header-logo header-logo

Visible justice

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

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 a

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll