Seeking reasons

In re A (a child) (duty to seek reasons) CA TLR 16 October

After the judge at a preliminary fact-finding hearing in a Children Act public law case found that either the mother or father might have been responsible for causing a very serious injury to the baby, the father had applied for permission to appeal. His application was refused. At the end of the trial, either counsel for the father should have asked for amplification of reasons, or counsel for the local authority should have questioned whether the judge was impliedly saying both parents were equally liable. In the present case, all that happened was that counsel for the father sought permission to appeal. In the heat of the moment, it is easy for counsel to forget their responsibility of asking the judge for clarification, but before filing a notice of appeal there was time for reflection and to seek additional reasons following paragraph 25 of the practice note in English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd ([2002] 1 WLR 2409).