Skip to content
Carmel Rickard writes…
  • Home
  • About
  • Articles
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
Site Search

Why judges like to wear wigs and gowns

  • 30 April 2019
  • by Carmel Rickard

This unusual explanation for why judges in some countries want to hold on to the colonial practice of wearing wigs and gowns in court came from a judge in Malawi as part of a recent decision.

Judge Zione Ntaba of the high court, Malawi, was delivering judgment in the case of Malawi Broadcasting Corporation v The State. She turned down the broadcaster’s application to carry a high-profile murder trial live on television and radio, giving several reasons for her decision.

One study, quoted by counsel in the case and referred to in her judgment, involvedĀ a 1997 survey of 351 judges. It is not clear from her summary whether the remarks attributed to judges in defence of wigs and gowns came from that survey or from elsewhere, but it is worth reading all the same.

The State argued that broadcasting court proceedings might encourage judges to act in a way which might be seen as playing to the camera or that they might feel pressurized by public opinion into making a particular decision or passing a particular sentence. The New York State Committee to Review Audio-Visual Coverage of Court Proceedings surveyed 351 judges in 1997, during the initial experiment allowing cameras in court. A disturbing 37% of these judges said that television coverage causes judges to render rulings they otherwise might not issue. Judges may also feel that broadcasts could put them at increased risk of attack by members of the public who do not agree with their decision or who have a more general grudge against the judiciary. They argued one of the reasons in favour of the wearing of wigs and gowns by judges and lawyers has always been that this, to an extent, serves to conceal their identity and reduce security risks.

Read the judgment

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
Welcome judicial sensitivity in domestic dispute ruling
Afro-soul food has its day in court

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Carmel Rickard writes... via email. Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.


Tags

CCMA (3) chief justice (3) Commercial court (2) constitution (5) constitutional and human rights division (3) constitutional court (4) constitutional rights (5) corruption (3) Court of Appeal (4) Covid-19 (6) COVID-19 regulations (3) damages (3) death penalty (5) dismissal (2) Employment law (6) eSwatini (2) Gauteng (3) Ghana (3) high court (23) Judge John Mativo (2) judicial independence (3) judicial review (3) Judicial Service Commission (3) jurisdiction (3) Kenya (15) Law Society of Kenya (3) Lesotho (5) magistrate (5) Malawi (8) Namibia (13) Rwanda (2) SA (4) SA Constitutional Court (2) SADC Tribunal (2) SA Labour Court (2) security forces (4) sentencing (4) South Africa (4) Supreme Court (11) Tanzania (7) torture (4) Uganda (9) UK (2) Zambia (6) Zimbabwe (14)

Recent Posts

  • Preserve your independence, court urges Namibia’s election commission 19 July 2020
  • African Court tells Tanzania: your constitution violates basic rights 16 July 2020
  • Government’s ‘contempt’ raised in challenge to Tanzania’s bail-ban laws 22 May 2020
  • Malawi appeal court judges set new election standards 22 May 2020
  • What orders did the court issue in the case brought by the family of Collins Khosa? 16 May 2020

Archive

Site by Neogek
Theme by Colorlib Powered by WordPress
 Logo Header Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Articles
  • Subscribe
  • Contact

Subscribe to Carmel Rickard writes... via email. Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.