England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
SWANSEA DISTRICT REGISTRY
(MR JUSTICE SUMNER KT)

		Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London
		Wednesday 3 October 2001

Wednesday 3 October 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE THORPE: Mrs L applies for permission to appeal this afternoon against a judgment and consequential orders made by Sumner J sitting in Cardiff almost three years ago. The case that he had to try was highly unusual and very complex. The local authority were seeking for a care order in respect of a child then nearly 13 years of age. The application was supported by the guardian ad litem, but opposed by Mrs L, the child's father, and Mrs L's father.
2. There was a very unusual history which involved the judge surveying a lot of expert evidence as to medical procedures and medical treatments that the child N had undergone. He had to decide who was responsible for the medical history -- whether it was a simple story of sickness and ill-health or whether there were much more complex factors impugning the parental responsibility of Mrs L.
3. There was no doubt that there was a sense of conflict which at one stage had led Mrs L to take flight with N from the jurisdiction. That was just one of the major causes of concern that the judge had to assess. It was undoubtedly a complicated trial requiring very considerable judicial expertise and very great judicial care.
4. In his judgment the judge dealt with all this complexity with admirable compassion. His judgment extends to 63 pages. Having read his judgment, I am quite satisfied that he dealt with the issues conscientiously and fairly. I recognise the sincerity of Mrs L's belief that she and her daughter have been victims of injustice and gross error. I recognise her sincerity in believing in this court as the reliever of injustice in a case such as this. But that is only her subjective view. Detachment compels a different conclusion.
5. Even if this application for permission had been brought expeditiously, it seems to me highly unlikely that the court would have granted permission. Mrs L was represented in the court of trial by a very experienced and doughty specialist leading counsel. All the issues were issues of fact which were properly analysed by the trial judge. But it is not an application made with expedition. Three years almost have passed and the world in which we now live is not the world that we all inhabited in November 1998, and most particularly is that true of N. Even were there just some scintilla of doubt in my mind, I would be extremely loath to exercise a discretion to extend time in a case such as this where the delay is so marked. This is not Mrs L's first visit to the court in relation to this very sad case. I appreciate her desire to leave no stone unturned. At least she can leave this building this afternoon knowing that she has taken every possible step and that nobody can ever hereafter say that she has failed N by any disregard or neglect of remedies open to her in law. She has pursued those remedies to their ultimate, but this must be the last stage as far as the courts of this jurisdiction are concerned. For all those reasons this applications is refused.