A and L (Children)

An appellate court should assume, unless the judgment demonstrates otherwise, that an experienced trial judge knew how to perform the judicial function and considered the relevant matters. It should avoid using narrow textual analysis to substitute its own assessment.

Reasons are adequate when the judgment sufficiently explains the findings, conclusions and reasoning connecting them. A judge need not address every evidential point or give reasons for the reasons. Brevity, including in an extempore judgment, does not itself establish inadequacy. Parties who consider that an extempore judgment omits a material point should seek clarification or elaboration from the trial judge.

During care proceedings concerning two children, a judge conducted an eight-day fact-finding hearing and found that the children had been sexually abused by three adults associated with their mother. He also found that the mother had participated in the abuse. The mother appealed only against the sexual-abuse findings concerning her.

The Court of Appeal initially adjourned the appeal and invited the judge to provide further reasons: Re A and L (Children) [2011] EWCA Civ 1205. The judge was unable to do so for reasons unrelated to the case. When the appeal resumed, the mother accepted that the children had been abused and that evidence existed upon which the findings against her could have been made. The central issue was whether the judge's reasoning and stated reasons were adequate.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. Munby LJ, with whom Tomlinson and Patten LJJ agreed, held that the trial judge's chain of reasoning was both acceptable and adequately expressed. The judge had found the child's detailed accounts of touch and smell compelling. He had nevertheless recognised her fantasies, the differences between her interviews and the foster carers' hostility towards the parents. His rejection of the mother's evidence and his sympathetic assessment of her vulnerability formed an intelligible route to the finding that she participated in the abuse.

2. An appellate court must read a trial judgment on the assumption that, unless the contrary is demonstrated, the judge knew how to perform the judicial function and what matters to consider. It must resist narrow textual analysis which disguises the substitution of the appellate court's assessment for that of the trial judge. Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 1 WLR 1360 applied.

3. The essential inquiry is whether the judgment sufficiently explains the findings, conclusions and the reasoning connecting them. English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 605 and Re B (Appeal: Lack of Reasons) [2003] EWCA Civ 881 applied. A judge need not address every point raised in the evidence or submissions, nor give reasons for the reasons. The omissions identified by the mother did not invalidate the findings or reasoning.

4. The exoneration of the father and grandmothers was neither inconsistent nor inadequately reasoned. No party had advanced relevant allegations against them, so they were entitled as a matter of law to be exonerated. The judge was also entitled to find that the child's reference to her “daddy” concerned one of the other perpetrators rather than her father.

5. Munby LJ added that prompt extempore judgments in family cases should not be discouraged merely because they are brief. They can avoid delay in planning for children. The safeguard is the ability, and duty, of parties to ask the trial judge for clarification or elaboration where they consider something material to be missing.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The mother's appeal against the findings concerning her participation in sexual abuse was dismissed unanimously: [2011] EWCA Civ 1611.

2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division), earlier procedural stage: The appeal was adjourned part heard and the matter was remitted to the trial judge for any further reasons he considered appropriate. The judge was subsequently unable to provide that assistance for reasons unrelated to the case: Re A and L (Children) [2011] EWCA Civ 1205.

3. Principal Registry of the Family Division: His Honour Judge Compston found after a fact-finding hearing that the children had been sexually abused by three adults associated with their mother and that the mother had participated in the abuse. No neutral or report citation is stated.