Judges hang up wigs as court dress code eased
IT has been a proud tradition for centuries, adding a sense of dignity and ceremony to the legal process. But yesterday it was announced that j udges will no l onger wear formal wigs and gowns when hearing civil appeals in one of the country’s highest courts.
Scotland’s most senior judge Lord Gill, the Lord President, said it ‘makes sense in this day and age’ to dispense with the formal garb in certain cases.
From April 22, judges sitting in the Inner House of the Court of Session in Edinburgh will no longer wear robes and wigs when hearing civil appeals, though they will wear them when hearing criminal appeals.
Lord Gill said: ‘In deciding to sit in civil appeals without robes or wigs the judges of the Inner House are in line with the practice of the UK Supreme Court.’
Under the new rules, advocates may also appear without wig and gown, while solicitors with ‘rights of audience’, who do not wear wigs, may appear without gowns. The 11 judges sitting in the Inner House endorsed the change following a proposal by Lord Gill.
The Court of Session is Scotland’s highest civil court and is divided into the Inner House and the Outer House.
The Outer House hears cases which have not previously been to court, while the Inner House is primarily the appeal court.
It hears appeals from the Outer House and appeals in civil cases from the sheriff courts, the Court of the Lord Lyon, Scottish Land Court, the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, and other tribunals.
Though a spokesman for Lord Gill said there were no plans to drop wigs and robes in criminal courts, yesterday’s moves may be seen as heralding the demise of formal court dress.
Last night retired Scottish judge Lord Hope, who served as the first Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the UK in London, told the Mail: ‘The proposal is both sensible and well-judged.
‘The practice which the Lord President has proposed has been
‘In line with UK Supreme Court’
followed for quite some time now in the Supreme Court without in a ny way diminishing t he authority of the court, or the quality of the arguments that are put before it.’
John Scott, QC, a solicitor advocate, said: ‘Many of my colleagues in the law like their wigs and gowns, and some will be lost without them – like Samson without his hair or Batman without his cowl and utility belt.
‘Indeed, at the Faculty of Advocates in 2002 there was a vote on whether to keep the old uniform of wig and gown, and a considerable majority of advocates voted to keep it as a recognised part of their identity or brand image.
‘As a solicitor advocate I wear a gown but not a wig, unlike colleagues i n England who lobbied to be allowed to wear a wig like their barrister brethren.
‘I must say that I have never felt handicapped by the absence of horsehair on my head.’
Legal dress in Britain has a long history of tradition and symbolism and was developed from the lay dress of the medieval period.
In order to preserve the continuity and dignity of j ustice, j udges and barristers wore suitable costumes to convey the unchanging status and impartiality of justice in society.
The custom of wearing wigs dates back to about 3,000 BC, when the nobility wor e pieces made from real hair or sheep wool.
It was Henry III of France who introduced the fashion for false hair among his countrymen, while Charles II introduced wigs into polite society in the UK.