This is an appeal in private law proceedings following a finding of fact hearing. The mother in the case disagreed with the District Judge’s decision not to make findings of domestic abuse against the father. She lodged an appeal which was considered by a Circuit Judge and refused.
D (A Child) (Recusal) [2025] EWCA Civ 1570 (09 December 2025)
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2025/1570.html
After that, she wrote a letter to the District Judge asking him to recuse himself due to judicial bias
- On 15 January 2025, the mother sent a letter to District Judge Hatton asking that he recuse himself from the proceedings. In the letter she wrote:
- Enclosed in the letter was a document headed “Grounds for Recusal”, running to 60 typed, single-spaced pages, in which the mother set out at great length her complaints about the judge’s judgment and findings. The document quoted many passages from the judgment, each followed by the mother’s extensive challenges and criticisms. On many occasions, the mother introduced the criticism with the words “your judgment demonstrates bias”. Examples included the following:
- “Your judgment demonstrates bias by misrepresenting the facts and dismissing evidence that clearly contradicts its conclusions.”
- Your judgment demonstrates bias by dismissing clear evidence of a concerning pattern in [the father’s] persistent use of images of children, failing to critically analyse the implications of this behaviour within a safeguarding framework.”
- “Your judgment demonstrates bias and a lack of contextual analysis by failing to adequately address the pattern of [the father’s] coercive and emotionally manipulative behaviour, that created a distressing environment and posed a risk both to my autonomy and the emotional well-being of our child.”
- “Your findings that [the father’s] application arose from a ‘lack of effective communication’ demonstrates bias and is not based on fact.”
- “Your judgment demonstrates bias by disregarding my detailed and consistent account of events ….”.
- In the final paragraph of the document, the mother wrote:
“As a Judge, it is both your duty and right to ensure that findings are impartial, fair, and firmly rooted in the evidence presented. However, due to the significant misrepresentation of my evidence and the apparent bias reflected in your decisions, I contend that several erroneous and unjust findings have been made. These issues are underscored by the serious procedural irregularities detailed above. In light of these concerns, I respectfully request that Your Honour recuse yourself from this case to preserve the appearance and reality of judicial impartiality. The principle of natural justice, enshrined in R v. Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256, emphasizes that “justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” In this case, the procedural handling has compromised the perception of fairness, making recusal a necessary step to uphold the integrity of the judicial process. I must reiterate, the test for apparent bias, as established in Porter v. Magill [2001] UKHL 67, requires that the court consider whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude there was a real possibility of bias. The cumulative effect of the procedural irregularities and the misrepresentation of evidence supports a reasonable apprehension of bias in this matter. Given these circumstances, I urge Your Honour to consider the principles of judicial fairness and impartiality and recuse yourself to ensure that justice is administered free from any appearance of prejudice.”
Next comes the paragraph of the Court of Appeal judgment which warrants this article
The document included a number of citations of reported cases. Some citations were correct and appropriate. As subsequently pointed out by the father’s counsel at the hearing before us, however, other cases cited were not authority for the propositions for which they were advanced and, in some instances, did not exist at all. At the hearing before us, the mother accepted that she has used artificial intelligence to assist her in preparing the document.
(they come back to this later, as the documents lodged before the Court of Appeal by the mother had also been assisted by Artificial Intelligence, and again the AI had hallucinated that some well-known cases were supportive of mother’s case when in fact they had nothing whatsoever to do with the issues and the quotations the AI cited were imaginary)
In reply, the mother, acting in person, submitted a lengthy skeleton argument responding in detail to every paragraph in Mr Spencer’s skeleton argument, describing much of it as factually inaccurate or incomplete and misleading. She reiterated many of her complaints and criticisms of the district judge’s judgment set out in her “grounds of recusal” document and her original grounds of appeal. The skeleton argument cited a number of authorities. As before, some citations were non-existent cases – for example “Re M (Paternity: Appeal by Mother) [2003] EWHC 2832 (Fam)”. Other cases were cited in support of a proposition for which they were not authority. For example, Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35, the well-known decision of the House of Lords on the standard of proof in children’s cases, was erroneously cited for the proposition that “the father’s conscious choice to ignore correspondence that did not assist his position demonstrates wilful evasion and further undermines his credibility”. Re W (Children) [2010] UKSC 12, the equally well-known decision on the principles which should guide the exercise of the court’s discretion in deciding whether to order a child to attend to give evidence in family proceedings, was cited for the proposition that “findings reached through a procedurally compromised process cannot stand”.
For reasons that aren’t clear to me and weren’t clear to the Court of Appeal, following receipt of the mother’s letter asking the DJ to recuse himself, the DJ made an order recusing himself and noting that the mother had moved to a different area transferred the case to that area. The father had not been heard before the DJ made that order.
The mother then argued that her recusal application having succeeded that there should be an appeal granted of the findings made. The appeal was heard before a Circuit Judge who determined that the allegations of judicial bias had not been made out BUT that because the reasons for the DJ recusing himself were not clear, he would relist a final hearing.
27. Regarding the two grounds of appeal which were initially allowed I have carefully read the transcripts of the hearing, and the judgment. It is not the contents of the transcripts that make the judge’s findings unsafe, it is the context in which they were made. The judge has agreed he should recuse himself without saying why and for that reason, I cannot see how the judgment of District Judge Hatton can stand. Looking at the test for appeal, it seems to me that where a judge recuses himself in the face of allegations of bias and fails to give reasons how that bias is established, this amounts to a serious procedural or other irregularity arising from a process that has been adopted which is procedurally irregular and unfair to an extent that it renders the decision unjust. The judge has acted on a request made without the knowledge of the father and has then made a decision without giving reasons with the possible acceptance that he has behaved with bias throughout the three day hearing. This process adopted by the district judge lacks transparency and thereby, fairness. It must follow that any decision arising form that process must be set aside.”
The father appealed and the Court of Appeal considered that the order from the DJ recusing himself should be set aside BUT that leave having been granted to the mother for an appeal of two elements of the findings should still take place and that that aspect was allocated to a Circuit Judge to resolve.
AI is becoming a feature of family law and is likely to become more so, particularly for litigants in person. It is obviously attractive that a litigant in person can with careful prompts produce grounds for appeal and legal argument including references to authority that would be very hard to achieve even with many hours of careful research. But whilst the hallucination problem remains unfixed and AI simply hallucinates cases that doesn’t exists or cites real cases that simply don’t say what the AI quotes them as saying or deciding, it is really unsafe for anyone to rely on them without careful checking that the case actually exists and that it does genuinely say what the AI claims.
suesspiciousminds 