M v M (Refusal of FGM Order)

A female genital mutilation protection order requires evidence establishing, on the balance of probabilities, that the person to be protected faces a relevant risk of female genital mutilation. The statutory jurisdiction must be exercised on evidence, even though female genital mutilation is an abhorrent practice. Where the alleged perpetrator is abroad, and there is no evidence that he will enter the jurisdiction or that the children will travel to the country concerned, the necessary risk may not be established. An application unsupported by evidence likely to become available in the near future should be dismissed rather than adjourned for further evidence.

The applicant mother sought female genital mutilation protection orders for her two children under Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. She alleged that the respondent, her uncle in Nigeria, had previously subjected her and other family members to female genital mutilation and had threatened its use in relation to the children.

The children were in the United Kingdom. There was no evidence that the respondent was likely to come to the United Kingdom, or that the applicant and children were likely to travel to Nigeria. The central issue was whether the evidence established a current risk sufficient to justify an order, and whether the application should instead be adjourned for further evidence.

1. The application for female genital mutilation protection orders was dismissed. The court had jurisdiction under Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, but that jurisdiction had to be exercised on the basis of evidence.
2. The court required evidence establishing, on the balance of probabilities, a risk of female genital mutilation before making an order. The abhorrent nature of female genital mutilation did not remove that evidential requirement.
3. On the evidence before the court, the children were not shown to be currently at risk in the manner alleged. The alleged perpetrator was in Nigeria, with no evidence that he was likely to come to the United Kingdom. There was also no evidence that the children were likely to travel to Nigeria, particularly as the mother did not wish to return and no deportation order was presently in force against her or the children.
4. The application should not be adjourned for further evidence. There was no suggestion that evidence establishing the necessary risk was likely to become available in the near future. No order could properly be made on the evidence then available, and the application was dismissed.