FORCED MARRIAGE CONSULTATION
RESPONSE TO THE HOME OFFICE’S CONSULTATION
SUBMISSION BY THE ODYSSEUS TRUST
1.
The Odysseus Trust1 seeks to promote good governance and the effective protection of
human rights. The Trust is directed by Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, together with two
Parliamentary Legal Officers, Joanna Dawson and Sophia Harris, and a Legal Researcher,
Caroline Baker.
2.
This submission responds to the Home Office’s consultation on the criminalisation of forced
marriage and the criminalisation of a breach of a Forced Marriage Protection Order.
Introduction
3.
We note that the Government have already decided to criminalise the breach of a Forced
Marriage Protection Order (FMPO). We are opposed to the criminalisation of forced marriage
as a specific legal offence.
4.
The object of the civil protection offered by the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 20072 is
not to prevent criminal prosecution or dishonour the family but to encourage victims and
third parties to come forward using the privacy and flexibility provided by the Family Courts
to grant effective protection.
5.
Since the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 entered into force in 2008 and the end of
2010 (latest available figures), 257 FMPOs have been granted by the courts, of which 181 have
included a power of arrest.3 These figures demonstrate the success of the current framework
in encouraging victims and their allies to come forward and seek effective remedies without
penalising their families.
6.
Any changes to the framework must not, therefore, undermine the current framework.
Criminalising the breach of a FMPO would enhance their enforceability and improve the
current framework but the introduction of a new offence would be unnecessary and counterproductive.
7.
The criminalisation of forced marriage would undermine the current protection offered by
the civil law since it would discourage victims and others from coming forward to seek
For more information about the work of the Trust, please visit our website www.odysseustrust.org
Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 (c. 20, 2007).
3 Judicial and Court Statistics 2010, Chapter 2: Family Matters.
1
2
Forced Marriage Consultation
The Odysseus Trust
29-Nov-12
remedies because of the fear of dishonouring the family and the community and the fear of
involving the police, the criminal process and the criminal standard of proof.
8.
Criminalisation of forced marriage is also unnecessary since there exists an array of criminal
offences which encompass the wrong-doing employed by those forcing an individual to
marry against his/her will.
9.
We refer to the submissions of the Family Justice Council (FJC) and Southall Black Sisters
(SBS) for the factual context against which this consultation and our response should be seen.
Breach of Forced Marriage Protection Orders
Do you think that the model for breaching FMPOs should follow that for breach of nonmolestation orders? Specifically:
– should it be an offence to breach any/all provisions contained in the order; with no specific
power of arrest required;
– if the CPS decides that there is not enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a criminal
conviction, or that a prosecution is not in the public interest, should victims still have the choice to
return the case for committal in the civil court; and
– what penalty should apply for the maximum sentence for breach of a FMPO (in England and
Wales breach of a non-molestation order or a restraining order currently attracts a maximum
sentence of five years).
10.
The Government has indicated that it is minded to criminalise the breach of a FMPO.
11.
The Odysseus Trust supports the criminalisation of breach of provisions in a FMPO as this
should increase enforcement efforts by local authorities and the police and deter the
behaviour which leads to the making of a FMPO.
12.
We note that under section 63H Family Law Act 1996,4 inserted by the Forced Marriage (Civil
Protection) Act 2007, the court must attach a power of arrest to the FMPO where it “considers
that the respondent has used or threatened violence against the person being protected or otherwise in
connection with the matters being dealt with by the order” unless it considers that “there will be
adequate protection without such a power.”
13.
As stated above, court statistics show that of the 257 FMPOs made between their introduction
in 2008 and the end of 2010, 181 were made with a power of arrest.
14.
The Ministry of Justice guidance for local authorities on FMPOs states where a Power of
Arrest is attached to the FMPO, “the local authority should ensure that the order is served on the
local police station, or such other police station named by the court, to ensure that officers are aware of
4
Family Law Act 1996 (c. 27, 1996).
2
Forced Marriage Consultation
The Odysseus Trust
29-Nov-12
the existence of an order in the event of any breach.”5 However, the Forced Marriage Unit’s (FMU)
review of the implementation of its multi-agency guidance on dealing with forced marriage
found that “there were instances when police had not been directly informed when a Forced Marriage
Protection Order had been sought – even when a power of arrest had been attached. It appears there are
occasions when a copy of the order automatically goes to a central police station and local officers handling
the case may not be made aware of the situation.”6
15.
This indicates that the current power of arrest is not being effectively enforced. Regardless of
whether any changes are made to FMPOs, monitoring and enforcement of FMPOs needs to
be improved. Were the breach of a FMPO to be criminalised, this would need to be
accompanied by more effective monitoring and enforcement on the part of local authorities
and the police.
16.
Where the CPS decides not to pursue a criminal prosecution, the individual should retain the
possibility of applying for remedies for contempt of court in the civil jurisdiction. This would
give the individual the possibility of enforcing the FMPO where the criminal standard of
proof is not met.
17.
The CPS should apply its guidance on the breach of non-molestation orders to the breach of a
FMPO; the guidance states that if the CPS decides not to prosecute “prosecutors should request
the investigating officer to contact the complainant and inform him/her immediately that there will not
be a criminal prosecution”7 as this ensures that the individual can consider applying to the
family court as soon as possible.
18.
We agree that the maximum sentence for breach of a FMPO should be five years. This period
gives the flexibility to reflect the seriousness of the breach. We note that the Sentencing
Guidelines on breach of protective orders provide that where only the breach itself is
charged, sentencing should reflect the conduct which amounts to a substantive offence,
aggravated by the fact of the breach. Where there is no substantive offence associated with
the breach, the Sentencing Guidelines indicate that the sentence should reflect the
circumstances of the breach, “including whether it was an isolated breach, or part of a course of
conduct in breach of the order; whether it was planned or unpremeditated; and any consequences of the
breach, including psychiatric injury or distress to the person protected by the order.”8 These
guidelines should also apply to the breach of a FMPO.
Ministry of Justice Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 Guidance for local authorities as relevant third party
and information relevant to multi-agency partnership working, October 2009, para. 38.
6 Forced Marriage Unit, Report On The Implementation Of The Multi-Agency Statutory Guidance For Dealing With
Forced Marriage (2008), p. 24.
7 CPS, Legal Guidance, Domestic Violence: Guidance on Section 1 Domestic Violence, Crime And Victims Act 2004:
Breach of a civil non-molestation order, available at:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/guidance_on_section_1_domestic_violence_crime_and_victims_act_2004/
8 Sentencing Guidelines Council, Breach of a Protective Order, Definitive Guideline, December 2006, paras. 2.2 & 2.3.
3
5
Forced Marriage Consultation
The Odysseus Trust
29-Nov-12
19.
A breach of a FMPO would be subject to the criminal burden of proof of beyond a reasonable
doubt which would be very difficult standard to attain without the support of the protected
individual, or other eyewitness, for the prosecution. To avoid this eventuality, monitoring of
FMPOs needs to be enhanced. This should enable prosecutions to be brought using evidence
from social workers, teachers, police officers and others and without the assistance of the
individual. This, in turn, would enhance the deterrent effect of criminalising breach.
20.
Reports of the police giving cautions for breach of a non-molestation order are worrying9 and
inconsistent with the CPS’ Legal Guidance on domestic violence cases which states that
“[c]autions are rarely appropriate in domestic violence cases”.10 These instances should be
corrected and, were the breach of a FMPOs to be criminalised, cautions should not be used in
the case of breach.
Do you think there is another model, e.g. in Scotland or any other jurisdiction that would be
more suited?
21.
No, the non-molestation order model would seem to work, although as stated, reports of the
police giving cautions for breach of a non-molestation order are worrying and this practice
should immediately be discontinued.
22.
Adopting the Scottish model so close to its enactment, and thus before it has had time to bed
down, would be premature and unwise.
Do you think that other named respondents who knew that an order had been breached but did
nothing should also be liable to prosecution for breach of an order? Please explain your answer.
If yes, what level of involvement should attract such prosecution? What scale of penalties
should apply?
23.
We do not believe that named respondents who knew that a FMPO had been breached but
did nothing should also be liable to prosecution.
24.
There are important practical difficulties with this option. The level of knowledge would have
to be defined so as to penalise only those with guilty knowledge in circumstances in which it
would be just to impose criminal liability.
25.
Furthermore, it would be difficult to prove knowledge to the requisite standard of proof in a
prosecution – beyond a reasonable doubt.
26.
The Odysseus Trust is also concerned that creating such liability would, in effect, create
Home Affairs Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2007–08, Domestic Violence, Forced Marriage and “Honour”-Based
Violence, vol I, HC 263-I, paras. 403 & 405.
10 CPS, Legal Guidance, Domestic Violence (including Aide-memoire), Out-of-Court Disposals, available at:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/domestic_violence_aide-memoire/#content
4
9
Forced Marriage Consultation
The Odysseus Trust
29-Nov-12
surveillance and reporting obligations on those who, since a FMPO is a civil law mechanism,
have not actually committed a crime. While we agree that forced marriage is a gross
infringement of an individual’s human rights and should be prevented, creating suspicion
within families and communities is not the best way to remedy such an infringement.
27.
We agree with the FJC that FMPOs should be drafted more clearly so that all Respondents are
fully aware of their obligations.
28.
In our view, the resources expended on creating and prosecuting this additional criminal
offence would be better spent on monitoring and enforcement of FMPOs to ensure that there
is no breach.
What mechanisms, if any, do you feel would assist victims and witnesses, particularly the
young, in disclosing the breach of an order? Please explain your answer.
29.
In our view, victims and witnesses will not disclose the breach of an order if they have no
confidence in the ability of those to whom the disclosure is made to take appropriate action.
30.
The FMU’s revised Statutory Guidance (the Guidance) sets out the requirements on record
keeping, confidentiality and sharing of information with relevant agencies. The Guidance
highlights the dangers of involving the family and community and requires forced marriage
to be treated as a child protection issue.11
31.
The Guidance also sets out, in simple diagrammatic form, the warning signs of forced
marriage for which professionals should look.
32.
The multi-agency practice guidelines on handling cases of forced marriage (the Guidelines),
accompanying the Guidance, set out specific actions for health care professionals, the police,
local authorities and schools. 12
33.
For example, the Guidelines state that schools should circulate and display posters on forced
marriage from the FMU and that teachers should be trained on issues surrounding forced
marriage. However, the Home Affairs Select Committee found that “many schools continue to
refuse to engage in preventative activity with children at risk of forced marriage […] Teachers who are
not trained to respond properly to cases of forced marriage can inadvertently put pupils in greater
danger by, for example, contacting their families.”13
34.
Both the Guidance and the Guidelines are designed to give professionals the knowledge and
skills to handle cases of forced marriage effectively and appropriately. Full implementation
HM Government, The Right to Choose: Multi-agency statutory guidance for dealing with forced marriage, January
2010.
12 HM Government, Multi-agency practice guidelines: Handling cases of forced marriage, June 2009.
13 Home Affairs Select Committee, Eighth Report of session 2010-2012, Forced marriage, HC 880, para. 27
5
11
Forced Marriage Consultation
The Odysseus Trust
29-Nov-12
by all the agencies concerned should increase individuals’ confidence in the ability of
agencies to respond appropriately to the initial fear of a forced marriage and any subsequent
disclosure of a breach of a FMPO.
35.
Frontline professionals, in particular education and health care professionals, should
implement the Guidance and Guidelines fully in order to create an atmosphere where
individuals can make disclosures about forced marriage cases in confidence.
Do you feel that any other mechanisms, in addition to existing special measures (e.g. videorecorded statements, live links, screens) in court, need to be in place to help victims and
witnesses of forced marriage, particularly the young, through the criminal justice process once
any criminal prosecution proceedings take place? If yes, please explain your answer, giving
examples of the types of mechanisms and resources needed.
36.
No response.
Criminalisation of Forced Marriage
Do you believe that the current civil remedies and criminal sanctions are being used as
effectively as they could be in tackling forced marriage? If not, what more do you think can be
done to prevent forced marriage including ensuring victims are not deterred from reporting?
37.
The existing civil remedies and criminal sanctions are not being used effectively to tackle
forced marriage.
38.
Forced marriage cases are also dealt with under the Children’s Act 1989 in the Family Court
jurisdiction by care orders and removal to foster care. The Family Courts also grant FMPOs in
the context of care proceedings. These FMPOs are not included in the statistics for use of the
FMPO. The Family Court can also accept undertakings, similar to those used in domestic
violence cases. The FJC points to the great practical utility of undertakings which avoid a
contested hearing and cross-examination.
39.
The under-reporting of forced marriage is well documented and was confirmed, again, by the
Home Affairs Select Committee in 201114 although we agree with the FJC and SBS that figures
put on under-reporting may well be overstated.
40.
In 2011, the FMU recorded many more instances where it gave advice or support than there
were cases where FMPOs were granted.15 This may indicate a lack of awareness of the
availability of FMPOs on the part of individuals and those advising them or unwillingness on
the part of individuals to pursue protective measures. Both the FJC and SBS have
Home Affairs Select Committee, Eighth Report of session 2010-2012, Forced marriage, HC 880, para. 5.
The Forced Marriage Unit recorded 1,468 instances where it gave support or advice; in the period January to June
2011, 82 FMPOs were made (Court Statistics Quarterly, Q2 2011, Family Matters).
6
14
15
Forced Marriage Consultation
The Odysseus Trust
29-Nov-12
documented an unwillingness on the part of victims to pursue legal remedies against their
families (see below, para. 50) and SBS has documented a lack of awareness of the availability
of the current civil remedies.
41.
As of 1 April 2010, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has been seeking to identify all
offences carried out in the context of forced marriage.16 Between 1 July 2007 and 31 March
2008, the CPS piloted this flagging in four pilot areas. In that period, they flagged three cases
of forced marriage.17 We agree with the FJC’s findings that the CPS figures may well indicate
a conflation of forced marriage with “honour”-based violence. It is important to distinguish
correctly between the two: forced marriage is ongoing behaviour undertaken with the express
intention of compelling an individual to marry against their will. “Honour”-based violence
lacks that specific intention. Where the marriage is a matter of perceived honour, it is still a
forced marriage.
42.
We have found no evidence that procuring the marriage of an individual against their will is
an aggravating factor in sentencing of offences nor, in fact, any instances of conviction for
offences committed in the context of forced marriage.
43.
This indicates that there is still an unwillingness on the part of individuals to report their
treatment which prevents the activation of processes leading to civil remedies and criminal
sanctions.
44.
The FMU’s findings that police are sometimes unaware that FMPOs have been granted
indicates a worrying gap in the monitoring and enforcement of FMPOs.
45.
The lack of participation by schools in the FMU’s review of the implementation of its
statutory guidance in 201018 shows that schools and colleges are still unwilling to raise
awareness of forced marriage. This was confirmed by the Home Affairs Select Committee’s
2011 Report which found “that many schools continue to refuse to engage in preventative activity
with children at risk of forced marriage” and “clear evidence that many schools are not fulfilling their
statutory responsibilities with regard to forced marriage, […]”19
46.
The Government have refused to give effect to the Select Committee’s recommendation to
write to schools during the summer to remind them of their responsibilities with regard to
CPS, Legal Guidance, Honour Based Violence and Forced Marriage: Guidance on Identifying and Flagging cases,
available at:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/forced_marriage_and_honour_based_violence_cases_guidance_on_flagging_a
nd_identifying_cases/
17 CPS pilot on forced marriage and so-called ‘honour’ crime – findings, December 2008
18 Forced Marriage Unit, Report On The Implementation Of The Multi-Agency Statutory Guidance For Dealing With
Forced Marriage (2008), p. 7.
19 Home Affairs Select Committee, Eighth Report of session 2010-2012, Forced marriage, HC 880, para. 27
7
16
Forced Marriage Consultation
The Odysseus Trust
29-Nov-12
forced marriage.20 This demonstrates a disturbing lack of awareness of the problem of forced
marriage and the need for leadership.
47.
All relevant Government agencies should be implementing the FMU’s Guidance and
following the FMU’s Guidelines. Such implementation should foster an environment where
individuals have confidence that those to whom they report forced marriage cases will deal
with their disclosures appropriately and will be able to give them cogent advice on the civil
remedies and criminal sanctions available.
Do you think a criminal offence should be created for the act of forcing someone to marry
against their will? If so, how do you think the offence should be defined?
48.
We do not believe a new criminal offence should be created for the act of forcing someone to
marry against their will.
49.
There are already sufficient criminal offences covering the wrongful behaviour employed by
those forcing others into marriage. Criminalisation would prevent or deter individuals from
seeking help. There is clear under-reporting of forced marriage which may worsen in the
event of criminalisation as victims shy away from the public process of the criminal
jurisdiction which dishonours their family.
50.
Both the FJC and SBS have documented the behaviour of forced marriage victims and their
specific vulnerabilities. Their analysis strongly indicates an unwillingness on the part of
victims to engage in formal court proceedings against their families. This is currently true of
FMPOs and protection under the Children’s Act 1989 and would be compounded by
criminalisation of forced marriage with its higher standard of proof and the public nature of
the proceedings and judgments.
51.
As SBS states, victims of forced marriage tend to wish strongly for an eventual rehabilitation
with their families. The FMPO was intended as a protection mechanism which maintained
the chance of such rehabilitation. As SBS notes, in their experience, the FMPO does work in
this way. The impossibility of future rehabilitation is other factor deterring people from
supporting a criminal prosecution and would be compounded by criminalising forced
marriage.
52.
The results of the CPS pilot project flagging forced marriage and “honour”-based violence
cases showed that 10 of the 21 cases identified resulted in conviction. This means that more
than half (11) of the cases did not result in conviction. The CPS state that, where a reason for
the outcome of the prosecution was recorded, cases not resulting in conviction “were most
often related to victim and/or witness concerns.”
The Government response to the Eighth Report from the Home Affairs Committee Session 2010-12 HC 880, Forced
marriage, July 2011, Cm 8151, p. 6.
8
20
Forced Marriage Consultation
The Odysseus Trust
29-Nov-12
53.
The CPS’ Violence Against Women and Girls Crime Report of 2011 stated that there were 41
cases of forced marriage prosecuted of which just under half were successful.21 No reason is
given for the failure of prosecutions and the CPS notes that “[a]s with any new monitoring
system, time is needed for the embedding in of its accurate use. The quality and accuracy of the data
therefore needs to be considered with caution during this first year.” This would indicate that
criminalisation of forced marriage is premature.
54.
We are, however, strongly of the view that procuring a forced marriage should be an
aggravating factor in the sentence for an individual offence. This would retain the discretion
of the judge in sentencing while more severely punishing those who attempt to force others to
marry and allow for deterrent sentences.
55.
Making the procuring of a forced marriage an aggravating factor in sentence would reflect
the increase in sentence requested by the CPS in domestic violence cases.22
56.
Making the procuring of a forced marriage an aggravating factor in sentencing would also
maintain the current position where the behaviour can be prosecuted and an individual
punished without the victim/survivor divulging to the CPS the fact of the forced marriage.
While this would prevent the CPS from asking for an increased sentence, it would not cause
the prosecution to fall where they failed to prove the “forcing marriage” limb of a forced
marriage offence.
57.
Introducing the procuring of a forced marriage at sentencing would also retain the ability of
the individual to use the FMPO in the Family Court and the privacy that goes with that civil
process. The individual and third agencies would not be pre-empted from obtaining a FMPO
by a prosecution.
58.
In our view, criminalising forced marriage would lead to fewer prosecutions because
victims/survivors would be less willing to support prosecutions and would also be less
willing to use the FMPO since the proper enforcement of a FMPO necessarily involves the
police. It is not difficult to imagine that an individual in a vulnerable position would presume
that involving the police, in any way, will lead to a criminal prosecution and the attendant
dishonour for the family and ostracisation from the victim’s community.
59.
We agree with the FJC that failed prosecutions and investigations would do much more harm
since it would be likely that a failed prosecution would sever relations between the victim
and the family and community, confirming the victim’s worst fears, and also compound the
view of Government agencies held by other vulnerable young people.
CPS, Violence against Women and Girls Crime Report, 2010-2011, p.34
CPS, Legal Guidance, Domestic Violence (including Aide-memoire), available at:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/domestic_violence_aide-memoire/#content
9
21
22
Forced Marriage Consultation
The Odysseus Trust
29-Nov-12
60.
We agree with SBS that criminalisation of forced marriage increases the likelihood of parents
removing their children from the UK’s jurisdictions and forcing them to marry abroad in
order to circumvent the criminal law. As SBS points out, the experience of the Female Genital
Mutilation Act 2003 is that girls are being taking abroad and abandoned at a younger age in
order to circumvent the Act. We believe that SBS’ fears that this practice will be transferred to
cases of forced marriage are well-founded since they are based on over thirty years
experience of working with these issues.
61.
We note that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 8 March 2012
that:
“today we can confirm that we are working towards signing the Council of Europe’s Convention on
Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence before ratifying the treaty and incorporating it into
UK law.”23
62.
Article 37(1) of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence
against women and domestic violence (Council of Europe Convention) requires States to “take
the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that the intentional conduct of forcing an adult or
a child to enter into a marriage is criminalised.”
63.
However, given that the behaviour employed in forcing an individual to marry against their
will is already criminalised, introducing the intention to procure a forced marriage as an
aggravating factor in sentencing could fulfil the Article 37(1) requirement since this would
penalise the intention as well as the conduct itself.
64.
In our view, Article 37(1) does not require the criminalisation of forced marriage itself:
“intentional conduct of forcing [an individual] to enter into a marriage” can be separated into two
sections – the conduct itself and the intention of forcing into marriage which is the motivating
factor behind that conduct. In the UK, the conduct, for example, violence, kidnap,
psychological and sexual abuse, aiding and abetting rape, are already criminal offences.
65.
Introducing a specific aggravating factor in sentencing of procuring a marriage would
penalise the motive behind the conduct and, in our view, would satisfy the Article 37(1)
requirement.
66.
Were the Government minded to criminalise forced marriage, despite the objections set out
above, FMPOs would need to be retained so that where the CPS chose not to prosecute or
where an individual did not wish to support a prosecution, there would still be a remedy by
which the individual, or a third agency, could prevent the abuse from continuing.
PM/DPM statement: Convention On Violence Against Women, Thursday 8 March 2012, available at:
http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/violence-against-women/
10
23
Forced Marriage Consultation
The Odysseus Trust
29-Nov-12
67.
As with the breach of non-molestation orders, the CPS should ensure that the victim is kept
fully informed of the progress of the prosecution and, in particular, is informed as soon as a
decision not to prosecute is made so that the individual can seek a FMPO and there is no gap
in their legal protection.
What issues should be considered to ensure that a new offence does not deter people from
reporting the crime?
68.
Much greater focus would need to be put on the full implementation by all agencies of the
FMU’s Guidance and Guidelines.
69.
Full implementation by all relevant agencies would enable alternative evidence to be
gathered where the victim does not support the prosecution.
70.
Individuals should be made aware of the alternative possibility of a FMPO where they choose
not to take their case to the police, where they do not support the prosecution or where the
CPS chooses not to prosecute.
71.
Close contact with victims should be ensured so that they are kept informed of the progress
of investigations and the decision to prosecute. Successful prosecutions where the individual
is involved and treated with compassion by agencies should feed upstream to others who
may wish to come forward but are apprehensive about how they will be treated by
Government agencies.
72.
There should be much greater focus on multi-agency outreach so that potential victims know
how their complaints will be dealt with by the police, social services and the CPS. Such
outreach should be undertaken now and regardless of whether forced marriage is
criminalised.
73.
The Government should ensure that funding for women’s refuges, particularly those catering
to the specific needs of black and minority ethnic women, is put on a stable, permanent basis
so that there are always avenues for victims to obtain impartial advice and support, even if
they do not wish to pursue legal remedies.
Do you think there should be an offence of luring someone abroad; luring someone to this
country or indeed within this country; or from one country to another for the specific purpose of
forcing them to marry?
74.
Criminalising the luring of an individual abroad, to this country or within this country for the
purpose of forcing them to marry against their will would fulfil the requirement in
Article 37(2) Council of Europe Convention and would provide another avenue for
prosecution once the marriage had taken place. This may be useful where the behaviour
11
Forced Marriage Consultation
The Odysseus Trust
29-Nov-12
preceding the marriage was not sufficient to prosecute or where the victim/survivor refuses
to cooperate with a prosecution.
75.
An offence of “luring” would, however, be unlikely to help prevent the marriage since it
would be unlikely that the victim would be aware of the real reason for which they were
entering or leaving the country.
76.
Once the marriage has taken place, the family or community could be prosecuted for existing
offences including kidnapping, child abduction and aiding and abetting rape. An offence of
“luring” could fill the current gap in the offence of kidnapping where the individual was not
deprived of their liberty in the jurisdiction.
77.
To be effective, an offence of “luring” would have to be drafted carefully, for example, as
follows:
It is an offence to induce by fraud or misrepresentation the movement of a person from the
United Kingdom, to the United Kingdom or within the United Kingdom with the intention of
procuring, or attempting to procure, the marriage of that person against, or in ignorance, of
that person’s consent.
78.
However, in our view, the resources expended on criminalisation and prosecution of a
“luring” offence would be much better used to increase the implementation of the FMU’s
Guidance and Guidelines and to establish a stable, permanent funding basis for organisation
specialising in and dealing with forced marriage.
How far do you think a person’s circumstances and age influence their approach/ attitude in
seeking protection/ justice?
79.
No response.
Do you think that the creation of a new criminal offence would make the law clearer?
80.
We do not agree that the creation of a new criminal offence would make the law clearer. The
array of existing criminal offences is clearly stated and provides legal certainty. A new crime
would rather complicate the law since this would re-criminalise already existing criminal
behaviour conducted with a particular motive – to force an individual to marry against their
will. As explained above, this motive should be taken into account in the sentencing decision
as an aggravating factor.
Do you think the creation of a new criminal offence would make it easier for professionals to
tackle the problem?
81.
We do not agree that the creation of a new criminal offence would make tackling the problem
12
Forced Marriage Consultation
The Odysseus Trust
29-Nov-12
easier for professionals.
82.
In our view the criminalisation of forced marriage would have a significant dissuasive effect
on individuals coming forward to claim protection which would make the task of
professionals much harder.
83.
There is evidence that some front-line professionals, in particular schools, are currently
unaware of the signs preceding a forced marriage.24 Schools and local authorities do not
question the disappearance from school of ethnic minority children.25 If the criminalisation of
forced marriage did reduce the number of victims coming forward, as we believe it would,
professionals who are currently failing in their responsibilities on forced marriage would fail
further.
84.
In any event, the creation of a further offence of forced marriage would not assist
professionals since the outward signs of the pressure leading to a forced marriage are
consistent with child abuse and intra-family violence more generally.
Do you think that criminalising forcing someone to marry would change public opinion
towards forced marriage, particularly in those communities most affected?
85.
Criminalising forcing someone to marry against their will may change public opinion
towards forced marriage but a sea-change in public attitudes towards forced marriage has
already been accomplished to some extent by the increased awareness of the issue along with
that of “honour”-based violence and domestic violence more generally.
86.
A further change in attitudes would be accomplished by making forcing someone to marry
against their will an aggravating factor in sentencing. This would not have the negative
effects that the criminalisation of forced marriage would have.
Groups Affected by this Consultation
Do you have any data or other information on the demographic profile of people who are forced
into marriage or who force someone into marriage? If so please provide data or source of data.
87.
No response
Do you think any of the proposals would have a particular impact on people who fall within
one of the protected characteristics listed above? If so please provide details.
Only one school replied to the Forced Marriage Unit’s 2008 review on the implementation of the multi-agency
statutory guidance for dealing with forced marriage (2008, p. 7), The Government Response To The Eighth Report
From The Home Affairs Committee Session 2010-12 HC 880 Forced Marriage.
25 Ibid.
13
24
Forced Marriage Consultation
The Odysseus Trust
29-Nov-12
88.
No response.
14