Getting Wiggy Wid It

18 July 2007



British Courts Lose the Wigs

Nothing sets the English legal profession apart from its compatriots elsewhere quite so much as its sartorial requirements. Whether one views the clothes and accessories as a uniform or a costume, such attire does make a judge stand out when walking down the street. Now, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, has decided that wigs are not required in civil or family court cases. The wig will remain for criminal cases, and the number of gowns reduced.

The wigs date back to the 17th century, when they came into vogue for men throughout the upper echelons of English society. While men’s fashion has moved on (a wig on a man is now meant to cover a bald spot rather than to decorate an otherwise hirsute scalp), the courts have not. Moreover, because of the intricacies of judicial evolution over the last couple hundred years, judges in England have different costumes for different jurisdictions and time of year. The latest move is one of simplification.

Lord Phillips issued a statement earlier this week that read, “At present High Court judges have no less than five different sets of working dress, depending on the jurisdiction in which they are sitting and the season of the year. After widespread consultation it has been decided to simplify this.”

Cost is a factor that His Lordship was too polite to address, but it is a significant issue nevertheless. The full-blown shoulder-length wigs judges wear run to £1,500 a piece, and the shorter variety worn by solicitors is around £400 a pop. These costs, along with those for different colored gowns and “bands” (sort of like neckties) are borne by the taxpayers. The change will save £300,000 annually.

A poll of legal professionals in 2003 showed two in three respondents wanted the wig gone for civil cases, but most wanted to keep them for criminal cases. Those resisting the idea believe that the wig gives them an air of authority and some anonymity. Lord Phillips acknowledged this when he wrote, “While there will never be unanimity of view about court dress, the desirability of these changes has a broad measure of agreement.” What he omitted, no doubt through a sense of tact and breeding, was that the damn things itch and smell a bit.

© Copyright 2007 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home

Google
WWW Kensington Review







Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More