G (A Child), Re

For a suspended committal order, permission to appeal is not required if the order is properly characterised as an order committing a person to prison; alternatively, permission should be granted where the appeal has a real prospect of success. An order prohibiting publication in children proceedings should distinguish between identifying information, which may properly be restrained, and general anonymised information, which may serve legitimate purposes. In family proceedings, genuinely held parental fears do not automatically preclude contact. An appellate court should intervene in welfare decisions only where the first-instance judge was plainly wrong in law or in the balancing exercise.

The father sought permission to appeal orders made by His Honour Judge Mitchell in the Northampton County Court concerning contact with his two-year-old daughter. The judge refused direct contact, ordered limited indirect contact, imposed a five-year restriction under Children Act 1989, section 91(14), prohibited publication of information about the proceedings, suspended a 14-day committal sentence for contempt, and made a costs order.

The application raised issues concerning permission to appeal from a suspended committal order, the scope of the publication injunction, the effect of parental fears on contact, and the appellate approach to welfare assessments.

1. Application allowed. The application for permission to appeal proceeded before the substantive appeal. The court held provisionally that a suspended committal order is a committal order because it commits the person to prison, although immediate detention is suspended. Permission was granted in any event because the committal issues had a real prospect of success.
2. The committal issues warranted consideration of the procedure applicable to alleged breaches of the general confidentiality rules in children proceedings, the conduct capable of amounting to contempt, and the appropriate penalty. The Official Solicitor should be invited to assist.
3. Permission was also granted in relation to the prohibited steps order. Identifying information about children proceedings could properly be prohibited, but an order restraining publication of any information was potentially overbroad because it might prevent the father from seeking general, anonymised advice.
4. The judge’s approach to contact raised an arguable error of law. Re L did not decide that genuinely held maternal fears automatically precluded contact. The child’s welfare required assessment of the competing risks and circumstances.
5. On the remaining issues, the appellate court emphasised that it is difficult to displace findings made by a judge who saw and heard the parties and experts. Intervention is justified only where the conclusion is plainly wrong in law or in the conduct of the necessary balancing exercise.
6. The appeal was directed to be heard before two judges, including a family judge, with a half-day estimate. A transcript was to be provided at public expense and the Official Solicitor informed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Application for permission to appeal allowed. The substantive appeal was directed to be heard before two judges.
• Northampton County Court: On 5 July 2002, His Honour Judge Mitchell refused direct contact, ordered indirect contact, imposed a section 91(14) restriction, made a publication prohibition, suspended a committal sentence, and made a costs order.