Court critical of judge's wig remarks

A Supreme Court judge has criticised "arch" remarks by a High Court judge indicating displeasure that two barristers had appeared in court before him without wearing ceremonial wigs. The wearing of wigs is optional under law.

During a murder trial early this year before Mr Justice Paul Carney, two defence barristers, Jeremy Maher SC and Michael Delaney, complained that remarks by the judge could only be interpreted to mean he was displeased at their not wearing wigs in court.

The remarks were made during the trial of Anthony Barnes (20), Clonard Road, Ballybeg, Waterford city, for the murder of horse dealer Richard Forristal at his home at Carrigavantry Stud, Co Waterford, on July 31st, 2005.

Barnes was convicted but the remarks by Mr Justice Carney about the wigs were among a number of criticisms of the conduct of the trial raised in Barnes's appeal against conviction, which was dismissed yesterday at the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman, presiding at the appeal court and sitting with Mr Justice Michael Hanna and Mr Justice Kevin Feeney, said that while the remarks on wigs did not render the trial unsafe or unsatisfactory, they "raised call for comment".

There was unfortunately no doubt that, during the trial but in the absence of the jury, Mr Justice Carney twice made "somewhat arch and oblique comments" about the fact neither senior nor junior defence counsel were wearing a wig, he said.

Defence counsel had contended, and "very creditably" the prosecution agreed, that it could only be construed from the remarks that the trial judge was displeased about the fact they were not wearing wigs.

Section 49 of the Courts and Courts Officers Act 1995 laid down that an advocate shall not be required to wear a wig and that law must be presumed to be consistent with the Constitution and valid, he said.

While stressing Mr Justice Carney had not required either counsel to wear a wig, he had commented in such a way as to make it clear he was displeased that they were not wearing wigs and would be pleased if they did, the judge said.

However, Mr Justice Hardiman added, the remarks, though "plain as a pikestaff to any lawyer" were "obliquely couched" and could not have meant anything to Barnes.

The appeal court did not believe they could have had a discouraging effect on him.

It was obvious Barnes was defended not just competently but "doughtily, ingeniously and eloquently" by his defence counsel.

Referring to another "painful topic" arising from the trial, the judge noted Mr Justice Carney had made several "unfortunate" remarks about the Court of Criminal Appeal during the trial in the absence of the jury. Those remarks had tended to personalise to the individual trial judge the actions of the appeal court and were "altogether unfortunate and undignified".