Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
July 29, 2009
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
Judgment
Lord Justice Wall:
This is an application by Mr D. for permission to appeal part of an order made by Mrs Recorder Corbett, as she then was, on 8 May 2009. The underlying case itself concerns Mr D.’s two sons, who are now aged respectively nine and six.
The underlying application before the court is for permission on behalf of the children’s mother to remove the children permanently from England and Wales to Slovakia, which is where the mother comes from. That application is opposed in the interests of the children by Mr D., who is permanently resident in the United Kingdom, as I understand the matter, and wishes the children to remain here.
The case was initially heard by a district judge in the Luton County Court. Quite why that was I do not know, but I assume it was from pressure of work in the local County Court, because cases of this difficulty and sensitivity should not normally be given to the District Bench unless there is no alternative, or the district judge in question has a particular expertise. But in the event the district judge made a serious mistake. She had before her a CAFCASS Officer who had produced a very old report, and she decided that there would be no point in either party cross-examining the CAFCASS Officer on her historic report even though that report was in Mr D.’s favour. She assured Mr D., however, that she would take the report into account, but in her judgment, which I do not have, it does not appear that she did, with the consequence that when the matter came before Mrs Recorder Corbett on Mr D.’s appeal, the Recorder allowed the appeal and ordered that the matter should be reheard. My understanding, despite the terms of the order made by the Recorder, is that the hearing will now take place in early September with two days set aside.
The mother has the benefit of public funding and is represented by counsel. Mr D. for entirely honourable reasons is acting in person and the gravamen of his complaint is essentially this, namely that: it is in the interests of the children to be represented; there is nobody who is really able to put forward the children’s point of view; I, Mr D., am not a lawyer and therefore unable properly to do so; it is likely, therefore, that the judge will be seduced into making an order which is contrary to the interests of the children by the fact that the mother is legally represented. Mr D. makes the wider point, which in discussion during the course of the morning I suggested to him w
AI Generated Summary
Lord Justice Wall considered Mr D.’s application for permission to appeal a ruling by Mrs Recorder Corbett dated 8 May 2009. The underlying dispute involves Mr D.’s two sons and their mother’s plan to relocate them permanently from England and Wales to Slovakia, her country of origin. Mr D., resident in the UK and acting in person, opposed the relocation and sought separate legal representation for the children under the President’s Practice Direction and Rule 9.5 of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991. Wall LJ outlined the Court of Appeal’s limited function: identifying errors of law or discretion beyond reasonable bounds. He found none, noting the Recorder had examined the Practice Direction and rightly concluded that no criteria for separate representation applied. He emphasized that, in private relocation cases, separate representation is exceptional and that CAFCASS would present the children’s wishes, with directions for attendance and updated observations. The Court refused permission and encouraged Mr D. to participate fully at the rehearing.