Annual Report

We have reproduced an article entitled Lawyers in the News which appeared in the Law Society Gazette.

Who? Jen Henwood, Head of the Immigration Legal Service at Brighton Housing Trust (pictured right).

Why is she in the news? Ms Henwood represented Zainab Fornah, whose asylum appeal was recently allowed by the House of Lords. The case concerned whether Ms Fornah, who fled from Sierra Leone to avoid forcible female genital mutilation (FGM) was entitled to international protection under the Refugee Convention, as opposed to an alternative form of protection. The Refugee Convention provides protection for those at risk of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion and membership of a particular social group (PSG). The Convention does not mention gender and there has been a considerable amount of litigation concerning the application of the PSG ground to gender persecution. There have been cases where refugee claims have succeeded on what are essentially gender grounds, but the scope and application of the particular social group ground has been quite controversial.

The Home Office refused Ms Fornah’s asylum claim, stating that there was no “Convention reason” in her case. An Immigration Adjudicator allowed her asylum appeal in October 2003, but the Home Office appealed, and both the Immigration Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal held that she did not belong to a PSG and was therefore not entitled to Refugee Convention Protection. Before the Court of Appeal, the Home Office argued that she could not belong to a particular social group for a number of reasons, including, because, the mutilation was carried out by women on women, because FGM is a “one-off persecution” (once it has happened the woman in question is no longer at risk), because FGM is widely practised and accepted in Sierra Leone and because FGM was part of an initiation ceremony which ensured a woman’s acceptance into society.

The Lords ruled unanimously that Ms Fornah is entitled to Refugee Convention protection. They found that she is a member of a PSG, which could be defined widely as “women in Sierra Leone” or more narrowly as “intact women in Sierra Leone”. They found that women in Sierra Leone have a position of social inferiority as compared to men and that FGM is an extreme and very cruel expression of male dominance. They held that it is irrelevant that the cutting is carried out by women on women and girls, and that FGM is widely practised and widely accepted. In addition, they held that FGM ensures a young woman's acceptance into SL society on the basis of institutionalised inferiority and that FGM is an extreme expression of the discrimination to which all women in Sierra Leone are subject, as much those who have had it done as those who have not.

Background: Ms Henwood was admitted in 1995. Prior to qualifying as a solicitor she undertook immigration casework as paralegal at Brighton Law Centre. She has worked at BHT since 1995 and now heads a team of five immigration caseworkers.

Route to the case: Ms Fornah was 15 when she arrived and was looked after by West Sussex Social Services Child Asylum Team, who refer many of their clients to BHT Immigration Legal Service.

Thoughts on the case: Baroness Hale of Richmond said the answer as to whether the Convention applied in Ms Fornah’s case was so “blindingly obvious” it was a mystery why the case had reached the House of Lords. Certainly, when I started preparing this case for hearing before an Adjudicator back in 2003, I thought that the evidence about Sierra Leone - severe legal and societal discrimination against women, that FGM was so widespread, was not illegal and had considerable support from members of the Sierra Leone government, and the evidence identifying FGM as a form of violence against women, was sufficient to establish a PSG. I was quite shocked by some of the arguments put forward on behalf of the Home Office. I am delighted that Ms Fornah’s appeal has been allowed and that the judgement so clearly locates FGM within the context of the oppression of women. The judgement will be relevant to FGM cases relating to other countries, and to other forms of gender persecution which are part of "traditional culture", are widely accepted and practiced and where women and girls have no effective protection. It will have an impact not only in the UK, but in many other countries which are signatories to the Refugee Convention.

Dealing with the media: There was considerable media interest in the case. Not surprisingly, the media were keen to speak to my client, and she did agree to a number of interviews. I am pleased to say that the journalists with whom I spoke were sensitive to my client’s concerns for some privacy. Clearly there is a great deal of interest nationally and internationally in the issue of FGM, and this case has led to some valuable coverage in the press and on the radio.