[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales County Court (Family)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales County Court (Family) >> Doncaster MBC v DA [2014] EWCC B14 (Fam) (14 February 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCC/Fam/2014/14.html Cite as: [2014] EWCC B14 (Fam)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SHEFFIELD COUNTY COURT
FAMILY HEARING CENTRE
The County Court
West Bar
Sheffield

		14th February 2014

JUDGE CARR: In this case I am concerned with a little boy, L, who was born on the [a date in] 2012. His parents were Ms. F and Mr. A. It was Ms. F second child. She had a daughter F born on the [a date in] 2006 whose father is H. L was born by emergency caesarian section at 32 weeks, as Ms F was suffering from terminal cancer. Ms F was born on the [a date in] 1985 and very sadly she died a month after the birth of L on the [a date in] 2012. D was born on the [a date in] 1981. L is his first child and at the time of Ms F's death he was in a relationship with her and was aware, unfortunately, of the dreadful diagnosis that she had. Due to L's prematuaty, L was kept in hospital recovering from his prematurity until the 28th of August of 2012, when he was released into the care of his father who underwent the trauma of moving house and coping with the grief at the death of his partner.

As a result of Ms F's terminal diagnosis her daughter F from having lived with D and obviously her mother Ms F, went to live with her maternal grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. W. I should point out that when I call grandparents it would be fair to say that Mr. W is a step grandparent but they are in a solid marriage. They have been married for over ten years and he saw Ms F grow up and treated her as a daughter, Ms F's birth father having been deceased also. so he is a step grandparent but in reality he has treated F as his granddaughter, I have no doubt regards L the same. So L having being released into the care of his father, remained in the care of his father until he was admitted to hospital on the 14th October 2012. What appears to be uncontradicted is that his grandmother and grandfather, Mr. and Mrs. W saw a lot of L, out of the 47 days that elapsed from his release from hospital until his readmittance to hospital on the 14th October 2012 he spent 22 of those days with his grandparents and the other 25 with his father, but his father did care for him overnight. Care proceedings were issued on the release of L from hospital which occurred on the 28^th December of 2012. L has remained in foster care since that date as the mechanism of going through a finding of fact hearing had to take place. The proceedings have in many respects taken time because there have been expert assessments and the like and the papers set out in detail the chronology which I do not intend to repeat here, save to say that is accurate and full. When L was readmitted to hospital which on the 14th October, it was his father who took him there and as events subsequently revealed L had suffered serious and significant injuries now known to be as a result of a shaking incidents. As matters subsequently transpired, father admitted to three shaking incidents on two occasions. L's injuries were life threatening. Today he is a little boy who has a shunt fitted to drain the fluid from his brain. He may be developmentally delayed and he has some muscular problems. All these life threatening injuries were as a result of injuries inflicted upon L by his father. When those injuries were inflicted and it seems the first occasion was some time in September and the second on the 12th October of 2012 father denied responsibility for them. That caused a huge amount of medical experts to become involved, to look at and to establish how L had suffered these injuries and essentially it was the case, urged on behalf father, that it was due to his prematurity and possibly the treatment that his mother was receiving in the form of chemotherapy to try and halt or alleviate her diagnosis of cancer. This situation continued from October 2012 through to the 24th of June 2013. As a result of maternal grandmother, Mrs. W, caring for L on the 13^th October 2013, she fell under suspicion. However all the medical experts came to the clear conclusion that the injuries that L suffered was not as a result of either his prematurity or the cancer treatment his mother received whilst he was in utero. Mrs W was invited by the local authority to intervene in the proceedings, which must have been devastating for her, dealing as she was with the death of her child and all that that would have brought about.

Movement came from father in late May 2013 and the final admissions of causing the bilateral subdural haemorrhages and the bilateral retinal haemorrhages came finally on the 24th of June of 2013 when father made admissions of having shaken L on three occasions in two incidents. The notes of what he said appear in the bundle at A30 in typed form and B88 to 89 in handwritten form signed by father. I was the judge at that finding of fact hearing and as such I made the findings that all of L's injuries were caused by father shaking him on more than one occasion.

The complicating factor in this case was that for a period of time maternal grandmother was content for father to care for his son, L. The local authority in the form of Ms Martin who is now a team leader was also content. That was the effect of the parenting assessment completed on the 11^th of June 2013 (C42 to 76) hence before the finding of fact hearing. It was premised on the fact that the injuries caused by father were unintentional and there was a cautious optimism by Ms Martin as set out in her parenting assessment that father could care. Of course at that time maternal grandmother was still an intervener, although she had been notified on the 30th of May 2013 that she need no longer intervene but at the time of this parenting assessment grandmother was still under suspicion, although by the time of signing it she was no longer under suspicion. The fact of the matter was that Doncaster MBC saw fit to file what was a cautiously positive rehabilitation of L to his father without knowing the full facts arising from the finding of fact.

As a result of father making the admissions he eventually did on the 24th June 2013 a new social worker, Ms. Cont, came into the case and had to pick it up and look at it in the light of the findings. She filed an assessment on the 2nd September 2013 which appears at C87 to 109 where she was not positive about the rehabilitation of L to father and of course by that time maternal grandmother having been put somewhat in the picture, sought to put herself forward and started to see L on a monthly basis and made it clear that she wished to be considered his full time carer. That resulted in a viability assessment (as it is called) of Mr and Mrs. W on the 11th December of 2013 and it appears at C141 to 175.

Meanwhile father had commenced a relationship in about February 2013 with Ms. O which exists to date. They have lived as a couple since July 2013 and it would be fair to say that Ms O fully supports father in his desire to care for L and has submitted herself to detailed assessment. She has had an assessment at C110 to 129 by Ms. Cont and she has co-operated fully and supports father in any way she can. The social work assessments were full, they were complete and the matter would have proceeded in that way. At the time, though, I was considering the matter post the finding of fact and I was aware that there was a cautiously optimistic assessment of Ms Martin's in June prior to the finding of fact. Of course I was not aware of the intent of maternal grandmother to come forward and seek to care for L along, obviously with L's half sister F. As such I sanctioned the following experts; a forensic psychologist Dr Briggs who specialises in risk assessment and a Resolutions report from a Bristol based firm in the form of Professor John Gumbleton. Resolutions are risk assessment social workers and the plan was to look at L's situation in tandem as to whether it would be safe to return L to father and try and rectify the position of one social worker (Ms. Martin) being cautiously optimistic and the social worker who was subsequently appointed (Ms Cont) to look after L's interests ruling that the risk was too great. Those reports appear in the E section of the bundle, in respect of David Briggs his report of the 13th of November 2013 is at E233 to 259 and the Resolutions report dated the 6th of November 2013 is at E260 to 282. There are also addendum reports and a letter from John Gumbleton. The nett impact is clearly set out effectively in those two reports and the experts did not deviate when they both gave oral evidence. Both Doctor Briggs and John Gumbleton was of the opinion that father must be viewed as continuing to pose a risk to L and therefore should not have sole or unsupervised care of L. Professor Gumbleton recommenced that this was until L was at least to three to four years old but possibly school age.

Both experts shared the view that Ms O is a protective factor and has the intellectual capacity to appreciate risk. In particular it was Doctor's Brigg's assessment that Ms O could protect L from harm but both experts identified the longevity of the relationship between Mr. A and Ms O as a concern given that they had known each other for less than 12 months (although it is just about 12 months as of now). Both agreed that the Resolutions programme for rehabilitation would come to an end if this relationship broke down and L would be placed in the care of Ms O rather than a blood relative. Their oral evidence mirrored that of their written evidence.

I have been assisted by all the advocates in this case by looking at the law and I turn to the law at this point. Formerly in the Nineteen Nineties it was the position that father would effectively have to be excluded before one would look at the grandparents. It altered in 2006 with the case of Re G [2006] UKHL 43 and it is absolutely plain now that it is a welfare consideration as a whole that I must look at and I must not elevate one above the other. The statutory position is that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. All consideration of the importance of parenthood in private law disputes about residence, must be firmly rooted in examination of what is in the child's best interests. This is the paramount consideration. It is only as a contributor to the child's welfare that parenthood assumes any significance. I am happy to say that all parties are in agreement that that effectively sets out the change in the law since that time and therefore I look at the welfare of L and the welfare checklist and it is a different situation from effectively the Re BS situation but I do accept and emphasise the three points that were made by Lord Neuberger in Re BA the Supreme Court decision of 2013 at UKSC 33 which was reiterated in Re BS (children) 2013 EWCA CIV 1146 as the matters that are relevant and applicable. So that although the child's interests are paramount, those interests include being brought up by his natural family, ideally his natural parents or at least one of them and obviously L only has one living natural parent that being his father. The relevant statute imposes a requirement that the Court must consider all available options when coming to a decision as reiterated in Re BS at paragraph 27 and that the Court's assessment of the parent's capacity to care for the child should include consideration of support that the authorities could offer to Mr. A in doing so, and that is set out in Re BS at paragraph 28.

I also bear in mind the warning of Lord Justice McFarlane in re G (A child) 2013 EWCA CIV 965 against a linear approach in deciding the outcome of the application. Obviously I must look at each option and balance each against each other in a single process and as Lord Justice McFarlane said at paragraph 46, where the options for the child do not include placement for adoption or adoption the Court will apply the welfare checklist in the Children Act at Section 1(3) to the welfare evaluation. The wording of certain elements of the welfare checklist must, he suggests, involve a direct comparison of the relevant options that are being considered. For example the likely effect on L of any change in his circumstances, any harm which is suffered or is at risk of suffering and how capable each of his parents and any other person. In relation to L the Court must consider this question to be relevant in terms of meeting his needs and I must look at all matters in a holistic way. Applying that criterium and looking at the evidence that I heard, this case was listed for five days, in fact due to the advocates taking a sensible line and the court sitting very full days, it was completed in three, and also because the real dispute was between the grandparents and father (Ms O). I heard from the experts as I said. I heard from Ms. Cont who maintained her position and gave in my judgment good, clear and sensitive evidence. I obviously also heard from father, Ms O and from Mr. and Mrs. W. I also heard from the guardian. The other witnesses were essentially agreed because everyone accepted that the people put forward as the protective circle around the father were people who were reliable and their evidence was accepted, without the need for calling them.

So as I indeed I must, I look at the respective positions of the parties. What is apparent looking at father's position his care of L is totally reliant on his remaining in a relationship with Ms O. They did present as a committed couple. However, the guardian in her report and Ms Cont in her viability assessment of them, did point out various factors and they are factors that it seemed to me to have some considerable weight. It depends on their staying together, it depends on Ms. O doing that which she said she will do, operating the protective circle around father. I have no reason to doubt that that is not her intention. She is an extremely child focussed young woman. She has got two boys of her own and she is in the childcare business and I have heard from her employers, details that L would be welcome there and that she is obviously a highly regarded employee. I have also on the other hand heard from the grandparents, they care for F. L and F would have been brought up together had their mother lived. Theirs is an important relationship. I acknowledge at this stage L's primary attachment is with his father, after his foster parents, but that is in part as a result of Mrs. W being in the pool of perpetrators until June 2013.

There is also hanging over father the fact that the police have demanded, as they are entitled to, details of his admissions in these proceedings. A list of documents were disclosed to the police on the 1st day of this hearing which commenced on the 6th of February. As I have already set out father has had to admit that he shook L on three occasions. I do not know what the police attitude will be. I cannot speculate whether or not they will charge Mr. A with offences under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. If they do it could be pursuant to Section 18 which is causing grievous bodily harm with intent or they could take a view because of his psychological condition and they have had the expert reports, Doctor David Briggs sets out clearly the collision of events that occurred to cause Mr. A to behave as he did. They may well take the view that a Section 20, of simple grievous bodily harm will suffice. All that would make an enormous amount of difference if he was charged in terms of sentencing. If it is Section 18 it is difficult to see how a custodial sentence would be avoided. If it is Section 20, the custody threshold would undoubtedly be crossed but a more benign and different view may be taken. It is very difficult for me to speculate but nonetheless that aspect is hanging over Mr. A now, given that the police have finally decided to take some action. It would have been open to them to have taken action in June 2013, once the admissions were made but an embargo was put on so that matters could be properly and fairly considered at a point and I emphasise this, at a point when I considered that there was a real likelihood that this little boy, who had been badly injured, but had a parent who wanted to care and wanted to co-operate should have the opportunity of being looked at properly, hence the engagement of Resolutions and David Briggs. So that if anything the advocates and happily the Court had anticipated Re BS in this case, had it been between father and adoption.

The situation of the police prosecution is there. At this stage I cannot place and I do not place significant weight on it. It is one of the factors that I have to consider. I think it will be fair to say that the social worker Ms Cont who I regard as having done a good and solid piece of work, approached it with an open mind and she was quite right to say father could not care by himself, that is the view of the experts. It is the position that father accepts it also. So Ms Cont was quite right that without Ms O this case, father's case would not have got off the ground because Doctor Briggs and Professor Gumbleton both say quite clearly that he does pose a continuing risk to L. It goes further than that because the guardian who has been involved throughout also cannot support placement of L with his father and does not support placement with father and Ms O, so all the experts in terms of the social work experts and the guardian and Doctor Briggs and Professor Gumbleton say that father poses a risk.

What the experts were being invited to look at was whether or not father with the assistance of Ms O could care and the view of the experts is provided father undergoes therapy and some counselling (and I fully accept that father would undergo those, so that is not the issue in this case) and the protective features are in place then he can care.

The experts were not looking at the grandparents, because they did not have to. There is no question but that the grandparents can care, and so the experts' evidence is, so far as it goes, only goes to the capacity of father with the assistance of Ms. O to care for L and if it was the old law that father had to be excluded before the Court could look at the grandparents, then one would have to look at it in that linear way but of course that is not now the law. I look at the welfare considerations of L. I look at the fact that if he goes to the grandparents he will be brought up with his sister, as indeed he would have been had his mother been alive and that is a factor that I bear in mind but overwhelmingly I have to look at the paramount interest of L. Happily come what may this is to be a kinship placement. I am not looking at a stranger adoption, that means that I have to look at this matter holistically as I have set out and on the basis of welfare considerations. So the options, considering a proper application of the welfare checklist is to look at both options. For father it is dependent wholly on Ms O and there is nothing that I have seen or read about that would tend to suggest to me that she is not entirely genuine in her desire to back up and support Mr A, but I do notice the negatives that the guardian set out and indeed Ms Cont also set out, but come what may Ms O is pivotal. There is no question about that. Doctor Briggs saw here her as pivotal but to the guardian their relationship is still in its building phase and there are the possible implications of the police investigation. There is the fact that they had a row at some point in late last year and she spent a night away. I am not for one moment suggesting that she would not have taken L with her if that had happened. I consider her to be a responsible woman. The plan is that Mr. A will be working long hours and effectively Ms. O will be the prime carer for three young children, her own two boys and L, on that scenario and in the case of L, he is a little boy who as a result of the injuries he sustained at the hands of his father has significant needs such that everyone agrees he needs better than good enough parenting and these are all factors that it is very important that the Court does not lose sight of. So effectively doing the very best that one can and highlighting the matters that I have already highlighted, and considering the whole of the checklist.

Section 1(3)(d) his age, sex, background and any other characteristics of his the Court considers relevant, L is a child who suffered significant brain injury. He has a VP shunt fitted in order to drain fluid from his brain. He takes medication for epilepsy to control seizures. He may be developmentally delayed and the signs are that he probably is behind even at this time. He requires physiotherapy to strengthen his muscles. He is a premature baby and given the injuries he has suffered it is the considered view of all the experts that he requires better than good enough parenting.

S1(3)(c), Any harm that he suffered; L has suffered significant harm due to his father shaking him on three occasions and there is a risk and I do not think the Court should hide behind this that L will suffer further harm if he is returned to his father's care, that is because father has still been assessed as presenting a risk to L and that risk is not alleviated simply by the Resolutions programme.

S1(3)(f), How capable are each of his parents and any other person in relation to him the Court considers the question to be relevant is of meeting its needs. Mr. A has been comprehensively assessed within these proceedings. The consensus of opinion is that he is not able to meet L's needs as a sole carer, therefore the pivotal role of Ms O is crucial to his case. The guardian, and it is an experienced guardian here and also Ms. Cont consider that proposition carries too many uncertainties and variables for L. It may amount to his being placed outside his birth family if the relationship went wrong whereas if he is placed with his grandmother (with his sister F) he is in that kinship placement and whatever may be said and Miss Shaw did highlight matters that will need to be looked at and I accept that they will need to be looked at but may be looked at as part of the special guardianship, they have been positively assessed. They are caring for F and there is not criticism of them for their care of F. They have had to deal with a little girl who has lost her mother and the grief that that must entail for her. They have a proven track record. Put simply it is a risk free permanent placement. They are not an old couple. Grandmother is in her mid forties, grandfather is ten years younger. Many people have children now late, often in their mid-forties. Age cannot be used as a discriminatory factor against the grandparents and positively not against grandfather and there is no question in my mind that grandmother and grandfather were being entirely honest in saying that they realise the need for direct contact of L with his father, contact will preserve his bond and I could well see why grandfather was only ten minutes in the witness box because he came across entirely as he was found by the guardian and Ms Cont to be someone who will facilitate, will be able to stand back and ensure contact works and the love that he feels for F shone through. I make that clear, I have every confidence that L will receive a balanced and good upbringing from his grandmother and grandfather and in time will have his primary attachment to them, but will also see father. I obviously do consider grandmother. She has undergone the huge loss of losing Ms F. She has had to cope with that. She has dealt with it well. I was particularly helped by the statement from Shona Tutin. It laid to rest a lot of matters that Ms Shaw had properly probed in cross-examination. I am satisfied from that, that grandmother did try and effect a reconciliation between Ms. F's sisters and Ms F when Ms F was terminally ill. Mrs. W put behind whatever may have happened. It must be a very great loss to her that she does not see her grandson by S and it is a pity that Ms F's death has not brought the family together, but although it was probed by Ms Shaw, these things happen in families. Mrs. W gave me her take on it. I have no reason to disbelieve her. In fact I have every reason to believe her and as part of the special guardianship report which no doubt the local authority will pursue, these matters will have to be further probed.

I leave it to the local authority as to when they think it is right to move L to the grandparents. I do reject any suggestion that L should not be moved sooner rather than later. He has been in foster care far too long and the reason why he has been in foster care is the time it took his father to admit responsibility and to say that L should be further kept away from a family placement is wrong. Had not the finger of suspicion fallen on the grandmother I have every confidence that the local authority would have looked immediately to place L with his grandparents and I am sorry to say father bears significant blame for his failure to face up to what he did, if he had put his son first at that time he would have said what he had done, and whilst Mr. A was being assessed allowed L to be with his sister and with his grandparents. I emphasise that is no part of my judgment against father, it is simply a factor that I want the local authority to feel confident to place L as soon as they can with his grandparents. There is no reason at all for any delay following my judgment.

The range of powers under S1(3)(g) that I have available to me under the Act is that I have to consider all options. I set out that clearly. In doing so I have considered all options. I consider that placement with father is not risk free, it is a risk. It is too greater a risk when there is a risk free placement available for L with his sister, which all agree it is. The guardian agrees with the proposed level of contact to Mr. A and I can see no reason at all why it should not be supervised by Ms O in the fullness of time. I am quite satisfied that she would protect in the contact scenario, if she was not around someone would have to be found, it would be only supervised contact until L is old enough to be able to protect himself.

Considering all matters as I must it seems to me that the guardian and the social worker are correct and this is not disagreeing with the opinion of Doctor David Briggs and Professor Gumbleton because they were only looking at father and they urged me, and both of them were clear, that if there was another realistic scenario, and obviously there is here, then I would have to consider it. There is such uncertainty in the proposals made by Doctor Briggs and Professor Gumbleton that it seems to me to be very clear that I should place, and place sooner rather than later, L with his grandparents and that is my clear judgment and clear view, having listened with care to a case that I have not found easy and there has been a considerable amount of evidence to digest. I am satisfied that the guardian and Ms Cont have balanced the case correctly. It is their opinion I agree with.

I am asked to place under interim care orders still, I will do that. I would hope this case can come to an end very much sooner rather than later. I do not know what the plans are Ms. Hunt. Obviously I think I ought to have it back fairly soon unless you can do something composite now. I have already indicated that I give until the end of the month for Ms. Shaw to consider her position. MS. HUNT: Do I understand correctly by that then there should not be any move? JUDGE CARR: Well, there was no plan to move them. There was no plan on any view to move. There is obviously - you are entitled it seems to me to start to put your plans in force and the stay will not exist beyond the 28th of February 2014 at which time Ms. Shaw would have to apply for leave from me to appeal the judgment and I would obviously have to listen to that and form my own view but that would be on the 28th. It cannot go any longer because it may well that this is a seven day case, I do not know what your view but it did seem to me to be a reasonable request to allow 14 days.

MS. HUNT: Yes. I do not try to argue that at all. JUDGE CARR: But there was no, the earliest was mid-March I thought from Ms. Cont. It was the 1st of March in the papers, so I do not see the local authority's prejudice and if, say, Ms. Shaw does get instructions to appeal, I sincerely hope that Mr A and Ms O think long and hard before they do that, but if she does then I will consider that application and consider whether or not to extend a further stay. If I do not do either of those it is to the Court of Appeal and Ms. Shaw, using her considerable skills, will no doubt try and persuade them in the event she receives those instructions. MS. HUNT: Can I be absolutely clear whether the local authority is permitted to begin a transition. That will involve..... JUDGE CARR: Absolutely. I have made that clear.

MS. HUNT: .....a reduction in father's contact to once a week and a steady increase in the time L spends with the grandparents. JUDGE CARR: Yes. Ms. Shaw, that was my intention. MS. SHAW: Yes, your Honour. I understand your Honour's position and I think it is a compromise, is not it?

JUDGE CARR: It is. MS. SHAW: But obviously we have heard the evidence that was not to be moved on the 1^st of March. Your Honour has kindly8 granted me the extended time until the end of the month and as I say at this juncture it is not something I am saying will be pursued, it needs to be reflected upon.

JUDGE CARR: No. You have got to have mature reflection. As I say, ordinarily I would have handed down a written judgment and posted it out, but it did seem to me with the lead that I had to take that I was best to do it orally notwithstanding it is always my practice to provide a written judgment. MS. SHAW: I am grateful your Honour. No, your Honour, I do not object to the fact that obviously the transition arrangements reflected in contact will begin and obviously if there is no application that is granted for stay or for permission to appeal then the rest of the plan will flow in any event.

JUDGE CARR: Yes, yes, it will Ms. Shaw, I am afraid. MS. HUNT: So the local authority could then file a plan by end of Tuesday setting out what the transition will be so that the people will know what will happen unless there is an application for leave. JUDGE CARR: Yes. Well, I do not think I need do anything - when is the next hearing going to be? MS HUNT: We have not talked about that. Previously.....

JUDGE CARR: How long will the local authority to do an SGO that is really what I need to know. It has always been their intention it should be.

MS. HUNT: Report by the end of April is currently suggested.

JUDGE CARR: Well, I would have liked it this side of Easter, I am bound to say.

MS. HUNT: Easter is at the end at the end of April, is not it?

JUDGE CARR: Easter Monday - Good Friday is the 18th. I mean I do not know, I am not going to interfere with things because I do acknowledge that the probings by Ms. Shaw need looking at. MS. HUNT: Well, the middle of April, then just before the Easter break.

JUDGE CARR: I would prefer it, yes. An awful lot is known.

MS. HUNT: Yes, that is right. 14th of April, I am not sure what day of the week that is.

JUDGE CARR: The 14th of April is a Friday. Sorry, is a Monday.

MISS ROGERS: Your Honour, I am sorry to rise at this point, the guardian is off for virtually the whole of April. She is back early May. I do not see that being too much of a problem, unless the Court is expecting a final position statement.

JUDGE CARR: No. She is - I think my best bet is, Ms. Hunt can you lead discussions. I am not - it is obviously - I do not want Ms. C. to be rushed about this because if it has to be a bit later it has to be a bit later. The guardian has to have an input, does not she? Why don't you lead discussions. I think that would make sense.

MS. HUNT: Can I just raise the question of the publication of the judgment and whether how.....

JUDGE CARR: Well, it does not have to be. That is another reason for doing it orally. Have you checked up the.....

MS. HUNT: Well, having looked at it I would agree with respect that if - it seems to be saying if there is a written judgment in evidence.....

JUDGE CARR: If it was written it would have to be published.

MS. HUNT: Or you order a transcript it would have to be published.

JUDGE CARR: I have no intention of ordering a transcript here because - I probably would have done if it had been the finding of facts, I would have ordered a transcript but not on this. I think it falls into paragraph 18. So if anybody wants one they can request and I will obviously grant, but I am not ordering it myself. That is how I read the rules, Ms Hunt.

MS. HUNT: Yes, well, I agree and.....

JUDGE CARR: So if anyone wants one I will gladly order one at their costs, but.....

MS. SHAW: I think your Honour bearing in mind that I do not know what my instructions will be.....

JUDGE CARR: Well, why do not you do it afterwards? Why do not you do it afterwards, I would have thought? I mean there is no problem about that Ms. Shaw. I take the view that I should not refuse if you ask, but you have heard, your clients have heard if you need it it can be done. I will make sure that we do not lose the tape. MS. SHAW: Thank you, your Honour. JUDGE CARR: Because they do expedite it, they won't take that long. I do not know how long I have been, probably half an hour. It is a fairly swift job and they can anonymise as I see fit. I will see you before the 28th Ms Shaw because you will have to apply (inaudible).

MS. SHAW: Yes, your Honour.

JUDGE CARR: Can I suggest that if that happens you take Rachel's e-mail. And let her know because obviously I will have to deal with it and you will have to notify everyone else but it will have to be before the 28th. May I mention, on the 28th I am meant to be going down to Criminal Seminar.