B (a child), Re

On 7 July 2006, I heard an application by Mr. David Bradford for permission to appeal against an order made by His Honour Judge Hunt on 6 February 2006. Immediately afterwards, I heard an application by Mr. Shaun O’Connell, who was seeking permission to appeal against an order made by Coleridge J on 29 March 2006. I reserved judgment in both cases, and handed down a written judgment on 25 August 2006: - [2006] EWCA Civ 1199. I refused both applications. Reference should be made to that judgment (which is, of course, in the public domain) for my reasons for refusing Mr. Bradford’s application.

In paragraph 29 of my judgment, when concluding my remarks on Mr. Bradford’s case, I commented: -

I should perhaps add that when reserving judgment, I invited Mr. Bradford to send me copies of the various Welfare/CAFCASS reports, of which he was critical. He has not done so.

This paragraph contains an error. Mr. Bradford had in fact, under cover of a four page document dated 13 July 2006 and stated to be for my attention, submitted four such reports, dated respectively 23 October 2001, 22 March 2002, 27 November 2003 and 29 March 2005. The last of these did not appear to be complete, since the Court Reporting Officer (CFR), very properly, conducted his assessment by reference to the welfare checklist under section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989, and the report ended abruptly, without any signature, after two paragraphs devoted to section 1(3)(c) of the Act, which related to the likely effect on K of any change in his circumstances. Section 1(3), of course, comprises sub-sections (a) to (g), and the CFR’s comments under (d) to (g) were missing.

Unfortunately, and for no reason except oversight, Mr. Bradford’s four page document and the four reports were not shown to me, and I did not have them before me when I wrote my judgment in Mr. Bradford’s case. I have only recently received a complete copy of the report dated 29 March 2005. I am therefore giving this additional judgment to deal with these documents.

Mr. Bradford is, of course, owed an apology for the administrative failure to place the document dated 13 July and the four reports before me. He is also owed an apology for my delay in writing this additional judgment. These I offer him unequivocally.

The question, however, is whether or not the documents affect the order which I made on 25 August when dismissing Mr. Bradford’s application for permission to appeal. It is this point which I propose to address in this additional judgment. I have not thought it either necessary or appropriate to invite further oral submissions from Mr. Bradford. The reason for this is that such submissions were not envisaged on 7 July when I heard the application. What Mr. Bradford proposed, and what I agreed, was that Mr Bradford would send me copies of the various reports, and I would take them into account when writing my judgment.

What, I have to say, surprises me about Mr. Bradford’s 13 July document is that, far from being critical of the various reports, he prays them in aid in attacking the various orders made by His Honour Judge Hunt. In paragraph 24 of my judgment handed down on 25 August 2006, I recorded Mr. Bradford as stating the following in his skeleton argument: -

The history of the case contains fraudulent applications for court orders and public funding of the mother’s advocates; the concealment of / failure to obtain key evidence by the mother and officers of the court; contempt of court by officers of the court; wilful neglect to public duty; perversion of the course of justice….. Even when I made a specific order application for a review of the misconduct / criminal conduct of named officers of the court, “Judge” Hunt did not even both referring to such serious matters in his ruling – presumably because he did not even both considering them” (my emphases).

There are also references in Ward LJ’s judgment given on 19 October 2005 to complaints about the welfare officers (paragraph 3) and to the fact that the children’s guardian, who earlier in the proceedings had been supportive of Mr Bradford, had “changed his mind because he fears that the father’s attitude to the mother, bristling with hostility as it is, risks the misfortune of driving a wedge between K and his father” (paragraph 8).

It therefore comes as a considerable surprise to me that Mr. Bradford, in the document dated 13 July 2006, whilst demonstrating very clearly his contemptuous view of K’s mother, relies on the four reports as evidence that Judge Hunt wantonly disregarded the advice of the CFR (the same person wrote all four reports) that contact should move out of the supported sphere. The judge, Mr. Bradford alleges, thereby breached both the ECHR rights of K and Mr. Bradford, as well as the overriding objective contained in the Civil Procedure Rules. Furthermore, as Mr. Bradford had previously submitted, Judge Hunt’s motives for taking this course were corrupt in that they were based on retaliation for the fact that Mr. Bradford had made formal complaints about the judge to the Lord Chancellor and to the Department of Constitutional Affairs. The consequence, Mr. Bradford argues, is that the judge’s conduct and his refusal to make contact orders which were in the child’s interest has led to the breakdown in the relationship between K and his father. Had the judge behaved properly, and made orders which were in K’s interests, K and his father would, by now, be enjoying a full and proper father/son relationship.

It is certainly the case that the reports of 23 October 2001, 22 March 2002 and 27 November 2003 are all positive in tone. The first, dated 23 October 2001, was written to assess the suitability of Mr. Bradford’s wife to act as a supervisor for the purpose of his contact with K. The CFR took the view that some progress could be made through the involvement of Mrs. Bradford, although she was, then pregnant. It was, however, suggested that she be introduced to K at the contact centre, and that Mr. Bradford should be entitled to take K out in the company of his wife. That arrangement, it was suggested, should continue until the hearing in January 2002.

The second report, by the same CFR, expressed the view that contact could now take place outside the contact centre. K appeared happy in Mrs. Bradford’s company. An expanded arrangement was proposed whereby Mr. Bradford took K out - but with the limitation that his visits would have to coincide with the opening hours of the centre.

The third report is dated 27 November 2003. It was written following Mr. Bradford’s application to vary the order for contact made on 5 April 2002. The CFR reported that K enjoyed spending time with his father and “expressed real fondness” for Mrs. Bradford. He also liked G. The CRO speaks positively of the relationship between Mr Bradford and K, and describes the letters which Mr. Bradford has written to K as “some of the best I have seen between a father and son”. The report concludes that as at 27 November 2003:-

My understanding is that this report was ordered to assist the court only in addressing whether it would be appropriate to give Mr. Bradford leave to apply for a variation in the existing order. I consider that contact has gone well and that there has been nothing done or said that should not have been. Consequently, it would be right to allow a review of the current arrangements. Whilst not invited to express a view on whether contact could safely be extended now, this conclusion already implies that I think it could be, without significant risk to K.

The fourth report, which is dated 29 March 2005, begins by reporting that contact had continued at the contact centre regularly at the Family Contact Centre for two hours every third Saturday until the end of January 2005, when the co-ordinator of the Centre had withdrawn the place. Mr. Bradford had been given permission to bring the matter back to court. As at the date of the report, K was seeing his father fortnightly as an alternative Contact Centre.

The CFR states that his instructions were to consider three matters: (1) K’s living accommodation; (2) his contact with his father; and (3) the suitability of K accompanying his mother on holiday to Mauritius. He lists the investigations he had undertaken, and reported Mr. Bradford’s wish for contact to be increased so that K could visit him at home on alternate weekends. Mr. Bradford “admits freely that his ultimate objective is for K to live permanently with him”. He was critical when speaking of K’s mother. K’s mother was “much more temperate” when discussing K’s situation.

The CFR goes through the welfare check-list. He expresses the view that extending contact beyond the contract centre would not have any harmful effect on K. Whilst both parents were very capable of providing for K’s physical and educational needs, K’s mother, in the CFR’s view. was more aware of his emotional needs. The CFR was concerned about Mr. Bradford’s “continual criticism” of K’s mother as a carer and his failure to appreciate what she might offer K. This, the CFR thought, must risk diminishing her in K’s eyes.

The CFR’s recommendation was for fortnightly visiting contact for the day. He did not recommend overnight contact. The CFR was concerned about Mr. Bradford’s motives. He commented:-

I think until he (Mr. Bradford) accepts that K will continue to live with (his mother) He (Mr Bradford) will see any significant increase as no more than another step towards K’s living with him permanently, and K should not have to suffer the pressures that this will cause.

The CFR was, however, in favour of K having a holiday with his mother in Mauritius.

I have, albeit I accept belatedly, read the four reports Mr. Bradford wished me to see. They are all, in my judgment, unexceptionable, although they plainly contain the seeds of Mr. Bradford’s determination to have K live with him and equally clearly reflect his poor view of K’s mother, a factor to which Ward LJ made reference in the judgment of 19 October 2005, from which I quote extensively in my previous judgment.

I have to say, however, that the four reports come nowhere near supporting Mr Bradford’s criticisms of Judge Hunt. If anything, they support the judge’s view that Mr. Bradford, by 29 June 2005 had developed “obsessive, blinkered and distorted views” of K’s mother, which he was hiding from K. It was this factor, of course, which was instrumental in determining the judge’s order made on that date.

However, the short point is that the four reports are, in my judgment, wholly irrelevant to the question which I had to decide on 7 July 2006 (see paragraph 4 of my judgment handed down on 25 August). They do not, accordingly, in any way affect my refusal of permission to appeal against the orders made by HH Judge Hunt on 6 February 2006, which will stand.

Whilst, therefore, I acknowledge that Mr. Bradford is owed an apology for the manner in which these additional documents have been considered, they do not affect my previous decision.