LawScape has now returned from
its summer break. The summer months are traditionally quieter in the legal
world as Parliament, many of the courts, and much of the Government have a well
deserved break. Some of the higher courts continue to enjoy that deserved
break. However, the legal world has been anything but quiet this summertime.
Whether it is the continuing
fiasco concerning legal aid, decisions about human rights, or the trial of
television celebrities for sexual offences, it has been a very busy legal
summer. Two of the most interesting developments for me have been the announcement
that individuals up to the age of 75 will in future be able to serve on juries,
and the decision that a Muslim woman on trial for witness intimidation must
remove her niqab (veil) if and when she gives evidence.
Older Jurors
The announcement that those aged
up to 75 will now be able to sit on juries is a welcome one. The right to be
tried by our peers is one that has its foundations in the 1215 Magna Carta (the
‘Great Charter’). We are very defensive of our right to be judged by a random
selection of people that represent our society. In recent years however, juries
have not be able to represent the oldest members of our society: the over 70s.
In the past, this group did not make up a significant proportion of the population.
But we are now all living a great deal longer, so the over 70s represent a
significant proportion of the population. If our jury system is to continue to
produce juries that represent our society, then it must be possible to have the
over 70s selected. Not only will this ensure that juries reflect modern
society, but it will make use of the very great and important life experience
that the over 70s have acquired. The announced change is to be commended.
The change will be effected by an
amendment to the Juries Act 1974. Currently this provides that only those aged
18 to 70 may sit on a jury.
Veils in Court
This week His Honour Judge Peter Murphy
decided that a female Muslim defendant charged with witness intimidation must
remove her veil if and when she gives evidence. At other times, however, she
may continue to be veiled.
The judge had to balance the
woman’s right to express her religious beliefs (under Article 9 of the European
Convention on Human Rights) and the public interest that criminal trials are
conducted in accordance with the rule of law, open justice and the adversarial nature
of our trial system.
In essence, the judge held that
the jury’s ability (and, to a lesser extent, the judge’s and lawyers’ abilities)
to observe the defendant’s facial reactions to the questions they are asked is
crucial and not to be compromised. The defendant’s evidence is crucial and when
it is given the defendant must submit fully to the scrutiny of the jury. On the
other hand, while a jury may observe the defendant’s reaction at other times
(when they are in the dock not giving evidence) this is not sufficiently
important to trump the defendant’s right to express their religion by wearing a
veil. Accordingly, at other times the defendant may remain veiled.
Unsurprisingly, the decision has
been controversial, with various individuals saying that the court went too far
or did not go far enough. For my own part I remain undecided. In my opinion the
court certainly did not go too far, it was right to order that a veil cannot be
worn when a defendant gives evidence. The question is if it went far enough?
What are your thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment