Appearance in Court—Veiled Threats
| Date | 01 December 2013 |
| Published date | 01 December 2013 |
| Author | David Kirk |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2013.77.6.870 |
| Subject Matter | Opinion |
OPINION
Appearance in Court—Veiled Threats
David Kirk*
The vexing question of ‘the veil’, and its place in a multicultural Western
society, took another twist in September 2013 when niqabs were widely
reported to be under review in two Crown Court trials. At Preston
Crown Court, the judge ruled that Shaheda Lorgat, a purchasing officer
at Blackburn College of Further Education who pleaded guilty to of-
fences of fraud, should remove her niqab during her sentencing hearing.
It was perhaps relevant that neighbours claimed (according to the Daily
Express) that Ms Lorgat did not usually wear the niqab, but only a scarf,
and that she had donned the full veil in order to avoid recognition when
attending at court. At Blackfriars Crown Court, Judge Peter Murphy
ruled that an unidentified Muslim woman defendant, charged with
witness intimidation, should be required to remove her veil when giving
evidence, as it was important that a jury should be able to see her face in
the witness box. However, arrangements would be put in place to
ensure that her face was only seen by the judge, jury and counsel. The
judge commented that there was no clear legal authority to resolve the
problem.
So should a religious or cultural belief trump a basic tenet of UK law,
which has an adversarial system which depends very heavily on the
evidence given in court by live witnesses rather than an assessment of
written testimony? Perhaps more importantly, does the act of covering
most of the face of a defendant or witness compromise the trial
process?
The veil issue was also raised in September 2013 in the context of
hospital doctors and nurses: should Muslim women medical staff who
traditionally wear the niqab be required to remove it so that there is
‘appropriate’ face-to-face contact with patients? A ‘review’ is under way,
although it is admitted that the number of women wearing the niqab in
the NHS is likely to be very low. There has been a similar debate in
schools—should teachers’ faces be visible in class—and about airport
security checks.
The debate, of course, centres in large part on the interesting and
philosophical question of the extent to which the face is a window to the
soul, and the consequent necessity of being able to examine facial
expression when assessing the quality and content of what a human
being is saying. But we also talk about ‘body language’ as displaying
some level of non-verbal signalling that may assist us to assess a person’s
intentions or motivations, and the Muslim Council of Britain sensibly
* The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Journal of Criminal Law.
459The Journal of Criminal Law (2013) 77 JCL 459–461
doi:10.1350/jcla.2013.77.6.870
To continue reading
Request your trial