2 Prosecuting FGM
5. In our Report last year we concluded that a number
of successful prosecutions would send a clear message to practising
communities that FGM is taken seriously in the UK and will be
punished accordingly.[5]
We also noted that the first prosecutions were announced in a
Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) press release in March 2014, only
a matter of days before the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)
appeared before the Committee.[6]
6. On 4 February 2015, Dr Dhanuson Dharmasena (together
with another defendant) was found not guilty of performing FGM
on a patient at the Whittington Hospital in north London. Dr Dharmasena,
an obstetrics and gynaecology registrar, was alleged to have performed
reinfibulation on a woman after she had given birth. Dr Dharmasena
said that he had never before treated a woman who had previously
undergone FGM, nor had he received any relevant training. He performed
a single suture to stop postpartum bleeding. The woman herself
made no request for Dr Dharmasena to be prosecuted.
7. The prosecution of Dr Dharmasena has attracted
much criticism in the media. While we do not question Dr Dharmasena's
innocence, the fact that the first ever prosecution for FGM resulted
in acquittal is disappointing for FGM campaigners. Leyla Hussein
told the Committee that the publicity generated from this prosecution
sent out a very strong message to the practising community that
the UK takes FGM very seriously. However, she thought the outcome
of the case could discourage victims from coming forward if they
thought it was unlikely to result in conviction.[7]
8. On 16 February, we received a response from Alison
Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions, to a letter from the
Chairman which explained some of the details of the case. The
letter refutes the claim that the first FGM prosecutions were
brought only because of external pressure to be seen to be taking
action:
the only reason that any prosecutions would be
brought and are brought by the CPS is because the full Code test
is met, and in this case, I was satisfied that there was both
a realistic prospect of conviction and that it was in the public
interest to prosecute … I can confirm that the evidence …
was carefully reviewed at every stage of the CPS conduct of the
case. …
Once all the evidence is received and the Code
Tests satisfied, it is the duty of the CPS to authorise prosecution.
We are not entitled to wait for a case in which the evidence is
stronger … nor could we wait until a "classic"
case was submitted … We of course knew this would be a difficult
case as the first FGM prosecutions but we do not shy away from
bringing such prosecutions, provided the Code test is met.[8]
9. The DPP also explained that increased prosecutions
and convictions for FGM could only be secured by greater multi-agency
collaboration and more referrals to the police. The CPS work closely
with the police in relation to potential FGM cases, liaising regularly
to discuss and advise the police on the steps they are taking
to identify and investigate such offences. The CPS has set up
a network of lead FGM prosecutors to ensure that experience is
shared nationally. The DPP has also suggested possible changes
in the law to reflect the particular problems in such cases relating
to jurisdiction, parental liability and mandatory reporting, which
she hoped would increase referrals to the CPS.[9]
10. The Committee welcomed the first prosecution
under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 brought by the DPP
a few days before she was to appear before the Committee as part
of our first report into FGM. The first prosecution under the
Act was a problematic case: it was not a "classic" example
of primary FGM involving a child, and the defence argued successfully
that the defendant's actions were clinically indicated and were
in the best interests of the patient.
11. In Heartlands Hospital in Birmingham alone,
1,500 cases of FGM were recorded over the last five years, with
doctors seeing six patients who have undergone the procedure each
week. There seems to be a chasm between the amount of reported
cases and the lack of prosecutions. Someone, somewhere is not
doing their job effectively. The DPP informed the Committee that
she could only prosecute on the basis of evidence, the police
said that they could only investigate on the basis of referral,
and the health professionals told us that they could not refer
cases because their members were not fully trained and aware of
the procedure. While agencies play pass the parcel of responsibility,
young girls are being mutilated every hour of every day. This
is deplorable. We wish to see more prosecutions brought and convictions
secured. This barbaric crime which is committed daily on such
a huge scale across the UK cannot continue to go unpunished.
5 Home Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session
2013-14, Female genital mutilation: the case for a national action plan,
HC 201, para 35 Back
6
"First prosecutions for female genital mutilation",
Crown Prosecution Service press release, 21 March 2014 Back
7
Qq5-6 Back
8
Letter from Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions, to the Chair of the Committee, 16 February 2015
(FGM0001). The Full Code Test
is set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors (Crown Prosecution
Service, January 2013). Back
9
Letter from Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions, to the Chair of the Committee, 16 February 2015
(FGM0001) Back
|
