Change by UK revives debate on court dress
A debate over whether the tradition of wearing wigs and gowns in court should be continued in Hong Kong has been renewed after England and Wales decided to abolish the legal headgear in its civil and family jurisdictions.
Starting next January, judges and advocates in civil and family proceedings in England and Wales will no longer wear wigs, wing collars or bands. A simple gown will be designed for judges in the civil courts.
The 300-year-old horsehair wig, originating from the fashion of Louis XIV of France in the 1700s, can cost a few thousand to tens of thousands of Hong Kong dollars each.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, in announcing the change in July, said there had been no less than five different sets of working dress for High Court judges, depending on the jurisdiction and the season. 'While there will never be unanimity of view about court dress, the desirability of these changes has a broad measure of agreement,' he said.
The reform will result in annual savings of about GBP300,000 (HK$4.7 million) for the judiciary, which provides dress allowances for judges.
In Hong Kong, Bar chairman Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung SC supported retaining the court dress because of Hong Kong's unique political situation.
'The court attire is a way of telling the world that Hong Kong, after its handover to China, is still sticking to the British common law system,' he said. 'It demonstrates that we have 'one country, two systems'.'
Barrister-cum-legislator Audrey Yu Yuet-mee said: 'I think there is a good reason for having uniform and sombre attire for lawyers. But whether this means wearing wigs and gowns, I think clearly can be a matter for discussion.'
A spokesman for the judiciary said: 'It is important to have a dress which maintains the dignity of the courts. The judiciary does not intend to propose any change to court dress at this moment.'
He said a consultation would be held if the matter arose for consideration. The judiciary did not say how much it spent on judicial attire.
The spokesman also noted the chief justice decided no wig was required for judges in the Court of Final Appeal upon its establishment in 1997.
Andrew Bruce SC said it was time for a 'very serious grown-up discussion' on the working dress.
He believed the first step would be to consider abolishing wigs, and to look into whether knee-length trousers, panty hose and full-bottomed wigs should continue to be worn by judges and lawyers in ceremonies.
'One of the biggest problems I've ever faced in my legal career was just before I was made a senior counsel,' he said. 'I had to go and buy the stockings myself. It was certainly a very interesting experience.'
But he said he liked the black gown as 'black is very slimming'.
Former principal magistrate Ian Candy said the wig should be done away with. 'They are extremely expensive. They are very itchy and very smelly. Oil from your hair settled in the wigs after some time.'
The hygiene problem is such that Ludlows, a maker of legal regalia in Australia, will soon introduce a wig cleaning service in Hong Kong.
'Some very senior barristers told me they never clean their wig - they just did not know they could be cleaned. This is certainly an occupational health and safety hazard,' said Lisa Chau, who brought Ludlows to Hong Kong two months ago.
She also has customers from Brunei, Singapore and Malaysia flying in to use her service. Prior to this, lawyers and judges had to order their attire from Britain.
