BARRISTERS are being allowed to ditch their wigs for criminal cases — ending a legal tradition dating back nearly 350 years.
Lawyers have been told they will not be required to wear one if it is “uncomfortable or impractical”.
It comes after complaints from black barristers, who said the ancient accessories were fashioned for white people’s hair.
But ex-Justice Secretary Sir Robert Buckland — a former barrister — yesterday slammed the decision from the Bar Council.
He told The Sun: “This is a nonsense argument that we have heard many times before and which should not be pandered to. Just like school uniforms, wigs are a great leveller.
“They give young barristers the same status in the eyes of court users as more senior colleagues and are also a great way of helping with the security of barristers as few people recognise them outside court without their wigs on.”
Lawyers began wearing them in 1685. Since 2007, they have not been required in family, civil or Supreme Court cases.
Senior barrister Leslie Thomas KC has called for wigs to be scrapped, branding them “culturally insensitive”.
He said they had been “fashioned for Caucasian hair” but looked ridiculous on black lawyers, and it was “nonsense” to wear “17th-century fashion in the 21st century”.
The Bar Council, which represents 18,000 barristers in England and Wales, set up a working group to consider court dress requirements.
Revised guidance now reads: “In some ethnicities, there are associated hairstyle traditions that would make wearing a wig uncomfortable or impractical.
In such cases, the relevant barrister need not wear a wig where court dress is required. No application is required.”
It said guidance is “intended to ensure court dress requirements do not operate in a discriminatory way in relation to protected characteristics”.
There were already religious exceptions, including for lawyers in headscarves or turbans.
