Political Correctness+Hypocrisy = Jack Straw?

Today's Daily Telegraph reports that Ian Murray, J.P. has been censored and required to retrain (to submit to nonsense?) as the result of refusing to sit in a case in June 2007 involving a Muslim woman charged with damaging her council house.

It could be that Mr. Murray broke the terms of his employment by refusing to deal with the woman because she was wearing a niqab, which covered her face but for the eye holes. Common sense would seem to suggest that he was right. How was he to know that she was indeed who she claimed to be, and not some impersonator, and how was he supposed to form a judgement on her veracity when one of the most expressive parts of her was covered. It would not be difficult to imagine the whole justice system breaking down if there were more than one accused and perhaps also witnesses, all wearing the same all-obscuring veil? Are we to consider all-women courts, juries? Would police women have to photograph accused at charging, and then privately lift the veil to confirm that they were indeed the person charged?

Mr. Straw himself was once on record as saying that he required women so clothed to remove their veils when they attended his surgeries. So it is seems a little strange, to put it mildly, that he should rubber stamp the decision made to reprimand the magistrate, along with the Lord Chief Justice. Doubtless they were legally correct, but it must surely be overdue to review the relevant statutes to see how justice could be done while respecting religious rights. In the end, the lady was found guilty, after giving her evidence from behind a screen so that male members of the court could not look upon he unveiled face. Would that apply to male members of any trial jury? If so the implications for justice are considerable.