§ 30. Mr. MackinlayTo ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will review (a) the wearing of wigs and (b) the use of the dock in trials. [28791]
§ Mr. Jonathan EvansThe wearing of wigs in trials was considered through consultation papers in 1992 and 1994. The use of the dock in trials was considered by the royal commission on criminal justice in 1993. I have no plans to order a further review of either issue.
§ Mr. MackinlayIs the Minister aware that the wearing of wigs in court, particularly by judges, not only makes judges look ridiculous but intimidates the accused? Is it not time that we ceased to take the advice of the judiciary in this regard? Should not common sense prevail? Should we not at least give people the option of not wearing absurd Jacobean garb?
As for the use of the dock, the person in the dock feels intimidated and that the case is prejudicial. In a modern society and judicial system, an accused person who has not been found guilty should not feel intimidated and isolated. Is that not prejudicial to good justice?
§ Mr. MackinlayMadam Speaker does not wear a wig.
§ Mr. EvansIndeed, but I shall not be drawn into that line of argument.
In August 1992, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice issued a joint consultation paper on the issue. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's view is 18 shared by a limited number of people: the vast majority of respondents felt that court dress should remain the same.
As for the wider issue of the use of the dock, the royal commission on criminal justice considered it in 1993—
§ Mr. MackinlayAll lawyers.
§ Mr. EvansWith respect, the commission considered the issue in the context of the security of the courtroom. Its decision not to do away with the dock was based on concerns about security—not only keeping the prisoner in secure conditions, but in terms of the prisoner's protection in the court.
§ Mr. AshbyIs my hon. Friend aware that, during the consultation by the Bar Council that he mentioned, defendants were consulted, and said almost to a man that they wanted their briefs to be properly tarted up for their day in court?
§ Mr. Alex CarlileIs this follicularly challenged Minister aware that many of us, who have worn wigs in court for many years and seen our fine shocks of hair diminished by their wearing properties, would gladly get rid of them? Will he bear it in mind, however, that, as has just been said, convicted prisoners—those who have been found guilty despite being defended by the bewigged— still feel that they are represented better by someone in a wig than by a bald man without a wig?
§ Mr. EvansDuring my time in practice in the magistrates courts of south Wales, no such observation was made to me.
§ Sir Patrick CormackWill my hon. Friend use the time that he is wisely not going to waste on this issue to pursue the earlier issue of legal aid? We are not at all satisfied with the answers that we have received this afternoon.
§ Mr. EvansMy hon. Friend may be aware that the Lord Chancellor has been engaged in wide-ranging consultations about the future structure of legal aid. I reassure my hon. Friend that the Lord Chancellor intends shortly to announce in the Green Paper "Targeting Need" his proposals for taking forward the arrangements that were the subject of consultation.
§ Mr. BoatengIf barristers are to continue to be allowed to wear wigs in court, does the Minister think it fair that solicitor advocates should enjoy the same, perhaps rather dubious, privilege?
§ Mr. EvansI do not know whether that question is asked on the basis of the hon. Gentleman's personal experience—he has chosen to leave the solicitors' profession and to join the Bar. The use of wigs by solicitor advocates was considered in 1994, and the general judgment was that there should be no compulsion on solicitors to wear them.