18 November 2008
Tuesday Transcript: Hats off in court, please
This week’s transcript comes from a circuit trial before one of Australia’s intermediate courts. After several weeks of evidence, a thought occurred to the self-represented accused:
ACCUSED: Your Honour, just a question regarding protocol[:] do I need a hat like that one?
HER HONOUR: I beg your pardon?
ACCUSED: Do I need one of those wigs?
HER HONOUR: No, you’re not entitled to wear a wig of a barrister unless you’re a qualified lawyer.
ACCUSED: Thank you.
HER HONOUR: You’re not entitled to wear it while in court. You can wear one in the street if you choose. Yes. Can we have the jury brought in, please.
Update: By chance, traditional courtroom attire was the subject of today’s episode of the Law Report, which presents a range of views on whether wigs and gowns should remain. My own view is that they are an important symbol — especially in the criminal jurisdiction — of the seriousness of the process and its grounding in a centuries-old judicial tradition. What say you?
Related posts:
- Tuesday Transcript: High Court TV reviews
- Tuesday Transcript: Tell us what you really think
TuesdayWednesday Transcript: “Do me a favor, wear it to court”- Tuesday Transcript: Cut Your Losses
- Tuesday Transcript: Mutant Death and Justice Bell
