This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24112067

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Muslim woman must remove veil to give trial evidence Muslim woman must remove veil to give trial evidence
(35 minutes later)
A Muslim woman can stand trial wearing a full-face veil but must remove it to give evidence, a judge has ruled.A Muslim woman can stand trial wearing a full-face veil but must remove it to give evidence, a judge has ruled.
Judge Peter Murphy made the ruling at Blackfriars Crown Court in London where the woman is due to stand trial for one count of intimidating a witness.Judge Peter Murphy made the ruling at Blackfriars Crown Court in London where the woman is due to stand trial for one count of intimidating a witness.
The 22-year-old from Hackney had refused to remove her niqab and reveal her face in front of any man.The 22-year-old from Hackney had refused to remove her niqab and reveal her face in front of any man.
The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, pleaded not guilty at an earlier hearing.The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, pleaded not guilty at an earlier hearing.
The order means that if the woman still refuses to comply during her trial she could be jailed for Contempt of Court. The order means that if the woman, who started wearing the veil in May 2012, refuses to comply during her trial she could be jailed for Contempt of Court.
In a niqab the only part of the face that is visible is a narrow horizontal stripe showing her eyes. In a niqab the only part of the face that is visible is a narrow horizontal stripe showing the wearer's eyes.
The judge said he would offer the woman a screen to shield her from public view while giving evidence but that she had to be seen by him, the jury and lawyers.
'Elephant in courtroom''Elephant in courtroom'
The judge said he would offer the woman a screen to shield her from public view but she had to be seen by him, the jury and lawyers. At other times during the trial the woman will be allowed to keep her face covered while sitting in the dock.
At other times, she would be permitted to keep her face covered while sitting in the dock. In the ruling Judge Murphy said: "The ability of the jury to see the defendant for the purposes of evaluating her evidence is crucial."
In the ruling Judge Murphy said concealing the face would "drive a coach and horses through the way justice has been administered in England and Wales for centuries". Referring to the woman as "D", he said he had "no reason to doubt the sincerity of her belief" and his decision would have been the same if she had worn the niqab for years.
He added "the niqab has become the elephant in the courtroom" and there was widespread uncertainty and anxiety among judges over how to tackle the issue. He added that "the niqab has become the elephant in the courtroom" and there was widespread anxiety among judges over how to tackle the issue.
The judge said: "If judges in different cases in different places took differing approaches [to the niqab] the result would be judicial anarchy." He added he hoped "Parliament or a higher court will provide a definite answer to the issue soon."
When asked if they would appeal the decision, the woman's lawyer said they would "consider our options". Judge Murphy said: "If judges in different cases in different places took differing approaches [to the niqab] the result would be judicial anarchy."
At a previous hearing the issue of her identity was resolved when the woman removed her veil for a female police officer who verified her identity. The judgement comes as Liberal Democrat Home Office minister Jeremy Browne
In the woman's defence, barrister Susan Meek argued that her human right to express her faith through her attire would be breached if she was asked to remove her veil against her wishes. Mr Browne said he was "uneasy" about restricting freedoms but urged a national debate on the state's role in stopping veils being imposed on girls.
'Consider' appealing
Her defence barrister Susan Meek had argued the woman's human right to express her faith through her attire would be breached if she was asked to remove her veil against her wishes.
When asked if they would appeal against the decision, the woman's lawyer said they would "consider our options".
At a previous hearing, the issue of her identity was resolved when the woman removed her veil for a female police officer who verified her identity.
Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said he believed it was "vital" defendants' faces were visible at "all times" and said he "regretted" the judge's decision.
He added: "We will be complaining to the Office of Judicial Complaints and also be asking senior legal officers to make visibility throughout court hearings mandatory, and not subject to judges' discretion."