Should judges wear wigs?

For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails

Sign up to our free breaking news emails

Please enter a valid email address

Please enter a valid email address

SIGN UP

I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our privacy policy

At first glance there is nothing to distinguish Derby Combined Court from hundreds of other court houses around the country. The barristers refer to each other as my learned friend, the witnesses swear to tell the whole truth and the legal arguments are peppered with Latin maxims. It takes a few minutes to appreciate that here in the East Midlands justice is dispensed without any need for the advocates or judges to cover their heads in horsehair – the peruke of choice among the legal profession for hundreds of years.

This is the court of District Judge Jeremy Cochrane, one of the country's wigless judges and possibly a pioneer of dress-down justice. Judge Cochrane, the new leader of The Association of District Judges, has cast off his wig in anticipation of Lord Irvine's plans to relax court dress in all civil proceedings. It's a bold move because many barristers still regard their horsehair headgear as a hard-won status symbol and are not prepared to give up their wigs without a fight. But it is a testimony to the judge's diplomatic skills that no barrister has complained about his court's "relaxed" dress code. "I tell the usher," says Judge Cochrane, "to inform the advocates that I will not be wearing my wig and robe and they [the advocates] should follow suit. I don't believe it should matter what you are wearing just as long you appear smart. I strongly believe that people appearing in front of me shouldn't see someone rendered anonymous by a wig, bands, gown and a stiff wing collar."

On Thursday the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, is to publish a consultation paper which is expected to lead to the abolition of formal legal dress in court. But much still depends upon what the public thinks. Ten years ago a similar exercise carried out by the Conservative Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay, showed that most people prefer their advocates and judges decked out in horsehair. But Lord Irvine has made it clear that he believes wigs get in the way of the administration of justice in the civil courts. As for Derby? "It seems to be working very well so far," reports Jeremy Cochrane. "Sitting in the stuffy court room on a hot day, the open-fronted gown and horse hair wig can be very uncomfortable. If gowns are to be de rigueur then I would like to see the button-through, American-style gown, so you can take your jacket off."

Judge Cochrane joined the legal profession at a time when an argument in favour of abolishing the wig could have ended the promising career of any lawyer. He has sensibly bided his time while working his way up from the very bottom. Brought up by his mother after his Army-officer father left, Jeremy Cochrane's childhood was characterised by extreme hardship. Hard work at school won him a scholarship to grammar school. Eventually he found work as a clerk in solicitors' offices in London and Guildford, Surrey. "I just wanted to be a solicitor because I thought it was a job I could do," he remembers, never once entertaining the idea of becoming a judge. But the firm's senior partner believed clerks should be clerks while only gentleman became solicitors. "I had to persuade him to let me do it and eventually he relented." Even then, Cochrane had to use his holidays to study and take his exams.

In 1969 he was admitted as a solicitor and in 1982 appointed a County Court Registrar, a judicial title which gave way to District Judge in 1991. This month Cochrane, already a board member of the Judicial Studies Board, was elected the new leader of 415 District Judges in England and Wales, who hear a range of civil cases, from family disputes to personal injury claims. Yet Cochrane remains modest in the face of his achievement. "I have just bumbled along and tried to do the best I can. I don't have an antipathy to those who perceive themselves as my betters, but I think we in this country defer too readily to class and we shouldn't. I would like to see wider representation of society at the top of the judiciary, as there is among the ranks of the District Judges."

He adds: "You need to have intellectual ability at the top but I would like to see more people, certainly at circuit bench level, coming in with my type of background. You don't need to be Oxbridge to be a reasonably bright lawyer who knows the law. Your understanding of humanity matters so much more these days."

Judge Cochrane also has strong views about the way judges conduct themselves in their private lives. "I don't think a judge should use his or her judicial title in private correspondence or have their judicial title reproduced on their credit card for it puts people at a disadvantage." Most judges know what constitutes an abuse of their position but the time has come, he says, to introduce an ethical code for all judges so that there is no doubt what is expected of them. This would make it clear that judges can't sit on cases in which their relatives have an interest, and would urge judges not to take part in political protests.

Other jurisdictions have published guidance which sets out how they expect their judges to behave. In England and Wales the Court of Appeal has attempted to give advice on what constitutes a judicial conflict of interest, while the Lord Chancellor's Department has published its own guidance. "These," says Judge Cochrane, "don't go far enough and don't deal, as an illustration, with the situation where a judge is involved in a road traffic accident and under his legal duty to pass on his name and address tells the other driver that he is a sitting judge. That puts the other person in a position where he may feel at a disadvantage and is perhaps calculated to intimidate him."

Under Judge Cochrane's proposals there would be full public consultation, after which a final draft would be published by a panel of judges, chaired by the Lord Chief Justice. But the Lord Chancellor would have no formal input. "I don't think it would be right for the executive to have responsibility for a set of rules determining the behaviour of the judiciary," argues Cochrane. "Again, it's not just about what is fair but what has the perception of fairness."