Medical expert tells FGM trial falling on toy would not cause level of damage seen in case of girl, 1
A medical expert has told the trial of a couple accused of the female genital mutilation (FGM) of their daughter that it is not possible that falling backwards onto a toy would cause the level of damage in this case.
The couple, who cannot be named for legal reasons, both pleaded not guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to one count of carrying out an act of FGM on a then one-year-old girl at an address in Dublin on September 16, 2016.
The 37-year-old man and 27-year-old woman also pleaded not guilty to one count of child cruelty on the same day.
On the sixth day of the trial, Dr Deborah Hodes told Shane Costelloe SC, prosecuting, that she has been practising as a doctor since she qualified in 1977 and she is currently the designated doctor for child protection in London's Camden borough.
Dr Hodes said she helped to establish a clinic specialising in identifying and treating those suspected to have undergone FGM and to the best of her knowledge, this is the only such clinic in the UK and Ireland. She said she has probably seen around 80 cases of FGM.
She said she was sent DVDs of several examinations on the child performed by doctors and asked to make observations.
Dr Hodes said the clitoris is made up of three parts; the hood, the glans and the body. She said that she could not see the glans or the body on DVDs of examinations of the child on September 16, 2016, and September 19, 2016.
She said that on a further DVD of an examination of the child on December 6, 2016, she could see nothing in the area underneath the hood and she would expect to find something. She said, in other words, there was no glans or body.
Dr Hodes said that her observations were consistent with FGM. She said that what she saw was consistent with the cutting and removal of tissue.
She said that the explanation that the child sustained the injury by falling on a toy did not fit with the clinical findings and it was not possible that falling backwards onto the toy would cause the level of damage.
Dr Hodes said that there was nothing sharp on the toy. She said that the labia majora of a child cover the parts which were damaged and that in a fall backwards the labia majora would not have parted to the extent that the area was damaged.
She said she did not discern any other injuries to the external genitalia of the child. She said this was relevant because if a child were to fall backwards onto a toy, she would expect quite a lot of the area to be injured and not just a specific area.
Dr Hodes told Patrick Gageby SC, defending the accused woman, that when FGM is carried out there are various ways of restraining a child including sedation or holding.
She agreed with Mr Gageby that she is someone to whom cases are referred. She said that for the most part the cases which she was referred in which FGM was not found were from people such as teachers or nursery workers who were changing the child and saw abnormalities.
The trial continues before Judge Elma Sheahan and a jury.
