J (A Child), Re

A renewed oral application for permission to appeal is an important safeguard, but it must serve a genuine purpose. It is appropriate where the provisional refusal overlooked a relevant consideration, relied on an irrelevant consideration, or otherwise involved error. Where the advocate advances no point beyond the written argument already considered, the renewed hearing has no discernible purpose. A renewed permission application should not operate as a stay of proceedings where a stay has been refused. In child contact proceedings, prompt determination and, where necessary, acceleration are important because delay may disrupt the trial programme and diminish the prospects of restoring the child’s relationship with a parent.

The case concerned an application for contact between a father and his child following a history of violence in the home. The Swansea County Court directed further supervised contact and a subsequent welfare report before a further hearing. The father’s application for permission to appeal, extension of time and a stay was refused on paper by the Court of Appeal. The permission application was renewed orally. By the time of the hearing, the renewed application had delayed the contact programme and jeopardised the county court hearing. The central issue was whether the renewed application served any proper purpose and whether the county court proceedings should have been treated as stayed.

1. Renewed permission application. The renewed application was refused. The right to renew an application for permission to appeal is important, but must not be abused. A renewed hearing has a proper function where counsel can show that the judge’s provisional refusal overlooked a relevant consideration, took account of an irrelevant consideration, or otherwise involved error. If the advocate has no new point beyond the first skeleton argument and the matters considered in the reasoned refusal, there is no discernible purpose in the renewed hearing.
2. No automatic stay. A renewed hearing should not be treated as operating as a stay of the county court proceedings where an application for a stay has already been refused. The appellate process must be managed promptly so that the programme fixed by the trial judge is not derailed. The paper applications had been determined within 14 days, and that promptitude was necessary in the circumstances.
3. Effect of delay. The case illustrated the particular consequences of delay in contact proceedings involving a child. Three months had been lost, the planned welfare observations and report had not been completed, and the county court hearing had become impracticable. The court welfare officer’s earlier observations had been broadly favourable, but the delay inevitably diminished the prospects of restoring the relationship contemplated by the county court order.
4. Practical directions. The court encouraged counsel to agree an immediate revision of the contact arrangements, or promptly seek the county court’s ruling if agreement proved impossible. The Court of Appeal would notify the Swansea County Court so that the disrupted programme could be addressed. The renewed application for permission was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Renewed application for permission to appeal refused on 20 November 2001. Earlier applications for permission, an extension of time and a stay had been refused on paper.
• Swansea County Court: His Honour Judge W Richards made an order on 10 August 2001 directing further supervised contact and a later hearing.