Muslim woman will be allowed to stand trial in full-face veil - but must REMOVE it to give evidence

Lawyers for the woman, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, had argued that it would breach her human rights and be counter to Britain's tolerance of Islamic dress to remove her niqab against her wishes.

But Judge Peter Murphy, sitting at London's Blackfriars Crown Court, argued that it was imperative that a jury be able to see a defendant's face when they give evidence.

The 22-year-old woman, has previously entered a plea without removing her full-face veil.

The woman, who denied a charge of witness intimidation, had previously been told by Judge Peter Murphy, at Blackfriars Crown Court in London, that she would have to show her face to enter a plea so she could be conclusively identified.

Last Thursday the same judge then backed down last Thursday and allowed her to enter the dock to plead not guilty while wearing a niqab.

The woman, from east London, had argued that she was unable to remove the face covering in the presence of men for religious reasons.

But compromise was met when a female police officer, who saw her face when she was photographed after her arrest, had a private viewing with her in a room at the court.

The officer then swore on oath that it was the same woman.

The judge ruled: 'In general, the defendant is free to wear the niqab during trial.

Judge Murphy said that when the woman, named as 'D' in the case, is asked to take off the niqab ahead of giving evidence, she should be given some time to reflect beforehand

'If the defendant gives evidence she must remove the niqab throughout her evidence.

'The court may use its inherent powers to do what it can to alleviate any discomfort, for example by allowing the use of screens or allowing her to give evidence by live link.'

Judge Murphy said he was trying to tackle the 'elephant in the room' of defendants wearing traditional Islamic dress shielding their facial expressions from the jury. 

'If the defendant gives evidence, she must remove the niqab throughout her evidence,' he said. 

'She should be invited to remove the niqab and given time to reflect and take advice if she wishes to do so.

'If she refuses, the judge should not allow her to give evidence and must give the jury a clear direction in the terms suggested in the Bench Book about the defendant's failure to give evidence.' 

Judge Murphy said the woman, and all defendants in a similar position, should be invited to show their face throughout the trial and warned of the consequences to not doing so a jury's decision making. 

But he said wearing the niqab during evidence 'drives coach and horses through justice administered in England and Wales for centuries'. 

'The adversarial trial demands full openness and communication', he said.

Hearing: The woman, who appeared before Blackfriars Crown Court, pictured, was charged with witness intimidation

'I am firmly convinced the wearing of a niqab necessarily hinders that openness and communication. 

'Criminal trials in the crown court is by definition a serious matter, and has the potential to change lives, not only that of the defendant but also the victim, witnesses and even the jurors. 

'The rights of all participating in the trial must be considered.'

The judge said he had sought expert advice, case history, and looked at Islamic traditions before ruling the interests of justice overrode the defendant's religious beliefs. 

'I am satisfied the ability of the jury to see and observe the witnesses remains of cardinal importance in all cases, otherwise the witness is effectively immunised from cross-examination', he said.

'It is essential to the proper working of an adversarial trial that all involved with the trial be able to see and identify each other at all times during proceedings.

GOVERNMENT SHOULD CONSIDER 'BANNING YOUNG WOMEN FROM WEARING VEILS IN PUBLIC PLACES'

The Government should consider banning Muslim girls and young women from wearing the veil in public places, a Liberal Democrat minister has said.

Home Office Minister Jeremy Browne called for a national debate on whether the state should step in to prevent young women having the veil imposed upon them.

Mr Browne said he was 'instinctively uneasy' about restricting religious freedoms but said there may be a case to act to protect girls who were too young to decide for themselves whether they wished to wear the veil or not.

He told The Daily Telegraph: 'I am instinctively uneasy about restricting the freedom of individuals to observe the religion of their choice. That would apply to Christian minorities in the Middle East just as much as religious minorities here in Britain.

'But there is genuine debate about whether girls should feel a compulsion to wear a veil when society deems children to be unable to express personal choices about other areas like buying alcohol, smoking or getting married.

'We should be very cautious about imposing religious conformity on a society which has always valued freedom of expression.'

'This is partially a matter of identification, and it is obviously central for a court to know the identity of the person who comes before it. 

'Otherwise there is an obvious potential for the interests of justice to be compromised.

'If a fair trial is to take place, the jury must be able to assess the credibility of the witness and judge how they react to being questioned.'

In a lengthy judgement, the judge said he was trying to tackle the issue head-on because it was likely to come up more often in the future. 

'There is a pressing need for a court to provide a clear statement of the powers trial judges have to deal with cases where a woman wearing a niqab attends the court', he said.

'The niqab has become the elephant in the courtroom. 

'Trial judges do not need general guidance but a statement of the law. 

'It is my intention to try to provide such a statement in this judgement.' 

Judge Murphy said that the woman, named as 'D' in the case, must also remove it in front of a female police officer or other witness for the purposes of identification, as she has done so in previous hearings.

Although a screen will be offered to shield her from public view, she must still be seen by the judge, jury and legal counsel, although she also has the option to give evidence over a live TV link.

The judge said it was necessary for a democratic society to restrict the rights of a defendant to wear a niqab during court proceedings.

He said: 'Balancing the right of religious manifestation against the rights and freedoms of the public, the press and other interested parties such as the complainant in the proper administration of justice, the latter must prevail over D's right to manifest her religion or belief during the proceedings against her to the extent necessary in the interests of justice.

'No tradition or practice, whether religious or otherwise, can claim to occupy such a privileged position that the rule of law, open justice and the adversarial trial process are sacrificed to accommodate it.

Ruling: A Muslim woman has been allowed to enter a plea without removing her full-face veil (library image)

'That is not a discrimination against religion, it is a matter of upholding the rule of law in a democratic society.'

Judge Murphy admitted he was in a difficult position as a male judge, but added: 'I express the hope that Parliament or a higher court will review the question sooner rather than later, and provide a definitive statement to help judges.' 

He made it clear the courts have a 'proud history' of upholding religious freedom, and said he had framed his remarks to apply to men and women of all faiths. 

'The court has the utmost respect for all religious beliefs and practices', he said. 

But he said a decision to allow this defendant to wear a niqab opens the door of other defendants to also cover their face in court while giving evidence.

The defendant's barrister, Susan Meek, last week argued that she had a right to wear the veil during today's 

proceedings and her trial in November under Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which safeguards religious beliefs.

She also highlighted the 'tolerant' approach taken to Islamic dress in the UK.

She added that the same rules would apply to witnesses or victims of crime who appeared in court.

During legal argument she claimed it was against her beliefs to allow any man other than her husband to see her face – even though she only started wearing the veil last May. 

She also pointed out that the defendant's only active participation in her trial would be giving evidence, if she does so, and suggested the jury would be able to make a judgment based on her answers and body language despite the veil.

Ms Meek added: 'Ultimately it's the choice of the defendant if she wishes to wear it.

'If she chooses to remain with her face veil on when giving evidence that is something she will no doubt be spoken to about by the judge in front of the jury.

'To ask her to remove it, if that is the court's opinion at the end of it, what consequences follow? A court order and proceedings of contempt? Is that right and fair?'

Last Thursday the defendant pleaded not guilty to charges of intimidating a witness in Finsbury Park, north London, in June.

Liberty, which campaigns on civil liberties, welcomed the ruling. Director Shami Chakrabarti said: ‘Credit to Judge Murphy for seeking to balance the freedom of conscience of the defendant with the effective administration of justice.

But Tory MP Philip Hollobone accused the judge of pandering to the defendant. He said: ‘I am disgusted that the judge is bending over backwards to accommodate someone who clearly does not want to stick to the rules like everyone else does.

‘So much of your judgement about someone is based not on what they say, but what you see and facial expression is a crucial part of that. A lot of people will be furious at the judge pandering to this particular woman.’

Her trial is due to take place on November 4.

PREVIOUS CONTROVERSIES OVER MUSLIM VEIL

Muslim students who were banned from wearing religious veils into a college because of fears regarding security can now wear them after the school backed down.

Teenagers at Birmingham Metropolitan College were told to remove any items of clothing covering their faces so they are 'easily identifiable at all times'.

The U-turn came in the face of a planned mass demonstration against 'Islamophobia' and an online petition signed by 9,000.

The niqab ban had been in place at Birmingham Metropolitan College for eight years without protest. But an anonymous prospective student complained to her local paper, saying she was being discriminated against.

Late on Thursday, the college climbed down and 'modified' the ruling against veils, hoodies and hats, which had been brought in to ensure students were always 'easily identifiable'.

The French caused controversy back in 2011 around the world when they moved to ban women from wearing the burkha in public.

Politicians moved to ban the veil because they argued it was a security risk and said it was a social hindrance.

The law - which sparked protests in Pakistan - was brought into effect in 2011 under the leadership of former French president Nicolas Sarkozy.

British politicians are also no stranger to controversy surrounding the burkha.

In 2006, former Labour Foreign Secretary Jack Straw sparked outrage when he said he had asked Muslim women to remove their veils when talking to them in his constituency surgery.

Three years ago Conservative MP Philip Hollobone tabled a private members' bill which would have made it illegal for anyone to cover their face in public.

However, the bill fell by the parliamentary wayside following claims that bringing in such a law could be in breach of the Equality Act.