W & G (Children), Re

Permission to appeal is highly unusual where the only order below is an interim care order, particularly when the parties are progressing towards a final hearing. The designated trial judge is ordinarily best placed to decide whether the case should continue late to resolve the immediate child-protection issue or be adjourned. Imperfect evidence, including hearsay, may properly support an interim decision when the judge avoids reliance on any single strand and assesses the evidence cumulatively and cautiously. A judge may revisit an interim order where circumstances change or fresh evidence emerges, without reopening the matter merely for relitigation.

The mother sought permission to appeal an order made by His Honour Judge Connor in the Watford County Court concerning interim care proceedings for her two very young children. The local authority alleged that the children had been exposed to risk by being left unattended or allowed to play in the street without supervision. The mother challenged the fairness of the hearing, the judge’s decision to sit until the evening, the refusal to reinvestigate without changed circumstances or fresh evidence, and the evidential basis for the provisional decision.

The application for permission had previously been provisionally refused. The renewed application before the Court of Appeal concerned whether the interim order and the conduct of the hearing disclosed an arguable basis for appellate intervention.

Lord Justice Thorpe delivered the leading judgment, with Mr Justice Morland agreeing. The renewed application for permission to appeal was dismissed.

1. Interim order and appellate restraint. It is highly unusual for the Court of Appeal to grant permission where the only order made at trial is an interim order. That consideration was particularly important because two renewals had occurred and the parties were working towards a full hearing. The application therefore did not justify intervention by the appellate court.
2. Case-management discretion. The designated judge was best placed to decide whether the circumstances required the court to sit late in order to determine the essential question of whether the children should be removed, or whether the case could safely be adjourned. The transcript did not substantiate the allegation that improper pressure had been placed on the mother’s representative.
3. Fairness and reconsideration. The proceedings were not rendered unfair merely because the judge extended the sitting until nearly 7.30 pm to give judgment on the immediate issue. The judge had indicated that the matter could be reconsidered if there were a change of circumstances or fresh evidence meriting a further hearing. That did not require a simple relitigation of the interim decision.
4. Evidence. Although the evidence was imperfect and included hearsay, Judge Connor had expressly guarded against relying on any single strand. He assessed four strands cumulatively and with proper caution, and the Court of Appeal found no sufficient basis for questioning that assessment.

Application dismissed. Public funding assessment of the applicant’s costs.

1. Watford County Court: His Honour Judge Connor made an order on 27 September 2001 in interim care proceedings concerning the two children. Permission to appeal was provisionally refused on 20 November 2001.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The renewed application for permission to appeal was dismissed on 17 December 2001.