Legal gowns, wigs ‘unnecessary relics’

Press, 19 October 1977, Page 10

Legal gowns, wigs ‘unnecessary relics’

PA Wellington Legal gowns and wigs should be abolished in Supreme Court hearings, says the Secretary for Justice (Mr G. S. Orr). “I believe they are an unnecessary relic of the past and such utility as they have is greatly outweighed by their alienating effect on lay people who appear in court,” he said.

He told the Royal Commission on the Courts, when presenting Justice Department submissions, that he had never understood the contention that court costume placed opposing counsel on equal footing. “Counsel’s ability to lead witnesses fully and concisely, to cross-examine effectively, to sum up and persuasively state the relevant law, all seems to be quite independent of how he happens to be dressed. “If, even at this stage of the twentieth century, my proposal is thought too radical, would it not be sufficient if a judge in the Supreme Court were simply robed, counsel and registrar being in normal attire.

“I say nothing of the Court of Appeal save only to remark that members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Counsel find it unnecessary to wear wigs or robes.” One great advantage of the Magistrate’s Court was that magistrate and counsel wore ordinary dress and proceedings there tended to be more relaxed, said Mr Orr.

Mr Orr also suggested that the traditional administration of the court oath in proceedings should be changed. It was not infrequently a garbled farce, he said, suggesting it would be better to require witnesses simply to promise to tell the truth, with a clear statement of the consequences of making a false statement

The “impoverished” image created by court facilities was criticised by Mr Orr. People who were already under strain were unlikely to be put at their ease if they had to gather in overcrowded rooms. They might have to remain in them without the opportunity to obtain refreshments; without adequate toilet facilities; be given no information about where they should go and what they must do; and finally appear in a courtroom banal in both design and furnishing.

“All too often we provide an environment for those attending our courts that most of us would not replace in our homes, offices or places of entertainment,” said Mr Orr.

However, what was ideal and desirable must be balanced against the realities of the financial resources available. Mr Orr said he believed lawyers occasionally employed tactics to delay the final determination of a case, or add to its expense. “I do not suggest that this happens often, but I do believe from my own experience that it does occur occasionally,” he said. “Few things can lower the reputation of our judicial system mqre than a suspicion by the layman that lawyers may be manipulating it to delay justice and perhaps to weary the litigant into accepting less than his due.”

Mr Orr said the autonomy of the legal profession imposed special responsibilities and created special problems. Plainly this autonomy could not be absolute. He said he was sure that co-operation existed between most lawyers and court officers in most centres. But as the volume of business continued to grow, and administrative tasks became more complex, this became more difficult to achieve.

"Yet in these circumstances it is even more necessary,” Mr Orr said. The inexperience of some lawyers, particularly those who practised in the Magistrate’s Court, was a serious difficulty mentioned by registrars.

“The standard of competence shown by law clerks also is a subject on which registrars, particularly those in the larger centres, have expressed concern. “In some court offices, the proportion of documents rejected as incomplete or inaccurate is as high as 30 to 40 per cent.” Mr Orr suggested the establishment of a study group comprising representatives of tiie Judiciary and Magistracy, the Law Society, the Council of Legal Education, University law faculties and the Justice Department to look at ways of providing assistance and training for

newly-qualified members of the Bar, and for unqualified staff in legal offices.