YM (Care Proceedings) (Clarification of Reasons), Re

Requests to clarify a judgment must be confined to material omissions, ambiguities or deficiencies. Counsel must explain why clarification is necessary for the decisions remaining in the proceedings. The procedure must not be used to reargue the case, reiterate submissions, seek new findings or negotiate the judgment’s contents.

Requests should ordinarily be consolidated in one document and should not be repeated. Judges need respond only to material requests. A clarification ordinarily adds to, and does not alter, the approved judgment. An inconsistency warrants appellate intervention only if, read in context, it materially undermines the findings or amounts to a serious irregularity.

A local authority appealed against findings made after a 14-day fact-finding hearing in care proceedings concerning a young child who had sustained bruising and fractures. The Family Court found that the father had inflicted the injuries using excessive force and that both parents had failed to obtain timely medical attention.

Following the oral judgment, the parties made repeated requests for clarification. The judge issued a written judgment and two sets of further reasons. The local authority, supported by the children’s guardian, contended that those responses contradicted or undermined the original findings and sought a fresh fact-finding hearing before another judge.

The central issues were whether the findings remained coherent when the judgment and clarifications were read together, and what limits govern requests for clarification.

1. Appeal dismissed. The written judgment, read with the clarification responses, sufficiently explained the findings. No significant or material inconsistency justified appellate intervention or a fresh fact-finding hearing.

2. The judge’s fundamental finding was that the injuries were inflicted by the father using excessive force and were not explained by rough handling. Her later reference to a lack of care had to be read in that context. It described her assessment that the father, because of inexperience and cognitive difficulties, lacked the awareness and attunement required to handle a baby and did not recognise the harm caused. It did not replace the finding that excessive force had been used.

3. The findings concerning the mother were also open to the trial judge. The judge could find that the mother knew something was wrong with the child, but did not know that the father had inflicted the injuries and had not colluded with him to blame another person. The trial judge was uniquely placed to assess the witnesses. Her limited treatment of collusion did not justify a rehearing.

4. A contradiction introduced during clarification may amount to a serious irregularity, but an isolated word or phrase is insufficient. Clarifications must be interpreted in the context of the judgment. Ordering a retrial after prolonged proceedings would have been disproportionate and harmful to the child’s welfare.

5. Requests for clarification must concern an omission, ambiguity or deficiency material to the decisions required in the proceedings. Counsel must identify that materiality. Requests must not reargue the case, repeat submissions, introduce new evidence, seek reconsideration of findings or threaten an appeal. The parties should ordinarily submit a single consolidated document, and repeated requests should occur only exceptionally. Judges need answer only material requests.

6. Lord Justice Males agreed in the dismissal and added that the approved judgment ordinarily contains the findings. A clarification adds to those findings unless the judge expressly modifies or withdraws them and explains the change. He considered that the original findings meant that the father acted intentionally during a momentary loss of temper, although without pre-planned malice. The existing findings had to form the basis of future welfare decisions, informed by current assessments of both parents.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The local authority’s appeal was dismissed. The Family Court’s findings remained in place.
• Family Court at Chelmsford: Following a fact-finding hearing, HH Judge Shanks found that the father had inflicted the child’s injuries using excessive force and that both parents had failed to obtain timely medical attention. The judge later issued written and supplemental reasons in response to repeated requests for clarification.