About: http://data.cimple.eu/claim-review/e902d165713ac252351cd19d25cdc518cad38d9c8b60f8b4041b7453     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : schema:ClaimReview, within Data Space : data.cimple.eu associated with source document(s)

AttributesValues
rdf:type
http://data.cimple...lizedReviewRating
schema:url
schema:text
  • “Women should not be allowed to cover their faces with veils in criminal trials, Britain’s most senior judge has said” The Times, 30 January 2016 The Times reports that Lord Neuberger, the President of the Supreme Court, thinks that women who wear veils should be asked to remove them when giving evidence in criminal cases. The Court confirmed that this is an accurate reflection of the judge’s position. It’s not a challenge to the current approach, as judges can already ask women to remove veils. Previous reports about this issue haven’t been so accurate. The Times says (£) that these are Lord Neuberger’s “first comments” on the subject—but you’ll find stories from last year about how the same judge supports women appearing in court under a veil. As we pointed out at the time, Lord Neuberger didn’t say that, and denied that he had. The speech that generated the headlines called for: “understanding as to how people from different cultural, social, religious or other backgrounds think and behave and how they expect others to behave. Well known examples include... how some women find it inappropriate to appear in public with their face uncovered." This didn’t tell us what the President thought about whether veils should be allowed. Now we do know what he thinks: “I can see serious difficulties with the idea that a witness should have her head covered where evidence is contested. If there is any question of credibility, it should be uncovered. “The jury system works in this country by contested evidence being decided by witnesses giving evidence before a jury and having credibility weighed—and one factor taken into account is the impression the witness makes and that includes being able to see the witness’s face.” We checked with the Supreme Court, which confirmed that Lord Neuberger made his comments in the course of an interview with the Times’s legal editor. He doesn’t suggest that veils should be banned in court altogether. None of this affects people who want to watch a trial—whether involved in it or not—while wearing a veil. The issue is only when the focus of the judge or jury is on a veiled witness. Lord Neuberger also backed the current “case-by-case system” for deciding on veils, saying that guidance for judges that was promised in 2013 doesn’t seem necessary. Judges have said in the past that they’ll order veils to be removed if they have to.
schema:mentions
schema:reviewRating
schema:author
schema:datePublished
schema:inLanguage
  • English
schema:itemReviewed
Faceted Search & Find service v1.16.115 as of Oct 09 2023


Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE     Content Formats:   [cxml] [csv]     RDF   [text] [turtle] [ld+json] [rdf+json] [rdf+xml]     ODATA   [atom+xml] [odata+json]     Microdata   [microdata+json] [html]    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3238 as of Jul 16 2024, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-musl), Single-Server Edition (126 GB total memory, 11 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2025 OpenLink Software