[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> W & G (Children), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 2038 (17 December 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/2038.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 2038

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM WATFORD COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Connor)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Monday, 17th December 2001

Monday, 17th December 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE THORPE: This is a renewed application for permission to appeal an order made by His Honour Judge Connor on 27th September. He was sitting in the Watford County Court where he is the designated judge. He had public law proceedings in front of him, and a day had been set aside to investigate whether interim care orders should be made in respect of two children, G, who is three years of age, and J, who is nearly one. The mother was represented by Mr Apthorp; and it is clearly not an easy responsibility because the mother is profoundly deaf, as indeed is G. I do not suppose it is an easy case for the social workers either. Unfortunately these difficulties contributed to a breakdown in the collaboration between the local authority and the mother.
2. The proceedings on 27th September were far from perfect. The local authority wanted an interim care order to separate G and J from their mother on the basis that she had exposed those very young children to risk by either allowing them to play in the street unsupervised or by leaving them at home unattended. The local authority had not prepared a care plan in advance, and there may have been some element of surprise as far as the mother and her team were concerned. But against that, it was perfectly obvious that there was a risk of the children being removed in view of the assertions raised by the local authority and in view of the fact that a day had been set aside for the case.
3. Mr Apthorp has criticised the fairness of the proceedings, but I do not think those criticisms survive full investigation. This is an instance of a judge, who knows the pressure under which his court is operating, extending the sitting until nearly 7.30 in the evening in order to give judgment on the essential issue, namely whether to take the children away or not, and to ensure that as far as possible the investigation would be profound and the conclusion well-founded. Mr Apthorp has suggested that the judge put pressure on him towards end of the day. I do not see the least substantiation for that in the transcript. He then said that the judge was not prepared to reinvestigate at the conclusion of the interim order. But again the transcript shows that the judge expressed himself as perfectly prepared to look at the issue again not on a simple relitigation, but providing that there was some change of circumstance or some fresh evidence that merited retrial. Mr Apthorp has said that it really was not open to the judge to reach the conclusions which he did on the evidence, which was either hearsay or of poor quality. Judge Connor in his short judgment makes it absolutely plain that he was on his guard in placing reliance on any one of the imperfect strands, but he did have four strands that were suggestive of neglect or irresponsibility on the part of the mother. He looked at them cumulatively and with proper caution. So I am in no doubt at all that the reasonably detailed reasons given for provisional refusal on 20th November were sound.
4. Nothing that Mr Apthorp has said today leads me to any misgiving. Mr Apthorp has conscientiously pursued his right to an oral hearing and he has said everything he could for the mother but, in the end, all this was a matter of judicial discretion, and there is no judge better placed to exercise that discretion than the designated judge, who is best able to appreciate whether the circumstances demand late sitting, with all the risks that that entails, or whether he can safely put the case over for another day. Mr Apthorp has suggested it could have gone over to mid- October, but the transcript shows that there were very good factual reasons why that could not be. Above all, it is highly unusual for this court to give permission to appeal where the only order in the court of trial is an interim order. There have been two renewals since, and the parties are working towards a full hearing some time next spring.
5. In my view this is simply not a case for this court and I would dismiss the application.
6. MR JUSTICE MORLAND: I agree.
Order: Application dismissed. Public funding assessment of Applicant's costs.