A senior judge has become involved in a controversy over the wearing of the full-face veil after a legal adviser refused to remove her headwear in court.

Shabnam Mughal was appearing at an immigration tribunal in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, when Judge George Glossop asked her to remove her veil. It is understood that he could not hear her properly. She declined twice to remove it and eventually the judge adjourned the hearing until Monday to seek advice from Sir Henry Hodge, a High Court judge and president of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT). It is likely that Sir Henry will take advice from other senior judges because, although his decision will not bind other courts, it would signal how they should deal with the issue.

It is thought to be the first time the issue of the niqab has arisen in court proceedings.

Ms Mughal, who works for Law Partnership Solicitors in Coventry, was acting for a man appealing against a Home Office decision to deny a visitor’s visa to a family member.

The Tribunals Service said: “There was a hearing at Stoke-on-Trent. The immigration judge was covering an appeal about a visitor’s visa and a legal representative appearing on behalf of a sponsor wore a full-face veil. The judge asked her to remove her veil, she refused, there was an adjournment.”

He said that later in the day Ms Mughal was asked again and she refused and the case was adjourned until Monday.

A spokeswoman for the AIT said that it had been notified of the incident. She said: “The matter has been referred to the AIT president for a decision as to how to proceed. We haven’t come across this before, no precedent has been set.”

Gary Slapper, the director of the law programme at the Open University, said: “In a democracy, a religious person is never asked to forsake their preferred observances. But it would be unreasonable to contend that all religious practices are consistent with all professions.

“The British practice, established over eight centuries, is that justice requires good, clear advocacy, and it would be difficult to assert that advocacy can be done equally well with or without a full-face veil.

“Other countries are proud to require those who wish to perform advocacy in the local courts to abide by their relevant national and religious requirements, the ‘When in Rome’ principle. The UK is equally entitled to have its juristic traditions respected.”

HEADING INTO CONTROVERSY

Oct 27: The Archbishop of Canterbury writes in The Times that politicians should not interfere with the right to wear the veil

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure