SL v MJ

Where a party’s will is overborne at the time of a marriage ceremony by coercive pressure, including threats of violence, isolation or withholding travel documents, the court may grant a decree of nullity under section 12(1)(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The court must assess the evidence in its factual and personal context. Evidence of continuing fear, previous violence and the party’s isolation may support a finding that consent was obtained by duress. In proceedings involving a witness who wears a face veil, the court should balance the importance of observing demeanour and expression with respect for religious observance. Appropriate arrangements, such as screening and, where possible, listing before a female judge, may enable the evidence to be given without compromising either consideration.

The petitioner sought a decree of nullity in respect of a marriage ceremony conducted in Tanzania. She alleged that family members had compelled her to participate through threats of physical violence, restrictions on communication and movement, and threats to withhold her passport and prevent her return to the United Kingdom. The respondent did not attend or defend the proceedings.

The court also addressed the practical arrangements for receiving evidence from the petitioner, a practising Muslim who wore a full face veil. The central issues were whether her consent had been obtained by duress and how her evidence could be received while permitting assessment of her demeanour and respecting her religious observance.

1. Nullity. The respondent had been served and had indicated no intention to defend. On the petitioner’s evidence, the court found a sustained pattern of coercion, including previous physical assaults, threats that she would be killed, isolation in Tanzania, and the threatened withholding of her passport and travel documents.
2. Duress. The petitioner was overborne at the time of the ceremony. She reasonably believed that she faced physical danger and had no reason to disbelieve the threats preventing her return to the United Kingdom unless she participated in the marriage. The evidence was cogent and established duress affecting her consent.
3. Order. A decree of nullity nisi was granted pursuant to section 12(1)(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. A copy was directed to be served at the respondent’s last known address in Tanzania. The court made no order as to costs, save for legal aid and detailed assessment of the petitioner’s costs.
4. Face-veiled evidence. The ability to observe a witness’s demeanour and deportment was important, and in this context regarded as essential to assessing accuracy and credibility. Screening the petitioner from male counsel, controlling entry to the courtroom, and listing such cases before a female judge where possible were practical measures capable of accommodating both evidential requirements and religious observance. Each case required individual assessment, including vigilance against opportunistic attempts to disrupt proceedings.