Sikh woman pretended to her her sister to scupper forced marriage case

A Sikh woman who pretended to be sister to withdraw her forced marriage allegations against their family has avoided jail.

The 22 year old sister claimed she was being made to wed a man she did not want to and the case went to court.

Her sibling aged 21 had initially supported her claims and gave a witness statement to police telling how she had also been coerced by he relatives.

But during the trial she mysteriously withdrew some of her accusations and was treated as a hostile witness.

She then hacked then into her sister’s email and wrote to her solicitor in her name, stating she wanted to drop the case.

The woman was convicted of perverting the course of justice, while her father, mother, and two uncles were cleared of conspiracy to commit forced marriage after a trial in January this year.

Her ‘very brave’ sister, who had resisted family pressure– to marry a Sikh man from Punjab for more than a year at the cost of being estranged before she fled her home.

At Snaresbrook Crown Court today (Fri), prosecutor Edward Brown KC said: ‘This defendant’s actions were seeking to undermine the whole case.’

But Mr Brown told the judge he would be ‘entitled to carefully consider a suspended sentence’ due to the woman’s ‘discreet’ role in a ‘complex family situation’.

‘If I may say so, this case involved pressure being exerted on two girls. One of which was this defendant,’ he said.

Mr Brown said the forced marriage allegations were initially made by both women against their family.

He said: ‘Events came to a head on 11 March 2024 when during a family meeting regarding marriage plans others had been making [for the defendant’s sister], she fled the family home and went to the police and an investigation proceeded.’

‘There were attempts by this defendant or her uncles to thwart the investigation so a court case could not go ahead.

‘The background includes this defendant at one point being a prosecution witness and making allegations against family members of being forced into a marriage.

‘She provided a video recorded interview for the police, an account which was consistent with her sister’s account.’

But Mr Brown said the woman wrote a letter saying she wanted to prosecution in December 2024, followed by her sister who shared similar sentiments.

After talking to police, however, her sister agreed to continue as a witness and give evidence at a trial.

But when the defendant was summoned to give pre-recorded evidence in a Section 28 cross-examination of what she said in her police interview, Mr Brown said she became ‘hostile’ and blamed ‘confusion’ and ‘misunderstanding’ of the Punjabi language.

After failed efforts to stop the elder sister with a series of ‘extremely claustrophobic’ family meetings, in February 2025 evidence was handed to police that showed her Gmail account had been accessed to send a fake withdrawal letter to the prosecution.

The defendant had asked for her password, which her sister trustingly handed over.

The defendant also told her mother ‘You text her off your phone and say thank you for saving the boys’, to make it seem like her sister had been the one to send the email.

The woman was arrested in March 2025 and denied the offence under police questioning.

Three days into her trial – which included her father, mother, and two uncles – she pleaded guilty and was severed from the prosecution.

But jurors could not reach a verdict on the rest of the family, who were acquitted after the sister decided she could not go through a retrial.

The unusual scenario meant the woman was the only member of her family convicted, despite the more serious allegations mounted against them – and of which she had initially been a complainant.

Defence counsel Claire Mawer said: ‘At the heart of this is two young women whose lives have been turned upside down in recent years. It’s important not to lose sight of that.’

Ms Mawer argued the offence was ‘of limited scope and duration’ and ‘unsophisticated’, while claiming that the woman’s autism diagnosis gave some explanation to her actions.

On the familial pressure, Ms Mawer said: ‘[The defendant] describes feeling a torrent of emotion at the time, which amounts to her perceiving she was under pressure on all fronts.’

Ms Mawer suggested this amounted to coercion.

Sparing her prison, the judge Mr Recorder Timothy Forster said: ‘You took action to thwart the prosecution, so your father and your uncles would not be tried.

‘Your actions tended to undermine the critically important witness. Without [your sister] the prosecution did not have a case.’

The woman was sentenced to 12 months suspended for 24 months, with 10 rehabilitation activity requirement days, and 150 hours of unpaid work.