S (A Child)

Lord Justice Thorpe:

1. Mrs McMillan renews an application to appeal orders made by HHJ Coates in the Brighton County Court. Her application for permission was launched on 1 October and considered and determined by Wall LJ on 2 October. Because the applications relate to interlocutory and case management orders made by the judge, particularly on 19 September, in the course of interrupted proceedings which are due to resume on 9 October; ie the day after tomorrow, Wall LJ succinctly explained why there was absolutely no foundation in the permission application and made the powerful point that, given the narrowness of the timeframe, if any application was to be made effectively to this court it had to be done immediately following the order of 19 September.

2. Now I would have thought that that succinct determination would have been enough for any lawyer. But no, there is a renewed oral application advanced by Mrs McMillan, and I mean no disrespect to her when I say it is as hopeless a renewed application as I have ever heard in the ten years that I have sat in this court. It is simply without any foundation or realistic goal. The best that can happen to this litigation is that it resumes on Thursday and that it be rigorously timetabled to ensure that it is completed on 4 November. I would particularly invite the parties and the judge to consider at the outset on Thursday dictating a timetable whish is inflexible and which will ensure a successful conclusion.

3. We also have two applications by Mr S, the father of the person. He is concerned, as was Mrs McMillan, by the propriety of paragraph 1 of the order of 19 September, which is in extremely conventional terms: “An addendum report to be provided by Dr Withecomb as soon as practicable.”

4. The unreality of the application is most simply demonstrated by saying that in the interim we are told Dr Withecomb has in fact furnished the report. I understand the father’s concerns that the local authority are, in his view, seeking to revive sexual abuse applications that were struck out by Pauffley J, and I understand his concern that the report of Dr Withecomb may be adverse to his aspirations. But all those are matters for the trial judge.

5. There is absolutely no role for the Court of Appeal in this continuing litigation saga, and I would simply refuse all the applications that are listed before us today. Mr Justice Hedley:

6. I agree. Order: Applications refused.