The District Court admitted statements made by Child 1 into evidence after finding, “just satisfied”, that giving oral evidence would not be in the young person’s welfare. The court reserved the question of what weight, if any, the statements should receive for the later hearing of the care-order application.
The ruling followed a preliminary application by the Health Service Executive (HSE) under section 23 of the Children Act 1997. The HSE sought admission of statements specified in a notice it had served. The respondents, identified in the judgment only as T and C, opposed the application. The Guardian ad Litem (GAL) supported it.
The court heard evidence from a social worker, CF, and the GAL. The respondents did not give evidence, although they had been offered the opportunity to do so or to call evidence. All parties and the GAL attended and were legally represented; the respondents also had an interpreter.
The judge considered whether Child 1 was unable to give evidence because of age and whether giving oral evidence, in person or remotely, would be contrary to the young person’s welfare. No one argued that Child 1 was unable to testify because of age. The judge was satisfied the young person was approaching 18 and did not meet that test.
The social worker and GAL gave evidence that testifying in person would be traumatic. The social worker also said that giving evidence using technology would be traumatic. The judge treated that evidence as prima facie evidence that had not been contradicted, and found the HSE had met the welfare test. The judge said remote evidence with appropriate technology and safeguards could fall within the statutory consideration of evidence by live television link.
The judge said cultural or ethnic considerations mentioned in the social-work evidence had not been substantiated and were not relied on. The judge also rejected the suggestion that appointing a GAL itself meant the young person should not be a party to proceedings or give evidence.
The ruling concerns only whether the statements listed in the notice could be admitted. It does not decide the HSE’s application for a care order, which had been commenced under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991. The judgment records that hearing as having commenced on 21 November 2012, and says the weight of the admitted evidence remains for that hearing.