header-logo header-logo

24 May 2007 / Barbara Hewson
Issue: 7274 / Categories: Opinion , Procedure & practice , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Visible justice

Veils in court are an affront to open justice, says Barbara Hewson

The Judicial Studies Board (JSB) issued its draft document on the wearing of veils in court late last month. The accompanying press release from the Judicial Communications Office states:

“The JSB has stressed that it is very interested in receiving comments on the detail of the guidance—which is (as with all such guidance) subject to review.”

One wonders why the JSB is so reluctant to hold a proper consultation on the issue among the legal profession and court users generally.
The guidance is not concerned with the headscarf hijab, the commonest form of “veiling” among Muslim women living in Western societies, which consists of covering the hair and neck. The JSB is talking principally about the niqab, or full-face veil, worn by a tiny minority of Muslim women in this country, which has a slit for the eyes but otherwise entirely conceals the woman’s face, head and hair. There is also the burqa, the most radical form of veiling. This is

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll