Will lawyers’ wigs soon be a thing of the past?

Jul 03, 2003

Senior English and Welsh judges would welcome the scrapping of wigs, which they feel contribute to the public view of them as fuddy-duddy

Senior English and Welsh judges would welcome the scrapping of wigs, which they feel contribute to the public view of them as fuddy-duddy writes Clare Dyer in London

WIGS could soon become things of the past in most of the courts in England and Wales, after a survey commissioned by the UK’s lord chancellor, Lord Irvine, showed that two out of three people want to see them scrapped except in criminal cases.

The survey of more than 2,000 people is at the heart of a consultation exercise launched on May 8 which could see judges and advocates/barristers losing their horsehair headgear, which dates from the 18th century, altogether, or keeping it only in the criminal courts.

The three-pronged consultation will also suggest reforms which could mean the abolition of the elite rank of Queen’s Counsel and the establishment of an independent judicial appointments commission to replace the lord chancellor in selecting judges.

When he announced the consultation, Lord Irvine said that he had “no concluded view” on the wig issue. In June 2001, however, he said wigs were an anachronism and should be scrapped, at least in the civil courts, saying:

“It would be better if both branches of the profession (advocates/barristers and solicitors) sported just the hair nature gave them.”

The issue has come to the fore because nearly ten years ago solicitors won the right to appear alongside barristers in the higher courts - but only those solicitors who become QCs, a tiny minority, may wear wigs.

The solicitors complain that their bare-headed status marks them out as second-class advocates, and demand that all advocates should either be wigged or bare-headed.

The professional bodies are polarised, with the Bar Council wanting to keep wigs, and the Law Society, representing solicitors, pressing for abolition. Senior judges tend to favour abolition, while junior judges veer towards retention.

The stated aim behind the consultation is to adopt whatever garb will give the public confidence in the courts.

In a foreword to the paper, Lord Irvine says he will “have regard” to the views of lawyers and judges. He adds: “I am particularly keen to hear the views of court users and the general public. Should it be established through this consultation paper that court users’ confidence can be enhanced by changes to court working dress, that will be a compelling argument for change.”

The paper says: “There is no justification for retaining working court dress on the grounds of tradition alone - our courts are not a tourist attraction.”

Judges could also lose their colourful court gowns in red and purple, in favour of a sober plain black gown.

The survey of more than 2,000 people - 506 of whom had used the courts - took place last October. While 68% wanted judges in criminal cases to keep their horsehair, only 31% favoured wigs for civil judges. Only 34% thought that barristers and other advocates should wear wigs.

When the issue was last canvassed, a majority favoured the status quo.

Many senior judges would welcome the scrapping of wigs, which they feel contribute to the public view of them as fuddy-duddy.

The consultation paper says there is “substantial support” among the higher judiciary for getting rid of wigs in civil cases.

More than ten years ago, the judges of the commercial court, a branch of the high court which deals with business litigation, voted to scrap wigs because they felt they made the courts appear fusty and outdated. However, many circuit judges, dealing with most of the criminal cases tried in the crown court, want to retain wigs.

They argue that wigs add to the dignity of court proceedings, helping to keep order, and are useful on security grounds because they help give judges a degree of anonymity.

Guardian

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});