British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> B (Children), Re [2016] EWFC B21 (02 February 2016)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2016/B21.html
Cite as: [2016] EWFC B21
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
SITTING AT NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT 2002
AND IN THE MATTER OF: B (CHILDREN)
The Quayside Newcastle-Upon-Tyne NE1 3LA |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
| Re: B (Children) |
____________________
Apple Transcription Limited
Suite 204, Kingfisher Business Centre, Burnley Road, Rawtenstall, Lancashire BB4 8ES
DX: 26258 Rawtenstall – Telephone: 0845 604 5642 – Fax: 01706 870838
The Mother did not appear and was not represented
Counsel for the Father: Miss Callaghan
Counsel for the Child: Not Known
Hearing dates: 2nd February 2016
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- This matter comes before me today in respect of an application for permission to appeal the findings that I made in this matter following, I think, three days of evidence, written submissions and judgment given on 13th January 2016.
- The application for permission has been delayed partly to enable Miss Callaghan to take instructions but also because when the matter came before me on Thursday of last week the court was informed that further allegations had been made by A with allegations to a family member and, I am told today, thereafter allegations made to a social worker. The police intend to carry out an ABE interview but thus far the necessary elements of that interview, that is, the assistance of an intermediary, have not been achieved and thus there will be a delay. Of course, as Miss Callaghan informs me, she is aware that the 21-day time limit comes to an end tomorrow. In light of the circumstances I would have extended the time limit if necessary, but I am told that it is unnecessary.
- In an application for permission to appeal I have to consider whether or not there are real prospects of success or some other compelling reason why permission should be given. Miss Callaghan makes it clear that the basis of the appeal is not that I misapplied the law but that I accepted the account of A as truthful without regard, as she puts it, to other areas. There is a document setting out the grounds of appeal which encompasses the 19 grounds of appeal. Miss Callaghan accepts that the basis of the appeal effectively is in relation to the exercise of my discretion, in that I did not place sufficient weight on various aspects of the case. The important point to make, she says, is that no proper regard was given to the lack of ABE interviews at the time and that there was no weighing up of whether A was able to understand the difference between truth and lies.
- In my judgment I referred, I had thought, to all those matters which were raised on behalf of the father and considered all the evidence which was before me. I, of course, heard the evidence and made my findings upon the basis of that evidence. In respect of an appeal, an appeal is not a rehearing but a review and I am told, as of course is the father's right, that he will, if I refuse permission, renew his application before the Court of Appeal.
- In considering the grounds of appeal I take into account that what is criticised and disputed is the exercise of my discretion and, most particularly, that I did not give weight to certain aspects of the case, despite the fact that I think in relation to most of them I did refer to them in judgment. It seems to me that there is not a real prospect of successfully appealing the findings I made and in those circumstances I will refuse permission.
HER HONOUR JUDGE MOIR: