News0 min ago
A Sensible Ruling From The Judge
http://
Its seems that the Judge has reached a sensible ruling in this case. She can be shielded from the public when giving evidence, but must be seen, veil-less
to the Judge, the Jury and lawyers.
But what I can't understand is why this woman, who is a defendant, on a serious charge, not a witness or a victim, can't be identified "for legal reasons"
Can anybody enlighten me here ?
Its seems that the Judge has reached a sensible ruling in this case. She can be shielded from the public when giving evidence, but must be seen, veil-less
to the Judge, the Jury and lawyers.
But what I can't understand is why this woman, who is a defendant, on a serious charge, not a witness or a victim, can't be identified "for legal reasons"
Can anybody enlighten me here ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Treating the issue of the niquab with 'dress code' is a very peculiar trivialisation of the matter
From a Muslim perspective it seems rather offensive to equate it with people's choices of 'sandals and socks'
it is far more fundamental than that
the Quran only requires 'modest dress'
but fundamentalist Arab culture seeks to isolate, restrict and distance its women from other people
The ensuing rules do not accommodate women appearing in Court, working in the Council, teaching in a school - because fundamentally they shouldn't be there!
If we haven't already done so, we should ask ourselves; should our society accommodate those rules that intend to isolate, restrict and distance its women from other people?
From a Muslim perspective it seems rather offensive to equate it with people's choices of 'sandals and socks'
it is far more fundamental than that
the Quran only requires 'modest dress'
but fundamentalist Arab culture seeks to isolate, restrict and distance its women from other people
The ensuing rules do not accommodate women appearing in Court, working in the Council, teaching in a school - because fundamentally they shouldn't be there!
If we haven't already done so, we should ask ourselves; should our society accommodate those rules that intend to isolate, restrict and distance its women from other people?
-----
SandyRoe
If she puts her faith before her right to defend herself (as offering a defence necessitates unveiling) will justice have been served?
07:34 Tue 17th Sep 2013
-----
A thought-provoking reply but you seem to have taken on the assumption that she will now exploit the part of the ruling which confined the unveiling to just the evidence-giving part, which I am curious about.
My level of ignorance is such that I have to ask:-
1) Am I right in assuming that the case is "The State vs. Ms X"?
2) Can the prosecution compel the defendent to answer their questions?
3) If this specific defendant maintains their silence, so as to remain veiled, will that be contempt of court (in the face of the answer to (2) being 'yes')?
By way of a sidebar: will we now witness a roaring trade in face veils, with regular crims trying to avoid the gaze of the media or will they be instant fails if a non-Muslim tries to pull the same stunt?
In essence, I am puzzled about this business of their being no specific Koranic reference to -requirement- to wear the veil and how this aspect was seemingly not addressed by this judge's ruling?
(In fewer words, the whole thing can have nothing to do with respecting the defendant's religion, as other commenters have stated).
SandyRoe
If she puts her faith before her right to defend herself (as offering a defence necessitates unveiling) will justice have been served?
07:34 Tue 17th Sep 2013
-----
A thought-provoking reply but you seem to have taken on the assumption that she will now exploit the part of the ruling which confined the unveiling to just the evidence-giving part, which I am curious about.
My level of ignorance is such that I have to ask:-
1) Am I right in assuming that the case is "The State vs. Ms X"?
2) Can the prosecution compel the defendent to answer their questions?
3) If this specific defendant maintains their silence, so as to remain veiled, will that be contempt of court (in the face of the answer to (2) being 'yes')?
By way of a sidebar: will we now witness a roaring trade in face veils, with regular crims trying to avoid the gaze of the media or will they be instant fails if a non-Muslim tries to pull the same stunt?
In essence, I am puzzled about this business of their being no specific Koranic reference to -requirement- to wear the veil and how this aspect was seemingly not addressed by this judge's ruling?
(In fewer words, the whole thing can have nothing to do with respecting the defendant's religion, as other commenters have stated).
I absolutely agree.
There was a photo in the paper today of a woman dressed from head to foot in a black robe, masked up and hooded and even wearing black gloves. Just a narrow slit was provided for her to see. It was enough to frighten the horses let alone a young child who might be unfortunate enough to encounter this creature in the street.
As Zeuhl suggests, we need to take along hard look at this mode of apparel and decide whether it is the sort of thing we want to see roaming our streets. But more importantly we also need to examine the underlying reasons why some women choose (if that is the right word) to go about so dressed.
I was accused yesterday of tarring all Muslims with the same brush. I actually did no such thing and I understand that these extremely odd anti-social and troublesome practices are undertaken by only a small minority. But it seems that special arrangements are increasingly having to be made to accommodate such oddities and I see no justification for doing so. If some Muslim women want to become or remain isolated from the rest of society then all power to their elbow. But I suggest they do so by remaining indoors.
There was a photo in the paper today of a woman dressed from head to foot in a black robe, masked up and hooded and even wearing black gloves. Just a narrow slit was provided for her to see. It was enough to frighten the horses let alone a young child who might be unfortunate enough to encounter this creature in the street.
As Zeuhl suggests, we need to take along hard look at this mode of apparel and decide whether it is the sort of thing we want to see roaming our streets. But more importantly we also need to examine the underlying reasons why some women choose (if that is the right word) to go about so dressed.
I was accused yesterday of tarring all Muslims with the same brush. I actually did no such thing and I understand that these extremely odd anti-social and troublesome practices are undertaken by only a small minority. But it seems that special arrangements are increasingly having to be made to accommodate such oddities and I see no justification for doing so. If some Muslim women want to become or remain isolated from the rest of society then all power to their elbow. But I suggest they do so by remaining indoors.
In reply to your questions, hypo:
1. Yes. It is R vs. Ms X (who cannot be identified for legal reasons) and she is charged with witness intimidation.
2. If Ms X chooses not to give evidence on her own behalf she will not be questioned by the prosecution. If she does give evidence she can be cross-examined. If she refuses to answer questions under cross-examination she could be in contempt of court but the usual course is for the judge to direct the jury, when summing up, that they can make such assumptions as they think fit by her refusal to answer.
3. She has only been directed to bare all if she chooses to give evidence. If she refuses to unmask herself she will not be permitted to give evidence.
1. Yes. It is R vs. Ms X (who cannot be identified for legal reasons) and she is charged with witness intimidation.
2. If Ms X chooses not to give evidence on her own behalf she will not be questioned by the prosecution. If she does give evidence she can be cross-examined. If she refuses to answer questions under cross-examination she could be in contempt of court but the usual course is for the judge to direct the jury, when summing up, that they can make such assumptions as they think fit by her refusal to answer.
3. She has only been directed to bare all if she chooses to give evidence. If she refuses to unmask herself she will not be permitted to give evidence.
Thanks, NJ.
Item 2) was the part I didn't understand. My preconception is (was) that, since it is the state pressing charges, that (which I thought to be obvious but somehow isn't) there are naturally questions which they will want to ask the defendant and which she has no option to evade them.
Instead it seems a defendant can just adopt the passive stance of not offering a defence, letting the jury hear the prosecution state their case and make up their minds on the basis of a one-sided argument.
It's an odd tactic and my guess is that it is only ever adopted when the defence team thinks there is a gaping hole in the prosecution argument which they think the jury capable of spotting for themselves and/or they think that the defendent opening their mouth would somehow only worsen their chances. ;-)
Anyway, I've learned something today. Thanks.
Item 2) was the part I didn't understand. My preconception is (was) that, since it is the state pressing charges, that (which I thought to be obvious but somehow isn't) there are naturally questions which they will want to ask the defendant and which she has no option to evade them.
Instead it seems a defendant can just adopt the passive stance of not offering a defence, letting the jury hear the prosecution state their case and make up their minds on the basis of a one-sided argument.
It's an odd tactic and my guess is that it is only ever adopted when the defence team thinks there is a gaping hole in the prosecution argument which they think the jury capable of spotting for themselves and/or they think that the defendent opening their mouth would somehow only worsen their chances. ;-)
Anyway, I've learned something today. Thanks.
To the other thread, I have added a comment regarding the fact that regular crims are all now going to be aware how much their facial expressions and reactions are to the outcome of their trial and will now maintain 'poker face' throughout proceedings. As good as a mask, you might say.
A definite backward step, if you ask me.
A definite backward step, if you ask me.
Yes it's more usually that the defendent opening their mouth would somehow only worsen their chances, hypo, when a defendant refuses to give evidence.
If the prosecution case was so weak that it required no defence the defendant's counsel would ask the judge to rule that there is "no case to answer" - that is that the jury could not convict on the basis of the prosecution evidence they have heard.
If the prosecution case was so weak that it required no defence the defendant's counsel would ask the judge to rule that there is "no case to answer" - that is that the jury could not convict on the basis of the prosecution evidence they have heard.
Sir, Nowhere in Islam’s transcendent text is there any compulsion for women to conceal their faces. Indeed, this pre-Islamic practice is non-Qur’anic and un-Muslim. It is an archaic aristocratic custom originating in ancient Persia that spread to Byzantium and was adopted by misogynistic Muslim society. For Muslims to claim that the niqab/burka is Islamic is not only deceitful but disingenuous. At best it is an outmoded cultural convention and a primitive tribal habit. Many ill-informed Muslims have, however, been conditioned to conflate culture with religion and befuddle liberal Britain that this is a principle of religious freedom and human rights when it is neither. In fact it is illegal for masked women to undertake the pilgrimage to Mecca or to perform their daily prayers. If women are prevented from hiding their identity at Islam’s holiest shrine, why do they need to do so in the UK?
For theological, political, security, social and health reasons, the UK must join France and Belgium in outlawing all public anonymity. Anything less would be tantamount to sexist discrimination against British men, who are not permitted to conceal their identity in public.
Imam Dr T. Hargey
Director, Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford
[Letter in today's Times]
Perhaps somebody should tell this woman, her menfolk, and the judge, of this.
For theological, political, security, social and health reasons, the UK must join France and Belgium in outlawing all public anonymity. Anything less would be tantamount to sexist discrimination against British men, who are not permitted to conceal their identity in public.
Imam Dr T. Hargey
Director, Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford
[Letter in today's Times]
Perhaps somebody should tell this woman, her menfolk, and the judge, of this.
Hypognosis, you are right in both your statements, especially the second ! It is an old saying that the high point of the defence case is when prosecuting counsel closes theirs i.e. before the defendant gives or calls evidence.
It is often a difficult decision for counsel. Of course, if the case for the prosecution is so weak that the judge is persuaded that it is not fit to go to the jury there is no problem, but what if that submission nearly succeeds? Do you expect a favourable summing up ? If so, why call the client? Very few defendants, even innocent ones, leave the witness box unscathed. Some have a disastrous time at the hands of prosecuting counsel, some come across as guilty or at least shifty though their answers are adequate, some give inconsistent answers, some even change their story when in the box, some never see the killer question for what it is, some are stupid but come across as confused innocents. And all this applies however the prosecution looks at that point. You have often had quite some success in attacking some bit of the prosecution evidence; it may be better to play that to the jury , in a speech,as soon as possible rather than let the client testify and his weaknesses be exposed before the speech.
So it is not quite as simple as thinking the client will be suicidal in his own evidence.
It is often a difficult decision for counsel. Of course, if the case for the prosecution is so weak that the judge is persuaded that it is not fit to go to the jury there is no problem, but what if that submission nearly succeeds? Do you expect a favourable summing up ? If so, why call the client? Very few defendants, even innocent ones, leave the witness box unscathed. Some have a disastrous time at the hands of prosecuting counsel, some come across as guilty or at least shifty though their answers are adequate, some give inconsistent answers, some even change their story when in the box, some never see the killer question for what it is, some are stupid but come across as confused innocents. And all this applies however the prosecution looks at that point. You have often had quite some success in attacking some bit of the prosecution evidence; it may be better to play that to the jury , in a speech,as soon as possible rather than let the client testify and his weaknesses be exposed before the speech.
So it is not quite as simple as thinking the client will be suicidal in his own evidence.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV1 min ago
News3 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
Why Are Border Force Assisting The...
News10 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.