Al-Jeffery v Al-Jeffery (Vulnerable adult; British citizen : No 2)

Where a vulnerable adult’s expressed wishes remain equivocal and the court cannot assess whether they are communicated freely, the court should take reasonable steps to obtain reliable evidence before bringing proceedings to an end. A private, face-to-face meeting between the adult and an experienced solicitor may be an appropriate mechanism for testing instructions and enabling an informed decision free from pressure or influence. Directions may be made to facilitate that meeting, including travel arrangements, provided they do not improperly compel the adult to return to the jurisdiction or determine the adult’s substantive choice.

Following an earlier judgment dated 3 August 2016, the court had required the applicant’s father to facilitate her return to England and Wales, while expressly making no order requiring the applicant herself to travel. She remained in Saudi Arabia.

The applicant communicated with her solicitor by telephone, email and text. A document sent from her email address stated that she wished to remain in Saudi Arabia and withdraw the proceedings. However, her solicitor, having regard to other communications and accounts of a meeting with British consular officials, considered her position equivocal and was unable confidently to advance instructions to the court.

The central issue was how the court could obtain reliable instructions and determine whether the applicant was able to make an informed decision free from pressure or influence.

1. Directions made. The court directed that the applicant travel from Jeddah to Riyadh, with suitable accompaniment if required, so that her solicitor could meet her privately. The applicant was not required to leave Saudi Arabia or return to England and Wales.
2. The court would not determine the applicant’s true wishes from the apparently unequivocal email alone. The solicitor’s assessment that the overall position remained equivocal required the court’s utmost regard, given her extensive experience representing persons who may be constrained abroad.
3. The reliable and effective means of clarifying the position was a direct, face-to-face meeting between the applicant and her solicitor, without anyone else present. The court declined to communicate with the applicant by telephone or video-link because it could not be confident that she would be free from constraint at the time.
4. The directions were intended to enable the applicant to exercise independent free will and make an informed decision. They did not impose an obligation upon her to return to England and Wales or dictate whether she should remain in Saudi Arabia.
5. The meeting was directed to take place at a venue nominated by the solicitor, but not at an embassy or consulate, because of the father’s strong objection and the risk that insisting on such a venue might prevent the meeting from occurring. The court considered the associated travel and accommodation expenses necessary and proportionate in the context of the proceedings.
6. The proceedings were not brought to an end. The matter was adjourned to 28 October 2016 so that the solicitor could obtain clear instructions and report whether the applicant had been able to make an informed decision free from pressure or influence.

This was a further first-instance judgment in proceedings previously determined in part by the same court.

• High Court (Family Division): In the earlier judgment dated 3 August 2016, reported as [2016] EWHC 2151 (Fam), directions were made requiring the father to facilitate the applicant’s possible return to England and Wales, without ordering the applicant herself to travel.
• High Court (Family Division): The present judgment continued those proceedings, made further directions for a private solicitor–client meeting in Saudi Arabia, and adjourned the matter.