The President of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT), Mr Justice Hodge, has provided interim advice for judges in his jurisdiction on the wearing of veils by representatives of parties in cases before the AIT.
However, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers has agreed that any further advice should await the senior judiciary and the Equal Treatment Advisory Committee (ETAC) of the Judicial Studies Board developing detailed guidance for application in courts and tribunals more generally.
In respect of the AIT, which has a case where this specific issue has arisen, the President has issued the following interim guidance:
“Immigration judges must exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis where a representative wishes to wear a veil. The representative in the recent case has appeared veiled previously at AIT hearings without difficulties. It is important to be sensitive in such cases. The presumption is that if a representative before an AIT tribunal wishes to wear a veil, has the agreement of his or her client and can be heard reasonably clearly by all parties to the proceedings, then the representative should be allowed to do so.
“If a judge or other party to the proceedings is unable to hear the representative clearly then the interests of justice are not served, and other arrangements will need to be made. Such arrangements will vary from case to case, subject to judicial discretion and the interests of all parties.”
With regard to the wider issue, Lord Phillips said:
“This is clearly a sensitive issue which requires a well considered response in the form of guidance to the judiciary generally. The Judicial Studies Board’s Equal Treatment Advisory Committee has built up expertise in this area, and is already considering guidance on the wearing of veils by various parties in proceedings – for example by parties, legal representatives, witnesses, jurors or magistrates.
“I have asked the Committee to address this issue urgently, and the senior judiciary will also consult with relevant bodies in developing such guidance. The President of the AIT has provided some helpful interim advice within his jurisdiction to meet the immediate needs in one particular case. But this should not necessarily be seen as a blueprint of more general guidance, as that process needs to reflect a wide range of judicial proceedings and scenarios.”
Ends
