Law and Rights
It is quite likely that many will consider it to be a "good thing" for the Supreme Court to have issued Revised Guidance on Court Dress at the UK Supreme Court.
Essentially, traditional court dress (gown, bands and wigs) need not be worn where all the parties to a case agree and also the Justices agree. The Revised Guidance states that the court will normally agree - thereby begging the question of when might they not agree. It appears that the initiative for this came from a UKSC User Group. The Guidance notes that court dress is not worn in family cases. Further, the Justices of the Supreme Court do not wear robes - (apart from during ceremonial occasions) - and they decided not to impose this obligation on advocates.
Prior to the creation of the Supreme Court, the House of Lords was at the apex of the UK's legal world. The Lords of Appeal in Ordinary ("Law Lords") did not wear legal dress - (again, apart from formal events such as the State Opening of Parliament) - and this carried over into
the Supreme Court when it was created. Strictly speaking, the House of Lords decided cases in the Appellate Committee and their Lordships delivered "speeches" as opposed to "judgments." The fiction was that they were addressing Parliament and this may explain the fact that the Law Lords did not wear court dress.
Maybe there was something of a case - (I would not put it more strongly than that) - for the Justices wearing at least a black gown once they had moved across Parliament Square to the new Supreme Court. However, it was not to be. Some elements of court dress should, I think, be abandoned permanently. Full-bottomed wigs and buckled shoes come to mind but do things really have to be taken to the other extreme so that even the wearing of a gown by advocates is to become a thing of the past?
No doubt, all of this will be claimed as progress in the interests of modernisation. For myself, I do not think it makes the court any more "accessible" as the guidance claims and it is a pity that we are now seeing the demise of this traditional part of the legal system. Something of the court's dignity will have gone with this announcement. Does it matter? I am not entirely sure but, on balance, I think it does.
- School Dress Codes And The Right Of California Parents To Opt Out Of Uniform Requirements
By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995 Earlier this week, a parent allegedly punched and injured an elementary school principal in Stockton, California. According to the individuals interviewed in a Fox 40 (KTXL) video...
- Debbie Purdy - Rip
The death of Debbie Purdy (1963-2014) has been anounced. Her wikipedia entry is here. The very last judgment of the House of Lords was in R (Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] UKHL 45; [2009] EWCA Civ 92. In October 2009, The Supreme...
- Selecting Justices Of The Supreme Court - New Appointments Awaited
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 s.23 created the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. It has to have a minimum of 12 Justices (or "members"). The court held its first sitting on 1st October 2009 and the previous Lords of Appeal In Ordinary...
- A World Apart From Ordinary Justice: Almost A Parallel Universe
A media video is available of Mr Nigel Pleming QC arguing in the Supreme Court of the U.K. that the men, charged under the Theft Act 1968 s.17 in relation to expenses claims submitted when they were Members of Parliament, may...
- No More "law Lords" Or "law Ladies"
Sir John Dyson, the 12th Justice of the Supreme Court , will not be elevated to the peerage. All the others are peers because they had sat previously in the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. Some might see this as either unnecessary...
Law and Rights
Traditional Court Dress - does it matter? The Supreme Court's new guidance.
Essentially, traditional court dress (gown, bands and wigs) need not be worn where all the parties to a case agree and also the Justices agree. The Revised Guidance states that the court will normally agree - thereby begging the question of when might they not agree. It appears that the initiative for this came from a UKSC User Group. The Guidance notes that court dress is not worn in family cases. Further, the Justices of the Supreme Court do not wear robes - (apart from during ceremonial occasions) - and they decided not to impose this obligation on advocates.
Prior to the creation of the Supreme Court, the House of Lords was at the apex of the UK's legal world. The Lords of Appeal in Ordinary ("Law Lords") did not wear legal dress - (again, apart from formal events such as the State Opening of Parliament) - and this carried over into
the Supreme Court when it was created. Strictly speaking, the House of Lords decided cases in the Appellate Committee and their Lordships delivered "speeches" as opposed to "judgments." The fiction was that they were addressing Parliament and this may explain the fact that the Law Lords did not wear court dress.
Maybe there was something of a case - (I would not put it more strongly than that) - for the Justices wearing at least a black gown once they had moved across Parliament Square to the new Supreme Court. However, it was not to be. Some elements of court dress should, I think, be abandoned permanently. Full-bottomed wigs and buckled shoes come to mind but do things really have to be taken to the other extreme so that even the wearing of a gown by advocates is to become a thing of the past?
No doubt, all of this will be claimed as progress in the interests of modernisation. For myself, I do not think it makes the court any more "accessible" as the guidance claims and it is a pity that we are now seeing the demise of this traditional part of the legal system. Something of the court's dignity will have gone with this announcement. Does it matter? I am not entirely sure but, on balance, I think it does.
- School Dress Codes And The Right Of California Parents To Opt Out Of Uniform Requirements
By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995 Earlier this week, a parent allegedly punched and injured an elementary school principal in Stockton, California. According to the individuals interviewed in a Fox 40 (KTXL) video...
- Debbie Purdy - Rip
The death of Debbie Purdy (1963-2014) has been anounced. Her wikipedia entry is here. The very last judgment of the House of Lords was in R (Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] UKHL 45; [2009] EWCA Civ 92. In October 2009, The Supreme...
- Selecting Justices Of The Supreme Court - New Appointments Awaited
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 s.23 created the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. It has to have a minimum of 12 Justices (or "members"). The court held its first sitting on 1st October 2009 and the previous Lords of Appeal In Ordinary...
- A World Apart From Ordinary Justice: Almost A Parallel Universe
A media video is available of Mr Nigel Pleming QC arguing in the Supreme Court of the U.K. that the men, charged under the Theft Act 1968 s.17 in relation to expenses claims submitted when they were Members of Parliament, may...
- No More "law Lords" Or "law Ladies"
Sir John Dyson, the 12th Justice of the Supreme Court , will not be elevated to the peerage. All the others are peers because they had sat previously in the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. Some might see this as either unnecessary...