A woman from Birmingham has been found guilty of deceiving her teenage daughter into travelling to Pakistan and forcing her to marry a man nearly twice her age in the first successful prosecution of its kind.

The jury at Birmingham crown court heard that the teenager, who became pregnant by the man when she was just 13, had sobbed as the marriage took place.

The court was told that the defendant, a 45-year-old mother of four – who cannot be named for legal reasons – duped her daughter, then 17, into travelling to Pakistan by claiming it was a family holiday and groomed her by bribing her with the promise of a mobile phone.

While abroad, on the teenager’s 18th birthday, she revealed her plan to have her married to one of her relatives and threatened to tear up her passport if she did not comply with her wishes.

The defendant was found guilty on two counts of forced marriage and a third charge of perjury. The jury of nine men and three women returned a not guilty verdict for a further charge of perverting the course of justice.

The verdict was quickly hailed as a landmark development in the fight against forced marriage. While specific legislation was introduced in 2014 after a 10-year campaign by women’s rights groups, it has only led to one previous successful prosecution, in Wales.

This is the first time a conviction has been secured after a victim testified in court against her own family. The government’s Forced Marriage Unit provided support in about 1,200 potential cases last year.

Jasvinder Sanghera, director at the charity for forced marriage victims Karma Nirvana, said she was “elated” by the news. “I hope this is going to pave the way for future victims to have more confidence in the criminal justice system,” she said.

“Since 2014 we have not had one criminal conviction where a victim has stood up and spoken out so courageously about her experiences against the person who has the most responsibility for her wellbeing – her mother.”

Superintendent Sally Holmes, of West Midlands Police’s public protection unit, said such cases were difficult because “ultimately, children love their parents and the last thing they often want to do is criminalise them”. She said the verdict could make a significant difference in future. “A case like this is so important to give people the confidence they need in coming forward, and to say that absolutely it’s the right thing to do to report the matter.”



The court was told that the defendant abandoned her daughter in Pakistan, returning to England after putting the marriage plan in place. She was later summoned to the family division of the high court after the teenager raised the alarm by contacting a friend on Facebook.

The defendant lied under oath when asked by a judge whether a ceremony had taken place. She said her daughter had not got married, that she was happy and wanted to stay in Pakistan. She later admitted lying, but pleaded not guilty to perjury as she claimed she was acting under the instructions of her daughter, who had wanted to break the news to friends and family herself.

With her daughter watching from the public gallery as the verdicts were read, the defendant appeared shocked and was remanded in custody for sentencing on Wednesday. The judge, Patrick Thomas QC, told the jury the adjournment was appropriate as the case was “entirely novel”, with no other relevant case law to rely upon.

Jurors heard that during her time in Pakistan the teenager, now 19, was deprived of money and a phone and was not allowed to leave the house. Earlier in the trial she described how she cried through her wedding day on 18 September 2016 and begged her mother to help her before being sent home with the 34-year-old Pakistani national, the nephew of her stepfather.

Giving evidence she said that on the day of the marriage she was taken to a wedding party to meet her husband. She told the court: “We had to walk down the stairs to the stage. I was telling my mum I did not want to get married and she was holding my arm. Someone was taking a video. I was crying to my mum telling her I didn’t want to get married.”

It was on a previous visit to Pakistan in 2012 that the teenager, then 13, had first met the man chosen to be her husband, who was 29 at the time. During the trial it was accepted that on her return to the UK it was discovered the girl had become pregnant by him and that a termination was arranged.

Social services had already intervened with the family as the defendant struggled to deal with her daughter’s behaviour, but after the termination the youngster was said to have gone “completely off the rails”.

In summing up the case, the judge had told jurors that while the girl was “plainly very difficult to deal with” as she grew up, she could not be blamed for her circumstances. He reminded jurors: “She was put in a difficult position and she was a child at the time. And she was still a child when she went to Pakistan in 2012 with her mother.”

It was after that trip that the teenager was put into the care of a children’s home, where she became vulnerable to child sexual exploitation, was raped, and had a second termination. Later, in December 2015, the victim was moved into supported accommodation and saw her mother every day. It was during this time that the defendant made regular trips to Pakistan, started planning her wedding, and started grooming her for what was to follow, the prosecution had told the court.

Sanghera, whose charity has fielded 68,000 calls about forced marriage in the last decade, warned that thousands of children were still vulnerable. “I can say there will be thousands at risk this year alone who will be being prepared right now to be taken abroad during their summer break and forced into marriages,” she said.

But she added: “This case shows that when a victim is supported appropriately through the criminal justice system, a prosecution is possible.”

Sanghera, a survivor of so-called “honour” abuse, said there had been failings in the case and called for an urgent review. “That kid was 13 when she was taken to Pakistan,” she said. “There have been mistakes by the statutory services who despite the guidelines in place did not recognise the mother as a perpetrator and put her word above that of an extremely vulnerable child.”