her verbal and non verbal responses, ie facial expression do form a part of the evidence.
They don't. Whilst it may seem pertinent, facial expression/body language isn't a reliable way of asserting guilt. The jurors/judge will not know the defendant, won't know how that individual reacts to stress etc, so to 'look' for a particular response in the defendant would be acting with prejudice. You can't just turn round and convict someone because they 'look guilty'. You must instead base your judgement on the factual evidence presented. How do you know that someone is guilty or not, simply by looking at their face? What if they have a facial tick, or other disability? What if they have the ability to remain totally stoic? What if they are a very good actor and can fake emotion?
It's an interesting debate. No-one's yet mentioned cases where the 'victim' is protected by a screen, or has only audio testimony played in court, to protect them. And I'm wondering why this particular defendant can't be named. If they can't be named, then why the fuss over them having to show their face in court?
And seeing how jurors must be offered every protection under law, against threat or intimidation, why aren't juries behind a screen, or the jurors veiled?
Personally I can't stand burqas, niqabs or any other form of veil on women. I just think they're anti-social and disrespectful to others. However, those are my own personal feelings, and it's not up to me whether or not someone else 'chooses' to wear a veil.
I think we should be having a wider discussion on that very 'choice', really. That would be far more helpful than enforcing clothing regulations.
There are always limits to what is acceptable, Religion has no place in the running of a country and how it functions
In your opinion.