Well,
if she can't be identified then she won't be able to access any welfare either or at least shouldn't be able to.

DD I agree with you, if there is legislation in place then non compliance warrants the next protocol in the procedure. Regarding the cops, they should have identified her at the time she swore the complaint, but they did not and that is the element of doubt that her (if indeed it was her in court, how would we know) council presented and Judge Jeffreys obviously considered weighty.

Why he considered it weighty is any body’s guess. But my appraisal is based on his career path, he was a product of uni in the "conscious" seventies, he is not a QC which is "different" and he was appointed by John Hatzistergos just 11 days before John could no longer make any appointments.

Judge Jeffreys verdict does not surprise me and it is in the spirit of the law. The cops stuffed up. But he should have have dismissed the appeal and the judiciary unite to dismiss all subsequent appeals, that would send a message.

Just a current affairs observation on NSW judges, we all expect the beak to be crusty and peculiar but when I heard two judges pleading for their jobs and using terms such as major mental illness , depression, mood swings, ongoing medication, and of course bi polar, all I can say is it keeps me from committing felonies.

Dear Belly,

No my friend you need to read the link again. The lady's complain read ''I felt very uncomfortable so I partly lifted my veil. He wasn't satisfied with that so he moved closer to me in a threatening manner, moved his hand closer to my veil where I felt that he was going to rip it off my face. I then in fear before lifting up my veil stated I am not allowed to show my face.''

I say again this is her original statement. She never claimed the police officer touched her and for you to continually call her a liar is slander.

The question is did she feel physically threatened into complying with the officer against her wishes, if she did then she would have been within her rights, just as anyone else is, to make a complaint against the policeman. The judge was completely correct in examining the evidence from the video, which by the way the woman in question knew she was being filmed, and dismissing the complaint. It should have ended there.

Again, at no stage did the woman say the policeman had actually physically assaulted her or had removed her veil. Her statement was more about what she discerned as threatening behaviour from him.

The district court judge ruled the Magistrate, who made no claim to be a mind reader,  had no way of being sure about the veracity of those professed fears. A reasonable ruling in my book.

Tactically this seems like a really silly move. It's given credibility to those trying to get full coverings banned. The outcry from other muslims should have been deafening rather than supportive.

Yuyutsu all law is about external imposition. Society does not work if individuals think it's appropriate to disregard law's whcih conflict with their own values. What we need is to minimise the intrusion of law to that which is essential rather than what others consider desirable.

R0bert

Dear Ammonite,

I am certainly not going to have a go at you for not respecting a religion.

The fact that members of the Jewish faith and some  versions of Islam still insist on the genital mutilation of their infants is something I could never excuse or respect.  The fact we now have two members of the Mormon faith vying to be the next president of the US, while members are still condemned for arranged child marriages and polygamy, is of deep concern.

But while I admit that the burka can still raise my hackles what really matters to me is that I live in a country that is prepared to tolerate religious freedoms where they don't directly and unduly impact on the rights of others.

So I am not asking you to respect any religion but rather that you respect a culture prepared to tolerate religious differences, that culture is yours and mine and on the whole I'm proud of it.

As to this woman being downtrodden and subjugated, judging by her manner I think she is reflective of a few other mothers with five or more kids that I know, just don't make their day any harder than it already is or you will get a piece taken out of you.

Country Gal,

"Yuyutsu, I would have thought that any technology that allows a man to see underneath a woman's clothing would be much more offensive to a muslim than revealing a face. I find this statement of yours hard to understand."

Please note that I never mentioned "muslim". The question is whether or not the individual in question is offended, not some arbitrary "muslims".

Five reasons why this technology is acceptable:

1) The lady had a principle: SHE would not reveal her face [to men]. One is only responsible for one's own actions, not for the actions of others, so one's principles always pertain to what one does or doesn't, not to what others do or don't. Using this technology therefore actually helps her to keep her principles.

2) It is only the face that would be seen, not the whole body.

3) It can probably be done electronically, so the policeman does not actually have to see the picture. Automatic image-comparison already works in airports.

4) We are not talking about a Peeping Tom here, but about a policeman who in the course of his duty of protecting lives from criminal activities needs to identify a person, for an absolutely essential reason, hopefully.

5) If the technology was used discretely so that the lady did not know about it, then she would not be offended. In the normal case when her license matched her face, all she would notice is that the policeman asks for her license, looks at it for 10-20 seconds, returns it and says "thank you, have a nice day".

As an afterthought, I believe that iris-identification technology is now good enough and since her eyes must be exposed that would suffice.

R0bert,

I agree, so now it's down to the question of what is "essential". Obviously, as we currently have thousands of unessential laws intruding on our lives, agreeing to join the police force which enforces them, is immoral. Let us give the police the benefit of the doubt, however, that the need to obtain that lady's ID happened to be essential in this case.