Keeping up appearances part 1
How you look can govern how you are perceived. It is a widely held view nowadays that it is the "inner person" that counts, not the outer shell. However the outer shell is what you see first. That is something which is likely to govern the perception of a person. Not that that perception cannot be overturned, but nonetheless it is likely to be the starting point.
One particular thing which would exercise the mind of any advocate is how their client appears. Not that barristers tell their clients what to wear, as such. However if the client turns up for a conference with counsel wearing wholly inappropriate garb then it is unlikely that the barrister can fail to say anything about it. There is no set form of dress which is appropriate, no standard uniform. Something which appears outlandish or threatening or disrespectful is usually a bad start to a case.
Many years ago when I was quite junior I was once defending a man charged with offences of violence. There were a number of defendants. Whilst there was no doubt that a brawl had taken place, what was much less clear was who were the attackers and who had done precisely what. This particular defendant had been drinking in a pub when the fight started, when a gang (of which he was not part) entered the pub. His case was that his sole participation was defending himself when he was attacked. (Although it is not for Counsel to take a view to guilt or innocence, merely to fearlessly present their client's case, looking at the evidence as a whole I think it is quite clear that that was indeed the case: the jury did not disagree since they acquitted him, whilst convicting various other defendants). He impressed in the pre-trial conference (on the morning at court) as a straightforward individual, and I thought that if the jury were fair to him he would do well. My principal concern was neither the case against him nor how he seemed when speaking to him. It was his appearance.
Not that there was anything wrong with his appearance in an abstract sense. He was about 6 feet 2 in height, very heavily built in a muscular rather than fat sense. His sleeves were rolled up to reveal an extremely brawny pair of forearms, heavily tattooed. He wore a ring through his nose. I was not seeking to be judgemental, merely worrying whether a jury might be. The jury is not generally composed of the sort of people who go into public houses in order to start fights, and might not understand that troublecausers will pitch in to anyone however threatening their appearance might seem to an ordinary member of the public. I didn't want the jury was thinking "I wouldn't like to have a go at him, so why would anyone else?". There was no disguising his size and build, but there was no reason to draw attention to it. At my suggestion he rolled his sleeves down. Whilst I think that jewellery or body art is a matter for the individual, I saw no prospect of members of the jury being influenced in his favour by the nose ring, and I was glad that he removed it at my suggestion.
It may well be (and I would hope) that such minor cosmetic differences were irrelevant. The problem is, you never know. It is foolish to take an unnecessary risk.