barristers wig

jakdelad

the barrister and the judge are allowed to wear their wigs gowns etc in court
however everyone else must remove theirs???
dredlocks are ok and baldness, but no caps or hats??
rather strange

234

Is there a point to this?

Wolfe Tone

For the life of me I cant see why Barristers would want to wear the wig.

Eve leaving aside the whole British thing, surely they are uncomfortable? Look silly too.

234

I'd agree with that but it's not entirely clear if that is even what the OP is thinking. He might be objecting to the fact that he cannot fit the wig over his dreadlocks or that he can't wear a hat to cover his baldness.

jakdelad

234 wrote: »

I'd agree with that but it's not entirely clear if that is even what the OP is thinking. He might be objecting to the fact that he cannot fit the wig over his dreadlocks or that he can't wear a hat to cover his baldness.

ha ha
you dont see to many dredlock barristers brother

234

No, but I love the idea! Would actually be great if some of then had their hair done exactly like a wig! No need to buy one but on the downside it might look a little odd outside the court.

NoQuarter

I personally would wear the wig, I think its part of the history!

Wolfe Tone

NoQuarter wrote: »

I personally would wear the wig, I think its part of the history!

Thats the main reason I wouldnt wear it!

Wolfe Tone

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Thats the main reason I wouldnt wear it!

You do realise Wolfe Tone was a barrister and he wore the wig right?

Wolfe Tone

Deleted User wrote: »

You do realise Wolfe Tone was a barrister and he wore the wig right?

Yes I do, I fail to see the relevance? Im not Wolfe Tone! :L

Wolfe Tone

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Yes I do, I fail to see the relevance? Im not Wolfe Tone! :L

Yeah just the irony was pleasant to me.

FreudianSlippers

I wear my wig... I don't know it's just a part of being a barrister to me. I don't find it uncomfortable at all - a bit hot sometimes, but it's grand.

almostnever

I'd definitely want to wear the wig, even if only for the history of the thing.

Wolfe Tone

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I wear my wig... I don't know it's just a part of being a barrister to me. I don't find it uncomfortable at all - a bit hot sometimes, but it's grand.

Do most wear it?

I heard certain judges have a bit of a thing about barristers wearing it?

jakdelad

almostnever wrote: »

I'd definitely want to wear the wig, even if only for the history of the thing.

where do you get the wigs???

.....
i suppose it theatrics
remember in the old films the judge put on the black cloth in sentenceing
you knew you were fukked then

Brother Psychosis

you can get wigs from louis copeland, but they just get them directly from Ede and Ravenscroft in London. theres only one or two judges that will enforce the wearing of the wig, but there are a few more who will insist, if you wear iot that you wear it right and give people who aren't wearing it a bollicking! but it isnt compulsory anymore, so aside from thyose few who insist on people weasring it, its an individual choice after that

legaleagle10

damn my limited history knowledge!...whats the "history of the thing"? something to do with the British? il have to google... I thought they wore it for bigger cases rather then smaller cases??

almostnever wrote: »

I'd definitely want to wear the wig, even if only for the history of the thing.

legaleagle10

legaleagle10 wrote: »

damn my limited history knowledge!...whats the "history of the thing"? something to do with the British? il have to google... I thought they wore it for bigger cases rather then smaller cases??

You see them in the Master's Court so the size of the case is irrelevant.

Hooch

legaleagle10 wrote: »

damn my limited history knowledge!...whats the "history of the thing"? something to do with the British? il have to google... I thought they wore it for bigger cases rather then smaller cases??

Wasnt it just for covering identity??

In years gone buy the cloak was worn to hide their clothes and the wig to hid their appearance so if they were seen after court they may not necessarily be identified.

234

Nope, ede and ravenscroft's website has a history of legal clothing. From memory when wigs were first worn they were just in fashion. Originally the gown was nto black but colourful and made of some quite rich materials. The current balck version comes from a period when the legal profession was in mourning for some monarch or the other, the style stuck.

Qwikpix

Brother Psychosis wrote: »

theres only one or two judges that will enforce the wearing of the wig, but there are a few more who will insist, if you wear iot that you wear it right and give people who aren't wearing it a bollicking! but it isnt compulsory anymore, so aside from thyose few who insist on people weasring it, its an individual choice after that

The law gives barristers the option of wearing or not wearing a wig. I do not wear one. A judge does not have the right to insist that one be worn.

Fred Cohen

Qwikpix wrote: »

The law gives barristers the option of wearing or not wearing a wig. I do not wear one. A judge does not have the right to insist that one be worn.

Tell that to Judge Patwell in the Tim Allen case.

Fred Cohen

Fred Cohen wrote: »

Tell that to Judge Patwell in the Tim Allen case.

Fred Cohen wrote: »

Tell that to Judge Patwell in the Tim Allen case.

DPP -v- Barnes pretty much ended this stupid issue.


http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/aded5c6b04f391478025725d00516c14?OpenDocument

Mr. Justice Adrian Hardiman wrote:

The wearing of wigs.
There is, unfortunately, no doubt that in the course of the trial (but in the absence of the jury) the learned trial judge twice made somewhat arch and oblique comments about the fact that neither senior nor junior counsel for the defence was wearing a wig. They contended and, very creditably, counsel for the prosecution agreed, that the learned trial judge’s remarks were open only to the construction that he was displeased that Mr. Maher and his junior Mr. Michael Delaney were not wearing wigs.

Section 49 of the Courts and Courts Officers Act, 1995, provides as follows:
“A barrister or a solicitor when appearing in any court shall not be required to wear a wig of the kind heretofore worn or any other wig of a ceremonial type”.

It will be seen from this that, no doubt wisely and perhaps necessarily, the Oireachtas refrained from any attempt to specify the garb to be worn by professionals in court. But it did lay down that an advocate shall not be required to wear a wig and this law must be presumed to be consistent with the Constitution and valid. It must be said immediately that the learned trial judge did not attempt to require either counsel to wear a wig. But he commented in such a way as to make it quite clear to the barristers in question that he was displeased at their not wearing wigs and would be pleased if they did. To further this point he went out of his way to praise an apparently recently called barrister, who entered court wearing a wig, for his respect of the traditions of his profession.

We were invited to consider this point as a component of a more general allegation of cumulative prejudice.

In our view it is inconsistent with respect for the proposition that counsel may not be required to wear wigs to make arch (or any) remark about whether they are so equipped or not. A judge is in a powerful position; some of his powers are discretionary; advocates less doughty and experienced than Mr. Maher and Mr. Delaney might feel constrained in the interests of their client to conform with the judge’s obvious preferences in this regard. Needless to say there is no question in the conduct of this case of the slightest bias, or even appearance of bias in the conduct of the trial, but that is not the point.

Mr. Maher submitted that, though the remarks were made in the absence of the jury, they can only have had a discouraging effect on his client who, before the case had begun properly saw his counsel in some form of conflict with the judge. We do not think that this is a real apprehension. The remarks, though plain as a pikestaff to any lawyer, were obliquely couched and cannot have meant anything to the defendant. Moreover, the record of the trial makes it perfectly clear that Mr. Barnes, a person in a position of very great difficulty which he brought on himself by his decision to burgle a dwellinghouse, was defended not merely competently but doughtily, ingeniously, and eloquently. Both on reading the transcript and on hearing the arguments addressed at this appeal, the Court was moved to admiration of the defence afforded to Mr. Barnes. Some criminal cases start and develop in a way which favours the defence: this one developed in the opposite way but the defence team never flinched. Mr. Maher’s response to the first remark about wig wearing by the learned trial judge was, we venture to say, an entirely appropriate one.

Brother Psychosis

Fred Cohen wrote: »

Tell that to Judge Patwell in the Tim Allen case.

they can't make you,but there are some who insist,like carney