Keeping up appearances part 2
Many will consider that in a jury trial a defendant turning up in a suit and tie would be the best course. That however is not necessarily the position at all.
Juries are composed of ordinary members of the public. They are no more likely to be wearing a suit and tie than anyone else. (or for female jurors, the equivalent). A lot depends upon the type of person you are dealing with. There is a very fine line between jurors thinking that someone is making an effort to look smart and show respect, and thinking that someone is trying to look as though they are something that they are not. What would be utterly disastrous would be for juries to get the impression that a defendant is in some way trying to "pull wool over their eyes". They would then start to wonder in what other ways the defendant might be trying to mislead them. That is why most barristers, if asked, would suggest to their client that they attend court in clothes which the client regards as smart and in which the client is comfortable and at ease. If you feel comfortable in clothing you are unlikely to give a false impression, or give the impression that is what you are trying to do.
That I have no doubt was one consideration that would have governed the decision of the Lord Justice of Appeal who was recently tried on charges of indecent exposure. He elected for trial before magistrates, not for trial in the Crown Court before a jury. Quite apart from any concern that there might be some jurors who might welcome an opportunity to have a "pop" at a so-called member of the establishment, their view of a judge in what he wears would be based on an assumption that it was likely to be "posh". That leads to a dilemma. Dressing in that way could confirm a prejudice that here was a "posh" establishment person. Not doing so could lead to an assumption that the judge was trying to pretend to be something he was not. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Were I a judge in those circumstances I would also have elected trial by magistrates.
Changes in appearance are not always governed by court considerations. I once heard a prosecution barrister cross examining a biker (one of several defendants). The evidence was that the people involved in the fracas from which the charges arose all had long hair. This particular defendant attended for his trial with his hair in a crew cut, not completely shaved off but pretty close. The barrister asked him if he had previously had long hair, and the defendant agreed that he had. The barrister then suggested to the defendant that he had shaved off his hair so that he did not look like the description which would be given to the jury of the persons in the fight. "I were going grey and bald, and I looked stupid with long hair, that is why I shaved it off", he explained to general laughter (including from the jury box).