The accusation that it was a “show trial” was being bandied around within minutes of the acquittal yesterday of London doctor Dhanuson Dharmasena and his co-accused Hasan Mohamed, in Britain’s first prosecution for female genital mutilation.
That’s going too far. But the sad truth is that this was a highly problematic case that appeared doomed almost from the start. Worse, it has been a distraction from efforts to bring genuine “cutters” to justice that has done nothing to protect the thousands of girls in this country at risk from this cruel practice.
That is because, as prosecutor Kate Bex candidly admitted in her opening statement to the jury at Southwark Crown Court, this was not a case involving the mutilation of a young girl in a “backstreet clinic” by an “uncaring” unqualified person.
Instead, the two-and-a-half-week trial revolved around a dispute over whether a small stitch applied to repair a cut to a new mother’s labia after an emergency delivery at Archway’s Whittington Hospital was a fraction too long or not.
The prosecution alleged that it was and, by partially closing the woman’s vaginal opening, amounted to a crime under 2003 legislation prohibiting female genital mutilation.
Dharmasena, whose actions during the birth saved the baby’s life, admitted using the wrong technique to apply the stitch. He told the court that it was because he’d never before had to treat a woman who had arrived in the delivery room with a vagina sewn up from a childhood mutilation that needed cutting open for birth and then repairing — leaving him unsure of how to proceed.
But he insisted throughout that he had acted in his patient’s best interests and — in line with the law — had done no more than was necessary to stem bleeding caused by the birth.
That explanation was accepted by the jury and sounded true from the moment he gave it in the witness box. Every word Dharmasena uttered gave the impression that here was a doctor of whom the NHS could be proud. Even the alleged victim testified for the defence.
At worst this was an inexperienced medic making a small error during an emergency birth. Dragging him to court to receive a potentially career-wrecking criminal conviction was disproportionate.
So why was the case brought? The harshest explanation is that it was an attempt by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, to ease pressure on her to bring a first FGM case after decades of failure since 1985, when the practice became illegal in Britain. The timing of the charging decision, days before she was due to be grilled by MPs, adds weight to this theory.
Saunders has replied that the judge refused three attempts to throw out the case for lack of evidence, saying this vindicated her assessment.
Legally that is true. But though the prosecutor fought tenaciously, it always seemed she had been handed dud ammunition. The case limped to the finishing line and the jury returned not-guilty verdicts within minutes.
With an “FGM zero tolerance” day looming tomorrow, it is time to return to addressing the real menace. Greater vigilance by health and other professionals to spot girls at risk is what we now need. That, and prompt intervention when they are, will achieve far more than flawed prosecutions.