This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/staffordshire/6142520.stm

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Veil row tribunal set to resume Veil row lawyer is taken off case
(about 2 hours later)
A tribunal which was halted when a Muslim legal adviser refused to remove her veil is expected to resume later. A Muslim legal adviser at the centre of a row over wearing veils in court has been taken off the case she was working on, the BBC has learned.
Shabnam Mughal refused to take off her headwear at an immigration tribunal in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, when asked to do so by Judge George Glossop. A tribunal in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffs, was adjourned last week after Shabnam Mughal refused to remove her veil when asked to do so by Judge George Glossop.
The continued hearing is expected to be overseen by a different judge. It is expected to resume later after an interim ruling allowing solicitors and legal advisers to wear a veil in court.
It follows an interim ruling to allow solicitors and legal advisers to wear a veil in court unless it interferes with the "interests of justice". Ms Mughal is understood to have been replaced by a male colleague.
Judge Glossop was thought to have asked for the full-face veil to be removed because he could not hear Ms Mughal properly. The legal adviser for The Law Partnership, in Coventry, is thought to be on sick leave.
The hearing, which was to appeal against a Home Office decision to deny a visitor's visa, was adjourned when Ms Mughal, who works for The Law Partnership, in Coventry, refused to take off her veil. Last week Judge Glossop was thought to have asked for the full-face veil to be removed because he could not hear Ms Mughal properly.
The interim ruling said a veil can be worn in court unless it interferes with the "interests of justice".
The continued hearing, which is an appeal against a Home Office decision to deny a visitor's visa, is expected to be overseen by a different judge.