S (Child) v London Borough Of Hammersmith & Fulham

On a second appeal in family proceedings, the Court of Appeal should entertain the matter only where it raises an important point of principle or practice, or there is another compelling reason. The court also exercises strong restraint when reviewing findings of fact made by a judge or magistrate who heard the evidence. A high burden must be overcome before those findings are displaced. The personal importance of the proceedings, however grave, does not itself satisfy the permission threshold. Where the lower decisions are carefully reasoned and no sufficient evidential or legal basis for interference is shown, permission should be refused.

The applicant mother sought permission to appeal against Hughes J’s dismissal of her appeal from orders made by a Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate in family proceedings. The magistrate had placed the child in care and made contact determinative. The magistrate found that the child had suffered significant harm at the hands of his parents, including cruelty, and that the mother’s overprotectiveness was harmful. The mother challenged those factual findings and raised concerns about the child’s welfare in care. The central issues were whether the second-appeal threshold was satisfied and whether there was any proper basis for appellate interference with the lower courts’ findings.

Lord Justice Ward refused permission to appeal.

1. Because the application followed the dismissal of an appeal by the High Court, the Court of Appeal would entertain the matter only if it raised an important point of principle or practice, or if there were some other compelling reason. The application raised no such point and disclosed no compelling reason.
2. The application also failed on its merits. The magistrate had heard the case over several days and had given a carefully reasoned judgment. Hughes J had also considered the matter carefully. The Court of Appeal does not readily interfere with findings of fact made by a judge or magistrate who heard the witnesses. A very high burden must be overcome before the appellate court substitutes its own assessment.
3. The matters relied upon did not undermine the findings. The social worker’s evidence that taking the child into care was not unfortunate was not inconsistent with evidence that the events were upsetting. The evidence concerning the child’s schooling and the mother’s suffocating overprotectiveness supported the lower court’s conclusions. The mother’s disagreement with those conclusions did not establish an adequate basis for intervention.
4. The court recognised the devastating effect of losing a child, but sympathy could not justify granting permission. The application was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused the mother’s application for permission to appeal.
• High Court of Justice: Hughes J dismissed the mother’s appeal against the magistrate’s orders.
• Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate: placed the child in care and gave leave for contact to be determinative.