W (A Child), Re

Permission to appeal in family proceedings may properly be refused where the complaint concerns a discretionary directions order and the issue can be reconsidered promptly by the trial judge in light of the case’s sensitivities. An obligation to provide information about a child may be appropriate, but its method should take account of the burden imposed on the carer and the possibility of indirect communication. The trial judge retains discretion over adjournments, the use of written or oral evidence, and the form of any reporting arrangement.

The application concerned an order made by His Honour Judge Corrie in the Northampton County Court on 20 November 2001. The father, who was the sole carer of his son and of the mother’s son, had been directed to provide the mother, who was in hospital, with written progress reports six times a year. The mother had killed the father’s younger child. The father sought permission to appeal, principally on whether he should be required to report directly to the mother. The order would ordinarily have been unappealable, but the Court considered that the sensitivities of the case gave the proposed appeal a real point. The central issue was whether the matter should instead be reconsidered by the trial judge.

1. Permission refused. The President delivered the judgment and Lord Justice Thorpe agreed. The Court declined to allow the appeal to proceed.
2. The order under challenge was made in the exercise of the trial judge’s discretion. In ordinary circumstances, the judge had complete discretion whether to adjourn and whether to determine directions on written evidence or after hearing oral evidence. The Court nevertheless considered that the requirement for the father to write directly to the mother six times a year was an issue which could properly have been reviewed on appeal, given the exceptional sensitivities and pressures involved.
3. The proposed appeal was inappropriate because the case was listed before the trial judge on 17 May. Counsel were prepared to reconsider the arrangement, and the mother’s representative suggested that the issue could be examined again more sensitively below. The trial judge retained complete discretion over the appropriate solution.
4. The Court indicated that the father should have obligations to provide progress reports, but that direct communication with the mother might impose unnecessary additional pressure. An alternative could be for reports to be sent to the maternal grandmother for transmission to the mother, although that was not the only possible arrangement.
5. The final order was that permission to appeal was refused. A public funding assessment was directed for both parties.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On the application for permission to appeal, the Court refused permission in [2002] EWCA Civ 278.
• Northampton County Court: His Honour Judge Corrie made the directions order on 20 November 2001, requiring the father to provide the mother with written progress reports six times a year.