Who? Jen Henwood, head of the immigration legal service at Brighton Housing Trust.

Why is she in the news? Represented Zainab Fornah, whose asylum appeal was recently allowed unanimously 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 convention gives protection to those at risk of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion and membership of a particular social group (PSG). It does not mention gender and there has been considerable litigation about the application of the PSG ground to gender persecution.


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 convention protection.


The Law Lords found that Ms Fornah 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.


Background: Prior to qualifying in 1995, Ms Henwood undertook immigration casework as a paralegal at Brighton Law Centre.


Route to the case: Ms Fornah was 15 when she arrived in Britain and was looked after by West Sussex Social Services' child asylum team, who refer many of their clients to the service.


Thoughts on the case: 'Baroness Hale said the answer as to whether the convention applied was so "blindingly obvious" it was a mystery why the case had reached the House of Lords. When I started preparing this case in 2003, I thought the evidence about Sierra Leone was sufficient to establish a PSG. I am delighted that the appeal has been allowed and that the judgment so clearly locates FGM within the context of the oppression of women. The judgment 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 practised 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 convention.'


Dealing with the media: 'There was considerable media interest. 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 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.'