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: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll