Where is the mutilation? Understanding the High Court’s deliberation on FGM in Vaziri and Magennis
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12354615 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Juliet Rogers (0000-0003-0304-5266, The University of Melbourne, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 49 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 33-39 |
| Publication date | 2024-01-30 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Alternative Law Journal (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1037-969X • E-ISSN: 2398-9084 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/1037969x231225692 |
| OpenAlex | W4391350698 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
In 2015, Vaziri and Magennis – the first case on female genital mutilation (FGM) – was prosecuted in Australia. Three people were convicted. In 2018, the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal ruled that the judgment was a ‘potential miscarriage of justice’. The prosecution pushed for ‘leave to appeal’ to the High Court of Australia and for consideration of the meaning of mutilation. The appeal was held in 2019, and the NSWCCA judgment was overturned. In this article, I examine the absence of discussions of male circumcision and female genital cosmetic surgery in this case and ask not only what form of cut produces a legal definition of mutilation, but where this cut must be and on what form of body
Appeal · Criminology · Deliberation · Economic Justice · Female circumcision · Gynecology · High Court · Meaning (existential · Political science · Sociology · Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting Issues · Genital Health and Disease · Law · Law in Society and Culture · Medicine · Psychology
| Citations per year | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2025 - 2026 (2) |
| Highly cited | No |