As far as I know NZ barristers dropped the wigs about 2-3 years ago. I don’t know if that applied to judges or not (I haven’t had the need to hang round a court 
).
I’m watching “the Castle” on tv right now (I love this movie!) and noticed the judges in the high court were wearing the wigs. Is this current practice?
I always got the impression that Aussies were way more republican leaning then NZ, just wondering if some of the old stuff is retained or not.
Yes.
Judges or judges and barristers?
There are 7 states and territories plus the federal jurisdiction. In the ones that matter it’s both judges and barristers. Gowns as well as wigs and the red or blue briefs bag.
That said, many of the jurisdictions are removing or have removed the Queens Counsel (QC) designation for esteemed and pricey barristers and substituted the more republic friendly Senior Counsel (SC).
Odd. I would have thought Aus would have ditched the wig thing well before we did.
Thanks Sevastopol
The Castle is a highly regarded film, I should see it,
… for the vibe.
Thanks Kiwi
You really should see it. It is a sweet, funny very Aussie film that should be much more widely known.
My question was stupid, but prompted by the movie (and it is a fairly old movie), please ignore my question and see the movie. It’s very cool.
Curiousity driven question, intelligently tied into the republican issue. Required a factual answer. Nothing stupid there, I thought.
It was more movie driven really.
I’m all for the monarchy (only cause I think having a president would cost more and he would likely to be some wanker we voted out)
It just stuck me odd that the wig given away here but kept there. If I was a betting women I would bet that Aus would become a republic well before NZ would.
We ditched the wigs in Canada about a century ago, but still wear the gowns. Have they kept the gowns in New Zealand, calm kiwi?
It’s very dependent on the jurisdiction. You certainly see the barristers in Sydney coming and going from the courts in their wigs.
In some jurisdictions the wigs have been dropped on the grounds of “modernisation” and making the courts “more accessible” (e.g. the ACT). In others the wigs are still retained on the grounds of “tradition”, with the argument that the wigs lend a certain aura to the court, its proceedings and, most importantly, its judgement, making parties more likely to accept the outcome as an impartial administration of justice. The Family Court of Australia, which did away with the wigs, then reintroduced them in 1987 after several incidents of violence against Sydney-based judges and their families. The Family Court says robes and wigs are “considered to contribute to judges being seen as impartial agents of the court”.
I’d agree with you there Calm Kiwi, though they are not close to becoming a republic yet, they are a lot closer than we are. I gather that in NZ it is generally a non-issue, where as in Aus it has already gone to the vote once and I guess it will again in times to come.
Six states, two mainland territories plus federal.