A Local Authority v M & Ors.

In fact-finding proceedings, allegations must be proved by the party making them on the balance of probabilities. Findings must be based on evidence and proper inferences, not suspicion or speculation. The court must evaluate the evidence as a whole and in context. A witness’s lies do not establish guilt directly and may arise for many reasons.

In domestic-abuse cases, the court must consider patterns of coercive or controlling behaviour and their impact on the family, rather than isolating individual allegations or applying criminal-law concepts. In forced-marriage protection proceedings, the court should establish the facts, identify the statutory purpose, assess risks and protective factors, consider any Article 3 risk, and then balance protection with Article 8 rights through a bespoke order where appropriate.

The local authority brought consolidated applications for forced marriage protection orders, a female genital mutilation protection order, and other protective orders concerning four children and an adult child. The mother and one child also sought non-molestation orders. The father sought a child arrangements order.

The court conducted a fact-finding hearing concerning the family’s history within an abusive religious sect, alleged forced-marriage and female-genital-mutilation risks, the father’s alleged continuing connection with the sect, and allegations of violence, coercive control and rape. The central issues were which allegations were proved, whether the father remained a current source of protective-order risks, and what further orders should follow.

1. Fact-finding principles. The burden rested on the party making each allegation, and the standard was the balance of probabilities. Findings had to be based on evidence and proper inferences, rather than suspicion or speculation. The evidence had to be considered cumulatively and in context. The court attached substantial importance to the evidence and credibility of the parents and other carers, while guarding against undue reliance on demeanour.
2. Lies and domestic abuse. A lie could arise from shame, loyalty, fear, distress or other causes, and a witness who lied about one matter might still be reliable about others. A lie was not direct proof of guilt. The court considered the family’s evidence in the context of the sect’s normalisation of violence, coercion and female subordination. It assessed the allegations as part of a pattern of behaviour, consistent with the guidance in Re H-N and Others (Children), while avoiding analysis based on criminal-law concepts. Behaviour falling short of rape could nevertheless be abusive.
3. Forced-marriage and FGM protection. The route map in Re K (Forced Marriage: Passport Order) was adopted: establish the underlying facts; determine whether the statutory protective purpose was engaged; assess risks and protective factors, including by a balance sheet where useful; consider whether the facts established a real and immediate Article 3 risk; and, if so, balance protection under Article 3 against Article 8 rights and autonomy. The wording of the legislation allowed a bespoke order adapted to the circumstances.
4. Findings and orders. The court found that the father had engaged in a pattern of violent and abusive behaviour towards the mother and children, but did not find that he had raped the mother or remained in contact with the sect. It found that he was not the current source of the forced-marriage or FGM risks, which arose from possible attempts by sect members to trace and return the family. Forced marriage or FGM would nevertheless constitute degrading treatment under Article 3. Non-molestation orders were made for the mother and K. Further submissions and a later hearing were directed concerning protective orders, duration and the child-arrangements application.