Jatinder Singh, from Smethwick, was summoned to serve as a juror at Birmingham Crown Court on Monday
But, he said, a security guard refused him entry at the court over his kirpan, the sword carried by all Sikhs.
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said Mr Singh was released from his duties as there was a surplus of required jurors.
Meanwhile, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has apologised to Mr Singh.
Khalsa Sikhs carry the five Ks with them at all times, as a symbol of their faith.
These include Kesh or uncut hair; Kara which is a a steel bracelet; the Kanga, a wooden comb; Kacca or cotton underwear and the Kirpan
Mr Singh, who has served as president at Guru Nanak Gurdwara in Smethwick and as secretary general of the Sikh Council UK, said this was the second time he has been summoned for jury service, the first passing with no issue.
On this occasion, he entered the morning session with no problems, but when he tried to return to the court after lunch was pulled aside by a security guard and told he could not go in.
“The security guard said I could take [my kirpan] off and leave it with him and collect it at the end of the day,” he said.
"I felt like a child who has gone to school and taken something they shouldn’t and had it confiscated.
“To have that happen to me, I felt embarrassed, I felt discriminated against, I didn’t expect it to happen to me.”
He called for the (MoJ) to work with Sikh and other religious organisations to create easily accessible guidelines that can be provided to staff.
Dabinderjit Singh, the principal adviser to the Sikh Federation UK said it had written to Justice Minister Alex Chalk asking him to condemn the treatment of Mr Singh.
The MoJ said members of the Sikh community wishing to enter a court building could bring in a Kirpan which was not more than six inches long (15cm) and with a blade no more than five inches (12cm) in length - which Mr Singh said his was.
A spokesperson for HMCTS added: “We have apologised to Mr Singh for any distress caused and have reminded our contracted security officers of the correct steps to take to prevent this incident from happening again.”
Yes, I do.
But even if it was for clout, it wouldn’t change anything about it being allowed.
You can say that you don’t think religions should have excemptions, but that’s another topic. As of this incident the excemption exists and he should be able to carry a blade according to the restrictions in there.
Then you’re stupid.
The job of every guard is to look out for threats. If the guard feels it is in the interest of everyone’s safety that a participant removes a literal weapon from their person before entering a place of importance, it is completely reasonable on his behalf. That the participant is feeling sentimental about it is not the guard’s fault and neither should it be.
And this “threat” has already had an exception written into the Security staffing standards. So, despite what that individual thinks, the item is not a security threat and the staff member is in the wrong.
Apologies have been made, and training hopefully improved.
The job of the security guard is also to understand UK law.
Section 139(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 allows the wearing of the kirpan for religious reasons. The Offensive Weapons Act 2019 reaffirms the right of the Sikh community to possess and supply kirpans. Section 47 of the Act provides new defences for some articles such as the kirpan and ‘katar’ (Sikh ceremonial weapon) to enable possession in private for religious reasons and to enable them to be presented.
Unless the guy was waving it about, the security guard was simply wrong - which is why an apology was issued.
Classy./
It does sound like some ‘sovereign citizen’ bollocks
“Aha! You say I’m not allowed a weapon in a courtroom, yet I have on my person 5 items beginning with the letter K. Hence I’m allowed a knife of up to 5 inches actually Mr security guard”
Difference being of course, that the exception actual exists in current rules opposed to most of the wank sovereign citizens make up.
Like, he didn’t make it up on the spot, did he.
which in itself is simply ridiculous
Except, of course it is codified into English law, and therefore its the almost exact opposite of ‘sov cit bollocks’