Judge Peter Murphy Orders Muslim Woman to Remove Burka in Court

Judge Peter Murphy reportedly ordered a Muslim woman to remove her burka in his courtroom. 

The woman, from Hackney in East London, who is charged with intimidating a witness, 'appeared' - in her burka, before Blackfriars Crown Court today. The defendant is alleged to have intimidated a witness, in Finsbury Park, in North London, in June. She can't be named for legal reasons.  

Judge Peter Murphy refused to allow the 21-year-old defendant to stand trial wearing the veil, which revealed her eyes only, because her identity could not been confirmed.

The judge said the principle of open justice overrode the religious beliefs of the woman, and she must show her face to prove that she was indeed the defendant, because a different person could go into the dock pretending to be her. 

But the woman told Blackfriars Crown Court she could not remove the veil in front of any men because of her religion.

Judge Murphy told her: “It is necessary for this court to be satisfied that they can recognise the defendant. While I obviously respect the right to dress in any way she wishes, certainly while outside the court, the interests of justice are paramount. I can’t, as a circuit judge, accept a plea from a person whose identity I am unable to ascertain."

He added, "It would be easy for someone on a later occasion to appear and claim to be the defendant. The court would have no way to check on that."

Claire Burtwistle, the unnamed woman's barrister told the court that her client was not willing to lower her veil while there were men in the room. She said, "In front of women, it is not an issue, it is simply men that she will not allow to see her face."

Ms Burtwistle suggested that a female police officer, or a female prison guard, could identify the defendant and confirm to the court that she was the same person as in the police arrest photos. 

Sarah Counsell, the prosecutor, said that the police officer in charge of the case was confident that he recognised the defendant while she was wearing the burka. 

But Judge Peter Murphy dismissed the suggestions, saying, "It seems to me to be quite fundamental that the court is sure who it is the court is dealing with. Furthermore, this court, as long as I am sitting, has the highest respect for any religious tradition a person has. In my courtroom also, this sometimes conflicts with the interests of a paramount need for the administration of justice. In my courtroom, that’s going to come first."

The judge added, "There is the principle of open justice and it can’t be subject to the religion of the defendant whether the principle is observed or not. I am not saying this because of the particular form of dress by this defendant, I apply that to any form of dress that had the same issues."

Judge Murphy adjourned the case for legal argument over whether the defendant should have to remove her veil.

It will be heard again on the 12th of September, when the defendant is expected to enter a not guilty plea and go to trial. 

                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Unsurprisingly this story is all over the news today, and people have a lot to say about it. 

As I've mentioned before I am contrary, but on this I'm pretty certain Judge Peter Murphy is right to expect the defendant to remove her burka. 

It's not a matter of religion, I mean you can't stand in the dock wearing a crash helmet, a balaclava, or a Halloween mask, so why should anyone be able to hide their identity underneath a burka? 

It's all quite ridiculous, this case has now been adjourned for several weeks, which increase the cost - the tax payer gets screwed again. 

The suggestion of the defendant temporarily removing her mask, in front of a woman police officer so that her identity could be confirmed, initially sounds like a good one, but what about the jury? 

The jury not only need to hear her answers when she's in the dock, but also observe her facial expressions, which help to answer the questioning just as much as her words do. 

Surely someone who potentially has something to hide, as the defendant may, has an advantage if they're also able to hide their face? 

The principle of open justice should absolutely be paramount, allowing the defendant to remain covered gives her an unfair advantage, wearing a burka must be wrong. 

Some say Judge Peter Murphy did the right thing, that the defendant should remove her veil, while others say that it's discrimination.

I've read comments posted online saying that Britain should be more like France, and ban the burka. 

I love France, and almost everything about it, which is why I lived there for a decade, but I don't agree with this. 

Banning women from wearing the burka would not help those who do not wear it purely by choice. It would imprison women in their homes, and worse. 

But that is definetly a topic for another blog post, so I'll end that train of thought now. :) 

I also read that when Muslim women go on the pilgrimage, are in the hajj, to Mecca they are forbidden to cover their faces with veils etc. they must show their faces. I am not sure if this is correct. 

The fact that this news is being veiwed as controversial surely shows just how PC mad Britain is now. 

It is of no interest to me what nationality the defendant is, or what religion, but it is of interest that the law be upheld. In Britain it is law that a person in the dock be clearly identifiable. Or maybe it's not law, and if it's not, it should be. It's simply common sense. 

If you're allowed to wear a burka in the dock, you may as well not bother attending the court. What's the point of your presence if no one actually knows it's you? 

Is the defendants claim correct, that removing her burka is against her religion?

Does the Koran say that women must cover themselves in public by wearing a burka, hijab, niqab, chador? I don't think it does. 

Anyway, I could ramble on and on about this news story for a lot longer, but don't worry, I'm tried so I'll leave it - for now. ;) 

What do you think, and why? 

Is Judge Peter Murphy right, or wrong?