Should we scrap the oath, asks Mark Solon
A proposal to scrap the oath on the Bible or other holy book in court, replacing it with a secular promise for all, was discarded by the Magistrates Association last month. The proposer, magistrate Ian Abrahams, thought that it might lead to better evidence and better justice, and said that some people were confused by the difference between swearing and affirming.
The legal profession did not respond to the proposal with enthusiasm. Sarah Plaschkes QC of QEB Hollis Whiteman sums it up crisply: “My personal experience of witnesses taking the oath in court and disciplinary tribunals over 20 years is that it is readily understood, accommodates those with and those without religious beliefs (who may affirm) and does not require amendment.”
The 2011 census says that 75% of the population of England and Wales have a religion—although faith may sometimes be worn like a uniform to suggest allegiance to certain norms, rather than to profess spiritual belief, reserving ritual for funerals, weddings and court appearances. I myself heard the following exchange in Greenwich Magistrates’ Court: “Do
