C (Children)

A permission application challenging a county court finding of fact should be refused where the judge’s reasons sufficiently identify the considerations supporting the conclusion. A concise judgment is adequate if it demonstrates that relevant evidence and competing considerations were evaluated. The Court of Appeal should not permit further review merely because the finding has serious consequences, particularly where success would result only in another trial and the issue is essentially factual.

The applicant sought permission to appeal out of time from a judgment of His Honour Judge Russell-Vick in the Canterbury County Court. The judge had found, after a three-day hearing, that the applicant had had sexual intercourse with an 11-year-old boy several years earlier and that resulting child-protection issues arose concerning her daughter.

The applicant argued that the judge’s reasons were inadequate under B v B [1997] 2 FLR 602. The central issue was whether the judgment sufficiently explained the factual considerations leading to the finding.

1. Permission refused. The Court confirmed its provisional order refusing permission to appeal. The application was lodged eight weeks late, and the proposed appeal concerned a finding of fact.
2. The principle in B v B [1997] 2 FLR 602 requires reasons sufficiently detailed and clear to show the facts relied upon and the matters taken into account. It does not require lengthy reasons where the judge has adequately explained the evaluative basis of the decision.
3. The county court judge’s concise reasoning identified several material considerations: the boy’s sexual experience; the close relationship between the parties; the absence of an apparent motive for a false allegation; pressure from another adult; the applicant’s strong sexual drive; and the sexually perverse environment in the household. The judge also weighed the applicant’s good character and changed circumstances.
4. The reasoning therefore did not resemble the inadequate bare conclusion criticised in B v B. It sufficiently demonstrated why the judge reached the conclusion that he did.
5. It would be disproportionate to admit the case to appeal. There had already been two county court trials, and even a successful appeal could lead only to a further trial. The factual finding should not be reviewed further by the Court of Appeal.
6. The applicant’s costs were subject to a public funding assessment.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal from the Canterbury County Court was refused.
• Canterbury County Court: His Honour Judge Russell-Vick found that the alleged sexual intercourse had occurred and identified consequential child-protection issues.