[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> D (A Child), Re [2002] EWCA Civ 1348 (31 July 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1348.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1348

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROYDON COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE TAC CONINGSBY QC)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Wednesday 31 July 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE THORPE: This is an application brought by Mr D for permission to appeal an order made by His Honour Judge Coningsby QC in the Croydon County Court on 8 March 2001. The order reads as follows:

"1. The father's application for direct contact is refused.

2. The father shall have indirect contact with the children.

3. The father's application for leave to appeal against the above order is refused on the basis that a full hearing has taken place and there does not appear to be an arguable point of law."

2. Other provisions I need not refer to. I only add that the father was represented by counsel at that trial and that the order was the subject of a very full judgment delivered by Judge Coningsby, running to 46 transcribed pages.
3. The notice of application for permission was not filed in this court until 19 April 2002, so it was already more than a year out of date at the time of filing. We are now at the end of July, so that the date of trial is now some 16 months ago. The fact that that there have inevitably been developments in the lives of the children during this time is underlined by the fact that Mr D tells me that there has been a further hearing in the county court in February 2002 when, again, the case was listed before Judge Coningsby. I have every regard for Mr D's endeavours in putting before the court today a careful bundle of documents which he has indexed and paginated. I have every regard for his primary submission that he is the father of seven girls, two of whom live with him, the rest of whom visit him at the weekends. Why should there be such a fundamental distinction in relation to the two girls of this marriage, one born in 1993 and the other born in 1994? He further submits can how can he be held by the judge to have abused these two children physically when he has an unblemished record in relation to the others?
4. Mr D has also handed in some pertinent written submissions which I have had the opportunity of reading. But, despite such sympathies as I have for Mr D, I must apply consistent standards in judging applications for permission to appeal. Those standards require the dismissal of this application for two reasons. The first is that this was a long trial in the county court, which is the proper place for the investigation of disputed factual issues. The judge delivered a long judgment explaining his conclusions. Since then the whole context has been rendered partially historic by developments, not only in the lives of the children but also in the lives of the adults and within the family at large. Applications of this sort, if they are to merit serious consideration, have to be brought to this court either within the time prescribed by the rules or shortly thereafter. I sympathise with Mr D. He is not a lawyer, he tells me that he is dyslexic. He tells me that has done his best but, nonetheless, that best does not meet the standards set by this court.
5. I have no hesitation in saying that this application should not be admitted and particularly not admitted when it is so grossly out of time. For these reasons the application is refused.
Order: Permission to appeal refused.