On 26 October 2023, the Crown Prosecution Service (2023) successfully convicted a woman of assisting female genital mutilation (FGM). This was the first conviction of its kind in UK history.
The woman was found guilty of trafficking a 3-year-old British child to Kenya to be subjected to FGM. Nine years later, the victim confided in a schoolteacher that she had been subjected to FGM and the police were informed. This conviction marks the second FGM conviction in the UK, and the first for assisting a non-UK person to commit FGM against a British resident. This prosecution is unique, as it is the first time a person has been held accountable for a cutting that occurred outside of the UK. Sentencing has not yet been carried out, but should take place later this year.
FGM has been illegal in the UK since 1985, with assisting FGM outside of the UK becoming a criminal offence under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 (Gov.uk, 2003). It is estimated that there are 200 million women worldwide who have been subjected to FGM (World Health Organization, 2023), equivalent to 5% of the global female population. In the UK, there are an estimated 137 000 women who have experienced FGM and a further 60 000 girls under the age of 15 years old are estimated to be at-risk of FGM in the UK (Macfarlane and Dorkenoo, 2014).
A case study
A similar case took place several years ago. The name and some details have been changed to ensure anonymity. A pregnant woman (given the pseudonym Marion) attended a specialist FGM clinic. Marion disclosed that she was born in the UK and FGM was carried out in London in a tower block when she was 9 years old. She remembered seeing the woman holding a razor blade in front of her face before she cut her, without using any anaesthetic. She remembers being left in a waiting area and listening to other screaming girls. She remembers the blood and the pain. She told us that her mother's friend was there that day and while she was growing up, she would see that same friend in the mosque whenever they went to pray.
Marion told the staff at the clinic that the mosque produced leaflets stating that FGM is against the law, but when the Iman preached, he told the congregation that they must continue to cut their daughters. She also said that uncut women were not allowed into the central area of the mosque, as they were considered unclean.
The staff at the clinic explained to Marion that the name of her mother's friend should be given to the police, so that they can ensure that no other girls suffer FGM at her hands. Marion refused. She said that she no longer speaks to her parents, and she never visits the mosque.
The specialist midwife spoke to Project Azure (the specialist Metropolitan police unit that deal with FGM and other harmful practices). They asked the midwife to share the pregnant woman's name and contact details. The midwife was unsure whether she could do this without Marion's consent. The midwife spoke to the hospital trust safeguarding team and the trust's legal team. The midwife was informed that unless there was a direct immediate safeguarding concern, the midwife could not share the woman's information with the police.
This was a complicated case. If Marion had a son during this pregnancy, there can be no immediate safeguarding risk of FGM; however, if she has daughters in the future, they may be at risk, particularly if Marion reconciles with her parents. How do we safeguard future generations of girls? In the end, Marion had a male infant, and her name and contact details were not disclosed. However other information pertaining to the case was shared with the police.
The law
Midwives should be aware that all women born in the UK or resident in the UK from 2003 onwards who have been subjected to FGM (whether in the UK or abroad) should be informed that this is a criminal offence and that they have the right to report this to the police. Furthermore, the person who arranged or facilitated the cutting can be prosecuted. This conviction illustrates how the law can help to discourage perpetrators from carrying out female genital mutilation.
The Serious Crime Act of 2015 introduced new legislation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It extended the extra-territorial reach of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, meaning that the law applies to habitual as well as permanent UK residents. It introduced a new offence: failing to protect a girl from risk of FGM. Parents or other family members can be prosecuted if they fail to protect their daughters from FGM. Additionally, the Act granted lifelong anonymity to victims and brought in a civil order (FGM protection orders) to protect potential victims (Gov.uk, 2016). Finally, a Mandatory Reporting Duty was introduced in England and Wales (only) in 2015. This places a duty on healthcare professionals, teachers and social care workers, to notify the police (via the non-emergency number: 101) if a girl under 18 years old either discloses or is identified with FGM during an episode of clinical care (Home Office, 2015).
Conclusions
When considering this case, we must acknowledge the circumstances surrounding the events with cultural sensitivity and adopt a human rights-based perspective. FGM sometimes takes place alongside other intersectional violence (such as early forced marriage, domestic abuse or other harmful practices). However, it can be a one-of event by an otherwise loving family who are not aware of the damage that it causes and the intention behind it (for example, to stop women having sexual pleasure and force them to conform to gender norms such as compliance and modesty).
‘The convicted woman/perpetrator arrived in the UK as a refugee aged 16 years old and was herself a victim of [female genital mutilation]… The offence took place in 2006, when the perpetrator was only 22 years old, and… she was subjected to “significant cultural pressure” and was at risk of being “disowned and cursed” by the community’
In the case of the October 2023 conviction, the convicted woman/perpetrator arrived in the UK as a refugee aged 16 years old and was herself a victim of FGM. It is therefore unlikely that she was educated about the harmful consequences of FGM. The offence took place in 2006, when the perpetrator was only 22 years old, and it was reported in the press that she was subjected to ‘significant cultural pressure’ and was at risk of being ‘disowned and cursed’ by the community if she failed to ‘hand over the girl’(Weaver, 2023).
The conviction sends a strong message to discourage those who wish to continue practising FGM, but we should not forget the trauma experienced by the girl who suffered FGM (now 21 years old), the consequences for her whole family, and the fact that the convicted perpetrator may be considered vulnerable and a victim herself.