The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by A.B. against the refusal of leave to seek judicial review of a District Court judge’s decision not to state a case for the High Court. The appeal did not ask the Court of Appeal to review the safety order itself, and the court said it had no role in deciding the merits of the original application for that order.
The safety order was made on 6 September 2023, on an application by A.B.’s former spouse under the Domestic Violence Act 2018. A.B. understood the order’s prohibition on following or communicating with the applicant or dependent persons to prevent contact with his children. The order was to remain in force until 5 September 2026. The judgment said the circumstances behind the application were not before the Court of Appeal.
A.B. later asked the District Court to declare its safety order void, arguing that it conflicted with an earlier Circuit Court order concerning custody and access. The District Court refused that application. When A.B. sought a case stated to challenge the refusal, the District Court judge declined, certifying on 20 February 2024 that the case-stated application was frivolous.
The High Court refused A.B. leave to seek judicial review of that decision. It concluded that the District Court had no procedure to review its own order and that A.B.’s route was an appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed: A.B. had not shown an arguable legal basis for the claim that the District Court could revisit its decision. It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court order.
The Court of Appeal separately commented on the wording of the safety order, while stressing that it was not criticising the District Court judge or reconsidering the order’s substance. It observed that the order appeared to use a template and did not identify any dependent persons. The court said the prohibition on communication could be understood as an absolute bar on contact with the children, and that if this was intended, it would have expected the order to say so unambiguously and identify those persons.
The judgment noted that the District Court Rules allow correction of clerical mistakes or accidental omissions in an order, and that the 2018 Act permits an application to vary a safety order. It did not make an order correcting or varying the safety order. The court encouraged A.B. to re-engage with his solicitor.