A (A Child) (Appeal: Finding of Rape), Re [2025] EWHC 1500 (Fam)

[2025] EWHC 1500 (Fam)Case No FA-2025-000024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT AT NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE
Mr Recorder Stables
NE24P07024
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 17/06/2025
Before
MS JUSTICE HENKE
Between
Respondent MotherRespondent
Re: A (A Child) (Appeal: Finding of Rape)
Hearing Hearing date: 7 May 2025
The Appellant appeared as a Litigant in Person
Roshni Poli (instructed by MarstonHarbottle Solicitors) for the Respondent Mother
Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 17 June 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
.............................
MS JUSTICE HENKE
This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.
[1]This is an appeal against findings of facts made by Mr Recorder Stables in private law Children Act proceedings concerning two children. Within the proceedings, there was a dispute over the paternity of the younger child, A. That dispute is relevant to this appeal. The mother claimed another was A’s father. As part of the case management directions which preceded the fact-find, paternity testing in relation to A had been ordered; an order which was eventually backed by a penal notice. Nevertheless, the mother wilfully, as the Recorder found, failed to cooperate with that testing. Before Mr Recorder Stables it was the mother’s case that her relationship with the father ended when he raped her. She asserted that A had been conceived approximately two months after the relationship ended. However, the Learned Recorder found that the Appellant was the father of the younger child and accordingly made a declaration that the Appellant was their father pursuant to S55A Family Law Act 1986. The mother has not sought permission to appeal that finding or order. The appeal before me is brought by the father. It is an appeal against the following findings, namely: That on 30.8.22 the father penetrated the mother’s vagina with his penis whilst she was asleep and that when she woke to find him having sexual intercourse with her, he told her “I thought I would wake you up with a nice surprise. The finding that F did not seem to realise at the time that he was doing anything wrong, and later told M that it was not rape as they were in a relationship. In essence the father’s appeal is against the finding of rape; the rape which the mother asserts ended the relationship and pre-dated the conception of A by approximately 2 months.[2]The findings in relation to the rape are one of a number of findings made against the mother and the father by Recorder Sables in a judgment formally handed down on 14 January 2025. Based on those findings, Mr Recorder Stables made a case management order in which he directed a S7 report from CAFCASS and listed the welfare stage of the hearing before another judge on 23 April 2025.[3]The father made an application to stay that case management order pending this court’s consideration of the appeal. In particular, he sought a stay of the direction requiring the preparation of the S7 report. I considered the application for a stay on the papers on 10 February 2025. I granted the stay because I considered that there was a real risk of injustice if a stay was not granted. That risk arose because the findings made were of the utmost severity and would, if they stood, be reflected in any report when considering the need to safeguard the children in the future and when considering the impact on the mother of future contact between the children and the father. At the same time, I gave directions to enable me to consider the father’s application for permission to appeal.[4]I was able to consider the father’s application for permission to appeal on the papers on 18 March 2025. I granted permission on limited grounds, namely that the learned Recorder: i. Ground 3- Failed to have sufficient regard, if at all, to the earlier finding that the Appellant father was the biological father of ‘A’ – the child, and that the parties must have had sexual intercourse sometime after the alleged rape, which conflicted with mothers evidence. ii. Ground 4- Further, failed to have sufficient regard, if at all, to the fact the relationship did continue, as above, and that factually the mother misled the court in her assertion she had ended the relationship immediately after the alleged rape. iii. Ground 5- Finding that mother controlled contact arrangements without reason and had maliciously called police to cause harm to the Appellant, resulting in the mother causing emotional and psychological harm to both children, yet failed to have sufficient regard to this history, if at all, and failed to balance the likelihood of the Appellant committing rape against mothers contrived allegations to frustrate contact.[5]I heard the appeal on 7 May 2025. At the appeal the father represented himself with the assistance of a McKenzie Friend. The mother was represented by Counsel. In order to determine this appeal, I had the benefit of focused and well-constructed oral arguments for both parties as well as skeleton arguments from each. I had an appeal bundle of 317 pages. During the appeal, the father referred to police disclosure which was not in the bundle before me but had been before the court below. With the agreement of the mother through her counsel, the police disclosure was placed before me for my consideration.

The Arguments as Advanced Before Me

[6]The Appellant father argues that the likely date of conception of A was such that it undermined the mother’s case that the parties separated the day after the rape. Therefore, it is said, her credibility on the rape allegation ought to be brought into question. He also argues that the learned Recorder erred by failing to consider the allegation of rape in the context of the findings that the mother had restricted contact arrangements without good reason. It is argued that Recorder Stables failed to factor into his decision making that the mother had contrived allegations to frustrate contact. The Appellant submitted that the finding that the mother had contrived allegations to frustrate contact and the allegation of rape, when viewed in their chronological context, are inconsistent. The mother has admitted to the police that she has lied to them about allegations that the father had raped other women. The father asserts that the mother did not want to support a prosecution against him for the allegation of rape she made because she knew that allegation of rape was also untrue. The father submits the court ought to have factored that in as a possibility when weighing the evidence as a whole rather than simply relying on the mother’s assertion that she had previously been too afraid to report the allegation.[7]On behalf of the mother, I am very properly and appropriately taken to the law relevant to appeals against findings of fact. It is submitted that the Recorder was clearly alive to the relevance of A’s paternity when considering the mother’s credibility. It is submitted that the Recorder provided an assessment of the mother as a witness at paragraph 19 of his judgment, and it is said that he clearly had his assessment in mind throughout his judgment, including when considering the allegation of rape. The judge did not make a specific finding about the date of A’s conception simply acknowledging the latitude around calculation of such dates – see paragraphs 30-31 and 34 of his judgment. It is argued that it does not follow that because the mother lied about the issue of paternity, she also lied about the rape. Further, it is said that even if the mother did lie about having sexual intercourse with the father after the date of the alleged rape that does not prove that he did not rape her. Many survivors of rape feel powerless to say no or are fearful of a reaction if they do refuse further contact with their rapist. Others do not wish to reveal what happened to them or even think about it because it is too painful to do so. Thus it is submitted nothing adverse can or should be drawn from a rape survivor continuing to have sexual relations with their rapist.[8]It is further submitted that at paragraph 138 the learned Recorder stated that I have considered all of the evidence relating to this allegation and the way it was given. This court is thus bound unless there is compelling reason to the contrary to assume that the judge did take the evidence as a whole in relation to the allegation of rape. The judge does not have to include a factual analysis on each and every issue in dispute in his judgment.[9]On behalf of the mother, it is submitted that there was ample evidence before the Recorder to discharge the burden of proof to the requisite standard in relation to the allegation of rape. The trial judge was uniquely placed to assess both parents evidence and clearly found the mother’s evidence more persuasive than the father’s evidence. I was properly reminded to avoid a narrow textual analysis of the Recorder’s judgment.[10]It is argued on behalf of the mother that the finding of rape and the findings that M’s claim that F is not the father of [A] is malicious, was made to prevent contact and inevitably will have caused both [A] and F emotional and psychological harm and that M has been very controlling over contact for non-child welfare reasons, and has chopped and changed the contact F has been allowed for no good reason, threatened F with the police unreasonably and is more recently motivated by a desire to deprive F and his family of all contact with [the older child] and [A], are not mutually inconsistent. Both can be true at the same time.

The Law Relevant to Appeals Against Findings of Fact

[11]The relevant law has recently been summarised by Mr Justice Hayden in F v M [2025] EWHC 1279 (Fam) wherein at paragraphs 18 and 19 he stated:18. An Appellate Court will not interfere with findings of fact made by the trial judge unless it is constrained to do so; this applies not only to primary facts but extends to the evaluation of those facts and inferences reasonably to be drawn from them. The correct approach is set out in the frequently cited Fage UK Limited v Chobani UK Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 5 , per Lewison LJ. Later, in Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464 , per Lewison LJ who characterised the approach to an appeal on a pure question of fact as a "well-trodden path" signposted by the following principles: "2. … i) An appeal court should not interfere with the trial judge's conclusions on primary facts unless it is satisfied that he was plainly wrong. ii) The adverb "plainly" does not refer to the degree of confidence felt by the appeal court that it would not have reached the same conclusion as the trial judge. It does not matter, with whatever degree of certainty, that the appeal court considers that it would have reached a different conclusion. What matters is whether the decision under appeal is one that no reasonable judge could have reached. iii) An appeal court is bound, unless there is compelling reason to the contrary, to assume that the trial judge has taken the whole of the evidence into his consideration. The mere fact that a judge does not mention a specific piece of evidence does not mean that he overlooked it. iv) The validity of the findings of fact made by a trial judge is not aptly tested by considering whether the judgment presents a balanced account of the evidence. The trial judge must of course consider all the material evidence (although it need not all be discussed in his judgment). The weight which he gives to it is however pre-eminently a matter for him. v) An appeal court can therefore set aside a judgment on the basis that the judge failed to give the evidence a balanced consideration only if the judge's conclusion was rationally insupportable. vi) Reasons for judgment will always be capable of having been better expressed. An appeal court should not subject a judgment to narrow textual analysis. Nor should it be picked over or construed as though it was a piece of legislation or a contract."19. Self-evidently, these principles shield the findings of a first instance judge with a robust and durable armour, though not, ultimately, an impregnable one.[12]I adopt that summary and have applied it to this appeal.

The Judgment at First Instance

[13]The fact-finding hearing came before Mr Recorder Stables. At that hearing the Appellant father had the services of Direct Access Counsel and the mother, who was in receipt of legal aid, was represented by Counsel. Over two days, namely 2 and 3 December 2024, the learned Recorder heard oral evidence from the father and the mother as well as four other witnesses. At its conclusion, he adjourned the hearing to enable both parties to prepare and file written submissions which they did by 16 December 2024. Mr Recorder Stables handed down his judgment in writing and gave directions based on the findings he had made on 14 January 2025. The judgment is 46 pages long.[14]Recorder Stables began his judgment with an introduction in which he set out the applications before the court and the issues he had to address.; 15 cross allegations of fact as well as the question of A’s paternity. The next section of the judgment set out the relevant background including the basic chronology, namely that the mother stopped the father’s contact with the older child on 22 December 2023. The father issued private law proceedings in relation to both children on 9 January 2024 and the mother made an allegation of rape against the father to the police on 19 January 2024 but told the police she did not want the father notified about the allegation. She said she would not provide a witness statement or undertake an interview and would not support a prosecution.[15]The third section of the judgment set out the legal framework. Within that section the learned Recorder correctly reminded himself that the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of he who asserts and that the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. He gave himself a basic Lucas direction.[16]At paragraphs 18-24 in the fourth section of the judgment, Recorder Stables set out his impression of the witnesses whom he had heard. In relation to the parents, he found:19. Mother in her evidence confirmed that she was wilfully refusing to comply with the court order for paternity testing. Her evidence then quickly ground to a halt as she took issue with having sent any of a tranche of WhatsApp messages that Mr Sethi was attempting to cross-examine her about. M was then not able to establish a stable remote connection to the court after the short adjournment and then had to leave to collect [the older child] from school, not having made childcare arrangements as directed. She resumed giving evidence on day 2 of the hearing, and maintained complete ignorance of the WhatsApp messages which on the face of it had been sent between her and F. There were parts of M’s evidence that were clearly exaggerated and I have had to be very careful to look at her evidence with care and to look to see what supporting evidence there is.20. F gave evidence. He was eager to advocate his case rather than simply to answer the questions he was asked. However, he did make some concessions in relation to some of the allegations and denied others. Some of the answers that he gave appeared to be given with little thought, and he would then occasionally change the answer on further questioning. Some of the evidence he gave did not appear in any of his many witness statements, and some of it was less than impressive and made little sense. On occasions he ducked answering questions. He was not a very persuasive witness, and there is a need to be somewhat cautious about F’s evidence too and to also look carefully at what supporting evidence is available.[17]Part five of the judgment simply sets out the allegations made by the mother against the father and the father against the mother before turning to the substance of the judgment at Part six where the Recorder sets out the evidence, the submissions and his findings. The Recorder began that section with considering the issue of A’s paternity. In relation to that issue, the learned Recorder took into account A’s date of birth and counted back 38 weeks i.e. the normal gestation date. That process gave a date after the date upon which the mother asserted, she last had sexual intercourse with the father. However, the Recorder drew on other evidence which proved the mother had referred to the appellant as the father. That evidence included a message from the mother to the father which read:
‘I’m so sorry for all of them hurtful things I’ve said, and all those silly things I’ve said to you. I’m so sorry from the bottom of my heart for everything and especially for my hormones this weekend. I never meant a word, and I haven’t done anything I promise I shouldn’t say those things to hurt you. I love you and I hope you can give our family one last chance because I will be waiting with open arms and a really big heart of love and a really big apology. We love you [the father] , the 3 of us. Hopefully the 4 of us can stand tall and strong in this crazy world. Us all against the world.’
The evidence which pointed to the Appellant as father for A included other WhatsApp messages passing between the parents after separation and after A’s birth as well as an application the mother made to the Child Maintenance Service shortly after A’s birth for the father to pay maintenance for the younger child. The Recorder took into account against the above that in evidence the mother had said she had been frightened to tell the father the truth of A’s paternity and had made the mistake of naming the father as A’s father on the application for Child Maintenance. She said she had tried to rectify that mistake by making a telephone call to the Maintenance Service. However, at paragraph 38 the Recorder rejected the mother’s evidence stating that it was undermined by a number of pieces of evidence before proceeding to find the Appellant was A’s father.[18]Having considered the issue of A’s paternity, the Recorder then proceeded to determine the allegations each party made against the other by dealing with the Schedule of Allegations the mother and the father made in turn. Having done so the Recorder found that the father had called the mother a fat mam and that both the mother and father had called each other names during arguments. Recorder Stables did not find that the father had repeatedly refused to return the older child to the mother’s care, as she alleged, and found that M inappropriately threatened F with the police after unreasonably curtailing contact. The Recorder found that the father had not threatened to hurt the older child as the mother had alleged. Recorder Stables found that whilst on occasion the father had expressed suicidal ideation, the father did not threaten to commit suicide in order to control the mother as she alleged. However, the Recorder found that the father had on two occasions sent messages with photographs of himself in which he had made disparaging remarks about himself in an attempt to emotionally control the mother. The Recorder found that: F caused M physical and emotional harm on [an occasion] when [the older child] was not present. F in a fit of jealousy falsely accused M of having an affair with a neighbour, pinned her against the wall, then smashed a TV putting his elbow through it, removed a picture of them from the wall and ripped it up. He then threw M into the bathroom. The assault hurt M. F threatened to take her up the fell and said that no one would ever find her again. F later apologised and did say he would not harm M again[19]At paragraph 121 of his judgment that Recorder Stables turned to consider the mother’s allegation that the father had raped her. He began by setting out what the mother had said in relation to this allegation in her written evidence and included a message trail exhibited to one of her statements which reads: F Give me a ring bby xxx M Look what happened last night is out of order, and it has happened on numerous occasions. It’s not fair and makes me feel awful. I had to go and sleep with my son because I can’t trust you, your bags are packed and I’ll contact your mam to collect them. I don’t want to fall out we can still be friends, but we are over. Thanks F Ring me M Don’t keep calling me because I don’t want to answer. There’s nothing more to say. The mother stated in her evidence that within this message she is referring to the rape which had happened the night before.[20]The Recorder then set out the father’s written evidence in response to the allegation of rape followed by a reference to the police disclosure by simply recording: Police Disclosure reveals that M reported the allegation of rape to the police on 19.1.24. He goes on to refer to other allegations.[21]At paragraph 125 of the Judgment there is then a reference to what the father said about the allegation in cross-examination. That paragraph includes a reference to the father’s denial. In relation to the above message the father’s evidence was that the message was about something else. He could not specifically recall what but he thought it could be a reference to his snoring about which they regularly argued. The Learned Recorder then proceeds within his judgment to set out the evidence he heard and read about this allegation as well as both parties’ submissions on this allegation before at paragraph 135- 139 stating this:135. I have considered the evidence relating to this allegation very carefully. I remind myself that it is for M to prove. M has given a consistent account of the incident in her statements, to the police and in court. I have considered carefully whether the messages the next morning support M’s allegation or not. Miss Scott says that they do. Mr Sethi submits otherwise.136. I have considered carefully F’s explanation for the messages. Snoring was not mentioned in his first witness statement, for which he had no explanation. It was mentioned in his later second statement. The explanation seemed to develop and expand in his oral evidence. In my judgment it was wholly implausible. He did not give this account consistently. It made no sense as an explanation for the message, for breaking up, or for lacking trust. I reject F’s evidence about the messages.137. I have reminded myself of R v Lucas and that if this explanation is a lying explanation it does not necessarily follow that F is lying about the rape and he may be lying to bolster a true denial of a false accusation.138. I have considered all of the evidence relating to this allegation and the way it was given. I have considered F’s claim that 30.8.22 was an unremarkable night of no particular memory, which is odd since it resulted in the text exchange and a break up as a result of it.139. I am driven to the conclusion and find that F on 30.8.22 penetrated M’s vagina with his penis whilst she was asleep. When she woke to find him having sexual intercourse with her he told her “I thought I would wake you up with a nice surprise”. I accept M’s evidence and find that F did not seem to realise at the time that he was doing anything wrong, and later told M that it was not rape as they were in a relationship.[22]Within paragraph 138 (set out above) Mr Recorder Stables specifically stated that he had considered all the evidence relating to this allegation. However, within the part of the judgment wherein he considers the rape allegation there is no consideration of the other findings that he had made which provide the context for the allegation nor is there any analysis of the interplay between his findings in relation to A’s paternity nor the findings in relation to the steps the mother had taken to restrict contact,[23]Having considered the rape allegation, the learned recorder simply then proceeded to consider the further allegations made by the mother and those made by the father in turn. In relation to those allegations, he did find that the father had told the older child to go and be unhappy with your fat mam and had said to the child that the mother’s new partner was a bastard. He did not find that the father had failed to provide the older child with an inhaler as the mother had alleged and found that any breathing difficulties the older child had were not caused by the father. The Recorder Stables turned to the father’s allegations against the mother and found that the M’s claim that F is not the father of [A] is malicious, was made to prevent contact and inevitably will have caused both [A] and F emotional and psychological harm. At paragraph 162 he found that the mother had not made a false allegation of rape to prevent contact but at paragraph 173 found that: I have no hesitation in concluding that M has been very controlling over contact for non-child welfare reasons, and has chopped and changed the contact F has been allowed for no good reason, threatened F with the police unreasonably and is more recently motivated by a desire to deprive F and his family of all contact with [ the older child] and [A]. In reaching that conclusion at paragraph 164 the Recorder stated This is an allegation where I have had regard to the wider evidence including the rest of the witness statements of F and the other witnesses. That sentence is clearly a reference to his consideration of the specific allegation and not the allegations as a whole.[24]At paragraph 179 of the judgment Recorder Stable found that the mother encouraged A to call her new partner Dad but did not do so in relation to the older child. At paragraph 187 the Recorder found that the mother had physically abused the father on one occasion by punching him in the face with her fist causing a spit lip and pushing him down the stairs of their flat but did not find that on another occasion the mother had harmed the older child inadvertently by physical violence. That finding was the last specific finding the Recorder made.[25]The next section of the judgment is headed – Consequential Issues. It deals with what is to happen to the judgment and when the case is to be listed.

My Analysis and Decision

[26]When reaching my decision I have reminded myself that when writing a judgment the task facing a judge is not to pass an examination or to prepare a detailed legal or factual analysis of all the evidence and submissions he has heard - Sir James Munby P in Re F (Children) EWCA Civ 546 para 22. Further, I accept and repeat herein what Mr Justice Hayden stated in F v M(above) at paragraphs 33-35. 33. When it comes to judgment writing, it is important to recognise and encourage the great variety of differing styles and approach:
'let a thousand flowers bloom!'
. However, as Jackson LJ said in Re B (A Child) (Placement[27]In order to determine this appeal, I have read and read the judgment many times and reminded myself that I should not make a narrow textual analysis of it. In reaching my conclusion I have not overlooked the clear case law on the proper approach to an appeal against a finding of fact which I have already set out. An appeal court must not interfere with findings of facts by trial judges , including the evaluation of those facts and the inferences to be drawn from them, unless compelled to do so. An appellate court is bound , unless there is compelling reason to the contrary, to assume that the trial judge has taken the whole of the evidence into consideration. In essence the Appellant’s case before me is that in this case there is such a compelling reason, namely that the Recorder did not exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence before making his findings. I have accordingly reminded myself that in Re T (Children) [2004] EWCA Civ 558 at paragraph 33 Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss stated:
"…evidence cannot be evaluated and assessed in separate compartments. A judge in these difficult cases has to have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion whether the case put forward by the local authority has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof."
[28]The judgment of Mr Recorder Stables in most regards followed the essential framework of a judgment as described by Jackson LJ above. However, I have concluded that it failed to evaluate the evidence as a whole, making clear why more or less weight is to be given to key features relied on by the parties. The judgment was written in a linear fashion. The learned Recorder compartmentalised his consideration of each of the allegations he had been asked to determine and his consideration of the evidence in relation to each of the allegations separately. Paragraphs 121-135 of the judgment contain his analysis in relation to the rape allegation. That analysis focuses on the mother’s consistency of evidence in relation to the allegation of rape and the text message sent by the father on the next day. In relation to that text message the Recorder clearly rejected the father’s explanation and accordingly gave himself a Lucas direction. However, the Recorder did not consider the allegation of rape in the context of his other findings namely in relation to A’s paternity; the context in which the mother made the allegation of rape; the father’s case that the mother had previously wrongly accused him of the rape of others; the malicious nature of the mother’s denial of A’s paternity which the Recorder had found had been to prevent contact; and his finding that the mother had been very controlling over contact for non-child welfare reasons, had threatened the father with the police unreasonably and had recently been motivated by a desire to deprive the father and his family of all contact with both children. The Recorder looked at the allegations in compartments and in doing so compartmentalised the evidence. There is no holistic evaluation of the evidence. There is no analysis of how the evidence about the rape sat within the context of the other findings he made within that part of the judgment, nor can such an analysis be inferred from reading the judgment as a whole. In those circumstances, I regret to say that I do not consider the finding of rape can stand, not because the finding is necessarily wrong but because of the way in which the Recorder arrived at his decision. There are three overlapping problems with the judgment. First, the reasoning is insufficient and flawed. Secondly, in reaching his conclusion on the rape, the Recorder did not take into account some material factors. Thirdly, the Recorder looked at the allegations and therefore the evidence in compartments and thus did not have regard to each piece of evidence in the context of the totality of the evidence before making his findings.[29]Accordingly, I allow the appeal on Grounds 3-5 as set out above. I remit this case for rehearing of the fact-find. I propose it should be heard before another judge to be allocated by the relevant Family Presider.[30]That is my judgment.

Order

Adequacy of Reasons) [2002] EWCA Civ 407 [2022] 4 WLR 42: "57. …The court's task is not accomplished by handing down a decision that happens to be correct if it is not also properly explained. Fairness to the losing party demands no less." 34. In that judgment, Jackson LJ also took the opportunity to set out the essential framework required of any judgment. It repays repetition here: "59. Judgments reflect the thinking of the individual judge and there is no room for dogma, but in my view a good judgment will in its own way, at some point and as concisely as possible:(1) state the background facts(2) identify the issue(s) that must be decided(3) articulate the legal test(s) that must be applied(4) note the key features of the written and oral evidence, bearing in mind that a judgment is not a summing-up in which every possibly relevant piece of evidence must be mentioned(5) record each party's core case on the issues(6) make findings of fact about any disputed matters that are significant for the decision(7) evaluate the evidence as a whole, making clear why more or less weight is to be given to key features relied on by the parties(8) give the court's decision, explaining why one outcome has been selected in preference to other possible outcomes." 35. Significantly, to my mind, Jackson LJ adds a rider to this list as follows: "60. The last two processes—evaluation and explanation—are the critical elements of any judgment. As the culmination of a process of reasoning, they tend to come at the end, but they are the engine that drives the decision, and as such they need the most attention. A judgment that is weighed down with superfluous citation of authority or lengthy recitation of inessential evidence at the expense of this essential reasoning may well be flawed. At the same time, a judgment that does not fairly set out a party's case and give adequate reasons for rejecting it is bound to be vulnerable."

Cited in 1 later judgment