As a legal historian I have very occasionally been casually consulted by TV production companies about historical legal figures. I am always willing to oblige if I can. But a common question is about whether judges in the jurisdictions of the U.K. should be shown with gavels. The answer is easy: no. Perhaps I wrong them, but I got the impression that the T.V. companies desperately want the judges to have gavels as a dramatic prop. This thought is promoted by the recent appearance of a Banksy mural outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London with a figure, obviously meant to be an English judge, in full bottom wig, with bands, in some kind of indeterminate judicial robe, striking a protester with an impressively large gavel. There is a clear photograph in The Times (Tuesday 9 Sept. 2025).
I assume the idea that judges should have gavels comes from familiarity with U.S. films and T.V. They have become an attribute of a judge, like a Catholic saint’s emblem of martyrdom, such as Saint Catherine generally depicted with her wheel. The gavel is meant to be a symbol of authority, but it can easily be reversed into a symbol of comedy, as many comedy sketches have shown, or as by Banksy, into a weapon to make a political point.
But it points up the importance of symbols for legal historians, either in imagery, or in actions. One does not need to be a full-blooded follower of Roland Barthes to realise this. The gavel has become a potent if ambiguous and often ridiculous symbol.
