Supreme Court Judge Bizarrely Refuses To Hear Trial Because He Doesn’t Like the Lawyers Wearing Wigs
As of 1st May 2016, Justices of the Supreme Court of Victoria are no longer required to wear wigs as part of their uniform.
The decision by chief Justice Marilyn Warren to de-wig those upon the bench has been met with some criticism by the generally conservative judiciary and legal profession.
Justice Marilyn Warren – Photo Via The Herald Sun
In particular, the Victorian Bar Association which decided that it would allow its barristers to continue wearing the wigs in the courts. As a rule of thumb, the association adopted a policy that counsel may continue to wear wigs if they all agree amongst themselves to do so.
However, earlier this week his honour Justice Kevin Bell really shook up the system by refusing to hear submissions by lawyers wearing wigs. Justice Bell pretty much decided that if he couldn’t wear a wig… no one in his court could.
In a bizarre tirade (full transcript below), Bell tore all three legal representatives to bits based on their lack of respect for the courts and chief Justice Warren as ‘constitutional head of the judicial system of Victoria.’ He even went so far as commending the ‘strength of character’ of a junior lawyer because of his decision not to wear a wig. In the end, Bell had to call an adjournment and leave the court so that the lawyers could remove their wigs from the room before he returned to take them seriously.
This is a far cry from the good old days of lawyers and judges fully clad in wigs and gowns. The horse hair wigs date back to the 17th century and have been used in Victorian Courts since the 1860s.
These rules also apply to admissions, so to all lawyers admitting someone this year… You have been warned. No wigs or you might be on the end of a Justice Bell spray.
Full Transcript
HIS HONOUR: Please call the matter for trial.
MR MIGHELL: If Your Honour pleases I appear with Mr Chancellor on behalf of the plaintiff.
HIS HONOUR: I won’t be taking your appearance, Mr Mighell, I’ll be raising the reason why in a moment. You can sit down if you don’t mind.
MR MIGHELL: Your Honour, if it’s – – –
HIS HONOUR: I beg your pardon, Mr Mighell, just sit down I’ll speak to the others. Who is here for the defendants?
MR SCANLON: If Your Honour pleases, I appear for the first named defendant with my learned friend Mr Clarke.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, I won’t be taking your appearance either,
Mr Scanlon.
MR SCANLON: If Your Honour pleases.
HIS HONOUR: You can sit down.
MS MAGEE: Your Honour, I appear on behalf of the second named defendant with Mr Hamilton.
HIS HONOUR: Ms Magee, I won’t be taking your appearance either, I’ll explain why.
MS MAGEE: Yes, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Mighell, the Chief Justice – if you would please stand – the Chief Justice has directed that judges of this court are not to wig unless the circumstances are exceptional. You are not showing, and neither are your colleagues, showing the respect that I expect of the Chief Justice from you and I want to record my profound disappointment that one, two, three, four, five members of this Bar table have wigs on, though I applaud the strength of character of your junior who does not.
MR MIGHELL: Your Honour, we – I think I speak on behalf of all of the members of the Bar table – we mean Your Honour no disrespect in wearing wigs and we will remove our wigs.
HIS HONOUR: Well I want to make it clear to you that it’s not a question of respect for me, though I do feel disrespected. Whether you intend that disrespect or not, and I accept the fact that you do not intend it and that you are wearing wigs by reason of principle, but I experience disrespect. But the more important question is how this treats the Chief Justice, not only of this court, but this State.
MR MIGHELL: Yes, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: She is the constitutional chief of the judicial system of Victoria and has directed that judges not wear wigs, and you five stand there wearing wigs, it’s untenable. Now the course I will adopt in this case, and the course I will adopt in every case where this happens, is to ask for an explanation. I won’t ask that of you, Mr Mighell, because you’ve already indicated that the wigs will be taken off at my request, and I so request. I’ll give you time to do that in a moment. They will need to be put away as well; I don’t want them to be seen by the jury at all.
MR MIGHELL: We understand that, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: But I make it absolutely clear that if this happens again and there is resistance to a request then I will hear counsel as to why it is that I ought not to direct as a matter of law that the wigs be taken off and I will so rule.
MR MIGHELL: Yes, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: I make it absolutely clear to you and to the rest of the Common Law Bar that I am of the preliminary view that I have the power to direct that wigs not be worn because the judge controls matters of practice and procedure in this court, but that’s a preliminary view and I will hear counsel in relation to that matter. Now in order that I can come back and commence this case in a judicial manner I will go off the Bench and come back shortly whereupon I will take the appearances.
MR MIGHELL: If Your Honour pleases.
(Short adjournment.)