Magistrate walks out of court

[nickj]

Although I don't think he handled it correctly i agree with his point.

Surely it must raise identity issues???

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6254506.stm

[keithd]

:silent:

good for him but i shant say much cos this subject is my least tolerable of all.

winds me up no end.

[Keith1983]

I totally agree with him. Congratulations to him for standing up for what he believes in. It is about time that somebody stood up and said enough is enough. This countries justice system used to be something to be proud of, now it is an absolute laughing stock. It is a victim of it's own sucess and human rights gone mad! I say well done sir may others follow your couragous lead!

[kamakazy]

Totally agree! There was the case recently where that terrorist escaped this country by dressing in womens clothes which included the same full face cover. I am not pregudice in any way, I work with people from all over the world and of varying faiths, but if everyone wants to be treated the same way, especially in a court of law, then they must realise that the need for true identity is a must to safeguard everyone. Anyone with an ounce of common sense, would surely realise that.

[CoolGirl]

Here we go again. There are sensible, legal and inoffensive way of dealing with these sorts of identity issues.

This what should have happened:

You get a female official in a closed room with the woman and ask her to de-veil. Female official uses photo-ID to check her identity. Job done and everyone is jept happy.

Note that this process does not either let the woman off or subject her to any checks that are applicable to anyone else.

I sincerely hope the magistrate was protesting against the lack of proper procedure that took place before the defendant got ino the courtroom (the report isn't really clear on what his beef was).

[Moffatt666]

In Farnce, the wearing of the Veil is illegal in schools and in public offices such as court rooms. 'Nuff said.

[Biker Biggles]

Depending on whether this defendant was pleading not guilty,or disputing factual issues,it may not just be a case of establishing identity.A court of law is concerned with establishing who is being truthfull,and being able to see someone's face is part of this process.We all form opinions about people's integrity,and facial expression is a significant part of this.
There are clearly some situations where wearing a full facial cover would be inappropriate,and this would seem to be one of them.

[Warthog]

Yeah I agree with Biggles, I don't see it as purely an identity question, I think facial expressions are extremely important in trying to apply justice in a court. To be honest, I think if she had been tried with the veil on, it probably wouldn't have done her any favours, and I think it would have been in her own interests to take it off. Imagine as a judge trying to decide if someone did criminal damage and ran off while they are sitting in front of you still covered up? You can't see any signs of remorse, you see a desire to be unrecognisable. Right or not, it paints you in a bad light.

[northwind]

How does it raise identity issues? Like Coolgirl says she could be easily id'd beforehand in private, which is how it's usually dealt with. If it wasn't then that should have been resolved by the normal means, but the article doesn't really suggest that this was the case.

But really, what difference would it make if her face was visible? It's not as thought the magistrate has any part in the processing (ie, IDing), that's all taken care of by others in the court. Even if she'd taken off the veil, why would that make any difference? He doesn't know her from adam anyway, unless he knows everyone that appears in his court personally.

[phil24_7]

Just to clarify, a magistrate must excuse themselves if the defendant is known to them personally, how can they know unless they see. A name isn't always enough to ensure this.

Another point that has been mentioned is facial expressions etc. Body language can make up to 65% of communication (of which facial expression is a large part), you just can't tell what someone is saying is truthfull or not without seeing these IMHO.

[nickj]

How does it raise identity issues? Like Coolgirl says she could be easily id'd beforehand in private, which is how it's usually dealt with. If it wasn't then that should have been resolved by the normal means, but the article doesn't really suggest that this was the case.

But really, what difference would it make if her face was visible? It's not as thought the magistrate has any part in the processing (ie, IDing), that's all taken care of by others in the court. Even if she'd taken off the veil, why would that make any difference? He doesn't know her from adam anyway, unless he knows everyone that appears in his court personally.

I agree with Coolgirl that there is a simple solution to checking the identity by a female officer of the court beforehand but it seems not to have been done.

As for difference seeing the face makes then it does make it a lot easier to compare it against a passport/licence or any other photo identity that the magistrate may have. I didn't think that he might have recognised her from down down the local or seen her in the post office.

I think the point on body language to determine guilt/innocence is a good point as well and it may not help someone wearing a veil as it is harder to express yourself. Also I had a court case a few years ago where the asian guy who knocked me off had to have an interpreter in the court. How could a fair decision be made if both the tone of the language being spoken is not known and the body language cannot be read.

[northwind]

I think the point on body language to determine guilt/innocence is a good point as well and it may not help someone wearing a veil as it is harder to express yourself. Also I had a court case a few years ago where the asian guy who knocked me off had to have an interpreter in the court. How could a fair decision be made if both the tone of the language being spoken is not known and the body language cannot be read.

That could be a fair point, but from what's been reported and in his own words wasn't anything to do with it. I reckon someone appearing in court in a veil is very likely to prejucide the court against them, which is a whole different problem but isn't any reason to ban the practice IMO.

To be blunt, if the magistrate is deciding the facts of the case depending on whether he trusts the person's delivery, that's a whole different kettle of fish. Guilty until proven a good actor?

[Xan173]

I don't know much about the courts.

Why is the defendant required to attend in person? If we know why, then we can discuss wether the veil interferes with the purpose.

[nickj]

That could be a fair point, but from what's been reported and in his own words wasn't anything to do with it. I reckon someone appearing in court in a veil is very likely to prejucide the court against them, which is a whole different problem but isn't any reason to ban the practice IMO.


I agree and tbh don't know what processes the court usually takes. If there isn't something already in place then imo it would make sense for identity to be confirmed beforehand in a way which does not cause offence to their religion.



Guilty until proven a good actor?


lol, fair point :lol:

[Ceri JC]

With regard to the "seeing how people are talking from their face" aspect, I had never considered that until recently, but actually I think it's almost as important as IDing them (for which I believe Coolgirl's method is perfectly adequate BTW). I was at a masquerage ball a while back and it was really weird talking to people "face to face", but with their face covered, even to those people you already knew. A lot of people said that my mask (which completely covered the face, not just around the eyes) was even more unsettling and I was surprised by how often people were asking me to repeat things even though I was speaking loudly and clearly. It's almost as if most people sort of lip-read to some degree...

[CoolGirl]

And how does this 'expression' thing work when the person doesn't appear in court themself but has their legal representative turn up instead?

Everyone's entitled to defend themselves and the judgement should be based on fact alone.

[nickj]

And how does this 'expression' thing work when the person doesn't appear in court themself but has their legal representative turn up instead?

Everyone's entitled to defend themselves and the judgement should be based on fact alone.


I don't disagree but on the occasion you have someone in front of you then human nature says that they will be judged on their body language, speech and the way they act. Partly why I mentioned it may be detrimental to themselves.