Interesting. In principle he's correct, a court has to be an open process in which all parties are known. However it is part of the trial process that the defendant is asked to verbally confirm their identity before entering a plea. If the defendant turns out to be an imposter, that person will have by definition committed perjury which is a pretty serious offense of itself.

However, given the nature of the accusation the defendant is charged with, the judge may be of the opinion that their willingness to cooperate with the trial process cannot be accepted on trust, so he's playing everything by the book. Either that or he is intentionally making a point that the defendant doesn't have the right to dictate terms to the court.

Just lock her up for contempt of court until she complies with the judges order.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

its about time courts got a backbone ...

The compromise of having a female office of the court verify her identity in private seems reasonable to me. It seems like the judge is using the identity requirement as a smokescreen, which is naughty.

I don't think wishing to observe one's religious commitments counts as contempt of court.

I'm with ShockWaffle. That or fingerprint her, if she has been charged, her prints are on file, so they could confirm the prints of the woman in the dock are the same as those of the accused.

Makes sense to me

Contempt of court is a rather... nasty offense in so far as it's entirely the judge's opinion that matters, rather than there being any objective set of rules. 'Not doing what the judge tells you to while in court' usually counts, regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks what he's asking you to do is reasonable.

I don't think wishing to observe one's religious commitments should take precedence over court proceedings, nor frankly do I think procedure breaking special arrangements should be made for one particular religion or another. Your faith is your business and nobody has the right to stop you believing what you like, but equally you do not have the right to make others change their beliefs or change their behaviour because of your religion. One of the fundamental acts in a court room is that the defendant stands up and identifies themselves in front of the whole court - the judge, the barristers, the jury and the gallery. 'Justice has to be seen to be done' means more than just publication of the verdict. Whether they find that pleasant or not is irrelevant.

I seem to recall a similar case some while back involving a Sikh and his turban but I can't recall what the outcome was.

There is no commitment in Islam for completely covering a woman's face. It's a personal choice. Court proceedings overrule personal choice.

Indeed. The judge is attempting to interfere with the woman's Article 8 rights (respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence"), Article 9 rights ("freedom of thought, conscience and religion") and her Article 10 rights ("right to freedom of expression").

However, the usual checklist for such an interference is:

• Has there been any interference with the right guaranteed? Yes
• Does the interference have a legitimate aim? Debatable
• Is the interference “in accordance with the law”? Sort of - there is no law explicitly stating that he can't order her to reveal her face
• Is the interference “necessary in a democratic society”? No

The woman's refusal was not refusal to identify herself to the court, but merely refusal to show her face to men. It is not the existence of the court that has caused the woman's refusal but rather the presence of men.

Let's also ask a question: if the person under the burhka were not the defendant, would they merely stand there and allow themselves to be falsely tried, convicted and detained? Really? Also, if a defendant can refuse to speak in their own defence, why should a defendant not also be allowed to identify themself in their own defence.

And again, no right can be exercised in that it restricts another's rights. But in this case, the only person that could possibly be hurt if the woman herself.

The judge, if he merely wished to ensure the identity of the woman, could have her reveal her face in a side room in front of a female officer of the court. If it's enough for passport control, it's enough for a court.

The judge knows this and is being provocative.

He's a dick.

in a court of law (British Law) any one (everyone) has the right to face there accuser and the accuser has the right to face that person(s)

facing is the key
you maybe, by the court, asked 'is this the person(s) you identify'

bit hard with a covering blocking direct face to face identification ...

ps. a face veil (burqa) is worn by individual choice not enforced by faith or law ...

The judge is within his powers.

Some rights are absolute, such as right to life, the prohibition of torture.

Some are qualified and can be overriden, such as freedom of imprisonment, by a lawful court

A straw man if ever I saw one.

A female officer of the court takes a photograph of the accused. The witness is then asked to confirm that the person in the photograph is the person they accuse. There is no necessity for the veil to be lifted in the circumstance you state.



All beliefs are worn by individual choice, whether they be veils or otherwise.

For someone from her culture, forcing her to take her veil off is as offensive to her as forcing her to remove all of her clothes.

With all due respect, utter rubbish.

Why so?