Key Facts
- •Amina Noor was convicted of assisting a non-UK person to mutilate a girl's genitalia overseas.
- •The victim, Jade, was 3 years old at the time of the mutilation.
- •The appellant, Noor, took Jade to Kenya where the procedure was performed.
- •Noor was sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment.
- •The offence occurred in 2006, but Noor was not charged until 2022.
- •The appellant claimed she was pressured by her family and did not fully understand the nature of the procedure.
- •The judge found that Noor was aware of the nature of the procedure and participated in it.
- •The judge considered several analogous offences during sentencing.
Legal Principles
Sentencing for offences under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 should consider the gravity of the crime and the need for deterrence.
Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, Sentencing Council guidelines, and case law.
When no specific sentencing guideline exists, courts should refer to analogous offences and make adjustments for differences in statutory maximum sentences and elements of the offence.
General guideline: overarching principles
In considering the impact of a custodial sentence on family life (Article 8 ECHR), the court should assess whether interference is proportionate, considering the gravity of the offence and available mitigating factors.
Petherick [2012] EWCA Crim 2214, Carla Foster [2023] EWCA Crim 1196, Equal Treatment Bench Book
Unreasonable and unjustified delay in proceedings may be considered a mitigating factor in sentencing, reducing the sentence if it detrimentally affected the offender.
General guideline: overarching principles; Beattie-Milligan [2019] EWCA Crim 2367
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Court of Appeal found the judge's findings of fact justified, his use of analogous guidelines largely appropriate (with one exception), and his consideration of mitigating factors sufficient. The sentence was not considered manifestly excessive.
The Court of Appeal corrected the judge's categorization of harm under the guideline for causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
The Court found the judge incorrectly categorized the harm as Category 1 rather than Category 2. This led to a slightly higher starting point for the sentence.