The father was represented by Amanda Weston KC and Anna Hefford of the Garden Court Family Team, instructed by Hayley Geen at Family Law Group.
In a careful but robust judgment the Court of Appeal has set aside findings of non-accidental injury of two small children each with rare genetic blood abnormalities with uncertain action on blood clotting and susceptibility to bruising.
A finding that either or both of the parents were responsible for the injury was also set aside.
The father, represented by Anna Hefford and led by Amanda Weston KC, who appealed jointly with the mother, supported by the children’s guardian, argued that the judge’s ex tempore judgment had failed adequately to explain how her findings were reached.
The expert medical evidence was inconclusive and exceedingly complex making the clinical and ‘broader canvas’ evidence absolutely key. Notwithstanding a six week delay since the hearing concluded, the judge had given an ex tempore judgment from notes but had failed to address the parents’ evidence and their argued cases.
Further, the judge had misdirected herself as to the opinion of the paediatric neurosurgeon and failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting the evidence of the treating paediatric haemotologist.
The appeal came before Baker, Andrews and Holgate LJJ who agreed with the Appellants’ and Guardian’s criticisms of the judge’s attempt to shore up her findings by additional insertions to the judgment after asking to see the grounds of appeal.
The Court was critical of both the way in which the judgment was provided and the errors it disclosed. Importantly, in agreeing with Lord Justice Baker, Lady Justice Andrews stated that:
“Whilst judges are, and should be, free to decide whether to deliver an oral judgment or hand down a written one, there are some cases in which it should be readily apparent that the latter course should be followed unless there are good reasons not to (e.g. extreme urgency). In my view, because of the nature and complexity of the issues, this case fell within that category, and it was most unwise of the judge to embark on the course which she did.
“The practice of circulating a draft of a reserved written judgment under embargo gives the parties’ legal representatives the opportunity to draw the judge’s attention to omissions or mistakes, which can then be addressed before the judgment is handed down. This case provides a graphic illustration of what can go wrong if that course is not followed.”
While parties recognise that family court judges are often under intense pressure to determine a heavy and increasing load of care cases with restricted time and resources, this case is a stark reminder that whilst the higher courts should be slow to interfere with decisions of the lower courts, judicial reasons need to be clear, well-structured and must contain a thorough analysis of the evidence so that parties can understand how and why such serious conclusions have been reached.
The mother was represented by Jo Brown KC and Daniel Sheridan, instructed by Woodfines. The Children’s Guardian was represented by Alison Moore instructed by Vicky Preece at PSLAW, and the local authority was represented by Nick Goodwin KC leading Lubna Rasul instructed by Local Authority Solicitor.
To instruct Amanda Weston KC or Anna Hefford, please email: familyclerksmailbox@gclaw.co.uk
