LEGAL
KEEPING UP APPEARANCES Last year the legal press were greatly amused by a spat between a certain solicitor-advocate and a Crown Court judge WWW.NORTONPESKETT.CO.UK | 01493 849200
THESE EVENTS TOOK PLACE at Cardiff Crown Court at the end of a trail which resulted in a conviction and imprisonment. The solicitor-advocate concerned was a Mr Alan Blacker. He is known, it would be fair to say, as something of an eccentric. He sometimes refers to himself as ‘Doctor Blacker’ and on other occasions as ‘Lord Harley’, though there is no such title in the peerage of the United Kingdom or Ireland. On the occasion in question, Mr Blacker had appeared in wig and robes, as he was entitled to do, for the trial. What incurred the wrath of the judge was that Mr Blacker had apparently sown ribbons and a medal on to his gown, these apparently something to do with St John Ambulance! The judge was not impressed and told Mr Blacker that he looked like something out of Harry Potter, warning him that any repeat of such behaviour could result in the judge declining to hear him. These events raised debate about what sort of behaviour is expected of criminal advocates. In the case of Mr Blacker, his wearing of a wig was in itself a change from past practice. Until comparatively recently, barristers fought an increasingly rearguard action to both preserve the wig and to limit it to members of the bar. Some of the arguments raised were comical. For instance, the bar argued that the wig gave anonymity, presumably protecting judges and barristers from revenge attacks by disgruntled defendants or their families. One might have said that if they really needed anonymity they should have adopted a mask like the Lone Ranger or even a paper bag!
For solicitors who had obtained the right to appear in the higher courts, not being able to wear the wig could single them out as second class citizens and could lead to both the jury and the defendant asking why the defence lawyer was “different” because he was bare-headed and therefore questioning his competence. One is bound to ask what all this has to do with the actual administration of the law. Given that the press nowadays show none of their historic reluctance to criticise bad judgments and perceived bad judges, the addition of robes and wigs would appear to add little to the process. In fact, when the new Supreme Court was created, the new Justices of the Court adopted the approach “Having been brought up of their on a diet of shows such as predecessor, the Law Lords, Perry Mason, it appeared and sat without robes or wigs. that American lawyers Indeed, they got away with murder in went a stage further and court and could wander encouraged around the courtroom barristers appearing in their ordinary attire before them to whilst incisively crossdrop the gowns and appear examining a witness.” in ordinary smart suits, which is what generally happens now. Thus the highest court in the land rejects all formality of dress. No-one would argue that their judgments are the poorer and anyone who has viewed the proceedings of the Supreme Court (filming proceedings and putting them on YouTube is another innovation by the Justices) cannot fail to be impressed by the quality of the arguments and the sharpness of the judges. English law is very conventional, something I was struck by when I entered the profession. Having been brought up on a diet of shows such as Perry Mason, it appeared that American lawyers got away with murder (not literally, of course) in court and could wander around the courtroom in their ordinary attire whilst incisively cross-examining a witness. English advocates, on the other hand, were bound up in wigs, gowns and bands, the latter being starched winged collars which can still only be attached to a shirt with a detachable collar, and were rooted to their places on the advocates’ bench (although, for some reason, in Scottish courts wandering around the court is quite acceptable). The case of Mr Blacker is, however, distinguished not so much by issues of informality as by the question of when behaviour becomes self-centred and sheer buffoonery. Whatever the arguments over court dress, we should never lose sight of the fact that this is a serious business affecting people’s lives. Using the court as one’s personal catwalk is never acceptable.
Julian Gibbons NORTON PESKETT SOLICITORS
NOVEMBER 2015
91