A guest post by Satvinder S Juss, Professor of Law at King’s College London, and Global Distinguished Professor of Law at Notre Dame University, USA.

Why did the judge in The King v Vickrum Singh Digwa (1/6/26) describe the assailant, Digwa, as “carrying a large Sikh dagger” in “a sheath attached to a belt over the outside,” which would go onto brutally kill young Henry Nowak? Why did he say “[i]t is a strict requirement of the Sikh faith to have a knife, called a kirpan, at all times” and that “[generally, this will be a small knife, hidden from view, often on a length of cord and worn around the neck.”[1] If it is a ‘kirpan’ why not call it that? And does it matter that it was called a ‘knife’ first and a ‘kirpan’ only later? Is the Sikh ‘kirpan’ a knife?

Lawyers know only too well that how an issue is framed determines how it is addressed. In law, as in life, context and framing are everything. Framing defines scope. Scoping determines rights and liabilities. The law is correctly applied. Irrelevant issues are scrupulously avoided. Continue reading →