Try asking the following...
This judgment is divided into the following sections
paragraphs
(1) Introduction 1 to 17
(2) The role and function of this court 18 to 24
(3) The nature of the fractures sustained by child B: 25 to 30
the incidence of scurvy
(4) The facts in outline 31 to 38
(5) How the applications were dealt with on paper 39 to 41
(6) The case for Mr and Mrs Webster 42 to 66
(7) The skeleton argument addressing the points raised by
Hughes LJ 67 to 72
(8) The case for the local authority 73 to 84
(9) The case for the guardian 85 to 91
(10) The position of the adopters 92
(11) The hearing before Judge Barham on 20 May 2004 93 to 108
(12) The judgment given by Judge Barham on 21 May 2004 109 to 116
(13) The appellants’ notices and grounds of appeal against
Judge Barham’s first order 117
(14) The second hearing before Judge Barham 118 to 121
(15) Judge Barham’s second judgment 122 to 131
(16) The adoption orders 132
(17) The grounds of appeal against care and the freeing orders 133 to 134
(18) Ladd v Marshal (1) 135 to 139
(19) Discussion 140 to 144
(20) Is it open to this court (in 2008) or 2009
To set aside the adoption orders 145 to 165
(21) Does ECHR make any difference? 166 to 175
(22) Mr and Mrs Webster’s change of heart on the adoption point 176 to 170
(23) Ladd v Marshall (2) 182 to 191
(25) Lessons for the future: second opinions 192 to 199
Lord Justice Wall:
Introduction
We heard this case on 4 December 2008 and reserved judgment. Unfortunately, it was not possible to put our judgments into writing before Christmas. After further discussion amongst ourselves, however, it became apparent that we were each of the view that Mr and Mrs Webster’s applications would have to be refused. We therefore decided that we should communicate our decision to the parties before Christmas, with the reasons for it to follow afterwards. This judgment will give my reasons for the decision I have reached. I apologise to the parties for the delay which has occurred.
Over the period from 4 December 2008, I have been considering whether there is any one noun or adjective which can properly describe this case. I have come to the conclusion that there is not. The four children concerned, namely Brandon, his sister and his two brothers, have been denied the opportunity to argue that they should grow up together with their parents as a family. That is deeply worrying, and, on the face of it, a clear breach of their rights to respect for their family life under