Early wigs were made of human hair, such as debtor's hair to pay off debts, or even the hair of the dead. At that time, in court, the smell of all kinds of wigs was so suffocating that judges sometimes had to bring a bunch of flowers to solve it. This situation continued until 1822 Humphrey? Humphrey Ravenscroft invented the process of making wigs with ponytails.
Commonwealth lawyers wear wigs when they appear in court or attend major ceremonies, because it was popular at that time, and there was no mandatory legal requirement. Hundreds of years later, wigs are no longer fashionable, but they have become the old-fashioned image of legal persons following the tradition. Moreover, wigs are unsanitary, too hot, stinging and even ridiculous. However, it is hard to say change. People habitually associate wigs with status, identity and even justice. After lawyers were granted the right to appear in court, they failed to negotiate with the House of Lords many times because they were not qualified to wear wigs. Many defendants also preferred barristers who could wear wigs to defend them. It is said that wearing a wig is directly related to the ability to convince the jury!
Although charles ii's time has long passed, it seems that the original fashion-at least on wigs-still extends its hand from the grave, firmly binding contemporary Commonwealth jurists. In 1970s, in order to comply with the trend of reducing forms and promoting harmony in family courts, wigs were abolished in Australia. But when it arrived at 1987, it was said that the wig was restored because of repeated attacks on judicial personnel. The author believes that this practice in Australia is more out of traditional psychology, or that traditionalists just talk about these attacks in order to keep wigs on their heads. It is absolutely impossible to say that it is the right medicine. Because in Britain, the practice of wearing wigs for judicial personnel of juvenile special courts did not seem to have similar consequences to those in Australia after 1992 was abolished. In 2003, Britain conducted another survey on whether to abolish wigs, and found that most senior judges and barristers wanted to abolish wigs, while junior judges and barristers insisted on tradition. More than 68% of the public want judges to wear wigs, especially in criminal cases, which shows that wigs are still a strong symbol of justice in Britain.
Controversy is controversial, and wigs don't seem to disappear in federal courts anytime soon. Lord Donaldson summed up the debate in one sentence, "Since wigs have been out of date for at least a century, there is no need to cancel them in a hurry."