The defendant, D, appeared in court on a charge of witness intimidation wearing a burqa and niqab. She refused to unveil because, as a Muslim, she could not reveal her face in the presence of men outside her close family. At the earlier hearing on 12 September 2013 she had been identified in private by a female police officer who knew her. The plea and case management hearing addressed the issue of whether and to what extent D was entitled to wear the niqab during proceedings against her.

D's right under Article 9 ECHR (thought, conscience and religion) to manifest her religion or belief was not unqualified. While the judge accepted the sincerity of D's belief, the proper working of an adversarial trial required that all involved – judge, jury, witnesses and defendant – should be able to see each other at all times during proceedings, partly for identification but also to assess the credibility of witnesses and the demeanour of the defendant. Restrictions could be placed on D's Article 9 rights so long as they were necessary and proportionate. He therefore directed that D must comply with all directions given by the court to enable her to be properly identified at any stage of the proceedings, that she was free to wear the niqab during her trial except while giving evidence, that she could not give evidence wearing the niqab, that she might give evidence from behind a screen shielding her from public view (but not from the view of the judge, the jury and counsel) or via a live TV link, and that no drawing or other image be made of her while her face was uncovered. [Frank Cranmer]