In a child protection trial, the father served a summons to compel the 12-year-old child to testify.
The Office of the Children's Lawyer brought a motion to quash the summons, supported by the applicant society and the mother.
The court granted the motion to quash, finding that compelling the child to testify posed a significant risk of emotional harm and that the father's primary purpose was to impeach her credibility rather than prove material facts.
The court also ruled on the father's request to introduce the entirety of the child's police interview video, holding that only specific prior inconsistent statements relating to substantive issues, and not collateral facts, could be admitted.
