[ad_1]
A top black lawyer has described the Queen‘s privy council as the ‘last vestige of colonialism’ and called for British judges to stop serving as the final court of appeal for Commonwealth countries.
Leslie Thomas, QC, who works in London, claimed that it was time to axe the judicial committee of the privy council, which acts as the final court of appeal for 32 overseas jurisdictions, including 12 independent nations.
The committee is made up of judges who mostly sit on the UK Supreme Court and it is also based in the same location in Parliament Square.
Historically, it was the final court of appeal for several former British colonies, though many have since removed its jurisdiction.
Mr Thomas says the Caribbean Court of Justice should now be the top bench for the region.
He previously hit the headlines after he said Britain’s traditional 17th century court wigs are ‘culturally insensitive’ and should be banned.
Leslie Thomas, QC, who works in London, says the Caribbean Court of Justice should now be the top bench for the region
The judicial committee of the privy council acts as the final court of appeal for 32 overseas jurisdictions, including 12 independent nations
He is the latest to make the call after Professor Rosalea Hamilton, a Jamaican lawyer who founded its Institute of Law and Economics, used the Caribbean tour of Prince William and Kate in March to criticise the privy council.
In an interview with Times Law today, Thomas said: ‘Contrary to the widely held belief that the privy council is more independent than the Caribbean Court of Justice, recent cases debunk this myth and in fact establish that the CCJ has in recent years been a much better protector of fundamental human rights than the privy council.
‘The time is right to get rid of the last vestiges of colonialism and for Caribbean countries and peoples to have renewed faith in the CCJ. It has certainly proven its worth.’
Professor Hamilton said in March: ‘The colonial legacies that are perpetuated in policies, laws and institutional arrangements that encourage conformity to norms and practices, are ill-suited for the modern world.’
She also added it was ‘time to dismantle the last vestiges of our colonial institution and the ideological underpinning of racism, discrimination and inequality that persist in the world’.
Mr Thomas was previously in the news after he said that Britain’s traditional 17th century court wigs are ‘culturally insensitive’ and should be banned.
He said the white Georgian-style hair pieces look ‘ridiculous’ on black advocates and are ‘fashioned for caucasian hair’.
It came after Michael Etienne, a black barrister with an afro, was told he risked being in contempt of court if he refused to wear one – before suggesting the tradition was an example of ‘hair discrimination’.
Mr Etienne, a specialist in public and human rights cases, had written to the Bar Council to seek guidance on the issue.
The junior barrister tweeted: ‘Asked the Bar Council what could happen if, as a Black Barrister with an Afro, I declined to wear my wig.
‘The answer included: ‘contempt of court’, ‘wasted costs’ and various potential breaches of Code of Conduct. ‘Unless the insistence was discriminatory”
He added hashtag #HairDiscrimination to his tweet.
It comes amid growing calls to outlaw hair discrimination – which often sees black adults and schoolchildren suffer criticism if they don dreadlocks, braids or afros.
The hairstyles can be deemed as ‘unprofessional’ in discriminatory settings due to deep-rooted eurocentric concepts of neatness.
Etienne added: ‘To be clear, I didn’t ask for dispensation. I asked the Bar Council for an indication of whether I might be at risk of sanction.’
Michael Etienne (pictured) was told he risked being in contempt of court if he refused to wear a wig – before suggesting the tradition was an example of ‘hair discrimination’
Leslie Thomas (pictured), QC, said the white Georgian-style hair pieces look ‘ridiculous’ on black advocates and are ‘fashioned for caucasian hair’.
He said the Bar Council ‘doesn’t make the rules but it is supposed to be the representative body, So, we might hope it takes proactive steps to address this issue in the interests of its black members’.
When a fellow Twitter user suggested Mr Etienne ‘tie back’ his hair, he replied: ‘Afro doesn’t just ‘tie back’.
‘Tie it down, maybe. But I object to restraining my hair as a condition of going to work.’
Sam Mercer, head of equality at the Bar Council, told the Times that the organisation was now ‘absolutely’ prepared to ‘take soundings’ on the issue.
The white wigs worn by barristers, known as perukes, are seen by some as a symbol of authority, and offer a level of anonymity to the QCs wearing them.
They are no longer worn in most court hearings in England and Wales, but they are mandatory in the crown court, certain civil hearings and the High Court and Court of Appeal.
But Mr Thomas, one of the most high profile black barristers in the country, branded them ‘nonsense’ and said they should be scrapped entirely.
He told the Times: ‘Wigs are 17th century male fashion, to have them in the 21st century is nonsense.’
Peter Herbert, a former part-time judge and barrister, added that he never wore a traditional wig or forced advocates appearing before him wear them.
‘The sky didn’t fall in, juries were happy, barristers did not get recognised by criminals and justice was still done,’ he said.
Alphege Bell, who was the first ever barrister to appear in court with dreadlocks, suggested there should be a law that recognises the impact wearing the wigs can have on black barristers.
He cited the Create a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair Act, which was passed in California in 2019 to outlaw race-related hairstyle discrimination.
‘It’s about seeing how processes and practices in the workplace have an adverse effect on those with non-traditional hairstyles, and giving them protection and comfort, so they can feel proud and confident that they won’t be subjected to adverse treatment because of the appearance of their hair,’ he said.
Mr Bell added that if the courts want people from diverse backgrounds to become barristers, ‘should we make adjustments to ensure that our processes and tradition don’t adversely affect them?’
In an interview with the Times last year, he said being a barrister ‘shouldn’t be about how your hair falls.’
He said: ‘We shouldn’t live in fear because our hair isn’t a certain way.
‘This job should be about intellectual excellence and ability; it shouldn’t be about how your hair falls.
‘The configuration of your hair doesn’t add to the strength of your argument.’
Meanwhile family law barrister Yaa Dankwa Ampadu-Sackey, who wears her hair in braids, tweeted that the traditional wigs were ‘not always compatible’ with her hairstyle and could make her feel uncomfortable, potentially affecting her performance in court.
Another female barrister, using the Twitter name KingTriiciia, posted: ‘Until we address the deeply rooted anti-blackness at the Bar, nothing will change.
‘All the talks, inclusive and equality projects mean nothing when the root is rotten.’
[ad_2]
Source link
