One case that has been in the headlines recently is the case of Dawson.[1] In this case, a female defendant on trial at Blackfriars Crown Court for witness intimidation, Rebekah Dawson, asked to be able to wear a niqab, which included a veil covering her face, during her trial. There was no issue of identification in the case and Ms Dawson’s held the religious belief that she was required not to reveal her face to men who were not family members.

The Judge held that Ms Dawson was entitled to manifest her religion under Article 9, and the court would assume that this was a sincere request unless there was evidence otherwise, and that was not affected by differences of views within the Muslim community as to whether this was a religious requirement. However, this had to be balanced against the public interest in open justice and the trial process, which usually required witnesses to be seen so that their demeanour can be taken into account as part of the assessment of the credibility of their evidence. Thus the Judge ruled that Ms Dawson could wear her niqab in court but that she should remove it if there was any issue about identification and when giving evidence (when she could be shielded from the public but not from the Judge, jury or barristers).

The sequel to this ruling was that in the end, Ms Dawson decided not to give evidence.[2] The jury then failed to give a verdict. Before there could be a retrial, Ms Dawson admitted the charge, so the issue did not arise at a further trial.[3]