Supreme Court president backs move away from traditional courtroom attire
The president of the Supreme Court Lord Phillips has said that counsel appearing before the court may by agreement ditch traditional courtroom dress.
According to a spokesperson for the court, the Supreme Court Justices, who do not wear traditional robes themselves, believe that “the development would further underline the court’s commitment to providing an appropriate environment for discussion of legal issues”.
The move is stated as being in line with the court’s goal to make the legal process as accessible as possible.
The revision in guidance was prompted by the United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSP) group, which represents professional users of the court. As counsel customarily appear unrobed in family cases the UKSP asked whether this option can be extended to advocates in other cases.
Provided that all representative parties in a particular case agree, counsel may “dispense with any or all of the elements of dress,” following prior arrangement with a registrar.
The guidance extends to those appearing before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
In 2008 the Bar Council launched a consultation on whether wigs or gowns should be scrapped, altered of retained in civil proceedings with 65 per cent of respondents wishing to retain court dress (17 March 2008).
However, many see the wig and robe as a symbol of an unmodernised bar that is not reflective of the 21st century High Court (7 November 2011).
Readers' comments (11)
val | 22-Nov-2011 1:19 am
Why do barristers love drag?
Banana #1: I might not look like much now, but you should see me in my wig and gown.
Banana #2: Oh, are you a barrister?
Banana #1: No, a transvestite.
Omnes: Boom boom. Kindly leave the robing room.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 22-Nov-2011 1:43 pm
What is the world coming to? What will be next?Jeans and trainers?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 22-Nov-2011 2:10 pm
Given it's our highest court and now televised surely robes should be worn, if only to remind the watching world we have the oldest and most respected legal system.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 22-Nov-2011 2:40 pm
why not go the whole hog and offer the Courtroom naming rights to Sports Direct?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 22-Nov-2011 2:41 pm
How does the wearing of wigs have anything with the environment to discuss legal issues? And accessibility? Every time an argument has tenuous connections with hard facts, 'accessibility' is trotted out. Oh that's all right then. Ridiculous.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 22-Nov-2011 2:55 pm
Wigs and gowns do serve at least one purpose for those who are not used to the court process as it helps them at least to pick out which people are counsel
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 22-Nov-2011 3:48 pm
We should keep wigs and gowns. And what's more, we should only allow submissions to be made in Elizabethan English (or, perhaps, Victorian English). People who want to keep wigs and gowns but talk in modern English are too half-hearted for me - where's their commitment to traditionalism?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rural bliss | 22-Nov-2011 6:49 pm
There are few things more embarrassing and irritating than members of an elite attempting to make themselves look like ordinary plebs. It's just Patronising with a capital `P'.
Don't they realise that in this drab and depressing world ordinary people - the very ones they are trying to pander to - actually enjoy and respect tradition? Yes, there's probably a large element of nostalgia, but so what? We need some consolations in life.
By failing to appreciate this, and by failing to respect or even understand such plebeian views they are, ironically, simply emphasising the gulf between 'them' and 'us'.
And since when were the intellectual meanderings of a Supreme Court judgment `accessible' even to most lawyers? So what possible point is there to this pathetic show of false modesty?
There are precious few reminders left of what a brilliant country this was at one time, and these idiots are determined to erase even the last few traces.
So to hell with them and the drab uniformity that they wish to impose on everything and everyone.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 22-Nov-2011 9:39 pm
Any barrister who wants to wear a wig and gown should be allowed to do so on the condition that he (or she) wears suspendors and stockings too.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2-Dec-2011 12:33 pm
I agree with Rural Bliss. For a number of years I have been asking clients their viewa on this matter and have found nothing less than total support for the wearing of wigs and gowns. It seems most of them gain cofidence from this and feel that they really are being properly represented by real advocates.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Kate | 8-Feb-2012 12:30 pm
While I understand some people have reservations about wigs and gowns, claiming they are outdated, the entire purpose of the gown and wig is a sense of annonimity. As counsel you are suppose to represent without prejudice and with fairness and the robe and wig allows counsels and clients alike to recognise this. Where is the argument against that to get rid of them?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment