The Court of Appeal held that, in accordance with Section 4A of the Family Law Act 1996, the courts have the power to issue Forced Marriage Protection Orders (FMPO) for adults who have full mental capacity and oppose the FMPO, which includes the power to impose a travel ban or confiscate identity documents.

However, the court should impose a time limit on any Passport Orders it issues and set a review date when the order is due to expire. Given its highly restrictive nature and interference with an individual’s rights under Article 8 of the ECHR, imposing an open-ended Passport Order would only be justified in exceptional factual circumstances.

Where the need to protect an individual from a real risk of serious harm contrary to their rights under Article 3 of ECHR conflicts with the individual’s rights under Article 8 of ECHR to private and family life, there is a duty to protect a person’s absolute rights under Article 3. For this reason, a balancing exercise between the two rights would not be possible. However, the courts should assess proportionality and aim for an outcome that achieves a reasonable accommodation of competing rights.

In light of the above, the appeal was allowed. The Court of Appeal held that K’s case justified the issuing of an FMPO because K was at risk of serious honour violence in breach of her rights under ECHR Article 3. However, an indefinite travel ban disproportionately affected K’s rights under ECHR Article 8. A review of the FMPO and Passport Order was set for September 2022.