R v A2; R v KM; R v Vaziri (No. 2)

Three appellants were convicted of contravening s.45(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 by mutilating the clitoris of a child. The issue before the court was the correct interpretation of the term "mutilates" within the context of the statute and whether the term "clitoris" includes the prepuce or clitoral hood. The appellants argued that the word "mutilates" required a radical alteration, while the Crown submitted it included any injury for non-medical reasons. The court considered the purpose and object of s.45 and held that the term "mutilates" should be interpreted broadly to encompass any injury for non-medical purposes, as this construction aligned with the purpose of the legislation to prohibit female genital mutilation in all its forms.

The court examined the meaning of the word "mutilates" by considering the context of the section and the purpose or object of the legislation. It held that s.45 was intended to prohibit female genital mutilation in all its forms where injury resulted. The court also considered the purpose or object of the legislation and found that the construction which served to promote that purpose or object should be favoured. The court rejected the narrow interpretation of the appellants and held that the term "mutilates" should be interpreted broadly to include any injury for non-medical purposes. The court also considered the extrinsic material and found that it supported the broad interpretation of the term "mutilates." The court held that the jury should be directed that "mutilates" in s.45 extends to any injury for non-medical purposes.

The court also considered the proper construction of "clitoris" in s. 45 Crimes Act 1900 and whether it includes the prepuce or clitoral hood. The court held that the term "clitoris" includes the prepuce or clitoral hood. The court found that the plain meaning of the word "clitoris" includes the prepuce or clitoral hood, and that this interpretation was consistent with the purpose and object of the legislation. The court held that the jury should be directed that the term "clitoris" in s.45 includes the prepuce or clitoral hood. The final orders of the court were that the convictions of the appellants be quashed and that the matter be remitted to the trial court for a new trial.