Religion & American Law

On September 16, 2013, Judge Peter Murphy ruled at Blackfriars Crown Court that a Muslim woman on trial could wear her full-face veil throughout her trial, but not while she was delivering evidence. The 22-year old black Muslim convert from East London is accused of intimidating a witness at Finsbury Park Mosque in North London. The Judge ultimately did make some significant concessions to the defendant. He allowed her to not testify in open court with her face uncovered and instead offered some alternatives: she would be allowed to give evidence through a live video link or from behind a screen that hid her from the main court room and only showed her face to the judge, jurors, and her counsel. He also ruled that there could be no artist’s sketch of her face while it was uncovered.

This whole issue may seem confusing to those not familiar with Islamic practices/culture, but the woman (who has not been named) claimed that it is against her beliefs to allow any man who is not her husband to see her face. Her lawyers argued that it would also breach her human rights to remove her niqab (a full-face veil that only shows a woman’s eyes) against her wishes. On the other hand, the article does note that she only just began wearing the veil last May; but Home Office Minister Jeremy Browne is now addressing the issue of whether or not the state should help prevent young women from having the veil unwillingly imposed on them.

Judge Murphy’s recent decision is at odds with previous rulings made at the Crown Court: in March 2012, a judge ruled that a woman wearing a niqab could not sit as a juror for an attempted murder trial. This ruling also occurred a few days after a college was forced to turn over its ban on students wearing the veil. Additionally, the Birmingham Metropolitan College was recently accused of discriminating against Muslims when staff, students, and visitors were told to remove face coverings so they could be more easily identified (but this was eventually overturned in response to protests).

The issue Judge Murphy is addressing here is important, especially considering the increasing level of diversity in England and Wales: should concessions be made in court to people who claim that partaking in certain actions – that the rest of society willingly does – violates their religious beliefs? Judge Murphy claims that according to the Human Rights Act (1998), the defendant has the right to manifest her religion, but some restrictions of when she can and cannot wear her niqab in court are necessary in a democratic society. While some, including the Liberty organization, agree with this ruling, others accuse the judge of “pandering” the defendant and “bending over backwards” to accommodate someone who is unwilling to follow the rules of society that everyone else follows.

This case is difficult to address because Americans are guaranteed freedom to practice their religion under the First Amendment. But of course there will be some exceptions: if the practice of a particular religion comes into conflict with other laws already in place, which has priority? In this particular case, Judge Murphy has made a legitimate effort to balance this woman’s constitutional right to practice her religion freely with creating a fair and just trial. Those who disagree with this decision argue that seeing a person’s facial expressions/reactions during a trial is critical to assessing their credibility, especially when giving evidence or being questioned.  But again, Judge Murphy has somewhat accommodated this by making sure the woman’s face is revealed during the delivery of her evidence, but covered throughout the rest of the trial.

While some may argue Judge Murphy is entering a “slippery slope” with regards to making exceptions for religion, he is still accommodating the court’s need to see the woman’s entire face at certain points throughout the trial. Additionally, a person’s body language and reactions can be read in various ways: body language, tone of voice, etc. are also legitimate ways to determine someone’s reaction or feelings towards a particular statement.

Given that this woman is willing to accept the judge’s alternative, this seems like a legitimate solution to a problem that must be addressed (given the growing diversity in England and Wales). A definitive statement must be created as soon as possible so that judges know how to handle these types of situations with very religious people in following cases. This is a small but important accommodation: Judge Murphy’s decision demonstrates his respect for religious freedom and his recognition of the importance of following established law.

Do you believe Judge Murphy made a good decision or is he granting this woman an exemption from something that is necessary for the public to follow?