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

Boodle Hatfield—Tom McLaughlin

Boodle Hatfield—Tom McLaughlin

Boodle Hatfield welcomes new employment partner, Tom McLaughlin

Arc Pensions Law—Victoria Thompson-Hill, Jonathan Mason & Georgi Ivanov

Arc Pensions Law—Victoria Thompson-Hill, Jonathan Mason & Georgi Ivanov

National specialist pensions law firm strengthens team with three new appointments

Jurit—Christian Abletshauser

Jurit—Christian Abletshauser

Jurit appoints Christian Abletshauser to lead family law practice

NEWS
Burges Salmon appoints Benn Richards to strengthen Contentious Insolvency offering
A High Court decision has clarified that a home may be unfit for human habitation not only where conditions endanger health or safety, but also where they seriously undermine comfort and convenience

A longer time limit for employment tribunal claims, new charity law thresholds, property tribunal recruitment and appellate guidance on small-claims costs feature in the latest Civil Way round-up

A recent High Court ruling could make issue estoppel considerably more complex in cross-border litigation, requiring parties to consider the foreign law governing the underlying claim
The Supreme Court has overturned Cheshire West’s bright-line test for deprivation of liberty, replacing it with a broader, more contextual assessment that gives greater weight to an individual’s wishes, feelings and apparent consent
back-to-top-scroll