A High Court judge dealing with the inherent jurisdiction of the court relating to vulnerable adults has praised the police investigation which led to a young woman being stopped from returning to a country where she would ‘likely…have been killed’.

In Re X (Inherent Jurisdiction: Vulnerable Adult) Mr Justice Hayden, granted an urgent application brought before him as the out of hours judge by Devon and Cornwall Police. 

The application sought to prevent X, who had escaped to England where she claimed asylum seeking protection from domestic abuse, leaving the country as well as passport and travel restrictions for a limited period to ‘afford a period of decompression’ to ‘facilitate X’s decision taking, not to remove it from her’.

X alleges she had been subject to controlling and abusive behaviour including strangulation and rape. No findings have been made in relation to any allegations. X reported she feared for her life after her location was discovered by her husband and shared with her family.

Later, after reestablishing contact with her husband, X ‘expressed a desire to reconcile with him and to reunite with her son’.

Police and other professionals ‘became increasingly concerned’ though X had ‘clear capacity to make decisions and her repeated insistence that she was acting of her own free will, her autonomy had, in reality, become compromised by coercion, undue influence, threats, familial pressure and emotional manipulation’.

Read more

Allowing the application, the judge said: ‘To be explicit, had X boarded the aircraft and returned to her family, I think it likely that she would have been killed.

‘In this challenging sphere, judges are required to address fundamental principles of autonomy and human agency in circumstances where an individual’s decision-making may be so compromised, whether by coercion or other constraining influences, that they are unable genuinely to safeguard their own welfare and may consequently place their safety, or even their life, in jeopardy. The law protects autonomy, not wisdom. Its concern is not with bad decisions but with decisions that are not truly free.

‘The evidence, as presented, strikes me as establishing a real risk both to the mother’s safety and to her life. In my judgement, this engages X’s Article 2 Rights ECHR.

‘I note that the ECHR has reasoned that domestic abuse is not solely a private matter between individuals, but where authorities know or ought to know of a real and immediate risk of serious violence, the state may be under a positive obligation to take proactive and preventative operational measures.’

The judgment also recorded a return hearing. X, after being stopped at Heathrow, had ‘engaged actively with the police and was immediately receptive to offers of support’.

Commending Devon and Cornwall Police’s work, the judge said the investigation ‘was conducted with conspicuous professionalism, sensitivity and acuity throughout’.

‘In my judgement, it represents progressive policing of the very highest calibre. Such work merits recognition, not merely for the expertise, diligence and commitment it reveals, but also because it serves a wider public purpose. It should reassure the public, and vulnerable women in particular, that their circumstances can be understood, that their voices can be heard, and that there exists a resolute determination to provide carefully calibrated protection and support where it is needed.

‘I am very much aware that policing of this quality, in this sphere of abuse, is not ubiquitous. I highlight it here to the degree that I have to demonstrate that it exists and to offer it as a template for others.’