(Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, 25 September 2019)
Public law children – Female Genital Mutilation Protection Order – Mother making application for asylum in UK.
The Family Division held that there was no jurisdiction for the family court to make FGMPO against Secretary of State to control exercise of her jurisdiction with respect to matters of immigration and asylum.
For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and European courts case, subscribe to Family Law Reports.
Subscribers can log in here.
Find out more or request a free 1-week trial of the Family Law Reports. Please quote: 100482.
Neutral Citation Number:  EWHC 2475 (Fam)
Case No: NR18 F05001
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
President of the Family Division
Re A (A Child: Female Genital Mutilation: Asylum)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Counsel James Holmes and Junior Counsel Naomi Wiseman instructed on behalf of the applicant local authority
Leading Counsel Karon Monaghan QC and Junior Counsel Dr Charlotte Proudman on behalf of the Mother
Leading Counsel John McKendrick QC and Junior Counsel Claire van Overdijk on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department
Counsel Kathryn Cronin and Junior Counsel Artis Kakonge on behalf of the child through her Childrens’ Guardian
Kathryn Cronin and Artis Kakonge (instructed by Miles & Partners LLP) for the Respondent Child
Hearing dates: 30th January 2019
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE SIR ANDREW MCFARLANE
This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.