Lawyers defending three people committed to stand trial for taking part in the genital mutilation of two young sisters in Sydney say their clients' actions did not break NSW law.
The lawyers for the girls' mother, a retired nurse and a sheikh said on Friday that a "nick" or "cut" does not meet the legal definition of mutilation.
The girls were aged six and seven at the time of the alleged mutilations between October 2010 and July 2012.
The 69-year-old former nurse, the girls' mother and a sheikh were ordered to stand trial by Magistrate Roger Brown at Parramatta Local Court on Friday.
The nurse is accused of performing the circumcisions while the mother, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was present.
The sheikh has been charged with being an accessory after the fact.
He allegedly told locals to lie about the prevalence of female genital mutilation within their small sect of Islam.
Defence lawyers for all three argued that, unless circumcision and tissue removal are involved, it is technically not mutilation, and referred to male circumcision as an example.
But Dr Brown ruled that "all non-medical mutilation is prohibited.
"Any nick or cut to the clitoris will amount to mutilation," he said.
"FGM is prohibited regardless of religion or cultural attempts to justify the practice."
He said the effects of genital mutilation should not be discounted.
"It's all too easy for adults to play down the unknown effects of genital mutilation of children," he said.
"A small cut on the clitoris might sound trivial ... but magnify that and apply it to male genitalia and most men would be hesitant to undergo the same procedure."
Dr Brown said, despite sound legal arguments from the defence, it was the children's evidence that he found "powerful".
The older sister is said to have told investigators that she remembered "suffering a cut to her private part" while her younger sister described "being hurt in the bottom".
The matter will return before Parramatta Local Court on June 20.
Share
