The First Respondent father (‘FP’) of the protected person (‘PP’) brought an application for costs against the police in the sum of £8,580, after the police withdrew their application for a Forced Marriage Protection Order (‘FMPO’).
The Court heard submissions on the authorities of City of Bradford Metropolitan DC v Booth ('Booth') [2000] 164 JP 485; CMA v Flynn [2022] UKSC 14; R (on the application of Perinpanathan) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court [2010] EWCA Civ 40; and T (Children) [2012] UKSC 36.
The Court applied by analogy the UK Supreme Court’s warning in Flynn ‘of the chilling effect of a costs order where a public body has acted reasonably’; and, similarly, in T (Children) that a local authority bringing and pursuing care proceedings should not be liable for the costs of another party, even when allegations have not been proved against that party, in the absence of reprehensible behaviour or an unreasonable stance on the part of the local authority.
Upon hearing submissions, HHJ Hayes KC found that West Yorkshire Police had not acted unreasonably in issuing or pursuing the FMPO proceedings. As to the former, he found that the police were entitled to conclude that PP was at risk of forced marriage; and as to the second, given the seriousness of what PP had alleged, he found that the police could not be criticised for pursing the proceedings in the manner that they did or indeed at any stage of the legal process.
FP’s costs application was accordingly dismissed.
The full judgment can be found here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2024/130.html.