Magistrate in veil case row

David Ottewell

June 29, 2007

| Submit Comments | Comments (24) | Previous | Next

Row: Magistrate Ian Murray

Row: Magistrate Ian Murray 1/2 Play Slideshow

A MAGISTRATE could face disciplinary action after refusing to deal with a defendant - because she was wearing a full Muslim veil.

Ian Murray, a taxi driver who has served on the bench for 12 years, stunned the Manchester court by withdrawing from the case, saying: "I do not feel I have to give any reasons. This is my personal view."

The defendant - Zoobia Hussain, of Crumpsall - was later heard telling her solicitor that Mr Murray's behaviour had been `scandalous'.

Manchester Magistrates' Court issued a statement last night saying Mr Murray had been concerned about 'questions of identity', but accepted he acted 'unwisely' in leaving without giving his reasons.

Sources at the Judiciary of England and Wales said he could still face an inquiry - and possible disciplinary action - if Ms Hussain's lawyers made a formal complaint.

It is understood they are preparing a letter expressing `concern' about events which is expected to trigger the inquiry.

Mr Murray was sitting with two other magistrates when Ms Hussain, 32, appeared in a niqab - a veil which covers the entire face except for the eyes - to answer a charge of criminal damage, which she denies.

Concern

Her solicitor, Judith Hawkins, told the bench that her client 'observed the Muslim religion and remains covered in public places when men are present'. She said there were 'guidelines' for such cases.

Mr Murray said: "I believe I am not bound by the guidelines and I will withdraw. I do not feel I have to give any reasons. That is my personal view and not that of my colleagues."

He then left the court. It is understood Mr Murray has concerns that the niqab changes the way a defendant is seen by the court, making it harder to maintain a level playing field.

Sources indicated he did not give his reasons as he didn't want to embarrass Ms Hussain.

The guidelines by the Judiciary of England and Wales make clear each situation should be judged on its own merits. Mr Murray declined to talk about the case when contacted at his home in Cheadle Hulme.

But the courts statement said: "Mr Murray is concerned about questions of identity when the full veil is worn in court. However, he agrees he acted unwisely in disqualifying himself without giving reasons.

"Mr Murray is supportive of those of different faiths and cultural traditions and acknowledges and regrets his action could be misinterpreted."

Ms Hussain and Ms Hawkins also declined to comment.

Muslim scholars disagree on the role of the niqab in Islam. The Muslim Council of Britain has said in the past that wearing one is a matter for individuals.

Jack Straw - appointed Justice Secretary yesterday - caused controversy in October when he said he asked women who went to see him in his surgery to remove the niqab.

Ms Hussain's case was adjourned until July 18.

| Submit Comments | Comments (24) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 24 and replies | View All

PW, Manchester (29/06/2007 at 09:42)

Mr Murray is viewed as racist because he doesn't like talking to a mask??

moodyblu, Heald Green (29/06/2007 at 09:59)

Mr Murray sounds an eminently sensible and principled man. He should not suffer any negat5ive consequences for a having a view and sticking to it.

nickyb, Altrincham (29/06/2007 at 10:00)

You couldn't attend a hearing wearing a balaclava so why do we make concessions based on religion? I am tired of this argument. Do we personalise hearings by providing female only panels, or do we point out that Britain is essentially still a Christian society and a little effort at integration is a requirement? (I am not religious btw)

RONALDO THE RED CHAMPION, TOP OF THE PREM (29/06/2007 at 10:15)

I AGREE WITH THIS MAGISTRATE,HOW CAN YOU CONVICT SOMEBODY OF ANYTHING IF YOU CANT SEE THEIR FACE.IT COULD HAVE BEEN ANYBODY UNDER THAT VEIL,NO DOUBT HE WILL BE CALLED A RACIST.ITS ABOUT TIME THAT PEOPLE WHO COME TO LIVE IN THIS COUNTRY.ABIDE BY THE UK LAWS,THAT HAVE BEEN GOING FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS.EVERYONE IS TREATED THE SAME,NO MATTER WHERE YOUR FROM.OTHERWISE YOU WOULD HAVE EVERY TOM, DICK & HARRY, TRYING IT ON IN THE COURTS.IF YOU CANT SHOW YOUR FACE TO MEN,THEN ASK THE COURT TO APPOINT WOMEN MAGISTRATES.THE SOLICITOR SHOULD HAVE DONE THIS BEFORE GOING TO COURT,THATS WHAT THEIR PAID FOR.IF THIS WOMEN WINS AND GETS CONVICTED IN HER VEIL ,THEN WHAT MESSAGE DOES THIS SEND OUT TO ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE WAITING TO STAND TRIAL.

had enough (29/06/2007 at 10:39)

As a white male I am sure if i went up before the court and went in wearing a balaclava i would be told to remove it by the judge and rightly so. This Magistrate should be backed all the way!
I am sick to death of people in this country bending over backwards in the name of religion.

ace, manchester (29/06/2007 at 10:40)

If somebody had gone into court with a crash helmet on or even a full wooly balaclarva its the same problem ,yes the magistrate was in the right to refuse to deal with this woman? how are people to know the identity of people if you cannot see their faces .It was only last year a terrorist escaped britain by dressing in a muslim womans dress? so how are people expected to identify people who cover their faces up .Sorry but this magistrate is in the right.........

Mark Johnson (29/06/2007 at 10:43)

I agree with the Magistrate - what is truly scandalous is that someone can appear before the bench without their identity being apparent. It could be anybody and makes a mockery of the system - which was probably the intention anyway.
If a Christian girl can't wear a mere chastity ring at school because 'it's not mainstream Christianity', then a Muslim shouldn't be allowed to wear full cover as it's acknowledged as optional even by the 'Muslim Council.'
Double standards in their favour as usual.

Pravda (29/06/2007 at 11:04)

Cue the usual deluge on here from the fascist left who will probably accuse him now of being a jack booted racist!

Rimsky (29/06/2007 at 11:07)

This woman is being charged for a crime under the British judicial system. She is accused of committing a crime, therfore, to be taking this issue to a level where she could win discrimination (as a criminal) is absolutely stunning. She should remove her veil and allow the magistartes to do their job. She lives in this country and should follow the correct laws regarding identity. She should be locked up until she removes the veil.

Big D (29/06/2007 at 11:29)

How can a Magistrate be exoected to judge a case when he is not even sure that the person in front of him is actually the person charged with the offence. It is ridiculous and the law should be changed to ban these veils when identification of a person is imperative.

Laura Norder, Didsbury (29/06/2007 at 12:07)

Had the case ran it's course, and the defendant been found guilty - and ultimately gaoled - who could say the person ultimately imprisoned, was the offender?

While I think the magistrate was perhaps naive, and quite possibly wrong in abandoning his position in the way he did, his actions have brought to the fore the question of true identity, - and the issue of identity fraud - which has, of late, been making headlines.

Should I ever end up appearing before my local Bench, I will possibly now wear a balaclava - backwards - and see what happens.

BlueBoy1, bolton (29/06/2007 at 12:33)

Has this country gone completely mad?? How on earth can you tell who is hiding behind these vails? If I ever get summonsed to court could I wear a batman mask and get away with it? I don't think so - you can see what will happen next, we will end up building seperate courts for all the vail wearers and pay for it again!!!

Colin Morris, Droylsden (29/06/2007 at 13:21)

As per the Muslim Council of Great Britain, wearing the niqab is a CHOICE. When making that choice Muslim women should consider this kind of situation and the feelings of others - that's just good manners. It is also the choice of anyone who feels that the niqab interferes or intimidates to REQUEST that it's removed - as long as there's no demand/requirement to remove it, what's the problem?

ace, manchester (29/06/2007 at 14:11)

All people who go in front of our legal system should be seen,so that the magistrate can identify the person in front of them? what would happen if the person in front of the judge/magistrate was a barrister pretending to be somebody else?.Hiding behind a veil?

Kevin From Hulme (29/06/2007 at 14:26)

I think Ian Murray was right to walk out, he don't know who he is dealing with, if it was a young lad from the Council Estate with a hood and a baseball cap, he then would have been asked to remove it.

roy580, blackpool (29/06/2007 at 15:12)

this will spark another row like jack straws comments did.but you have to agree with the magistrate you wouldnt expect him to deal with a mugger with a balaclava on would you?you must be able to see who you are jidging after all it could be anybody under that veil.

Brian Law (29/06/2007 at 16:11)

AT last some common sense,how can you possibly try a defendant who has their full face covered.
would a witness be able to identify the defendant? it could be anybody stood in that dock.

Life Is Not Fair, Audenshaw (29/06/2007 at 16:45)

Amateur, stick to driving taxis not rewriting the law.

Pentest (29/06/2007 at 17:25)

Good for Ian Murray. I too would refuse to prevail over a case where the defendant wore a veil, what the hell is this country coming to when decent law abiding citizens have to be confronted by a person who refuses to identify him or herself. If this is the case, possibly we could set a precedence wheras all people facing criminal proceeings should be allowed to wear a Balaclava with just two slits to look through. These people who choose to wear this sort of garb shouldn't even be allowed to go into shops or banks dressed like that, never mind a court of law!!!

Dimuc, Blackrod (29/06/2007 at 18:23)

The Magistrate was wrong for leaving without any reason. I gather it was because of identification issues.
The Magistrate should have insisted on her removing the veil, and what ever her religion says, it doesn¿t matter in a court of law, people should not be allowed to wear them, and this is probably the reason he didn¿t want to ask her to remove it, as he would be branded a racist. So he with drew himself from the case.

karen levy, denton (29/06/2007 at 18:30)

I am absolutely disgusted that Ian Murray JP may be disciplined for refusing to deal with a defendant wearing a full muslim veil.
How outrageous. I offer my full support to mr Murray and quite frankly - I, as a fellow Magistrate, would have acted in exactly the same manner!

Miss Karen Levy JP
Tameside Bench

Forever Blue (30/06/2007 at 14:40)

I presume when she was arrested the Police had to take her photograph with the veil on??. What an absolute joke this country has become. My sympathy is fully with Mr Murray.

pete northmanc (01/07/2007 at 19:02)

I SUPPORT Mr Murray FULLY THE DEFENDANT WAS IN A BRITISH COURT THIS STUPID POLITICAL CORRECTNESS MUST STOP IT WILL BE A FARCE IF HE FACES DISCLIPLINARY ACTION

Lisa Schoers nee Tute (04/09/2007 at 12:43)

Mr Murray was acting in accordance with the Judicial System, and rightly so. If a defendant can not be recognised in the court of law, how can there be a fair outcome? Mr Murray did the noble thing by removing himself instead of requesting that she remove her veil and possibly exposing himself to all kinds of racial slurs. A court of law is no place for expressing one's religious beliefs and the matter should have been dealt with by her lawyer. I fully support Mr Murray's decision, and sincerely hope that this does not cast him in any other light, than that of a man with undeniably good intentions.

()

Report

News