Site icon swarb.co.uk

Regina v D(R): Misc 16 Sep 2013

Crown Court at Blackfriars – the court was asked to what extent a witness wanting, from religious conviction, to hide her face with the niqaab form of Islamic dress should be allowed to do so, whilst giving evidence.
Held: The court considered expert evidence as to Islamic belief and custom, and also the Equal Treatment Bench book. The defendant had a qualified right to manifest her religion. The question was not one of judge craft, but of law. The defendant should be obliged to remove the material masking her face when giving evidence.

Peter Murphy Judge
[2013] EW Misc 13 (CC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedBumper Development Corporation Ltd v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 1991
An Indian temple having a legal persona recognised in India may assert rights and make claims under English Law. Even though it would not be recognised as a litigant if based in England and Wales, it was nonetheless entitled, in accordance with the . .
CitedAttorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd HL 1-Feb-1979
The appellants were magazines and journalists who published, after committal proceedings, the name of a witness, a member of the security services, who had been referred to as Colonel B during the hearing. An order had been made for his name not to . .
CitedRegina v Malvern Justices, Ex parte Evans 1988
The circumstances in which it is appropriate for a court to allow a name or other names to be withheld are rare. The Court cannot derogate from this principle for lesser purposes, including that of sparing the feelings of a defendant. . .
CitedVan Mechelen And Others v The Netherlands ECHR 23-Apr-1997
A Dutch court had convicted the applicants of attempted manslaughter and robbery on the basis of statements made, before their trial, by anonymous police officers, none of whom gave evidence before the Regional Court or the investigating judge. The . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others ex parte Williamson and others HL 24-Feb-2005
The appellants were teachers in Christian schools who said that the blanket ban on corporal punishment interfered with their religious freedom. They saw moderate physical discipline as an essential part of educating children in a Christian manner. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.515317

Exit mobile version