Hackney woman told to remove burka by crown court judge

[muriel_volestrangler]

A judge has refused to let a Muslim woman in a full-length burka enter a plea until she reveals her face.

The 21-year-old from Hackney, who is charged with intimidating a witness, said she could not remove the veil in front of men because of her religion.

Judge Peter Murphy said however, she could not stand trial in the veil, which only reveals her eyes, because her identity could not be confirmed.
...
The woman's barrister, Claire Burtwistle, told the court the woman was not prepared to lower her veil with men in the room and suggested a female police officer or prison guard could identify the defendant and confirm it to the court.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23814711

I wonder if she really does think her religion bans it in all circumstances, or is just doing this to make herself seem a 'victim'.

[rug]

1. It doesn't state anywhere she's claiming to be a victim.

I don't see any more victimhood here than in a person who would refuse to take an oath on a Bible due to nonbelief.

Besides, her lawyer suggested a very simple solution to this, which the judge rejected.

[cbayer]

2. There are much more accurate ways to identify someone than looking at their face.

Her barrister has suggested that a female verify it's her, but the judge has refused. I think he's being a bit of an ass.

[ZombieHorde]

3. If I was the judge, and there was no rule against it, I would have just

had a woman, or several women, look at her face and report back. I don't see any benefit spending time on this, as far as the court is concerned.

[Xipe Totec]

4. Good thing we don't use anal fold prints for identification. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Update: Muslim woman must remove veil to give trial evidence

A Muslim woman can stand trial wearing a full-face veil but must remove it to give evidence, a judge has ruled.
...
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.

At other times during the trial the woman will be allowed to keep her face covered while sitting in the dock.
...
At a previous hearing, the issue of her identity was resolved when the woman removed her veil in private for a female police officer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24112067

When I was a juror last year, some other jurors looked at the defendants in the dock while others were giving evidence to see how they reacted. This could potentially still affect things (though jurors may also, consciously or unconsciously, think she's got something to hide).

[rug]

6. Jury selection will have some interesting voir dire.

Initial impression are vital.

I was picking a jury on a sex offense case and the judge told the jury pool that if anyone felt they could not be fair because of the charge itself to step up to the side of the bench. Two thirds of the pool stepped up and formed a line.

This is a very interesting decision.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. It's England - the 'voir dire' rules are different from the US

Restrictions are much more on the lines of "are you possibly connected to defendants, witnesses or victims?" I did jury service last year, and they gave us a list of such people, and said we should say if we knew any of them; and in a case (on which I was in the 'pool', but not selected as one of the 12) in which both the accused and victim were members of the neighbouring police force, we had to say if any family or good friends worked in the force (though they hadn't said what the connection to the force was, at that stage). There's none of the American asking questions to the jurors about their experience, opinions etc.

The remaining potential jurors will wait in case there are any problems. If the jurors know the defendant, or anyone involved in the case, then obviously they cannot be a juror in that case.
...
Before the jury is sworn the clerk will tell the defendant “the names that you are about to hear called are the names of the jurors who are to try you. If therefore you wish to object to them or to any of them, you must do so as they come to the book to be sworn, and before they are sworn, and your objection will be hear”. Despite this (and what you may see on films and in tv), there are limited opportunities to object.

It used to be the case that the defence had a right to object to a certain number of jurors without giving a reason, but this has been abolished. They have to give a reason (‘challenge for cause’).

The Prosecution have a right to ask any potential jurors to ‘stand by’, ie not sit on the jury. A prosecutor however should not use this unless there is a good reason. Good reasons would include concerns over the juror not speaking English or where there is a question over whether the juror knows someone. Wanting to influence the racial or sexual makeup of the jury would not be a good reason.

http://ukcriminallawblog.com/2012/11/16/jury-selection/

[rug]

9. That's a very narrow line of questions.

Some states in the U.S. have that rule on questioning jurors but all of the jurisdictions I'm familiar with still have peremptory challenges.

It's a terrible handicap to the defense (less so to the prosecution) to be unable to probe the latent biases of jurors.

[cbayer]

7. I think this may be a reasonable compromise.

It's really a tough situation. If I were in the jury, I would feel disadvantaged if I could not include the facial expressions or other body language of someone giving testimony. These are things that we rely on when determining whether we think someone is being truthful or not.