The issue of religion when its tenets
come into conflict with our legal system were rare indeed before the mass
immigration from Pakistan. Occasionally
members of the Plymouth Brethren or similar Christian sects would demand that
they be excused from certain civic functions or requirements. Apart from events across the Irish Sea such
matters were of little consequence to the mass of the population such were the
low numbers of such congregations. There
were and occasionally are news reports of some difficulties Orthodox Sabbath observant
Jews have with regard to Saturday working.
Legislation in the last twenty years has reduced the numbers of such
cases to a handful. But with three
million Moslems now settled here many bringing with them attitudes to religion
and society not seen here since Victorian times we read increasingly of
occasions where these attitudes seem incoherent to western thinking with its more
relaxed approach to religious doctrine whether Christian or Jewish in all their
variations. Stories of Moslem supermarket check-out staff refusing to price up pork products might or might not be apocryphal
but certainly there is a current situation that rarely reaches a mass
audience. One such was the refusal of a
niqab wearing witness to reveal her face in court. Personally I never had to make a decision in
such circumstances but it is not unlikely that across the country ex-colleagues
have been confronted with such situations which of course don`t reach the
national press owing to the reduced reporting of magistrates` courts` cases.
However when a religion orientated collision happens at a crown court there is
a much greater likelihood of publicity.
And so it was recently at the Old Bailey. The end story is one of compliance by the
juror in question but my point is that it would seem not unlikely that similarly
minded such individuals have been, are
or will be future jurors. In such
circumstances how could such a person contribute to a reasoned logical
discussion on a defendant`s guilt or innocence? With an
almost unfettered system for selecting our peers to sit as jurors in judgement including even
those who are not British citizens or with little command of English, is there
not a very strong argument for this open door policy to be re-considered?
No I completely disagree with you. The law allows religous exemption; the gentleman exercised it, was tested by the judge as is required, was found to not to be capable of exemption and accepted the judge's ruling. All quite proper. I think I would rather have this gentleman on my jury than someone who takes one look at me and decides I'm guilty - and don't say that doesn't pretty much happen!
ReplyDeleteOn face covering the prevailing thought is changing (rightly in my view) to one of acceptance - even the Lord Chief Justice seems unfazed by the idea.
Language skills is also a (provocative?) red herring - the jury form specifically points to the possiblibility of exemption for lack of language skills.