F (Children), Re

In a fact-finding appeal, a first-instance judgment must explain sufficiently what was found and the reasoning process leading to it. It need not address every inconsistency or provide lengthy reasons for preferring one witness, particularly where the judge heard the evidence and observed the witnesses. The judgment must be read as a whole, with appellate courts resisting narrow textual analysis and recognising limits of language. Discrepancies are to be expected in eyewitness accounts of sudden violence, and absence of visible injury does not necessarily undermine an account of assault. Earlier procedural history may provide relevant background, but the judge must make independent findings focused on the issue before the court. Further reasons should be sought only where they could affect the appeal’s outcome.

The mother appealed against findings made by His Honour Judge Appleby in the Manchester County Court on 24 February 2011 concerning an incident during supervised contact with her two younger children. The judge found that she had assaulted two supervising local-authority workers, authorised the interim suspension of direct contact and made provision for indirect contact.

The mother argued that the judgment was inadequately reasoned, failed to resolve discrepancies in the evidence and wrongly preferred the workers’ accounts over hers. An earlier Crown Court decision had reached a different conclusion on the same events. Permission was limited principally to the adequacy of the fact-finding judgment and the central issue was whether the findings and consequential contact orders should be disturbed.

1. Appeal dismissed. Lady Justice Black gave the leading judgment. Lord Justice Elias and Lord Justice Ward agreed. The fact-finding judgment was sufficiently reasoned, and the order suspending direct contact fell within the judge’s discretion.
2. A first-instance judgment must explain sufficiently what the judge found and the reasoning process by which the findings were reached. It need not address every inconsistency or conflict specifically, nor give lengthy reasons for preferring one witness. The appellate court should read the judgment on the assumption that the judge understood the relevant functions and matters, resist narrow textual analysis and recognise the limitations of language in expressing the complexities of a witness hearing. These principles were consistent with English v Emery Reimbold and Strick [2002] EWCA Civ 605, Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 1 FLR 1360 and A and L (Children) [2011] EWCA Civ 1611.
3. The judge’s findings were open to him on the evidence. His acceptance that the local-authority workers displayed genuine distress when recounting the incident provided a sound basis for finding that they were essentially truthful. Discrepancies were unsurprising in accounts of a sudden violent event. The absence of visible injury did not necessarily show that an assault had not occurred and did not require rejection of the workers’ evidence.
4. The earlier judgments were relevant background concerning the mother’s approach to the proceedings, Social Services and her tendency to lose control. Their significance should not be overstated, because the judge remained required to make his own findings on the evidence relating to the contact session.
5. It would only be appropriate to invite a trial judge to provide further reasons where that might affect whether the appeal should be allowed. Further elucidation would not assist here, because the existing reasons enabled the appellate court to determine the appeal.
6. The appeal against the contact order was not actively pursued. In any event, the order was within the judge’s discretion on the findings made, and the developing arrangements involving Pro Contact provided no reason to disrupt the existing plan. The order was therefore maintained. The application was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On appeal, the court dismissed the appeal and refused the application: [2012] EWCA Civ 828.
• Manchester County Court — His Honour Judge Appleby made findings concerning the supervised-contact incident on 24 February 2011, authorised the interim suspension of direct contact and provided for indirect contact.