B1/2002/1003/1004
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Civ 1025
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE                      
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM NORWICH COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Hyams)
								Royal Courts of Justice
								Strand
								London WC2

								Wednesday, 3rd July 2002
B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE THORPE

- - - - - -

IN THE MATTER OF H (A CHILD)

- - - - - -
(Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 0171 421 4040
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - -

The Applicant did not appear and was unrepresented.

The Respondent did not appear and was unrepresented.

- - - - - -

J U D G M E N T
Wednesday, 3rd July 2002 
1.	LORD JUSTICE THORPE: Mr H seeks permission to appeal orders made by His Honour Judge Hyams, as he then was, in the Norwich County Court in Children Act proceedings. The orders were made in the months of March and April 1997. They were only stepping stones to a final hearing which took place in June 1997. The orders were made by Judge Hyams in furtherance of a pilot scheme that was then on foot in a number of courts in order to try and rationalise the interface between Children Act proceedings and linked proceedings in the criminal justice system. The substantive care order made in June 1997 was the subject of an application which ultimately fell in the dismissal list, due to Mr H's failure to produce bundles. Thus, the applications in respect of interlocutory orders now seem academic. The application for permission in relation to these orders was not received in the office until about April 2002. It is therefore about five years out of time and transparently misconceived. It is therefore dismissed.
2.	Mr H has also applied to the Administrative Court in respect of an even earlier order made within the proceedings in September 1996. The Administrative Court has, for reasons that are not entirely clear to me, passed the papers to this court. However, I suppose it may be on the basis that the Administrative Court conceived that the application should have been directed to this court as a permission application. 
3.	Accordingly, I will so treat it and dismiss it also. 
Order: Application dismissed. Copy of judgement to be provided to Applicant at public expense.