That passage, with which I respectfully agree, seems to me exactly in line with the conclusion of Sir John Arnold P in the present case, which I have already quoted".
The hearing before us is an application for leave to appeal the learned Commissioner's decision on the ground that it was "plainly wrong". The learned Commissioner carefully considered all the relevant material and submissions. He was fully appraised of the possible risk in giving the approval he did. He had the benefit of reports from two qualified experts, with whose assessment he agreed. In the light of his understanding of the case he felt justified in reaching a decision without hearing further evidence from a psychiatrist about the Mother. He sought and received stringent undertakings to supplement the safeguards contained in the proposed plan. His decision was in our judgment one which he was fully entitled to reach.
The application for leave to appeal is rejected.
Authorities.
Rahman-v-Chase Bank (1984) JJ 127.
In re T, an Infant [1987-88] JLR 677.
Olsen: The Court of Appeal, Use or Abuse (1998) Jersey Law Review 150.
Glazebrook-v-Housing Committee (13 th November, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/217]; [2002] JLR N.43.
In re O, an Infant [2004]JRC079.
Ashmore -v- Corporation of Lloyds (1992) 2 All DER 486 HL.
G -v- G [1985] 1 WLR 647 @ pp.651-2.
Clarke-Hunt -v- Newcombe (1982) 4 F.L.R. 482.