Bath v Escott

A judge may revise and approve the transcript of an oral judgment so that it accurately records the reasons for the decision. The approved transcript need not reproduce the exact words spoken in court. Revision may correct transcription, language and style, and may clarify or complete reasons that were inadequately expressed. In appropriate circumstances, a judge may also alter the reasons or decision before the order is sealed, and may later clarify or amplify the judgment. A challenge requires sufficient evidence of a material irregularity, such as a false approval, an inaccurate record of the reasons, or determination on a new point without an opportunity to comment.

The defendant applied for release of the audio recording of a District Judge’s oral judgment for voice recognition. He alleged that the approved transcript, prepared later, did not accurately record what had been said in court. The application identified no specific differences and was unsupported by evidence addressing the alleged inaccuracies.

HHJ Paul Matthews considered whether the transcript had to reproduce the words actually spoken, and whether the application required an oral hearing. The application was dealt with on paper because the judge concluded that it was bound to fail.

1. Application dismissed. The application was dismissed as totally without merit. It was unnecessary and inappropriate to list it for hearing under CPR rule 23.8(c).
2. The approved transcript of a judgment records the judge’s reasons for the decision. It need not be confined to the exact words used when judgment was delivered orally. A judge may correct transcription errors, spelling, grammar and style, and may revise the reasons so that they accurately explain why the decision was made, even where those reasons were not fully or properly articulated at the time.
3. The court’s order expresses its decision, while the judgment ordinarily explains the reasons. An error in the reasons does not necessarily make the order wrong. The court applied the principle that a revised report is preferred to an unrevised shorthand transcript: Fairman v Perpetual Investment Building Society [1923] AC 74, 79.
4. The same principle extends to written judgments. A judge may amend a draft before handing it down, may amend a judgment after delivery and may, before the order is drawn up and sealed, change the decision where necessary to deal with the case justly: Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond [2001] EWCA Civ 778 and Re L and B (Children) [2013] 1 WLR 634, [16]-[27]. A judgment containing an acknowledged error should ordinarily be corrected: Space Airconditioning plc v Guy [2012] EWCA Civ 1664, [53]. A judge may also clarify or amplify reasons after judgment, and an appellate court may take the supplemental explanation into account: Greenwich Millennium Ltd v Essex Services plc [2014] 1 WLR 3517, [7].
5. A challenge might succeed if supported by sufficient evidence that approval was falsely represented, that the approved transcript did not accurately state the judge’s reasons, or that the judge introduced and decided the case on a new point on which the parties had no opportunity to comment. No such case was alleged or evidenced here.

First-instance application in the High Court. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.