Offshore Litigation

Blog

Offshore Litigation

Contributors

Jonathan Addo
Jonathan Addo
  • Jonathan Addo

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Ian Mann
Ian Mann
  • Ian Mann

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Nick Hoffman
Nick Hoffman
  • Nick Hoffman

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Vicky Lord
Vicky Lord
  • Vicky Lord

  • Partner
  • Shanghai
Chai Ridgers
Chai Ridgers
  • Chai Ridgers

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
William Peake
William Peake
  • William Peake

  • Partner
  • London
Peter Ferrer
Peter Ferrer
  • Peter Ferrer

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jeremy Child
Jeremy Child
  • Jeremy Child

  • Partner
  • London
Claire Goldstein
Claire Goldstein
  • Claire Goldstein

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jayson Wood
Jayson Wood
  • Jayson Wood

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Phillip Kite
Phillip Kite
  • Phillip Kite

  • Partner
  • London
Stuart Cullen
Stuart Cullen
  • Stuart Cullen

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Lorinda Peasland
Lorinda Peasland
  • Lorinda Peasland

  • Consultant
  • Hong Kong
Paul Madden
Paul Madden
  • Paul Madden

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Jessica Williams
Jessica Williams
  • Jessica Williams

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Paula Kay
Paula Kay
  • Paula Kay

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Andrew Thorp
Andrew Thorp
  • Andrew Thorp

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Henry Mander
Henry Mander
  • Henry Mander

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Johnstone
Andrew Johnstone
  • Andrew Johnstone

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Nicola Roberts
Nicola Roberts
  • Nicola Roberts

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
  • Singapore
Julie Engwirda
Julie Engwirda
  • Julie Engwirda

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Paul Smith
Paul Smith
  • Paul Smith

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands

“For heaven’s sake, discard the monstrous wigs which make the English judges look like rats peeping through bunches of oakum”

So Thomas Jefferson is reported as saying, when judge’s apparel in the new constitution were being mooted. Other reports have him saying “Let us have no mice peeping from oakum”. Rats or mice, it is not flattering. The habit of judges and barristers wearing wigs in court came about in the mid-seventeenth century in England, following the Restoration, for a variety of reasons, not all wholly connected with the majesty of the law.

Whether wigs should be abandoned, has long been a topic of hot debate among lawyers. In many common law jurisdictions, including the Cayman Islands, wigs are still required attire for at least some proceedings. For retention, it is said that wigs represent continuity and a long-held tradition, they add the right degree of formality and solemnity to court proceedings, the anonymity that they bring reduces the risk of judges and barristers being recognised outside court by disgruntled litigants, and that it allows jurors, in particular, to concentrate on what is said and not who is saying it. For abandonment, it is said that wigs are outdated, ridiculous, inconvenient (particularly when trying to wear the necessary headphones in the European courts) and expensive. Wigs also pander to what Lord Goodman rightly described as “the peacock pretensions" of the advocate, which is fortunately on the decline, but there is still the occasional irksome feathered display.  They can also be uncomfortable in hot weather; take the case of the unfortunate young barrister, who, anxious that the whiteness of his wig would reveal his inexperience, poured coal dust over it, only for the coal dust to run down his forehead as the heat and his anxiety in court overcame him. But this pales beside the case of Justice Sullivan in the Madras Supreme Court in the early nineteenth century, who solemnly donned his wig in court, to find that mosquitos and cockroaches had taken up residence; a spectator remarked that he “snatched it off in a sudden fit of indignation, and threw it, with an oath that was somewhat extra-judicial, into the middle of the court”.

As for the traditionalist view, there is more than an element of truth in the joke of Justice Rosie Abella of the Canadian Supreme Court: Question: “How many judges does it take to change a light bulb?” Answer: “Change??”

“For heaven’s sake, discard the monstrous wigs which make the English judges look like rats peeping through bunches of oakum”

Leave A Comment