Discarding wigs - form or substance?

THE EDITOR, Sir:

In the midst of the election hype and drama, another arm of government has quietly made a seemingly small but significant and positive step. The judges of our Court of Appeal have discarded the wigs which they have hitherto worn when they preside over cases.

The president of the Court of the Appeal had a few weeks ago been reported as indicating this move, as well a desire for their gowns to be redesigned to reflect a Jamaican heritage and flavour.

The wigs, formerly made of horse hair and, no doubt, nowadays of synthetic material, mimic the hairstyles of the British aristocrats who in the distant past were the only ones appointed as judges. It is unsuited to our climate and in the opinion of many anachronistic.

Many years ago lawyers practising as advocates in courts made the decision to discard the wig. At that time, the entire judiciary preferred to keep that tradition. The tightly chokered neckband that fits high on the neck and which together with the black robes are not infrequently sources of discomfort was also rejected, but later brought back.

More recently, junior judges in the Resident Magistrate's Court made a weak and, thankfully, unsuccessful attempt to introduce the wearing of gowns in those courts which suffer even more than the superior courts from lack of functioning air conditioners and other facilities for basic comfort.

The discussion of what to wear or what not to wear is not one of frivolity. It is well-known that particular costumes and uniforms create awe, mystery and, sometimes, respect.

More and more today we are embracing the idea that law should be accessible, relevant and comprehensible by the ordinary man. We should earn respect by what we do and how we do it, and not by the wrapping or trappings in which we parcel our truths.

It is for these reasons that I support the move by the judiciary led by the president of the Court of Appeal.

JACQUELINE SAMUELS-BROWN, QC