![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> C (Children), Re [2013] EWCA Civ 848 (24 April 2013) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/848.html Cite as: [2013] EWCA Civ 848 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
![]() ![]() |
COURT
OF APPEAL (
CIVIL
DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM KINGSTON-UPON-HULL COUNTY
COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE JACK)
![]() ![]() Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
![]() |
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE JACKSON
and
LORD JUSTICE RYDER
____________________
IN THE MATTER OF ![]() ![]() ![]() |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications
Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr James Hagan (instructed by Hull City
Council
Legal Services) appeared on behalf of the First
Respondent
local authority.
The remaining
Respondents
did not appear and were not
represented.
____________________
LORD JUSTICE RYDER:
"33. As Ms Ball's argument developed, it becameclear
that the ambit of the appeal was limited. Ms Ball, rightly and
realistically
in my judgment, did not seek to
challenge
the judge's findings in
relation
to the sexual abuse perpetrated by X, Y and Z. So we proceed on the basis that the
children
were abused. Nor, although it had been suggested in the grounds of appeal that the findings against the mother of sexual abuse were plainly wrong, did Ms Ball dispute that there was evidence on which it was open to the judge to make such findings. Again, in my judgment, that
concession
was appropriately made. The appeal, in other words,
comes
down to a
challenge
to the judge's
reasoning
and a
challenge
to the adequacy of the
reasons
he gave.
34. There are two principles in play here. The first is that explained by Lord Hoffmann in Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 1 WLR 1360, 1372. So far asconcerns
a judge's approach to a
case
and his
reasoning
his '
reasons
should be
read
on the assumption that, unless he has demonstrated the
contrary,
the judge knew how he should perform his functions and which matters he should take into account.' An appellate
court,
Lord Hoffmann
continued,
'should
resist
the temptation to subvert the principle that they should not substitute their own discretion for that of the judge by a narrow textual analysis which enables them to
claim
that he misdirected himself.'
35. The other principle,relating
to the adequacy of a judge's expressed
reasons,
is that explained by Lord Phillips of Matravers MR in English v Emery
Reimbold
& Strick Ltd [2002] EWCA
Civ
605, [2002] 1 WLR 2409, paras [17]-[21]. For present purposes it suffices to
refer
to how Thorpe LJ put it in
Re
B (Appeal: Lack of
Reasons)
[2003] ECA
Civ
881, [2003] 2 FLR 1035, para [11]:
'the essential test is: does the judgment sufficiently explain what the judge has found and what he hasconcluded
as well as the process of
reasoning
by which he has arrived at his findings, and then his
conclusions?'
![]()
Thorpe LJ had previously observed that one should not ignore the 'seniority and experience' of the particular judge, the 'huge virtue in brevity of judgment', and that the 'more experienced the judge the more likely it is that he may display the virtue of brevity.' I should add that there is no obligation for a judge to go on and give, as it were,reasons
for his
reasons."
![]()
LORD JUSTICE JACKSON:
LORD JUSTICE THORPE:
Order: Appeal allowed