A Crown Court judge has ruled that a Muslim women must not give evidence at her trial wearing the niqab, or full face veil, although she will be allowed to wear it at other points in the procedure, as long as there is another woman in court who can verify her identity.
Lawyers for the woman, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, had argued that removing her face veil would breach her human rights and be counter to Britain’s tolerance of Islamic dress.
However, Judge Peter Murphy, sitting at London’s Blackfriars Crown Court, said that the defendant will be free to wear the niqab during the trial, just not while she is giving evidence.
The ruling has sparked widespread debate, with Prime Minister David Cameron saying that public institutions should be allowed to set their own rules on dress, although there should not be legislation on what people “do and don’t wear on the high street”. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg supports him in this stance.
It is a thorny issue and Judge Murphy’s problem was exacerbated by the fact that there has never been an exactly comparable situation in another British court.
The central question, which the judge explored, is whether the religious freedom to wear a face-covering niqab is more important than the court’s duty to ensure that a trial delivers open and effective justice.
In the end, Mr Justice Murphy came to the conclusion that it comes down to a question of law and since an adversarial trial demands full openness and communication, then the wearing of the niqab hinders those two processes.
The defendant is considering her position and could challenge the ruling in the High Court and if she loses that could go higher still. Meanwhile, Judge Murphy has urged either the senior judiciary or Parliament to “grasp the legal nettle”.