Why Do British Lawyers Wear Wigs?
I'm not British, so I don't know. Maybe one you people from England could answer this
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ArishMell · 70-79, M
It is partly tradition but a recent, excellent series on BBC Radio Four pointed out another, more significant reason.
The speaker, and a few guest lawyers, is a barrister specialising in criminal-law cases. She said American law dramas shown on British TV have sown common misconceptions about the British trial procedures. I think that misunderstanding might stem also from the USA using essentially the British-invented system of jury trials, presumption of innocence and burden of proof being on the prosecution - qualities absent in many nations, even around Western Europe. (France for example, has its "Napoleonic Code" and trials by tribunal; and just don't be arrested in Portugal.)
The procedure differs perhaps more in details. Among them, the British judge does not use a gavel, and the the wig and gown are a sort of uniform signifying a degree of legal equality in due process. The barristers do not march around the room in obviously expensive clothes and flashy jewellery.
The series explained in several episodes the whole process in serious criminal cases, from arrest via a plea and commmital hearing by magistrates, case preparation by the Crown Prosecution Service, Crown Court trial to and sentence.
The prosecutor is not the Police nor the victim, but the Crown via the CPS, and does not demand nor even suggest the sentence.
The sentence is set by the judge alone, and may be deferred to a later sentencing hearing to allow studying any background reports about the offender that are not themselves trial evidence but may indicate the degree of leniency or severity of sentences that are anyway ruled by guidelines to help apply the law as intended.
The speaker, and a few guest lawyers, is a barrister specialising in criminal-law cases. She said American law dramas shown on British TV have sown common misconceptions about the British trial procedures. I think that misunderstanding might stem also from the USA using essentially the British-invented system of jury trials, presumption of innocence and burden of proof being on the prosecution - qualities absent in many nations, even around Western Europe. (France for example, has its "Napoleonic Code" and trials by tribunal; and just don't be arrested in Portugal.)
The procedure differs perhaps more in details. Among them, the British judge does not use a gavel, and the the wig and gown are a sort of uniform signifying a degree of legal equality in due process. The barristers do not march around the room in obviously expensive clothes and flashy jewellery.
The series explained in several episodes the whole process in serious criminal cases, from arrest via a plea and commmital hearing by magistrates, case preparation by the Crown Prosecution Service, Crown Court trial to and sentence.
The prosecutor is not the Police nor the victim, but the Crown via the CPS, and does not demand nor even suggest the sentence.
The sentence is set by the judge alone, and may be deferred to a later sentencing hearing to allow studying any background reports about the offender that are not themselves trial evidence but may indicate the degree of leniency or severity of sentences that are anyway ruled by guidelines to help apply the law as intended.