiday, the last time sexual she notes ‘’boobs touching’ and last April ‘penis in mouth’. She notes it happening in bedroom or bathroom ‘penis usually soggy – stays inside until he comes then goes and spits out in toilet’, ‘around Mum – kind/loving’, ‘Brutal with punishments – nasty toward V Unfair consequences – worried about Mum questioning her – asking her things’ In cross examination by Mr Tughan Q.C. for CI she said April referred to April 2014 and when asked about whether any form of sexual content took place in the corridor she said she believed that the bathroom referred to the entrance to bathroom because the entrance was off the corridor. From the conversation with her V stood in the bathroom doorway and CI passed her in the corridor.

MI was informed about the allegations by telephone and according to the record of LT the team manager MI was very angry and said the allegations were untrue. MI states she was not told who V had made allegations about. MI accepts she contacted V by text to check she was okay and when she said ‘that’s good’ to V she said meant that it was good V had spoken out. The police attended the home and arrested CI, it was only then, according to MI, she was informed the allegations related to CI. CI was bailed back to the family home with a condition he did not speak to V.

V was placed with foster carers pursuant to a police protection order on 20 January, she was made the subject of an EPO on 23 January, which was extended on 27 January to include M and A who were placed with V. Orders were made relating to E and C that prevented them from being removed from the jurisdiction.

CI left the jurisdiction to return to Country A on 29 January.

V remained in her foster home until the morning of 30 January. It is understood she went to school and attended her ABE interview on the afternoon on 30 January after school before returning to live with MI.

V undertook an ABE interview on 30 January 2015, which I have seen the transcript of and watched the recording. RJ was present taking notes, she had not had any ABE training and had very little experience of ABE interviews. In her ABE interview V alleges that about two months after CI moved in with the family, when she was about 8 years old, CI made her suck his penis. She described occasions when this happened in the flat in London and the other children would be present in another room, watching television. When she hit puberty (at the age of about 9) she said he touched her boobs, after removing her towel when she came out of the shower, on another occasion he licked her vagina and on one occasion he attempted to have intercourse with her. She said the last time he did these things was two months previously, she thought in September. She described him making her suck his penis taking place in Country A, their flats in London; she described this taking place at varying frequency, including daily, twice daily to ‘once in a while’. He started touching her boobs at the address in London and she described the escalation to attempting to have sexual intercourse taking place there. She was able to describe his penis being stiff on occasions and times when it wasn’t. She acknowledged that he was not at these addresses all the time. The one occasion when she said he licked her down below she said took place at the address in Kent, after they moved there in August 2013.

In the interview she said DC was the first person she told after Christmas, referred to informing someone else called CH and they then told a third friend together and then the school were informed.

In her evidence in the criminal proceedings she was questioned about her relationship with her mother, her feelings about returning to Country A, her knowledge of previous allegations made by QI and HI, CI’s absences from the home when travelling abroad and the size and layout of the flat and number of people in the flat when she alleges these events took place.

In her oral evidence in these proceedings by video link she had the assistance of witness support. She took the affirmation and said she understood the need to tell the truth. She confirmed she had seen the transcript and ABE interview as part of the memory refreshing exercise agreed between the parties. She was asked about what she said during family prayers regarding the allegations made by QE, she agreed she has said ‘Daddy can’t hurt anybody’. She said she was aware MI didn’t believe the QE allegations, but was not aware of the nature of the allegations until QE came to see them in June 2015. She agreed it was far less strict here than in Country A, she did not want to return there and she had discussed that with MI. She denied any discussion prior to speaking to her social worker about her legal status to remain here. She agreed she had had some contact with QI since June 2015.

When asked about her behaviour record at school and the recording of 10 points on 20 January she said this related to her failing to attend a reconciliation session with the teacher, due to late homework. She didn’t remember the reasons for the detention on 19 January, although thought it may have been due to general class disruption during a French lesson. She agreed she had a good behaviour record. She also agreed around this time CI had removed her phone for a period as her room was untidy. She denied being told by him if her school results did not improve she would go back to Country A.

In relation to who she told first she said it was DC, followed by CH and then she thought DC told another friend.

She agreed the first London flat was small, it was possible to hear through the walls and there was a glass panel in the sitting room door, although you could only see shapes through it as it had little bumps in the glass. She said the sexual abuse was daily at the Peckham flat and CI was there daily, but then said she agreed there were times when he was away. She agreed CI did touch her boobs in the morning when others were about and that he did not make her suck his penis a lot at the second London flat. She denied any suggestion that these allegations had been made to enable her to stay here.

She is MI’s sister. She came with CI, MI and the children when they came to the UK in January 2012. There are differing accounts as to why she came and the circumstances in which her passport and visa were obtained. Her passport was obtained using the surname I and with a date of birth in 1992, rather than 1989. She said these changes were all at CI’s suggestion, she said he did all the organising and form filling for the relevant applications.

Her first application for a visa to the UK made in August 2011 was refused in September. A further application was made in November 2011 which was granted from 10 November 2011 to 10 May 2012.

She lived with the family in London until she left in 2013, she moved in with her boyfriend, AA, until early 2014 when she presented as homeless when 38 weeks pregnant. At some point she resumed her relationship with her boyfriend, and they remain in a relationship. He is the father of her two children. The circumstances of her leaving the family home in 2013 are disputed. QI states it was following an argument with MI following her disclosing to MI the sexual behaviour towards her by CI. Until recently MI denied that and said the argument was about QI failing to undertake household chores, but following the resumption of her contact with QI in June 2015 MI informed the Home Office in her interview in March 2016 that QI had told her about that. MI said when she confronted CI he admitted the relationship, said it was consensual and QI was trying to sabotage their marriage. CI denies admitting any sexual relationship with QI.

On 28 January 2014 QI attended the London Enforcement Unit and stated she was in the UK illegally. She gave an account to immigration officers of her entry to the UK and that her brother in law CI (who is listed on the visa as her father) organised the visa and passport for her travel to the UK promising her an opportunity to study in the UK. She also stated that he listed her surname as I, the same surname as his and with a younger date of birth 1992 (at this interview she gave her year of birth as 1989). She was served with the Form IS151A notice of a person liable to removal as an illegal immigrant.

On 4 March 2014 QI made an asylum application, naming her dependants as SAA born 18 April 2015 and JAA born 4 March 2014. This application was refused in January 2015, her appeal against this refusal was dismissed in April 2015.

QI made a further asylum application in September 2015, which was refused in October 2015. The Home Office letter dated 7 June 2016 sets out the different names QI is known as, with the differing dates of birth.

In her police interview on 28 January 2014 she alleged she had been raped on three occasions by CI; in May and October 2012 and May 2013. On the first occasion she said it was at a time when CI had just arrived, she had taken his bags in, MI was out and HI was upstairs with the children and CI forced her to have sexual intercourse in the bedroom downstairs. On the second occasion HI was not there, the children were told by CI to go to their bedroom to rest and he raped her in the sitting room, having turned the volume up on the TV. On the last occasion, in May 2013, he raped her in the flat in London. She said she informed MI when she returned, MI was very angry and told her to leave.

The police did not proceed with criminal charges due to the inconsistencies in the accounts between QI and HI, the fact they had lied about having contact with each other and their enquiries revealed CI was out of the country at the time when some of the assaults were alleged by QI to have taken place.

The LA had not been able to contact QI until shortly before this hearing. When they did, she agreed to file a statement. In that statement dated 20 July 2016 she recounted the rapes she described in her ABE interview and also alleged that CI had raped her in 2004 in Country A, when she was about 15 years old.

The LA amended their schedule of findings just before the hearing to seek findings about the sexual assaults alleged by QI. This prompted applications for disclosure from the Home Office regarding her immigration status, details regarding any records kept by LAs where she had lived and details regarding any counselling she had received about the assaults. QI agreed and co-operated with this disclosure.

In the disclosure was a report from Dr Sam-Best Ewruje, a psychiatrist who states he attends the same church as QI and has prepared a report as to the credibility of her allegations on what appears to be QI’s own instruction. This report was submitted as part of her immigration application. I have read it but place no weight on it for the obvious reason that issues of credibility are a matter for the court. In the light of the fast pace of events leading up to QI giving evidence the LA sensibly took steps to ensure that QI did not need any particular support whilst giving evidence. With QI’s consent she was assessed over the telephone by Alan Finer, Consultant Psychologist. His assessment concluded that she demonstrated a satisfactory level of understanding and providing the language used and questions where kept relatively simple and short he did not consider she needed any specific assistance. What the LA were able to arrange was for someone to sit in the witness box with her to support her being able to find the relevant documents in the bundle, which worked well.

In her oral evidence she described HI as a helper from the same village, who came to help MI when she had E. She said her understanding was that the family were coming to the UK in January 2012 to live. She said she had no contact with IE and CI did all the documents necessary to come here, he had the documents in a big envelope and she described CI telling her what to do. She was clear the arrangement was for her to come here to study, after a few months being here she asked CI about her studies. His response was, in effect, she had to work off the cost of bringing her here by helping in the family. Although she accepted she had said in her Home Office application MI beat her, she denied she assaulted her.

QI denied having any knowledge about a return ticket on 15 January and when asked about the different names for her in the Home Office letter, she said there were only two. One she used and the other CI used. The reference to ‘QW’ in that letter she said was because the translation of E in Ibo is ‘w’. She agreed she gave the police her 1992 date of birth as that is the one on the system here, her real year of birth is 1989. She confirmed the description she had given the Home Office of CI making her take a blood oath in Country A. She remained insistent that she had known CI in 2004 and he had raped her then. When asked why she had then agreed to come to the UK with him, she said it was because of her sister. She said she had told her parents of the rape in 2004. She was pressed why she had not told the Home Office or the police of the 2004 rape, she said because it happened in Country A, she would not be believed in Country A and all her focus was on what happened here.

Mr Tughan pressed QI about the dates in 2012 and 2013 when she said the rapes occurred and the evidence that CI was not in the country at the relevant times, she said she knew they took place in 2012 and in 2013 she said it was during Easter. There were also discrepancies in her account about the rape in October 2012 as to what time of day it took place. In her oral evidence she was clear it took place in the afternoon. She denied any knowledge that if there was a finding by this court regarding her allegation of rape it would assist her immigration application or that she had discussed with MI how the allegations against CI could help their immigration position.

As regards any contact between IE and her children after 2012, she said she was not aware of M and C having contact with IE. She described the day in October 2012 when MI married the German national. According to her it was at the instigation of CI who was present in the flat when they left to go to the ceremony. She describes her and MI being taken there by Mr E, a friend of CI. She said CI came the day before the wedding and following their return from the ceremony they all went out to the local market.

In response to questions from Ms Porter QI described CI’s popularity in their home village, she described him as rich and gave many gifts. She was clear that CI was involved in her application for a passport and visa and when she questioned the change of name and date of birth he said either date was the ‘same thing’. At passport control at Heathrow airport in 2012 she said CI took control of all the documents and presented the passports. She described the layout of the two properties in London. In the first property she was clear that it was not possible to see the bathroom door from the living room.

She has not filed a statement and did not give oral evidence. The LA do not seek any findings regarding her allegations. She is described as someone who came to assist MI after the birth of her first child and lived with her since then. It remains unclear why she came to the UK in 2012.

On 11 August 2011 (the Home Office letter says 8 November but is obviously a mistake) HI made an application for entry clearance to the UK as a visitor, this was granted on 10 November with a six month visa valid from 10 November to 10 May 2012, on condition no work or recourse to public funds.

On 2 November 2012 HI alleged to the police in the UK that a MI had arranged her visa and had not allowed her to leave the home. HI was served with a removal notice that day.

On 28 December 2012 HI made an asylum application, this was refused on 9 July 2013. Her appeal was allowed in human rights grounds only in August 2013. In October 2013 application for permission to appeal to the First Tier Tribunal was granted. On 29 January 2015 HI’s rights of appeal were recorded as being exhausted. On 8 June 2015 the Home Office refused asylum but granted leave to remain on the basis of family and private life until December 2017.

HI left the family home in November 2012 and has given inconsistent accounts as to the circumstances of her departure. She left without warning.

In May 2014 she was ABE interviewed and made allegation of two sexual assaults by CI in the first flat at in London. According to her she told QI about the assaults.

The police decided in September 2014 not to proceed due to the inconsistencies and unreliability of the accounts given by QI and HI, in particular that they had been in contact prior to reporting their allegations to the police.

Attempts had been made by the LA to make contact with her. Just prior to this hearing they were given contact details by QI. When spoken to by Ms Sansom, the LA solicitor on 5 July 2016, she said she could not remember anything because of her medication and she was a patient in intensive care. She was unwilling to make a statement or attend court.

She is 38 years old, the father of her three children is PJ. They separated in 2008 and she states PJ did not seek contact to their three children. She met CI in 2008 and, according to her, he said he had separated from IE.

She said they planned to marry in 2011, they had the formal ceremony on 11 December but states it was disrupted due to a dispute with PJ as to whether the dowry had been repaid. She and CI had a tribal wedding on 31 December 2011.

According to MI whilst living in Country A CI acquired the care of M and C, she understood this was by consent. In January 2012 she said CI chose to relocate the family to the UK. He wanted her to complete a course in management, so she would be able to assist him in his business. CI told her IE consented to M and C coming with them. She denies being involved in the necessary immigration documentation, accepts she may have signed documents but does not ‘recall giving any incorrect information’. She states she relied on CI’s experience in foreign travel. She describes in her first statement ‘This was my first experience of living abroad. [CI] ordered me not to speak to anyone other than his friends. [CI] together with his friends arranged for me to go through a marriage ceremony with a German national. It was explained to me that this would enable me to get the children into a local school.’ She did not see the person after the ceremony, she was informed CI received a sum of money after the ceremony. She then said she discovered this was not necessary, but goes on in her statement to say that she continued her course and planned to assist CI in his business.

She describes learning of the allegations made by V and her shock. She sets out that it was only after speaking to V that she believed her account. She separated from CI and said apart from at court, she has only seen him twice since then.

In her first statement she confirms she has applied for asylum and wants to stay in this country and care for the children, including M and C. In her first three statements dated 4 and 20 May and 27 June 2016 she refers to IE, to IE’s sister in City C but makes no mention of any contact between IE and M and C since 2011. In her final statement she refers to a discussion with M on 30 June 2016 when M informed her that she had raised with CI about having contact with IE, but he had told her not to speak of her again which had caused her great upset. When asked why she hadn’t told her this before she reports M said she had been scared about what her father would have done to MI and herself. MI refers to discussions she had with CI about M wanting contact with her mother but CI said M had been put up to this. MI also reports M informing her of occasions in Country A when she had witnessed her father being violent to her mother. According to MI she said M had not told her before as she didn’t want to get anyone into trouble. In her final statement MI acknowledges she informed the head of the Primary school that M, A and C were full siblings. She filed a statement during these proceedings which confirmed she had forged the signature of Pastor P from the church they attend here as she was in financial difficulties.

In her oral evidence she was clear she did not see or hear any contact between IE and SI and M and C, and denied IE ever spoke to her. She said CI’s uncle George only visited once, in the summer of 2015 when CI was on remand. When she came here in 2012 she said the plan was for her to study here and for all five children to complete their education here.

She said she was unaware of why QI or HI changed their names to I and was not aware of them being adopted by CI. As regards the changes to the birth certificates and surnames from J to I for her children, she said this was done at the insistence of CI in connection with her children moving to the same school as M and C in Country A and was all done by him. She denied co-operating with any procedures to change the birth certificates. As regards changes to the birth certificates for M and C to show her as the birth mother she denied knowing anything about this until they arrived here, when she looked at the documents regarding getting school places for the children here. She agrees she knew they were false and that she insisted the children were full siblings to the head teacher in September 2013, she said she didn’t know what to say. She agreed in her applications to the Home Office she has described herself as M and C’s mother and that was a lie. She said CI filled in all the forms in Country A for passports and visas and she signed them, but did not look at or read through them.

As regards changes in their accommodation she said it was arranged by CI. He was not here when they moved flats in London, but they were moved by a taxi driver who is known to CI and collects him from the airport.

In relation to the allegations made by V, when she was first contacted by the school she said she was not told who the allegations were against and agreed she was angry as the allegations came as a shock to her. She said she believed V’s allegations against CI. In relation to her solicitors letter to the HO on 3rd January 2015 she denied it was based on V’s allegations, she accepted the allegations were part of the basis of the application but the application had been prepared before the allegations were made and included other grounds. She said the application was prepared in late 2014, to apply for leave to remain in the UK so they could get a valid visa to travel to Country B in summer 2015. She denied V’s allegations were part of a plan by her to strengthen her Home Office application, as she had alleged QI had done in 2014. She denied V was aware of difficulties in her relationship with CI at the end of 2014 or that there were intimate photos of her with other men on her phone. She denied CI told her she and the children should return to Country A which is why she hatched a plan for V to make the allegation she did. She said she understood the jewellery from CI in December 2014 was an apology from him to her, she said she was used to his accusations about her having affairs. She said this was the first time she had stood her ground and had text him when he was in Country B and asked for a divorce. She said he responded to this asking who would take care of the children. She described their relationship as ‘okay’ in January 2015 prior to V’s allegations. She agreed there was a time in January 2015 when CI took V’s phone, she thought this was mainly because her room was not tidy. Ms Porter pressed her about her discussions with social workers after V’s allegations, as to why she was still pressing ahead with going to Country B to live in a property owned by CI, if she believed he had behaved in this way towards V. She responded saying that she wanted to make a fresh start, was trying to get away from him and felt the government there would help and protect her.

As regards the allegations of rape made by QI she said she first heard of them was in 2014 when CI denied them to her saying any sexual intercourse between them was consensual and QI was trying to sabotage their marriage. It was not until she spoke to QI in 2015 that she understood the first rape took place in Country A in 2004. She accepted some of the allegations made by QI and HI were not true, such as the allegation by HI they were not allowed out of the home or the allegation by QI that CI had assaulted HI.

She was pressed about the way she spelt the surname I without an ‘h’. She said that was CI’s fault, it was a mistake that was in her passport and she used that spelling for her Home Office applications although accepted she signed it with an ‘h’ in some of the Home Office documents she submitted.

As regards the balance in her bank accounts in January 2015 she said the credits had come in from CI to help bolster her immigration application, to show she had funds and that was the position during 2014 as well. She said after the application was made to the Home Office the funds would be withdrawn again. Ms Porter asked her about details of the credits. One for £10,000 related to a part repayment from Pastor P of some money CI had invested in his property management company. She agreed her account had a credit balance of around £23,000 in September 2014.

In her oral evidence her account about the sham marriage on 31 October 2012 was that it was EK’s idea that this was needed to enable the children to get a place at school. This was in the context that CI had told her if there was anything she wanted she should contact EK, which she did when she was not able to get the children into schools here. Although her evidence in the Crown Court, in response to dates put to her by CI’s counsel, was the children had started school in September 2012 she said it was later than that, and CI was here when they did start. She said V was the first to start school. She denied any suggestions that she had sought CI’s forgiveness and said she raised it with him and they saw a lawyer together to annul the ceremony.

In her four statements she sets out her account of the background. She met CI in 2004, they had a traditional marriage in April 2006. Prior to their separation in 2008 she said she was introduced to MI and they became close, she said M is named after her. She would visit their home with her husband PJ. She said in 2008 PJ informed her of CI’s relationship with MI, CI admitted the relationship and according to IE he assaulted her before they separated. CI and MI moved in together, CI would see M and C but they remained living with her until December 2011. In December 2011 he took them for CI and MI’s wedding and she expected them to be returned back in early 2012 to start back at school.

She describes calling CI in early January and learning they were all in the UK. According to her CI demanded she vacate the family home, she initially refused but had to when she said he disconnected the electricity. She denies she gave her consent to the children moving to or being taken to the UK. She reports she had no contact for four years and when she did contact MI she threaten her. She met CI again at his father’s funeral in July 2015, she hoped he would return with the children but he didn’t. She had no information about the children until contacted by a social worker in late 2015. In her second statement she is clear she did not have any contact with her children until assisted to do so by the LA in November 2015.

She gave evidence by video link. She was asked about copies of her bank account statements attached to her statement and whether any of the credits made to the account were from CI, she denied any of the ones put to her by Mr Tughan were from or on behalf of CI although she accepted three credits were. She accepted CI had given her a car when C was born and she sold it but denied SI cared for the children as a nanny, although accepted she lived with her some of the time. She agreed she was in CI’s house until 2013 and there had been text communication between her and CI in 2015, she said this was to get her children back. She agreed some of the exchanges were affectionate, she said that was because she wanted to get her children back. She accepted she was with the children when they got their passports in 2011 but said it was with CI as well. She thought after CI’s father’s funeral he would bring the children back to Country A, but he was then arrested.

The current allocated social worker, SB gave evidence about the steps she took to enable M and C to have contact with IE. At a court hearing in early September CI gave a mobile number for IE which enabled SB to make contact with her. SB has set out in her statement and records the contact she has had with IE. She supervised a telephone contact in November 2015 and is clear in her assessment that the children did not know their mother very well, which is consistent with them not having had much contact with her.

He has filed 5 statements. In his first statement he describes in January 2015 being told by V’s school that her results were not good and had been gradually declining, he confiscated her phone and said he told her she could have it back if her results improved. There was no evidence from the school to support this, apart from the two matters on 19 and 20 January referred to above. He said he returned the phone the following week providing she kept her room tidy and improved her school results. He also said he told her if her results didn’t improve she will have to return to her grandmother’s home in Country A. He said this was an empty threat as he had already planned for the family to move to Country B. He knew she didn’t want to return to Country A and said this to encourage her to work hard.

In his first statement in September 2015 he refers to adopting MI’s sisters QI and HI, he brought them to the UK for a holiday in 2012, he said they had six month visas, they stayed in their home in London and ‘I returned to [Country A] and visited often. At the end of six months, my wife’s sisters refused to return to [Country A]’ There is no mention in this statement of them only coming for two weeks and all expecting to return to Country A on 15 January. His first statement continues ‘Between October and December 2013, my wife and I were arguing. My wife lives in London with the children so that she can complete her studies. I split my time between Country A, Country C, London and Country B’, he said he was worried she was having an affair, he threatened to divorce her and she would have known this meant she would have to return to Country A. His statement continues ‘I believe this is why my wife’s sister made the allegation that I raped her as she wished to stay in the UK. She was worried that if my wife and I divorced they would have to return to Country A’.

As regards M and C in his first statement he states he wishes for them to ‘move to their mother’s care in Country A. I have spoken to IE and she also wishes for our children to live with her. I believe my children will want to go to their mother.’ No mention in this statement of what he said in his oral evidence that she was not interested in her children to the extent that she had no contact with them for 4 years, or that she was not capable to caring for them.

In relation to MI he states ‘I love my wife and all of our children….The plan was for my family to move to Country B during summer 2015 after a holiday in Country A. My wife has completed her studies here. I do not have any work in the UK and I am increasingly working in Country B. I hoped we would settle in Country B as a family. I was due to move to Country B on 30 July 2015 and I intended to organise schooling for our children. I have already brought a property there.’ Again no mention in this statement of what he described in his oral evidence of MI’s change in behaviour, her dominance of him. After stating the allegations made by V are false and he will prove his innocence he continues ‘I will then have to discuss with my wife what the future is for our family. I do not know if she wants us to stay together as husband and wife.’

In relation to the allegations made by V he states ‘I believe that somebody has told V that this type of allegations will enable her to stay in the UK’.

In his second statement in May 2016 his plans regarding the future care of M and C change in that he states IE can’t care for the children as ‘she has never had the financial resources to look after them’, his preference would have been for her to care for them with his financial support but ‘I do have some reservations about this given the past history and the fact that she has not prioritised the children’s needs but the previous arrangement worked because other family members were in the home and they assisted with the care of the children. This could still happen but I note that IE does not wish to care for the children’. He sought the care of the children and set out his plans for them. He dealt with the background to his marriage with IE where, according to him, IE informed him she no longer loved him, her father made her marry him due to his financial stability and she had a number of affairs and that she demanded a large sum of money from him so that he could keep the care of the two children. He said IE was still breastfeeding at the time and he ‘did not want to become upset with her over her lack of engagement with me and the children. As a result I decided to leave the house for her to stay with the children whilst I thought about the best thing to do for their future’. His eldest daughter SI was there, as were other members of the family so, according to CI, he knew they would assist with the care of the children. He describes occasions when M age 4 would call him and say there was no light in the house. He details occasions when IE used money given to her for the family for her own uses. When he argued with her about this he said rather than take on board his concerns she reported him to the social welfare department. They attended meetings and, according to CI, ‘they were surprised that I had been providing her with quite a lot of financial assistance which she had failed to inform them’. He said they were unaware of his support for orphanages and continues ‘I explained that if I could do that for other people, why would I not do the same for my own children’ as a result of his financial support for her he said it was clear IE had been giving untrue information. Despite these difficulties CI says he continued to provide financially for IE and the children.

In 2011 he said he planned to take M and C to the UK for a months holiday, IE was well aware of these plans as she went with the children to collect their passports, as well as a passport for herself. On his return to Country A with the children he said IE made more financial demands of him which he said he met and his concerns about her continuing to care for the children were allayed as SI and other members of the family were in the house as well.

He describes when he returned to Country A in April 2015 IE sought financial assistance from him for her fashion design business. He said ‘she was happy and we had a discussion about the children and I informed her that I was planning for the children to return to Country A… and that arrangements can be made for her to stay with the children until their return to Country B in or around the 2^nd or 3^rd week of August 2015’. He said they remained in contact and she attended his father’s burial in July 2015. He said from then he has remained in constant communication with IE and last spoke to her on 6 May 2016. He considers IE is now being negative about him as she believes she will have the opportunity to come to the UK, he confirms ‘I have never abducted our children as suggested and IE has known about the plans for the children throughout. I note by her own admission, she is not able to care for the children as she does not have the finances to do so’.

As regards the plans to come to the UK in January 2012 he describes in his second statement his and MI’s plans for her to study in the UK, that IE was fully aware that the children would travel with them to the UK ‘for 2 weeks…when we arrived in the UK, I rented a place in London for them to stay during the brief period of holiday and the plan was that MI would stay in any event to begin her course…the plan was to stay for a few weeks, return to Country A for MI to collect her student visa and then she would return to the UK to start her course. All financial payments to the university had been made.’ According to CI ‘The children, MI and I were supposed to be in the UK for only a period of 2 weeks’, during this period there was a crisis in Country A and it was not safe to return. CI recalls IE ‘had telephoned the children on a number of occasions during this time and expressed that they should not return as she was concerned that they might be caught up in a conflict should they return’. The crisis in Country A continued for about a month ‘However, MI and I decided to return to Country A to collect her student visa as she was to begin her course on 12 February 2012. We took a risk to return at that time’. He said MI returned back to the UK on 10 or 11 February to start her course, they argued about whether the children should return to Country A. He said ‘MI insisted that the children should have the opportunity to stay in the UK and I went along with her position’. He denies any knowledge about a sham marriage and said MI was advised to do this by her sister QI. In his second statement CI sets out how he considers it was always MI’s intention to remain in the UK and that she used him to do this and it was planned with QI and HI. He continues ‘I remember that prior to finding out about MI’s sham marriage to a German national I had received a number of calls informing that MI had been having affairs and engaging in sexual activities with other men. I chose not to listen to these rumours…’. He was travelling backwards and forwards between the UK and Country A, visiting the UK ‘every 2 months’ , between 2012 and 2014 he understood ‘that a number of allegations were made about the family in the UK’ he heard about the police attending the home and rent not being paid. That is not substantiated by any other evidence. He said the reason why the family moved from London was he wanted the family to return to Country A, he continues ‘I was very annoyed by the whole thing as I felt she was no longer keeping to the original plans we had made in terms of being a family unit and that it appeared that she now wished to do things on her own’. Regarding MI he would not agree to her caring for any of my children she has ‘colluded and plotted with, or certainly encouraged allegations to be made against me in order for her to fulfil her plans to remain in the UK…everything has been staged by her, her sister and her cousin. I also believe that V was coached and encouraged to make the allegations she made. I believe it was a radicalised script written out by her mother MI and acted out by V’. According to CI ‘In December 2014 MI and V had gone to our local pastor and asked him to call me to forgive MI for what she had done and that I should return to the home’, he said he called in briefly on 24 December between flights but MI and V were not there, he believes MI was avoiding him ‘she had been having an affair and the reason why she went to the pastor was because I had informed her that she had to return to Country A with the children. MI and her family have made up so many allegations against me for their own needs’.

He concludes his second statement in May 2016 stating he wishes to care for M and C but if not him ‘I would like them to return to their mother in Country A who I will then provide financial assistance to enable her to care for the children’. His last resort is the maternal aunt and uncle in Country D, but under no circumstances does he wish them to remain in the care of MI.

In his third statement signed a week later he proposes alternative carers for the children in Country A, his cousin and his wife or his eldest daughter SI, who lives with his cousin.

In his statement signed on 21 June 2016 he attaches whatsapp communications between him and IE, he stated ‘IE was fully aware that I was in the UK with the children…in January 2012 for a holiday and she was kept updated about the reasons why we could not return…she left the family house in 2013..[she] was communicating with me regularly since the children left in December 2011’. He said he financially supported IE, at no time did she request the children be returned to Country A. If IE called him and he was with the children ‘they would speak with her and she was fully aware of the progress of the children in terms of their health, education and welfare’. He said he was not aware of any conversations between IE and MI but he would ‘not have tolerated threats to the mother of my children who I in fact had a good relationship with until recently’. He and IE became friends again after she ‘asked me to forgive her and on many occasions she even wanted to reconcile’. He sets out text messages that confirm their communication in 2015 at the time of his father’s death and what he says is the transfer of money to her in June 2015.

In relation to the children’s position he repeats he obtained 6 month visas for the children in 2011, there was still time left on the visas ‘the plan was to return to the UK with them in January 2012 and stay for a period of 2 weeks just so that MI could enrol at the college she would be attending in February 2012’, IE agreed to the children remaining in the UK until the troubles in Country A were over, MI returned to the UK on 11 February 2015 and he informed MI ‘I would like the children to return to Country A when she returned to the UK’, she persuaded him that the children should not return he informed IE who, according to CI’s statement, ’was pleased that the children staying in the UK would enhance their education and prospects in life’.

As regards the change in the children’s surname CI states as he and MI got married he suggested the children should all enrol in the same school and as their father had disowned them they could carry his surname, CI states he ‘agreed to adopt them’ and for them to carry his surname and the same surname as M and C. According to CI MI informed him she wanted to get passports for the children, he states ‘I advised her to go to the passport office in City A, complete the relevant documents and after that she would have the passports. She also had the birth certificates amended to say that I was the father of the children. MI obtained the children’s passports including her own. I was between the UK and Dubai on a business trip when she obtained this. When we spoke, she confirmed that she had changed the children’s names and also obtained the passports. It so happened that MI’s sisters who were living with her also wanted to change their name to I which they did. They contacted solicitors to legally change their names and this was done through the court process. As they were 18 years and above the names had to be officially published in the local and national newspapers’.

As regards his passport he alleges MI has taken it. He describes arriving here on 13 July 2015, seeing MI at the hotel he was staying at and expecting her to return the following day to bring his laptop and take him to the police station. He said she didn’t come and he was arrested at the police station regarding the allegations made by V and remanded in custody. At his first court appearance he asked MI to go to the hotel to collect his passport, he said he called her from prison, she said she had the passport and would give it to his legal representatives which, according to him, never happened. He believes she has his other documents as on 17 July 2015 she sent an email requesting transfers of monies from their joint account to another account, on 19 July she contacted another bank using headed notepaper from one of CI’s companies requesting funds be transferred and signed their pastor’s name, which MI now accepts was forged. He says he feels duped by MI and that this was part of a plan by her, in October 2014 they started to have problems in their marriage and he suspected she was having affairs. In November 2014 MI informed him about an event at V’s school which he attended, as well as her graduation. He describes when getting MI’s phone repaired he collected it and saw on it ‘explicit messages, images and videos of MI and other men’, he transferred the information to his phone and returned the phone to MI. He has never produced that information. He did not confront her then but did later when he called her from Country B he ‘let her know that I was disgusted at what I had seen on the phone and told her that she had better delete all the inappropriate images, messages and videos on the phone before she gives the phone to V. I also reminded her of my suspicions previously and that I meant what I said about returning her and the children to Country A. She begged me not to say anything to my family or her family about what I had seen on her phone. Even while I was in Country A in May 2015 MI called to inform me that V has confessed to her that she had lied against me…she then begged me not to let any of our families know what QI, HI, V and MI herself had done as she was concerned that they would be seen in a bad light particularly because of all the good things I had done for her and her family. I did promise not to tell anyone’. He then describes visiting his relative G and informing him of everything. He said due to what he had seen on the phone he changed his plans, he returned for a few hours on 24 December and then said he received a phone call from Pastor P who informed him that MI and V were with him and ‘pleading with him for me to come and spend the Christmas with the family and he pleaded with me to forgive MI and come back to the UK to resolve our issues’. He said he spoke to MI after this call and said he could not forgive her and his plan was for her and the children to return to Country A. On 30 December he said he phoned MI said he had forgiven her and had bought her some jewellery, but he did not think MI believed him and she kept demanding money from him.

In relation to the sham marriage he said the first he knew about it was when he received a call from MI who passed him on to someone called J. He was told he had to return to the UK urgently as the police were at the house in London. No record of any police attendance has been disclosed. He said he went straight to the property and met Joe and his wife. He said MI knelt before him and asked for his forgiveness as she told him about the sham marriage. She said she was being defrauded by the people who set up the marriage who were demanding more money from her. CI said he assisted her by transferring money into her NatWest account and also gave her cash, he said he remained in the UK for about two weeks and pleaded with Joe to assist MI to dissolve the marriage. He said he did speak to the man who she had married, he threatened him and he accepted papers to dissolve the marriage. According to CI, MI informed him it was QI who had encouraged her to do this. He said he doesn’t know OJ, was not involved in the sham marriage and did not say she needed to do this to secure a place for the children at school. He said he was here in September 2012 when he came with a letter from the Catholic school in Country A to help gain a place in a Catholic school here. He said he and MI went to see the local priest with the letter and explained their situation, after that they were able to secure places for the children at school.

In his final statement CI deals primarily with the recent statement by QI. He denies he met her before 2007. He denies she came here other than for a holiday on a six month visa. He said ‘After I left to go to Country A shortly after we arrived in the UK for a holiday in January 2012, QI seems to have made a decision that she wanted to stay in the UK, along with her sister (my wife) MI, who came to the UK to study. Whilst MI got a sham marriage during this period, QI got pregnant by a man she met…she made it clear that she enjoyed living in the UK and wanted to remain here’.

In his oral evidence he described his background and the status he holds, particularly in Country A. He describes himself as a successful business man, with very close connections to the current and previous governments in Country A. He owns properties valued at over one billion currency, mainly in Country A, although he owns 3 properties in Country B, purchased in 2014, which he values as about 6 - 700,000 Country B dollars each. He estimates his business have an annual turnover of between 150 – 400,000 million Country A currency. He confirmed he invested £20,000 in Pastor P’s property management business here, half of which was repaid at the end of 2014/early 2015 and paid into MI’s bank account. As regards his knowledge of EK, he said he is known to his business associate in Country A called Mr S. EK lives in London and attends the British School of Management where CI wished MI to attend. Mr S introduced CI to him and he helped them obtain the property they moved into in January 2012. He spoke to him regularly and saw him when he visited London. He agreed EK was the person who MI would go to if she needed any help whilst she was here.

He repeated the purpose of the trip in January 2012 was as a holiday and he expected the children to return to Country A to attend school on 18 or 20 January 2012. He had produced a return ticket with flights booked back on 15 January. A crisis developed in Country A in early 2012 so the children did not return, although CI and MI returned at the end of January to enable MI to make her application for a student visa in Country A. He said IE asked him to keep the children in the UK due to the crisis. After two months when it was safe to return to Country A he said MI refused to return the children to Country A. He said it was then he arranged for letters from the school in Country A to be sent to the UK to assist in getting the children places in the UK. He said the letters were sent by DHL in February or March 2012. Over the next four years he said IE had contact with M and C ‘once or twice’. When asked why, he said IE is someone who ‘doesn’t care about the children’ and as regards MI ‘since she has been in the UK she forced me to do things’ and she did not consider M and C should have contact with IE. He accused MI of putting an order on the school which prevented him from attending them or collecting the children (even though he describes in his statement in November 2014 attending an event at V’s school) and alleged in some detail how MI would physically assault the children by hitting or slapping them with her hand or a wooden spoon. He said he would never behave like that due to his background. When asked why he had not mentioned this before in either his statements or to the children’s guardian he responded ‘I was not asked’ and it ‘escaped his mind’.

He was pressed about the false documents for the children, relied upon to secure their entry to the UK. He accepted in relation to PI, who came with them in 2011 age 7 ½ years, the letter from the hospital he secured in Country A that said he was her father was false and that documentation he had relied upon to secure her visa to come here with him was false. He gave an account of visiting the child’s mother in 2010 who lived in Dagenham, as he knew the step father. She expressed her concern about her daughter who still lived in Country A. On his return to Country A he called for PI, ‘adopted’ her and secured the necessary visa for her to come here by using the false documentation he had obtained which stated she was his child, when she clearly wasn’t. He brought PI over with them in 2011, they all stayed with the mother in East London, CI said he only stayed for a few days. He left MI and the children in London and returned to collect them in October. He said he only saw PI once after that, in early 2012. When asked about the Home Office records of her alleging she was trafficked and then disappearing he said that ‘QI and HI connived to make that statement’ but could give no account of or was concerned about the current whereabouts of PI. In relation to the documents to enable QI and HI to come here, he said they did it all and he had nothing to do with it, despite their applications in August 2011 all being made on the same day. He said he had adopted them as it was ‘his right to adopt’ in accordance with Country A culture. He denied any knowledge of the changes to the birth certificates in July 2012 of E, V and A to show him as the father or to M and C to show MI as their mother. When asked about renewal of the children’s passports in 2014 he accepted he went to the Country A Embassy with MI and the children, but MI went in with them whilst he stayed in the waiting room as the room they went into was too small. When pressed about why he didn’t go in for M and C who were not MI’s children he said ‘anyone can go in with the children I didn’t see it as a crime’.

He confirmed in oral evidence he travelled to Country B in October 2014 with the intention of purchasing a home as MI had said she didn’t want to live in Country A and the plan was for the family to move to Country B in the summer of 2015. He purchased the property there, returned to the UK in November 2014 to attend MI’s graduation and an event at V’s school. He said it was during that trip that he discovered the intimate pictures on MI’s phone which he downloaded to his own phone. It was then he decided the family should return to Country A and his plan was to trick MI in going to Country A to attend her brothers wedding, which he was going to finance. He said the jewellery he purchased in December 2014, which he described in his statement, was because he forgave MI was not correct, as he intended to trick her to return to Country A. Ms Porter pressed him about the substantial payments from him made into MI’s back account at the end of 2014 and early 2015, he said that was for convenience, had nothing to do with any immigration application and was part of his plan to get her back to Country A.

In her written statement dated 31 May 2016 SI confirms she is CI’s daughter from his relationship with BA. She has a sister called C, who lives with her husband in Country B where she went to study in 2006. SI currently lives with her paternal uncle and his wife in City A. She works in her father’s business undertaking sales and marketing and has travelled to Country C as part of that business. She is paid for that and confirms her father has a number of ‘resources and investments’ put aside for all his children. It is clear she is wholly financially dependent on him.

She sets out in her statement that she was very pleased when her father married IE but states that after she gave birth to M in November 2005 ‘her behaviour changed significantly’. She describes her being harsh and rude to her and her sister. She reports IE improved prior to C’s birth. She said she undertook a lot of the care of the children and IE would go out. She said after CI and IE separated her father asked her to remain in the home and help with the children, which she did as, according to her, IE was frequently out socialising.

She describes going with M and C to CI and MI’s wedding in December 2011 and IE knew what the plans were for the children to come to the UK. She said she remained living in her father’s house with IE until 2014, leaving just after IE and her sisters left. She puts herself forward as a future carer for M and C.

In her oral evidence (by video link) she referred to a document being obtained from the children’s schools in Country A as it was decided they would be ‘better off in school in the UK’. She said this document was obtained before they left for the UK. She said IE had contact with M and C ‘right after they travelled in January 2012’, she said it was by telephone and social media and she knew because IE told her ‘we are friends she tells me everything…several times I saw her talking to the children…two or three times’. This was when IE was still living at her father’s house. She said IE was getting picture of the children from MI’s facebook. When asked questions by Ms Fisher for the LA she was clear the plans were for the children to be educated in the UK, she said her father ‘already made all the arrangements including school in the UK’, she was clear the children were not going to return to school in Country A and that QI and HI were going to school in the UK as well.

When questioned by Ms Bhari on behalf of IE about her age when some of the events she described took place she seemed to have difficulty in accepting that she was still at boarding school when CI and IE met, that when M was born she was wanting to go and study in Country B and then attended a computer course for a year, was then working for her father at around the time C was born. She accepts IE told her CI had stopped her contact with the children, but she didn’t know whether to believe it or not. She was asked about whatsapp exchanges with IE where she accepted MI was evil about not allowing IE to have contact with the children.

On any view the background to this case is a complex web of deception and lies. Mr Tughan is right to remind the court that the burden of proof is on the LA, none of the respondents to this application have to prove anything.

I have carefully considered the cultural context of this case. CI repeatedly said in his oral evidence that in Country A family difficulties are usually resolved in the family or the community. I factor in what he said about the culture of taking on children from a previous relationship, he frequently referred to the right to ‘adopt’ such children by either the non-biological mother or father in a new relationship. He said this custom went further in the case of PI. Although CI gave inconsistent accounts of his relationship and knowledge of PI’s mother and step-father, his final position, despite saying in his statement her mother was his partner and they were engaged, was he said he knew the mother and the step father was a friend of the family. Even in those circumstances he said he was entitled to ‘adopt’ PI. Whilst acknowledging the cultural differences I am clear CI used this to mask or deflect attention from his repeated deception of the authorities to secure passports and visas, despite his protestations to the contrary I am entirely satisfied CI knew precisely what was happening.

CI is a successful businessman. He has run his trading businesses for a number of years, he told me in his oral evidence his current annual turnover is between 150 – 400 million Country A currency (on an exchange rate this is between £300 – 800,000) and he has property with a total value of 1 billion Country A currency (about £2m). The property is mostly in Country A, but he has 3 properties in Country B worth about 6 – 700,000 Country B dollars each (approx. £350-400,000 each). He travels regularly and extensively to Country C, Country B, Country A, UK and, on occasion, to the Far East. During the time under scrutiny in this case he travelled in and out of this country over 12 times between January 2012 and July 2015. In addition he has travelled extensively between Countries A, B and C. On any view he is a sophisticated and experienced traveller. Apart from Country A, he will require visas to visit any of these countries.

By contrast, prior to 2011 none of the other adults (IE, MI, QI and HI) had travelled before, save for possibly MI on a holiday to Country B. To suggest that they alone dealt with the visa applications to the British Embassy in City A in August 2011, which were all made on the same day (including CIs) is simply not credible and does not make sense. CI is funding and organising the proposed trips, he is the experienced traveller and I am clear he was intimately involved in organising the visas, was fully aware of the basis the visa applications were being made (that they were all part of the same family with the same surname I, including QI and HI), and the younger five children were presented as his and MI’s children (which was a lie). Any suggestion by CI that he was unaware of this lacks credibility and is a telling example of the way he operates, seeking to distance himself from events which he was obviously intimately involved in.

He admits the information he used to secure a passport and visa for PI in 2011 was false, he said in oral evidence he obtained a letter from a hospital which purported to say he was the biological father, which he knew was not true. In his very persuasive written submissions Mr Tughan has sought to suggest that CI’s actions regarding PI should be seen in a benevolent light as a ‘rescue mission and a reunification of a divided family’. That is not the way it comes across, if that was the position one would expect CI to show some concern regarding the information the court has that this young person (now age 13 years) presented herself as being a trafficked child on 24 April 2015 and has since disappeared. His immediate reaction was that PI had been put up to this by QI and HI.

This distancing of himself from events and a refusal to take any responsibility for steps that have been taken by him was a thread that ran through CI’s evidence. Another example was the renewal of M and C’s passports here in 2014. He accepted he attended the embassy, paid for the applications but says he chose to stay in the waiting room as the room they were invited into was too small. I reject that explanation. He was involved in the application, he knew they were being made on false information, namely the July 2012 birth certificates that showed MI as their mother. I am entirely satisfied that he knew all about the false birth certificates for all the children.

In my judgment MI also has a role to play in the deception involving the visa and passport applications. Whilst I consider, for the reasons set out above, CI would have taken the lead in arranging the passports and visas I am equally satisfied she knew the basis upon which the applications were being made. Whilst I accept in 2011 she lacked the expertise regarding immigration procedures that CI had, she was fully aware that the documentation she was required to sign in support of the applications contained false information, in particular relating to hers and CI’s relationship with the children. MI is an intelligent woman, she had been educated in Country A up to University level and was seeking to secure a place on a further education course in the UK. She knew in 2011 the five children were being presented to the British Embassy as hers and CI’s children, which was clearly untrue. The same applies to the position regarding the surnames of QI and HI, she knew they were being presented to the British Embassy with the surname I to give the immigration authorities the impression they were all members of the I family in order to secure the visas, which again was untrue. I am satisfied she knowingly repeated that deception regarding hers and CI’s relationship with the children when she renewed M and C’s passports in this country in 2014. She admits in her statements filed in these proceedings she wrongly represented to the headmistress of the school here in September 2013 that the children were full siblings and she also admits she forged the Pastor’s signature on an indemnity document to enable her to access money from CI’s bank account. The ease with which both CI and MI felt able to change and distort the children’s identity is deeply concerning and raises real concerns about their ability to safeguard the children’s long term welfare.

Turning to the events in late 2011/early 2012 and the basis upon which all nine people (adults and children) arrived here in early January 2012. What is clear is apart from CI they all came on six month visas. According to CI they came for a holiday to enable MI to view the college she was booked to attend and with tickets to return back on 15 January in order for the five children to return to school in Country A. Mr Tughan, on behalf of CI, recognises the force of the point that they would be unlikely to gain entry on a six month visa without a return ticket. In support of his position CI relies on the inadequate accommodation in London as being too small to accommodate the family. MI and SI state the trip was for a much longer term, there were no plans for the children to return to Country A to school and the plan was for them to be educated here, certainly during the currency of MI’s two year course. The position is complicated by the fact that MI did not have a student visa, although CI had paid around £8,000 for her course at the end of 2011, and secured the accommodation for a period of time with sums of about £5,000 being paid for rent and deposit. It is further complicated by difficulties in Country A in early 2012, which CI said made it unsafe for the children to return, although he and MI returned to enable her to make a student visa application.

I do not accept CI’s account that they only came here for a two week holiday in January 2012. Apart from the return tickets (which were probably needed in any event to gain entry) there is no evidence to support that. The evidence points to the plans being for a longer stay, for example by bringing QI and HI who would be able to care for the children. MI’s position is she would not have agreed to be separated from her children for such a long time if she studied here for 2 years without the children. There is no evidence of any settled arrangements, other than schooling, that were in place for the children to be cared for in Country A without MI being there. This position is further supported by the failure of CI to take steps to take the children back to Country A from 1 March 2012. His only justification from doing so is his assertion that he felt unable to because of MI. I reject that suggestion as another example of him distancing himself from actions he could easily have taken. Whilst it is clear MI is able to hold her position, as was demonstrated in the way she gave her oral evidence in court, I have no doubt CI remained the dominant partner in this relationship. He was the head of the family, was older, had more experience and controlled the finances and all other aspects of the family life. He missed no opportunity in his oral evidence to set out the status he had, which was not limited to Country A. There is no real suggestion the children’s passports were not available to him, MI was at college during the day when he was there, he could easily have taken the children back to Country A after their visas ran out and they would not have been able to return. He simply chose not to do that and, on the contrary, in fact supported the family remaining here.

According to IE she knew nothing about M and C coming to the UK in January 2012, although accepts she recalls meeting CI in City A to get passports and possibly visas. She said CI was in charge of the arrangements for this. According to her the first she was aware of them being in the UK was when she rang CI in early January and got the international ring tone. I accept IE’s account that she did not consent to M and C coming here, either long or short term.

I am satisfied that both CI and MI prevented IE from having contact with the children. MI was, at the very least, reckless about whether IE consented or even knew about M and C coming or remaining in the UK. The length of time in her not having contact with the children is supported by a number of sources of corroborative evidence. For example, the observations of SB during the telephone contact she observed in November 2015. That had all the hallmarks of a contact between M and C and their mother following a significant gap in time. M had some memory of her mother (she had last seen her when she was 6 years) and C had no memory (he had last seen her when he was 4 years). This is supported by the social work file notes in April 2015 when M and C report they had limited memory of their mother and had not had recent contact with her. This is further supported by the whatsapp exchanges between E and SI that MI had stopped contact. I reject SI’s account of her witnessing phone calls between IE and the children from about 2013 and her own regular contact with the children. She is financially reliant on CI and it was apparent from the way she gave her evidence she was clearly willing to say things that put him in a good light. CI relies on his communications with IE by text and the payments he made to her to show they remained in contact, she knew the position about the children and she was not interested in them. I accept IE’s account that she remained in contact with CI in the hope that she may be able through him to secure her children’s return to Country A. That is why she went to CI’s father’s funeral in July 2015, she hoped her children would be returned that summer.

CI’s evidence in relation to IE is wholly inconsistent, supporting the proposition that he will say whatever suits his purposes and is in my judgment another example of how he is a stranger to the truth. For example, in his first statement he fully and without reservation supports M and C being placed with IE, yet in his subsequent statements that changes and in his oral evidence he says she is someone who doesn’t care about the children. This view about his unreliability is supported by the detailed allegations he made in his oral evidence regarding MI assaulting the children. He had never mentioned this before, despite filing 5 statements, at least 2 of which are very detailed. When asked why he had not mentioned this before his only response was ‘no one had asked me’. There is no evidence to support any difficulties with the children’s relationship with MI. In my judgment not only did he lie about this, it illustrates how manipulative he is about how he lies as he couched his evidence about MI assaulting the children with saying he would never behave in such a way due to his background and upbringing.

CI has a distorted relationship with the truth, and what was so chilling about his oral evidence was the complete ease with which he can tell such obvious untruths.

Turning now to the allegations made by VL. I remind myself that the burden for establishing that these events took place is on the LA. They rely on V’s account at the school, in the ABE interview and her oral evidence both in the criminal proceedings and this court.

CI denies the allegations and asserts a positive case that V’s allegations of sexual assault on her by CI are part of the plan by MI to secure her immigration position here. Mr Tughan rightly submits the allegations themselves are inherently unlikely. He submits particularly in this case bearing in mind CI’s position regarding his faith and his position of responsibility in his community. He was anxious in his oral evidence to remind the court of his position of responsibility in his community, he is the breadwinner and supports many people other than his immediate family. Whilst that may all be so he is also someone who, despite his assertions to the contrary, in my judgment has shown himself capable of repeatedly deceiving or assisting to deceive the authorities regarding immigration matters. Whilst I accept that maybe done to secure the movement of his family in and out of the country it demonstrates that when it suits him he does not tell the truth.

The following is relied upon to challenge the reliability of V’s account:

First, there is no evidence of concerning behaviour at school, on the contrary she is described as a model pupil. There is some evidence to support difficulties at school on 19 and 20 January which, Mr Tughan submits, supports CI’s his perception that she had been in trouble, CI confronting her about this and confiscating her phone.

Second, by 20 January V knows CI and MI were not getting on, CI did not visit them over Christmas and things were far less strict in the UK as compared to Country A.

Third, V’s presentation during the ABE interview, she smiles at some of the questions and answers and was considered by those who were present at the interview not to be that of a child who had been sexually abused.

Fourth, the failure to follow the ABE Guidelines which require a truth and lies section at the start of these interviews.

Fifth, her account had inherent improbabilities such as the small size of the flats where the alleged abuse took place, the thin walls in the first flat, the number of people who were present in the flat at the time, the visibility through the glass door into the corridor where the alleged abuse took place in the London flat, the discrepancies in her account as to the frequency when the abuse took place, CI’s frequent absence from the jurisdiction and why V did not disclose the abuse earlier to MI who she was very close to.

Sixth, she confirmed she was aware of the allegations made by QI and HI and took part in prayers with the family to resolve them, she agreed at one of the prayer sessions she said ‘Daddy cannot hurt anyone’, she had had conversations with QI about CI last summer.

Finally, in support of CI’s positive case that MI had scripted V to make these allegations is MI’s general lack of credibility, an awareness of what QI and HI did in 2014 in making similar allegations to assist their immigration application; MI and CI’s deteriorating relationship and her fear that he was still insist they return to Country A; the promptness of her immigration application through her solicitors letter dated 30 January and her application dated 11 February, which included details of V’s allegations; the inherent unreliability of each of the complainants which was driven by their wish to remain here and not return to Country A; the different presentations by MI of being angry when told of the allegations then speaking to V (when told not to do so) is calm and says ‘good’.

In support of the matters alleged by V being more likely than not to have taken place, the following matters are relied on:

First, the nature, detail and relative consistency of the allegations made by her in the initial discussions at school, her ABE interview, her oral evidence in the Crown Court and in these proceedings. She gives congruent detail of some of the sexual assaults. The evidence demonstrates that apart from a brief discussion with her on 20 January she did not see her mother after that, until she returned to her mother’s care following the ABE interview on 30 January.

Second, the inherent improbability of being able to script V with an account of this nature to the extent that she would be able to give a relatively consistent account when spoken to on 20 January, 30 January and oral evidence in two courts on two separate occasions over a year after her ABE interview.

Third, according to CI there was no overt pressure by him at the end of 2014 early 2015 for the family to return to Country A. The family plan was to go to Country B, although he secretly hoped to trick MI to return to Country A. He was aware of MI’s instruction of immigration lawyers, he paid for the advice from at least early 2014 and attended the solicitors’ offices although said he did not go in. The application made on 11 February 2015, supported by the letter dated 30 January 2015 was part of ongoing advice about regularising MI and the children’s immigration status here. This is supported by the regular payments made into MI’s bank account here, to ensure she could demonstrate financial independence in her immigration application. The allegations made by V did not prompt that application, but were included as part of it.

Fourth, the suggestion that the relatively minor changes in behaviour noted at school on 19/20 January supported CI’s claim that she had been in trouble at school prompting the phone being taken, does not tie in with V informing her friends about two weeks previously which would have meant she would have to have been scripted by MI at the end of 2014 when there was no sign of any difficulties at school.

Having considered the matter I have reached the conclusion that it is more likely than not that what V alleges regarding sexual assaults on her by CI did take place. I have reached that conclusion for the following reasons:

First, I have carefully weighed in the balance the inherent improbability of CI abusing his step daughter and that she has shown some inconsistency in relation to the frequency of when she alleges these events took place, but equally V has remained largely consistent in her account of what actually took place. She has been able to describe different assaults, in different circumstances with some congruent detail. This supports what V said in oral evidence, that she did not have a clear recollection of when the incidents happened, she was uncertain on dates and also as to the amount of times that things happened. She remained clear in her evidence that the events described did take place.

Second, I have factored into my conclusion the points about the inherent improbability of these events taking place in small busy flats with thin walls. The evidence in this court (as compared to that in the Crown Court) demonstrates that the visibility through the glass door in the London property from the sitting room is limited by the layout of the flat and the nature of the glass in the door. It was not possible to see the corridor by the bathroom and toilet from within the living room, and I reject CI’s account that the glass was clear. I have carefully considered the evidence given by V in the Crown Court (in particular at CP 45 between E and H), what she describes there is not the layout of the rooms in the corridor described by all parties, including CI, in this hearing. The evidence is the living room door and the bathroom door are along the same wall, with the toilet door opposite. It was therefore possible for the assaults to take place as described without being seen by others in the living room.

Third, I have anxiously considered the immigration context of these allegations. With the background of this case and the concerns regarding MI’s credibility it is not without foundation to suggest they were prompted by MI and V’s wish to remain here, however I reject that. Whilst I have no doubt MI was aware of the impact of such allegations on her immigration application, there is no evidence to support the allegations being driven by that. MI had been consulting her solicitors since March 2014 in relation to immigration matters and whilst the allegations are referred to in the January letter, they are not the sole basis of the application. I have to consider the inherent improbability of MI being able to ‘script’ her 12 year old daughter to make these allegations, for V to maintain them over an extended period of time (including 10 days in January when there was no or very limited contact between V and her mother and on two occasions V giving oral evidence by video link). This is particularly so when on CI’s case he had forgiven MI on 30 December, purchased her jewellery, was continuing with the planned move to Country B (as confirmed by MI in her discussions with social workers) and providing funds in her bank account which she considered would demonstrate her financial independence for her immigration application. He harboured a secret plan to trick MI to Country A by funding a lavish wedding for her brother, but there is no suggestion MI was aware of his plans to trick her in returning to Country A. I reject CI’s evidence that the large sums were paid in to MI’s bank account as a matter of convenience for him, he had his own bank accounts and the suggestion that only she had internet banking was not suggested to her. It is another example of him lying to distance himself from what is going on. From MI’s perspective there was arguably no need to orchestrate these allegations, as she was making an in time immigration application with financial support and the benefit of legal advice funded by CI.

Fourth, I do not consider the references in V’s school record in relation to relatively minor changes in her behaviour at school around 19/20 January to be of significance. I accept V’s explanations about them in oral evidence as relating to particular circumstances she described; a whole class disruption and forgetting to attend to see a teacher to discuss late homework. She recalled her father confiscating her phone for a period of time, but that would have been after 30 December and if that event did prompt the allegations there was very limited time for V to either make up the allegations and/or be scripted by her mother, bearing in mind she initially disclosed them to her friends two weeks prior to 20 January.

Fifth, the way the allegations were made tended to support them not being scripted. Informing her friends may not have resulted in the authorities being notified at all, it took away control as to when they would be notified and in what circumstances. If scripted and planned notification direct to the staff in the school would have been more consistent with such a plan.

Sixth, the evidence about MI’s reaction tends to support the allegations being credible. MI was reported as being very angry and denying the allegations were true. She said that was due to the shock of the allegations rather than her not believing what V said. It is more likely, as MI says, she was not initially informed who the allegations were made against as the police were on their way to arrest CI who was at home. When she was informed she said she believed V. If she had orchestrated the allegations it is more likely she would have wanted more contact with V to ensure she was sticking to any script. The reference to her saying ‘that’s good’ when she briefly spoke to V is no more than as MI suggests that she was saying it was good V had spoken out. The fact that MI is reported on 20 January as not agreeing to section 20, felt her daughter was lying and that she may have been at physical risk if she returned home are more consistent with the allegations being credible, rather than planned through a false script by MI. V’s evidence of why she had not told anyone about the allegations before due to being scared that she would be ‘flogged or caned or something’ was credible in the circumstances of this case.

Seventh, I have considered the breach of the ABE guidelines in not dealing with truth and lies at the start of the ABE interview but do not consider, bearing in mind V’s age and understanding, and that she has given oral evidence twice since where that issue has been addressed, that it fatally undermines the account in her ABE interview. I have also considered her demeanour during the ABE interview, whilst it may not be typical again when considered with the other matters outlined above I do not consider it undermines the credibility of the account.

There is no dispute they remained in some contact following V’s allegations, CI alleges regular contact with MI visiting his hotel, whereas MI accepts some contact but limited to delivering documents to him in July 2015 just prior to him being charged in relation to V’s allegations. The LA were concerned about discussions with MI following V’s allegations which seem to suggest that MI’s plans were still for her and the children to go to Country B and live in a property owned by CI. In her oral evidence that still seemed to be MI’s plans, she rejected any suggestion that would put her or the children at risk from CI as she considered they would be protected by the government, but provided no further detail. MI’s attitude displayed a lack of understanding about the risks she could expose the children to in such a situation.

I shall now turn to the allegations made by QI. Her allegations of rape were first made in January 2014 in the circumstances outlined above. She made no reference in her ABE interview to any sexual assaults in Country A. In her recent statement, filed just before these proceedings, she alleges CI raped her in Country A in 2004 when she was about 15 years old. It is submitted by Mr Tughan that her accounts of rape can’t be relied upon due to her inherent unreliability for the following reasons:

First, the failure to mention any sexual assaults in Country A in her 2014 ABE interview seriously calls into question her reliability. Her explanation that they took place in Country A doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. There are repeated references in her 2014 interview, her immigration statement and interview and her discussions with Dr Ewruje as to when the alleged abuse started, and each time she refers to 2012.

Second, the dates for two of the alleged rapes in May 2012 and May 2013 are at times when CI was not in the country, according to the information in the police investigation. These were dates volunteered by QI in her ABE interview and subsequently. It is recognised that in his oral evidence CI said that he visited the second London property for 3 – 4 days about a month or a month and a half after the family moved in March 2013. Mr Tughan submits the court should prefer the dates listed from the border agency records.

Third, the evidence from the police investigation that QI lied on two occasions about not being in touch with HI prior to her police interview, seriously undermines her credibility, particularly as she said she lied through fear in circumstances where there is no evidence CI knew of her whereabouts.

Finally, it is not without coincidence that both QI and HI make allegations of sexual assault in connection with their immigration applications when there is an advantage to them of making such allegations and supports CI’s case that QI and HI are working together regarding these allegations.

In support of the allegations being credible it is recognised there are inconsistencies in her account, but it is submitted the court can rely on QI’s account for the following reasons:

First, she has remained relatively consistent in what she has said about the alleged assaults in the UK. This is demonstrated in her most recent statement, which was filed without sight of the ABE interview made over 2 years previously.

Second, it is recognised that the timings of alleged assaults do not tie in with dates when CI was in the country. MI suspected he had more than one passport, which CI denied. There is some evidence from CI’s oral evidence that he visited the second London flat at a time not listed from the border agency records.

Third, after the third occasion QI said she informed MI of what had taken place which resulted in an argument and MI insisting QI left. This is denied by MI as being the reason for the argument until recently, more recently MI has said CI admitted to her he had had a consensual sexual relationship with QI and sought her forgiveness (although it is said this is prompted by more recent contact between QI and MI).

I have reached the conclusion that whilst I am strongly suspicious that the assaults alleged by QI did take place I am not satisfied to the required standard that it is more likely than not that they did. This is for the following reasons:

First, whilst recognising the very difficult position QI was in in January 2014 I have very real reservations about QI’s credibility. Her untruthfulness about her contact with HI at the time she first made her allegations seriously undermines her reliability. She only accepted she had had contact with HI when confronted with credible evidence of it and then gave an explanation for that untruthfulness than did not stand up to close scrutiny. The helpful schedule prepared by Ms Miller, on behalf of CI, sets out the many other inconsistencies in the accounts given by QI which further undermine her credibility.

Second, whilst I recognise her co-operation with these proceedings, her consistency about her accounts of alleged assaults in this country the failure to mention the earlier alleged rape in 2004 further undermines her reliability.

Third, the lack of reliable evidence that CI was in the country when two of the alleged rapes were said by her to have taken place. Whilst there is a suspicion that CI may have other passports available to him there is no evidence to the required standard to support such a finding. The dates were volunteered and repeated by QI as being when these alleged rapes took place.

Turning finally to the findings sought by IE, I can deal with these matters relatively shortly. Apart from the findings regarding abduction of M and C in 2012, their lack of contact with IE since then and the financial and emotional abuse allegation outlined below I am not able to make the other findings to the required standard.

IE’s allegation of physical assault of her by CI in 2008 when they separated is a somewhat generalised account that she was beaten black and blue. There is no record of the allegation having been made at the time to anyone else and despite this alleged serious assault they remained in contact over matters concerning the children.

As regards the threats alleged to have been made by MI and CI again little detail has been given about these, including the circumstances in which they were made. It is clear in relation to CI IE has felt able to remain in some communication with him, albeit she says to ensure her children are returned to Country A. If the threats had been made as she suggests, she may not have felt able to maintain that level of communication.

As regards the suggestion that CI was financially and emotionally abusive towards IE. Having had the opportunity to observe both IE and CI give oral evidence I consider it more likely than not CI was controlling of IE about money. He is undoubtedly in the stronger financial positon and provided financial support to IE when it suited him. It is more likely than not he wanted IE to be removed from his home and as a result took steps to have the electricity and water supplies disconnected. The evidence from SI does not assist me as I consider her evidence to be unreliable due to her dependence on CI.

I have not been asked to make any findings about this. All I can say is that when considering the evidence as a whole it lacks credibility that CI knew nothing about this until he received the phone call. There is nothing to corroborate the police being there at the time. It is unlikely MI would have done this on her own, she is likely to have had the assistance of EK and I consider it very unlikely EK would have done any step like this without the knowledge of CI. The fact that CI comes in on the day of the ceremony is more than a co-incidence and it is more likely than not that both MI and CI were involved in this arrangement and only in the context of these proceedings have they both sought to distance themselves from it.

The findings made by this court pursuant to this judgment are as follows:

M and C were abducted from Country A by their Father CI on 6 January 2012 and retained in the UK

MI was, at the very least reckless about whether IE consented or even knew about M and C coming or remaining in the UK. MI was complicit in the continuing retention of M and C

CI provided false Birth Certificates for of E, V and A reflecting that he is their Father

MI falsely represented and/or provided false Birth Certificates reflecting that she is the Mother of M and C

MI admitted that she falsely represented to the Headteacher, that M and C were her biological children

MI admitted that she informed the school that A, M and C were full siblings

MI knew that the information on the children’s Birth Certificates and Passports were false

CI and MI used false Birth Certificates and false Passports to obtain Visas for the children to enter the UK.

MI used the aforementioned false documents to apply for herself and the children to have leave to remain in the UK

MI planned to relocate to Country B with the children once her Student Visa expired in November 2015. The false Birth Certificates and passports would be used for the move to Country B.

MI admitted that she claimed Asylum for herself and the children utilising the aforementioned false documents.

CI and MI refused to allow M and C to have direct or indirect contact with their Mother IE

V was sexually assaulted by CI from 2011 - 2014 by :-

CI was financially and emotionally abusive towards IE, when he arranged for disconnection of the electricity and water supply at the former matrimonial home, and he was controlling of IE about money.

MI intended to move with the children to Country B to live in CI's home and work in his business ventures

MI continued to have direct contact with CI, by visiting him in the hotels he stayed in, until he was remanded in custody in July 2015 notwithstanding V's allegations

CI and MI neglected the Children's education, in that they were not enrolled in schools from January 2012 until September 2012.

MI entered into a “sham marriage” on the 31^st October 2012 with a German national. Both MI and CI were involved in arranging this.