E (a child), Re

On an application for permission to appeal a discretionary child-contact order, the Court of Appeal must respect the trial judge’s evaluative function. A different outcome might have been preferred, but that alone is insufficient. Intervention requires a demonstrated error or misdirection, and permission should not be granted without a manifest error. Differences between professional assessments justify intervention only where they show that the trial judge was misled or led into error. If no such error is established, the discretionary order stands.

Mr E sought permission to appeal an order made by His Honour Judge Hargrove in the Tunbridge Wells County Court on 30 November 2000. The order provided for no more than indirect contact between Mr E and his daughter. The proceedings followed the breakdown of Mr E’s relationship with the child’s mother and an incident after which direct contact stopped.

Mr E argued that the judge had been misled by a psychologist’s assessment concerning his personality and that the order was outside the judge’s discretionary powers. He relied on later reports from a consultant psychiatrist.

1. Application dismissed. Permission to appeal was refused.
2. The later psychiatric reports did not disclose a sufficient difference from the psychologist’s assessment to show that the trial judge had been misled or led into error. The psychologist had not diagnosed borderline personality disorder but had identified significant personality difficulties. The psychiatrist’s reports also identified continuing personality difficulties, although they questioned that specific diagnosis.
3. The trial judge’s function was to decide the appropriate outcome, provided that the judge did not fall into legal error or misdirect himself. The fact that another judge might have chosen a further sustained attempt at direct contact did not establish that the order made was beyond the trial judge’s discretionary ambit.
4. The Court of Appeal’s practice is to respect the trial judge’s function and to refuse permission unless a manifest error is demonstrated. No error or misdirection had been shown, so the county court’s exercise of discretion had to be respected.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission to appeal refused and the application dismissed.
• Tunbridge Wells County Court: His Honour Judge Hargrove ordered on 30 November 2000 that there should be no more than indirect contact between Mr E and his daughter.