Z, Re

The High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction and wardship powers urgently and ex parte where there is an obvious risk to a vulnerable young person. Relevant considerations include credible evidence of intended travel to an area associated with terrorism, previous attempted travel, lack of candour within the family, and indications of an arranged or forced marriage. A passport seizure order may be granted as an immediate protective measure. Because an ex parte order restricts the interests of those affected, the matter should return at the earliest opportunity for representations and legal representation.

The local authority made an urgent ex parte application concerning Z, a 17-year-old Somali girl believed to have been radicalised and intending to travel to Syria. She had previously attempted to travel and had recently been detained at an airport while seeking to board a flight to Turkey. Further enquiries suggested that she was booked to travel to Copenhagen with members of her cousin’s family, possibly en route to an ISIS-controlled country and potentially for an arranged or forced marriage.

The application concerned whether protective orders should be made immediately to safeguard Z’s personal safety, including wardship and seizure of her passport.

1. Orders granted. The court granted the local authority’s ex parte application to make Z a ward of the High Court and to seize her passport.
2. The evidence established an obvious risk to a manifestly vulnerable young woman. The court relied on Z’s previous attempts to travel, the suspected intention to travel ultimately to an ISIS country, indications of a possible arranged or forced marriage, the family’s lack of candour, and the use of two names by Z’s cousin.
3. The court observed that an immediate application could have been made under the inherent jurisdiction and wardship powers when the police were asked to return Z’s passport. It also noted that the circumstances disclosed obvious powers under Terrorism Act 2000, s.7.
4. The decision was made urgently and without notice. The case was therefore ordered to return to court at the earliest possible opportunity, so that those directly involved could make representations and obtain legal representation if desired.
5. A transcript of the evidence was ordered, subject to redaction for security reasons, to ensure that the persons directly concerned understood what had occurred on the application.