DHARMASENA:JURY ASKED: ‘IS FGM DOCTOR IS SCAPEGOAT IN SORRY SAGA’

A jury trying a doctor accused of carrying out Female Genital Mutilation on a young mum were today (weds) asked to consider whether he is a scapegoat in the ‘sorry saga.’

Dr Dhanuson Dharmasena, 32, allegedly carried out the procedure on the woman moments after helping deliver her first child at Whittington Hospital in Archway, north London.

He is the first person in the UK to be charged with FGM and is standing trial alongside Hasan Mohamed, 41, who is accused of encouraging him to commit the offence.

But jurors were invited to consider if Dharmasena had been made a scapegoat following a catalogue of failures at the Whittington.

The woman, known only as AB, gave birth to her first child on 24 November 2012.

In his summing up Mr Justice Sweeney directed the jury to contemplate the impact of a series of suggested ‘failures’ made by the hospital.

These included AB had not being seen by an FGM specialist prior to giving birth and her case not being followed up after previous surgery at Kingston Hospital.

Mr Justice Sweeney also referred to the absence of an interpreter during AB’s birth, the lack of any care plan made for her birth, and the ‘mysterious’ disappearance of a note relating to the examination of AB’s labia by an FGM specialist some weeks later.

‘It is you, not me, who decides what evidence you accept as being truthful and reliable, whether in whole or in part, or what evidence you reject as being untruthful or unreliable, whether in whole or in part,’ the judge said.

He explained that AB had been anonymised in order for her not to be identified as someone who had undergone FGM as a child.

‘You have heard that both men are of previous positive character… a number of witnesses have spoken highly of them.’

Mr Justice Sweeney said the prosecution accepted Dharmasena and Mohamed were, to an extent, unaware of the legislation relating to the FGM Act 2003.

‘It is not suggested on their behalf that that is capable of providing either with a defence to the charge or charges he faces,’ he said.

‘The reason is simple, if ignorance of the law was a defence that would be a recipe for anarchy.’

Referring to the first charge Mr Justice Sweeney said: ‘Dr Dharmasena is charged with an offence contrary to section 1(1) of the FGM Act 2003.

‘The essence of the prosecution’s case against him is that he infibulated AB – that is, closed off – by stitching together part of the labia, as opposed to scar tissue, so that the urethral opening was obstructed and the vaginal entrance was narrowed by the time she left the labour room.

‘That is opposed to something happening later which obstructed the opening.

‘Hasan Mohamed is charged with aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring Dr Dharmasena to commit that offence.

‘In law he can only be guilty of count one if Dr Dharmasena is guilty of it; so on count one you must find Dr Dharmasena guilty first.’

Mr Justice Sweeney explained that Mohamed can be find guilty of a separate, alternative count of encouraging FGM, without the need to convict Dharmasena.

‘The essence of the prosecution case is that Mr Mohamed intentionally encouraged Dr Dharmasena to infibulate part of the labia of AB so that the urethral opening was obstructed and the vaginal entrance was narrowed – and that in consequence that is what Dr Dharmasena did,’ he said.

‘However, the law recognises that the medical profession may be required to do things surgically that amount to infibulation.

‘An offence is only committed if the prosecution prove that the infibulation was not necessary for the female’s physical or mental health, or that the infibulation was not for purposes connected with labour or birth.

‘The prosecution accept that it was necessary for Dr Dharmasena to make a small anterior incision.

‘They also accept that it was necessary for him to stitch the incision in order to stop the bleeding.

‘The prosecution’s case is that it is the way he did the stitching that makes him guilty of the criminal offence with which he is charged.

‘They assert that he stitched the cut in such a way that when AB left the delivery room parts of her labia were stitched together that her urethral opening was obstructed and her vaginal entrance narrowed.

‘Dr Dharmasena’s case is that he put in a single, continuous, figure-of-eight stitch at the apex of the cut, and even if it did go part way down the cut it didn’t come near to obstructing the urethral opening or vaginal entrance.’

Mr Justice Sweeney referred to Dharmasena’s defence hat he is a ‘thoroughly good man, an able and conscientious doctor.

‘It is submitted that he has been made a scapegoat for the sorry saga.’

He said there had been ‘clear mistakes’ at the Whittington and said AB was ‘never referred down the FGM pathway as she should have been’.

He added that it was recognised Dharmasena had saved the life of AB’s baby.

Referring to Mohamed’s defence Mr Justice Sweeney said: ‘His case is that he was not insistent, as alleged, or at all.

‘On his behalf, your attention is drawn to his positive previous good character, the fact that he is against FGM, and the way he was let down by Whittington throughout the period.

‘It is submitted that the height of the prosecution’s case against Mr Mohamed amounts to no more than him having asked on two occasions whether doctors were going to close the opened incision.

‘It is pointed out that throughout he cause no trouble at the hospital.’

Dharmasena, who was in charge of her delivery, is said to have carried out a revision of the woman’s FGM at the encouragement of Mohamed.

The hospital trust had launched an investigation after the doctor was seen by a midwife re-suturing AB’s labia majora.

AB had originally undergone the procedure in Somalia when she was six, the court has heard.

She later had to have surgery at Kingston Hospital because of complications it caused when she had sex.

Dharmasena is said to have acted against the explicit policy of the hospital regarding FGM.

FGM has been illegal in this country since 1985 and in 2003 the maximum sentence was increased from five to 14 years in jail.

Dharmasena, of (41) Rushden Gardens, Ilford, Essex, denies one count of carrying out FGM.

Mohamed, of Liverpool Road, Highbury, north London, denies one count of intentionally encouraging or assisting the commissioning of the procedure.

Mr Justice Sweeney is expected to conclude his summing up this afternoon and send the jury out to consider its verdicts.
ENDS