QC v UC & Ors

Permission to appeal requires a real, rather than fanciful, prospect of success or another compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. An appeal will succeed only where the decision below was wrong, or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity. Findings of fact, particularly those based on witnesses whom the trial judge saw and heard, attract a high degree of appellate restraint. Intervention requires a clear demonstration that the conclusions cannot reasonably be explained or justified, or that relevant evidence was misunderstood or materially overlooked.

The applicant father sought permission to appeal against 12 findings of fact made by Recorder Maynard in the Exeter Family Court during proceedings concerning arrangements for the parties’ children. Permission had previously been refused by Mr Justice Cohen. Following an adjourned oral hearing, the father renewed his application in person.

He challenged the assessment of the mother’s credibility, the treatment of evidence from witnesses who did not attend court, the effect of his anxiety and lack of representation, and the fairness of the fact-finding process. The central questions were whether the proposed appeal had a real prospect of success or another compelling basis, and whether the first-instance decision was arguably wrong or unjust because of procedural irregularity.

1. Permission and appellate intervention. The applicant had to show a real, rather than fanciful, prospect of success or some other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. An appeal could succeed only if the decision below was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity.
2. Findings of fact. Findings of fact are an incomplete statement of the impression made by the primary evidence. An appellate court should not interfere with findings based substantially on oral evidence unless it is clearly demonstrated that the conclusions cannot reasonably be explained or justified, or that there was a demonstrable misunderstanding of, or failure to consider, relevant evidence.
3. Application to the proposed grounds. Recorder Maynard had conducted a detailed and balanced assessment of the evidence. He had considered the mother’s lies and inconsistencies, applied the Lucas test, and declined to make allegations of sexual abuse where the evidence did not satisfy him. He had also evaluated the father’s credibility, the documentary material, and the evidence of witnesses who did not attend court.
4. The father’s lack of representation and anxiety did not establish a procedural irregularity. The judge had taken practical steps to ensure that the father could present his case, including permitting further material, facilitating questioning, and hearing evidence from his witnesses. There was no evidence that relevant material had been excluded or that the father’s condition materially impaired his ability to participate.
5. The fact that the mother had lied on other matters did not require rejection of her evidence as a whole. Credibility was for the trial judge to assess qualitatively. The judge had accepted some parts of her evidence, rejected others, and made no finding of sexual abuse against the father where her accounts were inconsistent.
6. The proposed grounds did not come close to showing that no properly directed judge could have reached the findings made, or that the decision was unjust because of procedural irregularity. Permission to appeal was refused and the appeal was dismissed.

1. High Court (Family Division): Mr Justice Williams dismissed the father’s renewed application for permission to appeal and dismissed the proposed appeal.
2. High Court (Family Division): Mr Justice Cohen had previously refused permission to appeal on 26 October 2018.
3. Exeter Family Court: Recorder Maynard made an order on 1 October 2018 recording 12 findings of fact against the father.