S (A Child)

An application for habeas corpus seeking the release and return of a child involved in ongoing care proceedings may be wholly misconceived. The refusal of habeas corpus was appealable without permission under the applicable statute and Rules. Where the application has no legal foundation, the resulting appeal will be dismissed as without merit.

Mrs S appealed from Mr Justice Coleridge’s refusal on 18 October to grant habeas corpus and release and return her daughter, together with animals and possessions. The judge had made no order on the application after Mrs S indicated that she proposed to object to a further interim care order. Ongoing care proceedings concerned the child, T, born on 1 March 1993. The appeal came before the Court of Appeal, with neither party represented.

1. Appeal dismissed. Wall LJ gave the judgment, and Scott Baker LJ agreed.
2. The application for habeas corpus was wholly misconceived in the circumstances. The court therefore held that the appeal was entirely without merit.
3. The appeal was before the Court because, under the applicable statute and Rules, permission was not required to appeal against refusal of an order for habeas corpus.
4. The local authority informed the court that T had gone missing with her mother. Recovery orders had been sought and obtained but could not be implemented. That circumstance did not alter the court’s conclusion on the legal merits of the application.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the refusal by Mr Justice Coleridge on 18 October to grant habeas corpus. The appeal was dismissed.