Wig No More

English courts could drop the requirement for barristers wearing wigs amid accusations they are ‘culturally insensitive’, it has been reported.

After several barristers protested that the obligation to wear wigs discriminated against people with Afro-Caribbean hair, the judiciary is reportedly in negotiations to amend court dress standards.

According to reports, judges are considering recommendations put forth by the Bar Council, which represents solicitors in England and Wales. The Telegraph said that any adjustments will be made as soon as possible in the autumn.

This happened as a result of objections made by several black solicitors who demanded that the requirement to wear wigs be removed.

Since 2007, wigs, also referred to as perukes, have not been required in civil, family, or Supreme Court proceedings. However, they continue to be necessary for criminal cases.

Barristers who like to wear a turban or a hijab to court may seek special permission if they would like to avoid wearing a wig.

Styled after 17th-century fashion, they are made of horsehair.

Over the last two years, a black barrister has been at the centre of a heated controversy regarding the wearing of wigs in court, with orders to wear one or risk disciplinary punishment.

A Bar Council spokesman told the Telegraph: ‘Following questions from barristers about wigs and hair discrimination, the Bar Council set up a working group to consider court dress in the context of all protected characteristics.

‘The findings of the working group are currently being discussed with the judiciary as part of our regular dialogue on equality and diversity matters.’

Leslie Thomas KC called for the ‘ridiculous costume’ to be brought to an end.

He said: ‘The wigs certainly should go. There isn’t any place in modern society for barristers to be wearing 17th-century fashion.’

A spokesman for the judiciary said: ‘Senior judges are in active discussions with the Bar Council about the findings of their working group on court dress.

‘We welcome these discussions as part of our continuing joint work on diversity and inclusion in the legal profession.’

How many years into his study of the profession did it dawn on him that he would have to wear a wig as part of the uniform? When the professional dress code is relaxed, so does the profession.

A formal dress code? I don’t think that wigs are necessary and never have been, but it’s an old law that needs to be updated so long as the profession doesn’t fall. However, other countries seem to get away with it perfectly fine without having them, and it doesn’t seem to have affected people receiving justice, and a fashion show is not and never will be essential for the dispensing of justice.

However, we would be removing something because of a particular demographic that finds the wig offensive or dislikes it. People lose hair, let’s face it, but they don’t want others to chop off theirs because they find it offensive.

Because barristers’ wig wear is so famous, maybe if they don’t like it, they should practise somewhere else. If wig producers stopped making wigs to appease certain groups, they would go out of business.

A barrister’s wig lends them a sense of authority, thus they should be treated seriously rather than as props for a fashion show.

I’ve seen female barristers with all manner of hairstyles and they seem to manage perfectly well with their wigs. These groups should follow our culture or go elsewhere.

However, wigs can be hot, uncomfortable, and quite unfashionable. They might have been fashionable hundreds of years ago, and maybe they need updating, but they’re still iconic, and if we are going to oust them from the courtroom, they should go because of that reason and not because it offends others.