It's OK to wear the niqab in court

There is a wealth of information about how to read people and assess whether or not they are telling you the truth. The Life Training Blog reckons that there are a number of give-aways, including:

Rubbing the forehead near the temple region

Squeezing the face, rubbing the neck, or stroking the back of the head with the hand.

Using fewer hand movements to illustrate their actions than usual

Movement away from you

Lip licking and hard swallowing

Wringing hands

Hiding the eyes

Averting the eyes

Focusing the eyes  (A truthful person stares only half the time on average)

Face whitening (indicates fear)

Face flushing (indicates anger or shame)

The author goes on to explain the importance of  facial expressions:

In the nineteen-sixties, renowned psychologist Paul Ekman began decoding the language of facial expressions. He organized them into a syntax of language which he termed “action units” - the set of all distinct muscular movements that the face could make. This totaled to only 46 individual movements, but in combination with each other, the face is capable of producing over 7000 unique expressions!

The FBI and CIA use Ekman’s methods to determine any deception from suspects during interrogations. And their ability to percieve it is amazing. This is due to the fact that some of the muscles involved in expressions are not under conscious control.

That's fine for the FBI and CIA but judges, lawyers and juries in British courts may soon be deprived of this crucial data. According to new guidelines, certain suspects and witnesses will be permitted to completely obscure their faces when under cross-examination.

The guidelines, drawn up by senior judges, say that female Muslim lawyers should be able to wear the veil in court and that the onus is on the judge to say why suspects and witnesses should be asked to remove their niqabs.

The Judicial Studies Board’s Equal Treatment Advisory Committee drew up this guidance. It seems that allowing some people, but not others, to hide their faces in court now counts as equal treatment.

Comments

[A brummie]

Are halfwits on special offer or something?

[Esmerelda Weatherwax]

As I said here, I prefer the emphasis in the interim guidelines given in February, but as this is to be decided on a case by case basis, and most Judges don't want veils in their courts, I believe that these guidelines will enable them to require removal. They are only guidelines and Judges are independent of the executive, they are not bound by law to this.

[Lord Nazh]

As I said earlier, welcome to Sharia my friends. Let me know how it turns out :(

[Elbow]

Interesting discussion going on over at The Sun...

http://www.thesun.co.uk/discussions/posts/list/9171.page

[Wolfie]

Admittedly these are only guidelines and are left to the discretion of the judge. However I am concerned that these guidelines lean towards the permissible as it has been my observation that judges in practice tend to lean towards a "towing the line" appraisal of these sort of directives.

This is thing is a classic example of what I find quite unconscionable about multiculturalism and its manifestations, that our system of law can be subverted to serve the purposes of alien cultures who have no desire to integrate or contribute to the advancement of our society as a whole.

Would I be permitted to give evidence in court wearing wrap-around shades claiming its my culture/religion? Contempt of court would swiftly follow.

One law for all citizens - Magna Carta to the present day, please.

[JuliaM]

"..It seems that allowing some people, but not others, to hide their faces in court now counts as equal treatment."

The Judicial Studies Board’s Equal Treatment Advisory Committee is poorly named; they don't want equal treatment.

They want special treatment.

[chris strange]

Does this mean that I can turn up to court Sky Clad? If not, and I would expect not, then this cannot be about equality and is about imposing Islamic supremacy over British traditions.

[Andrew J]

So all someone needs to do is claim to be a Muslim convert and - hey presto! - she can rule out several facial cues and clues to whether she is lying or telling the truth. And there are a lot. Communication is largely nonverbal. All a woman who is clever with her vocal intonations needs to do is practise some oral dissembling in the full knowledge that any blushes (anger, shame) or face whitening (fear) or expressions other than with the eyes will simply not be clocked by those who need to hear and see that communication. Neat. I like it. Bring on the next excuse for people not to integrate and play by our rules when in our country.

[NotSaussure]

What the guidance actually says is:
Victims and complainants – It is clearly important that people are not deterred from seeking justice or not getting a fair hearing by a sense that they are excluded from court. It may be possible for evidence to be given wearing a veil, or for the woman to agree to remove it while giving evidence. Other measures are available to the court, such as screens, video-links, clearing the public gallery. A short adjournment may be provided to enable the woman to seek guidance. What is clear is that a decision on these matters should ideally be reached after discussion at a preliminary hearing.

Witnesses and defendants – Similarly a sensitive request to remove a veil may be appropriate, but should follow careful thought as attending court itself is a daunting prospect for witnesses, and may affect the quality of evidence given. Whilst it may be more difficult in some cases to assess the evidence of a woman wearing a niqab, the experiences of judges in other cases have shown that it is possible to do so. Where identification is an issue, it must be dealt with appropriately and may require the witness to make a choice between showing her face or not giving evidence.

Advocates – The starting point should be that an advocate wearing a full veil should be entitled to appear when wearing it. The interests of justice will be paramount and the judge may need to consider – in the particular circumstances which arise, if the interests of justice are being impeded or not by the fact the advocate's face cannot be seen, or they cannot be heard clearly.In Andrew J's example, then, if the court thinks it's important that the jury see the witness's reaction to various questions and she's unwilling to remove her veil, her choice would, ultimately, between removing it and not giving evidence (or giving it in the form of a statement, which, if the contents aren't agreed by both sides, doesn't carry nearly as much weight as live evidence which is cross-examined).

If she's the defendant, then not giving evidence would almost certainly not be in her interests.

In reality, the problem hardly ever arises -- I've never seen such a case.

[Steve]

Yes, I can see that the guidelines look fairlt benign but, as Wolfie says, the test will be in how they are interpreted.

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic about this and perhaps there is nothing to worry about but I sure hope I don't end up being cross-examined by a barrister in a veil.

[Matt Munro]

I've never been to court as the accused but would I have the right to dismiss veil wearing counsel on the grounds that their appearance could prejudice my defence ?
I read somewhere that barristers are allocated to clients on a "Taxi-rank" basis i.e they cannot refuse a client, but can a client refuse them ?