Reeves v R [2013] HCA 57: Female Genital Mutilation and Grievous Bodily Harm

Yesterday (18 December 2013), the High Court delivered judgment in the case of Reeves v R [2013] HCA 57. The High Court unanimously dismissed an appeal against conviction and upheld an appeal against sentence from a decision of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, brought by Mr Reeves.

The Case at Trial

Mr Reeves was convicted following a trial by jury in the District Court of New South Wales of malicious infliction of grievous bodily harm with intent to inflict harm of that kind.

CDW had been referred to Mr Reeves, a gynaecologist, by her general practitioner for treatment of a pre-cancerous lesion on her left labia.  She gave evidence that she had agreed to the surgical removal of a small flap of skin containing the lesion and not to the removal of her entire vulva, including her labia and clitoris.

Mr Reeves' case was that CDW had consented to the surgery knowing that it entailed the removal of her entire vulva. 

Mr Reeves was sentenced to a term of two and a half years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year. The Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed his conviction and allowed an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions against the inadequacy of the sentence. 

The Case on Appeal

The direction given to the jury by the trial judge stated that there would not be a lawful cause or excuse for the surgery if Mr Reeves did not honestly believe that CDW had given her informed consent to the full extent of the operation, including removal of the labia and clitoris.

The direction stated that for consent to be "informed" the medical practitioner must at least explain:

• the purpose of the operation;
• the part or parts of the body to be cut or removed;
• the possible major consequences of the operation and any options or alternative treatments which may be reasonably available.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the introduction of the concept of "informed consent" was an error, but that in light of the conduct of the trial, this error had not occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice.  Mr Reeves' appeal was dismissed.

High Court Appeal

Mr Reeves applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court.  The Court found that the Court of Criminal Appeal identified and applied the correct test for consent to surgery, which requires that the patient be informed in broad terms of the nature of the procedure.

The High Court found that in the context of this trial, the use of the phrase "informed consent" and the reference to possible major consequences and alternative treatments had not distracted the jury from the one issue on consent, which was whether the prosecution had excluded beyond reasonable doubt that CDW had been informed that the surgery involved the removal of her vulva, including her labia and clitoris.

The High Court agreed with the Court of Criminal Appeal that the misdirection had not occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice.

TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.

 Reeves v R [2013] HCA 57