Time to end the syrup and figs

October is the month for all those barristers and solicitors who have been given the title of Queen’s Counsel to go and have it officially bestowed on them in the Houses of Parliament.  The pomp and circumstance of the ceremonial dress is a wonderful thing to behold and reminds us all of the noble history of the English system of law which has inspired so many others around the world. 

However, beyond this wonderful piece of living history it is extraordinary that wigs (or “syrups” as they are known in cockney rhyming slang) continue to be used in our courts.  With each year that goes by the dress used by judges and barristers looks more and more out of touch both with the problems they are dealing with and the technology they are using.  For example, claims can now be issued online, judges have access to the internet and courts sometimes take evidence by video-link.  Yet, ancient horse hair wigs still survive.

This might seem merely a quaint anomaly were it not for the fact that the wearing of wigs distances people from the legal system which is there to serve them.  They end up entrenching a ‘them and us’ mentality between litigants and lawyers.  Besides this, many barristers will tell you that the wigs can be uncomfortable, particularly on hot days.  They are also expensive with costs ranging from around £350 to £2,000.  Worse, the taxpayer foots the bill for judges’ wigs.

Of course, some will say that it is essential to ensure the anonymity of the wearer.  However, this is simply unrealistic in these days of the internet and access to profiles within a few clicks of a mouse.  Others say that the dress enhances the authority of the lawyers.  Even without the obvious question as to how the wearing of a seventeenth century headpiece can increase one’s authority, there remains the point as to why, if this is such a formidable tool, no other professions use anything even remotely similar.

It’s perhaps worth remembering that the only reason they were introduced in the first place had nothing to do with high principle.  They simply reflected what polite society was wearing in the reign of Charles II with fashion conscious courtiers trying to outdo each other with the size of their wigs (hence the name “bigwig”).  As interesting as that may be, it provides no reason for this anomaly to continue.  By all means let the judicial ceremonies continue.  But please, let the law be for the people and by the people, rather than by lawyers in outdated attire.

Tim Kevan and Duncan McNair, co-editors