Re Wilkinson

A late appeal against a committal order may justify an extension of time where the delay is plausibly explained and the proposed appeal raises potentially important questions of practice, procedure or human rights. A discretionary case-management order will be disturbed only if plainly wrong. A very late family appeal should be refused where there is no sufficient explanation for delay and no realistic prospect of success. Separate representation for a child respondent may be unnecessary where the underlying issue is non-contentious and the court can adequately protect the child's interests.

Mr Wilkinson made two applications arising from orders of Mrs Justice Bracewell. The first concerned his committal for contempt of court on 18 October 2001 and his sentence of six months' imprisonment on 22 October 2001. He sought an extension of time to appeal, relying on misinformation and inadequate assistance while in prison.

The second concerned directions in parentage proceedings under the Family Law Act 1986, including the filing of statements, listing before a circuit judge and the decision that the child did not require separate representation. That application was also made out of time. The central questions were whether time should be extended and whether the proposed challenges had sufficient prospects of success.

Lord Justice Ward gave the reasons, with Lady Justice Hale agreeing.

1. Contempt proceedings. The court extended time for the appeal against committal. The delay was lengthy, but the applicant had described difficulties involving prison authorities, legal aid staff and court-appointed solicitors. The appeal concerned a committal order and potentially important questions of practice and procedure. It might also raise human-rights issues concerning legal representation and article 6 of the Convention. Permission was unnecessary because the order was one of committal.
2. The court identified, without deciding, possible questions concerning the status of contempt in the face of the court, including whether it was civil or criminal contempt and what effect that classification might have on article 6. The Official Solicitor was invited to consider intervention. If he declined, the Attorney General or Treasury Solicitor was asked to consider arranging assistance as a friend of the court. The contempt appeal was to proceed.
3. Family proceedings. The court refused to extend time and dismissed the second application. The challenged directions were discretionary case-management decisions. They could be challenged only if plainly wrong, and the directions fell within the range of reasonable case-management decisions. The proposed appeal therefore had no realistic prospect of success, even apart from the absence of a sufficient explanation for the very late application.
4. The argument for separate representation of the child had greater force because the child appeared to be a respondent. However, if paternity was not genuinely in issue, the proceedings could be dealt with satisfactorily without separate representation. The child's human rights could be protected by the judge at the final determination.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): extended time for the proposed contempt appeal, but refused an extension of time and dismissed the family proceedings application.
• High Court of Justice: Mrs Justice Bracewell made the committal and sentencing orders in October 2001 and gave directions in the parentage proceedings.