Muslim Woman Rebekah Dawson Must Remove Niqab While Giving Evidence, Judge Rules

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: A Muslim woman has been given permission to wear a niqab during a criminal trial but must remove it while giving evidence, a judge has ruled.

Judge Peter Murphy made the ruling in the case of Muslim convert Rebekah Dawson, who is facing trial for allegedly intimidating a witness.

The 22-year-old had claimed her religious beliefs dictated that no male other than her husband could see her face.

Lawyers for the defendant had argued that forcing the 22-year-old convert to remove her niqab in court would be a breach of her rights under Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

But in a lengthy ruling, Judge Murphy said it was of "cardinal importance" to the adversarial system that a jury could see a defendant's face while giving evidence.

The issue first arose when Mrs Dawson refused to lift her veil in order to identify herself at a plea and case management hearing at Blackfriars Crown Court. » | Martin Evans, Crime Correspondent | Monday, September 16, 2013

Related »

New Dark Age Alert! Will Judge Lift Muslim’s Veil of Secrecy?

THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH: A senior judge will come under pressure on Monday not to set a “dangerous” legal precedent by allowing a Muslim defendant to wear a full veil in a criminal trial.

The case comes amid a growing row over the wearing of niqabs and burkas in schools and colleges as well as in the court room.

An alliance of Islamic groups and Left-wing activists have been accused of conspiring to put pressure on institutions to overturn existing bans on the wearing of full-face coverings.

In a London courtroom tomorrow, lawyers acting for a 22-year-old Muslim woman will argue her right to religious freedom will be breached if Judge Peter Murphy orders her to remove her veil.

Chris Grayling, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, is understood to be monitoring the case closely, while senior figures in his ministry firmly believe “it is in the interests of justice for a jury to see the face of the accused”.

The woman’s lawyers are likely to bring an action against the court for breach of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights if the judge rules her trial - for intimidating a witness - should go ahead in November with her face visible to the court.

Article 9, enshrined in British law through the Human Rights Act, guarantees “freedom of conscience, thought and religion”.

The woman’s case has received backing from Liberty, the civil rights campaign group, which has supported the defendant through earlier hearings. » | Robert Mendick, Chief reporter | Sunday, September 15, 2013

My comment:

Wearing the full-face veil is not an article of the Islamic faith. Islam teaches that women should be dressed modestly at all times. Covering one’s face is not necessary in order to be modest. The full Islamic veil is culture-bound, not religion-bound. So the judge need not bellyache over this one. – © Mark