Good reasons behind gowns for criminal trials in District Courts
New Zealand Law Society President Jonathan Temm says a proposal to extend the wearing of gowns to lawyers appearing in District Court criminal trials is a step in a series of initiatives aimed at improving the minimum standards of performance of lawyers, particularly when appearing in the Criminal Court.
In an article in The Dominion Post, Mr Temm says that inevitably some of the discussion has focused on whether gowns are “elitist”.
“It has also been pointed out that a person’s attire has no impact at all on their competence (with one lawyer noting that a bad lawyer will not improve whether they are wearing a gown or a clown suit),” he says.
“It is important to note that the proposal is to introduce gowns for indictable criminal trials in the District Courts. The Family Court, civil and summary criminal matters in the District Courts and other specialist courts such as the Environment Court are not being considered. Nor is anyone planning to bring back wigs.”
Mr Temm says that District Courts handle about 205,000 summary criminal cases, 26,000 civil cases and 2,700 indictable criminal trials annually, but it is only the criminal trials which are being discussed.
“Over the last decade, the indictable District Courts have progressively been given much greater responsibility for the cases which are tried there. They are now the forum for 95% of criminal jury trials, and in many of these there are some very fundamental constitutional and liberty issues,” he says.
Gowns have always been worn in the other courts where criminal matters are tried, and he says moves by successive governments to greatly increase the importance of the District Courts should be recognised by a similar level of formality as in the higher Courts.
Mr Temm says that most importantly, the move to introduce gowns for District Court criminal trials is part of a review by the Law Society to implement a number of changes and initiatives to address standards for all litigation lawyers and for criminal litigation lawyers in particular.
The introduction of gowns is seen as having several benefits in this drive to raise the overall standards for legal practice:
- All lawyers are officers of the Court. Their first duty is to the Court, and the wearing of a gown is a mark of a lawyer’s standing before the Court and as an officer of that Court.
- Regrettably, despite constant reminders, the dress standards of some lawyers appearing in the District Courts has been in decline. There are important issues between the state and the individual in any criminal jury trial, and it is crucial that this is given the respect that such serious criminal litigation demands.
- Rather than being “elitist”, uniformity of attire overcomes bias and prejudice. It reminds people that what is being said is important, rather than who the speaker is. All are equal before the law, and all lawyers should be equal too. Uniformity can be a leveller and provides a sharper focus on the content of oral advocacy.
Mr Temm says Law Society agrees that wearing a gown will not increase experience, competence, forensic skills or court craft.
“These are being addressed by other means. What it will do is accord the New Zealand criminal justice system the respect it requires from members of a profession which has the duty to uphold the rule of law,” he writes.