The storm on the head of the law

A few days ago, Hong Kong Chief Justice Ma Daoli rejected the request of the Law Society of Hong Kong that "the lawyer should also wear a wig when he went to court." This request is surprising. Those who have been tempted by the TVB courts know that the tradition of wearing a wig to go to court is from the United Kingdom, and wearing a wig is the most obvious sign that distinguishes between barristers and solicitors.

In the UK, since 2003, discussions on wigs have been initiated, and opposition has prevailed. Therefore, in October 2008, the wig new regulations were implemented: in addition to the trial of criminal cases, judges must wear wigs, other judges and lawyers can choose not to wear wigs.

However, Ye Lide, president of the Law Society of Hong Kong, expressed disappointment with this ruling: "We are worried that there may be a better view of a wig in the jury trial process." Dai, or not? It is a problem.

The wig and the legend of the law

German scholars K. Zweigte and H. Ketz co-authored the book "Comparative Law" to describe the British judge: "In the eyes of people in continental European countries, there is often such a romance about British judges. Image: They wore crimson robes, huge wigs, and tried in a magnificent court."

This should not be the daily dress of a British judge. Since 1635, black has been officially designated as the main color of the casual robes. The red robes are formal attire and are generally worn in criminal cases and major ceremonies. As for the wig, it is believed that the Queen Mary of Scotland was executed in 1587. It was alleged that Queen Mary asked her to give her a little time to organize her makeup and write a will before her sentence, which was allowed in the law at the time. The judge who executed the execution order did not say anything about it: "No, no, madam, you must die right away. You must die between 7 and 8 in the morning, and you can't delay for a moment." This act was met by the British lawyers. Strongly opposed, that this is a contempt for the law, they decided to wear a wig to show the determination to be impartial and impartial.

But this is more like a legend. Regardless of whether the lawyers are openly irrational with the king, there is a more important point: the wig was not popular at the time, as evidenced by the portrait of Henry VIII (father of Elizabeth I).

The wig was fashionable in the 17th century under the influence of Louis XIV and was brought back to England by the restored Charles II in the 1760s. The British Samuel Pepys once mentioned wigs several times in his diary, saying "very type", and in the diary of November 2, 1663, he said that he shaved his hair and made a wig. "Don't say goodbye to your hair, but it's a little sad, but when it's over, I'm going to wear a wig." In this context, it is possible to get a wig into the court.

The original wig is only a fashion decoration for judges and lawyers, and has no specific legal meaning. In the middle and late 18th century, the British gradually abandoned the wig. In 1764, the London wig manufacturer petitioned George III for the law, forcing the gentlemen to wear wigs. Judges and trial attorneys have retained the habit of wearing wigs and eventually made them an important marker for shaping the court's sense of solemnity and ritual.

The law stems from the public ceremony

In the book Law and Religion, American scholar Harold J. Berman believes that law and religion have four elements in common: ritual, tradition, authority and universality. “The rituals of the law, like the various rituals of religion, are the solemn drama of the values ​​that have been deeply experienced. This drama is needed in law and religion, not only to reflect those values, but also Not only to express the belief in knowledge that they are worthy of the value of society, but also to evoke a passionate belief that treats them as part of the ultimate meaning of life."

Wearing a black robe and wearing a wig is the embodiment of this ritual. Berman also said: "Law is derived from public rituals like religion. Once this ritual is terminated, the law loses its vitality." This explains why the ignorance of wigs is a huge controversy. When the 2008 wig exited the UK, it was a young man who opposed it. Tom Little, chairman of the British Young Lawyers Committee, said young lawyers are willing to wear wigs in court because it will make them look more mature and stable.

The United States and the United Kingdom belong to the common law system, but the Americans only retain the robes, but they renounce the wigs. Australia, like Hong Kong, follows the British judicial tradition, with judges and lawyers wearing wigs. In the 1970s, in order to reduce form and enhance harmony, wigs were removed; by 1987, it was said that because of the attacks against judicial personnel, the wigs were restored. In 2007, when the United Kingdom launched a big discussion on wigs and abolitions, Australia also echoed, and the traditional and reformists held their own words.

One of the reasons for the reformists’ opposition is that judges and lawyers are too expensive. The British Constitutional Affairs Department has published a “head fee” for a High Court judge: two red robes and a silk robes of £15,000; a wig of £1,295; a black hat worn by the death penalty of £89; a breeches of £665; Buckle 235 pounds; black silk scarf 320 pounds. Weng Jingjing’s article also wrote that wigs are too expensive, and Hong Kong’s film and television industry is keen to take court games. What should I do? As a result, there are often rumors in the industry. In order to save money, the people in the drama props group sent people into the court to steal the wigs that the barristers put down during the break.

The reason why the traditional faction insists on wearing a wig can be represented by the words of Hong Kong barrister Jacky Lai: "Some people may feel that wearing a wig is ridiculous, but others feel that it is a sign of a group of people. This group of people wearing wigs is using one. Thinking in a logical, authoritative way."