It is to be hoped that the Judicial Studies Board - which, according to recent press reports, has been asked by the Lord Chief Justice to develop detailed guidance on the use of the Islamic veil in court - will produce something more robust than the lukewarm and politically constrained temporary direction issued by the president of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. Mr Justice Hodge did so, following the case of Shabnam Mughal, who refused to remove her veil while appearing before an immigration judge in Stoke-on-Trent (see [2006] Gazette, 16 November, 5).

According to Mr Justice Hodge's direction, the presumption will be in favour of the veil unless it interferes with 'interests of justice'. However, he appears to have lost sight of that most basic of principles that underpin our legal system, often expressed in the maxim 'justice must be seen to be (as well as actually) done'.


Normally that is associated with the conduct of trials by judges at all levels, as often issues arise as to the unfairness, or other forms of impropriety, in relation to the proceedings.


Now that we are faced with the new phenomenon of the veil that covers the whole face except the eyes of the wearer, it is right that our hallowed notion of how justice is dispensed is restated in the most vigorous and unambiguous terms. This should mean a bar on the veil, save in exceptional circumstances, by anyone appearing in court - whether as an advocate or as a litigant, prosecutor, defendant, witness, clerk, usher or, above all, a judge. They all have a part to play in a court hearing, and it is important that they should be able to see one another properly.


Our society functions on the basis of full frontal, not oblique, communication, and facial appearance and expression are vital elements of that. If the judicial hearing involves making an assessment on the basis of a personal presentation or examination, then eye contact alone may not suffice. 'Interests of justice' require nothing less than a reaffirmation of the concept of 'open justice'. That is due process.


Ramnik Shah, Epsom, Surrey