R v A2; R v KM; R v Vaziri (No. 4)

The case before the court involved three accused persons, A2, KM, and Vaziri, who were charged with offences related to female genital mutilation against two girls, C1 and C2. The mother of the girls, KM, was one of the accused. The court was required to determine whether C2 was competent to give evidence at the trial and whether C1 and C2 were compellable to testify. The competency of C2 was assessed based on her ability to understand the difference between truth and lie and engage with questions concerning the facts. The court concluded that C2 was competent to give sworn evidence at the trial. Regarding compellability, the court considered the potential psychological harm and harm to the relationship if C1 and C2 were called to give evidence. The court found that the nature and extent of the harm did not outweigh the desirability of C1 and C2 giving evidence. The application to prevent the compellability of C1 and C2 was therefore declined.

The court examined the relevant factors under section 18(6) of the Evidence Act 1995, which requires a balancing exercise between the desirability of the witness giving evidence and the potential harm to the witness. In this case, the court determined that the harm to C1 and C2, although significant, did not outweigh the desirability of their evidence being presented at the trial. The court further noted that the operation of section 65 of the Evidence Act 1995, which pertains to the protection of vulnerable witnesses, was considered in its decision-making process. Ultimately, the court declined the application to prevent the compellability of C1 and C2, allowing them to be called as witnesses at the trial.