Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 2350 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Thursday, 4th June 2015

Before:

MR. JUSTICE HAYDEN
(In Private)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IN THE MATTER OF :

Z

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Transcribed by BEVERLEY F. NUNNERY & CO
(a trading name of Opus 2 International Limited)
Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers
5 Chancery Lane, London EC4A 1BL
Tel:  020 7831 5627     Fax:  020 7831 7737
info@beverleynunnery.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. S. FULLER appeared on behalf of the Applicant Local Authority  .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

J U D G M E N T
MR. JUSTICE HAYDEN: (extempore)

1	I am concerned on this ex parte application with Z who is 17 years of age and is a young female of Somali origin.  Her personal safety is of great concern to the Counter Terrorism Intelligence Unit, she has been the focus of their concern now for some time.

2	The specific concern is that she appears to have been radicalised and intends to try to travel to Syria.  There have been two occasions in the past when she has made determined efforts.  The first occurred in September 2014, where she planned to travel with two other young girls.  It seems that at the very last minute she lost her nerve and she did not travel, though her two companions did.  This year, on 21st April, she made a further effort and was detained under s.7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 at an Airport, seeking to board a flight for Turkey having obtained a one-way ticket.  The staff of the airline or airport (I am unclear which) were suspicious, as well they might be, of a single young woman travelling to Turkey on a single ticket.  They notified the terrorism unit and she was returned to her family.
3	The challenge to the counterterrorism officers of working with young teenage women who have been radicalised is immense.  It is plain to me, having heard evidence at this urgent application, that neither she nor her parents, in particular her mother, her father having been largely passive, has been consistent, open and honest with the police.
4	A little while ago the police were contacted by a man purporting to be a cousin of this young woman.  He told them that there was to be a family wedding and that Z wanted to attend.  That telephone call was on Tuesday, 1st June.  That led the officers involved to speak to Z's mother.  I have been told that the mother has created every impression of being in the depths of anxious turmoil during the course of the last 24 hours.  She resolved that however by making an application this morning to the police for the return of the passport.  The police, quite wrongly, in my view, took the view that they were constrained to return the passport.  They were not.  An immediate telephone application could have been made seeking to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court and Wardship.  Moreover, it seems to me that given the escalation of concern by this morning, to which I will refer in a moment, there were obvious powers under s.7 of the Terrorism Act.  I make these observations not to be critical in any way of those involved in these challenging situations but merely to try to ensure that there is proper sharing of knowledge through the various regional counterterrorist units.  I have been concerned that those channels of information do not run as efficiently as they need to.

5	In his conversations with the mother, the police officer was immediately alerted to the fact that whilst the wedding had originally, he was told, been planned to take place in Sweden, in fact the account had changed and it seemed the wedding was now to take place in Denmark.  The officer was very clear regarding this inconsistency.  Moreover, when first asked about the plans to travel, Z's mother had said that it was for Z to, as she put it, "Wash her brain", by which I understood her to mean that she wished to encourage her daughter to reintegrate into her family and reabsorb its values.  She did not mention any marriage ceremony.
6	Urgent enquiries throughout the course of the day have revealed that this young woman is in fact booked on a flight to Copenhagen and with other members of her cousin's family.  The details obtained from the flight manifest suggest not only that she may be intending to travel ultimately to an ISIS country but also that she may herself be the subject of a planned, arranged or perhaps forced marriage.
7	The lack of candour or openness within this family, as I find it; the fact that Z’s cousin conducts his affairs with two different names; the history of the case generally.  All these cause me to have no hesitation in concluding that this a clear case where there is an obvious risk to a manifestly vulnerable young woman.  I have no hesitation in granting the ex parte application made by the local authority, firstly to ward Z.  From this minute she becomes a ward of the High Court, and, secondly, to grant a passport seizure order.
8	Because the case is heard ex parte, it is to return to court at the earliest possible opportunity so that those directly involved can have the opportunity to make their representations and to be legally represented if they choose to be so.  Moreover, I have ordered a transcript of the evidence, subject to redaction for security reasons, in order that all those directly concerned will know what has occurred on this application.