## Facts

- D, a Muslim woman charged with witness intimidation, appeared in Crown Court wearing a burqa and niqab that covered her face except for her eyes.
- D sought permission to keep the niqab on throughout proceedings, relying on the right to manifest religion under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
- The court accepted there was no reason to doubt D’s sincerity in believing she should keep her face covered.
- A preliminary concern arose as to confirming that the person in the dock was the individual named in the indictment.
- D refused to unveil in open court for identification, prompting adjournment for argument and evidence on religious practice and the court’s powers.
- Identification was resolved by permitting a female police officer to view D’s face privately without the niqab and then confirm her identity to the court.
- The remaining dispute was whether D could keep her face covered while giving oral evidence at trial.

## Issues

1. Whether Article 9 ECHR gives a criminal defendant a right to keep her face covered by a niqab throughout Crown Court proceedings, including while testifying.
2. Whether requiring a defendant to remove a face veil while giving evidence is a lawful and proportionate limitation on Article 9, considering fair-trial rights (Article 6 ECHR), credibility assessment, and open justice.

## Decision

- The court held that wearing the niqab was a manifestation of religion protected by Article 9, but the right is qualified and may be limited for the administration of justice.
- D was permitted to wear the niqab during most of the trial, including while seated in the dock.
- D could be required to remove the niqab when giving evidence so the judge and jury could see her face while assessing her evidence.
- To reduce interference with religious practice, the court directed that unveiling while testifying should be done using measures such as a screen or video link so that only the judge, jury, and counsel could see her unveiled, not the public in court.
- The ruling provided procedural directions for the trial rather than a final determination of guilt.

## Legal Principles

- Article 9 ECHR protects sincere religious manifestation, but the protection is not absolute and can be restricted where necessary and proportionate to legitimate aims connected to the administration of justice.
- A fair trial may require that the tribunal of fact can see a witness’s face during oral evidence to assist credibility assessment and effective cross-examination.
- The common-law principle of open justice disfavors concealment of identity in criminal proceedings; departures require justification and should be limited to what is necessary.
- Where religious accommodation conflicts with fair-trial requirements, the court should adopt the least restrictive measure that preserves trial fairness (e.g., limited viewing arrangements rather than a blanket ban on religious dress).

## Conclusion

The court balanced religious freedom against fair-trial and open-justice interests by allowing a defendant to wear a niqab for most of the proceedings but requiring her to unveil while testifying, with protective arrangements to confine viewing of her face to essential court participants.


Regina v. D (R), [2013] EW Misc 13 (Crown Ct. 2013)