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 1 Version 2
Veil row lawyer is taken off case Veil row lawyer is taken off case
(about 2 hours 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. A legal adviser at the centre of a row over wearing veils in court has been taken off the case she was working on.
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.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.
It is expected to resume later after an interim ruling allowing solicitors and legal advisers to wear a veil in court. It was rescheduled after an interim ruling allowed solicitors and legal advisers to wear a veil in court.
Ms Mughal is understood to have been replaced by a male colleague. But Ms Mughal, a Muslim, was replaced by a male colleague in the client's interests, her law firm said.
The legal adviser for The Law Partnership, in Coventry, is thought to be on sick leave. The decision was made solely in the interests of our client Abdul Khan, solicitor
Speaking outside the rescheduled hearing centre, solicitor Abdul Khan, from Coventry-based The Law Partnership, said the decision was not a reflection on Ms Mughal nor issues surrounding her use of a Muslim veil.
"It is not an issue of us backing down. We represent clients and our duty is to make sure that their interests are at the forefront of our mind.
"The decision was made solely in the interests of our client."
Mr Khan, who appeared before the immigration tribunal instead of Ms Mughal, said his colleague would continue to wear her veil during hearings.
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.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 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.