Chief Constable & Anor v YK & Ors [2010] EWHC 2438 (Fam) (06 October 2010)

Chief Constable & Anor v YK & Ors [2010] EWHC 2438 (Fam) (06 October 2010)

Special advocates are not required in forced marriage protection order proceedings unless non-disclosure of evidence creates a compelling Article 6 ECHR issue that cannot be addressed by the court's own powers. Appointment of special advocates is exceptional and must be justified by clear procedural necessity. Disclosure should be maximised, and non-disclosure limited to what is strictly necessary to protect victims and sources.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 2438 (Fam)
Parties
Plaintiff: A Chief Constable; Plaintiff: AA; Defendant: YK; Defendant: RB; Defendant: ZS; Defendant: SI; Defendant: AK; Defendant: MH; Intervener: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Family Law Forced Marriage Protection Order / Directions Hearing and Guidance Judgment
Outcome
Directions given; guidance issued. No substantive findings or final orders on the FMPO discharge application.
Legal Topics
Forced Marriage Protection Orders, Public Interest Immunity, Disclosure, Special Advocates, Article 6 ECHR, Confidentiality, Civil Protection
Family Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Forced Marriage Protection Orders Public Interest Immunity Disclosure Special Advocates Article 6 ECHR +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Chief Constable

Plaintiff

AA

Plaintiff

YK

Defendant

RB

Defendant

ZS

Defendant

SI

Defendant

AK

Defendant

MH

Defendant

Attorney General

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Family Law Forced Marriage Protection Order / Directions Hearing and Guidance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether special advocates should be appointed in forced marriage protection order proceedings where evidence is withheld for public interest immunity reasons
  2. 2 How to balance Article 6 ECHR fair trial rights with the need to protect sources and victims in forced marriage cases
  3. 3 Whether the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 allows for closed evidence procedures

Ratio Decidendi

Special advocates are not required in forced marriage protection order proceedings unless non-disclosure of evidence creates a compelling Article 6 ECHR issue that cannot be addressed by the court's own powers. Appointment of special advocates is exceptional and must be justified by clear procedural necessity. Disclosure should be maximised, and non-disclosure limited to what is strictly necessary to protect victims and sources.

Court Disposition

Directions given; guidance issued. No substantive findings or final orders on the FMPO discharge application.

Orders

  • Directions for further management of disclosure and procedural fairness.
  • Guidance issued for future forced marriage cases regarding special advocates and disclosure.