H (Children), Re

Permission to appeal against orders managing future family relationships should ordinarily be refused where the judge has exercised a broad discretion and the proposed appeal cannot realistically show that the decision fell outside the generous ambit of that discretion. The judge’s reasons should demonstrate that the orders were carefully considered and explained. A decision to sit in open court and publish an edited judgment may also fall within that discretion where exceptional circumstances make it appropriate. An appeal concerning continued restraint on liberty requires full consideration and adequate argument, and may be adjourned for a full court hearing.

The applicant, Mr H, brought several applications arising from lengthy contact proceedings concerning his children. The proceedings were before Munby J in the Family Division. Orders made in March 2001 terminated direct contact, made specific-issue and other injunction orders, and committed Mr H to prison.

Further applications concerned the judge’s decision to give part of his judgment in open court, and the terms on which Mr H was released from prison, including a suspended sentence extending beyond the date on which his custodial sentence would otherwise have expired. The Court of Appeal considered whether permission was required, whether the lower court had exceeded its discretion, and how the liberty-related issue should proceed.

1. Contact and case-management orders. The application for permission to appeal the orders terminating direct contact and making related orders was refused. The judge had exercised a broad discretion in managing future relationships within a complex and troubled family. His reasons, particularly those addressing direct contact, specific-issue orders and the need for an order beyond section 91(14), showed that the orders were carefully considered and explained. There was no realistic basis for contending that the judge had exceeded the generous ambit of his discretion.
2. Open-court judgment. The application for permission to appeal the decision to give judgment in open court was also refused. Although the situation was unusual and the complaint initially appeared to have substance, the decision fell within the judge’s broad case-management discretion in light of the exceptional relationship between the applicant, the family justice system and the media.
3. Suspended committal order. The application concerning the lawfulness of imposing a suspended sentence beyond the date when the applicant would otherwise have been released raised a point of law requiring a full court and fuller argument. If permission was required, it was granted. The appeal was adjourned for hearing before a full court, with the Attorney General invited to provide an amicus curiae.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused permission to appeal the March 2001 contact orders and the April 2001 open-court judgment; adjourned the appeal concerning the June 2001 suspended committal order and granted permission if required.
• Family Division: Munby J made the relevant orders in judgments dated 22–23 March, 27 April, and 21 June 2001, including orders concerning contact, committal, open-court publication and release from prison.