The court gave directions in Forced Marriage Protection order applications. An order had been made at the request of the police on behalf of A, and the court had declined to discharge it on A’s own application.
Held: Special advocates were not needed in this case; ‘there is nothing that a special advocate could do which cannot properly be done by the judge.’. There was a risk of serious harm, and an associated powerful argument for non-disclosure. The purpose of the Act was protective, and an order might properly be made ex parte, and the protective capacity of itself my be sufficient to justify non-disclosure. The court needed to acknowledge the balance between protecting the applicants and giving fair hearings to others affected, and also the need to respect the cultural norms of other societies. The court was asked ‘how is it possible to achieve a fair hearing (i.e. comply with ECHR Article 6) if parts of the evidence which it is necessary for parties to know in order to enable them to meet allegations made against them cannot safely be revealed to them on the ground that disclosure of the information or its source is likely to identify the informant (and thus place him or her at risk)?’ The judge had requested the Attorney General to appoint a special advocate to deal with cl;osed material, but this had been refused.
The approach taken by the Act was wide ranging and robust, and ‘There is, moreover, nothing in the Act to stop the court acting on hearsay evidence, or information provided to it by the police which has not been disclosed to the respondents.’
Sir Nicholas Wall P
 EWHC 2438 (Fam)
Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007, European Convention on Human Rights 6
Cited – AM v Local Authority and Another; Re B-M (Care Orders) CA 16-Mar-2009
The father sought leave to appeal against care orders made in respect of his three children. The family were Pakistani Pathan muslims. There had been disputes and violence within the extended family. One family member sought protection but was now . .
Cited – In re K FD 2005
Cited – In Re SK (Proposed Plaintiff) (an Adult by way of her Litigation Friend) FD 2004
The court considered an application for a forced marriage protection order.
Held: Singer J said that the court’s inherent jurisdiction is ‘sufficiently flexible . . to evolve in accordance with social needs and social values.’ . .
Cited – In Re K (Infants); Official Solicitor v K HL 2-Jan-1963
The House considered the propriety of a tribunal chairman seeing material not placed before the parties. This was a wardship case.
Held: Where the interests of the parents and the child conflicted, ‘the welfare of the child must dominate’.
Cited – In Re K (Infants) CA 2-Jan-1963
The court discussed the need for those appearing before tribunals to be given sufficient access to all the material placed before the judge. Upjohn LJ said: ‘It seems to be fundamental to any judicial inquiry that a person or other properly . .
Cited – Regina v H; Regina v C HL 5-Feb-2004
Use of Special Counsel as Last Resort Only
The accused faced charges of conspiring to supply Class A drugs. The prosecution had sought public interest immunity certificates. Special counsel had been appointed by the court to represent the defendants’ interests at the applications.
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
Cited – Re D (Minors) (Adoption Reports: Confidentiality) HL 1-Sep-1995
The House considered whether it was right for a tribunal to see and rely upon papers not disclosed to the parties. Lord Mustill said: ‘a first principle of fairness that each party to a judicial process shall have an opportunity to answer by . .
Cited – Re B (Disclosure to other parties) FD 2001
There was a dispute as to whether one of the fathers involved in the proceedings should have access to certain documents, including psychiatric reports, relating to the mother, her husband and the children. Munby J considered the effect of human . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB; Same v AF HL 31-Oct-2007
Non-derogating control orders – HR Compliant
MB and AF challenged non-derogating control orders made under the 2005 Act, saying that they were incompatible with their human rights. AF was subject to a curfew of 14 hours a day, wore an electronic tag at all times, could not leave a nine square . .
Cited – Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others CA 4-May-2010
Each claimant had been captured and mistreated by the US government, and claimed the involvement in and responsibility for that mistreatment by the respondents. The court was asked whether a court in England and Wales, in the absence of statutory . .
Cited – Malik v Manchester Crown Court and others; Re A Admn 19-Jun-2008
The claimant was a journalist writing about terrorism. He had interviewed a man with past connections with Al-Qaeda, and he now objected to a production order for documents obtained by him in connecion with his writings. The court had acted on . .
Cited – A Local Authority v A Mother and Others FD 3-Jul-2009
The court considered the limiting of disclosure of evidence in care proceedings where this was thought necessary to protect the safety of witnesses. . .
Cited – In re T (Wardship: Impact of Police Intelligence) FD 2009
The police had obtained intelligence that the imprisoned father of a ward had taken out a contract to murder the child’s mother. As a consequence they took the child and his mother into police protection, which they threatened to withdraw if the . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF AN and AE (No 3) HL 10-Jun-2009
The applicants complained that they had been made subject to non-derogating control orders as suspected terrorists, but that the failure to inform them of the allegations or evidence against them was unfair and infringed their human rights. The . .
Cited – Murungaru v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others CA 12-Sep-2008
The claimant was a former Kenyan minister. He had been visiting the UK for medical treatment. His visas were cancelled on the basis that his presence was not conducive to the public good. Public Interest Immunity certificates had been issued to . .
Approved – H v L and R FD 7-Dec-2006
A male litigant in person wished to cross-examine a young adult woman whom he was alleged to have abused sexually when she was a child. The young woman in question was a borderline anorexic and a suicide risk. In criminal proceedings, section 34A of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family, Litigation Practice, Human Rights
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.424946