Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRobson, Jeremyen
dc.date.accessioned2018-02-21T10:53:54Z
dc.date.available2018-02-21T10:53:54Z
dc.date.issued2016-08
dc.identifier.citationRobson, J. (2016) The veiled lodger - a reflection on the status of R v D. Nottingham Law Journal, 25, pp.105-111.en
dc.identifier.issn0965–0660
dc.identifier.urihttp://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/28368/
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2086/15256
dc.descriptionThe file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. An open access version can be found by following the URI linken
dc.description.abstractAt the time of writing this article (January 2016) some 28 months have elapsed since His Honour Judge Peter Murphy gave judgment in the case of R v D. His judgment, requiring a female defendant of the Muslim faith to remove her niqaab if she wished to give evidence in her own defence, was lauded as a paradigm of common sense by some and, an unwarranted interference with protected rights by others. The conservative press celebrated the fact that the institutional supremacy of the court had been preserved2 whilst the liberal press noted the judge had respected an individual’s right to wear the veil for the remainder of the proceedings. Despite HHJ Murphy having reservations about circuit judges being seen to set a precedent and his request that the issue be clarified at a higher level, R v D appears to have become settled as a statement of principle. This article will suggest that the implications and unanswered questions of R v D are such that the failure of the senior judiciary or legislature to intervene is unsatisfactory and that guidance, based on a robust evidence base is necessary.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherNottingham Trent Universityen
dc.subjectCourt Procedureen
dc.subjectNiqaben
dc.subjectReligion and Lawen
dc.titleThe veiled lodger - a reflection on the status of R v Den
dc.typeArticleen
dc.peerreviewedYesen
dc.funderN/aen
dc.projectidN/Aen
dc.cclicenceN/Aen
dc.date.acceptance2016-08-19en
dc.researchinstituteCentre for Law, Justice and Societyen
dc.exception.ref2021codes254aen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record