D (A Child), Re

Permission to appeal is subject to consistent procedural standards. A challenge to factual findings made after a long county-court trial will ordinarily be addressed in the trial court, particularly where the judge has given a full reasoned judgment. An application filed outside the prescribed period must be brought within that period or shortly afterwards if it is to merit serious consideration. Delay may also matter because intervening developments can render the original factual and family context partly historic. Personal circumstances do not displace those standards. Where an application is grossly out of time and the context has materially changed, permission may be refused.

The applicant father sought permission to appeal from an order made by His Honour Judge Coningsby QC in the Croydon County Court on 8 March 2001. The order refused his application for direct contact with two children, permitted indirect contact, and refused leave to appeal. The father challenged the judge’s factual conclusions, including findings of physical abuse, and relied on his relationship with other children.

The application was filed on 19 April 2002, more than a year after the order. A further county-court hearing had taken place in February 2002. The central issue was whether permission should be granted despite the substantial delay and intervening developments.

The application for permission to appeal was refused.

1. The court was required to apply consistent standards notwithstanding the sympathy arising from the applicant’s personal circumstances and his efforts to present his case.
2. The original proceedings had involved a long county-court trial, lasting sufficiently long for the trial judge to investigate the disputed factual issues properly. The judge had delivered a detailed judgment explaining his conclusions. The county court was therefore the proper forum for the factual investigation relied upon by the applicant.
3. An application for permission to appeal which is to merit serious consideration must generally be brought within the period prescribed by the rules or shortly afterwards. This application was already more than a year late when filed and was considered at the end of July 2002, approximately 16 months after the trial.
4. The passage of time and subsequent developments in the lives of the children, the adults and the wider family had rendered the original context partly historic. That provided an additional reason not to admit the application.
5. The final order was: permission to appeal refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 31 July 2002, Lord Justice Thorpe refused permission to appeal and directed that the application should not be admitted.
2. Croydon County Court: On 8 March 2001, His Honour Judge Coningsby QC refused direct contact, ordered indirect contact, and refused leave to appeal.