Barrister explains why they wear ‘horsehair’ wigs in court

• Formally known as a peruke, the horsehair wig dates back to the 17th century
• READ MORE: Barrister wigs are ‘culturally insensitive’, top black QC claims

A barrister has revealed why ‘horsehair’ wigs are still worn in UK courtrooms, and some people are shocked.

The British woman answered questions about the hairpiece on Reddit’s Ask Me Anything forum, starting with one which asked if it is still ‘customary’ to wear it.

The wig – formally known as a peruke – is a curly horsehair wig traditionally worn in British courtrooms as far back as the 17th century.

She added that while some legal professionals ‘whinged’ about wearing one, it was still traditional to do so, and afforded most barristers the chance to retain a form of anonymity.

She said it was also a way to ‘equalise’ the courtroom, ensuring the focus is placed solely on facts and justice, as opposed to who sported the ‘coolest haircut’.

A barrister has taken to Reddit to reveal why ‘horsehair’ wigs are still worn in UK courtrooms, and some people are shocked (Stock image)

Taking to the forum, she explained: ‘The short answer is that it’s still worn because it’s traditional to do so.

‘Most jurists whinge about it, but there was a proposal in 2007 to simplify court dress and no one wanted it. 

‘The longer answer is that it’s both traditional and a way to equalise the court room, and afford us a certain amount of anonymity.  

‘It’s not about who wears the best suits or has the coolest haircut, it’s about facts and justice’.

Speaking from personal experience, she said wearing the wig was no bother at all, as she simply placed her long hair into a hairnet before stepping into the courtroom.

She added that as it was so low maintenance, most jurists carried it in a bag while on the go, and she herself only cleaned it once every two years. 

The expert continued: ‘Ideally you store it in its box, mine is air tight which helps it stay nice, but some just carry it in their bags with them. Not a lot of maintenance required.

‘To be completely honest with you, I’ve never spoken to another barrister who had an issue with it or wanted to get rid of court dress in general and the wig in particular’.

The British woman answered questions about the hairpiece on Reddit ‘s Ask Me Anything forum, starting with one which asked if it is still ‘customary’ to wear it

And although ‘we British like to moan about things’, she insisted that most people were still happy to wear one. 

‘Tradition may not have a “practical” use but I think there’s beauty in adhering to the old ways, even in something as puny and trivial as wigs’ she concluded.

Offering more insight into the rules and regulations of court dresscode, she explained that following a 2007 proposal, civil courts relaxed their court dress requirements.

It meant that one could choose to forego wearing the wig in civil and family law courts, however it was still a requirement at criminal trials. But the barrister said she’d never seen a judge without one ‘in all the time I’ve been in courts’.

Her answer sparked a hilarious discourse on the matter, with one Reddit user branding the wig ‘fancy nancy’.

Describing it as ‘fascinating’, another added: ‘I find it all quite fascinating. How the court and parliament have sets of rules about how things are done properly. It’s sort of like theatre’.

A fellow barrister said she found them ‘annoying’ and calls for them to be banned from courtrooms. She explained: ‘I am an Australian commercial barrister. 

‘Many of our superior courts have abolished the wig but kept the robes. I still wear my wig fairly frequently because I practise mainly in a state Supreme Court that still uses the wig. 

‘I would probably be in favour of a total abolition of the wig at least in civil matters. It’s entirely unnecessary in 2019 and at odds with the fact that I am arguing about matters affecting contemporary corporate Australia. I also find it slightly annoying sometimes’.

The subject Her sparked a hilarious discourse on the matter, with one Reddit user branding the wig ‘fancy nancy’

Last year, leading black barrister, Leslie Thomas, QC, said the wigs are ‘culturally insensitive’ and should be banned.

He said the white Georgian-style hair pieces look ‘ridiculous’ on black advocates and are ‘fashioned for Caucasian hair’. 

It came after Michael Etienne, a black barrister with an afro, was told he risked being in contempt of court if he refused to wear one – before suggesting the tradition was an example of ‘hair discrimination’.

Mr Etienne, a specialist in public and human rights cases, had written to the Bar Council to seek guidance on the issue.

The junior barrister tweeted: ‘Asked the Bar Council what could happen if, as a Black Barrister with an Afro, I declined to wear my wig.

‘The answer included: “contempt of court”, “wasted costs” and various potential breaches of Code of Conduct. “Unless the insistence was discriminatory”’. 

Source: Read Full Article