Practice & Procedure
The real purpose is to assert wordlessly, the finality of rational adjudication from the judge. That is, it is intended to define rationality by reference to the wig; rationality emanates from the wig. Without it, there is doubt and possibly confusion.
This blog is settled in the view that the current fashion of requiring minimal discovery of records/documentation in the course of litigation is mistaken.
We learned little about them but their single-minded pursuit of money suggested things were not as they should be; and Mrs. Kennedy was complicit in it.
A failure to write the letter within the time may lead to the victim failing to recover legal costs against the wrongdoer, depending on what the judge in the case thinks.
This is a staggeringly bad idea. It implies that is possible to be complicit in, effectively, suppressing documents, and be ACTING FAIRLY.
Hearsay evidence is evidence of what some person, other than the witness, has said (on some other occasion), where the purpose of recounting what was said is to establish the truth of what was said (as opposed to the fact that it was said).
Legal practitioners easily forget how arcane it is to do what they do. When the time comes they recognise one thing; giving evidence is intimidating.
It is a criminal offence to resist a lawful arrest, but not an unlawful arrest. Some unlawful arrests are plainly that; more often than not they are seen to be unlawful with hindsight.
Given that they are close to the persons who make up the Rules Committee of the Superior Courts, they will be unlikely, currently or in the future, to direct any criticism or complaint at the work of the Committee.