A Muslim woman can attend all the proceedings with
her face fully veiled but must remove it when giving evidence, a judge has
ruled.
Lawyers
for the woman had argued that removing the veil would breach her human rights
and fly in the face of Britain's tolerance of Islamic dress codes.
The 22-year-old
from London, who said it is against her religious beliefs to show her face in
public, pleaded not guilty to a charge of intimidating a witness last week
while wearing a niqab after the judge backed down from a previous decision that
she would have to show her face to be properly identified.
Judge
Peter Murphy made the ruling at Blackfriars Crown Court in London where the
woman is due to stand trial for one count of intimidating a witness.
The
order means that if the woman, who started wearing the veil in May 2012,
refuses to comply during her trial she could be jailed for Contempt of Court.
In a
niqab the only part of the face that is visible is a narrow horizontal stripe
showing the wearer's eyes.
The
judge said he would offer the woman a screen to shield her from public view
while giving evidence but that she had to be seen by him, the jury and lawyers.
At other times during the trial
the woman will be allowed to keep her face covered while sitting in the dock.
In the
ruling Judge Murphy said: "The ability of the jury to see the defendant
for the purposes of evaluating her evidence is crucial."
Referring
to the woman as "D", he said he had "no reason to doubt the
sincerity of her belief" and his decision would have been the same if she
had worn the niqab for years.
He
added that "the niqab has become the elephant in the courtroom" and
there was widespread anxiety among judges over how to tackle the issue.
He
added he hoped "Parliament or a higher court will provide a definite
answer to the issue soon."
Judge
Murphy said: "If judges in different cases in different places took
differing approaches [to the niqab] the result would be judicial anarchy."
The
judgement comes as Liberal Democrat Home Office minister Jeremy Browne
Mr
Browne said he was "uneasy" about restricting freedoms but urged a
national debate on the state's role in stopping veils being imposed on girls.
Possibility of appealing
Her defence layer Susan Meek
had argued the woman's human right to express her faith through her attire
would be breached if she was asked to remove her veil against her wishes.
When
asked if they would appeal against the decision, the woman's lawyer said they were
to look at all options.
The judge’s
decision has brought mixed reactions among people. Keith Porteous Wood,
executive director of the National Secular Society, said he believed it was
"vital" defendants' faces were visible at "all times" and
said he "regretted" the judge's decision.
He
added: "We will be complaining to the Office of Judicial Complaints and
also be asking senior legal officers to make visibility throughout court
hearings mandatory, and not subject to judges' discretion."
Source: Huffington post, bbc
