ON APPEAL FROM THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRY OF THE FAMILY DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE COLERIDGE)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
B E F O R E:
LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER
LORD JUSTICE WALL
IN THE MATTER OF S (a Child)
(DAR Transcript of
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
THE APPELLANT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED.
THE RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED.
J U D G M E N T
LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: She I understand has been called and is not present. Is that the position?
USHER: That is the position.
LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I will ask Wall LJ to give the first judgment.
LORD JUSTICE WALL: Mrs S wishes to appeal against Coleridge J’s refusal on 18 October:
“… to grant habeas corpus and release and return my daughter, animals and possessions”.
The judge in fact made the following order: that Mrs S, having indicated that she proposed to object to the making of further interim care order on 1 November, no order was made on her application. It is plain that there are ongoing care proceedings in relation to the child in question, T, born on 1 March 1993. The application for habeas corpus was plainly wholly misconceived and the matter is only before this court because under the statute and the Rules, permission is not required to appeal against the refusal of an order for habeas corpus.
We have however been informed by the local authority this morning that the child, T, has gone missing with her mother and although recovery orders have been sought and obtained, it has not proved possible to implement them. That no doubt is one of the reasons why Mrs S fails to appear this morning.
But in any event, as I have already indicated, her application to the judge was wholly misconceived. This appeal is utterly without merit and should therefore be dismissed.
LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I agree.
Order: Appeal dismissed.