Re K (Forced Marriage: Passport Order) [2020]

1. Facts:

• In Re K, K is a single woman who has full capacity and is capable of making her own decisions.

• K's family threatened to murder her if she did not agree to marry.

• Although there were further allegations of assault, these were later withdrawn.

• The police obtained a Forced Marriage Protection Order (FMPO) under section 63A of the Family Law Act 1996, which included a passport order restricting K's ability to travel.

• K subsequently applied to discharge the FMPO, arguing that the circumstances no longer justified such an order.

2. Outcome:

• The judge refused K's application to discharge the FMPO.

• The court maintained that FMPOs, especially with restrictions like passport orders, should be made only in "exceptional circumstances."

• The judge determined that, despite the withdrawn allegations and K's full capacity, the circumstances of the threats and the need for protection warranted the continuation of the FMPO.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Exceptional Circumstances: The ruling underscores that FMPOs, particularly those involving restrictive measures such as passport orders, are intended for use in exceptional circumstances. The court’s decision highlights the importance of maintaining such orders when there is a significant threat to the individual's safety.

• Balancing Protection and Autonomy: The case illustrates the balance courts must strike between protecting individuals from threats and respecting their personal autonomy. Even though K had full capacity, the threats against her and the need for ongoing protection justified the continuation of the FMPO.

• Restrictive Measures: The inclusion of a passport order in the FMPO emphasises the extent to which protective measures can impact an individual's freedom of movement. The decision highlights the court's assessment of whether such measures are necessary to prevent harm.

• Legal Precedent: Re K sets a precedent for the application of FMPOs, demonstrating that courts will uphold these orders in the face of serious threats and when exceptional circumstances are present. This case reinforces the notion that the safety of the individual is paramount, even when the individual is otherwise competent and capable of making decisions.

• Implications for Future Cases: The case suggests that FMPOs will be rigorously reviewed, particularly when they include restrictive elements. Future cases will need to demonstrate clear and compelling reasons to justify the imposition and continuation of such orders. The court’s approach ensures that protection orders are used appropriately and that individuals' rights are carefully considered.