Let Muslim women wear a full-face veil in court, says head of Supreme Court

[Surya Gayatri]

as he warns over bias against poor and foreign defendants

* Lord Neuberger said Muslim women should be allowed to wear a full-face veil when appearing in court to show respect to 'different customs

* He also said judges must be aware of their 'subconscious bias'

* Judges are 'rightly' seen as from 'privileged' part of society, he said

* He cited a judge ruling on a case of an unemployed traveller as an example

He said judges should be 'sensitive' to the fact that they usually came from 'more privileged sector of society' than many of those facing them and they should have an understanding of the 'different cultural and social habits'.

His address to the Criminal Justice Alliance came at a time of uncertainty over the place of Muslim traditional dress in the legal system.




Rebekah Dawson refused to give evidence after being told she had to remove her face veil to let the jury see her face while testifying. Here she pictured during her court hearing

The 22-year-old was later sentenced to six months in prison at Blackfriars Crown Court after changing her plea.

Last year, the European Court of Human Rights upheld a ban by France on wearing the Muslim full-face veil, the niqab.

A case was brought by a 24-year-old French woman, who argued that the ban on wearing the veil in public violated her freedom of religion and expression.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3042922/Judges-warned-beware-subconscious-bias-against-poor-foreign-defendants-head-Supreme-Court.html

[RedCappedBandit]

1. I don't see an issue as long as they go through the same screening process

as everybody else upon entry.

I agree with everything the judge is saying regarding privilege and cultural awareness.

This isn't necessarily reflective of my personal views on some mandate that women cover their faces, though..

[Surya Gayatri]

4. Agree, if proper security can be maintained.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. The idea is that juries want to look at the facial expressions of witnesses or defendants

as part of how they judge whether someone is being fully truthful or not.

Rebekah Dawson, 22, was charged with intimidating a witness and was on trial jointly with her brother. In preliminary hearings, Judge Peter Murphy had ruled that she could keep her face covered while in the dock, but that, if she testified, the veil would have to come off. Judge and jury needed not just to hear her words with their own ears, but to see her demeanour with their own eyes.
...
Here is also where the face comes back in. At Blackfriars Crown Court, the mosque caretaker testified from behind a screen. He alleged that the man who accompanied Rebekah Dawson to the mosque tried to conceal his face with his hood. Rebekah, as always, had worn her niqab. Identity was key to this trial. Yet one of the defendants was permitted to have her face covered. From time to time, I glanced back, as the evidence was being heard, to Dawson’s impassive figure behind the glass, and tried to detect the slightest flicker from her eyes. Nothing.
...
There are downsides, of course. At her trial, Rebekah Dawson solved the problem of having to remove her veil to testify by declining to give evidence in her own defence. As Judge Murphy told the jury, they would have to decide whether she had simply exercised her right not to testify, or whether she refused to testify because it would entail removing her veil. He said they should draw no conclusion about her guilt or innocence from her choice.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/beyond-the-veil-what-happened-after-rebekah-dawson-refused-to-take-her-niqab-off-in-court-9244409.html

I'm surprised Neuberger seems to be saying he's OK with those 'appearing'. I thought that phrase normally included witnesses, as well as those on trial.

Hmm, having found the speech, I wonder if the Daily Mail is reading more into it that is warranted - the actual quote is for 'respect' and 'understanding'.

This is where neutrality shades into the second requirement, respect. Judges have to show, and have to be seen to show, respect to everybody equally, and that requires an understanding of different cultural and social habits. It is necessary to have some understanding as to how people from different cultural, social, religious or other backgrounds think and behave and how they expect others to behave. Well known examples include how some religions consider it inappropriate to take the oath, how some people consider it rude to look other people in the eye, how some women find it inappropriate to appear in public with their face uncovered, and how some people deem it inappropriate to confront others or to be confronted – for instance with an outright denial. More broadly, judges should be courteous and, generally, good-humoured; and, while they should be firm, they should never, however great the temptation, lose their temper.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-150410.pdf

That doesn't explicitly say 'they can keep the veil on' in a particular situation; just that judges should show understanding.

[DetlefK]

2. Full face-coverage in a building with a high security-level and dealing with criminals?

There is nooooooo way someone will exploit this.

[Surya Gayatri]

3. They would presumably be frisked by female staff.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Interesting since Neuberger is the judge who evicted Democracy Village and wants Twitter censored...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/19/democracy-village-parliament-square

[Surya Gayatri]

6. Well, he apparently does have a progressive bone in his body...

[AngryAmish]

13. Yeah, give in to the religious nutters

so very progressive...

[Surya Gayatri]

15. And then, there's that pesky 'freedom of religous expression' thing...

[AngryAmish]

19. Looking at someone is important at trial.

You should not get to hide your face. These are our rules. They have been in place for jury trials for over a thousand years. There are very good reasons. And because your very special invisible friend says you have to do something is no excuse.

[Arugula Latte]

8. Look at that photo of that poor woman.

Makes me sick what religion does to people.

And for what? Primitive patriarchal misogynistic mythology.

[Surya Gayatri]

9. This particular woman is a western convert to Islam

and has adopted the full veil by choice. Go figure...

[Arugula Latte]

10. Yeah, that's bizarre. Why would you voluntarily imprison yourself in clothing?

The power of brainwashing.

[Skittles]

11. I am betting there is way more going on than a religious conversion

[Surya Gayatri]

12. Impossible to say...perhaps marriage to a Muslim?

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. She was subsequently sentence to 20 months for filming a video threatening more killings

Her husband, Royal Barnes, was charged with three counts of disseminating a terrorist publication; she faced one. He was also charged with inciting murder. The so-called “publications” were not, as might have been imagined, aggressive religious tracts; they were videos, posted on YouTube, that glorified the gruesome murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby, the British Army bandsman killed in Woolwich last May.

Barnes, it transpired, was an associate of Michael Adebowale, one of those convicted of the killing. Among the videos was one, filmed by Dawson, that showed Barnes hailing Rigby’s killing as making for a “brilliant day” and threatening David Cameron and the British public that his death would not be the last.

In the end, Barnes and Dawson opted not to stand trial. They pleaded guilty at separate hearings and were sentenced last month – he to five years and four months in prison, she to 20 months. Barnes, it emerged, had been a member of the banned extremist organisation, al-Muhajaroun, and had taken part in demonstrations demanding Sharia “law”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/beyond-the-veil-what-happened-after-rebekah-dawson-refused-to-take-her-niqab-off-in-court-9244409.html

[Skittles]

18. nutcases

[NCarolinawoman]

20. So much for getting any natural vitamin D.

Denying yourself a bit of sunlight is certainly not healthy.

[Arugula Latte]

21. Good point.

She's in danger of getting rickets.

[treestar]

14. If they want to do that, they do sacrifice something

Most people look to facial expression, or at least think demeanor has some bearing on credibility. There's a lot of legal opinions on witness credibility and demeanor of the witness. Not sure if it would help or hurt, but gut feeling is that it more likely would harm. Thus the trier of fact might tend not to believe her, or it would take a very sure voice and very clear testimony - more so than it would for someone whose face you could see.

Odd because in Saudi Arabia they still think women's testimony worth less than men's to begin with. In their society it could make some sense, since with that garb women can't see as much. They don't get out much. Never looked at it that way before.

[Surya Gayatri]

17. ^^^This!^^^

'...since with that garb women can't see as much. They don't get out much.

Unreliable witness couldn't see through 3 layers of cloth.