LA v M & Ors

A passport order may be imposed or continued within proceedings concerning a Forced Marriage Protection Order where it is necessary and proportionate to reduce the risk of forced marriage. The court must assess the interference with the respondent’s rights, the legitimate protective aim, the likely effectiveness of the order, and whether less restrictive measures would suffice.

A case-management order may be varied or revoked where it is proper to do so. A material change may arise from a shift in the protective focus and further evidence demonstrating that the continuing risk remains substantial. The court may continue protective orders for a child approaching 18 where the child’s expressed wishes cannot reliably be regarded as independent and the interference is limited and protective.

The Local Authority sought continuing protection for four children involved in long-running Forced Marriage Protection Order proceedings. The family had travelled to Afghanistan, where the mother and children remained while the father returned to England. The court had previously indicated that the father’s passport would be returned if the eldest child returned to England.

The eldest child returned, disclosed that she was married and pregnant, and then returned to Afghanistan. The parents denied that a marriage had taken place and provided accounts which the court found dishonest. The remaining issues were whether the Forced Marriage Protection Order should continue for X, who was approaching 18, and whether the Passport Order preventing the father from travelling to Afghanistan should be discharged.

1. Passport Order. The Passport Order was continued until Z reached 18. Removing the father’s passport significantly interfered with his Article 8 rights and freedom of movement, but did not engage Article 5. The order pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the younger children from forced marriage.
2. The order was proportionate. Preventing the father from travelling would lessen, though not eliminate, the risk of marriage arrangements being made. The father was a significant figure in the family and had probably played a role in the eldest child’s marriage. If permitted to travel, the risk that the younger children would be forced into marriage would materially increase. The order was time-limited and did not prevent family life being pursued through the family’s return to England.
3. The court was entitled to vary its earlier case-management decision. The issue had shifted from protecting the eldest child to protecting her younger siblings. The parents’ lack of honesty in their recent statements provided ample justification for changing the earlier indication that the passport would be returned.
4. FMPO concerning X. The order was continued until X’s 18th birthday. The court could place little weight on the children’s expressed wishes being independent and unpressured because they remained in Afghanistan without a means of independent verification. The interference was slight and the order could provide important short-term protection.
5. The court found, on the open evidence, that the parents were not credible witnesses and were prepared to lie to the court. The formal protective orders were therefore continued in the terms determined by the court.

Not an appellate decision. No prior appellate history is stated in the judgment.