First people in Ireland convicted of FGM face retrial after convictions quashed

The father and mother of a young girl who were the first people in the State convicted of female genital mutilation (FGM) have had their convictions quashed on appeal.

The parents, who are originally from a French-speaking region of Africa, now face a retrial after the Court of Appeal on Thursday ruled their trial had been “unfair” because of problems with the translation of their testimony to the jury.

The parents had both pleaded not guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court in November 2019 to one count of carrying out an act of FGM on their one-year-old daughter at an address in Dublin on September 16th, 2016.

The 39-year-old man and 29-year-old woman also pleaded not guilty to one count of child cruelty on the same day.

The jury, however, returned unanimous verdicts of guilty on all counts after three hours of deliberations following an eight-day trial.

In January 2020, Judge Elma Sheahan sentenced the man to five-and-a-half-years' imprisonment and the woman to four years and nine months.

The couple later appealed both convictions on the grounds their right to a fair trial had been breached when their answers to questions from counsel during proceedings were mistranslated.

During the trial, the defendants had claimed their daughter suffered her injury - which had required hospital treatment - when she fell backwards on to a toy in her house.

At the Court of Appeal on Thursday, Mr Justice John Edwards, sitting with Court President Mr Justice George Birmingham and Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy, said there had been "serious and far-reaching inaccuracies in the translation process".

Noting that submissions from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had argued that a fair trial need not necessarily be a perfect trial, and that the appellants had in actual fact received a fair trial, Mr Justice Edwards said: “We beg to disagree.”

The jury, the appellant judge said, might well have acquitted if they have found the defendants’ explanation as to how their daughter’s injury occurred credible on the basis of evidence provided during cross-examination.

“It was simply unfair the jury did not receive an accurate interpretation of the appellants’ answers,” Mr Justice Edwards said, adding that that court had “no hesitation” in ruling that the trial had been “unsafe”.

After the judgment was delivered, Shane Costelloe SC, for the DPP, said the State would be requesting a retrial.

The request was not opposed by counsel for both appellants.