W (Children), Re

Mr W renews an application for permission to appeal against an order made by McFarlane J on 17 September 2007. I refused the application on paper and the matter is renewed orally to me today. There is a very substantial background to this case which Bennett J and I attempted to set out in a lengthy judgment we gave following a previous application by Mr W. The judgment was handed down on 26 July. It is in public although it is anonymised and I do not propose to repeat anything that we said in it, because it represented our joint view as at that date.

The order made by McFarlane J on 17 September was to adjourn the matter to 30 October, and on 30 October the judge made a substantive order which relates to indirect contact and gives other directions. I should perhaps say that at the outset of this application Mr W made an application that I should recuse myself on the basis that I, like the other judges who have dealt with this case historically, am now perceived by him to be corrupt and biased. I should say that I see no reason whatsoever to recuse myself on this application, which relates simply to an adjournment order by the judge, but I will give serious consideration to any further application being heard by another judge so that he or she can deal with the matter afresh; and I would not want Mr W to go away from here today thinking that he has not had a fair hearing.

I have in fact listened to him for more than half an hour. He has reiterated what already is in the papers: namely, that he has a burning sense of grievance about what has happened and he is anxious to pursue his remedies in every direction possible, including criminal investigations and prosecutions if necessary. I should make it absolutely clear, if I have not done so already, that I not only cannot but would not wish to do anything which would prevent Mr W pursuing whatever remedy he thought appropriate and whatever remedy is properly available to him. But, as I said in July, my function today is very very limited. I am simply asked for permission to appeal against an order made by McFarlane J on 17 September adjourning the matter to 30 October. It will not have escaped anyone’s notice that it is now December, and indeed the judge heard the matter on 30 October and made an order. And so the order made on 17 September has been entirely overtaken by events. When I refused permission on paper, I commented that although I did not have a copy of the judgment I noted that the order had been made until 30 October. I had dealt with the matter on paper on 25 October. On that day it was clear to me that the best course Mr W could adopt was to attend before the judge and argue his case. I remain of the view, although I have listened very carefully to everything Mr W has said, that there is no purpose whatsoever in an appeal against the order of 17 September for the very simple reason that it has been overtaken by events.

I was very sorry to learn today that Mr W’s father and Mrs W’s husband, she having accompanied her son to court today, is extremely unwell; and therefore I have given this judgment immediately on hearing Mr W so that he and his mother can return to their father’s bedside. I sympathise entirely with them in the human dilemma in which they find themselves, but, as is apparent from what I have said, I have a very limited function in this case and I see no purpose in the 17 September order being appealed, and therefore the application to appeal it is refused.