In re G (a Child)

The choice between a care order and a supervision order is discretionary. An appellate court should be particularly wary of interfering where an experienced judge has considered all relevant matters, given full reasons, conducted the proceedings throughout, and had the support of the guardian ad litem. A renewed permission application may also be refused where the proposed challenge has become almost academic and the applicant accepts that no relevant matter was overlooked.

This was a renewed application for permission to appeal an order made by His Honour Judge Jenkins in Lincoln County Court on 2 April 2001. The order preferred a care order to a supervision order. Permission had been provisionally refused on paper on 25 May 2001. At the oral renewal, the court was told of an intended joint application in August to discharge Judge Jenkins' care order, and counsel conceded that the judge had considered all relevant matters. The central issue was whether there was a proper basis to permit an appellate challenge to the discretionary order.

1. Disposition. The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused.
2. Academic nature of the challenge. The intended joint application for discharge made an appellate attack on the care order almost academic. Counsel also accepted that the first-instance judge had taken all relevant matters into account.
3. Discretionary decision. The choice between a care order and a supervision order was fully reasoned. It was directed by reference to Re C and B and Re O, described as recent decisions in which Lady Justice Hale had sought to simplify that choice for trial judges.
4. Appellate restraint. The decision was made by an experienced circuit judge who had conducted the proceedings concerning the child throughout. It was supported by the guardian ad litem and was plainly finely balanced. In those circumstances, the Court of Appeal should be particularly wary of interfering with the exercise of discretion.
5. The order refusing permission was accompanied by a legal aid assessment.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). On 14 June 2001, Lord Justice Thorpe refused the renewed application for permission to appeal.
2. Lincoln County Court. His Honour Judge Jenkins made the order on 2 April 2001, preferring a care order to a supervision order.
3. Paper consideration. Permission was provisionally refused on paper on 25 May 2001, after which the applicant renewed the application orally.