Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police vs FP and MP

This case concerned an application for costs in Forced Marriage Protection Order (FMPO) proceedings, where the first respondent, FP, sought costs from the applicant, West Yorkshire Police.

TLDR:

• FP applied for costs of £8,580 against West Yorkshire Police.
• FP is the father of the protected person, PP, who is an adult female.
• The police opposed the costs application, citing their public duty in pursuing the FMPO.
• The court ruled in favor of the police, denying FP's application for costs.

The case involved the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police applying for a Forced Marriage Protection Order (FMPO) to protect PP, an adult female in her twenties, from her parents, FP and MP. FP sought costs of £8,580, which included legal fees and a solicitor's consultation fee. The police opposed the costs application, arguing that they acted reasonably in their public duty to protect PP.

Police involvement began after a referral from PP's colleague, Ms AB, who held a safeguarding role. PP disclosed to Ms AB that she had experienced domestic abuse from her family and feared being forced into a marriage. A safety plan was established, including a safe word for PP to use if she was in danger.

In July 2023, PP traveled to Libya for a family wedding and used the safe word in an email to her workplace, indicating she was in danger. The police then took steps to protect PP, including applying for an FMPO. Despite subsequent statements from PP and FP denying any forced marriage, the police continued to pursue the FMPO due to the serious allegations and PP's use of the safe word.

Throughout the proceedings, the police faced challenges in verifying PP's safety and freedom to speak openly, especially since she remained in Libya. The police proposed various measures to ensure PP could communicate freely, but these were not successful. Ultimately, the police decided to discharge the FMPO but opposed FP's costs application.

The court considered the relevant legal framework, including the Senior Courts Act 1981 and the Family Procedure Rules 2010. The court noted that costs in family proceedings are at the court's discretion and that public bodies like the police should not be routinely ordered to pay costs unless they acted unreasonably.

The court found that the police acted reasonably in issuing and pursuing the FMPO proceedings, given the serious safeguarding concerns for PP. The police had gathered substantial evidence, including PP's use of the safe word, which justified their actions. The court also considered the potential chilling effect on public bodies if costs were routinely awarded against them.

In conclusion, the court refused FP's application for costs, emphasizing that the police acted in accordance with their public duty to protect PP. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the public interest and the reasonableness of a public body's actions in costs applications.

Legal representatives: Becky Jane, Counsel for West Yorkshire Police; Hannah Whitehouse, Counsel for FP; MP was excused attendance at the costs hearing; PP acted in person.

Judicial Panel: His Honour Judge Hayes KC

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWFC 130