QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
B e f o r e :
B E T W E E N :
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF PD||Claimant|
|- and -|
|MINISTRY OF JUSTICE||Defendant|
THE CLAIMANT appeared in Person.
THE DEFENDANT did not appear and was not represented.
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE HOLMAN:
"178. Father in some aspects is an endearing and engaging man. He is also in many aspects from what I read about him, and have heard, a good man ...".
"206. Father is an incredibly clever man ...".
"189. I should add here that I have no doubt that this is a father who is a vulnerable man ... I have no doubt that he is a very anxious man and I have seen that at several stages ...".
"195. Father is a needy individual ... his needs are and were tremendous ...".
"195. ... I find he did exercise controlling and coercive behaviour over this mother ...".
"196. I have watched the immense control he has tried to exercise over mother in the course of these proceedings and his interference in all manner of ways ...".
"And upon the court determining that the mother needs time to recover following the conclusion of these proceedings and it being in the best interests of the child, necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances for there to be an order under section 91(14) Children Act 1989 for 5 years."
"On consideration of the appellant's notice and application for permission to appeal the decisions of District Judge Burgher both in a Fact Finding and a Welfare Judgment dated 3rd August 2017 and 9th February 2018 respectively
And on the court having read the entirety of two appeal bundles submitted by the proposed appellant, and noting:
1. The appeal bundles submitted contained pages considerably in excess of that indicated in the directions of HHJ Venables of the 21st March 2018
2. The skeleton argument alone comprised 200 pages
3. The proposed appellant purported to file additional evidence without permission that had not formed any consideration by the trial judge and are dated after the respective hearings
And on the court nevertheless considering permission as a preliminary issue on paper in accordance with the provisions of PD 30A.
The court orders
1. The application for permission to appeal is refused under rule 30.3(5A) as the application is totally without merit.
On reading the transcripts of the judgments, as well as the voluminous appeal documents it is plain that the judge, in both meticulous and detailed judgments applied the necessary test in law, and determined the facts according to the requisite standard, in coming to a welfare based decision for the future stability of the child. Her decision could not be said to be wrong or unjust because of any serious procedural or other irregularity."
"The court has considered the request for an oral hearing. This issue was considered on 26 June 2018 when the court considered the application for permission to appeal on the papers and found that the appeal was totally without merit.
For the avoidance of doubt permission was not refused because of the excessive number of documents as the order itself makes plain, but on the merits, after detailed perusal of the documents. It is open to the designated Family Judge to refuse an application on the papers and to refuse an oral hearing, if, as in this case, the application is totally without merit.
The application for an oral hearing is dismissed."
"Different sources of false memory implantation (FMI) by traumatic real life events 2017-2018 as below."
Opus 2 International Ltd. Hereby certifies that the above is an accurate and complete record of the judgment or part thereof.
Transcribed by Opus 2 International Ltd.
(Incorporating Beverley F. Nunnery & Co.)
Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers
5 New Street Square, London EC4A 3BF
Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737
** This transcript is subject to Judge's approval) **