R (A Child), Re

Objections based on judicial conduct should ordinarily be raised during the trial and should not be reserved for an appeal. The response should be proportionate to the seriousness of the perceived lapse. A momentary loss of concentration, promptly repaired by counsel, will not normally justify appellate intervention.

A judgment is sufficiently reasoned when, read as a whole, it identifies the decisive risks and the considerations that led to the order. Appellate review of a discretionary welfare decision is limited, particularly where the child faces immediate and grave medical consequences from neglect. Proportionality must be assessed in the factual context of the case.

The maternal grandmother sought permission to appeal, and an extension of time, against a care order made by His Honour Judge Cook in the Guildford County Court. The order provided for the child, M, who had a serious heart condition, to be placed for adoption.

The proposed appeal alleged that the judge had fallen asleep during final submissions, had failed to give adequate reasons, and had made a disproportionate welfare decision. The Court of Appeal considered whether those matters disclosed any arguable basis for permission to appeal.

1. Judicial conduct. Any objection based on judicial conduct should be taken at the trial. Counsel should not keep the objection in reserve for an application to the Court of Appeal. The response must be proportionate to the apparent lapse. Either nothing had occurred, or any momentary loss of concentration had been appropriately repaired when counsel paused and repeated part of his submissions. The point could not justify permission to appeal.
2. Adequacy of reasons. The judge’s conclusion was not an unreasoned choice of adoption. Although much of the judgment summarised the evidence, the preceding paragraph explained that residence with the grandmother would permit the mother to resume an increasing role in the child’s parenting, exposing the child to risks of neglect and poor hygiene. It also identified the risk of emotional confusion arising from the proposed family arrangement. That reasoning implicitly endorsed the material assessment relied upon by the local authority and sufficiently explained the care order.
3. Proportionality and appellate review. The proportionality reasoning in Re C and B, [2001] 1 FLR 611, was distinguishable because that case concerned a later risk to intellectual and emotional development. Here the child faced an immediate risk of grave consequences, extending to death, if exposed to neglect and poor hygiene. There was no basis for the Court of Appeal to interfere with the experienced circuit judge’s discretionary determination.
4. The applications for permission to appeal and extension of time were refused. The order was for publicly funded costs assessment.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The applications for permission to appeal and extension of time against the Guildford County Court care order were refused.