C (Children), Re

A fact-finding judgment must do more than state the judge’s conclusions and reasoning. It must set out enough of the evidence on each allegation to show how the findings were reached and to make the decision intelligible to the parties, including lay readers. Brevity is permissible, especially for an experienced judge, and no reasons for reasons are required. But a judgment cannot assume knowledge of the facts and evidence. Where that deficiency can be cured without prejudice or further delay, the Court of Appeal may allow an appeal on the limited issue of reasons and direct the first-instance judge to provide further particulars in a composite judgment addressing outstanding welfare issues.

Kingston-upon-Hull City Council commenced care proceedings concerning two children. The parents conceded the threshold criteria under section 31 of the Children Act 1989, but the local authority pursued findings about alleged sexual abuse by the father. Following a fact-finding hearing lasting more than seven days over a year, His Honour Judge Jack made findings in a judgment handed down on 28 February 2013.

The father appealed, arguing that the findings were against the weight of the evidence and that the reasons were inadequate. The Court of Appeal considered whether a judgment of less than four pages, largely stating the judge’s reasons without summarising the evidence on each allegation, met the applicable standard and what remedial order should follow.

The Court of Appeal, with Lord Justice Ryder giving the leading judgment and Lord Justices Jackson and Thorpe agreeing, allowed the appeal on a limited basis.

1. Challenge to findings. The father could not show that the findings were plainly wrong. The available evidence was insufficient to cast doubt on the conclusions reached by the judge.
2. Adequacy of reasons. The court applied the principles summarised in Re A and L (Fact-finding Ex Tempore Judgments) [2011] EWCA Civ 1611, drawing on Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 1 WLR 1360, English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 605, [2002] 1 WLR 2409, and Re B (Appeal: Lack of Reasons) [2003] ECA Civ 881, [2003] 2 FLR 1035. A judgment must explain the findings, conclusions and reasoning process. Brevity and the judge’s seniority and experience remain relevant, and reasons for reasons are unnecessary. However, the judgment also needed to summarise the evidence relating to each allegation. The judgment under appeal assumed knowledge of the alleged facts and evidence and could not be understood by a lay reader.
3. Remedy. The deficiency was capable of correction without prejudice to the children or further delay. The judge was directed to provide further and better particulars of the evidence accepted and rejected in a composite judgment delivered with the outstanding welfare conclusions.

Order: Appeal allowed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the father’s appeal on the limited issue of adequacy of reasons and directed further and better particulars in a composite judgment.
2. Kingston-upon-Hull County Court: His Honour Judge Jack handed down judgment on 28 February 2013, making findings in relation to allegations of sexual abuse. That judgment was appealed.