Day 134, week 28: horsehair and honeytraps

TopFirst has really done it now. I went off to court yesterday and, relying on his advice, didn’t take my wig and gown. 

“You don’t need them for fast track trials these days,” he said.  “Only multi-track ones”. 

That made sense to me as fast track trials are often not much bigger than small claims hearings and you definitely don’t need your robes for those. I say that because without a second thought I trotted off to court happy not to be carrying with the cumbersome paraphernalia that comes with this job.

Two hours travel and I was at Swindon, chatting with my clients and all ready for our hearing. Just as we were about to go into court, my opponent arrived into the waiting room all dolled up in his robes. 

“You’re robed, I see,”  I commented, trying to sound nonchalant.

“I know. It’s in fast track so no option.”

I tried not to look too stupid in front of my client and decided that the only hope was to try and brazen it out with the judge. In we went. We all rose as the judge entered in full court dress. He nodded and we sat down.

“Mr [BabyBaristsa]. Please stand up.”

“Yes, Sir.”  I rose.

“I’m afraid I can’t hear you.”

“Is this better, Sir?” I spoke a little more loudly.

“No. I said I can’t hear you.”

“How about this, Sir?” Just less than a shout.

“No, you don’t understand. I can’t hear you.”

“I’m sorry Sir,” I shouted. “Would it be better if I approached nearer to the bench?”

“Mr [BabyBarista]. You are in enough trouble without adding insolence to your problems. You seem determined not to understand what I am telling you. Without your wig and gown, I am unable to hear from you.”

“Oh. Sorry Sir. Er . . . might you be able to hear me as why I don’t have them?” That seemed to get him and he paused and had a think. We were now definitely in Alice in Wonderland territory. 

“After all,” I added, “it would cause great injustice to my client if you were unable to hear the case today.”

“So. What is your excuse, then?”

“Well, Sir. I’m afraid they were stolen on the train this morning,” I lied. Not clever, I know, but hey.

“Oh . . . well . . . that puts a different complexion on things, then. I’m very sorry to hear that, Mr [BabyBarista]. In these circumstances, I will permit you to continue.”

After which no more mention was made of the issue. Now, I realise how serious it is to lie to a judge and I wouldn’t normally try and defend it but it would have been absolutely ridiculous if he had adjourned the case due to not having a pompous 18th-century bit of horse hair on my head as I addressed him. Apparently they were brought in to keep the nits at bay and kept on to maintain barristers’ anonymity. Well, I don’t have nits and to suggest that it might somehow make me anonymous when any nincompoop could get my name off the usher is absurd. I did notice it was reported the other day that they may be getting rid of wigs, at least for civil hearings. The sooner the better as far as I’m concerned. 

Anyway, as you might imagine, I arrived back into chambers fuming. A smug “Oh, sorry, didn’t realise” was all I got from TopFirst. Makes me more determined to implement my plan. Got on the phone to HoneyTrap’s agency and booked her for next Monday. I then emailed TopFirst from Ginny’s account suggesting a meeting in a bar in Covent Garden. Within half an hour, TopFirst had emailed back saying, “Great. Very much look forward finally to meeting you. By the way, liked your photo. Here’s one to help identify me on Monday ;-)” 

Well, I had to laugh. TopFirst may be many things, but a lager-drinking sportsman he is not. In fact this couldn’t be further from what he is. Yet, there he was, with probably the only pint of lager he’s ever sipped in his life held aloft with one hand, whilst the other clutched a rugby ball. And to cap it, a huge pair of shades, Blues Brothers-style. What he was thinking by sending that photo I just don’t know, as it was neither cool nor in any way recognisable as him.

Will be interesting to see what he turns up wearing on Monday.

Comments

[Andy Berry]

I totally agree about wigs and gowns. They're pompous and completely outdated. Apparently they're thinking of keeping them for criminal cases which would be pointless.

[Josephine Bloggs]

What's so wrong with a little bit of history and tradition? Shall we knock down the Inns of Court and the RCJ and rebuild them in aesthetically displeasing concrete? Perhaps we could replace Westminster with a car park while we're at it too.

[BabyBarista]

Now there's an idea, but only if we got rid of the politicians at the same time.

Seriously, though, history is one thing but horse hair wigs when you're representing someone in the 21st century? Absurd. Then there's the cost. It almost broke the bank buying my wig and gown before pupillage. All they do is make the law and lawyers seem out of touch and open up the whole system to ridicule.

[ABE]

New barristers have to shell out £700 or more for a wig and gown and a daft red bag to carry them in. Once we've bought the things (which are itchy and scrathcy to wear) we find out that, at least in civil law, we rarely need to wear them. I'd be happy to get rid of them.

[BabyBarista]

...and don't forget the cost of judges' wigs and other regalia. I read somewhere that these are paid for by the taxpayer.

[Charon QC]

But if all the regalia went.... how would the Silks differentiate themselves (apart from sitting in the front row) from the Juniors... the juniors from the solicitor advocates and the solicitor-advocates from the litigant in person.

The British like regalia - just pop down to a lodge one night...or Lords for that matter...

Mention of Lords has just reminded me that some British also have a penchant for wearing tracksuits in the mistaken belief that it makes them look thin / fit/sporty / attractive....

Anyway...there we are....

Charon

[good one]

Baby barrista!! well done on the move..you may be happy to know that your blog is now being read in...CANADA, you have made it accross the sea, well done. I can't stand those oxbridge, arrogant types...go get em!

[Daniel]

TopFirst sounds like a right know it all... he deserves everything he gets! I bet he's never played rugby in his life... giving the sport a bad name indeed. David

[LawDent]

I'm sort of looking forward to the wig and gown aspect of the Bar.
I suspect I will quickly tire of it though. Would be nice to try if out for a bit though.

[mad about babybarista]

Can't wait to find out what happens next..
Incidentally I think the wigs are nice but perhaps I just like uniforms...

[David Giacalone]

Putting on wigs seems like putting on airs to this American lawyer. And, just who makes sure they're clean? Is that another task for pupil barristers around Chambers?

[AustBarNewbie]

Barristers in Australia are still required to wear robes and wigs even when its 35 degrees C,but it is even more confusing in that the rules about when to robe and wig differ between the federal courts and the state courts and depend on criminal and civil jurisdictions and its all a bunch of nonsense. I have worn my robes twice and my wig once in the year since I went to the bar, and the wig was for a ceremonial sitting.

I must say your pupillage (albeit fictional) is significantly different to mine, but much more entertaining.

[clinton]

Careful, BabyB - I don't trust TopFirst, the dark glasses might mean he doesn't want to be identified.