The Middle Templar 2017

The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting was established to fulfil a single, core mission: to consistently and authoritatively monitor, explain and disseminate new law-changing cases.

Over 150 years on from our founding and untrammelled by the constraints of print publishing, we are building on that original mission by launching an all new Open Law platform that combines ICLR’s expert legal draftsmanship and curation with the power of Big Data.

The Honourable Society of the Middle Temple

THE OPEN LAW PLATFORM FOR ENGLAND AND WALES

• Free access to a vast collection of case law

Judgments handed down in the Court of Appeal, Administrative Court and other divisions of the High Court from 2000 to the present day are available to all, free of charge. In addition, we’re opening up ICLR’s index of leading case law dating back to 1865 for the very first time.

• Intuitive, Google-style searching

Merely publishing a large amount of legal material and making it freely available isn’t enough: the search engine behind the content needs to be powerful and forgiving. The full power of our subscription service search engine is available in front of the paywall. Search by case name, citation, judge, subject matter and free text from a single search box that makes suggestions as you type.

• Overnight case summaries

Case summaries that explain the key facts and legal holdings are available for every case of interest and value within 24 hours of the judgment and are written by the same reporters who produce reports for The Law Reports and The Weekly Law Reports.

• Personalisation

Customise ICLR.3 to show you the content that matters to you.

Find out more at iclr.co.uk/open-law

#freethelaw Ease. Power. Clarity. Authority.

@TheICLR

Issue 57 Michaelmas 2017

Alongside our free open law service, we also offer our professional edition, designed to make your case law research as intuitive and focused as possible.

The Middle Templar Issue 57 Michaelmas 2017

C e l e b r a t i n g L u x u r y S i lv e r

Thursday 4 January 2018

Hall re-opens for Lunch

Wednesday 9 May 2018

New Silks’ Reception

Tuesday 15 May 2018

Survive & Thrive

Tuesday 16 January 2018 Middle Temple Historical Society

Thursday 17 May 2018

Annual Dinner

Monday 21 May 2018

London Legal Walk

Tuesday 23 January 2018

All Inn Dining

Saturday 27 January 2018

Burns’ Night

Saturday 3 February 2018

Cambridge Society Dinner (at Clare College, Cambridge)

Monday 5 February 2018

Tasting at the Temple: Sherry

Tuesday 6 February 2018

Bench Call

• T: +44 (0) 207 242 0518

Friday 25 May 2018

Easter Term ends

Tuesday 5 June 2018

Trinity Term begins

Wednesday 6 June 2018 Amity Dinner at Inner Temple (Benchers only) Monday 11 June 2018

Moot Semi-final

Friday 16 February 2018

Tuesday 12 June 2018

Bench Call

Monday 18 June 2018

Moot Semi-final

Music Night: Callum Au Big Band

Saturday 17 February 2018

Ordinary Dining Night

Sunday 18 February 2018

Sunday Lunch

Monday 19 February 2018

Guest Lecture

Thursday 22 February 2018

Private Guest Night

Thursday 1 March 2018

Survive & Thrive

Tuesday 6 March 2018

Academics Dinner

Thursday 8 March 2018

Call Day

Thursday 22 March 2018

Private Guest Night

Monday 26 March 2018

Bench Call

Friday 28 March 2018

Hilary Term ends

Tuesday 10 April 2018 Music Night: Southbank Sinfonia and Stephanie Childress. Easter Term begins

E: sales@johnsurtees.co.uk

Monday 22 May 2018 Music Night: Anna Huntley and James Baillieu

Tuesday 13 February 2018 Reader’s Feast: His Honour Jeremy Connor

Saturday 3 March 2018 Circuit Judges Dinner at Middle Temple Hall

Vault 16, 53-64 Chancery Lane, London Silver Vaults, London, WC2A 1QS

Saturday 5 and Sunday 6 May 2018 Four Jurisdictions Law Conference in Belfast

Wednesday 10 January 2018 Treasurer’s Reception and Evensong (Benchers only).

Hilary Term begins

Tuesday 17 April 2018

Bench Call

Monday 23 April 2018

Oxford Society Dinner

Thursday 26 April 2018

Private Guest Night

Tuesday 19 June 2018 BACFI and Temple Employed Bar Forum Garden Party Monday 25 June 2018

All Inn Dining

Tuesday 26 June 2018

Music Night: Nash Ensemble

Monday 2 July 2018 Temple Women’s Forum Garden Party at Inner Temple Tuesday 3 July 2018

Middle Temple Garden Party

Sunday 8 July 2018 Temple Big Picnic at Inner Temple Tuesday 10 July 2018

Bench Call

Thursday 19 July 2018

Private Guest Night

Thursday 26 July 2018

Call Day

Tuesday 31 July 2018

Trinity Term ends

Friday 3 August 2018

Hall closes after Lunch

Monday 3 September 2018

Hall re-opens for Lunch

Treasurer: The Rt Hon Lord Dyson  Deputy Treasurer: Sir Paul Jenkins KCB QC Lent Reader: Mrs Pat Edwards Autumn Reader: His Honour Richard Havery QC Editorial Consultant: Adam Speker Editor: Colin Davidson Assistant Editors: Lauren McHardy Lia Jhala Oliver Muncey Photographs: Chris Christodoulou Front Cover: Middle Temple Gardens by Chris Christodoulou Design: Nrinder Dhillon at John Good Ltd Printed by John Good Ltd, Progress House, Butlers Leap, Rugby, CV21 3RQ Contacts: General Enquiries The Treasury Office Ashley Building Middle Temple Lane London EC4Y 9BT T: 020 7427 4800 F: 020 7427 4801 Education T: 020 7427 4800 E: education@middletemple.org.uk Estates T: 020 7427 4840 E: estates@middletemple.org.uk Events T: 020 7427 4820 E: events@middletemple.org.uk Finance T: 020 7427 4800 E: finance@middletemple.org.uk Library T: 020 7427 4830 E: library@middletemple.org.uk Membership T: 020 7427 6385 E: members@middletemple.org.uk Security (24 Hours) T: 020 7797 7768 E: security@middletemple.org.uk Temple Church T: 020 7353 8559 E: catherine@templechurch.com

Š2017 The Honourable Society of the Middle Temple. All rights reserved.

The Middle Temple asserts its moral rights in the contents of this magazine.

Contents 5

Under Treasurer’s Foreword

Guy Perricone

34 Middle Templars and the

U.S. Constitution

6

From the Treasurer

Master John Dyson

8

Annual Dinner Speech 2017

Alex Macqueen

10 The Trial: A Murder in the Family

Master Max Hill

12 Middle Temple and the Changing

Data Protection Landscape

Sarah Cates

14 Free Speech and E-media: a Reprise

Master Richard Spearman

15 Courts of the 21st Century

Master Brian Leveson

16 Myths and Money: Social Mobility

and our Profession

Master Paul Jenkins

18 Brexit: One Year On

Master Anthony Speaight

19 Library Book Donations

Renae Satterley

Robert J Olejar

36 Book Review: The Lawyers Who Made America: From Jamestown to the White House

Master Jeffrey Golden

38 Book Review: Get on With It

Master John Nutting

40 Book Review:

Mr Justice McCardie (1869-1933) Rebel,

Reformer and Rogue Judge

Master Paul Coleridge

42 Book Review: The Lighterman

Master David Wurtzel

43 Valedictory Address

Lord Clarke of Stone-Cum-Ebony

Education Section 44 Welcome to the Education Section

Sally Yorke

Training at the Bar: Changes are on the Way

23 Rudolfine Prague at

Middle Temple Library

45

46

24 1917: The Shelling of the Middle Temple

47 York Advocacy Weekend

Oliver Heaton

25 Sir Thomas Hayes (c1548-1617)

48 50

52

54

Middle Temple Scholarships Rosamund Smith Moot Winners 2016

20 The Silver of the Middle Temple

Master John Leslie

22 Eugene Paul Bennett VC

Master Michael Stephens

Lenka Geidt

Lesley Whitelaw

Master Andrew Parmley

26 Elias Ashmole 1617-1692:

A life in London and Oxford

Master John Bowers

28 The Other Three Inns

Master Eric Stockdale

30 Rare & Unique Books:

Alphabet Books and Language Primers

Renae Satterley

32 Open Garden Squares Weekend

2

Kate Jenrick

Master Derek Wood

The Inns of Court College of Advocacy: One Year On

James Wakefield

Hannah Daly and Phil Judd

Juggling the Worst Conflict Since WWII and the BPTC Ibrahim Olabi

Clerking for the President of the Israeli Supreme Court

Natasha Hausdorff

55 Middle Temple Young Barristers’

Association International Intern Award Julian Ranetunge

56 Lady Templeman - Master Singhvi

Memorial Travel Fellowship 2016

Ralph Morley

58 The New CPD Regime

Master Andrew Hochhauser

61 Pupils Advocacy Course

Suzanna Eames

62 Cumberland Lodge

Hannah Wilson & Ian McDonald

64 Mock Pupillage Interview Scheme

Natasha Hermans & Patrick Wise-Walsh

65 Life at the Inn

Christopher Bates

66 Reflections on Life as a Canadian

in England

Seth Whitmore

68 Call Day

Master John Dyson

69 The Bar Council

Master Andrew Langdon

70 Wellbeing at the Bar and the Role

of the Temple Church

90 Adopt a Barrister: Tacoma, Washington

Colin Witcher

91 Deferred Prosecution Agreement

Master Edward Garnier

92 Why do we Need a New International

Environmental Court?

Master Stephen Hockman

94 Do we Need More Terrorist Legislation

After the Recent Attacks in Manchester

and London?

Master Max Hill

96 Is it Right to Demonstrate that Role

Models have Feet of Clay?

Adam Speker

98 Valedictory Address

Sir Christopher Clarke

100 The Estate in Focus

Ian Garwood

102

104

Middle Temple Historical Society Events Calendar The Autumn Reading 2016: Detention hearings in Northern Ireland in the 1970s

Master David Blunt

72 Living with Difference

106 The Lent Reading 2017:

Middle Temple Ablaze

74 MTSA

108 Employed Bar Awards: What are they?

75 MTYBA

109 The Childrens Concert 2016: A Record

76 Hall Committee

110 The Survive and Thrive Programme

78 Middle Temple Mentoring Scheme

112 2017 London Marathon

Master Mark Hatcher

Master Robin Griffith-Jones Anna Brailsford Will Glover Juliette Levy

Zoe O’Sullivan

80 Middle Goes East - Amity Visit to

Singapore and Malaysia

Master Christopher Clarke

82 Middle Temple Joint Amity visit

to Gibraltar

Master Pat Edwards ChloĂŠ Cina

Master Stanley Burnton Felicity McMahon

Sophie Shaw, Daniel Miles and James Keeley

114 A Musical Evening with John Dyson

and Friends

Master Stephen Oliver

116 The Middle Temple Garden Party:

Master Paul Darling

4 July 2017 83 Middle Temple Association in Mauritius 118 The New Lord Chief Justice

Rashad Daureeawo SC

Master Ian Burnett 84 Development of Common Law in Hong 119 New Masters of the Bench 2016-17

Kong since 1997: A Few Reflections 123 Obituaries

Master Rimsky Yuen 130 Staff News 86 Four Jurisdictions Conference: Dublin 132 Middle Temple Calendar 2017-18

Master Guy Mansfield

88 Adopt a Barrister: Florida

Master Anthony Arlidge

Contents

3

Website: the-bba.com

Website: the-bba.com Email: susan@the-bba.com Email: susan@the-bba.com Tel: 02072424761

Tel: 02072424761 VISION VISIONAND AND MISSION MISSION STATEMENT STATEMENT We exist support, help andand comfort those members of the Bar inof the We exist totosupport, help comfort those members and Wales and theirand families andfamilies dependents whodependents are in Bar inEngland England and Wales their and need, in difficulties. the recent pastDuring we have the who areinindistress need,orin distress orDuring in difficulties. helpedpast barristers and their families in every circuit, often saving not in recent we have helped barristers and their families only dignity butoften careers.saving We helpnot when theredignity is a real catastrophe. every circuit, only but careers.

Confidentiality limitsisour of case histories but they We help when there a disclosure real catastrophe.

Confidentiality include effects of severe illness or injury,but accidents other the limits our the disclosure of case histories theyand include unforeseen tragedies.accidents and other effects of severe illness or injury, unforeseen tragedies.

Our staff are experienced, kind and practical: our Association is a Our staff are experienced, kind and practical: our Association last safety net for those struck down, their partners and children, is a last safety net for those struck down, their partners and where there is no income, no capital, no family back up. children, where there is no income, no capital, no family back up.

Under Treasurer’s Foreword GUY PERRICONE A very warm welcome to this year’s edition of The Middle Templar.

When I wrote the foreword to the 2016 Middle Templar in late May/early June last year, I ended it by commenting on what an extraordinary year it had been, and also by wondering what I might be writing in the 2017 foreword. All I can say is that the past 12 months have been, if anything, even more extraordinary. Certainly, as far as the global stage is concerned, it has been a tumultuous 12 months – sadly, too often for all the wrong reasons. But, on a brighter note, it has been a dynamic and positive year for our Inn, and I would like to begin by thanking all members of the Inn, my excellent staff colleagues and all our friends and supporters for their hard work throughout the course of the past year.

One of the highlights of last year was the adoption of a new five-year Strategic Plan for the Inn. This came into effect in September 2016, and has already had a significant impact on how the Inn is managed and operates. The Plan set out a series of objectives for the Inn as a whole, and also for each of our key areas of activity. It not only provides a direction of travel over the next few years, but also a mechanism by which we can assess our progress, and make sure we stay on track. An update on progress against the Plan is now a regular feature in all our various committee meetings, and this progress will also be reviewed on an annual basis.

At the heart of the Plan is our primary strategic objective, namely to support our members in their professional activities. It is vitally important that the Inn works hard to ensure it is relevant to our members, by providing them with services and facilities that assist and otherwise support them, and which reflect the realities of practice and professional life today. It also means that we are trying to engage more closely with all our members, whether selfemployed or employed, and whether based in London, the UK, or overseas.

To meet this objective, we want to enhance the services and facilities we provide, and to add to these where there is demand or interest. I would note the success of programmes such as ‘Survive and Thrive’ and the Temple Women’s Forum. We have also been working closely with the Bar Council and the other Inns of Court in promoting the importance of Wellbeing for our members, and have introduced a popular series of mindfulness events. We continue to stage popular dramatic and musical events, including a recital by Master Treasurer at the beginning of the year – you can read more about this later in this edition. Where possible, we want to ensure that such events are made available to the widest possible audience of our members through our online platforms and facilities.

So far, the response to these events and programmes has been very encouraging, and we will be looking to expand and add

to these in the coming months and years. However, we are very keen for our members to tell us what services and facilities would be of most use and interest to them, so I strongly encourage all members to let us know their thoughts on this.

One of the key ways we support our members is, of course, through the provision of our excellent education and training services. There have been important developments in this area over the past month, as the Bar Standards Board (BSB) has been conducting a major review of training for the Bar. Middle Temple, together with the other Inns of Court and the Council of the Inns of Court, has submitted responses to a number of consultations issued by the BSB. The main proposal put forward by the Inns and the Bar Council envisaged splitting the Bar training course into two parts. Part One would be knowledge based, and students could prepare for this in a number of ways. Part Two would involve learning the skills required to be a barrister, and would involve attending a course provided by an authorised provider. One of the central objectives of this proposal would be to reduce the cost of training for the Bar. This proposal has been positively received by the BSB, and the Inns are now considering whether they would want to deliver both parts of this new course. This would be a very significant development for all of the Inns, and potentially a very exciting one, although there are some complex and significant questions that will need to be addressed before any such decision can be reached. I expect this issue will be occupying a great deal of our time over the coming months.

The wide range of the Inn’s activities is once again reflected in the fascinating variety of articles you will find in this edition of the Middle Templar. In addition to Master Treasurer’s reflections on his busy year (so far!), Master Christopher Clarke has written about a successful and hugely enjoyable Amity Visit to Singapore and Malaysia in September 2016, and Master Guy Mansfield also writes about the equally enjoyable Four Jurisdictions Conference in Dublin in May this year. Those of you who may have watched the programme The Trial recently on Channel 4, will enjoy reading the article by Master Max Hill, one of the participants in that programme. Other articles range from Master Jeffery Golden’s book review on The Lawyers Who Made America: From Jamestown to the White House, to barrister actor Alex Macqueen’s speech at the Annual Dinner and the brave members who ran in this year’s London Marathon.

I will end this year’s foreword not by tempting fate as to what the next 12 months may bring, but rather by repeating my request that our members provide any feedback on how the Inn can better support them in their professional activities – that is why we are here. I hope you enjoy this edition of The Middle Templar.

Under Treasurer's Foreword

5

From The Treasurer MASTER JOHN DYSON It is a huge honour and privilege to have been elected Master Treasurer. Every time I read that beautiful, elegant grace at a dinner in our magnificent Hall, I am conscious of the majesty and rich history of Middle Temple. How easy it is to take for granted its traditions, the sheer beauty of its buildings and the sense of well-being that working in and around the Inn induces.

How easy it is not to appreciate how fortunate the members of all four Inns are to have joined such a wonderful profession. Despite the pressures of modern life and the increasing regulation to which barristers are subjected, they remain a relatively small, collegiate body of men and women of great integrity who, together with the judges and the other members of the legal profession, perform a vitally important role in maintaining the Rule of Law. The integrity and trustworthiness of the Bar is truly exceptional and the envy of many other jurisdictions. And that special relationship of trust between Bar and Bench is the cornerstone of litigation in this country.

I hope this does not sound self-satisfied and complacent.

There is no room for complacency in the 21st Century. The Bar is rightly under constant scrutiny from the regulators, as well as those who are quick to spot privilege and unfairness.

This is hardly surprising, since the social diversity of the profession still leaves a good deal to be desired. All four Inns are only too conscious of this. Some say that we are perceived as being little more than grand dining clubs. This perception is perhaps understandable in those who know only about our dinners. But if it was ever well-founded, it has not been so at any time during my professional life. Middle Temple is a complex institution whose principal function is to support its members at all stages of their careers and in many different ways. The Strategic Plan that was introduced in 2016 places the support of its members at the heart of the Inn’s activities. It is by reference to this Plan that the most important things that the Inn now undertakes are judged.

The training of Bar students and young barristers has always been a central activity of the Inn. Over the years, I have taken part in many Cumberland Lodge training weekends. This year, I have already attended two weekends at Cumberland Lodge and one at York. As always, the quality of the training given by volunteer members of the Inn was stunningly good and the rapid progress made by the students over a few hours remarkable.

6

For many years, the Inns of Court School of Law had a monopoly over teaching the Bar Training Courses. When that monopoly was broken and the teaching was taken over by private providers, the Inns lost that important role. As is well known, the consequence has been that the BPTC is now delivered at great expense to students, most of whom have no real prospect of getting pupillage. The Inns’ proposal to split the BPTC into two parts has recently been positively received by the Bar Standards Board. The Inns are now considering whether they should provide both Parts themselves. Excellent preliminary work on this has been done by Master Derek Wood, James Wakefield of COIC and Tony Harking of Gray’s Inn. The Inns have authorised them to proceed to the next stage of working up a Detailed Proposal. This would be a major project for our Inn to undertake and one not without risk. Various concerns have already been expressed by members of the Inn and these need to be carefully addressed. Provided that they are properly addressed, I am strongly supportive of this initiative. It would mean that a central feature of what the Inn does is training students to become barristers. What could be more important and less like a dining club than that?

One of the most encouraging aspects of our work in connection with the BPTC proposal is the extent to which the four Inns are working constructively together. I greatly welcome this spirit of co-operation. I believe that it was not always thus. The recent hugely successful visit by Middle Temple and Inner Temple to Gibraltar, which was organised by Colin Davidson, the Director of Membership & Development, with his customary verve and efficiency, illustrates this collegiality very well. The visit was one of many events which have taken place in my year as Treasurer at the time of writing.

You only have to glance at the calendar of events during a typical year to see how thriving and vital a place the Inn is. There are lectures on legal topics of the day. The Survive and Thrive series has proved to be particularly imaginative.

I am delighted that these events are so well supported.

The high level of support demonstrates that there is a real appetite for this kind of thing. Then there are the wonderful musical evenings expertly arranged by Master Stanley Burnton. Dinners range from the All Inn Dining events to the rather more magnificent Grand Days. The former are greatly appreciated by the students, because they afford them a real

opportunity to talk to barristers and judges. It is difficult to overstate the value of such events for the young. The annual Four Jurisdictions Conference was held in Dublin this year.

Stimulating papers were presented and discussions held on subjects as varied as Brexit, Privacy, Damages for Psychiatric Injury and Disclosure of Documents. At least as important was the opportunity to forge and renew links with barristers and judges from the other jurisdictions. There is much to which we can look forward. I would single out the Amity Visit to Washington in September and our first karaoke evening (our ancestors would not approve of such frivolity and I hope they will not be listening).

Last year Master Christopher Clarke wrote shortly after the Referendum that we had little idea of how things were going to play out. Since then the courts have held that notice under Article 50 of the Treaty had to be authorised

by Parliament and we have had the depressing saga of The Daily Mail describing the judges of the Divisional Court as ‘enemies of the people’ and, to the consternation of most lawyers, the Lord Chancellor responding by sitting on her hands. The Article 50 notice has now been given, and none of us is any the wiser as to how things will play out. But the sheer scale of the task of adapting to the new world has become painfully apparent. The issues raised by the decision to leave the EU will occupy the attention of Parliament and the courts for many years to come.

I often ask students why they chose Middle Temple.

The answer most frequently given is not that it has the most beautiful Hall (although it has) or that it has the best scholarship scheme (I don’t know whether it has). It is that it is the most friendly Inn. I have seen for myself that Christa Richmond and the Education team spare no effort in advising and encouraging the students. We are so fortunate to have a wonderful team of people working for the Inn under the caring and watchful eye of Guy Perricone. He thinks deeply about the issues facing the Inn and has been a tower of support for me.

I am very grateful to him, his team and all the members of the Inn for their support and for helping to make this a most memorable year for me.

From The Treasurer

7

Annual Dinner Speech 2017 ALEX MACQUEEN

‘It’s not good news,’ said the Head of Chambers. There was a pause. ‘We’re not taking you on.’

It was a Thursday in October 2000 and I had been sitting by the phone all evening. My feelings of anxiety were all too familiar; I’d spent the last 12 months in a state of apprehension.

My year spent as a pupil had been a steep learning curve with just one goal in mind: to become a tenant.

But it wasn’t to be. They were not taking me on. I’d failed.

I was disappointed and embarrassed. To make matters worse, I had to return to Chambers to collect my obsolete textbooks and redundant files. It was a walk of shame; and, amid the trappings of a future I would no longer have, I met the gaze of both my disappointed pupil master and the successful candidate.

However, as I was leaving, one of the senior juniors took me to one side. He’d been a mentor to me during the year, and over drinks one night, I had confessed that my real ambition in life was to become an actor. As we stood at the front door of chambers, he said how sorry he was that it hadn’t worked out but then ended with a surprising remark: ‘You know, this is the best day of your life. When you’ve done your first red-carpet you’ll have to buy me a drink.’ I thought, ‘The best day of my life? It’s the worst’. It took me three years to realise he was right.

What had seemed a distant possibility suddenly became my only option. I immediately contacted a friend from the National Youth Theatre, who’d since become a casting director. She put me in touch with an actor’s agency in London, called Curtis Brown. An actor without an agent is like a barrister without a clerk. Exactly the same rules apply. If you fall out with either, you will wither on the vine. You need to strike a careful balance between leaving them in peace and reminding them you exist.

Curtis Brown represents some very big stars, so once they had agreed to take me on, I felt it would only be a matter of time before the exciting offers rolled in - from Martin Scorsese, Walt Disney and the Royal Shakespeare Company. Sure enough, just two months later, the call came – my big break: a thirty-second advert for Utterly Butterly!

8

Now, in fairness to adverts, although they’re not the most prestigious of work streams, they are a vital source of both income and experience. Especially for novice actors.

They’re the equivalent of bail apps or winding-up petitions; quick, abundant and excellent training for bigger and better work.

Utterly Butterly was a straightforward sketch, set in an office canteen. However, unusually for an advert, the script demanded a large degree of improvisation. Normally a script would be ‘locked’ months in advance and cleared by the broadcasting authority, the client and the channel, but not in this case. Luckily, my brief time in court had given me vital experience in pretending to know what I was talking about. So I took to ‘making things up on the spot’, like a duck to water!

After the initial panic of the first take, it was exciting not to be constrained by the formality and discipline of a script.

I was in my element.

But the real value of campaigning for Utterly Butterly came two years later. The advert’s casting director was also the casting director for Armando Iannucci - one of the creators of the hugely successful Alan Partridge series. She told me he was putting together a political comedy called The Thick Of It, and, crucially, it was going to be improvised.

I auditioned. And then heard nothing. Eventually the first series appeared on TV. Quick-fire and hilarious, it used exactly the style of improvisation I was desperate to get into.

It was brilliant and an immediate hit. So, I was devastated. If I couldn’t get a part in that, it was probably time for me to give up.

But then, out of the blue, a call came from my agent.

I’d been offered five episodes of Holby City. This was great.

‘And,’ she added, ‘Armando Iannucci has offered you a part in the second series of The Thick Of It.’ I was thrilled.

I was to play the part of Julius Nicholson, a Downing Street Special Advisor, who crosses swords with the evil Malcolm Tucker. From the very first read-through, at the old BBC rehearsal studios in Acton, it was clear this was a project with a highly unusual methodology.

Most TV and film is planned with military precision. It has to be, given the cost. A typical half-hour comedy episode takes a week to film and costs half a million pounds. But Iannucci had been given a large amount of freedom, and in turn passed this on to his collaborators.

For The Thick Of It, a team of writers produce a rehearsal draft which is read aloud by the actors, about a month before filming. This script is then set aside and the actors improvise their way through the scene; same story, same events, but dialogue made up on the spot. The writers then harvest material from the improvisation, to create a new version of the script.

On the day of filming, we would shoot the scene as scripted but then do ‘loose’ versions. These would bear some resemblance to what had been written but would allow us to add whatever we liked. Armando would also brief us against each other. On one occasion, as we prepared to reshoot a scene, he privately told an actor to enter with a plate of food and throw it at his unsuspecting partner – me. This spontaneity and unpredictability made the performances natural and realistic. It was a fascinating way of working and, looking back, it was a really important opportunity. Because of my link to The Thick Of It, I was then cast as Neil’s Dad in The Inbetweeners, and because of The Inbetweeners I’ve, so far, managed to keep my ‘tenancy’ with the agent!

I often think back on my time with the Law, and how close I came to being a barrister. In truth the two pathways are extremely similar. Both actor and barrister are selfemployed, and both have cycles of feast and famine. They both rely on an audience.

As an actor, instead of a clerk you have an agent. Instead of a brief, a script, and instead of a court you have a set.

When I’m asked how I got into acting, I always say: I started off as a barrister but gave it up. And when people describe that ‘giving up’ as a brave decision, I totally disagree. That rejection from my Head of Chambers was the most valuable opportunity I’ve ever had. With the Bar closed as an avenue I was forced to follow my childhood ambition. I still owe that senior junior a drink.

Alex Macqueen is an actor, best known for his roles as Neil’s Dad in The Inbetweeners, and The Thick Of It. He was a member of the National Youth Theatre and President of the Theatre Cambridge University Company, before being Called to the Bar 1999. In 2002 he began acting full time, and has starred in, the BBC’s The Wind in the Willows; Woody Allen’s You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger and Chris Morris’s Four Lions. His other credits include: The Hide (for which he was nominated for Best Actor at the Evening Standard Film Awards), Hunderby, This Is England 88, Peaky Blinders and Black Mirror. He has also made a variety of guest appearances in Peep Show, Miranda, Outnumbered and the IT Crowd. In 2016 he starred in Paulo Sorrentino’s Youth and in the West End revival of The Painkiller. He is an Ambassador for Macmillan Cancer and the British Heart Foundation.

I often think back on my time with the Law, and how close I came to being a barrister. In truth the two pathways are extremely similar.

Annual Dinner Speech 2017

9

The Trial: A Murder in the Family MASTER MAX HILL ‘On average, two women are killed by a partner or expartner every week in England & Wales’. This chilling statistic confronted viewers of Channel 4’s The Trial at the end of the fifth and final episode on 25 May 2017. Those who watched the series saw a murder trial from start to finish, in which ‘Simon Davis’ was charged with the murder by strangulation of his estranged wife ‘Carla’. The trial resulted in a ‘hung jury’, who failed to reach the required minimum agreement of 10 votes to 2. In fact, they were deadlocked at 4 votes for Guilty, and 8 for Not Guilty.

The trial was not real. It could not be, of course, by virtue of section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 which forbids the recording of live court proceedings. This is a statutory provision only partially tempered by the limited extent to which cameras are in place in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, but only ever in the Crown Court with special permission to film the sentencing remarks by senior judges in significant cases; for these exemptions see section 32 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

Channel 4’s series does not create an argument for placing cameras in every court. In order to film The Trial, dozens of cameras were specially installed in the decommissioned courthouse in Newbury. The Trial was filmed over nine consecutive weekdays. Approximately 75 hours of footage was then edited down to the five one-hour episodes which were eventually transmitted. The editing took six months.

‘Simon and Carla Davis’ were portrayed by actors, as were the significant civilian witnesses who gave evidence.

However, professional witnesses (Police officers, forensic scientists, a forensic pathologist) were real, as was the trial judge (HH Brian Barker CBE QC, the recently retired Recorder of London), court staff (the excellent Val and Janet, recently retired court clerk and usher from the Central Criminal Court) and counsel (John Ryder QC and Lucy Organ for the defence, Michelle Nelson and myself for the prosecution).

So The Trial was a drama documentary, but of a unique kind. Although the actors rehearsed in private for a long time, immersing themselves in their characters, they never met counsel until filming commenced. There was no rehearsal in court, and no second takes. We filmed all day every day, taking our cues on timing and procedure from the learned judge, not from the television directors.

10

The result? All in the eye of the beholder of course, but I suggest it was as close as humanly possible to reality. And the key component in this regard was not the professionals, judge, lawyers, expert witnesses, or actors, but rather the jury themselves. 12 ordinary people, residents of Newbury and the surrounding area, who attended public meetings organised by the television company and agreed to give two weeks of their time to appear on screen. The jury were filmed in court and in retirement throughout the trial, allowing the viewer to observe all of their discussions including their deliberations, impermissible in a real trial by virtue of the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

The Trial was a careful experiment in filming a trial as close to reality as the law permits. It was for this reason that I - and I dare say the judge and fellow counsel - agreed to participate. None of us had any access to the jury beyond that which we experience in a normal trial (i.e. in the courtroom itself), and we did not see any of the footage of their outof-court discussions until the series aired on Channel 4. It did not disappoint. We were granted real insights into the private lives, views and even prejudices of the jurors, and I must commend them for opening up to such an extent whilst being filmed. Maybe they forgot about the cameras at least some of the time, something which I did not, with the result that I hope and believe viewers learnt no more about my personal life than would a jury in a real trial.

There were two other reasons for agreeing to take part. First, I hoped that The Trial would dispel some of the myths that surround our work as counsel, myths which are perpetuated by the endless diet of ‘courtroom dramas’ which flatter our profession but are rarely as accurate as the real thing. Move over Rumpole of the Bailey, Kavanagh QC, Judge John Deed and Silk. At last, we were able to show a day’s work in and out of court as it really happens.

Far less exciting than the panoply of dramatised versions on the screen, big and small. And I hope we were able to show that barristers are motivated by nothing more than legal and professional rules, ethics and courtroom etiquette, rather than the personal crusades and tortured private lives our screen counterparts all seem to lead. The Trial may have been rather less exciting than usual screen fare, but also I suspect less exhausting.

The Trial was a careful experiment in filming a trial as close to reality as the law permits.

Second, and for me most important of all, I agreed to film The Trial because the Criminal Bar has been under relentless attack for a long time, and to our shock the attacks have come from successive politicians, some of whom qualified at the Bar but seem to have forgotten the rigour and challenges of life in publicly-remunerated practice. I think of successive Lords Chancellor, both legally qualified and latterly entirely lacking in that regard, who have bowed to HM Treasury demands for public spending cuts to such an extent that the financial security of life at the Criminal Bar is an oxymoron. I write of course as a former Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association (2011-12) and Leader of the South Eastern Circuit (2014-16), so the battle for legal aid is still raw.

I and the others saw an opportunity to accentuate the positive, to articulate as best we can why our criminal justice system continues to need the services of young and exceptionally able men and women who are prepared to dedicate themselves to publicly-funded life in our criminal courts. I do not exaggerate when I say that the Criminal Bar could yet die in a decade, if the brightest and the best do not come through their legal education and join sets like my own. As you would expect, the Criminal Bar now is lighter on its feet than ten years ago, and young tenants wisely diversify their practise, undertaking an impressive array of internships and other placements taking them away from chambers for periods, but they return because they know that to be an excellent advocate remains the core skill of the barrister, and that can only be learned in court.

It is my hope that The Trial will play a small part in enthusing and inspiring another generation of students to come to the Criminal Bar. Despite all the tribulations, it remains a fine life. And so, I finish with a modest plea that those who enjoy The Trial come to the Kalisher Trust. Our website at www.kalishertrust.org is a start. If you aspire to the Criminal Bar, learn about our programmes. If you are already established at the Bar or on the Bench, please consider a donation to support our work. As in real life, after The Trial comes the appeal: support the profession that supports you.

Master Max Hill was Called to the Bar in 1987, appointed a Recorder in 2004, took Silk in 2008 and was made a Bencher in 2012. He was Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association 2011-12 and Leader of the South Eastern Circuit 2014 - 2016. He was appointed as the independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation in March 2017. He remains a self-employed barrister and is Head of Chambers at 18 Red Lion Court.

He is Chairman of the Kalisher Trust and former Chairman of Trustees and current Patron of London children's charity Scene and Not Heard. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.

The Trial: A Murder in the Family

11

Middle Temple and the Changing Data Protection Landscape SARAH CATES On 25 May 2018 the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) will be replaced by the General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (the GDPR), an EU Regulation that will be directly applicable in all Member States. The UK’s decision to leave the EU will not affect the implementation of the GDPR. Unfortunately, the knock on effect of these new regulations mean that if a member does not give the Inn specific consent to use their personal data for specific types of communication, they will only receive administrative messages from the Inn in the future. These members run the risk of missing out on many of the benefits of being a member of the Inn, including receiving information about the Inn’s events, e-newsletters, and even future editions of the Middle Templar.

The regulation applies to any entity processing EU citizens’ personal data, wherever they are based. As the Inn holds and processes large amounts of personal data, including that of members, staff, contractors, and clients, it must comply with the GDPR. In fact, the GDPR has a more detailed definition of personal data, and also includes information such as online identifiers (IP addresses) to reflect changes in technology and the ways that information is collected about people.

Although the GDPR shares similarities with the DPA, the new legislation places stricter obligations on the Inn in a number of important areas. For example, new accountability duties require the Inn to implement a data protection by design approach, involving mandatory data protection impact assessments to assess the risks involved with certain activities, and an increased need to document decisions about processing personal data.

Strengthened individual rights allow individuals enhanced access to their data, the right to object to how this data is processed, and the right to ask for their data to be erased in certain situations – the ‘right to be forgotten’. There are also much stricter rules on how the Inn must obtain consent for processing data, tighter controls around contracts with organisations processing data on the Inn’s behalf, and the introduction of a duty to report certain types of data breach to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and to the affected individuals.

Ignoring these obligations opens the Inn up to the risk of being fined for breaching the legislation. Currently, under the DPA the ICO can issue fines of up to £500,000. Under the GDPR, however, fines for the most serious data breaches will be up to 4% of global annual turnover or EUR20 million, whichever is most. The GDPR, like the DPA, also contains a right to civil damages, leaving the Inn open to legal action from data subjects and potential compensation claims if we are in breach of the law.

All in all, the Inn must take data protection, and the changes resulting from the implementation of the GDPR, seriously.

GDPR and the Inn’s members Meeting the stricter obligations of the GDPR will take time to prepare for, and the Inn has implemented a timetable for compliance, with the aim of putting new procedures in place for May 2018.

The majority of the changes that the Inn will make over the next year for GDPR compliance might not be immediately noticeable to the Inn’s members, although all will benefit from the more stringent regulations around how their personal data is used and held. The stricter obligation around gathering consent for using personal data has, however, provided a good opportunity for evaluation of the communications sent to members, and many may have already noticed changes to how they receive communications from the Inn. Under the GDPR, consent for how personal data is used must be freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous.

Consent should be explicit rather than implicit, and the Inn must rely on affirmative action confirming consent, rather than pre-ticked boxes or inactivity. These more stringent rules mean that if the Inn wants to contact a member using the contact details held in their member record, it must have explicit consent for this purpose. The Inn will need separate consent for communications relating to different topics, as the regulation requires individuals to have granular choices, rather than one consent category with everything ‘lumped together’.

The Inn has already started this process of gathering communication preferences. Members have been asked to opt-in to a variety of different categories to allow the Inn to communicate with them about the things that they are interested in. In addition to complying with the new regulation, this new process means that the Inn will be delivering members authentic and personalised experiences. Members will have more control over what they want to receive, and how they receive it. These changes also tie in with the implementation of a new online membership system for the Inn, where members can manage their own details and preferences, updating them whenever they want. Members now have control over their relationship with the Inn. Members can update their details, including their communication preferences, by completing and returning the form included with this magazine (if received through the post) or by visiting the website for more information.

The Inn’s Data Protection policy can be viewed here: http://www.middletemple.org.uk/about-us/data-protection

Sarah Cates is the Inn’s Information Governance & Records Manager. She is a qualified archivist and records manager, and has previously worked for several county councils and The National Archives (UK).

12

Middle Temple and the Changing Data Protection Landscape

Courts for the 21st Century MASTER BRIAN LEVESON When I started in practice, some 47 years ago, briefs came on foolscap, usually folded lengthways, with carbon copies and few documents. Over the years, papers became bulkier and I remember feeling that my practice was developing when the papers were so bulky they could not be folded and, even more so, when they came in lever arch files. By the time I went on the bench, nearly 17 years ago, the measure was in the number of boxes of lever arch files each set of instructions took up.

Nowadays, if the papers could be folded over, it meant that I had to advise on an almost impossibly difficult question of law!

But things have moved on. Now, in crime, the challenge is not in the pages of statements or documentary exhibits, but the digital material – the cell site analysis, or CCTV footage for certain cases, and the social service or medical records for others. That has created real problems for legal aid assessments (pages of prosecution evidence no longer necessarily reflecting a reasonable proxy for complexity) but also for trial management. Furthermore, whatever the jurisdiction in which we work, we have all been used to marking up papers, with different highlighters, post it notes and multi-coloured flags, making notes in the ever-present blue counsel’s notebooks.

All these devices are just the same as the coloured pencils and the paper flags that I saw in use when I started and which had doubtless been used over the decades before.

It is not only in the advocate’s hands that paper has overwhelmed us. I once followed a heavy criminal file around the path it takes in the Crown Court: it passed along corridors, sat on the desk of pre-trial, listing, post-trial and resulting officials, went to and from court: it is no surprise that documents became delayed, misfiled or simply lost. Civil trials, especially in the County Court (where pleadings have to be filed and bundles lodged), are little different, even though it has long been possible to commence money and possession claims online.

In other words, we have been working in broadly the same way that our predecessors worked, although large ledgers have been replaced by computer based systems. Yet the world has moved on. So much more of our lives are conducted online, through computers, tablets and smart phones and there is no reason why our justice system should not similarly be modernised. E-filing will become mandatory in the Business and Property Courts and Common Platform in crime is allowing

the police to upload statements and exhibits where they can be viewed by the CPS and, subsequently, by the defence, the court and, if necessary, the probation service. Each with their own dedicated and confidential space to make their own notes, mark up the case digitally and prepare accordingly.

I readily recognise that, although the next generation will take to working digitally as quickly as they have embraced messaging and social media, it will not necessarily be easy for many older practitioners who never learnt to touch type and whose familiarity with IT is little more than basic. But it must be the way of the future. If we can master this new way of working, with telephone or internet based video hearings, use of digital evidence and digital presentations for court, the money that would have been spent on clerks re-keying the same information into different computer systems, or simply moving paper around, will become available to improve other parts of the justice system. And nobody would deny that we need it or that this would not be a welcome development.

Master Brian Leveson was Called to the Bar in 1970 and took Silk in 1986.

Educated at Liverpool College and Merton College, Oxford. He practised in Liverpool across the full range of the Common Law. He became a Recorder of the Crown Court in 1988 and was appointed a Judge of the High Court in 2000. He served as a Presiding Judge of the Northern Circuit between 2002 and 2005. He became a Lord Justice of Appeal in 2006 and was Senior Presiding Judge for England and Wales for three years. He was Chairman designate of the Sentencing Council from 2009-2013. From 2008-2011 he was Chairman of the Criminal Justice Council.

In 2011, he was appointed to chair the Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press; his report was published in November 2012. He was sworn in as President of the Queen’s Bench Division in October 2013. He is married with three children.

Courts for the 21st Century

13

Free Speech and E-media: a Reprise MASTER RICHARD SPEARMAN A number of matters relating to the internet and social media, which have been the subject of widespread criticism and concern for a number of years, have been in the news in recent weeks. The Times has reported that Facebook ‘failed to take down dozens of images and videos that were "flagged" to its moderators, including one showing an Islamic State beheading, several violently paedophilic cartoons, a video of an apparent sexual assault on a child and propaganda posters glorifying recent terrorist attacks in London and Egypt’; that YouTube has hosted hate material ‘including bomb-making guides and calls for the extermination of “nonbelievers”’; and that the Texasbased website Gab which ‘has no policy on banning hate speech’ was gaining a ‘surge in support’ in this jurisdiction, ‘its third largest market after the United States and Canada’. A New York Times reporter who covers Isis claimed that Twitter ‘has nothing in its user policy that prevents terrorist material specifically’ and responds to notification of extremist content by saying ‘there’s no violation of our terms’. These problems have elicited a broadly united response not only from individuals whose rights are adversely affected by abuses of free speech, but also the traditional media, and all the political parties. In a report dated 1 May 2017, the Home Affairs Select Committee recommended a Government review of the legal framework surrounding online hate speech, abuse and extremism; and that companies who fail to search for and remove illegal content should be subject to much stronger enforcement measures and have to pay for the costs of others doing so.

The roots of the problem and its consequences were summarised by the New Zealand Law Commission in News Media Meets New Media: Rights, Responsibilities and Regulation in the Digital Age: The idea of restraining, or delaying, free speech, in order to protect other human rights, is an anathema to many internet users. Free speech values and an abhorrence of censorship have been hardwired into the architecture of the internet and are deeply embedded in its culture… However, censorship is not the only enemy of free speech. Those who exercise their free speech to intimidate, bully, denigrate and harass others on the internet lessen the credibility of free speech arguments.

The Article 10 right to freedom of expression is qualified by (among other things) the need to protect the rights of others; and Article 10(2) states that the exercise of the right ‘carries with it duties and responsibilities’. One problem with the internet and social media is that those who exercise their rights of free speech abusively are often in practical terms outside the scope of available legal remedies: they may act anonymously, from outside the jurisdiction, or in such numbers

14

that it is impracticable to obtain effective relief against all of them. Another problem is that identification and development of the arsenal of procedures, remedies and sanctions that may be available to be deployed against intermediaries has not kept pace with their activities. In addition, unlike the print and broadcast media, and indeed (at least in the UK) most providers of services of comparable economic and social significance, intermediaries are not subject to any material form of regulation.

Accordingly, so far as concerns the internet and social media, the effective protection of the ‘rights of others’ and ensuring compliance with the important concepts of ‘duty and responsibility’ are left in large part to the voluntary actions of intermediaries. As the articles quoted above suggest, this is unlikely to be satisfactory, not least because attaining these ends may be contrary to the commercial interests of intermediaries: revenues and profits are influenced by content availability and traffic volumes, and there are costs associated with investigating and acting on complaints.

Criminal prosecutions may be effective against individual abusers and, perhaps, have a chilling effect on other individuals.

But their deployment, let alone against intermediaries, may be problematic. The Report of the Leveson Inquiry states: … the ability of the UK to exercise legal jurisdiction over content on Internet services is extremely limited and dependent on many things… which are rarely aligned.

These include: the location of the service provider; the location of the servers on which material is held; and international agreements and treaties.

Further, Master Max Hill, the independent reviewer of counterterrorism legislation, recently told a conference on Terrorism and Social Media that it would not help for Parliament to criminalise companies such as Google and Facebook because they ‘don’t do enough’ to remove extremist material online, on the grounds (in part) that it is hard to determine in this context either what is ‘enough’ or what sanctions would be appropriate.

In Google Spain SL and Google Inc v Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos and Mario Costeja Gonzalez Case C131/12, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) provided European data subjects with an effective means of asserting their rights against search engine operators, which they have been able to use in later cases (see, for example, Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 311). The CJEU did this by interpreting the Data Directive in the context of technologies such as search engines which post-dated the publication of the Directive and by ruling (a) that a search engine operator engages in ‘processing of personal data’ and must be regarded as the ‘controller’ in respect of that processing and (b) that a search engine operator is within the territorial scope of the

Directive if it sets up in a member state a branch or subsidiary which is intended to promote and sell advertising space offered by that engine and which orientates its activity towards the inhabitants of that member state. In deciding whether the data subject had a right that the information in question relating to him personally should no longer be linked to his name by a list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of his name, the CJEU reasoned that the processing of data that arises from the use of search engines has a particular propensity to affect an individual’s fundamental rights.

The protection of European data subjects will be enhanced when the General Data Protection Regulation comes into effect on 25 May 2018. The recitals to that regulation state that technological developments and globalisation ‘require a strong and more coherent data protection framework in the Union, backed by strong enforcement’, and the sanctions which may be imposed under it have real force (including fines of up to the higher of 2% of worldwide turnover and €10million in respect of some breaches and up to double those figures in respect of others).

More effective protection for the victims of libel would be available if intermediaries were treated as publishers for purposes of the law of libel, but to date that is not the approach that has been taken by English law (see, for example, Tamiz v Google Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 68).

In other areas, such as misuse of private information, dissemination of material via the internet and social media may damage or in an extreme case even destroy rights which the court has held to be legitimate and has sought to uphold by an injunction restraining dissemination, and threaten to undermine the rule of law. The need to face up to the argument that such injunctions have no sensible place in the age of the internet was recognised in PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26. In that case, the Court of Appeal discharged an interim injunction which it had granted at an earlier hearing, because, in the intervening period, the story, including the names of those involved, had been published in the USA, Canada and Scotland, on internet websites and on social media. On the second occasion, The Rt Hon. Lord Justice Jackson accepted that, `the court should not set aside an injunction merely because it has met widespread disobedience or defiance. Such an approach would be contrary to the rule of law', but went on to state that, `There is an important difference between succumbing to disobedience or defiance on the one hand, and accepting that there has been and is likely to be extensive dissemination of private material on the other', that this was not a case of disobedience by the media, and that one of the difficulties about the submission that the case involved defiance was that `the Internet and social networking have a life of their own'.

The claimant appealed to the Supreme Court, which, by a majority, allowed the appeal and ordered the continuation of the interim injunction until trial or further order. The Rt Hon. The Lord Mance said at: [45] At the end of the day, the only consideration militating in favour of discharging the injunction is the incongruity of the parallel - and in probability significantly uncontrollable - world of the internet and social media, which may make further inroads into the protection intended by the injunction.

European and domestic case law has worked out sophisticated ways of balancing competing rights so far

as the traditional media are concerned. Cases such as Mosley v United Kingdom [2012] EMLR 1 recognise the distinction between, on the one hand, ‘reporting facts capable of contributing to a debate of general public interest in a democratic society’, in respect of which ‘the pre-eminent role of the press in a democracy and its duty to act as a “public watchdog” are important considerations in favour of a narrow construction of any limitations on freedom of expression’ and, on the other hand, ‘press reports concentrating on sensational and, at times, lurid news, intended to titillate and entertain, which are aimed at satisfying the curiosity of a particular readership regarding aspects of a person’s strictly private life’ which ‘does not attract the robust protection of Article 10 afforded to the press and in respect of which freedom of expression requires a more narrow interpretation’; and that ‘the public interest cannot be reduced to the public’s thirst for information about the private life of others, or to the reader’s wish for sensationalism or even voyeurism’ (see Couderc v France [2016] EMLR 19).

In Times Newspapers Ltd v Flood [2017] UKSC 33, part of the analysis proceeded on the assumption that there is a rule that, where a claim involves restricting the freedom of expression of a defendant such as a newspaper or broadcaster, it would, as a matter of domestic law, normally infringe the defendant’s Article 10 rights to require it to reimburse the success fee and ATE premium for which the claimant is liable under the regime established by the Access to Justice Act 1999 Act. At [63], The Rt Hon. The Lord Neuberger expressed the view, bearing in mind that the rationale of the rule is to the effect that ‘the most careful scrutiny on the part of the court is called for when measures taken by a national authority are capable of discouraging the participation of the press in debates over matters of legitimate public concern’, that rule could not properly be invoked by a media defendant which had engaged in persistent, pervasive and flagrant hacking and blagging, and where the information which that would be expected to and did reveal lacked any public significance.

These intellectually refined and nuanced approaches do not apply to the internet and social media, either as a matter of language or as a matter of practice. A system of law which subjects some media and not others to an enforceable regime gives rise to problems of both fairness and utility: why is it fair on the traditional media; and what purpose does it serve if it applies to only some media?

The possible solutions of voluntary action, criminal proceedings, substantive claims and amenability to injunctions were also considered by the New Zealand Law Commission in Rights, Responsibilities and Regulation in the Digital Age. The above discussion suggests that although the rights in play are clear and important, the relevant responsibilities are not being shouldered: in these circumstances, might regulation be the answer?

Master Richard Spearman was Called in 1977. He practises from 39 Essex Chambers, took Silk in 1996, and is a Deputy High Court Judge. His many reported cases include leading cases in the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords concerning defamation, copyright, confidence, private information and data protection.

Free Speech and E-media: a Reprise

15

Myths and Money: Social Mobility and our Profession MASTER PAUL JENKINS The first question the school careers adviser asked me when I said I wanted to be a barrister was, ‘Is your father a lawyer?’

‘Do you have family connections in the law’ came next. The answer to both being ‘no’, the third and final question – a bit out of left field, I felt – was, ‘Have you ever thought about becoming a librarian?’ Despite this I’ve always loved libraries and librarians and very much look forward to supporting our excellent Librarian, Renae Satterley, and her team during my year as Treasurer. But the conversation did give me a sense of what I might be up against pursuing my teenage dream of becoming a barrister. It was a myth, but the careers adviser knew no better: no connections, no chance.

I went to Manchester University at a time when the Law Faculty was full of amazing talent. I was taught family law by a bright young tutor called Brenda Hoggett (Hale, as she became) and my lifelong passion for the, then rather niche, discipline of public law was sparked by the inspirational Professor Harry Street. Nobody tried to persuade me to become a librarian but, the Bar? ‘Is your father a lawyer?’, ‘Do you have family connections in the law?’ The same questions, even if the advice was different: ‘Become a solicitor’. Even they subscribed to the myth: no connections, no chance.

It worked out quite well in the end, thanks in no small part to the Middle Temple who busted the ‘no connections’ myth and gave me much financial and other support. But I wonder what would happen if I was starting now. Do the myths still prevail? Could we do more to tackle them? What fresh obstacles might get in the way now?

16

I went to a State school, was the first member of my family to go to university and (as we have just seen) had no connections with or in the law at all. Given all this, my parents were a bit bemused by my aspiration to become a barrister. Bemusement turned to worry when I told them that not only did I have to do a three year degree course but I also had another two years unpaid training after that. Worry turned to concern when I told them all the wise people at Manchester said become a solicitor. Concern turned to mild hysteria when I said the chances of ending up in practice at the end of all this were quite small.

But, like many devoted parents before and since, they saw my determination to try and backed me through the bemusement, worry and worse. I was very aware of the burdens it put on them and the sacrifices they made to let me follow my dream. They both saw me Called to the Bar and my mother lived long enough to see me reach the top of the profession.

But I’m afraid it might all have been rather different now. There has been progress, of course. Pupillage is now paid for example and, in some cases, exceptionally well.

But when I started off, it was in the days when students in need were given grants, not loans, and when all tuition fees both at university and Bar school were paid for by the State.

I asked my parents to take a big gamble for their child but at the end of my pupillage I still had very little debt. If I’d had to say to them that not only are the odds on succeeding quite small but, by the way, I will have racked up £50,000 debt on this perilous journey – well, I couldn’t possibly have asked them to go along with my dream.

The Middle Temple has always done a magnificent job supporting our students and never more so than now. Every year we give over £1 million in scholarships to BPTC students.

We award 20 plus Access to the Bar awards. We bust the myths at our annual Open Day for Schools and Universities, with sixth form visits to the Inn and with the work we do with charities and outreach organisations to connect with those from non-traditional backgrounds.

But who knows how many excellent students, particularly from non-traditional backgrounds, turn away from the Bar – as I would have done – because the risks are now combined with the intolerable levels of debt? Despite all the work we do in the Inn, we face the real risk that our profession, far from embracing social mobility, will buck the trend in every other profession and slide backwards.

In recent years we have increased our scholarship funds and we have invested more in outreach. But we need to do more and in a more systematic way if we are not, as a profession, to slide backwards in terms of diversity and social mobility. In 2018, during my Treasurership, we will begin to tackle this in a programme agreed with the Deputy TreasurerElect, Richard Wilmot Smith QC, and hopefully with whoever is elected later this year to be Treasurer in 2020. In that way we can have a sustained programme of fundraising, support and outreach with the potential to grow and endure long into the future. We can ensure that the brightest and the best are given the opportunity to join our profession no matter what their background, no matter what their school or university, no matter what their personal circumstances.

Master Jenkins read law at Manchester University, was Called to the Bar in 1977 and to the Bench in 2002. From 2006 to 2014 he was Her Majesty’s Procurator General, Permanent Secretary to the Attorney General, Treasury Solicitor and Head of the Government Legal Department. He was appointed Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath in 2012. He is now in practice at Matrix Chambers. He will be Treasurer in 2018.

The Middle Temple has always done a magnificent job supporting our students and never more so than now.

Best in class for 50 Years With over 6000 customers, and a trusted

 Free next day delivery

supplier to the MoJ, Hammicks has been

 Best price guaranteed

providing Chambers and Law firms with

 NO management fees

exceptional support and service for legal

 FREE Subscription management

texts.

 Dedicated Account Manager

Speak to our friendly account managers today and discover the difference.

Call 01784 425201

www.hammickslegal.com

Myths and Money: Social Mobility and our Profession

•1/2 page Middle: wide

114mm high x 177mm

17

Brexit One Year On MASTER ANTHONY SPEAIGHT During his year as Treasurer in 2015 Master Stephen Hockman observed that a number of the country’s most distinguished experts on the constitution were Benchers of the Inn. He encouraged discussion of the United Kingdom’s constitutional architecture in the hope that the Inn could make some wider contribution out of this constitutional law expertise. At that time the principal constitutional issue was devolution in the aftermath of the Scottish referendum, whilst English votes for English laws and the St David’s Day stage of devolution for Wales were being introduced.

Following the 2016 referendum a whole new range of constitutional issues have arisen. In part these solely concern our relationship with the EU, but in a number of respects now EU issues and devolution factors are intertwined.

Accordingly Master Hockman organised a panel discussion under the title ‘Brexit and the UK - One Year On’, which was held on 22 June. The event, which was open to all, was a sellout. Master Treasurer took the chair.

The first speaker was Professor Sir Alan Dashwood QC. He founded, and for many years edited, the European Law Review; and is the Emeritus Professor of European Law at Cambridge University. He explained the procedures in the negotiations. His general judgment is that there is no reason why the withdrawal negotiations should not have a successful outcome. In his view the future relationship between the UK and the EU should be some of that provided by the European Economic Area (EEA).

Professor Jim Gallagher was the next speaker. As Director-General for Devolution in the Cabinet Office, he was Whitehall’s most senior civil servant concerned with devolution until he retired in June 2010. He has since become a published author on Scottish devolution, and is now a research fellow at Nuffield College. He discussed the internal dynamics within Scotland of the relationship between the type of Brexit and separatist pressures. His assessment was that, whilst following the General Election the pressure for Scottish independence and a second referendum had eased, it had not gone away completely. He, too, favoured some tailored version of the single market for the UK. The meeting was then joined over an audio link by Professor Christopher McCrudden, now Professor of Law at Queen’s Belfast, and formerly Professor of Human Rights

18

Brexit One Year On

Law at the University of Oxford. He argued for Northern Ireland to join the EEA. Whilst there is no precedent for a province of a state to be a member of the EEA, he considered that, given the will, it could be possible to secure such an arrangement. He saw this as the only satisfactory way to achieve a frictionless border between the two parts of Ireland, granted the UK’s decision to leave the EU, and the difficulties for the UK in choosing EEA membership for the whole country.

I rounded up the panel contributions by responding to the contributions so far. I distributed a written paper, taking as a starting point that morning’s lead story in The Daily Telegraph headlined ‘Looming Brexit Constitutional Crisis’ (of which I shall happily supply a copy to any interested member of the Inn).

In the ensuing general discussion Master Stanley Burnton posed the question, ‘Since the EU says that Britain cannot cherry pick benefits of the single market without the burdens, what gives grounds to expect that we can secure free movement for goods and services alone?’ Nobody was able to offer a convincing answer.

Master Treasurer wound up the evening by remarking that events were moving so fast and so unpredictably that whatever we said would almost certainly look outdated in six months’ time. On that, everybody concurred.

Master Speaight practises at 4 Pump Court. He was Called to the Bar in 1973 and appointed Silk in 1995. He is Chairman of Research of the Society of Conservative Lawyers, and was rapporteur of its devolution paper ‘Our Quasi-Federal Kingdom’. He was a member of the Government Commission on a UK Bill of Rights. He co-authored with Master Hockman a proposal for a Boundary of European and National Law Bill as an assistance to the Remain campaign.

He recently gave evidence to the House of Lords EU Select Committee on acquired rights after Brexit.

Library Book Donations RENAE SATTERLEY From Mark Arnold: Company Directors: Duties, Liabilities and Remedies, 2017

From Master Martin Howe: Russell-Clarke & Howe on industrial designs, 2016

From Master Michael Ashe, in memory of the late Master Hardiman, Justice of the Supreme Court of Ireland: Joyce in Court: James Joyce and the Law, 2017

From Carl Islam: Contentious probate handbook, 2016

From the estate of the late Master Barbara Calvert: A history of the Bar and Inn of Court of Northern Ireland, 2013; Master Worsley’s book on the history and constitution of the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple, 1910; and Catalogue of paintings and engravings in the possession of the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple, 1931 From Master Mark Cannon: Professional indemnity insurance, 2016 From Peter Crampin: Spencer Bower: Reliance-Based Estoppel, 2017 From Glen Davis: Butterworths Insolvency Law Handbook 2017, 18th edition, 2016

From Master Rupert Jackson: The reform of civil litigation, 2016 From John Keown: Bioethics and the human goods, 2015 From Master Paul Lasok: Lasok’s European court practice and procedure, 2017 From Antony Lentin: Mr Justice McCardie (1869-1933): rebel, reformer, and rogue judge, 2016 From Master Jan Luba: Housing allocations and homelessness, 2016; and Defending possession proceedings, 2016

From Anthony Dessain & Michael Wilkins: Jersey insolvency and asset tracking, 2016

From Master David Lynch: Northern Circuit Directory 1876–2004, Supplement 2005–2015, 2016

From Master Anthony Dudley, Chief Justice of Gibraltar: Justice so requiring:The emergence and development of a legal system in Gibraltar, 2012

From Ali M El-Haj: Constitutionalism, Human Rights and Islam after the Arab Spring, 2016

From the editors: Williams on wills, first supplement, 2016 Peter MacDonald Eggers: Vitiation of contractual consent, 2017

From Stephen Mason: Electronic Evidence, 2017; Electronic signatures in law, 2016; and Email, social media and the internet, 2014

From Master Neil Garnham: The Inquest book, 2016

From Stephen Monkcom: Smith & Monkcom: The law of gambling, 2017

From Stephen Glynn: Asbestos claims: law, practice and procedure, 2016

From Master Christopher Morcom: The modern law of trade marks, 2016

From John Goldsworth: Lexicon of trust and foundation practice, 2016

From Master Charles Mynors: Changing churches, 2016

From Master Paul Goulding: Employee competition: Covenants, confidentiality and garden leave, 2016

From Ilham Ragimov: The philosophy of crime and punishment, 2015

From Jack Harding: Saggerson on travel law and litigation, 2017

From Russell Stetler: Hofestra Law Review, Vol 43. No. 3; and UMKC Law Review, Vol 82. No. 2 From David A. Wirth: Environmental law and policy, 2010

Library Book Donations

19

The Silver of the Middle Temple MASTER JOHN LESLIE The Inn’s silver is magnificent – not only is it spectacular, but individual pieces are of great importance and interest; the collection includes many examples of the silversmith’s art and craft which are of museum quality. Moreover, the collection spans from the 16th Century to the present.

As better described by Master Paul Worsley, when Master Reader, in his 2015 Autumn Reading entitled ‘Domus: The Family Silver’ (see Issue 56 of The Middle Templar at page 82), the election of the 1st Viscount Rothermere as an Honorary Bencher in 1928 proved to be a momentous occasion; he turned out to be an extraordinary benefactor of the Inn. He not only endowed Scholarships but decided that his adopted alma mater lacked both appropriately aged pieces and fittingly grand decorations for the oak Benchers’ table. Over the years from 1931 he gave the Inn no fewer than 24 outstandingly beautiful items of silverware – the earliest dating from 1557, nine others from the 16th Century, and all but one of the remainder dating from the 17th Century. The odd one out is the magnificent Omar Ramsden Three Kings Mazer bowl dating from 1937. Not only are these pieces beautiful but they are all of great significance.

As he intended, the greatest pieces in the Rothermere Gift outshine all the remaining pieces in the Inn’s collection.

Whilst most of the silver is at present only seen by members on important dining occasions, plans, originated

by Master Ian Burnett, the immediate past Master of the Silver, are advanced for the installation of permanent display cabinets in which a regularly changing selection of the silver will be intended to be displayed.

In addition to the Rothermere Gift, most of the individual items of silver held by the Inn were donated by Benchers and Members of Hall. The earliest gift dating from 1663 is a Charles II silver-gilt Standing Cup donated by Henry Barker

20

who was Called to the Bar on 21 Nov 1656 as the ‘Son in Law of Master Treasurer’ - the Treasurer then being Challoner Chute, leader of the Chancery Bar under the Commonwealth and Speaker of the House of Commons in 1658. The latest is a collection of Middle Temple Golfing Society trophies donated in 2015. There has grown a tradition that a Bencher may donate a water beaker, to be engraved with his or her name. A newly designed beaker commissioned by Master Burnett is now available to be donated as the original design has been superseded.

The Inn’s silver also includes a number of items specifically commissioned by the Inn, in addition to the water beakers. It is possible that the Punch Ladle of 1708, referred to below as being purchased from the proceeds of sale of ‘old silver’, was commissioned by the Inn. If this is so, then it would appear to be the earliest commissioned piece now held. The latest substantial individual piece to be commissioned by the Inn is the Magna Carta Centrepiece Bowl of 2015 to mark the octo-centenary of the signing of the Magna Carta and made by ASG Doubleday Ltd. In 1930, just too early to include the Rothermere Gift, Master Bruce Williamson prepared the ‘Catalogue of Silver Plate the property of the Hon. Society of the Middle Temple’.

It includes detailed descriptions of 60 of the then most significant pieces in the collection and lists a large number of other items including much silver cutlery.

In 1998 Master Robin Stewart, then Master of the Silver, produced a definitive ‘Catalogue of Silver the Property of

the Hon. Society of the Middle Temple’; it includes the results of a large amount of research in the archives, for which he acknowledges the industry of Mrs Lesley Whitelaw, who happily continues as the Inn’s Archivist. There are also detailed descriptions of the condition, date and maker of each piece, for which he acknowledges the work of Master Burnett, his successor as Master of the Silver.

In his article in Issue 56 of The Middle Templar (page 60) Angus Gull, the distinguished appraiser of antiques, described his enthusiastic joy at conducting the exercise of valuing the Inn’s collections of art, furniture and silver.

With the assistance (and particular expertise relating to silver) of his colleague, Duncan Campbell, they completed a descriptive inventory of the Inn’s silver. This is to form the basis for monographs describing the results of further study of individual items in the collection which, in many cases, involve intriguing and considerable detective work. This work was originally commissioned by Master Burnett and continues to be a ‘work in progress’. The 1930 Williamson Catalogue, the 1998 Stewart Catalogue, the 2015 Inventory and the series of monographs on individual pieces will, without doubt, prove to be an intriguing and fascinating corpus of work for anyone interested in studying silver generally and the Inn’s collection in particular.

Some of the pieces listed in the Williamson catalogue have been disposed of. Any collection is always in state of flux - it has been said that to be a true collector (of anything), the collector must be prepared and have the courage and

interest to sell items from the collection in order to fund the acquisition of other more interesting or useful items. This the Inn has done over the years. The Stewart catalogue itself lists a Punch Ladle of 1708 which the archive revealed was acquired in 1709 in exchange for ‘old silver’. This type of transaction continued when, in 1998, two large and highly decorated candelabra centrepieces were sold. The funds raised were used to commission Christopher Lawrence, the distinguished silversmith, to design and make the handsome 22 silver and 68 plated candlesticks and the pair of matching candelabra which adorn the tables in Hall. No doubt in the future other possibilities will be investigated.

As the new Master of the Silver, I recognise a sense of huge responsibility. I also acknowledge the debt I owe to my predecessors, particularly Master Burnett, in that I inherit the charge and safe keeping of such a magnificent collection.

I look forward to my time attempting to live up to their achievements.

Master John Leslie was Called to the Bar in 1969 and was a Queen’s Bench Master from 1996 to 2016. He has been a Bencher since 2002 and was appointed Master of the Silver this year. He grew up surrounded by silver, as his father’s business was in the London Silver Vaults; so, he has had an interest in it all his life.

The Silver of the Middle Temple

21

Eugene Paul Bennett VC MASTER MICHAEL STEPHENS

When you next walk into Middle Temple Hall, pause for a moment and look to your left, just past the doorway to the gallery.

You will see on the wall a plaque commemorating Paul Bennett, a member of the Inn who, during the Battle of the Somme, won the highest award for valour.

On 5 November 2016, one hundred years to the day after his distinguished conduct, a service was held at St Andrew’s Church, Cairncross and a memorial and peace garden nearby dedicated to the memory of Paul Bennett.

Eugene Paul Bennett was born in 1892 in Cairncross, near Stroud, and attended local schools before entering the world of banking. He was on the staff of the Bank of England when war was declared in 1914. He joined the Artists’ Rifles, a Territorial battalion which was part of the London Regiment. He served in France, winning the Military Cross in 1915 before becoming a subaltern in the Worcestershire Regiment the following year.

Paul Bennett took part in the latter stages of the Battle of the Somme, winning his Victoria Cross on 5 November 1916 at Le Transloy (near Arras).

The award citation published in The London Gazette reads: Temporary Lieutenant Bennett, of the Worcestershire Regiment, when in command of the second wave of the attack, found that the first wave had suffered heavy casualties. Its commander had been killed and the second line was wavering. Lieutenant Bennett advanced at the head of the second wave and by his personal example of valour and resolution reached his objective with but sixty men. Isolated with his small party, he at once took steps to consolidate his position, under heavy rifle and machine gun fire from both flanks, and although wounded, he remained in command, directing and controlling. He set an example of cheerfulness and resolution beyond all praise, and there is little doubt that, but for his personal example of courage, the attack would have been checked at the outset.

22

Eugene Paul Bennett VC

After the war, he read for the Bar and was Called by the Inn in 1922. He was appointed a stipendiary magistrate in 1935, sitting initially at the West London Court and then, between 1946 and 1961, as the ‘stipe’ at Marlborough Street.

It says something for his qualities as a tribunal that, on his retirement, he was presented by 53 West End street traders with a picnic set and ice bowl as a token of their appreciation and respect and in recognition of his services.

Paul Bennett and his wife lived in retirement in Vicenza, Italy until his death in 1970.

The Victoria Cross that he won is now part of the collection of the Worcestershire Regiment and is on display in the Worcester City Museum and Art Gallery, some fifty yards from Worcester Crown Court.

The Inn still has a tangible link with Paul Bennett VC. Each year the Golfing Society plays for a silver chalice that he presented when Captain in 1927. The current holders are Judge Roger Hetherington and Julian Benson.

Master Michael Stephens was Called in 1983 and was made a Bencher in 2010.

He is a member of Kings Chambers, practising from Birmingham.

Rudolfine Prague at Middle Temple Library LENKA GEIDT Middle Temple Library presented several exhibitions in 2016. One of them focused on Prague during the reign of Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor, King of Bohemia and Hungary, and a fascinating European ruler of the 16th and 17th centuries.

Historian R. Evans, in his book Rudolf II and His World, distinguished between three different Rudolfs: the first was a feeble, unstable and impoverished monarch who began his reign by succeeding to a glamorous political inheritance and ended it as a prisoner in his own castle. The second Rudolf was a great Maecenas, a protector of arts and sciences, who amassed a collection of artistic treasures. The third Rudolf was a notorious patron of the occult arts.

Rudolf II, unlike other Habsburgs, chose Prague as his residence and his court attracted many famous scholars.

Some of them received official titles, while others were given financial or other rewards, even the granting of nobility.

The latter was actually the ‘cheapest’ means of promotion, since the Emperor claimed that alchemists needed neither money, nor medicine, as they themselves could make them, while the granting of social elevation was the sole privilege of the ruler. Many books written by those within Rudolf II’s circle found their way to the Middle Temple rare book collection, some thanks to the founder of the Library Robert Ashley. The authors were regarded as prominent alchemists, astronomers and doctors. One of those scholars was the English astrologer and alchemist John Dee (1527-1608), whose book Monas hieroglyphica was dedicated to Rudolf’s father, Maximilian II. Two famous astronomers whose books the Library holds worked for Rudolf II. Danish astronomer Tycho (Tygge) Brahe (1546-1601) moved to Prague in 1599 to take up the post of Imperial Mathematician. One of his books - Astronomiae instauratae progymnasmata - contains an analysis of ‘the movement of the Sun and Moon and an account of the location of 777 fixed stars, and includes a detailed analysis of his 1572 observation of the supernova.

The book was edited by Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), a German astronomer, who became Brahe’s assistant in Prague and succeeded him as Imperial Mathematician. Kepler is the

The title page of Astronomiae instauratae progymnasmata shows Ashley’s signature and his motto ‘nulla maior est jactura scienti quam temporis’ which could be translated as ‘for the wise man, no loss is greater than that of time’.

author of Dissertatio cum nuncio sidereo nuper ad mortales misso à Galilæo which was published as an open letter to the Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). In this book, Kepler expressed his approval of Galileo’s telescopic observations. Kepler had also done important work in optics.

In his book Ad Vitellionem paralipomena, he gave the first correct explanation of the working of the camera obscura and of the human eye.

Rudolf II had his own personal physicians whose interests were not limited to medicine. For example, influential doctor Johann Pistorius (1546-1608) was interested in occult arts and wrote, among others, a book called Dæmonomania Pistoriana. Another court physician, Martin Ruland (1532-1602) conducted alchemical experiments. The Library has his book Lexicon alchemiæ sive dictionarium alchemisticum. Members are welcome to view these books by making an appointment with the Librarian at Library@middletemple.org.uk.

Lenka Geidt is an Assistant Librarian.

She studied History and Media Studies and joined the Inn in November 2012. She is responsible for the EU collection and serials, including official publications.

Rudolfine Prague at Middle Temple Library

23

1917: The Shelling of the Middle Temple LESLEY WHITELAW

Sharp-eyed members of the Inn will probably have noticed two brass plaques set into the floor of the Queen’s Room commemorating an event that took place here a hundred years ago. The plaques record that on the night of Sunday 30 September 1917 a 3-inch shell crashed through the roof of the corridor and the wall of the Old Parliament Chamber, now known as the Queen’s Room. One plaque marks where the shell penetrated the floor boards, and the other the spot below which it came to rest.

The role of Zeppelins in World War I air raids is wellknown, but they had no part in this damage – nor was the damage caused by enemy fire.

During World War I there was widespread alarm at the new phenomenon of aerial bombardment – a novel type of warfare that threatened civilians far from the front lines, but in fact caused more fear than actual military damage.

Germany’s aerial bombardment of Britain by airships began in January 1915, with attacks on London initially forbidden by the Kaiser for fear of injuring his British relatives. The attacks, commonly referred to as Zeppelin raids, were carried out by either Zeppelins or the less well-known Schütte-Lanz airships. Their bombing was notoriously inaccurate and they were hated for the civilian casualties they caused, hence references to them as the ’baby-killers’. Over the course of about fifty raids on Britain, thirty of the 84 airships that took part were shot down or lost in accidents.

By 1917 air defences had improved to such an extent that aeroplanes - Gotha biplane bombers - began to supersede airships in raids on Britain. Their first daylight raid on London in June 1917 was the deadliest of the war, causing 162 deaths, including 18 children killed when their primary school in Poplar was bombed. However raids in July and August were fairly ineffective due to adverse weather and improved anti-aircraft fire. The Gothas responded by switching to night raids, the first of which killed 130 naval recruits when their dormitory at Chatham was hit on Monday 3 September 1917.

The damage to Middle Temple occurred at the particular point in the war when Gotha bombers were attempting to penetrate coastal defences in nocturnal raids on London.

The next day The Times reported that for the third successive night enemy airmen had made a moonlight attack on London, flying across the Essex coast to the capital in four

24

1917: The Shelling of the Middle Temple

waves, killing nine people and injuring 42. They left Wagner enthusiasts at Tristan and Isolde in Drury Lane unmoved. The article observes that the management had kindly provided a concrete shelter, but as the singers continued unperturbed, very few of the audience availed themselves of it as the performance reached a triumphant close.

Anti-aircraft weapons were in their infancy and were generally ineffective against aeroplanes at night. New 3-inch guns were diverted from merchant ships in their battle against submarines to the defence of London, where hundreds of thousands of people now sought refuge from the bombs in Underground stations at night. The liberal use of shells, while bringing down few aeroplanes, caused significant collateral damage, of which the strike on the Middle Temple was one such incident.

The Under Treasurer, Major Henry Beresford-Peirse MC, veteran of the Boer War, kept the shell as a trophy. Letter books in the Archive record that, after discussion with two Benchers, he wrote to the Commissioner of Police, City of London, on Tuesday 2 October 1917 requesting that ’the shell that fell through the roof of the Middle Temple Parliament Chamber [the present Queen’s Room] on Sunday night [be] returned to them as a record of the occasion, as soon as the Authorities have finished with it’. On Wednesday 17 October Beresford-Peirse wrote to the Inspecting Officer of Ordnance, 11 Carlton House Terrace, St James’s, requesting the return of the shell which had been handed to him by the City Police.

The records do not relate whether this request was successful.

If not, perhaps the bronze plaques were commissioned instead, to commemorate the very slight damage done to the Inn’s property in a war that had already taken such a heavy and tragic toll on the lives of its younger members.

Lesley Whitelaw graduated from St Andrews University in 1981. Subsequently she was Archivist to the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, Archivist to the Lothian Health Board and held curatorial posts in the National Archives of Scotland.

She has been Archivist to the Middle Temple since 1990.

Sir Thomas Hayes (c1548-1617) MASTER ANDREW PARMLEY Lord Mayor Sir Thomas Hayes, a fellow Middle Templar, was born the son of Thomas and Eleanor Hayes of the Parish of St Margaret’s Westminster around 1548 in the parish of All Hallows Bread Street and died in his 69th year in 1617.

He was a merchant and a City man through and through and quickly recognised the need to be allied with a Livery Company if he was to get on in life. He chose to join the Worshipful Company of Drapers in 1604 (becoming a Bencher in 1609) - a significant decision for a man who was to combine success in business with a full civic career and an exceptionally active domestic agenda.

In the spirit of King Henry VIII, Thomas Hayes seems to have been married at least five times and appears to have been father to some 38 children. Indeed, some five sons and eleven daughters are mentioned in his Will of 1615.

Soon after he had successfully completed his Apprenticeship (freed by Robert Best) in 1578 Thomas married his first wife, Margaret, on 15 December, in All Hallows Bread Street. She was buried on 21 September 1591 at St Mary Aldermary, not before bearing ten children.

It is interesting that Margaret’s father, Robert Howse, was himself an Alderman, serving as Sheriff in 1586, and this was, undoubtedly, the catalyst for Thomas’s interest in the civic City and his election as Alderman in 1603.

Even less is known of Thomas Hayes’ next four wives - in some cases, not even their names. Wife number two was Elizabeth (buried on 31 July 1594; one son, Joseph, who inherited the title); number three remains anonymous despite records revealing the names of ten children; next came Mary, the daughter of a fellow merchant, Humphrey Milward, married on 26 September 1609 in St Mary Aldermary (three children); and finally Martha (née Forth) who probably out lived him and was mother to fourteen children.

Details of the numerous children are scant but one of his daughters married Sir Henry Boothby, 1st Baronet, and became the ancestor of the succeeding Baronet dynasty.

Thomas Hayes was knighted on 26 July 1603 (together with seventeen Aldermen, a few months before he himself became one) and later that year, on 22 December, successfully stood in the election for Alderman for the Ward of Bishopsgate. He made remarkably rapid civic progress and was elected Sheriff in 1604; mayoralty would surely follow such a prominent citizen. However, Thomas’s plans were nearly derailed at the start of 1612 when it appears he may have been victim of a hostile takeover bid for his seat.

Fortunately, Cornhill seems to have come to his aid and he became Alderman for that Ward on 7 January 1613.

The following year he reached the height of his civic career and personal aspiration when he became Lord Mayor of London. As was the tradition, his installation was celebrated with a pageant – precursor of today’s Lord Mayor’s Show – written by Anthony Munday and entitled The triumphs of old drapery or the rich clothing of England.

When he died in 1617 – he was buried on 29 September – Sir Thomas left £100 as stock for the City of Westminster to inaugurate work schemes, £175 to the poor of London and Weybridge and sums of money for hospitals, prisoners and his own Worshipful Company of Drapers.

The monument to his memory in St Mary Aldermary is inscribed as follows: Deo trino et uno sacrum. Thomas Hayes, Eques auratus, secundum Christi adventrum, sub hoc tumulo expectat. Qui cum ab adolescentia, per magnam Europae partem, mercaturam excercuisset, its industria et judicio claruit, ut unanimi omnium consensus Major hujus civitatis cooptatus fuerit, et cum hoc summi Magistratus officium, non solum singulari integritate sed et excellenti verae Religionis promulgandae cura et pietate executus fuisset; tandem septuagesimo aetatis anno, Deo bonisque charus, pie et placide in Domino obdormivit, anno Salutis 1617. Martha, uxor maestissima viro suo optimo officiosae pietatis et memoriae ergo hoc monumentum P. Which translates as: Consecrated to the One and Triune God. Thomas Hayes, golden knight, waits beneath this tomb for the second coming of Christ. He who from his youth had worked as a merchant throughout a great part of Europe, became famous for hard work and good judgement to such an extent that, by the unanimous approval of all, he became a Mayor of this state, and with this he carried out the highest duty of this greatest Magistracy, not only with singular integrity, but also excellent care for the promulgation of true Religion and piety; at last in the seventieth year of his life, dear to God and to the good, he slept in the piety and peace of our Lord and Master, in the year of our Lord 1617. Martha, his greatly grieving wife, therefore established this monument of the dutiful piety and memory of her excellent husband.

Master Andrew Parmley studied music at Manchester, London and Cambridge Universities and at the Royal Academy of Music. He became a teacher and is, at present, Principal of The Harrodian School. After ten years as a member of the Court of Common Council was elected Alderman for the Ward of Vintry in 2001 and served in the office of Sheriff 2014-15 and Lord Mayor 2016-17.

Sir Thomas Hayes (c1548-1617)

25

Elias Ashmole 1617-1692: A life in London and Oxford MASTER JOHN BOWERS

Elias Ashmole was a true all-rounder who left a legacy down the centuries, although his choice of subjects on which he lavished attention is somewhat surprising.

He could number achievements in the fields of antiquarian books, politics, astrology and alchemy. He is of great interest to me as a lawyer, the Principal of Brasenose College and most of all as a regular visitor to the wonderful museum which bears his name. He lived between Oxford and London as I do. It is his surname which has lived on in that museum throughout the generations, although the original collection was that of Tradescant, a much less well known gentleman.

He grew up in modest circumstances, the son of a saddler. He was educated at Lichfield Grammar School, but did not attend university as an undergraduate, instead, tutored privately in law.

He qualified as a solicitor. At 24 however, he was attorney in the Court of Common Pleas and attached to Middle Temple. He enjoyed a successful legal practice in London and in 1638 is recorded as having attended the trial of the Earl of Strafford.

In the English Civil War he was a committed royalist and was appointed a commissioner of excise by Charles I. He was given a military post at Oxford, where he served as an ordnance officer for the King’s forces. In 1662 he was a member of a commission for tracking down the valuables of Charles I, which had been dispersed by the Parliamentary regime.

He was a man who collected ‘gongs’ and was very active in reviving the Order of the Garter on which much of his time was spent. The Most Noble Order of the Garter, founded in 1348, is the highest order of chivalry and the third most prestigious honour (inferior only to the Victoria Cross and George Cross) in the United Kingdom. It is awarded at the Sovereign’s pleasure as a personal gift. In 1672 he published The Institution, Laws and Ceremonies of the Most Noble Order of the Garter. It is puzzling that Ashmole should have spent so much of his energy on this and even more surprising that it has continued into the 21st Century.

26

Brasenose College It is probably for this reason that his name appears in the accounts of Brasenose College, Oxford in 1644. His choice of College is probably explained by the fact that the family of his first wife Eleanor Mainwaring (1603-1641), of Smallwood, Cheshire had contributed more members to Brasenose than any other in that century.

Whilst in Oxford, he studied mathematics and physics, but not it seems in a formal course. He did not matriculate, nor did he take an Oxford degree (as with another person associated with Brasenose College, Lord Archer, who did a PGCE at the College). He did develop an interest during that time in alchemy and magic which are definitely not on our current syllabus! It is likely that his status was that of a ‘lodger’ rather than a member of the College, although we are not certain. In 1669, Ashmole received an Honorary Doctorate in Medicine from the University of Oxford.

Middle Temple He is recorded as having been admitted to Middle Temple on 9 November 1657 and Called on 2 November 1660, but this must have been as a ceremonial adjunct as this was quite late in his career.

Curiously he turned down the chance to become a Bencher on the basis of the distance from his home in Lambeth to Temple. The minutes of the Middle Temple Parliament record him as having had chambers in Middle Temple Lane up four flights of stairs.

His relationship with Middle Temple was somewhat fraught. On 5 November 1668 he and three others were fined for rising from the Bar table before the Masters of the Bench had risen, although it appears that this was later remitted. He also had to complain about some barristers in the upstairs flat who were throwing dirty water over him. He was also affected by a great fire which broke out at Middle Temple.

Ashmolean Museum The original impetus for the Museum came from John Tradescant, the botanist, when he bequeathed to Ashmole his museum of curiosities, in particular his vast and renowned collection of exotic plants, mineral specimens and other curiosities from around the world, which he kept at his house in Lambeth. There was a bitter dispute about this which needed all of Ashmole’s legal skills. In 1659, Tradescant legally gave his collection to Ashmole. Under the agreement, Ashmole would take possession at Tradescant’s death. When Tradescant died in 1662, his widow, Hester, contested the deed, claiming her husband had signed it when drunk without knowing its contents, but the matter was adjudicated in Chancery in Ashmole’s favour two years later. Hester was to hold the collection in trust for Ashmole until her death.

Ashmole extended it with his own extensive collections.

His library included works on English history, law, numismatics, chorography, alchemy, astrology, astronomy, and botany. He appears to have been a collector of alchemical writings and a student of alchemy rather than an active practitioner. There are thousands of notes in his papers in which he wanted elucidation from a horoscope about whether the heavens were right at a certain time for a particular action.

Ashmole presented them and his own collection to Oxford University, to which the material was transferred in

1682 to create the Ashmolean Museum, which is now one of the most famous in the world. The Ashmolean Museum was completed in 1683 and is considered by some to be the first truly public museum in Europe. According to Anthony Wood, the collection filled twelve wagons when it was transferred to Oxford.

The Bodleian Library also holds a significant collection of manuscripts and printed books collected by Ashmole.

Ashmole also became one of the founding Fellows of the Royal Society in 1661 and by 1665 he was collecting information for his county history, The Antiquities of Berkshire. He was a Freemason.

He died at his house in Lambeth on 18 May 1692 and was buried at St. Mary’s Church, Lambeth on 26 May. Ashmole was thus a curious mixture of true scholar and follower of what we see today as quack and unorthodox subjects.

Master John Bowers has been Principal of Brasenose College, Oxford since 1 October 2015. Bowers is the author of 13 books including recently Practical Approach to Employment Law ninth edition and Whistleblowing third edition. He was Called to the Bar in 1979, took Silk in 1998, became a Recorder in 2003, and has been a Deputy High Court Judge since 2010. He was made a Bencher in 2004.

Elias Ashmole 1617-1692: A life in London and Oxford

27

The Other Three Inns MASTER ERIC STOCKDALE In my article in last year’s edition about my friendship with Michael Sherrard and Leo Price, I referred to the fact that we had all three been ad eundem members of another Inn: Lincoln's in Leo's case and the Inner Temple in both Michael's and my case.

The reason was that we had all been in chambers outside the Middle Temple, our mother Inn. Many members of the Bar, of course, have similar links with one of the other three Inns, for either the whole or a part of their time in practice. Before joining the Circuit bench in 1972, I managed to experience the hospitality of all three of them.

When I joined the Middle Temple as a student in 1946, the physical state of the Inn, as a result of the bombing in 1940-41, was dire. The Hall, library and Temple Church were all badly damaged, even though their shells remained, and over 40% of all chambers had been destroyed. Because of various shortages, the reconstruction of those chambers could not even be started until after the tenth anniversary of the dropping of the first bombs in September 1940.

Fortunately, the construction of a temporary library on the site of the destroyed 2/3 Brick Court building (once occupied

by William Blackstone), and repairs to Hall were permitted.

The new library was completed in 1958 and the Hall repairs were completed in 1949.

The Inner Temple and Gray’s Inn had sustained similar losses, so that in 1946 only lucky Lincoln’s Inn still had both its halls, New and Old, as well as its library and chapel intact.

The Benchers of Lincoln’s Inn, in the tradition of wartime comradeship, generously invited the members of the other Inns to use its library. As a result, my first studies, which I was allowed to start as soon as I had lodged my application to join Middle in September 1946, were in that library.

Early in 1947 I joined the Army and, having obeyed the call, ‘Get thee to a gunnery’, switched to studying artillery matters. When I returned two years later, I found that Lincoln’s Inn by then also housed the Inns of Court School of Law at 7 Stone Buildings, with a students’ union in the basement. Sandwiches were obtainable there from the Dawkins sisters, who were to return to render similar services in the Middle Temple, where they or their parents had worked from Victorian times. Lectures were on the ground floor of Number 7 and also sometimes in the Old Hall. The

28

temporary library in Brick Court became my principal study place for the Bar examinations.

The Inns of Court Regiment, having served with distinction during the war, was back in the Territorial Army and had its headquarters at 11 Stone Buildings, where it remains to this day. I had heard a great deal about the friendliness of the TA, and particularly the lawyers’ own unit, known as ‘The Devil’s Own’, and had learned that it was customary for several of the other ranks to be ex-officers.

Relying on that information, during my demobilisation leave I called on the Regular Army adjutant, duly relinquished my hard-earned King’s commission as a second lieutenant in the Royal Artillery, was sworn in as a trooper and promoted to sergeant immediately - so holding three ranks in as many minutes. The adjutant, a Household Cavalry captain, then demonstrated how friendly the regiment was by inviting me to meet the officer commanding my squadron. He escorted me to the door of the officers’ mess and ordered, ‘Wait here’.

I waited outside the door for a few minutes and then the major came out and welcomed me, without any invitation to come in and meet some of the other officers present. We were all in mufti, but it was clear that a mere sergeant could not be admitted to such hallowed ground, even if, unlike the captain and the major, he was a member of an Inn of Court.

My main contribution to the student community life in Stone Buildings was to write frivolous pieces (plus ça change...) and to help edit the magazine called GLIM, an acronym of the first letters of Gray’s, Lincoln’s, Inner and Middle. As it turned out, my attachment to the four Inns became progressively stronger in the same order. Master David Owen Thomas, as he became years later, recruited me for one of his student drama productions, but I prefer to draw a veil – or better still, a safety curtain – over that experience.

The students’ union organised the occasional dance; one was held in Lincoln’s Inn Old Hall in early 1950. My fiancée (as she then was) and I were early arrivals and we made for the bar.

A little old man scuttled up to us and said: ‘My name’s Vaisey,

spelled backwards Yes I ‘av! What will you have?’ I recognised the forward version of the name: it was that of Mr Justice Vaisey of the Chancery Division, the Treasurer of Lincoln’s Inn. In addition to training evenings with the regiment in Stone Buildings, I spent some time at weekends doing routine maintenance work on our three-tonne troop carrying vehicles, when they were kept in South Square, Gray’s Inn. Work had begun on the rebuilding of the hall there and the time came when we had to move our trucks elsewhere.

I recall competing for space with the new roof timbers for the hall, when they were laid out on the ground for a final check that they fitted together properly. In May 1950 I sat the Bar Finals exams in the Gray’s Inn common room adjoining the west end of the hall. The builders’ noisy hoist was immediately outside the windows, and was accompanied by the usual sounds of a busy building site: banging, shouting,

stayed there for 14 years, so that my whole time at the Bar was in chambers in the Inner Temple, which I also joined towards the end of my time there.

In 1965 I had a bright pupil, Michael Blair, who came to me for his first six months only, as he wanted to spend his second six in Chancery chambers. In 2008 Master Blair served as Treasurer of the Inn. His immediate successor as my pupil, who had been recommended by Michael, also became a Bencher in due course, but one who was rarely seen in the Inn. That nameless successor is still remembered for a remark he made on one of his early days as a pupil, when he came to dinner at our house with his future wife.

When I offered him a brandy to round off my wife’s superb meal, he languidly inquired, ‘Is it a good brandy?’

My two closest friends in the chambers in Francis Taylor Building, James Kingham and Ian Davidson, fellow members

I remember Gray's Inn with interest, Lincoln's with gratitude, and the Inner with a number of happy memories... I need scarcely add that after 70 years as a member, my heart belongs to the Middle Temple. whistling, swearing. Despite the noises off, I managed to scrape through and was called to the Bar in our recently reopened Hall on 21 June, eating my very first dinner in the Inn that night.

In October 1950 I started my pupillage with HG Garland, a Middle Temple common lawyer, who was the head of chambers on the ground floor of 1 Essex Court. My desk was in the window, looking over at Hall. Towards the end of my pupillage, Garland helped me to obtain a tenancy in the chambers of John Scott Henderson KC, which the builders were expected to complete in December 1951. They duly completed the rebuilding of 2 Mitre Court Buildings in the Inner Temple in March 1952 but Garland kindly allowed me to continue with him as a squatter until then. King George VI had died on 6 February, so my new chambers head was a QC by the time I moved in with him.

During my six years in Mitre Court Buildings I shared a room, first of all with Anthony Walton, later Master Reader.

He soon left to go to Intellectual Property chambers, but when I moved into the newly built Francis Taylor Building next door, his chambers moved in below my new ones. I

of the Midland circuit, were both members of Gray’s Inn and invited me there from time to time. As a result of all the experiences mentioned, I remember Gray’s Inn with interest, Lincoln’s with gratitude, and the Inner with a number of happy memories. The principal one is of sharing a final celebratory drink in my room with a few friends after being sworn in by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, as one of the new-fangled Circuit judges. I need scarcely add that after 70 years as a member, my heart belongs to the Middle Temple.

Master Eric Stockdale was Called to the Bar in 1950. He is the Co-author of Middle Temple Lawyers and the American Revolution; ‘The Middle Temple since 1900’ in History of the Middle Temple, Richard Havery (ed).

The Other Three Inns

29

Rare & Unique Books: Alphabet Books and Language Primers RENAE SATTERLEY During October 2015 I was approached by a researcher who wanted to view an unusual book in the rare books collection - the ‘Bukvar’ iazyka slavenskaer’ printed in Ev’e (also known as Vievis) in 1618 by the Printing House of the Orthodox Fraternity, which was housed in the Vilnius Orthodox Holy Spirit Monastery.

The book is unusual for a number of reasons. The first being the fact that it is unique - only one other copy has so far been recorded, at the Royal Library in Denmark, but their copy is reportedly incomplete. The second reason is that the actual volume contains six (possibly originally eight) pages of another work bound at the end. This second work is dated to 1596 and is possibly the Leksys, written by Lavrentii Zyzanii (c.1570-c.1635).

The third reason is the contemporary inscription found on the title page, which reads: ‘Liber de linguâ sclavoniâ sclavoniâ’ (the ‘sclavoniâ’ is repeated, possibly due to the obstruction caused by the printed words). The owner of this inscription is unknown unfortunately, but it is not the handwriting of Robert Ashley (1565-1641), the founder of the Library.

The main work is a primer of the Old Church Slavic language, produced by one of the oldest monastic printing houses in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This printing house was known for printing books on the Old Church Slavic, Old Belarusian and Polish languages. The ‘Bukvar’ contains an alphabet and prayers and was intended for religious learning as well as basic instruction in the language. The title as given above has been transliterated from the Old Church Slavic

‘Bukvar' iazyka slavenskaer’

30

alphabet. The work is cited in the bibliography Cyrillic Books printed before 1701 in British and Irish Collections: A Union Catalogue, p. 70.

While the inscription on the title page is not that of Robert Ashley, this book nonetheless most likely came from his bequest of 1641. Ashley was known to have an interest in languages and it is highly unlikely that the Inn acquired it through purchase or donation after 1641. Ashley also collected a large number of general works on language and languages, as well as other foreign language primers. Some examples include: • Rudimenta linguae Arabicae, by Thomas Erpenius and printed in Leiden in 1620. This is bound with two other language books: Institutionem linguae Turcicae, by Hieronymus Megiser, printed in 1612 and Grammatica Chaldaica, by Joannes Drusius, printed in 1602 • Oratio de linguae Arabicae, also by Erpenius and printed in 1613 • ‘Erotemata’ by Constantine Lascaris, printed in 1489 a primer of the Greek alphabet and language • Jean Boulaeze’s ‘Kitsur’ (1566) and ‘Hebraicum alphabethum’ (1576), two works on the Hebrew language bound together in one volume

Ashley also translated works from French, Italian, Latin and Spanish into English, and translated a work from French to Latin. When Ashley’s marginalia are present it tends to be in the language of the book (i.e. if the book is printed in French his notes will be in French). We know that he could read and write in English, French, Italian, Latin and Spanish.

There is evidence that he could read German and some Hebrew and Greek, as well as possibly Dutch. Ashley was also a bibliophile and it is possible that he collected this work solely for the love of books.

The fact that the ‘Bukvar’ copy found in Middle Temple Library is unique is not too surprising given the ephemeral nature of primers such as this. At the end of 2016 for example, the British Library acquired the only known copy of an English primer, The Grounds of Learning by Richard Hodges, printed in 1650. These small introductory books on languages and alphabets tended not to survive in large numbers mostly because they were heavily used, annotated and eventually discarded. The ‘Bukvar’ has remained intact simply because it was collected by a bibliophile and remained within his collection for 375 years. In other words it was not used for its original purpose, which was to be heavily studied and its pages used to scribble out notes and alphabets. Of the other language books mentioned above the ‘Kitsur’ by Boulaeze is also relatively rare - only one other copy is recorded in a British library. The Oratio de linguae Arabicae also only shows one other copy in a British library, at Edinburgh.

As the ‘Bukvar’ is so rare, we have digitised it and made it available on our website as a download under a creative commons license, which allows others to download it for noncommercial purposes. It is available as a compressed pdf: www.middletemple.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/ Bukvar_compressed.pdf.

We had the ‘Bukvar’ repaired prior to digitization and thus it is not in need of conservation work. However, the Boulaeze volume is in need of conservation. It is a folio-sized volume with an estimated cost of repair of £360. If you would be interested in sponsoring this work’s repair please get in touch. Some other early language works in the collection in need of sponsorship are the following: • De Lipsii latinitate by Henri Estienne, printed in 1595. This work on the Latin language is in a very poor state having lost its binding completely. The estimated cost of repair is £300.

• Gothicarum et Langobardicarum rerum scriptores aliquot veteres by Bonaventura Vulcanius, 1618. This is an interesting work on Goths, Lombards and the Gothic language with an estimated cost of repair of £250. If you would be interested in sponsoring the repair and conservation of any of these books, please get in touch with: Library@middletemple.org.uk or 020 7427 4830.

If you sponsor a book, you will receive before and after photos of the conservation work done, and a bookplate commemorating your donation will be placed in the book.

Renae Satterley has worked at Middle Temple since 2006. Following the retirement of Vanessa Hayward in 2015, Renae took over as Librarian. Renae is originally from Canada, having completed her BA at Concordia University in Montreal and her Masters of Library & Information studies at McGill University in 2004. She came to London via Cambridge, having worked at Emmanuel College for a year.

Rare & Unique Books: Alphabet Books and Language Primers

31

Open Garden Squares Weekend KATE JENRICK

Open Garden Squares Weekend was an initiative started 20 years ago by the London Parks and Gardens Trust.

From its early days when it really was private squares such as Cleveland and Belgrave opening their gates to the public, it now showcases garden spaces created on barges, train station roof tops and skips (unlikely, but great champions for greening an urban landscape). Last year 18,000 people visited gardens across the capital. With new gardens joining and the glorious weather throughout the weekend, larger numbers were probably out and about. From gardening groups from far afield (we had a number from Yorkshire) to those who live and work in the area, the weekend is an excuse to look behind high walls and discover new areas.

Middle Temple has been involved for many years now and each year the Garden Sub-committee is actively involved in ensuring a good day to its visitors. In the past we have had a birds of prey display, a greyhound rescue group (with two dogs actually finding new homes as a result of their day out at Middle Temple). There were no animals this year, only a man who climbs trees. Jack Cooke, whose book The Tree Climber’s Guide is a quirky account of his encounters with various trees he has climbed across the capital. He is not a tree surgeon (he mentions in his book that he might have pursued a career as an arborist but realised his lack of dexterity at using a chainsaw would limit his advance). He simply re-discovered a passion for climbing in trees during his lunch break from the office. Jack did stay at ground level during the course of the day. With a huge map of London marked with trees he’s climbed, there was always a crowd of people around him and visitors adding their favourite trees to the map.

32

As the temperature soared to over 30 degrees celsius, we welcomed 645 visitors over four hours. We have been serving refreshments at this event for a few years and, thanks to the all the contributions from cake bakers within the Inn, we have used the proceeds to support various charitable concerns. This year the proceeds will be helping to restore a damaged book in Middle Temple’s Rare Books collection. Refreshments this year included lemonade and, unsurprisingly, this was very popular and ran out well before time was called. Masters Carol Harlow, Judith Parker and Janice Brennan, as well as staff members Sarah Hankinson, Lia Jhala and Renae Satterley, were working flat out.

I led three tours, taking groups through the courtyards and gardens. Master Stephen Lloyd joined me in Fountain Court to relate the story of the Foundlings of Middle Temple, including details about Mary Temple, a foundling who is believed to be the inspiration for Miss Flite in Dicken’s Bleak House. There was not a dry eye in the house. After the shade of Fountain Court, it was out into the glare of the sun of Elm Court and the vegetable garden behind the Church and returning to more horticultural matters.

...the weekend is an excuse to look behind high walls and discover new areas.

Kate worked in an 18th Century Landscape Garden at Painshill Park, Cobham and a community social enterprise in East London after gaining a Diploma in Horticulture with Honours from the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew. She came to Middle Temple in December 2008 where the mix of history and a busy, demanding use of the garden provided all the challenges a Head Gardener requires.

Open Garden Squares Weekend

33

Middle Templars and the U.S. Constitution ROBERT J OLEJAR Middle Templar John Dickinson arrived 29 May 1787 at the Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia, the very same chamber where, as a Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress, he refused to sign the Declaration of Independence. Now a delegate from Delaware to what would become the Constitutional Convention, Dickinson would join six other Middle Templars to complete the unfinished business of inventing a country.

At the time Dickinson abstained from the vote for independence, he chaired the Committee of Thirteen, which included Middle Templars Thomas McKean of Delaware and Edward Rutledge of South Carolina, to form a confederation to fight the common enemy. Key provisions of his Articles of Confederation (the ‘Articles’), which some say might have obviated the need for the Constitution, were lost in the Congressional backlash.

To preserve law and order, each colony passed legislation ‘receiving’ the common law of England as governing law until superseded by legislative act. On 2 July 1776, the day Congress voted for independence, New Jersey enacted its first constitution, including a reception clause. These simultaneous events would combine to replace New Jersey’s last Royal Governor, Middle Templar William Franklin, with another Middle Templar, William Livingstone, who, ironically, would join Franklin’s famous father Ben at the Constitutional Convention. Father and son never reconciled, each buried in the city of his political allegiance, Ben in Philadelphia, William in London.

When it became apparent to Congress that the Articles did not unite post-colonial America, Middle Templar Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina suggested a conference in Annapolis, Maryland in September 1786. Chaired by Dickinson, only nine states attended.

Congress, then sitting in New York City, approved the Philadelphia convention, limited to ‘revising the Articles of Confederation’. But, once in Philadelphia, Pinckney would lead the movement to abandon the Articles.

Magna Carta granted enumerated rights to the English people from King John, who, it was believed, was anointed

by God to rule over them, as were all other monarchs in all other nations. The Declaration of Independence stood that flow of power on its head, power from the deity directly to the people who create, and by their consent allow, the government to rule them. The job was to create a

34

government from scratch. Dickinson cautioned, ‘Experience must be our only guide, reason may mislead us’.

James Madison arrived the most prepared with what would be known as the ‘Virginia Plan’, under which population would determine each state’s representation in a bicameral national legislature. The small states countered with the ‘New Jersey Plan’, continuing the Articles’ equal representation in a unicameral legislature. Pinckney saw the New Jersey Plan as a bargaining ploy to get equal representation in one house. Dickinson predicted the matter could only be resolved by ‘mutual concessions’.

Madison’s Virginia Plan called for a federal veto similar to the British Privy Council’s authority to block colonial legislation. Pinckney proposed expanding the veto to enable Congress to block all state laws Congress deemed improper, not just those that violated the Constitution. Fearing an allpowerful central government usurping all state authority, John Rutledge of South Carolina opposed any federal veto.

‘If nothing else, the veto alone would damn and ought to damn the Constitution.’ Dickinson naively envisioned: ‘Let our government be like that of the solar system.

Let the general government be like the sun and the states the planets, repelled yet attracted, and the whole moving regularly and harmoniously in their several orbits.’

The solution was actually found in the New Jersey Plan, which declared federal laws and treaties to be ‘the supreme law of the respective states’, and provided a practical means of achieving that result, ‘The judiciary of the several states shall be bound thereby in their decisions’, regardless of any contrary state law. The resultant ‘Supremacy Clause’ also grants supremacy to the Constitution.

Regarding the judiciary, or more accurately ‘judiciaries’, Jefferson wrote Madison advocating federal appellate courts to protect federal interests. Madison’s Virginia Plan also created federal trial courts, which Rutledge saw as ‘an unnecessary encroachment on the jurisdiction of the states’ and an unnecessary obstacle to ratification of the Constitution. The compromise was the Constitution authorises, but does not require, Congress to create ‘tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court’.

The delegates agreed federal judges should serve ‘during good behaviour’ rather than a term of years; removal was another issue. Dickinson proposed judges be removed ‘on address’, by the executive on application of the Senate

and House of Representatives, which Rutledge, a South Carolina judge, rejected, along with a decisive majority of delegates. The result was federal judges, like all federal officers including the President, may be impeached by conviction for treason, bribery, or other ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’.

The state of the disjointed union left ‘a lingering taste for monarchy’. Alexander Hamilton favoured, ‘for stability and permanency’, a non-hereditary monarch to serve for life or until impeached. Dickinson thought a limited monarchy was the best form of government ever devised, but, out of the question ‘owing to the spirit of the times’, proposing instead a three-man executive branch with staggered terms. Pinckney and Rutledge, favoured a unitary executive.

Pinckney successfully opposed another plural executive proposal, requiring the executive to obtain consent from an executive council before acting, arguing a strong council could obstruct him, while a weak council might provide a scapegoat. The result was standing advisors whom the president may consult for advice, the President’s Cabinet.

Pinckney, fearful that the power to declare war would turn the executive into a monarchy, succeeded in having that power given to Congress.

Not only would Dickinson prove one of the most active members of the convention, he distinguished himself as the consummate American-born barrister. He alone recognised the United States already had built-in institutional substitutes for the English barons who checked royal power in 1215, the individual states. Just as Magna Carta had given the committee of 25 barons the rights of distraint and distress against the Crown, Dickinson moved that a majority of the states could request the national legislature to remove the national executive.

It was a foregone conclusion the big states would have their way in the lower house. Jefferson provided another reason for a popularly elected lower house in a letter to Madison, to preserve ‘inviolate the fundamental principle that the people are not to be taxed but by representatives chosen immediately by themselves.’ Seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned by population.

But, the government needed protection from the will of the rabble. Pinckney suggested to restrict membership to the wealthy, Senators should serve without compensation.

Calling the House of Lords ‘a most noble institution’ which protected the few from the many, in support of permanent terms for Senators, Hamilton said, ‘nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy’. Dickinson argued the upper house should model the English House of Lords as closely as possible, its members distinguished by their station in life and wealth. He therefore proposed a legislature in which one house was elected by the people and the other would represent the states, as states, elected for long terms by each state’s legislature, which, in fact, lasted until passage of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913. Each state has two seats in the Senate.

Dickinson, a member of the Committee on Slave Trade and the only delegate to have already freed his slaves spoke against slavery. Apparently for health reasons, he did not participate in the infamous compromise, proposed by James Wilson of Pennsylvania and seconded by Pinckney, whereby three-fifths of a state’s slave population would count for purposes of representation in the lower house. Remarkably,

the drafters achieved this without using any form of the word ‘slave’. Dickinson wrote, ‘The omitting of the Word will be regarded as an Endeavor to conceal a principle of which we are ashamed’. The word ‘slavery’ would not appear in the Constitution until abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865.

American-born English lawyers, educated on both sides of the Pond, invented the United States of America.

American-trained Jefferson gave us the Declaration. Middle Templar John Rutledge, gave us ‘We the People’ in the Preamble to the Constitution. Written more than a decade apart, their words might well have come from the same hand in one sitting: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. …[Now, therefore,]…

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is no coincidence that both men chose the same and most important word, ‘We’.

Our Constitution lives because of men and women who have devoted, and often sacrificed, their lives in its defence. On 10 July 2017, this Marine attended a ceremony at the Marine Barracks in Washington, D.C., known as the ‘Oldest Post of the Corps’, complete with Marine Corps Band, both founded by Commandant William Ward Burrows, an American admitted to the Middle Temple in 1772. The Honoree that day, retiring after 40 years’ service, was one such man who, in 2014, honoured me with his recommendation for Call to the Bar, Lt. Gen. Jon M. Davis, Deputy Commandant for Aviation, United States Marine Corps, to whom this article is most gratefully dedicated.

Robert J Olejar is an American trial lawyer and forensic accountant specialising in criminal defence, fraud and commercial litigation. A licensed Certified Public Accountant and Certified Fraud Examiner, he is regularly appointed as Receiver and Court's Forensic Accountant by the Chancery Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. He was Called to the Bar of England and Wales on Thanksgiving Night 2014. A former U.S. Marine, he holds a Fifth Degree Black Belt in the Japanese martial art of Ninjutsu.

Middle Templars and the U.S. Constitution

35

The Lawyers Who Made America: From Jamestown to the White House

by Anthony Arlidge QC BOOK REVIEW BY MASTER JEFFREY GOLDEN Middle Templars, here is a chance to polish your pride. There is no hint of it in the title of this new book by Anthony Arlidge QC, and no entry for our Inn in the book’s index. However, one cannot help but notice that Middle Temple, its alumni and their considerable contribution to American history feature throughout.

We are reminded by the author that, for example, five Middle Temple trained and Called lawyers signed the Declaration of Independence and seven the United States Constitution.

And separately, even more Middle Templars are singled out in the author’s text: Sir Walter Ralegh, who needs no introduction, and the former Treasurer of the Inn and Lord Chief Justice John Popham, whose daughter also married a Middle Templar, who was instrumental in the organisation of the Virginia Company and who actually sentenced Ralegh to death!

Then there are others from the Inn: promoters of overseas exploration in the reign of Elizabeth I (Richard Hakluyt and Bartholomew Gosnold); Edwyn Sandys, who drafted the Great Charter of Virginia (and whose uncle had been Treasurer of Middle Temple); the legendary Sir William Blackstone, who so influenced legal thinking in the colonies; John Dickinson of Pennsylvania and John Rutledge of South Carolina, both members of the 1765 Congress and the Constitutional Congresses that followed, who later played key roles in connection with agreeing the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, respectively.

And to this list of those Middle Temple-connected we can perhaps even add Sir Francis Drake, who, although not a lawyer, sought the hospitality of Middle Temple in 1586 when he dined there after returning to England following his rescue of the survivors of the Roanoke colony.

Still, in all this telling there is a recurring theme and reminder too that transcends the influence of any Inn, and that is the broader influence of British thinking about liberty, the rule of law and eventually slavery on American concepts of democracy.

36

For this record, we are particularly fortunate to have Master Arlidge as our historian and educator. In his preface, he indicates that the project of this book was inspired by an exhibition at the British Library in 2015 celebrating the 800th anniversary of the sealing of Magna Carta, and especially by Thomas Jefferson’s handwritten draft of the Declaration of Independence there on display for the first time in the United Kingdom. All of us who saw that could only be inspired. And I am very glad that Master Arlidge was inspired enough to complete this work.

As will already be known by most of you, the author is a former Treasurer of this Inn and co-author of Arlidge, Eady and Smith on Contempt of Court, Arlidge and Parry on Fraud and more recently Magna Carta Uncovered (with The Rt Hon The Lord (Master) Judge, who contributes a foreword to this publication).

This one is not a particularly thick book, but that should not mask its scholarly content. It is meticulously researched.

Don’t miss the footnotes: the first takes us to the Middle Temple Admission Register Vol. 1!

Master Arlidge writes with style and considerable flair, and authority. I found particularly interesting the author’s ability, drawing on his broad professional experience and lifelong interest in legal history, to spot and flag instances where, no doubt aiming at the same objectives, English and US law practices deviate.

It is often said that England and America are two nations divided by a common language, and here too we take a journey which reveals that, although there are shared common law roots, there are also sometimes subtle differences that have developed in English and American jurisprudence and practice, such as the reliance in US appellate practice on

lengthy written submissions, judicial notice of facts without further evidence and differing attitudes toward the right to silence.

Most importantly, this is very much a story about lawyers and history, but also in a most engaging way about personal circumstances (including supporting spouses). After all, lawyers are people too, although, as the author tells us, ‘some do their best to hide it’! This book is certainly more than a legal history. After all, many of the lawyers included, though legally trained and effective advocates, made their contributions as politicians and outside the courtroom.

Moreover, this is not just a book about the Founding Fathers or English connections. Other great names in American history feature: from the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to Barack Obama (as well as a reminder that President Obama’s successor is not a lawyer), including John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson.

The author has had to be selective of course. However, he has chosen wisely, and it would be difficult to criticise his selectivity.

Except in one respect. I am afraid that the role of women lawyers in the making of America is understated and under-reported. Two, Supreme Court Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, get a look in, but only in the penultimate chapter. They could not be more deserving, and their influence cannot be overstated.

However, the contribution of women lawyers in America is much broader and goes back in time much longer than this.

Margaret Brent, thought to be America’s first woman lawyer, is an example: arriving in the colonies in 1638 and one of the most prominent female figures in colonial American history, she was the first woman to appear before a court of common law there and became involved in 124 cases over eight years ... and won every one!

I was lucky enough to be taught Constitutional Law

by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and while it is an unfairly picky criticism, I must point out it is misleading to suggest, as this book does, that Justice Ginsburg received her legal education at Harvard. She began her legal studies there but transferred to and graduated from Columbia Law School, where she later taught. Well, as a Columbia Law School alumnus myself, I did have to set the record straight on that.

But the book, as it should, sets the record straight on something else. ‘No other nation’s creation, both politically and socially, owes such a debt to lawyers as the United States of America’, according to the author. If we needed evidence, at least by my count (and confirmed by Wikipedia), the majority of American Presidents have been lawyers (25 out of 44). So too, a majority of US senators are legally trained (57%).

When Called as an Honorary Master of the Bench at Middle Temple, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, told us that he had stopped telling lawyer jokes. ‘The lawyers in the audience don’t find them funny. And the others don’t realise that they are jokes!’

This book thankfully does much to redress the balance and, reflecting on the history of my country of origin, puts lawyers in a more positive light. As I began this review, The Lawyers Who Made America should be a source of pride, and inspiration, for all of us, and we should thank and congratulate one of our own for telling the story. This book is now available for purchase from the Treasury Office.

Master Jeffrey Golden is Chairman of The P.R.I.M.E. Finance Foundation in The Hague, and a member of the Foundation's Panel of Recognised International Market Experts in Finance, a Governor and Honorary Fellow of the London School of Economics and Political Science, where he has also been Visiting Professor in the Law Department, and a member of chambers at 3 Hare Court. He retired in 2010 from Allen & Overy LLP, having joined as a partner in 1994 after 15 years with the leading Wall Street practice of Cravath, Swaine & Moore. He was founder partner of Allen & Overy's US law practice, senior partner in the firm's global derivatives practice and has broad experience of capital markets matters. He has acted extensively for the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, was a principal author of ISDA's master agreements and has acted as an arbitrator and appeared as an expert witness in several high profile derivatives cases. He was made an Honorary Bencher in 2017.

The Lawyers Who Made America - From Jamestown to the White House: Book Review

37

Get On With It

by Algy Cluff BOOK REVIEW BY MASTER JOHN NUTTING Oscar Wilde's play about late Victorian manners, The Importance of Being Earnest, had an unheralded and unlikely impact on the life of the man, now in his late 70s, who was christened John Gordon Cluff.

When a school friend saw the 1952 film adaption of the play, he rechristened John Cluff ‘Algy’, and the name stuck.

The author of Get On With It is a person of very different mettle to the fop, Algernon Moncrieff. Born the only son of a rich father, he was educated at Stowe and, having enrolled as a student at this Inn, began to read for the Bar. In 1958 however, he joined the Inns of Court Regiment and soon realised that he preferred the prospect of life as a soldier to that of a barrister.

Having seen service in West Africa in the Grenadier Guards, he decided to join the Guards Parachute Company, an elite unit of about a hundred soldiers drawn from all the Guards regiments, and was posted first to Cyprus and then to Borneo.

He records, self-deprecatingly, the life which he led as a young officer and the friendships he formed with people with such unlikely names as the Fon of Banso and Alexander Wanka.

38

Naturally brave and adventurous, he left the Army in 1963 having recognised that the higher in rank he rose the less the opportunity arose to deploy the characteristics which had caused him to join. In the early 1970s, after an unsuccessful attempt to enter Parliament, he started to take an interest in oil deposits in the North Sea. Funded by his own resources, and those of some friends, he invested in oil exploration. In 1974 he struck oil in the first hole he drilled for a sum which would now pay the running costs of an oil rig for a single day. He called his plot the Buchan Field after his favourite childhood author, John Buchan. Within two years his consortium saw its investment multiply threefold.

In the early 1980s he turned his business attention to the Far East. Scientists had predicted that over the millennia the Pearl and Yellow Rivers had deposited hydrocarbons in commercial quantities into the South China Sea. When he explained to the Governor of Hong Kong, Sir Murray (later Lord) MacLehose that he had come out east to drill for oil, the tall and imposing diplomat looked disdainfully at the tall and imposing businessman and said ‘There is no oil off the coast of China’. Vexingly the diplomat proved to be right.

His next venture was journalism. He decided to buy The Spectator Magazine, a failing publication whose editor, Alexander Chancellor, was in the habit of arriving for work at midday, adjourning for lunch half an hour later, returning at 16:00 and then setting off home shortly afterwards. He was soon replaced by Charles Moore.

One of The Spectator’s regular contributors in those days (and to date) was Taki Theodoracopulos. In August 1986 at a lunch party on a Greek island, Taki had an altercation with an Argentine socialite with whom he had already crossed swords in print. In his weekly column, which he filed direct from the island later that day, he described this encounter with what he called ‘a geriatric Circe with a face like a

His description, after his last meeting with Mugabe, of his journey on foot from the Presidential Palace, two miles from Harare, fearing a bullet in his back at every step, makes for a chilling read. collapsed cake’. It is not entirely clear how The Spectator’s libel lawyer could have allowed what followed to appear in print. In the event the socialite sued Taki and The Spectator.

The case came on before Mr Justice Otton and a jury the following year. The Spectator’s chances of success were not improved when Taki, who had recently been released as a guest of Her Majesty for having been found with a small quantity of cocaine in his possession at Heathrow Airport, took a swing at The Spectator’s libel lawyer in the jury’s presence as the court adjourned for the day. The Spectator lost the case and was ordered to pay damages of £15,000 and costs of £150,000.

Although Algy Cluff found this brush with justice a bruising experience, the paper flourished under his management. Charles Moore was succeeded by Dominic Lawson who gave place in turn to the two Johnsons, first Frank then Boris. When he bought the magazine in 1981 it was losing the equivalent of £1.5 million a year. When he left the chairmanship 25 years later it was recording an annual profit of £1.5 million.

Undismayed by his Far Eastern adventure he decided to invest in mining gold and other commodities in Africa, initially Zimbabwe and later Ghana. Not the least of the fascinating passages of this book is the author’s account of his dealings with Robert Mugabe, who treated him as treacherously as he did so many others. His description, after his last meeting with Mugabe, of his journey on foot from the Presidential Palace, two miles from Harare, fearing a bullet in his back at every step, makes for a chilling read.

Algy Cluff devoted 30 years of his business life to Africa and to Africans: his was the first company to set aside a significant slice of its share value in trust for the workforce.

He tells of Mrs Thatcher’s visit to Zimbabwe, of the activities of Lonrho and its ‘saturnine and sinister’ chief executive, Tiny

Rowland, of the President of Ghana and his glamorous wife, and of many others and much else besides.

The friendships which Algy Cluff has formed down the years constitute an eclectic group of men and women and he composes interesting vignettes of most of them, including R.V. Jones CH, who made such a remarkable contribution to the frustration of German bombing during the last war by ‘bending’ the Knickerbein beams along which German aircraft flew, and by inventing ‘window’; Nubar Gulbenkian, whose father owned 5% of the Anglo Iranian Oil Company; Ludovic Kennedy, writer and politician; Lord Cromer, banker and ambassador; John Lindsay, erstwhile Mayor of New York; Conrad Black, newspaper proprietor and gaolbird; A.N. Wilson, the historian who wrote the Preface to Get On With It; and not least, perhaps, Paddy Pakenham, barrister and bon viveur, whose exploits before courts high and low are retold here with affectionate hilarity.

As he says of himself, Algy Cluff has ‘touched life at so many different points’, and, always afraid of being bored, he has the good manners not for a single page to bore his readers. Short and funny, informative and wise, this autobiography is as much a delight to read as it must have been to write.

Master John Nutting was Called to the Bar in 1968 and took Silk in 1995.

Junior and later Senior Treasury Counsel at the Old Bailey, he was also a Judge of Appeal in the Channel Islands for 19 years, and is a Deputy High Court Judge. He retired from practice in 2009. He became a Bencher in 1991.

Get on with it by Algy Cluff: Book Review

39

Mr Justice McCardie (1869-1933) Rebel, Reformer and Rogue Judge

by Antony Lentin BOOK REVIEW BY MASTER PAUL COLERIDGE

Sitting judges who express views on current social issues, particularly when aired outside the courtroom, always attract media attention.

This is because they are a rare breed and what they say is apparently invested with judicial authority. But they also attract one of two reactions from their colleagues and the public. There are those who are noisily supportive of the views expressed and defend to their dying day the right of the judge to speak out on issues which they encounter in their day job. But there are as many who deplore the fact that one of their number has lifted the veil of anonymity and put his head above the parapet. ‘It is not the judge’s job to express views on matters of social policy’, they cry. The two views are always strongly held and generally irreconcilable.

Mr Justice McCardie, whose bronze head adorns the mantelpiece in the Queen’s Room of Middle Temple, was one such judge sitting from 1916 until his death in 1933. In other words, from two years into the First World War, and for the 15 socially tumultuous years following its cessation. According to the New Statesman in 1932, ‘No present day figure on the Bench is of greater interest than Mr Justice McCardie’. From early in his judicial career he was conspicuous, colourful and controversial. To his critics he was a ‘rogue judge’ whose headline grabbing pronouncements angered many of his fellow judges, irritated the Church and even provoked calls in Parliament for his dismissal. The Prime Minister publicly rebuked him. However, to his admirers he was a crusader on the Bench, a pioneer who denounced outdated laws and strove to make the law meet the needs of a rapidly changing society. Although (or maybe, because) he was unmarried, he was a fierce supporter of what we now call women’s rights; the role of women in marriage, birth control and abortion.

‘One of the most interesting men in in the history of the English Bench’ was how the Law Quarterly Review described him. He was regarded, both on and off the bench, as ‘a legend in his life time’, a description I first heard given to Lord Denning by Lord Hailsham on the then Master of the

40

Rolls’ departure from the Bench. The similarities do not end there. Just as Lord Denning was hailed by some as the great seeker after justice regardless of apparent precedent, so also McCardie was acknowledged by a Lord Chancellor as ‘the greatest master of case law of our time’. His dicta were said to be ‘quoted almost like biblical texts’. However, as with the great Lord Denning, his more conservative professional detractors considered that he was a judge ‘running amok’ and ‘a bull in a china shop’.

Born in Birmingham in 1869, one of seven children, his early career most certainly did not follow the conventional path. He was Called to the Bar in 1894, having worked as a clerk in an auctioneer’s office. He decided on the Bar in

I had never heard of this ‘legend’ before being asked to review this book. For me he has now come to life and the bust in the Queen’s Room will live again. order to bring some shape to his life. Within a short time he was busy and much sought after by all the best solicitors in London and, unlike today, across a broad spectrum of legal practise. Appointed to the Bench in 1916 aged 47, he had neither been to university nor taken Silk. Depending on your assessment of the man, it was either an imaginative and merited appointment (‘a most excellent choice’, according to the Law Journal) or, from the opposite perspective ‘an unfortunate accident’.

During his years on the Bench he heard very heavy and notorious cases from across the whole spectrum, occasionally helping out in what was then the Probate Divorce and Admiralty Division. It was his statements from the Bench which were so eagerly lapped up by the press and which gained him such repute and notoriety. At Christmas in 1930, he took the unprecedented step of holding a press conference in his room in the Law Courts. One can only imagine the reaction of his fellow judges!

With the exception of one or two shafts of insight, his private life remains somewhat shrouded in mystery. In 1929, one newspaper declared that he was ‘much too handsome to be a bachelor’. But although remaining unmarried he had two mistresses, neither of whom knew of the existence of the other, and who visited him from time to time in his flat and by one of whom he fathered a son. Both women were kept out of sight and as the author puts it ‘He had the best of both worlds in a man’s world enjoying the affection of two much younger women without the commitment of a married man.

He provided for his son and made much of him when he saw him, but he never told him that he was his father’. Such an arrangement would of course nowadays be unheard of and practically impossible.

This is a gem of a book. Under 200 pages in length, it is fully and carefully researched and for the student, however amateur, of the development of English Jurisprudence during an era of massive social change following the close

of the Victorian era, a cameo performance of profound insight and quality. For someone who has experienced the unique cloistered and sometimes claustrophobic ambience of the Law courts, barristers chambers and the Temple, it plunges you straight into the early 20th century world of Bar and Bench, with all its professional tittle-tattle and with which we are all still familiar! So much has changed but not, in fact, changed in its essence. Some knowledge of the English Law and legal system enables a greater level of enjoyment and satisfaction, but because of the nature and character of this ‘one off’, those without such a background would still find the life of this enigmatic judge fascinating and fully justifying of exploration. Anyone in the legal world who is motivated more by the pursuit of justice than slavish adherence to law naturally warms to him and his iconoclastic approach to his cases.

I had never heard of this ‘legend’ before being asked to review this book. For me he has now come to life and the bust in the Queen’s Room will live again. A red blooded, independent minded High Court judge sitting during an era of social revolution and of whom, I fear, there are increasingly few.

Master Paul Coleridge was Called to Bar in 1970 and practised at Queen Elizabeth Building between 1971-2000. He took Silk in 1993 and was subsequently appointed a Recorder and Deputy High Court Judge. He was appointed a High Court Judge (Family Division) in 2000. Master Coleridge launched Marriage Foundation and became the first chairman. Currently he conducts private FDRs for high net worth and high profile couples and sits as a private family arbitrator/mediator helping couples avoid the trauma of going through the Family Justice system.

Mr Justice McCardie (1869-1933) Rebel, Reformer and Rogue Judge: Book Review

41

The Lighterman

by Simon Michael BOOK REVIEW BY MASTER DAVID WURTZEL The Lighterman is the third in Simon Michael’s series of novels, set in the 1960s. The main character is Charles Holborne, now 39, a well-established criminal barrister from a poor, East End Jewish family. He is characterised by moral ambiguity and a restless feeling that he doesn’t belong anywhere.

Although a fine advocate and a favourite of his clerk, he is not your usual barrister. He is willing to commit ‘noble cause’ burglary and blackmail to win his case and his victory in court is rewarded with an avalanche of briefs and the prospect of applying for Silk. Although there is an excellent trial scene at the Old Bailey, this is not primarily a legal novel. Neither is it a really a crime novel, although there is the crime of murder, the truth of which the reader knows relatively early on. It can best be described as an adventure story.

This is suitable for a hero who is indeed cast in heroic proportions: ‘built like a bull with massive chest and forearms and tree trunk legs, he looks more like an Italian truck driver than the eloquent and precise barrister he is’. His girlfriend, Sally, correspondingly finds him to be a ‘powerful, very masculine man’, very different from the boys she used to go out with.

Charles is happiest by the Thames in the heart of working class London. This is where, as a youth, he worked with lightermen to operate the barges which then provided the commercial traffic for the city. The work built him up together with his hard training as a boxer. ‘He revels in his physicality…and at times he feels almost superhuman in his aliveness.’ All this stands Charles in good stead for the challenges facing him in this book. The ‘adventure’ is that he spends most of the story trying to avoid being killed by Ronnie Kray. A survivor of the Blitz, Charles is used to facing the threat of death. Here it stalks him from the start, when he barely avoids being stabbed in the robing room, but his assailant will strike again. Charles’s own client is set up to murder him. Fortunately the client is his adored first cousin, whom Charles accepts as a dock brief in the murder trial.

The two men decide instead to join forces against Kray as the common enemy.

42

The Lighterman: Book Review

Appropriately, in the 50th anniversary year of the partial decriminalisation of male homosexual activity, there are numerous references to the then unimplemented Wolfenden Report, and the dangers of being gay in 1964 are brought out.

Charles is a tolerant guy but, sad to report, amongst several of the gay characters, two are would-be killers and one is a rapist. In addition, this is a London where the police are often corrupt and the honest ones look askance at Charles, believing that he is colluding with East End gangsters. They recall him from the newspaper photographs when, a few years before, he was arrested as the prime suspect in the murder of his aristocratic wife.

Michael’s skills as a writer come to the fore as he keeps the plot clear while weaving in the necessary background information of what has happened in the earlier books. In addition, there are careful descriptions of the London of the time and of the Old Bailey, when ‘court 10’ was the local pub. The explanation of law and practice for the lay reader is done with a lightness of touch.

There is plenty of action in the book and almost a happy ending. No doubt a well deserved sequel will follow.

Master David Wurtzel was Called to the Bar in 1974 and to the Bench in 2001.

He practised at the criminal Bar for 27 years and for 12 years was involved in training, particularly in respect of vulnerable witnesses. He was consultant editor of COUNSEL. He is a door tenant of Red Lion Chambers.

Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony VALEDICTORY ADDRESS, 28 JULY 2017 Lord Neuberger is to blame. Without him I would not be having a valedictory and would not be under the stress of having to say something, with the risk that I might burst into tears when mentioning my wife. Very many thanks to everyone for coming and, in particular to those who have spoken, especially my old sparring partner, David Steel.

It is a very long time since I was Called to the Bar in July 1965. My whole career has been thanks to Lord Phillips, whom I am delighted to see is here today. I went to see him in 2 Essex Court where he was the junior tenant. He telephoned Barry. I went to see him immediately and he offered me a pupillage then and there. So I became his pupil and subsequently a tenant in his chambers. So it was that I practised at the Admiralty and Commercial Bar until 1993, when I became a judge.

In July 1992 Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the Lord Chancellor, asked me if I would become the Admiralty Judge in October that year. I said that I would like to become a judge but that I was doing a case which would last at least until Christmas. Lord Mackay said that that would be fine.

However, that was about the time that a Bill was in the offing which would reduce the retirement age of judges from 75 to 70 and which would increase the time to be served before earning a full pension from 15 years to 20 years. Rosemary said that, if the delay would have the effect of increasing my sentence she would never speak to me again. However, the Bill was not enacted until 1995, so I was OK. By the time I left the Bar I like to think that I was fairly au fait with the general principles of maritime and commercial law. However, since I have been on the Bench things have changed radically. Both in the Court of Appeal and more recently here in the Supreme Court I have become the living embodiment of the amateur gone mad. I never cease to be amazed at how many human rights people have (or are said to have). It has, however, all been very stimulating, especially here. I have discovered how brilliant my colleagues are and how supportive. I would like to thank all of you, whether judges or staff for running the place so efficiently and for making it such a brilliant place to work.

I would like to mention four people in particular. They are first and foremost my clerk, Jackie, without whom I would never have got anything done and who has been unfailingly cheerful throughout all the time I have known her. The second is Lord Phillips to whom I owe the whole of my career. The third is Lord Neubeuger to whom I will revert in a moment. The fourth and most important is my

wife Rosemary, who keeps me going all the time and without whom I could not survive at all. Nor could our three children and six grandchildren, some of whom are here today.

But, reverting to Lord Neuberger, he has been a tower of strength to us all, but in particular for the development of the Court. History will show that his role has been very significant. In particular it will fit in with the views expressed

by Lady Hale in her contribution to the Liber Amicorum on Lord Bingham, who tragically died in 2010. Lady Hale’s view included the following: The Supreme Court for the United Kingdom will, we hope, open its doors on 1 October 2009. It will have a fine judicial leader in Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers.

But many of us cannot stifle our regret that Lord Bingham is not to be its first President. The Supreme Court is very much his baby. He may not have been the first to moot the idea, but it would scarcely have got off the ground without his enthusiastic support.

And without his wise approach to the whole business of Supreme Court judging, the politicians might well have taken fright at where the whole idea might lead.

No throwing out the baby with the bathwater from him. His intriguing mix of innovation and prudence means that the Supreme Court may be his most important and long-lasting legacy.

A little later Lady Hale continued: ‌ Under his leadership, there could be little risk that human rights adjudication would get out of hand or that a Supreme Court would get above itself. Without him, it might be doubted whether the politicians would ever have taken the risk. That is why we must work to make the Supreme Court a legacy which is worthy of him.

In my opinion the same can be said of Lord Neuberger, who has been a loyal supporter of the approach of Lord Bingham and will be remembered by history as an indefatigable supporter of the rule of law. I am sure that the same will be said of Lady Hale.

Valedictory Address: Lord Clarke of Stone-Cum-Ebony

43

Welcome to the Education Section SALLY YORKE This year has been as action-packed and hectic as ever, made all the more so because alongside our day jobs we have also been developing and testing a new customer relationship management (CRM) system. The long term benefit of this new CRM system is that students will fill in application forms (e.g. admission, scholarships and Call) and all members will be able to book tickets for qualifying sessions online. This should automate some of the more mundane elements of the work, in turn freeing up our time to focus on developing the services that we provide.

panel, the ways in which members can get involved are numerous and we are always looking for new volunteers.

So if you have good memories of the advocacy training you received as a student or pupil, or you are interested in getting involved in other services we provide for students, please do get in touch: s.yorke@middletemple.org.uk

To illustrate the work of the department, here are some statistics for the last 12 months (August 2016–July 2017): • 349 applicants have been interviewed for scholarships • 578 students and 61 specially qualified applicants (SQA’s) have been admitted to the Inn • 75 marshalling placements have been arranged • 92 sponsors have been allocated to student members • 112 students have taken part in the Rosamund Smith Mooting Competition • 209 students have attended an advocacy course in York or at Cumberland Lodge • 66 mock pupillage interviews have been coordinated • 349 students and SQA’s have been Called to the Bar • 135 Pupils have attended one of our Pupils’ courses (5 twoweek courses and 2 three-day courses are run annually) and 138 newly qualified barristers have attend one of our 3 New Practitioners’ Courses.

Of course many of these things would not be possible without the time and support that is freely given by so many members of the Inn; those in practice, the judiciary and retired. We are extremely grateful to everyone who has contributed to these achievements. From acting as a sponsor to judging a moot, from teaching advocacy to interviewing on a scholarship

44

Welcome to the Education Section

From left to right Christa Richmond, Director of Education Services Jessica Masi, Education Services Assistant Christopher Bates, Scholarships Officer Indira Pillay, Training Officer Madeleine Cirdei, Education Office Assistant Sally Yorke, Education Services Manager Sarah Hankinson, Assistant Students’ Officer Melissa Tucker, Student Records Officer

Training for the Bar: Changes are on the way MASTER DEREK WOOD The pattern of training for the Bar has been heavily criticised by the Inns of Court and their students for many years. Other less conspicuous critics are those who wished to qualify as barristers but found too many financial obstacles in their way.

The focus of objection has been the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC), the vocational course - 30 weeks if taken full-time - standing between academic legal study and pupillage. Eight institutions at fourteen locations around the country provide this course at a dauntingly high cost to students. Many of our graduates are already burdened by accumulated debt from their time at university. BPTC fees range between £16,000 and £19,000 depending on whether the course is taken inside London or out. Living costs go on top of that. A scholarship from their Inn will lighten the load to an extent for some students. But even taking into account the £4 million in scholarship monies which the Inns collectively provide each year, there is a serious worry that the Bar is becoming a profession for the ‘haves’ to the exclusion of the ‘have-nots’.

Apart from the question of cost the BPTC in its present form faces other serious criticisms. The number admitted to take the course is excessive. The failure rate (18% at a rough estimate) is unacceptably high. Some two-thirds of each year’s cohort of students (around 1000) seek pupillage in England and Wales. That is far too many for the 400 or so pupillages available. Students who pass are graded ‘Competent’ ‘Very Competent’ and ‘Outstanding’. The chances of a ‘Competent’ student getting a pupillage are 20-1. The same is true of students with 2.2 class degrees.

All of this represents a huge waste of students’ money and poses an unacceptably high risk for the less well-off.

In March this year, after extensive consultation, the Bar’s regulator, the Bar Standards Board (BSB), announced a set of revised arrangements which are to be welcomed. The new policy retains the strengths of the present system but cuts out some of the weaknesses. Much of it was advocated on behalf of the four Inns by the Council of the Inns of Court (COIC).

The Bar remains a graduate-only profession, with few exceptions. Students who have a Qualifying Law Degree containing the current seven Foundations of Legal Knowledge can apply to join the BPTC straight away. Other

degree-holders will first have to take the one-year conversion course, containing the same syllabus. Holders of 2.2’s may continue to apply, but will be given a strong warning about their prospects of pupillage. Entrants to the BPTC must also pass the Bar Course Aptitude Test, but COIC’s proposal that the pass mark should be raised further was not accepted.

Most importantly the BSB accepted a radical new model for the BPTC, proposed by COIC and supported by the Bar Council, which is intended to address some of the problems listed above. The BSB will authorise a split BPTC as one available ‘pathway’ to qualification, dividing the syllabus into Parts One and Two. Part One will comprise the knowledgebased subjects (criminal, civil procedure and evidence) and will allow students to prepare for this Part by private study, if they wish, anywhere in the world, using on-line materials and at minimum expense. Only candidates who have proved themselves by passing Part One can move on to the skillsbased training in Part Two, which will be shorter and cheaper than the present integrated 30 week programme.

In their response to the BSB’s consultation paper the Inns affirmed their determination to do everything in their power to ensure that this more flexible, accessible and affordable scheme will become available to prospective students. They have asked COIC to carry out a detailed study on the feasibility of COIC’s educational arm, the Inns of Court College of Advocacy, delivering the split course itself, alone or in collaboration with another suitable body.

Master Derek Wood has been a member of Falcon Chambers since 1965. His practice covers all aspects of property law. He was Called to the Bar in 1964 and took Silk in 1978. He was awarded the CBE for services to property law and has sat as a Recorder and Deputy High Court Judge. He is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and a Chartered Arbitrator. A Bencher of the Middle Temple since 1985, he was Treasurer in 2006 and Director of Advocacy from 20022016. He is now Chairman of the Governors of the Inns of Court College of Advocacy.

Training for the Bar: Changes are on the way

45

The Inns of Court College of Advocacy – One Year On JAMES WAKEFIELD, DEAN OF THE INNS OF COURT COLLEGE OF ADVOCACY The Inns of Court College of Advocacy (ICCA) was established by the Council of the Inns of Court (COIC) on 1 May 2016, with generous support from the four Inns, to take over and expand upon the work of the Inns’ Advocacy Training Council (ATC). In its first year ICCA has undertaken a formidable range of work, partly inherited from its predecessor and partly generated in the form of new projects.

The College’s mission is to raise and maintain high standards in the practice and ethics of advocacy in courts and tribunals, and to disseminate best practice in those areas. We work both within our home jurisdiction of England and Wales and internationally. We have concentrated on the continuing education and training of barristers and advocates in practice, after formal qualification. Here are some examples of the work we have undertaken this year: Advocacy and the Vulnerable In October ICCA organised a conference entitled ‘Vulnerability and Power – Maintaining the Balance, the Client’s Perspective’, approximately 150 delegates attended. There was an extensive and varied range of sessions, to mention just a few: the psychiatric process within litigation, young people, autism, protecting clients pre-trial, immigration and cultural vulnerability, distraught families and inquests and more. The feedback was extremely positive. The College has also trained 64 lead facilitators who have subsequently begun to train others to deliver the ‘Advocacy and the Vulnerable’ programme to over 14,000 criminal advocates. The aim of the programme is to ensure high quality training is provided to advocates in the handling of vulnerable witnesses. Further information on the roll out and a full list of providers can be found on ICCA’s website (www.icca.ac.uk/advocacy-the-vulnerable).

Youth Justice Advocacy ICCA has produced important guidance and a supplementary film specifically for practitioners representing children in the youth justice system. Children and young people who find themselves in trouble are generally some of the most disadvantaged in society with acute and complex educational, social and financial vulnerabilities. The materials are freely available on the College’s website (www.icca.ac.uk/youthjustice-advocacy).

The Advocate’s Gateway (TAG) Second International Conference On 2 and 3 June 2017, delegates from across the world arrived in London to attend our second TAG International conference entitled ‘Access to Justice for Vulnerable People’. Speakers at the conference presented ground-breaking research from a range of international jurisdictions in a variety of vulnerabilityrelated subjects. Topics ranged from young defendants to women in the criminal justice system. Highlights included a keynote address from The Rt Hon. Lady Dorrian, the Lord

46

Justice Clerk, which explained moves in Scotland to improve the way in which vulnerable and child witnesses are dealt with. A demonstration of advocacy with a vulnerable witness was given by our ICCA practitioners.

Ethics Following the publication in December 2015 of the report The Ethical Capacities of New Advocates by Professor Richard Moorhead and others of University College London, specially commissioned by the ATC, the College has established a standing Professional Ethics Training committee to carry work on this topic forward. Its immediate aim is to settle a suite of high quality training materials, equipped with teaching notes, to assist the Inns and Circuits in the training they deliver.

Statistics and the Court ICCA has been working on a collaborative project with the Royal Statistical Society (RSS) in the production of a short booklet entitled Statistics and Probability for Advocates: Understanding the use of statistical evidence in courts and tribunals. The aim of the booklet is to introduce advocates to some of the basic techniques involved in the use of statistics and to point out some of the traps into which they and the courts can fall.

International Work The Inns College has continued the ATC’s legacy of training internationally. In 2016-17 ICCA has delivered training in places including Poland, South Africa, The Hague, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and St Lucia.

In the latter half of 2016 the College delivered training in Sierra Leone, funded by ROLE UK. The training was intended to reignite the development of a faculty of trainers in Sierra Leone that had initially begun with an ATC trip in 2014. Such advocacy training is essential in ensuring justice by improving the effective functioning of the courts.

The College also delivered the first National Advocacy Training Programme sponsored by the American Inns of Court and held in Philadelphia. The course introduced the Hampel method to US attorneys who were looking to develop their trial advocacy skills and was deemed such a success that the College has been invited to deliver the programme again in 2017 in two US cities, Chicago and Tampa.

Expert Evidence Two training conferences are being organised (one in July, a second one in October), to be run in collaboration with the Specialist Bar Associations, on the subject of expert witnesses handling. Further details are available via our website at www. icca.ac.uk/expert-evidence-training-conference.

If you are interested in any of the College’s projects, please contact Indira Pillay (i.pillay@middletemple.org.uk) with your details or Phoebe Makin (pmakin@icca.ac.uk) for more details.

The Inns of Court College of Advocacy – One Year On

York Advocacy Weekend OLIVER HEATON I am most grateful that I have been given the opportunity to report on the 2017 Middle Temple York Advocacy Weekend experience for The Middle Templar. As somebody who was born and grew up in York, I was delighted to be able attend the programme which ran from 3-5 February, directed by Master Neil Davey at the Principal York Hotel.

First and foremost, the overall quality, structure and atmosphere of the weekend was flawless, as a direct result of Middle Temple’s excellent organisation, spearheaded

by Christa Richmond and the Education Department. The trainers, who were drawn from both the local North Eastern Circuit and farther afield, displayed endless enthusiasm for us to develop and succeed throughout all the sessions and social activities, with a real focus on improving our advocacy through the Hampel Method. Although the Method requires a sharp critique of an area on which to improve, the trainers did not refrain from also providing some positive feedback and encouragement where appropriate.

The mock case which formed the training for examination-in-chief, cross-examination and closing speeches, gave us our first opportunity outside of the BPTC classroom to put into practice what we had learned (or were yet to learn) on our courses in a more realistic and intimate setting. The hotel was the perfect backdrop and it was widely acknowledged that both the food and the wine (in abundance) were excellent. In the evenings, we had a formal dinner, usually accompanied by either an advocacy demonstration drawn from real experiences of the trainers, or some questionable homemade jokes. Appropriately, the socialising continued in the bar afterwards.

Between the advocacy training classes, we had the opportunity to attend either a pupillage application and interview advice session or a tour of York Crown Court with Master Paul Worsley. Having already made my first ever court visit to York Crown Court, I chose the former. This included hearing a brilliant presentation on interview techniques and a ‘speed-date’ with barristers of Middle Temple to discuss tips and ideas for future career decisions, which was also very valuable.

Personally, the highlight for me was the closing speech activity based on the material we had worked through over the weekend. This took place during the final Sunday morning session. It was nerve-racking enough that this would be my first ever attempt at a closing speech but what was perhaps more disconcerting was that it would be in

front of Master Treasurer and his wife, Lady Dyson, who were also in attendance at the Advocacy Weekend. Fortunately, it wasn’t a complete disaster after all and this ended the incredible experience on a positive and uplifting note. In our final group session, it was the general consensus that the programme was both a confidence boost and a real motivator for our future careers, and great for tackling those initial nerves.

The weekend was without doubt the most ‘collegiate’ Middle Temple event that I have attended, fuelled by the charismatic leadership of Master Davey. It was an occasion to socialise with distinguished barristers and judges in a relaxed setting, to make new friends who have similar aspirations and, most importantly, to improve under the guidance of such talented practitioners. Combining this, a beautiful city and the much-needed Qualifying Session tally, it is an event simply not to be missed.

Oliver read Law at the University of Nottingham and is currently undertaking the BPTC in Leeds where he also volunteers at the local PSU. He aims to secure a mixed common law pupillage, whilst still maintaining his links to music and the arts.

York Advocacy Weekend

47

Middle Temple Scholarships

BPTC Scholarships Awarded 2017 The Queen's Scholarship Alexandra Wilson Queen Mother Scholarships Samuel Castlehouse, Eleanor Clotworthy, Ali El-Haj, Alice Ellaby, Ruba Huleihel, Oliver Jackson, Daniel Kessler, Jennifer Lanigan, Samuel Ponniah, Helen Rodger, Samuel Rowe, Katharine Strange and Patrick Wise-Walsh Duke & Duchess of Cambridge Scholarships Sharon Okorejior and Elle Tait

Middle Temple has a reputation for inclusivity in its approach to awarding scholarships. Therefore Middle Temple offers interviews to all candidates that apply for Major Scholarships; it is felt that every candidate should be given the opportunity to demonstrate their potential as an advocate.

When awarding scholarships, our interview panels first decide whether a candidate merits a scholarship based on an objective assessment against a fixed criteria: intellectual ability, motivation to succeed at the Bar, potential as an advocate, and personal qualities. The amount awarded is then dependant on the candidate’s individual financial circumstances.

As a result, those in greater need will receive larger awards.

2017 is the first year The Queen’s Scholarship has been awarded. This scholarship, established to mark the occasion of Her Majesty’s 90th Birthday, is awarded to a single student who demonstrates exceptional promise. This award is now our most prestigious scholarship.

This year Middle Temple has awarded over £1 million in scholarships. The majority of funding is provided for students undertaking the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC). The remainder is split between funding for the Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL), the Access to the Bar Scheme, and a number of other post-BPTC Scholarships.

Here is a list of our Major Scholarship winners and Entrance Exhibition recipients; we offer them all our congratulations.

48

Diana, Princess of Wales Scholarship Trudi Moore Astbury Scholarships Katherine Archer, Charles Bishop, Thomas Evans, Alex Leonhardt, Elizabeth Lewis, Rachel Schon, Jeremy Scott-Joynt, William Vaudry and Natalie York Diplock Scholarships Thomas Adu Jnr, Lucy Coen, Thomas James, Jennifer Kelly, James Kinsey, Oliver Mosley, John Price, Toby Roseman and Morris Seifert Harmsworth Scholarships Arpanpreet Bedi, Hester Calder, Stephanie Clarke, Pamela Daly, Matthew Davies, Eduardo Fazio Escobar, Michael Goodman, Victoria Hamblen, Paul Kerfoot, Alexa Le Moine, Tasneem Sadiq, Lauren Smith, Aimee Stokes, Andrea Toller, Henry Tufnell and Francesca Vernioli Jules Thorn Scholarships Daniel Bramhall, Matthew Cullen, James Howard, Emma Hughes, Haleema Hussain, Amy King, Tiffany Ann Morgan, Yara Sadek, Ivana Daskalova, Indunee Seneviratne, Martha Smith-Higgins and Lucie Taylor Benefactors Scholarships Henry King, Alesha Mclean and George Smith

Individual named awards

GDL Scholarships Awarded 2017

Atkin Chambers Scholarship, Nicholas Higgs

Queen Mother Scholarships

Blackstone Scholarship, Suffian Hussain

Alice Beech, Thomas Parsons-Munn, Rosanna Suppa,

Brick Court Scholarship, Allan Murt

Nick Taylor, Natallia Tuzheliak and Thomas Weber

The Connor Scholarship, Lara Izzard-Hobbs Cunningham Scholarship, Tiffany-Rochelle Louis-Byfield

Diplock Scholarship

Gardiner Scholarship, James Nash

Tom Hoeksma and April Wardy

Godfrey Heilpern Memorial Scholarship, Ellie Whiteside-Hunt

Harmsworth Scholarships

H.R. Light Scholarship, Joel Cartwright

Dana Contac, Sarah Covington, Justine Rae and

HHJ Paul Clark Scholarship, Lucy Logan Green

Thomas Walker

Hubert Munroe Scholarship, Jacob Howell-Jones J.B. Montague Scholarship, Luke Tallis

Astbury Scholarships

Jamieson Scholarship, Charles Lea

Laurence Harris, Caitlin Harris, James Klair, Isabelle Knight,

Jerry Parthab Singh Scholarship, Harriet Lavin

Kavish Shah, Klara Slater and Elizabeth Walsh

Joseph Jackson Scholarship, Philip Tait Leolin Price QC Scholarship, Bradley Kershaw

Jules Thorn Scholarships

The Lowry-Calvert Scholarship, Redmond Traynor

Kane Alexander, Eva Doerr, Christina Lienen,

The Luboshez Scholarship, Cathryn Evans

Donna Longcroft and Jenni Routledge

Malcolm Wright Scholarship, Connor Stuart Mona de Piro Scholarship, Ellen Crow

Benefactors Scholarship

Nicholas Pumfrey Memorial Scholarship, Meeno Chawla

Claire Otto

Pump Court Tax Chambers Scholarship, Mairtin Tucker Quatercentenary Scholarship, Jack Phillips

Entrance Exhibitions Awarded 2017

Reader’s Scholarship, Chloe Birch Robert Garraway Rice Scholarship, John-Paul Mattar

Blackstone Entrance Exhibitions

The Rose Scholarship, Amanda Brown

Eleanor Clotworthy, Lucy Coen, Lara Izzard-Hobbs,

Rosina Hare Scholarship, Zakia Shamim

Helen Rodger, Samuel Rowe, Alice Beech, Claire Otto,

Safford Scholarship, Aidan Hocking

Rosanna Suppa and Elizabeth Walsh

Sir Christopher Benson Scholarship, Annabelle Atkins Sir Joseph Cantley Memorial Scholarship, Simren Singh

De Lancy Entrance Exhibition

Sir Robert Micklethwaite Memorial Scholarship,

Tiffany Ann Morgan

Sophie O’Brien South Square Scholarship, Catherine Hartston

Harmsworth Entrance Exhibitions

State School Scholarship, Oliver Latham

Thomas Evans, Daniel Kessler, Alex Leonhardt,

Terence Fitzgerald Scholarship, Maham Qureshi

Rachel Schon and Patrick Wise-Walsh

Winston Churchill Scholarship, Niamh Ingham L.J. Sachs Entrance Exhibition William Vaudry

Scholarships

49

Rosamund Smith Moot Winners 2016 HANNAH DALY & PHILIP JUDD When Phil and I decided to enter the Rosamund Smith Mooting Competition in the winter of 2015, we had almost three whole months of the conversion course’s legal study to back us and an extremely scraggy understanding of legal procedure. But we went merrily into it, hoping for glory and expecting none.

Some lessons we learned quickly. For example, legislation.gov.uk is not a reliable source of current legislation! Nor were our opponents to be treated like rivals in a boxing match: this is, or ought to be, an unfailingly polite profession (even if courtesy can be deployed by some advocates to devastating effect).

Other lessons we never seemed to get the hang of - to submit a bundle in time, for example, means more than the four to eight minutes run from Gray's Inn to Middle Temple.

Tabbing a bundle is of great benefit to judges, but none to you if you forget to make a note of which documents lie at which tab. Countless times I watched Phil say, with upward inflexion, and some trepidation, ‘My Lord, if I could just take you to that case at tab… four?’ Somehow, we always got it right.

For all our mistakes and the challenges brought by each of the six rounds, we had tremendous fun. I remember the nerves that set in the moment the Moot problem was released, and I remember the immense relief upon exchanging bundles when we realised that our arguments could not, after all, have been so featherbrained if our opponents had seen fit to tackle the same point.

Much more than that, however, the Moot offered an exhilarating relief from the relentless progress of the graduate diploma in law (GDL). When so much of legal study focuses on rote-learning and rigid rules, the Moot provided an opportunity to think. For that simple reason, it was usually a great relief that none of the areas of law addressed by the Moot were ones we had encountered before. Each round offered a new opportunity to consider the purpose of an applicable set of laws, the controversies they raised and, usually, to consider the merits of some very recent judgment whose author we may well have encountered as our judge!

We were thrilled to make the semi-finals. They are held in June, a fitting month for students already inured to siege: we faced concurrent GDL exams, the pupillage process and the Moot. The topic was excellently tough – it called into question the boundaries between tort law in respect of public authorities, the application of the Human Rights Act and case law from Strasbourg. The Semis are held in front of a full Hall – quite unlike the small rooms above the library where, up until recently, we had been assessed by a single judge. On

50

the night, we dined first and mooted later (though I remember we drank a little and ate next to nothing!) I decided to redraft my submissions under the table and learned, not for the first time, that blue ink and damp hands produce a very interesting orange chromatographic effect.

As the last of the summer light faded and the lights went up in the Hall, Master Judge, in what may be a customary salutation, approached us. ‘Are you nervous?’ he firmly enquired. ‘Yes’, we said together. ‘Good’ he replied, ‘You should be’. I wondered what he might have said had we responded ‘No’.

And so it was before Masters Judge, Stewart Smith and Holroyde that we made our submissions. It is a magnificent and curious thing that all the nerves that feel like some sort of plague before a Moot dissipate the moment one starts speaking. There can be no denying that all the semi-finalists felt very special and very privileged indeed to be speaking before such esteemed judges, in such an historic Hall, in front of so many of our peers.

The final was held in Hall and presided over by Masters Hodge, Burnett and McGowan. The case concerned an Article 5 and damages claim regarding a person imprisoned for years after the police received information that effectively absolved him. The central issues were the extent of the police’s disclosure duties post-conviction, and the relationship between human rights and common law heads of damages.

Fortunately, unlike the semi-final, the final was held before dinner – meaning that we didn’t have to stare anxiously at the bread and forego the wine as before. Nerves were very much still present: Phil managed to drop the microphone (with none of Obama’s flare) before even starting. Our opponents, Kate Macleod and Kate Newton, were fantastic, and it was a surprise when Master Hodge announced that we had won; that we lost on the law is a testament to how good both Kates were.

Hannah Daly is completing the BPTC this summer at City University, having completed the GDL there in 2016. She formerly read History at the University of Oxford, and took a Master's in Economic History at the LSE. Before coming to the Bar she spent three years working in the City as a commodity trading Consultant for Accenture. She will commence pupillage in October 2017 with 4 New Square.

All those who reach the semi-final of the competition get the brilliant opportunity to represent the Middle Temple on an advocacy tour to the States, very kindly subsidised by the Inn. The week-long tour alternates every year between the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Pepperdine School of Law in Malibu, California, where we were fortunate to go. The Inn’s two teams Moot against teams from the host universities twice each over the course of the week. We were all put up with professors of the law school, who opened their homes – and their commensurately large American fridges – to us. Kate and Hannah stayed with Professor Paul Caron and I stayed with Professor Jim Gash. Jim specialised in tort law at Pepperdine. The most interesting part of his work, however, involved establishing a hugely commendable programme in Uganda introducing standardised evidence recording procedures and plea bargaining to a system plagued by eye-watering delay. Often, those who admitted guilt to a crime carrying, say, a six month sentence, would wait years for a chance to appear before a court. For those protesting innocence, the difficulty in gathering evidence after such a delay meant that miscarriages of justices were pronounced, and frequent. Jim and his team’s administrative efforts went a long way to alleviating these problems. The programme was fascinating to hear about, and we were treated to a private screening of a documentary profiling the work.

The focal point of the week was a Moot against two Pepperdine teams. Master Nicola Padfield, Master of Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, acted as a judge alongside two Pepperdine professors. Held in one of Pepperdine’s impressive mock-courtrooms, the appeal concerned the requisite mens rea for murder when a conviction is attendant to a finding of intent to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).

Watched by their classmates, the American students did

a brilliant job considering the appeal concerned English law. An advocate with a strong southern US accent, clad in cowboy boots and a stars and stripes bow tie dealing with the facts of an assault outside a Wetherspoons in Basingstoke certainly made for an interesting sight.

Hannah and I had plenty of free time to explore the beautiful campus overlooking the Pacific Ocean, and Santa Monica pier, Malibu, and Los Angeles were all a short drive away. Big Sur and California’s incredible national parks were all accessible, and we all took advantage of the flexibility offered to explore further afield, both before and after the week at Pepperdine.

We would all strongly encourage everyone to enter the competition. It is a great opportunity to Moot in front of senior members of the Inn. The topic areas vary from family, to crime, to public and human rights law, so it is a chance to sample different areas for those still undecided as to their desired area of practice. The competition is also widely known, and stands out on a pupillage application. Most importantly, it’s very enjoyable!

Phil Judd graduated with a degree in History from Oxford in 2012. Prior to coming to the Bar, he worked for a startup and in private equity before spending two and half years in M&A consulting at Accenture (by strange coincidence and without knowing each other, along with Hannah). He was then awarded the Queen Mother Scholarship to study the GDL at City University. He is currently completing the BPTC at the University of Law, and will begin pupillage in October 2017.

Rosamund Smith Moot Winners 2016

51

Juggling the worst conflict since WWII and the BPTC, is this possible?

IBRAHIM OLABI Syria, famously known as the country which has the worst humanitarian crisis since WWII, is where I am originally from.

When I first wanted to get into law prior to 2011, the year the uprising in Syria had started, it was commercial law that I was interested in. I was fortunate enough to be able to intern at a magic circle law firm a few times. After 2011, everything changed.

I wanted to utilise my access to legal knowledge in a way that helps my country. I say access to legal knowledge rather than possessing legal expertise, as I was only a second year law student at the University of Manchester at the time.

During that year, we studied the laws of war, also called International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which are the rules that govern warfare. I knew this was an area that could have a positive impact in Syria, and I wanted to advocate for the compliance of these norms with the warring parties. When I reached out to Amnesty International they confirmed that there was currently no one carrying out such work in Syria. I started putting together some materials with legal experts, and the next thing I knew, I was near the frontline in Aleppo, advocating for IHL compliance with armed non-state actors.

The above happened during the summer of 2013, after my second year LLB exams. After seeing the impact our work had, coming back to the lecture halls wasn’t easy, as now I was living in two different worlds, one under high ceilings, and the other under barrel bombs.

One thing was certain though, the more legal knowledge I gained, the more I was able to help the situation back home. Therefore, completing my degree to the highest standard was key. However, I also wanted to build upon the work I had already started.

In January 2014, I decided to institutionalise the work carried out so far and set up an NGO under the name of

52

the Syrian Legal Development Programme (SLDP) while continuing my studies at Manchester. This is when the juggling began, between studying for Land Law exams and running the NGO in a conflict zone. I was very lucky with the support I received from Manchester University and the Professors Iain Scobbie and Jean d’Aspremont and Ms Norm Hird. My years at Manchester were topped when I was humbled and awarded the University’s Undergraduate of the Year and later the University’s Postgraduate of the Year when I undertook my Masters in International Law. By then, SLDP’s scope of work had significantly expanded to different areas of international law and a range of projects and activities. At that time we had presence in three different countries and worked on projects with the United Nations, the International Bar Association and other international entities. I also had the privilege of being invited by heads of States, including the UK’s Prime Minister and the German Chancellor, to meetings concerning Syria.

As our projects grew, the IHL advocacy I had done through SLDP, and closely working with English barristers on certain SLDP projects, made me certain that it is the Bar that I wanted to pursue. I became even more confident when I completed my first mini pupillage at Doughty Street Chambers with Tim Moloney QC and stepping into the courtrooms of the Old Bailey for the very first time.

I knew from speaking to those who have taken the Bar route that it is by no means an easy one. However, I didn’t want to go into the Bar merely to get a qualification, and therefore I knew that the passion I possessed for improving my skills and knowledge would help me to succeed in the course.

Before figuring out how to deal with the content of the

course, any prospective BPTC student needs to work out how to finance the course. This is why choosing Middle Temple is a decision I will never regret. The panel that interviewed me saw my determination to practise UK crime that is related to conflict areas, such as terrorism, human rights, and extradition, as well as practising in international courts and tribunals. It was a big acknowledgment that I was awarded the Benefactors Scholarship.

Given the amount of travels I have to do for my work at SLDP, I had to choose the part time weekend option, an option that was readily available at the University of Law. This allowed me to run the projects, study for my classes, and also go through further mini-pupillages in the areas I was interested in, as well as marshalling at the Court of Appeal. The way the BPTC helped me in my work and the way that my work helped me with the BPTC was far better than I ever expected.

The BPTC also helped me in my work, as I was asked to attend and assist with a Swedish trial that involved war crimes in Syria. The case was particularly interesting as the defendant said he executed detainees because there was a court order to do so. What was more interesting was that the court in question was a rebel court. The legal question therefore was: Can rebels establish courts and hand down judgments under international law? This was an international law question that I focused on during my masters but knowing fair trials procedures, witness handling techniques and cross examination tactics were just among the few issues I learned on the BPTC that I was able to employ to assist with the case.

The transferable skills you learn as you join the English Bar go even beyond the UK’s borders.

SLDP was invited to participate in the Geneva negotiation that aimed to resolve the conflict. I met with expert negotiators and mediators and took part in a very complicated process. In addition, half way across the world, I was involved in using the IHL framework for humanitarian negotiations to facilitate aid into Syria. These two activities made the Alternative Dispute Resolution course at the BPTC, which includes topics such as mediation and negotiations, relatively straightforward.

As the work of SLDP grows, the more I see barristers in action, and so the more my eagerness to qualify as barrister increases. Even the self-employed nature of the Bar is something I can’t wait to start, as I have experienced first-hand - the self-employed nature of the organisation I set up, which gives me confidence that this is the form of employment where I thrive.

Yes. That is the answer to the question in the title of this article. It is possible to try and make a difference in the world, even in a war-torn country, and complete the BPTC. The key is that you have to see them as going hand in hand in fulfilling your ambitions. But, yes, you still have to work incredibly hard for both.

Ibrahim Olabi is the founder of the Syrian Legal Development Programme.

He is a fellow at the Manchester International Law Centre and currently pursuing his BPTC at the University of Law.

The way the BPTC helped me in my work and the way that my work helped me with the BPTC was far better than I ever expected.

Juggling the worst conflict since WWII and the BPTC, is this possible?

53

Clerking for the President of the Israeli Supreme Court NATASHA HAUSDORFF It was a tremendous privilege to spend the summer of 2016 clerking for the President of the Israeli Supreme Court, Justice Miriam Naor, in Jerusalem, with the generous support of the Middle Temple Young Barristers Association (MTYBA) internship award. My work at the Court afforded me an incredible insight into the Israeli legal system which, while closely rooted in English legal principles as a result of the British Mandate, has developed substantially in its own right, building on Ottoman and British foundations with influence from the US, the civil systems of France and Germany, and international law.

British influence rooted the doctrine of stare decisis within the Israeli legal system and the 1922 ‘Palestine Order in Council’ determined that in cases of statutory lacuna English judges were to find solutions in ‘the substance of the common law and the doctrines of equity in force in England’. The practice of filling gaps with English law continued under Israeli judges after the establishment of the State of Israel, by virtue of Article 11 of the 1948 ‘Law and Administration Ordinance’.

This remained the case until 1980, when the ‘Foundations of Law Act’ determined that in situations where no answer could be found in statute, in case law or by analogy, a Court should decide in ‘light of the principles of freedom, justice, equity and peace of Israel’s heritage’. In the absence of a formalised constitution, Israel has adopted a series of ‘Basic Laws’, perhaps most notably the 1992 ‘Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom’, which enshrined in Israeli law the pre-eminence of human rights such as liberty, mobility, privacy and property.

In this context, the Supreme Court has played a vital role, becoming internationally renowned as an activist court.

Petitioners, including non-citizens and NGOs, are able to directly access the Supreme Court sitting in its capacity as the High Court of Justice. Chiefly as a result of these petitions, the Court has found itself deciding landmark cases on contentious issues, requiring careful balancing between matters of national security and human rights considerations. Indeed, Master Treasurer, Lord Dyson, addressed a Middle Temple dinner in March on the extraordinary weighing exercises required of the Jerusalem Court and noted that it was not uncommon for judges to disagree as to where the balance should be struck.

54

Clerking

The Supreme Court Justices have been at the coalface with respect to the application of international legal norms to complex conflict situations, embracing the challenge of addressing controversial questions on detention: methods of interrogation and humanitarian provisions in the law of armed conflict, all the while maintaining a delicate line between the powers of the judiciary and those of elected government.

Its decisions have in many respects been a beacon to other national supreme courts. There is a great deal to be learnt from the reasoning exhibited by its judgments in cases which demand complex legal balancing exercises, often ahead of their time. The approach of the Israeli Supreme Court to issues of counterterrorism is particularly instructive from the perspective of the UK, as legal institutions here begin to grapple with similar issues in the weighing of security against individual rights and freedoms.

My time at the Supreme Court of Israel coincided with an exchange with the UK Supreme Court in June. This was the ninth triennial British-Israeli Legal Exchange, part of a series of events between judges and lawyers. The positive and close relationship exhibited between the legal professions in the respective jurisdictions is encouraging. It denotes co-operation, promises an improved understanding of the unique position that Israel finds itself in, and highlights the extent to which the legal institutions in Israel set a positive example to the international community.

Natasha Hausdorff studied Jurisprudence at Lincoln College, Oxford and was Called to the Bar in 2016. Before transferring to the Bar, she qualified as a solicitor at the American commercial law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in London.

In 2015 she spent a year in Israel, gaining an LLM with a focus on international law at Tel Aviv University. After her masters, she spent the summer working as the foreign clerk to Justice Miriam Naor, the President of the Supreme Court of Israel, in Jerusalem.

Natasha is currently a pupil at Six Pump Court.

Middle Temple Young Barristers’ Association International Intern Award JULIAN RANETUNGE ‘But counsel - your arguments don’t make sense, do they?’

While I was not an expert in arbitration, the BPTC had at least taught me that this was not something you wanted to hear from an arbitrator - let alone from Professor Ingeborg Schwenzer, whose big book on the subject was firmly planted on the table next to my rather lean-looking pleadings. It’s a little unsettling, to say the least, to be told by the person whose writings have formed your Weltanschauung over the past few months that you’ve got it all wrong.

‘With respect, Madame Arbitrator, they do.’

At this point, I could tell the learned arbitrator was playing devil’s advocate. Of course, we weren’t in a real arbitration; we were in Vienna for the international rounds of the 2016 Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot. Sitting behind me were the other Middle Temple advocates Daniel Grütters, James Gale and Rebecca de Hoest as well as our coaches, Lord Hacking and Masters Jeffrey Gruder and Stuart Ritchie.

‘Counsel - what about the Swiss case?’

‘The which case?’

This is how I first met the extraordinary person who would later become my mentor and friend. Professor Schwenzer is a pre-eminent jurist in the field of comparative, commercial and family law. She is best-known as editor of the leading commentary on the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods 1980 (CISG). Her expertise in this field is no accident. She was pursuing her doctorate at the University of Freiburg in the late 1970s when Professor Peter Schlechtriem asked her to take minutes of the domestic German discussions on the adoption of the CISG. She has held guest professorships as far afield as Saudi Arabia, Brazil and Hong Kong, and will be so situated at Columbia University next year.

Professor Schwenzer took me under her wing to work on a research project on the scope of the CISG. Modern contracts for the international sale of goods tend to include supply of service obligations too – so-called ‘mixed contracts’. For example, a contract for the sale of a plant might also require the seller to dismantle the plant at its origin, transport it to the buyer’s premises, and install and operate it for the first few months. But courts and tribunals have struggled to apply

the CISG to mixed contracts. Since judges and arbitrators are unsure whether the CISG can be applied to the services portion of the contract, they have in the past applied the CISG only to the sales portion and turned to private international law rules to determine the law applicable to the services portion.

What Professor Schwenzer noticed was that the CISG – Article 3 (2) to be precise – explicitly envisages the application of the Convention to supply of service obligations. The research I conducted with another student, Fernando Tafur of the University of Basel and Sciences Po, confirmed that arbitral tribunals and courts have already applied the CISG to service obligations without issue. Thus, the CISG can be, and indeed has been, applied to mixed contracts. Our research also touched upon an issue that has vexed legal systems since time immemorial: the characterisation of a contract as for sales or for services, and the standard of liability this characterisation entails. Our paper will be published at the end of this year as part of a Society of Legal Scholars Seminar Book.

I have the Middle Temple Young Barristers’ Association (MTYBA) to thank for supporting my work in Basel.

Their International Intern Award helped to fund the not inexpensive costs of staying in Switzerland and working with Professor Schwenzer. I would urge any law student who plans to undertake an internship abroad to consider applying for this award, which has in the past supported placements at Amicus, the Council of Europe and the ICTY. Julian Ranetunge was Called to the Bar in 2016. He was a Queen Mother Scholar.

He was ranked in the international top 10 advocates at the 2015 Jessup moot and in the international top 4% of advocates at the 2016 Vis Moot. He is currently pursuing an LLM in arbitration and conflicts at the London School of Economics and will continue his studies at Columbia Law School in autumn 2017.

Middle Temple Young Barristers' Association International Intern Award

55

Lady Templeman-Master Singhvi Memorial Travel Fellowship 2016 RALPH MORLEY

‘Please, are you my advocate?’ A man bent by age, clutching a scrap of paper with a High Court stamp on it, looked at me hopefully.

Four days after being called to the Bar by the Inn I was flattered to be mistaken for a competent advocate, but I could do no more than apologise for I was not: this was a humid morning in New Delhi some four thousand miles from the only High Court I might claim to have studied.

I had been fortunate to receive the Inn’s Lady Templeman-Master Singhvi Memorial Travel Fellowship to visit India and find out first-hand more about the country’s legal system, and was now stood in a courtyard just outside the Delhi High Court waiting for a visitor’s pass. The most striking feature of the Indian court system to the casual observer is the crowds. Every court I visited had standing room only by the time business got underway each morning.

The visual force of these crowds is heightened by the requirement that all Indian advocates, whether they be trial counsel or discharging a solicitor’s functions, must attend court wearing a gown and bands. Broad rivers of court dress roll along the corridors.

I had expected the courts to be busy, if not to quite such a degree. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over around 1.3 billion citizens, far outstripping any other common law court.

The volume of population is not, though, the sole explanation.

Through talking to advocates and seeing court business itself I began to understand some of the other reasons for the courts being so overcrowded. One is the way in which courts are resourced - ongoing disputes between executive and judiciary about the power the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself to appoint its own judges. Meaning that the higher courts are short of several hundred judges, while a lack of administrative staff means those judges who are left often have little time to sit down and write judgments, contributing to delays. The other is the way court business itself is conducted. The civil courts use the Indian Civil Procedure Code, enacted in 1908, which lacks the kind of case management powers the Woolf reforms yielded in English courts, and which expects almost all business to be transacted before the courts themselves. This

The number of cases advocates deal with in any given week, and the breadth of practice which is still the routine at the Delhi Bar, mean advocates possess great flexibility and intellectual acuity.

56

created lengthy cause lists which had a large number of interim and final matters mixed in together, even in the Supreme Court. This resulted in the number of matters heard almost invariably being exceeded by the number of cases to be heard, with interim matters sometimes waiting for days while the court dealt with a final matter higher up the cause list.

The advocates I spoke to were frustrated by this, not least because it meant they often prepared to go to court to no avail. It also meant cases dragged on for decades: litigation twenty or thirty years after the event was not uncommon, and one advocate told me he had just argued a case before the Supreme Court which his grandfather argued at first instance forty years ago. In consequence, there is currently a backlog of nearly thirty million pending cases nationwide.

The benefit for the observer was that Supreme Court advocates could expect to be in court every day and, in any event, on their feet several times every week: this meant they were consummate trial counsel. Dr Abhishek Singhvi, my host, had on one occasion fully prepared to argue a Supreme Court matter about the sale of a property in Mumbai; the court adjourned the matter as soon as it sat, but immediately Dr Singhvi, outpacing the rest of us, hurried over to the High Court to argue a case concerning railway wagons instead.

The number of cases advocates deal with in any given week, and the breadth of practice which is still the routine at the Delhi Bar, mean advocates must possess great flexibility and intellectual acuity. One area, however, in which the advocacy I saw differed sharply from English practice was the high speed with which even many of the best senior advocates I saw spoke. Intriguingly, this never seemed to be an issue for the judges’ comprehension of their arguments.

I was on my own for much of the time I was in India, which, not least because people were often surprised I was alone, meant that I had many more interesting conversations than I might have had otherwise and usually with complete strangers. Whether standing in the colonnade of the Supreme Court, or travelling in a sleeper train compartment, I had enlivening discussions about topics ranging from the historical development of constitutional theory, starting with Aristotle, to the aircraft carriers of the Indian Navy. Many of these strangers also insisted on buying me a cup of Chai (tea), a kindness which was most welcome.

These conversations revealed some common themes.

Non-lawyers and lawyers alike were curious to know how

India and Indians were perceived in Britain, and what the EU referendum result might mean for India’s relationship with the UK. Many lawyers wanted to compare the extent to which English and Indian procedure remained the same, and to compare approaches to human rights. One topic which was a particular concern of younger advocates was diversity at the Bar, with some labelling the Supreme Court Bar ’an old boys’ club. It was a small comfort to them that the question of access to the profession was by no means exclusive to Delhi.

I then visited the National Law University (NLU) in Jodhpur and became, for what I expect will be the only time in my life, a visiting law lecturer, speaking to first-year undergraduates on the history of common law (1000 years in 50 minutes), and to postgraduates on the effect of the Woolf and Jackson reforms. Indian law students work tremendously hard, with an LLB requiring six days of lectures every week for five years. This produced listeners who were perceptive questioners, and who almost certainly knew more law than I did! During my stay, I had the opportunity to do many other things I had never done before, some obvious, like riding a camel, some less so: I was allowed to paint the flank of an (alive) elephant at a wildlife sanctuary in Jaipur, and so decided to write clause 40 of Magna Carta, albeit in a slightly truncated form. Whether, in fact, anyone else has been foolish enough to attempt this in the last 801 years, I cannot say. In any event, it piqued the curiosity of the staff, leading to a conversation about their right to a fair trial in the Indian Constitution (indirectly derived from clause 39 of Magna Carta), which was, I hope, a small contribution to legal goodwill in the broadest sense.

I would like to thank my host, Dr Abhishek Singhvi, for his generosity in organising the travel fellowship which his late father, Master Singhvi, first instituted; to Mr Amit Bhandari, who kindly arranged the details of my stay in India and put up with my questions; to Mr Sohan Lal Sharma, Registrar of the NLU; to Major Kamalesh Singh of the Border Security Force; and to the Inn’s Scholarship Committee and Scholarships Officer. This scholarship was originally set up by Lord Templeman, a Bencher of the Inn, and Master Singhvi, the Indian High Commissioner in the UK from 1991 to 1997 and an Honorary Bencher. Master Singhvi’s son, Dr Abishek Singhvu, most generously enabled us to continue the scheme for ten years after his father’s death. The scheme was closed in 2017.

Ralph Morley was Called to the Bar in July 2016. A recipient of a Queen Mother Scholarship, he is presently undertaking pupillage in commercial law at 7 King's Bench Walk, with interests in international arbitration, shipping and insurance. Before coming to law, he studied Classics at Trinity College, Cambridge, serving as Senior Midshipman in the Cambridge University Royal Naval Unit and captaining Trinity College’s University Challenge team.

Lady Templeman-Master Singhvi Memorial Travel Fellowship 2016

57

The New CPD Regime MASTER ANDREW HOCHHAUSER In October 2015, the Bar Standards Board (BSB) published a Professional Statement which outlines the knowledge, skills and attributes (KSA) which a barrister must possess. Barristers' Continuing Professional Development (CPD) must focus on developing at least one and preferably more of these elements.

From 1 January 2017, there was a change of regime for all barristers who are more than three years’ Call. Those changes can be briefly summarised as follows:

It is a four stage process. In order to comply with the new scheme, each year a barrister must have satisfactorily completed the following stages:

1. You no longer have to complete a minimum number of hours

• Stage 1: Planning

2. You now have individual responsibility for what training you require 3. There is no longer a requirement to complete accredited hours 4. You have increased flexibility in the types of CPD activities that you can complete 5. The BSB will assess whether you have planned and completed your CPD in a structured way 6. Assessments of current CPD compliance will be made by taking into account your CPD activity in previous years The aims of the new scheme are to be less prescriptive, more flexible, better suited to one’s actual training needs. It is less likely to result in irrelevant CPD activities being completed, as well as less likely to result in disproportionate supervision and enforcement action being taken for non-compliance.

The published guidance states: The new CPD scheme puts in place a structure that allows you to determine your own professional development requirements for the year in an efficient way. It also allows us to assess whether you have planned and completed your CPD in a structured way.

58

• Stage 2: Recording and evidence • Stage 3: Reflecting on your CPD activities • Stage 4: Declaring completion Stage 1 - Planning rQ134.1 requires you to determine the learning objectives you intend to complete during the calendar year.

The Handbook defines a learning objective as; ’a statement of what a barrister intends to achieve through their CPD activities for that calendar year with reference to a specific aim and one or more outcomes’. (rQ130.8) In other words, a learning objective is a statement of what you hope to achieve through your CPD activities and an explanation of why you want to achieve it. Learning objectives should have an aim and one or more outcomes.

It is good practice for a learning objective to be specific and measurable.

In its guidance for practitioners, the BSB suggests that the learning objectives should consider these areas: • Legal knowledge and skills • Advocacy • Practice Management • Working with clients and others • Ethics, professionalism and judgement

Examples of Learning Objectives under These Headings

Ethics, professionalism and judgement

Legal knowledge and skills

Develop your understanding of:

•U pdate and develop your legal knowledge in a particular field of law (needs to be specified)

• Conflicts of interest and how to avoid them

• Develop your legal research skills

• Your duties to the court

• Client confidentiality

•T opical issues relating to legal problems Advocacy Develop the ability:

Develop: • Your ability to act confidently in your legal practice

• To examine and cross-examine witnesses effectively

• Your approach to your work and your ability to correct errors or admit your limitations

• To submit pleas in mitigation effectively

• Your interpersonal skills

• To make effective use of skeleton arguments

• Your management of issues of equality and diversity within your practice

• To make effective use of oral submissions in order to provide a level of advocacy appropriate for your practice, level of seniority and experience.

Practice Management Develop your understanding of: • Financial management • Risk management • Money laundering regulations • Management of employees •M anagement of working environment including managing work related anxiety and mental health concerns •T echniques for ensuring optimum facility in handling the legal and factual material of a case Working with clients and others

During the planning stage you should complete a plan of the CPD that you are going to undertake. It is a requirement that you do this by (a) setting learning objectives which should provide specific aims and outcomes of the CPD you plan to undertake and (b) providing examples of the types of CPD activities that you are proposing to undertake.

Essentially you need to decide what gaps you have, plan to deal with them and then execute that plan. The plan does not have to be ready by 1 January of the year in question, but should be completed in the early part of the year. The BSB are likely to be looking for a mix of CPD across different skill areas, although one can emphasise different aspects from year to year.

The BSB have given an example of a good learning objective: •’ To become qualified to provide direct access advice to the public to improve my ability to provide advice to a wide range of clients and deliver a cost-effective service to lay clients’

Develop your skills and understanding of:

• ‘…become qualified to provide direct access advice to the public’ is a specific aim

•C ommunicating effectively with all clients and others orally and in writing

• ‘…to improve my ability to provide advice to a wide range of clients’ is an outcome

•G iving clear and comprehensible advice to professional and lay clients

• ‘…deliver a cost-effective service to lay clients’ is a second outcome

•B eing transparent about the basis of your instructions and your fees

How much detail should the plan contain?

•T he procedures and techniques necessary to work with vulnerable victims and clients •D evelop your understanding of the implications of equality and diversity legislation and regulations for your practice and in the workplace

When planning your CPD, the BSB recommend that you consider the amount of CPD that would be sufficient. There is no prescribed minimum amount of CPD. Your own circumstances, seniority or practice area and type may be relevant. But remember this is not a licence to do virtually nothing. A prudent approach is to aim to have a minimum of 10 hours CPD each year.

The New CPD Regime

59

You must be able, if called upon, to justify your approach in broad terms. You should take account of what was done in the previous year, when planning. It is helpful to have regard to the examples of compliant and non-compliant CPD plans in the BSB supporting guidance.

What counts towards CPD? A non-exhaustive list of CPD activities includes: • Taking part in formal face-to-face training courses, including university courses • Online courses • Podcasts • Attending conferences • Taking part in seminars or webinars • Reading or research • Authorship and editing of published works of a professional nature • Presenting or attending seminars, lectures and workshops • Teaching a relevant legal course e.g. LLBs, LLMs, the GDL, BPTC, LPC or Diplomas in Law Stage 2 – Recording and Evidence You must keep a good record of what you have done in support of your plan. During stage two, in order to comply with rQ134.2, you need to record the relevant CPD activities that you have completed that have met your learning objectives.

Keeping evidence is not mandatory, but highly advisable. In the event that you are chosen for a spot-check audit, this will enable you to demonstrate that you have fulfilled the CPD requirements. Remember the onus is on you to satisfy the BSB that you have properly completed their CPD requirements.

What form should the evidence take?

Your evidence may include: • The flyer/advertisement of the activity • An attendance record • A certificate of completion/achievement • Notes compiled undertaking research or reading • Copies of credited published journals/articles • Counter signed CPD Plan and Record card by a peer or responsible officer within Chambers

60

The New CPD Regime

Stage 3 – Reflections on CPD Activities In order to comply with rQ134.3, you are required to reflect on the CPD activities you have planned and completed throughout the year, in particular focusing on any variations of your planned CPD activities and what your assessment of future learning objectives are.

A recommended way to complete this stage is to evaluate the extent to which your planned activities have met your learning objectives – after each CPD activity and in any event at the end of each CPD year.

This is also an opportunity for you to change the course of your planned CPD if your circumstances change during the year. The reflection should assist you to set your development priorities for the following year.

Stage 4 – Declaring Completion You must declare that you have carried out suitable CPD each year (rQ134.5). The CPD year runs from 1 January to 31 December. As such, you will be able to declare whether you have completed the requirements for the prior CPD year as you complete Authorisation to Practise requirements to renew your Practising Certificate (which require action in February and March).

Remember you can be selected for a spot check at any time in the annual cycle. So be prepared and plan ahead.

Good luck!

Master Andrew Hochhauser was the Chair of the Education and Training Committee 2013-16 and Vice Chairman of the Inns of Court College of Advocacy, with particular responsibility for the Specialist Bar Associations. He practises at Essex Court Chambers, specialising in commercial and employment litigation.

He was Called to the Bar in 1977, took Silk in 1997 and became a Bencher in 2000. He is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and a Deputy High Court Judge, authorised to sit in the Chancery and Queen’s Bench Divisions.

Pupils Advocacy Course SUZANNA EAMES One of the strange quirks of the pupillage system is that there is little opportunity to practice your oral advocacy before getting on your feet.

Thankfully, the Inns are in the perfect position to help.

Middle Temple’s courses combine advocacy training with the practise management course. If you choose to do the threeday course instead of the two-week course, be prepared; it is intense. The working day was 10am-7pm, which consisted of a combination of advocacy lectures, workshops, and practical talks geared towards life at the Bar. On top of this, we needed to prepare two examinations-in-chief and cross-examinations (one criminal and one civil), a plea in mitigation, a bail application and an interlocutory civil application. In addition, we were given a week to complete a skeleton argument.

The workshops were a clear step up from the training on the BPTC. The trainers were engaged and constructive on both a procedural and substantive level. It is a testament to Middle Temple’s community that barristers at the top of their game were willing to prepare and run these workshops (one of our trainers had been appointed a QC only a week before!). As a purely family practitioner, I was wary that the exercises would focus on criminal and civil procedure, which I would rarely encounter. Not to worry; each trainer made sure that they ascertained each pupil’s area of law, to work out where to focus their advice. The groups were relatively small, consisting of 5-6 pupils per tutor. This meant that there was sufficient time for each pupil to explore their exercise before getting constructive feedback and trying again. However, there were still enough people in a group that there was a range of styles from which you were able to watch and learn.

As a pupil, your focus is primarily on learning the basics of practice and working towards tenancy. The lectures that comprised the practice management course answered questions that I didn’t even know I had, covering topics such as managing professional finances, ethical problems, personal marketing, the relationship between clerks and barristers

(from the clerks’ point of view) and insurance. Even talks such as the Introduction to Legal Research, which many students have sat through countless times, took my knowledge to new depths. I found that I left the course with a solid practical foundation as to how to manage my career going forward.

I’d like to give a special mention to Lizzie Iron, the head of service at The Personal Support Unit, who gave a lecture about litigants in person (LiP’s). With the numbers of LiP’s on the rise, it is vital that upcoming barristers fully understand the difficult position of a person with no representation and act accordingly. By using an ingenious analogy with army terminology, she gave a powerful speech about the difficulties of navigating an undecipherable language, and made me think twice about my approach when against a LiP. Lastly, it was a breath of fresh air to meet other pupils from a range of different fields. Pupillage can be a challenging year which is alien to those who haven’t been through it, and the opportunity to make new friends who are also going through the same process was uplifting!

Thank you to all at Middle Temple for your hard work in organising the course. Bring on my second six!

Suzanna Eames was Called to the Bar in 2016, she is currently a pupil barrister at 1 Hare Court and hopes to specialise in matrimonial finances. Coming from a mathematical background, she read Law at the University of Cambridge and graduated in 2015. She went on to complete the BPTC at BPP University.

In her spare time, she likes to explore modern culture; be it unusual art exhibitions or newly penned musicals.

Pupils Advocacy Course

61

Cumberland Lodge HANNAH WILSON & IAN MCDONALD

While I enthusiastically signed up for the advocacy weekend ballot at the first possible opportunity and was delighted when I was allocated a place on the May weekend at Cumberland Lodge, as the time to take part drew closer, I became more and more nervous about exactly what the weekend had in store. Was I going to have to perform a piece of advocacy, only to have it ripped to shreds seconds afterwards? What if I made lots of mistakes, while everyone else seemed to know exactly what they were doing?

Well, while I can’t honestly state that my advocacy was entirely mistake-free, I can say that the weekend at Cumberland Lodge was more rewarding, more useful and more genuinely enjoyable than I could possibly have imagined. If you are reading this and considering signing up for the next advocacy weekend, my advice would be do it now! Within the space of just two short days, my confidence performing advocacy increased immeasurably, and I know that the skills that I gained will help me with any future advocacy exercises during the BPTC and beyond.

The weekend provided a wonderful opportunity to build on concepts that had been introduced during advocacy sessions on the BPTC, and as I am currently in the first year of the part time course, it gave me a great insight into the practical advocacy skills that I can expect in my second year.

Before each small group session, there was an insightful and informative speech about how to tackle each advocacy task, followed by a demonstration, so regardless of the stage you were at on the BPTC, you could be confident that you would be entering each small group session equipped with the basic knowledge necessary to approach each exercise with confidence.

The unique chance to get personalised feedback from some of Middle Temple’s finest judges and barristers in the small group sessions was a real highlight of the weekend.

The feedback technique used, which involved tutors identifying one ‘headline’ area of the performance which could be improved upon, before providing a demonstration of how it should be done and then asking you to try it again, was extremely effective. Also, the chance to be actively involved in the feedback process, by having the opportunity to ‘replay’ the part you previously got wrong, was incredibly helpful in weeding out recurring mistakes.

Even though the timetable for the weekend was jam-

62

packed, there were plenty of occasions to get to know other members of the Inn over dinner or in the bar and I really enjoyed having the chance to chat to senior members of the Inn in an informal environment.

Overall, the advocacy weekend at Cumberland Lodge presents a unique opportunity to learn from some of the finest advocates in the country - but aside from being a wonderful educational experience, it is also immensely enjoyable and I would heartily recommend all student members of Middle Temple to take advantage of this fantastic opportunity.

I would also like to take this chance to extend my gratitude to all of the tutors who give up their free time to impart their knowledge and experience on the May advocacy weekend especially my tutor, Master Jeremy Benson - and also to the Education Department, who made the weekend possible.

Hannah Wilson is currently studying the part-time BPTC at the University of Law in Bloomsbury. She completed her LL.B. at the University of Exeter, and her LL.M. in German Law at the Universität des Saarlandes in Germany. She then spent several years working in Madrid as the Development Associate at Women’s Link Worldwide, before returning to London to work as a Criminal Law Paralegal at BSB Solicitors. Hannah is also a Commissioning Editor for The Justice Gap online magazine.

It is difficult to take Middle Temple for granted. Even at my most preoccupied, paying the Inn a visit always feels like a privilege. Such is the fortune of choosing a career in which these ancient professional associations still exist and thrive; and of calling Middle Temple, in particular, home. Still, with examinations and pupillage applications never far from a BPTC student’s mind, a reminder of what a remarkable place this is never hurts, and that’s precisely what the Inn’s Advocacy Weekend provides.

By Friday evening, we had swapped London’s tumult for the serenity of Cumberland Lodge, in Windsor’s Great Park, and been treated to a drinks reception amidst its sunbathed gardens. It was terrific to greet faces old and new – from aspiring advocates at other BPTC providers outside of the capital, to the experienced instructors who had selflessly sacrificed their weekends to help improve our skills. After dinner, we were addressed on the importance of case analysis, and criminal law specialist Sibby Salter illustrated how a plea in mitigation should be done. It would soon be our turn, following a digestif or two and a good night’s sleep.

On Saturday, our 50-strong contingent was divided into groups of six for an intensive programme of workshops overseen by an array of experts. My cohort was left in the adept hands of Master John Mitchell, a judge of some 18 years, and Andrew Burns QC, who, alongside his commercial practice, sits also as a Crown Court Recorder. After our own efforts at mitigation, and further presentations on witness handling, we had a go at examination-in-chief and crossexamination. A fictitious criminal case featuring the infamous Donna Bellar, was used to keep the law relatively simple and enable us to focus on our oral advocacy.

The feedback was both thorough and exacting; Master Mitchell and Mr Burns weren’t slow to intervene and challenge us where necessary. It was consistently constructive and easy to understand. At this formative stage of my legal career, the benefit of being subjected to such a level of scrutiny, from some of the best in the business, simply cannot be overstated. And, although the workload was substantial, breaks for coffee and lunch and an afternoon walk ensured that it was perfectly manageable.

After a final outstanding demonstration by Master Jeremy Benson, of how to perform a closing speech, we enjoyed a delicious formal supper, followed by entertaining after-dinner turns from Master Stephen Lloyd, on Middle Temple’s history, and several senior members on their first cases – worth it, alone, for Master Treasurer’s hilarious reflections on jury service. There was then opportunity to chat to yet more barristers and judges – all of whom were full of encouragement and advice.

Another treat came in the form of Sunday morning’s church service, which followed the Christian tradition but was open to everyone. We were even lucky enough to see – if not quite meet – one Royal churchgoer, before making our way back for the concluding exercise: our own attempt at a closing speech, in which we sought to persuade the jury either to convict or spare the aforementioned Ms Bellar.

After that, and before I knew it, it was time for the return coach journey to the Temple.

The excursion was everything that, for me, is exceptional about Middle Temple – supportive practitioners; first-class education and training; and the ideal blend of work and play – consolidated into a single, unforgettable weekend. I left Cumberland Lodge feeling that bit closer to my peers; a greater part of this wonderful Inn’s family; and more privileged than ever to walk through those famous doors off Middle Temple Lane.

Ian McDonald is a graduate of Birkbeck, University of London and Balliol College, University of Oxford. He is currently studying the BPTC full time, for which he was awarded the Cunningham Award by Middle Temple, and is due to commence pupillage this October. Prior to coming to the Bar, Ian originally trained and worked as a journalist, and spent five years at Liberty, the human rights organisation, in various media and campaigning roles.

Cumberland Lodge

63

Mock Pupillage Interview Scheme NATASHA HERMANS AND PATRICK WISE-WALSH

This year marks my first attempt at the pupillage application process. I was surrounded by countless voices swapping war stories of torturous applications and recurring rejections that left me daunted, to say the least. But amid the rubble of refusals came an invitation for my first interview and I was first excited, then ready to prepare. I found that the ideal way to practise is by doing mock pupillage interviews. They can be done at University with a career advisor, but pale in comparison when done with an actual barrister. After all, they are veterans of this process.

As soon as I had received my first round invitation I emailed Middle Temple to take part in their Mock Pupillage Interview Scheme. Within days they had kindly put me in touch with a practitioner in my area of preference. The barrister then set up the mock interview in the Ashley Building. To imitate actual interview conditions I was given 45 minutes to prepare an advocacy exercise before the interview. Not only was this practised, but so were the all too common ethical dilemmas, CV based questions, and legal problems that form part of most pupillage interviews.

The mock interview felt like the real thing. Once the ‘interview mode’ was over, I was given constructive feedback including what I had done correctly and what I needed to improve on. The barrister was very generous with her time and expertise. The opportunity was undoubtedly helpful, especially if, like me, you’re overcome with nerves and new to the process. I credit this experience to securing my secondround interview, a feat for a first-timer. I cannot recommend this enough.

As an aspiring barrister, I always knew that performing well in interviews would be a necessary condition for obtaining the prize of pupillage. It was therefore extremely reassuring for me to learn that Middle Temple runs a mock interview scheme designed to prepare candidates to meet the challenge.

I was hugely impressed by how quickly the Middle Temple’s Education Department had arranged my mock interview. Once I knew the date of my pupillage interview I contacted them. Within the space of a day I had been paired up with a practising barrister, specialising in areas of law very similar to those of the chambers which had offered me an interview. We quickly arranged a time and place for the mock interview, and were able to use rooms in the Ashley Building, provided free of charge by Middle Temple.

The questions in my mock interview were closely tailored to the areas of practice I would be expected to know about in my actual pupillage interview. I was challenged with difficult questions that put me through my paces! I found this enormously helpful. The experience allowed me to focus better my preparation, recognising which parts of my approach I should improve. Tackling an unseen legal problem was also a valuable opportunity, much sought after by law students who often desire more practice in answering them.

I am absolutely convinced that I performed better and more confidently as a result of the mock interview. I feel lucky to have received such a degree of support from the Education Department. I am also very grateful to the barrister who gave up her time to interview me in the middle of a busy working week. It made me realise the depth of support that Middle Temple offers to its members and reminded me of the thriving link between its students and practitioners. I would encourage any student to take up the opportunity of a mock interview in the future.

Natasha Hermans is currently taking the BPTC at the University of Law. She read law at the University of Kent and has an LL.M. in International Law from SOAS, University of London. She intends to practise at the Criminal Bar.

Patrick Wise-Walsh is a Queen Mother Scholar. He read Politics, Philosophy and Economics at the University of Oxford and holds a postgraduate degree in International Relations from King’s College London. Following this, he worked in politics. He is an aspiring barrister, a current GDL student and will be commencing the BPTC later this year.

64

Mock Pupillage Interview Scheme

Life at the Inn CHRISTOPHER BATES

Describing my life at Middle Temple is a difficult task.

It is incredibly varied. This stems from the fact that I am both a member of the Inn and one of the Inn’s employees.

By day I work as the Scholarships Officer, working within the Education and Training Department, by night, I complete pupillage applications. Rather than describing an average day at the Inn (describing a day here as average is no mean feat in itself), I will attempt to address the broader manner in which the Inn affects me both day to day, and on a larger scale.

The Inn is a vital source of support. Having recently been Called and now working in the Treasury, I am incredibly familiar with the service that we provide to support our members. But the support goes beyond this. It goes beyond what we do, and it goes to the core of what we are. Being able to turn to a range of people, whether it is Masters of the Bench, my fellow junior members, or my colleagues whom I rely on every day, I know that we are all there, together, supporting one another. This is the very heart of life at the Inn and it is what makes Middle Temple an amazing place to work or practise.

Whenever I talk about the Inn to new students I talk about the memories, history and friendship that can be found at the Inn. I count myself incredibly lucky in this regard. Working in the Treasury I have met a wonderful group of people who are dedicated to the Inn and advancing everything we stand for. I have also made other firm friends through dinners and qualifying sessions, as well as others such as Cumberland Lodge. Without the Inn I couldn’t have met these people.

The Inn is a source of motivation. Through my work in the Education Department I often hear the most incredible and inspiring stories from students, both young and mature, who are looking to come to the Bar. What they have been through, what they are going through, and the

sheer determination they demonstrate, inspires me to keep pushing, to keep doing everything that I can do to become a barrister and fulfil my dream.

I often find inspiration in our beautiful Hall. For me, it is enough to look up at the roof, to see this amazing structure and remember that this institution has been here for hundreds of years doing, more or less, what we are doing today. To see that history, to think about all the people who have been where I am, and all the people who will be there after I am gone inspires me every day. Those who are also looking for pupillage will know how challenging this process is and how difficult it is to stay inspired. Life at the Inn reminds me every day of why I want to be a barrister.

Without Middle Temple, like so many, I wouldn’t be in the position I am in now. As the recipient of a scholarship, a member who takes every opportunity he can get, and an employee who is encouraged to be the best he can be, I am consistently reminded of what a special place Middle Temple is.

Christopher Bates completed his undergraduate law degree at Keele University. Obtaining a Middle Temple Scholarship, he attend Birmingham University of Law to study on the BPTC. He was Called to the Bar in July 2016.

In October 2018, he will commence his pupillage, focusing on crime. Outside of the law, Christopher enjoys cooking and has a particular passion for Mexican cuisine.

Life at the Inn

65

Reflections on Life as a Canadian in England SETH WHITMORE

Am I an outsider?

It is a question that I have asked myself repeatedly since moving to London last September to take up the Fox Scholarship, a reciprocal legal exchange between Canada and England.

Every year since 1985, the Scholarship has sent two newlyqualified Canadian lawyers to London to work in chambers and two English barristers to Toronto, to either work in the commercial litigation group of a large law firm or pursue a post-graduate degree at an Ontario university.

My question is one that the Scholarship’s namesake and benefactor, Dr. Harold G. Fox QC, likely would not have struggled with. Fox was a distinguished Canadian intellectual property litigator who fitted in seamlessly with English society. He argued cases in London and spent his winters in England to avoid the harshness of the season in Canada. He became an Honorary Bencher of the Middle Temple in 1961 and a Freeman of the City of London in 1956.

He was anything but an outsider.

Nor was Fox unique among past generations of English Canadians; many of whom identified as British. In 1891, in opposition to free trade with the United States, Canada’s first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, went so far as to say: ‘A British subject I was born; a British subject I will die.

With my utmost effort, with my latest breath, will I oppose the “veiled treason” which attempts, by sordid means and mercenary proffers, to lure our people from their allegiance’.

66

Whether as a result of ‘veiled treason’ or otherwise I grew up in a Canada where such a strong allegiance to Britain was uncommon. Canadians have carved out a distinct national identity and culture largely uninformed by their historic links to Britain.

The differences in our use of language emphasise the fact that the countries have drifted apart. Routine Canadian words such as poutine, tuque, and toboggan are as unintelligible to English people as butty and nappy are to Canadians. Ask a Canadian for a rubber and what you get will not help erase pencil marks. Compliment a Canadian’s suspenders and pants and they will think you like their braces and trousers. In Canada the opposite of clockwise is counter-clockwise and the first floor is the ground floor. We take binders to school in knapsacks, say 'it’s been a slice' if we have had fun, do not ask for take-away but get food and drip coffee to-go, and will tell someone their hiking boots are in the trunk if they left their walking shoes in the boot.

This same drift apart can be seen in the law as well. While the Canadian and English systems are fundamentally similar, they have also developed a large number of substantive differences.

Consider, for example, the right to silence. In Canada the right to silence is protected by both the common law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and has its roots in the Privy Council decision of Ibrahim v The King [1914] AC 599. The rule generally limits what a trier of fact is allowed to infer from an accused’s refusal to speak and, with certain exceptions, prevents the Crown from proving that silence is irrelevant. This approach contrasts sharply with the modern English rule introduced by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which modified the common law and allows triers of fact to draw adverse inferences from an accused’s silence in certain circumstances.

We see a similar divergence in contract. English law does not recognise a general duty of good faith and the concept is still seen by some as a danger to freedom of contract (see The Rt Hon. Lord Justice Moore-Bick in MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. v Cottonex Anstalt [2016] EWCA Civ 789 at para 45). By contrast, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the issue of good faith in Bhasin v Hrynew 2014 SCC 71 and held that there is a common law duty of honest contractual performance which applies to all contracts.

Some of the legal differences that have arisen reflect strongly held cultural values. For example, we can see the value that Canada places on multiculturalism, diversity, and substantive (as opposed to formal) equality by comparing its approach to discrimination law with the English one.

In order for an English claimant to prove discrimination they must show that a protected characteristic was a ‘significant influence’ in causing a discriminatory act. The claimant’s burden is lower in Canada where a claimant only has to show that a protected characteristic was a factor in the decision leading to the discriminatory conduct.

A similar pattern can be seen with positive action. In England positive action is unlawful discrimination unless otherwise permitted under sections 158 and 159 of the

Equality Act 2010. In Canada, however, positive action is explicitly protected by subsection 15(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which prevents ‘ameliorative programs’ from being struck down on grounds of discrimination.

Taking all of these legal and linguistic differences together with the fact that I speak with an accent, am unfamiliar with English cultural norms and mannerisms, am not a citizen of the United Kingdom, and my pupil supervisor felt it necessary to give me a copy of Watching the English: The Hidden Rules of English Behaviour and the answer to my original question seems obvious. Of course I am an outsider.

But even as an outsider I have always felt welcome, and for that I am incredibly grateful to a long list of people for making my time as a Fox Scholar unforgettable.

Unfortunately I do not have the space to thank them all here. I am, however, particularly indebted to the staff, clerks, pupils, and barristers at Essex Court Chambers, 39 Essex Street, 5 Essex Court, Lamb Building and 4 Pump Court. My pupil supervisors Tom Ford, Jane Russell, Master Bernard Richmond, Georgina Wolfe, and Master Nicholas Vineall were the best introductions to the Bar I could have asked for. Lastly, I am incredibly grateful for the efforts of Carolyn McCombe, Christa Richmond and Middle Temple who went above and beyond organising my time in London and always making me feel at home. Thank you!

Seth Whitmore is a Canadian lawyer from Toronto. He was Called to the Bar in 2016 after completing his articles with Blake, Cassels and Graydon.

Reflections on Life as a Canadian in England

67

Call Day MASTER JOHN DYSON

This is a hugely important day in the lives of each and every one of you. Make no mistake about that. It is one of the landmarks in your lives and one which you will never forget.

You have done well to choose Middle Temple. It is undoubtedly the most beautiful of the Inns of Court, it is also probably the friendliest. We take the welfare of all of our members very seriously, from the newly called to those who were called more than 60 years ago. We have a lot to offer and I encourage you all to be active members of the Inn and to make the most of belonging to it. Its history is fascinating and runs deep. But the Inn is no mere relic of history. It is in many ways a very modern institution acutely conscious of its need to be responsive to the needs of the profession in the 21st century.

The profession that you have joined is a noble one. The work of barristers is pivotal to the maintaining of the Rule of Law and the effective working of our democratic society.

Without the Rule of Law we have chaos; we have injustice; and we lose so many of the hallmarks of our society which, sadly, we all too readily take for granted. You don’t need to travel to other countries to realise how fortunate we are in the UK, you only need to open the newspapers or immerse yourselves in social media.

We need to be vigilant to maintain these cherished and important principles. All lawyers have an important part to play. Some of you will be going to practice in the field of commercial law; you may think that the Rule of Law is an esoteric concept which is only of interest to academic lawyers and possibly human rights lawyers. You would be wrong to think that. Why are so many foreign contracts subject to English law; why are so many subject to London arbitration clauses; and why do so many foreign litigants bring their cases to our shores? You have all heard about the glut of Russian Oligarch litigation in London. It is because they have trust in our system of justice, a system of which we can all be proud.

Barristers and solicitors have at least as big a part to play in maintaining that trust as judges. The integrity, independence and professionalism of barristers is crucial.

So you have joined a profession which has a central part to play in maintaining the well-being of our society.

But don’t expect to be popular. Lawyers have never been popular in this country. It is difficult to know why. True, some

68

Call Day

are very well paid, but many are not. Indeed, the criminal bar in particular is struggling at the present time and that should be a cause for concern for all of us. You will never be able to compete with nurses, doctors and teachers in the popularity stakes. So you should be prepared for that!

You have all worked hard to get this far. I want to congratulate you most warmly. I can just about remember what it is like to have to sit exams. It was many years before I stopped having nightmares about not finishing the paper or not understanding the question. I hope you do not suffer from that experience. And many of your long-suffering parents have had to make considerable sacrifices to help you to get where you now are, I expect that they are all very proud of your achievements as well as mightily relieved that you now have a professional qualification.

But however hard you may have worked to get this far, I fear (and hope) that there is much hard work round the corner and probably for the rest of your working lives.

Because if you are successful, you will undoubtedly have to work hard. The Law is a harsh taskmaster.

But I am sure that you will enjoy it. I have worked hard all my life and enjoyed it enormously. The Law offers everything.

It is relevant in a very practical way to the working of our society. It is intellectually stimulating and really matters. You will never wonder: what is the point of it? The Law affects us all in so many ways: perhaps more than most of us realise.

We live in times of increasing specialisation. Some regret that. But it is inevitable. Life has become more complicated and the Law has become correspondingly more complicated too. So there is plenty to choose from. I hope you all make wise choices. You may have a fairly clear view as to the direction you hope (and perhaps even expect) your practice will take. Opportunities are likely to come your way, some of them unexpected, be prepared to be flexible. Don’t be afraid of the challenge of change and the unexpected. But that is for the future.

In the meantime, I trust that you and your families will enjoy this big day in your lives. I congratulate you and wish you well.

The Bar Council MASTER ANDREW LANGDON In a time of exponential change, the resilience of the Bar is proof of a good idea, at the heart of which is independent advocacy.

As with many professions we change with the times, because we need to, but we also ensure we hold on to our core values and our essential purpose.

How are we changing? First the nature of the work in our field of practice evolves, for example in the rising tide of care cases at the Family Bar and the tsunami of sexual abuse cases at the Criminal Bar. Second we face threats more acute to some areas of practice than others, for example the adverse costs environment for the Personal Injury Bar and, for those with an international practice, the threats to our pre-eminence as the centre of international dispute resolution created by exit from the European Union.

In addition to these individual flows faced by specialist Bars, we face other broader forces for change. Technological advances and court ‘transformation’ is cross-jurisdictional. It is happening when public funding of lawyers is falling. The result is a contentious mix. Justice, it is said by those who advocate both advances in technology and a reduction in state funding of advice and representation, can be delivered online at less expense to both the state and those who seek protection or redress. Court hearings may become virtual, enabling participation without physical presence. The saving in cost and the greater convenience provide a net benefit in access to justice. Making the change requires investment, but savings can be accomplished by running fewer courts.

Technology enables fewer formal face-to-face hearings, and insofar as court rooms are required for the residue, let them be deployed ‘flexibly’ by the development of early and late shifts maximising available court time.

These currents that swirl around us might weaken or threaten a lesser profession. Our strength lies not in any bulwark or dam to protect us against such currents, but in our flexibility, which enables us to go with the grain of change and to adapt how we operate and what we can offer.

It is a privilege as well as a responsibility to lead a profession facing such a tide of change. The Bar tries to influence where we cannot control. We have the raw experience of day-to-day practice. We have the benefit of the smartest young advocates who know how to get the most out of technology. It is not the Bar’s role to welcome all new initiatives unthinkingly. Some are of course overdue and welcomed by the profession. Digital

exchanges of information and paper-less courts are examples.

Other changes, though hardly welcome, are inevitable. The unrestricted intrusion at all hours of email traffic requiring response in short order, may be an example of that, but that is an encroachment on privacy faced by all of us.

But some of the current proposed changes are misguided, far from inevitable and come at too great a price, not for the profession itself, but for those we serve.

We do not accept that these changes are a desirable or an inevitable consequence of modernisation. For example, so-called ‘Flexible Operating Hours’, an initiative aimed at introducing early and late shifts in court sitting hours, has got off on the wrong foot and will put back the steps we are taking to promote equality and diversity in the profession.

Brexit and years of austerity-driven departmental cuts have reduced the capacity of the Ministry of Justice. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) inevitably relies heavily on the judiciary including in relation to policy initiatives. So in matters of policy the senior judiciary may take the lead. That of course is welcome given their expertise and experience. On the other hand it means that the Bar Council, where it considers necessary, has to make its case to the judiciary as well as to government. Our guiding principle is always to be defined by what we believe to be in the public interest. Our resilience has, I believe, in large part depended on that ethos. It is my responsibility as the Chair of the Bar Council this year, to ensure it remains so.

Master Andrew Langdon was Called to the Bar in 1986 and took Silk in 2006.

He practices from Guildhall Chambers, Bristol. He is currently Chairman of the Bar Council. He prosecutes and defends Regulatory Crime. He prosecuted the oil companies in the Buncefield explosion.

He also prosecutes and defends serious mainstream crime, gun crime, homicide, fraud and corruption. He was appointed to sit as a Recorder in the Crown Court in 2002. He was made a Bencher in 2013. He was Leader of the Western Circuit from 2013-2015.

The Bar Council

69

Wellbeing at the Bar and the Role of the Temple Church MASTER MARK HATCHER The Inns’ focus on Wellbeing at the Bar will not have come a moment too soon for some of the competitive, driven, perfectionist barristers for whom work and life have become out of balance.

Wellbeing – in the sense of subjective Wellbeing (with our lives, our sense that what we need to do in life is worthwhile and our day to day emotional experiences) as well as mental health and physical health – is crucial for personal and professional flourishing.

The pressures to succeed at the Bar have never been greater but for some the brutal cuts in legal aid, delays in payment of fees, accumulation of debt, frequent long hours, coupled with the stresses and strains of getting to and presenting your case in court, all take their toll.

Several resources are available to the Bar, as well as for those who work for the profession (such as clerks and chambers staff), which provide guidance on how to spot a Wellbeing problem, how to initiate a relevant conversation, and on the types of intervention that might be appropriate. In addition to the Bar Council’s Wellbeing Portal, LawCare, the Barristers’ Benevolent Association and the Samaritans can all provide help - as well as churches and faith communities.

They can provide confidential listening and other support services, as well as contributing to the cultural and collegiate life of the Inns.

70

The Bar can feel a lonely place for some. Like most human beings, barristers are afraid of rejection. They have insecurities, they over-compensate and some become obsessive. Anxiety, depression, alcoholism, divorce, bankruptcy, as well as suicide, can be the result.

With more people working from home, the self-employed Bar is in danger of becoming lonelier (and potentially depressed) as a result. Chambers are consolidating, becoming larger, more impersonal and less collegiate. People are not looking out for each other in the way that they used to.

So what role does the Temple Church have to play in offering support in this context?

All four Inns have chapels which are Christian foundations but they are open to those of all faiths and of none. The Inns’ clergy see their contribution to Wellbeing at the Bar as part of their pastoral responsibility for students and members of the Inns, as well as barristers who practise from chambers in the Inns, and their families and staff.

At the Temple Church, Master Robin Griffith-Jones, the Master of the Temple, and I see an important part of our roles as getting to know students – and other members of the Inn – over dinner or lunch, or at Inn events. Connecting with members of the Inns for whom we have a responsibility in this way often leads to being consulted at a later stage, whether as students, barristers or Benchers.

How everybody manages their lives both as individuals and as members of communities, and takes responsibility for themselves and their lifestyles, are natural concerns of the Church. By exercising our shared responsibility for the spiritual and pastoral needs of those who work and live in the Temple, the Master of the Temple and I aim to offer a source of support and guidance. The Church can provide stability and a sense of calm, which can be very refreshing amidst the pressures and turmoil of professional life.

For practitioners and judges, who face difficult ethical dilemmas or questions of life and death (such as having to decide whether to switch off a life support system), the Church can also provide comfort and strength, and help to build resilience as well as give assurance. It can also free people from dreadful turmoil. It is a tremendous privilege to be able to offer a service in these circumstances.

Forging connections with members of the two Inns also takes place over time in the course of the regular as well as occasional, more personal services held in the Church such as weddings and baptisms. In addition, the Temple Church contributes to the cultural and socio-legal events which are hosted by the Church, such as the 2008 symposium on Islam and English Law, and the current 21st Century Britain: Sources of the Civic Good initiative, which resulted from the work of the Commission on Religion and Belief in British Public Life. These show our commitment to the profession, its ideals and aspirations, as well as recognising the pressures it is up against.

There is much more the Temple Church can do against the background of the Church of England’s ageing demographic. However, it is becoming more difficult to attract younger people into church nowadays, for many of whom the established forms of liturgy might be viewed as rather alienating.

The Reverend Master Mark Hatcher is Reader of the Temple Church and Special Adviser to the Chairman of the Bar. Called in 1978. He became Director of Representation and Policy at the Bar Council in 2006. He has been involved in a number of parliamentary campaigns on behalf of the Bar and assisted in the creation of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Constitutional and Legal Affairs. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and was made a Bencher in 2013.

What inhibits people from seeing the Church as a source of support for Wellbeing?

There may be concern that ‘we’re going to talk about God or prayer, or say “come to church on Sunday”’. It is also possible when we say we believe that we can understand ourselves better by understanding our relationship with God, you can imagine people saying to themselves ‘are you covertly hoping I’m going to become a Christian?’ It is undeniable that we are rooted in what we are rooted in but we do not see people as a means to some evangelistic end – and we are definitely not ‘college authorities’.

What could the Church do to contribute more to Wellbeing at the Bar? There is a shared aim among the clergy of all four Inns of Court, in appropriate cases, to be able to refer people to specialist sources of support and counsel, and to do so on the basis of an improved understanding of the support which is, or could be made, available. The Churches in the Inns could share information about such sources and identify suitable contacts for the purpose of referrals. The Bar Council’s Wellbeing Portal is a potentially useful adjunct in connection with pooling and sharing this information.

Secondly, we could make more time and space available for personal encounters and the provision of a confidential listening service.

Thirdly, we need to be sensitive to the needs of people of other faiths and to people of no faith. Within the acknowledged constraints of our Christian foundation, there are limits on the use to which the Church building might be put for Wellbeing purposes. We need to explore opportunities for engaging with a variety of Wellbeing initiatives at the Bar in collaboration with the Inns, the Circuits, SBAs and the Bar Council.

If you would like to contact us at the Temple Church, please email: master@templechurch.com or reader@templechurch.com or visit www.templechurch.com

If you have any questions about the Wellbeing at the Bar programme, please contact the Bar Council’s Head of Equality and Diversity, Sam Mercer at: smercer@barcouncil.org.uk

Wellbeing at the Bar and the Role of the Temple Church

71

Living with Difference MASTER ROBIN GRIFFITH-JONES The Woolf Commission, chaired by The Rt Hon. The Baroness Butler-Sloss of Inner Temple, published its report, Living with Difference, in 2015. The Commission called for a national conversation: At a time when so much is dominated by the sole value of individual choice, faith leaders and other opinion leaders need to initiate discussions on the values, political and personal, they have in common with each other and with the humanist values of the Enlightenment. A national conversation should be launched across the UK by leaders of faith communities and opinion leaders in other ethical traditions to create a shared understanding of the fundamental values underlying public life. It would take place at all levels and in all regions. The outcome might well be, within the tradition of Magna Carta and other such declarations of rights over the centuries, a statement of principles to guide the development and evaluation of policies relating to the common good.

The pleas for such a conversation have become a chorus.

The Casey Review, 2016, called for one. In December 2016 the House of Lords called for one. A fine recent book was actually subtitled, Towards a National Conversation. In all this we are heirs of the great political theorists of our time. Any conversation concerned with policies will soon seek the ear of Government, and so – even without any party-political affiliation or agenda – will become a small part of John Rawls’ vast ‘deliberative democracy’ and Amartya Sen’s ‘government by discussion’.

But large questions loom unanswered here. What constitutes a national conversation? Who takes part in it?

Not just with a single submission and extracted sound-bites but with sustained personal engagement in the discussion.

Who is going to moderate, minute and condense all the actual conversations into some final manageable form? Who will have the right to redact those conversations if some of them turn out in ways that we – whoever we may be! – find unpalatable? In the terms of the Woolf Commission, who will assume the authority to formulate and disseminate any future ‘statement of principles’ and in whose name?

Who, lacking any democratic mandate themselves or any political machinery, will try to persuade parliamentarians of both Houses, Government, Whitehall, agencies, churches and others to take note of these deliberations and of any such document, and to act on them? In Rawlsian terms, who will do the deliberating, and to what effect? In Sen’s, who will be part of the discussion, and who in Government will care?

72

It may be no surprise that so many groups have called for a national conversation and so few, it seems, have launched one. A group of us in the Temple, in the Temple Church and at King’s College London (KCL) are trying to take up the challenge laid down by the Woolf Commission. Baroness Butler-Sloss is, very appropriately, chair of our steering-group, which includes Masters: Mark Hatcher, Stephen Hockman, Ian Mayes and Bernard Rix of the two Inns. Our principal colleagues at KCL are Professor Maleiha Malik (Law) and Dr Dan DeHanas (Theology). As both Master of the Temple here and Senior Lecturer at KCL I have to admit some responsibility for launching the project, and am attempting to co-ordinate and manage its various parts. A generous grant from KCL with back-up provision from the Church has enabled us to arrange some preliminary discussions and thereby to plan a bid, at the end of 2017, for a substantial grant from the Government’s research-funds for three years of work.

Our written output is unlikely to include a single new Magna Carta. We will more probably be helping local communities all over the country to generate Mini-Cartas of their own: statements of their own hopes for their own locality.

Our task may well become, in some measure, the preparation of a template which can be adapted and adopted in widely divergent contexts. Whatever we do will of course be of greater value if Government and other agencies support its dissemination and use. By the early autumn we will be in touch with the Department for Education, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Home Office. We have already been invited to appear before the House of Lords’ new Citizenship and Civic Engagement Committee.

We have convened three meetings over the spring and summer; and are planning three more in the autumn. We started here, in the Temple; then visited Spitalfields and Leeds. Master Igor Judge launched our first consultation with valuable historical perspective: he looked back to the Second World War, to Edmund Burke (of Middle Temple!) and to Magna Carta, and to the turmoil that has afflicted Britain in the past, far more dangerous than anything we face for now. Master Judge then reminded us of newer challenges: of communities in Britain that in all conscience do not share the generally Aristotelian premises of English law and its administration. (He recalled The Rt Hon. Sir James Munby in Re G [2012] EWCA Civ 1233, on the education of five Chareidi children.) Our project will not be focusing narrowly on faith-communities and on the dangers of their isolation.

But we hope that in the Temple Church we are well placed to acknowledge all the tesserae, old and new, religious and secular, that make up the mosaic of English law.

Further speakers returned to the greatest crisis of the 20th Century and found precedents for our project there: in George Orwell’s The Lion and the Unicorn, written in the last War to describe the nation and its aspirations in a proud and loving way; in Archbishop Temple’s Christianity and the Social Order, a best-seller of 1942; and in the Beveridge Report of the same year.

We have already absorbed much from these first consultations. Some of it comes as no surprise. There is in our nation obvious and deep fragmentation: between communities widely separated by background, culture, education, wealth and aspiration; between local communities and the authorities in local and national government that shape so much of their lives (Grenfell Tower has brought that home to us all); and simply in isolation and the lack of any clear community at all. Extraordinary work is being done by local agencies, and not least by churches, synagogues, temples and mosques; but their workers can feel unacknowledged and unsupported, and beset by a scale and range of problems that they can hardly describe, let alone resolve.

We had always expected to work locally. (‘Neighbourhood nationalism’ is well known to sociologists. It is inspiring even to glance at the work of Faithful Neighbours, for instance, or of CitizensUK.) We will hope to tap into and fortify the local energies already committed to local concerns, personally important and passionately felt. We are likely to focus on forward-looking, aspirational ‘ideals’ rather than on typically retrospective ‘values’. We will hope to help the participants in every such conversation to discover what will make their particular, local community the best such community it can be.

We are already braced for the emergence of deep differences in outlook and aspiration. We do not assume that everyone in Britain would welcome the liberally cohesive society that we hope our project will adumbrate and help, minutely, to realise; nor that those who would welcome it will ever agree how to define or attain it. The very passion for local change that is likely to value our project may sometimes also be the passion that clouds judgement with suspicion and anger. And if, after all this, the project ever gains traction, politically motivated activists will surely try to hijack it.

We hope, then, that we are clear-eyed and duly cautious; but we are not daunted. We hope that the Temple Church will be a natural and effective hub for the whole project. Society’s fragmentation is of natural concern to any church, in particular to our established, national Church of England. The law, meanwhile, is arguably the most important and secure agent for cohesion that our nation has: all are equally under its power and its protection. If people are to see and trust a principled fairness anywhere, it is in the demands and promises of the law and its administration. We hope that some members of the Inns will see as well how important their own skills might become for us. We will need all the help we can get to ensure that voices are genuinely heard and respected which are generally neglected. Practitioners trained to deal with victims and with vulnerable witnesses could add immense value to the project; so could those more highly skilled in mediation than we, at the project’s centre, are ourselves.

The most formidable challenge may be the most familiar.

How does any such conversation reach beyond the normal constituency of concerned, benevolent professionals? At our opening session Baroness Warsi spoke forthrightly: ‘Integration is a middle class pastime’. Cumberland Lodge and The St Paul’s Institute organised an important evening at

St Paul’s Cathedral this spring. The principal speakers were Inner Temple’s Baroness Butler-Sloss and The Rt Rev. and Rt Hon. Lord (Rowan) Williams; they offered us insights and passion together, and much to think about. The audience was 700 leaders: peers, judges, politicians, clergy. The Leitmotif of the evening was the alienation of ordinary people from our national élites – precisely the élites represented there in the Cathedral. Question after question was addressed to the panel, all in essence the same: what is the solution? We were touched that Baroness Butler-Sloss alluded to our present project, centred at the Temple and its Church, as the only such attempt of which she knows.

We may not achieve all that Baroness Butler-Sloss hopes we will achieve. We may simply secure insufficient funding to pursue the work as far as we would hope. But we hope the Inns will take some small and cautious satisfaction from our attempt to address one of the great challenges in the theory and practice of contemporary public life, whose best hope of resolution may lie exactly where the generous instincts of religion and the attentive balance of the law can fruitfully intersect.

The Rev Dr (Master) Robin GriffithJones DLitt, is The Reverend and Valiant Master of the Temple at the Temple Church, and Senior Lecturer in Theology at King’s College, London University. He has worked extensively on law and religion, editing Islam and English Law (CUP, 2013) and, with Master Mark Hill of Inner Temple, Magna Carta, Religion and the Rule of Law (CUP, 2015). His book on architectural imitations of Jerusalem, such as the Temple Church's own rotunda, is in the press: Tomb and Temple: Re-Imagining the Sacred Buildings of Jerusalem (Boydell, 2017-8).

Living with Difference

73

MTSA ANNA BRAILSFORD

On behalf of the Middle Temple Students’ Association, I’d like to thank the entire team and the Inn for an excellent year.

We have had some notable successes with Middle Temple debating and mooting. With the experience of Debating Officer, Jamie Batchelor, and Mooting Officer, Amy Woolfson, we have witnessed some outstanding advocacy from Middle Temple students.

I’m proud to say Middle Temple teams have won numerous prizes this year in debating competitions. This debating function has been led and organised exclusively

by Jamie; the success of the team is a real credit to him.

Middle Temple has also provided many brilliant mooting opportunities, notably entering teams for the LSE Featherstone LGBT Moot and the Southampton University Insurance Moot. Amy has worked tirelessly to ensure that Middle Temple students are given as many funded places as possible.

Perhaps the biggest debate of all was the reform of the BPTC. The MTSA co-ordinated with the other student bodies to respond directly to the BSB consultation. We spoke with the BSB in person and delivered our views. The results of the consultation are far-reaching and are certainly set to shake up the present system. I personally welcome the Inn taking a more active part in the education of students. I believe a more hands on approach is needed to bridge the gap between formal education and exceptional vocational skills.

We ran some great events this year, thanks to the efforts of our Events Officer, Olivia Woolfson. Olivia managed these events seamlessly and often during exam periods.

The MTSA hosted a very successful pupillage event. This was attended by a large number of students looking for pupillage application advice from a dedicated team of very kind barristers. This type of event is absolutely paramount for BPTC students, so I thank both the barristers and the team for their continued dedication. The year was topped off with an end of exams party, which included enough Pimm’s to sink the Titanic.

The MTSA has also been working with A-level law students from London state schools. George Hanslin, as Equality, Diversity & Welfare Officer, has done a fantastic job facilitating students to perform mock trials at the Rolls Building. In one evaluation, students felt 90% more engaged with the law after the sessions took place. This serves as a continual reminder that opening our doors to students from diverse backgrounds has a very real impact on young individuals.

74

Middle Temple Student's Association (MTSA)

We had a great deal of help from secondary school students at Northumberland Park Community School, collecting clothes for the Syria and Iraq humanitarian appeal. Our combined efforts resulted in an entire container of essential items being sent to Aleppo. We also saw considerable kindness from chambers, with donations coming from across the board.

Finally, a big thanks to Adiba Bassam, Mehrunissa Sajjad and Kit Weddle. Adiba has provided first class communications and marketing support throughout the year. As the VP of the MTSA, Mehrunissa has helped to coordinate regional engagement strategies with our members outside of London. Kit, the MTSA Treasurer, has kept a keen eye on the numbers and provided the voice of reason on many occasion. We are sad to see him leave for Tokyo.

In terms of the future, I’m very happy to be invited to Washington D.C. to represent Middle Temple alongside MTYBA. We anticipate some friendly trans-Atlantic competition and memorable advocacy.

As our tenure is coming to an end soon, please join us later in the year for the election of a new MTSA body. But just a warning, bring your ‘A’ game. We want epic speeches reverberating through Hall. Good luck!

It has been a real pleasure to serve as President.

Anna Brailsford is the President of the MTSA and has been a member of numerous committees since October 2016. She works to represent the interests of the MTSA and members who are in the process of being Called to the Bar. Anna received an MA and MSc from Edinburgh University. She then went on to study the GDL and BPTC at BPP Law School, before being awarded the Diplock Scholarship by Middle Temple. Anna currently works in the EdTech industry and has held senior positions in large technology companies.

Another Successful year for MTYBA WILL GLOVER It seems that each passing year brings with it a potential death knell for the junior Bar. There were multiple nominations for this year’s reaper award but rather than dwell on the past MTYBA encourages positive action for the future.

As has become typical of the MTYBA calendar in recent years, there were a number of firsts. We had our first Annual Dinner in the Prince’s Room with a small but sold-out audience.

There were around 50 of our number in attendance. Master Dominic Grieve was the guest speaker and we also had a guest from the Scottish Criminal Bar Association. The 2017 dinner promises to live up to expectations: Former Treasurer, Master Igor Judge, will undoubtedly pull in the crowds to this year’s event in the Parliament Chamber.

This year we placed a greater focus on professional events for tenants and establishing an outreach project.

To that end, we organised a successful Corporate Crime CPD event with Fulcrum Chambers in the Shard. Needless to say the venue attracted good numbers and new faces.

We also co-hosted an event with Human Rights Watch on ‘Confronting Modern Slavery’ and had an audience with international criminal lawyer Melinda Taylor in co-ordination with the South Eastern Circuit. In respect of outreach, we ran a pilot scheme this year in conjunction with Urban Lawyers to provide advocacy taster workshops to university students.

All those students in attendance showed a keen preference for Middle Temple in discussions after the workshops.

In our pre-pupillage series, we held evening events providing application feedback, a mock-pupillage interview workshop (two members on circuit participated via Skype) and an interview advocacy workshop. For the second year running we held a one-day event comprising all of these elements in Manchester at Manchester Metropolitan University to provide for those more proximate to the Northern Circuit.

We hosted our annual jobs and opportunities evening where those in pursuit of pupillage can connect with opportunities to boost CVs or explore multiple paths to pupillage. In addition, we continue to support our pupil members with events organised throughout the year.

MTYBA continues to offer up to three awards to those who are yet to obtain pupillage and are on or planning an international internship. We increased the awards to £1000 this year from £500 in the past. Our most recent recipients

were Julian Ranetunge, Natasha Hausdorff and Ricky Kimachia. In addition, we now also administer a practice development grant for junior tenants. In its first year these were awarded to Shannon Revel and Richard Whitehouse We have expanded our offering on Circuit over and above the pre-pupillage series. This year saw the creation of a Northern Sub-Committee of MTYBA to run events there for members on circuit. We also continue to run an annual event in Bristol for the Inn’s junior members on the Western Circuit.

As always, we are very grateful to all of the Inn’s members who assist us in running events. Perhaps our annual threeround Advocacy Competition deserves special mention in this regard. This year’s final was presided over by Masters Peter Testar, Michael Gledhill, Martin Edmunds and Louise McCullough to whom we remain grateful for their continued support. The winners were Helen Marley and Julie Ball who each received prizes from our competition sponsor, Hammicks Legal.

Another successful year has passed us by. The Committee hopes that you can see we continue to work hard to provide support and advice to our members. Thank you for your continued support. Please do follow us on Twitter or Facebook, or keep an eye on our website www.mtyba.org to get involved or support us with events in the future.

Will Glover is the President of MTYBA for 2017. He was Called to the Bar 2012 and is a junior tenant at 3 Temple Gardens with a practice in general crime and extradition.

Another Successful year for MTYBA

75

Hall Committee JULIETTE LEVY

The Hall Committee (HC) represents the views and interests of the majority of Inn’s members, i.e. any non-Bencher. We represent a broad spectrum of members from students to judges, and our members come from an equally broad spectrum of practice areas, including members from the self-employed and employed bars, Middle Temple Young Barristers Association (MTYBA) and Middle Temple Students Association (MTSA). I became involved with the Inn and HC over five years ago, two of which I served as Vice-Chair and two of which (including this year) I have served as Chair.

Over the last four years in particular, I have witnessed our committee’s voice and influence within the Inn grow. HC owes this in no small part to the leadership of our four most recent Treasurers: Master Igor Judge, Master Stephen Hockman, Master Christopher Clarke and this year’s Treasurer, Master John Dyson. They were, and are, determined to support our members and ensure the survival of the Inn, and recognise the importance of HC and the members it represents.

Bar. In October 2015, in response to the BSB’s consultation on the Future Training of the Bar, we proposed a more flexible approach to pupillage that embraced both the self-employed and employed Bars. Our response can be found on the website. In March 2017, the BSB published a policy statement on Bar training, which set out four training ‘models’ all of which would require pupillage (or ‘workbased learning’) and stated: We shall also take steps to encourage a wider range of pupillages, and other final-stage training opportunities, to be made available and we shall aim to expand the range of work-based learning that we recognise as valid in meeting the requirements of the Professional Statement.

Whilst it is entirely unclear what steps the BSB has in mind, our working group will seize the opportunity of examining initiatives to increase pupillage opportunities.

So – what does HC actually do?

Headed Support for the Employed Bar Many people I meet ask me the same questions: what is HC, and what do we actually do? Our work can be broken down into two categories (i) programmes where we examine issues of concern to our members or where we perceive we can offer initiatives to our members (‘Work’) and (ii) social based events (‘Play’).

WORK

The Employed Bar accounts for 20% of the Bar and growing.

The Inn has long recognised its importance, particularly through HC. In 2015 we set up the Employed Bar Forum, together with Inner Temple, to bring together employed barristers for seminars, lectures and workshops focussing on professional development. The most recent event was a reception on 8 March at the Inner Temple with an introductory address by James Corbett QC of Kobre and Kim.

Mentoring Scheme HC Elections & Members Participation Following the success of our pilot mentoring scheme, mentoring will now be offered to a wider selection of members. The aim is to offer mentoring support to members throughout their entire career arc at the Bar after pupillage.

We have recently added information in the Members section of the website, where you can find out more details.

Support for the Junior Bar In 2015, we set up a working group to examine the crisis resulting from the chronic lack of pupillages, leaving talented aspiring barristers with no route to practise at the

76

Whilst we cannot promise to fulfil all your needs, we will try our very best to address them. In order to enable us to do this we encourage your participation by contacting any of our members listed on the MT website, or by contacting me by email: juliette.levy@ceruleanchambers.co.uk Our annual elections will be held in December. If you would like to participate more actively in the Inn via HC, please consider standing for election. If not, please participate by voting for candidates.

PLAY

Gaudys

Tasker’s – It’s opposite the Library!

Next year, we plan to expand on our meeting members initiative to alumni events. These will be reunion events, where members from cohorts of five years, will be invited to meet each other and us. Our first event in the series will be for those Called in 2012 up to the 2017 Callees and will be held on 4 October. In 2018 we will be holding events on 17 January for those Called between 1992 and 1997 and on 11 April for those Called between 1998 and 2003. Please look out for your invitation and do come and join us.

On 21 April 2016, ‘Tasker’s’ was opened by Lady Mair Griffith-Williams, daughter of the late Master Tasker Watkins.

Tasker’s is the new Member’s Lounge, which was opened in response to member’s requests. HC worked with the support of our then Treasurer, Master Hockman, to get this built and even had a hand in the furnishings and décor. According to the Inn’s recent Members' Survey, many members still do not know about Tasker’s. Well, it’s opposite the Library. As the Rabbi counselled someone complaining they never won the lottery, ‘it helps if you buy a ticket’.

Annual Dinner – Alex Macqueen: Star Speaker On 18 May, we hosted a very successful Annual Dinner. We were lucky enough to secure the brilliant Alex Macqueen as our guest speaker, whose speech will be long remembered for its wit and hilarity. Next year’s Annual Dinner will be on 17 May - our aim is to match, if not exceed, this year’s success.

Meet the Hall Committee Drinks Last November, we started our ‘Meet the Hall Committee’ initiative. This is a quarterly drinks event, usually held in Tasker’s. The aim is to provide an informal environment where members can meet us, get a better understanding of what we do, share ideas and learn how they can become more involved in the Inn.

And thank you…

Finally I would like to thank the members of our committee, all the members of staff at the Inn, particularly Colin Davidson, Oliver Muncey and Glen Newman. Also, Master Adrienne Page for her tireless efforts on the décor and style of Tasker’s, Alex Macqueen, and last but by no means least, our Treasurer.

Juliette Levy was Called to the Bar in 1992.

She practises from Cerulean Chambers, where she specialises in commercial, chancery and telecommunications law. She relishes the opportunities that working with the Inn and on the Hall Committee bring her, particularly working with barristers from a wide spectrum of practice areas, experiences and stages of practice ranging from student to senior members of the judiciary.

THE KNIGHTS TEMPLAR 95 CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, WC2A 1DT This pub is the former Union Bank, taking its name from the order of warrior knights across whose land Chancery Lane was built in the 12th century. It is named after an ancient order of warrior monks – The Knights Templar.

OPEN

MON – FRI 08:00 – 23:30 SAT 11:00 – 18.30

ORDER & PAY

DOWNLOAD THE APP AND ORDER FROM YOUR TABLE

over 35 years of award-winning pubs find your nearest with our app Hall Committee

77

Middle Temple Mentoring Scheme ZOE O'SULLIVAN

Mentoring is an umbrella term for a flexible arrangement in which a senior barrister gives the benefit of their advice, experience and feedback on work-related issues to a more junior barrister on a one-to-one, confidential basis.

The terms of the relationship: how long it lasts, what it covers, how often mentor and mentee meet, are up for negotiation between the individuals concerned. Mentoring schemes have become increasingly popular in recent years. They include the Middle Temple student sponsorship scheme (which is a time-limited mini-mentorship), the Bar Council scheme for aspiring Silks and judges, and the Chancery Bar Association scheme. The Middle Temple set up its own Hall Committee scheme for practitioners some three years ago.

Any barrister can benefit from having a mentor. But mentoring can be particularly valuable for barristers who come from a non-traditional background, by giving them access to support and networks which are taken for granted by the privileged. The Bar is currently showing admirable dedication to the principle of diversity, recognising the important public interest in widening the backgrounds from which members of the profession are drawn. But this is taking place in a context of economic hard times in which most students are burdened by heavy debt, and the evidence suggests that it is increasingly difficult for even the most talented graduates to obtain work in any profession

78

without personal connections. Junior barristers have been particularly hard hit by the squeeze on public funding for legal services.

Even once a barrister has squeezed through the very narrow doorways of pupillage and tenancy, a person who does not look, sound or feel like the traditional image of a barrister may struggle with confidence issues and feel that they do not truly belong. This is evident, for example, in the very small numbers of women who apply for Silk, despite the gender balance being more or less equal at the point of entry into the profession.

Further, the self-employed Bar in particular is a lonely profession, where practitioners feel obliged to put on a cheerful face and hide any concerns which they may feel about their work issues for fear that this might adversely affect their reputation.

Mentoring schemes such as the Middle Temple’s scheme set out to redress these issues by putting junior barristers in touch with practitioners who have already been through the same experiences, and can help to provide them with a roadmap to success and confidence in practice. The scheme

gives a barrister a confidential sounding board outside their own chambers, where they may feel uncomfortable raising issues about their practice or colleagues. It also provides them with a role model and the assurance that what they are seeking to do has already been done by someone else.

Let’s dispel some common myths about mentoring.

First, mentoring is not counselling, therapy or life coaching, and it certainly does not involve the mentor telling the mentee what to do. It is about providing a safe and confidential environment for the mentee to reflect on work related issues, with a sympathetic and experienced listener.

Second, mentoring is not just for the most junior members of the profession. In fact, survey evidence has suggested that many barristers seeking a mentor are at the senior junior level and looking for help in making the transition to Silk. Another obvious career point where mentoring can be invaluable is where a female barrister is seeking to re-enter the workplace, having taken time off to have a family. The Middle Temple scheme aims to find mentors for people at all stages of their career.

Third, mentoring is not a one-way process which only benefits the mentee, but also helps the professional and personal development of the mentor. As a mentor myself, I speak from personal experience when I say that I have gained tremendously from the opportunity to reflect on my own past career and draw out the lessons learned from experience, good and bad. It is also rewarding to realise that it is actually possible to make a material difference to someone else, if only by listening to them to help them work through their issues.

How does the scheme work?

The Middle Temple mentoring scheme is for practitioners with tenancy, or those working as an employed barrister. It is not intended for students or pupils, or those seeking pupillage.

Students can benefit from the separate sponsorship scheme run by the Middle Temple.

If you are interested in becoming a mentee or a mentor you can find more information and the relevant forms on the Members area of the Middle Temple website (you will need to log in first). Please complete the forms and email them to mentoring@middletemple.org.uk.

For prospective mentees, the form gives you an opportunity to state particular reasons why you are seeking a mentor, such as ‘thinking about applying for Silk’ or ‘returning from a career break’. This will help the matching panel to find you the right mentor. These forms will be kept strictly confidential.

The matching panel will try to match mentees and mentors by reference to their expressed preferences and particularly by reference to their practice area. We do not guarantee, however, that you will necessarily be matched with a mentor/mentee of the same gender, ethnicity or practice area, and you should not assume that an exact match is necessary in order for you to benefit from the scheme.

We suggest that mentor and mentee should then meet up and discuss how you envisage that the relationship will progress. Factors to consider will include the following: • How long the relationship is likely to last • How often you will meet • Whether you will meet face-to-face, or have telephone or email conversations, or both • Where you will meet • The importance of confidentiality Further information is available on the Middle Temple website: http://www.middletemple.org.uk/members/mentoringscheme Zoe O’Sullivan was Called to the Bar in 1993 and took silk in 2015. She practises from the chambers of Lord Grabiner QC at One Essex Court, where she specialises in commercial litigation and arbitration. She particularly enjoys the opportunities offered by the Hall Committee to work with barristers from different areas of practice.

Middle Temple Mentoring Scheme

79

Middle Goes East Amity Visit to Singapore and Malaysia MASTER CHRISTOPHER CLARKE Middle Temple Amity visits are always a joy; and the visit to Singapore in September 2016 was no exception, save in the sense that it went exceptionally well. The possibility of a visit was mooted when I met the Chief Justice of Singapore in London and found him clearly in favour. He had hoped to attend but, unfortunately, had, in the event a diary clash.

They do things efficiently there. So, as a result of a series of Skype meetings with Master Chao Hick Tin, and Serene Wee of the Singapore Academy of Law we had the planning for the visit in hand well before the Summer Vacation. Master Chao Hick Tin is the Vice President of the Singapore Court of Appeal, and a former Attorney General. We also had the good fortune to be in contact with Ms Foo Chi Hsia, the Singaporean High Commissioner in London, beforehand to discuss plans. We were assisted by a small organising group of myself, Masters: Derek Wood, Paul Darling, Philip Bartle and Chair of the Hall Committee, Juliette Levy, with the assistance of Rachel Foxton, Head of Practice Support of 20 Essex Street, and the use of their conference room.

A large number of us, 63 in all (including partners) embarked for Singapore and many of us stayed at the Four Seasons hotel - a very agreeable resting place (especially with the rather good rates procured for us by Master Sheilagh Davies). It was a bonus that so many of us were at the same location.

Before the conference started I had a very encouraging visit to Master V K Rajah, the Attorney General, at his Chambers. After graduating from Singapore University and obtaining a Masters at Cambridge, he was managing partner of Rajah and Tann, then a Judicial Commissioner and Supreme Court judge from 2004-2007 and a Judge of Appeal from 2007-2014. I also met Indranee Rajah, the Senior Minister of State, with a responsibility for the justice system. I visited the School of Law of Singapore Management University where I met the Dean, Professor Yeo Tiong Min, and was quizzed by a number of very intelligent academics. I had a meeting with the Justices’ Law Clerks who were as frighteningly bright as they were charming. I also went to the Faculty of Law of the National University of Singapore and met Professor Simon Chesterman, who is the Dean, with an extremely wide range

80

of distinguished teaching experience, and others.

The conference kicked off with a Reception on Wednesday 21 September at Eden Hall, the residence of the British High Commissioner – a very pleasant colonial era building. The same evening there was a Bench Call and Supper at the Four Seasons at which we Called to the Bench Mrs Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean, Justice Quentin Loh (as an Honorary Bencher), Chelva Rajah SC and Thio Shen Yi. We were very glad to do so. They each have distinguished careers and are an adornment to our Bench.

The conference proper took place on 22 and 23 September. The keynote address was given by Master V K Rajah. Its title was ‘The Amity and Comity between the two jurisdictions; The Singapore view of the Middle Temple; Historical connections and Future collaboration’. It served to underline the deep historical link between the Inn and Singapore which both seek to maintain. The Hon Lee Kuan Yew GCMG CH, the late Prime Minister of Singapore was, of course, a Bencher and there are many links between sets of Chambers and Singapore. Singapore would very much like the opportunity of placing young Singaporean lawyers for short stays in Chambers in London.

Thereafter there were three Panel discussions on the following topics: 1) Recent Developments in Contractual Terms; 2) Recent Developments in Vitiating Factors/Remedies in Contract Law; 3) Do Courts really work and, if not, what does? The first two had a Chairman and two UK and two Singaporean speakers. As usual the standard was very high; and the content confirmed that one of the best things about these conferences is learning how different jurisdictions with a common law base handle similar problems, not always in the same way. The third panel was a round table discussion chaired by Master Edward Garnier which was a stimulating consideration of what we are or are not achieving.

Running in parallel with Panel 3 was a Practical Advocacy Training Session with both UK and Singaporean trainers, which went exceptionally well on account of the quality of the trainers on both sides.

We were then immensely fortunate to be able to enjoy the hospitality of the Singapore Academy of Law, and the

Singapore Bar and Judiciary at a dinner at the Regent Hotel.

This was a very welcome and generous act (we had originally planned to be the hosts) and the dinner was a very enjoyable affair.

The next day there were two consecutive sessions on 1) Criminal Law – Joint Enterprise and Criminal Procedure and 2) Developments in Family Law. This was followed by a moot for which the judges were Master John Dyson, Master Aarif Barma (Hong Kong) and Justice Steven Chong (Singapore).

Each side had a Singaporean leader and a UK junior. I pay tribute to Karen Reid and Ryan Turner, two of our younger members, who both did brilliantly as juniors. One of them (I will not say which) did particularly well because, the moot problem favouring the other side somewhat, the leader answered some of the more difficult questions from the court by saying that his junior would deal with them. Good training: it happens in the real world too.

The day finished with a lecture from me in the (I blush to say) Singapore Academy of Law Distinguished Speaker Series. It was entitled ‘Changing Course at the Top’ and concerned three recent decisions in which the House of Lords or the Supreme Court had, as I saw it, changed the law, as they were fully entitled to do. The punch line, not contained in the advance copy, was in the last paragraph where I revealed that I had given the first instance judgment in the first case and the only reasoned judgment in the last two. I said that I had no idea what view the Singapore courts would take. I therefore found it comforting when the judicial assistant assigned to me told me that the Singapore Court of Appeal had declined to follow the decision of the House of Lords: a warm glow came over me.

The conference ended on Friday evening with a reception at the Singapore Cricket Club which was a very enjoyable and relaxed occasion at which more Singapore practitioners were able to attend.

After the Singapore conference, I travelled to Kuala Lumpur where the Malaysian Middle Temple Alumni gave a dinner for us and barristers of all Inns, which the Chief Justice of Malaysia attended. I also went to dinner at Master Cecil Abraham’s house. He is a highly respected Malaysian advocate whom,

in another millennium and another life, I had the pleasure of leading in a case in the Supreme Court of Johor Baru, which lasted six weeks (but spread out over two years).

All this may sound like one big junket. But it is much more than that. The link with the Inn and the Far East is weakened by the fact that fewer people think it desirable to train here; but it is still strong. We share a common heritage in the role of the common law and a common aim in the preservation of its rule. Our standing in Singapore was, I believe, high and enhanced by our visit. We have so much to contribute to each other.

On behalf of the Inn I would thank the many people who attended, contributed or assisted and particularly Colin Davidson, without whose phenomenal and skilful efforts we would never have been able to achieve what we did.

Master Christopher Clarke read Classics and Law at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. A Harmsworth scholar, he was Called to the Bar in 1969, took silk in 1984, and became a Bencher in 1991. In 1975 he became an attorney of the Supreme Court of the Turks and Caicos Islands. He was formerly in practice at, and became Head of, Brick Court Chambers. He was a Judge of the Courts of Appeal of Jersey and Guernsey from 1998. He was a Councillor of the International Bar Association 1988-1990; Chairman of the Commercial Bar Association 1993–95; and a Member of the Bar Council 1993– 99. He was Counsel to the Bloody Sunday Enquiry 1998–2004.

He sat as a High Court Judge in the Commercial Court from 2005–13 and was appointed a Lord Justice of Appeal in 2013.

He retired in 2017. He is a member of the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved. He was Treasurer in 2016.

For further information on or to join The Malaysian Middle Temple Alumni (TMMTA) please contact the Secretary – Shaun Paulian in Kuala Lumpur – rockhound14@gmail.com

Middle Goes East: Amity Visit to Malaysia and Singapore

81

Middle Temple joint Amity visit to Gibraltar MASTER PAUL DARLING The Gibraltar Middle Temple Society was inaugurated in 2016.

The occasion was marked by a visit led by the 2016 Treasurer, Master Christopher Clarke. There are about 200 members of Middle Temple in Gibraltar and the Inn is delighted with its connection. This year it was decided to repeat the visit but that it should be a joint visit with Inner Temple. Accordingly, in May 2017 a party led by Master Treasurer and the Treasurer of Inner Temple, David Pittaway QC, visited Gibraltar. The visit was a great success. It began on the first evening with an organ recital in the Cathedral by the organist of the Temple Church, Roger Sayer. This was a happy and well received event. It gave us the opportunity to meet our hosts and to finalise the plans for the following day’s activities. The Chief Justice of Gibraltar, Master Anthony Dudley (a Middle Templar), entertained us to dinner at one of Gibraltar’s many wonderful fish restaurants.

The next day, the Jewish Community held a lunch in honour of Master Treasurer. Again, this was a well-attended and happy event. The Chief Minister, Fabian Picardo MP, also a Middle Templar, honoured the event with his presence.

Master Treasurer addressed the lunch with a speech that was particularly well received.

The key part of the visit was the dinner, again held at the Rock Hotel. The dinner was very well attended. Master Anthony Dudley, as well as Master Adrian Jack (who has done so much to promote the Middle Temple in Gibraltar) attended. We were also fortunate to have two High Court Judges in Gibraltar present with us. One, The Hon Mrs Justice Ramagge Prescott, who is a Middle Templar, has been elected a Bencher of the Inn and will be called to the Bench later this year. There were speeches both from Master Treasurer and from the Treasurer of Inner Temple. Master Treasurer spoke generally of the Inns’ affection for Gibraltar. David Pittaway QC gave an address on the Present and Future Structure of Legal Education in the United Kingdom.

The Inns’ policy is to foster and promote its links with its members in other jurisdictions. The International Committee, which I chair, has been very keen to foster links with our members all over the world. By the very nature of the undertaking, Middle Temple groups function differently

82

Middle Temple joint Amity visit to Gibraltar

in different jurisdictions and indeed function differently over time in the same jurisdiction. My strong belief is that it is only by visiting both frequently and regularly that these links can be preserved and indeed developed. This visit was an important part of that strategy.

We are indeed fortunate to have an active society in Gibraltar and we owe our thanks to Gillian Guzman QC and Darren Martinez for their assistance with, and the planning of, what I hope will become, the annual Amity Visit to Gibraltar.

Our thanks also go to Charles Bonfante the Inner Temple’s secretary in Gibraltar.

Master Paul Darling was Called to the Bar in 1983 and joined Keating Chambers in 1985, taking Silk in 1999. He was elected a Bencher in 2004 and was Head of Keating Chambers 2010-15. He was Chairman of the Estates Committee 2010-14 and is Chairman of the International Sub Committee. Previously he has been Chairman of TECBAR 2003–07, Trustee of the FRU 2004 and Chairman of the Bar Council Access to the Bar Committee 2007–09. He was a non-executive member of the TOTE Board 2006–08 and was a government appointed member of the Horserace Betting Levy Board 2008–14. He was Chairman of the Sports Grounds Safety Authority 2009–15. He is Chairman of the Association of British Bookmakers and was awarded an OBE in 2015.

For further information on or to join the Gibraltar Middle Temple Society please contact the Secretary – Darren Martinez: darren.martinez@hassans.gi

Middle Temple Association in Mauritius RASHAD DAUREEAWO SC

The 10th anniversary of the inauguration of the Association will be celebrated on 22 September 2017 to mark the signing of the historical Memorandum of Understanding made in Mauritius, by the then Master Treasurer of Middle Temple, Robert Seabrook QC, and myself. The Association were particularly honoured that on 31 March 2009, then Chief Justice, Bernard Sik Yuen GOSK, was elected as an Honorary Bencher of Middle Temple. The Association also aptly celebrated this occasion.

Mauritius, an Island state in the Indian Ocean with a population of 1.3 million, has maintained the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as its highest Court of Appeal.

This is an essential safeguard in our justice system, though it's accessibility depends on affordability by the litigants.

Indeed, the MacKay Report made recommendations for a totally independent High Court, with Appellate jurisdiction composed of special appeal judges. Presently the Judges of the Supreme Court sit as first instance judges and also in an appellate capacity.

Mauritian Law is essentially hybrid in nature, composing of French Civil Code as its substantive Law, whereas procedural rules and evidence are inspired by Common Law. Barristers comfortably handle both French and English jurisprudence as a routine legal practice, especially in the Supreme Court, thereby automatically indulging instinctively in comparative law exercise.

Mauritius has promulgated necessary legislative and legal frame works and is now well positioned to become an International Arbitration Hub. The Association wish to highlight the remarkable contribution made by Mauritian UK based Middle Templar, Salim Moollan QC, in this regard.

The current Chief Justice, Honourable Kishore Parsad Matadeen GOSK, has been instrumental in major reforms of Judicial and Legal systems, including the establishment of E-Judiciary. The Institute of Judicial and Legal Studies (IJLS) the body responsible for providing continuous professional development (CPD) - recently organised a training course in Advocacy for Barristers, Judges and Magistrates, dispensed by a team from The Inns of Court College of Advocacy. Such training was highly beneficial to ensure quality assurance and quantitative justice. It is hoped that the Inn will extend similar collaborative assistance and training to the legal and judicial profession in Mauritius on occasions arising in future.

The Middle Temple Association in Mauritius would be delighted to collaborate with and receive support from members of Middle Temple in training and professional development.

M.Rashad Daureeawo was Called to the Bar in 1970. He is currently Head of RD Chambers in Port Louis and mainly involved in civil, corporate and criminal law. He took Silk as Senior Counsel in 2010. He has served as President of the Bar Council and also in the Law Reform Commission. He was the High Commissioner of Mauritius to Pakistan 2012–15.

For further information on or to join the Mauritius Middle Temple Society please contact the Secretary – Rashad Daureeawo SC - razi@rdchambers.com

Middle Temple Association in Mauritius

83

Development of Common Law in Hong Kong since 1997: A Few Reflections MASTER RIMSKY YUEN On 1 July 1997, China resumed exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong and her constitutional status changed from a British colony to a special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), nonetheless, remains as a common law jurisdiction pursuant to the ‘one country, two systems’ policy implemented through the Basic Law of the HKSAR. At the time of writing this article, the HKSAR is celebrating its 20th birthday. The author wishes to share a few personal thoughts concerning the development of common law in the HKSAR in the past 20 years.

Putting aside the initial stages, the key route for adopting common law in Hong Kong prior to 1 July 1997 was the Application of English Law Ordinance. This Ordinance provided, among others, that ‘the common law and the rules of equity shall be in force in Hong Kong, so far as they may be applicable to the circumstances of Hong Kong or its inhabitants’. The expression ‘common law’ was defined in section 3 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance as ‘the common law of England’.

After 1 July 1997, the application of common law in the HKSAR is guaranteed by Article 8 of the Basic Law. Further, Article 84 provides that the courts of the HKSAR, when adjudicating cases, ‘may refer to precedents of other common law jurisdictions’. The definition of ‘common law’ in section 3 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance was also amended to read as ‘the common law in force in Hong Kong’.

At the risk of over generalisation, the combined effect of these changes is that the HKSAR courts are constitutionally entitled to apply not just English common law, but that of other common law jurisdictions. In China Field Ltd. v Appeal Tribunal (Buildings) (No. 2) [2009] 5 HKLRD 662, Lord Millett, sitting as a Non-Permanent Judge (NPJ) of the HKSAR’s Court of Final Appeal (CFA), referred to Article 84 of the Basic Law and observed (at para. 78) that ‘the common law is no longer monolithic but may evolve differently in the various common law jurisdictions’.

84

Another related development may be described as the ‘internationalisation’ of the common law in the HKSAR. Put shortly, the courts in the HKSAR are no longer confined to common law jurisprudence. Instead, references are repeatedly (and in some contexts, extensively) made to European and international jurisprudence, including cases and materials of the European Court of Human Rights, the European Human Rights Commission, and observations by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

This trend of internationalisation, which is particularly obvious in the context of human rights cases, first started after Hong Kong enacted its own Bill of Rights in 1991, but the trend gathers further and much stronger momentum after 1997. Examples include the use of proportionality analysis, and the power to adopt remedial interpretation when a legislative provision faces challenges of constitutionality.

Sir Anthony Mason (a former NPJ of the CFA) explained that apart from the continuum of evolutionary development of the common law that Hong Kong judges partake by referring to judgments from other common law jurisdictions, the international law dimension of human rights protection and the practical approach of reading judgments from abroad for ‘judicial wisdom’ carries additional attraction. He observed: It is important that the [CFA’s] decisions should be seen to conform to internationally accepted judicial standards. Indeed, for Hong Kong there is a double attraction: Hong Kong’s reputation as an international financial centre depends upon the integrity and standing of its courts. Further, in the context of Hong Kong’s relationship with the central government in Beijing, it is important that the decision of the Hong Kong courts reflect adherence to the rule of law in accordance with internationally adopted judicial standards.

The development of common law in the HKSAR, however, maintains its unique path when circumstances require. A recent example is the divergent development concerning the law of joint enterprise. In the decision of R v Chan Wing Siu [1985] 1 AC 168, the Privy Council (on appeal from Hong Kong) laid down the principle of joint enterprise, and the principle has since been applied in various common law jurisdictions. In 2016, the UK Supreme Court decided in R v Jogee [2016] 2 WLR 681 that the Privy Council decision of Chan Wing Siu was wrong. Interestingly, when the same issue subsequently came to be considered in the HKSAR, the CFA in its decision in HKSAR v Chan Kam Shing (2016) 19 HKCFAR 640 declined to follow Jogee, and continued to uphold the approach expounded in Chan Wing Siu. What are the factors which contributed to the development outlined above? One of the important factors is that pursuant to Article 82 of the Basic Law, eminent judges from other common law jurisdictions have been invited to sit on the CFA. This arrangement is unique, and has the effect of enhancing cross-fertilisation of judicial wisdom. Indeed, the CFA has made various landmark decisions in various areas of law since it was established in 1997. Another factor is the ad hoc admission of overseas counsel. By way of illustration, a total of 163 applications for admission of overseas barristers (primarily London Silks) were allowed by the HKSAR courts during the period from 2012 to 2016. These overseas counsel provided an additional source of legal talents which facilitates the consideration of jurisprudence from other common law jurisdictions as well as international jurisprudence. A third factor is the HKSAR’s legal aid policy, which facilitates challenges of executive decisions and hence provides the HKSAR courts with opportunity to decide important questions of law.

As The Rt Hon Lord Lloyd once remarked in Invercargill City Council v Hamlin [1996] AC 624 (at 640): The ability of the common law to adopt itself to the differing circumstances of the countries in which it has taken root, is not a weakness, but one of its great strengths. Were it not so, the common law would not have flourished as it has, with all the common law countries learning from each other.

The HKSAR’s experience in the past 20 years has once again demonstrated the strength of the common law. It has also illustrated the advantage of cross-fertilisation among the legal communities of the common law world.

In this globalised world, we often face problems with commonalities or which have an international dimension.

That being the case, there is every reason to further enhance cross-fertilisation among common law jurisdictions.

Master Rimsky Yuen was appointed Senior Counsel in 2003. He was Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association 2007–09. Since July 2012, he has been the Secretary for Justice of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. He was made an Honorary Bencher in 2015.

For further information on or to join the Hong Kong Middle Temple Society please contact the Secretary – Catrina Lam - catrinalam@dvc.com.hk

Development of Common Law in Hong Kong since 1997: A Few Reflections

85

Four Jurisdictions Conference: Dublin MASTER GUY MANSFIELD This year’s Four Jurisdictions Conference was in Dublin from 5-7 May. The Irish Bench and Bar led by Master Finlay Geoghegan, a Justice of the Court of Appeal, and Paul McGarry SC, Chairman of the Council of the Bar of Ireland, put on a wonderful event.

This annual get-together of members of the four jurisdictions goes from strength to strength. We began with a great evening at the Kildare Street University Club on the Friday night. The next day we worked hard. The first session began at 9.30 a.m, which for some at least may have seemed a little early!

The theme of the first session was Free movement within the Four Jurisdictions post Brexit; can or will free movement for the common travel area survive? Gerry McAlinden QC, kicked off with an historical review of the common travel area within and between the two islands, explaining that by a combination of history and design free movement had continued since the 19th Century. Border posts between North and South had not been a success. George Peretz QC produced a masterly overview of the rights of EU citizens currently residing in the UK both to travel and to work in different parts of the British Isles. He identified possible ways forward to ensure free movement within Ireland and between the peoples there and England, Wales and Scotland. He established the many uncertainties and the critical need for clear resolution, if trade is not to be damaged and family and social life impaired. This is a hugely important issue for the peace and prosperity of all in the British Isles. The message was highlighted and expanded on in a thoughtful piece by Paul Gallagher SC. Indeed, without disrespect to these sessions and speakers which followed, it was this session which really gripped those present. It brought home in the starkest and most practical terms the potential impact of Brexit and the importance of sorting out swiftly and intelligently these border issues. It highlighted the value of this particular conference at which we meet from different parts of the British Isles. During the years to come it will be even more important that we all continue to

86

meet to exchange ideas and foster goodwill. Each jurisdiction organises itself in different social, political and legal ways.

Some distinctions are quite subtle, others relatively stark.

We benefit from discussion and the friendship which follows.

We learn from hearing how others see and do things. These conferences above all promote good fellowship. In the times to come that association between the lawyers of the four jurisdictions can only benefit our respective bodies politic.

The other three sessions were all interesting and of value. Space does not permit a full description. First came Stress induced psychological injuries in the workplace; when is an employer liable?, chaired by Master David Bean with contributions by Marguerite Bolger QC, Angela Grahame QC and Frank O’Donoghue QC. This is a topic of great practical interest in the field of employment and personal injury law and the papers produced excellent perspectives on different aspects, including employers’ liability, vicarious liability and harassment in the workplace. We saw this through the eyes of different jurisdictions. The papers were first-class and exemplified the value of interdisciplinary exchanges such as this.

Next, we heard about: Divergences of Systems: Discovery v. Disclosure – burdens and benefits – how do we strike a fair balance? This session was chaired by Mark Mulholland QC and the three distinguished speakers were The Rt Hon Lord Dyson, Master Peter Kelly (President of the High Court of Ireland) and James Mure QC. What might have appeared at first blush a rather dry topic was managed crisply, entertainingly and informatively by our three speakers.

The range of experiences showed that while in Scotland at least there may be less of an issue about documents and discoveries/disclosure issues, the different routes attempted within Ireland, England and Wales to address the deluge problem of vast quantities of documents in cases that have not brought resolution. We have not heard the last on this.

Finally, we came to hear about: Freedom of Expression – no longer an unbending individual freedom? The session was chaired by David Barniville SC. The respective speakers were The Hon. Lord Pentland, Master Moloney and The Hon. Mr Justice Colton. Master Patrick Moloney produced the interesting insight that the developments in the last 20 years meant that, whereas historically the English media had been free to publish truthful ‘kiss and tell’ items and paparazzi photographs, developments in the law of privacy now exposed the media to the risk of injunctions and damages in these respects. Freedom of expression is in retreat. This listener, at least, was troubled. Freedom of the press is critical. Qualifications added with well-meaning intent open the way for the rich and powerful to cover up what may be better left in the open.

It was a long but interesting and valuable day. That evening there was a striking dinner in the great Hall of the Kings Inns. The setting is magnificent and is introduced in the entrance hall with a great painting of the treason trial of Sir Roger Casement, whose defence was led by Serjeant Sullivan of the English and Irish Bars, and a Bencher of this Inn. Finally, on Sunday morning before we all returned to our respective parts of these islands, The Hon. Mr Justice Donal O’Donnell of the Irish Supreme Court delivered an engrossing lecture An English ‘spy’, a Scots Judge, a Belfast Case and a future Supreme Court Judge - legal stories of the Asgard and the 1914 Howth Gun Running. It was a great work of historical research and scholarship. He gave a fascinating insight into the many faceted Irish and English interactions

at all levels of the legal, political and social worlds in these islands during the first quarter of the last century. The story is too complicated to tell here but it revolved around those who led the fight for independence for Ireland, some of AngloIrish descent, and the resistance led by Unionists such as Sir Edward, later Lord, Carson KC. That Carson, who was to lead the prosecution of Sir Roger Casement, should himself have been involved in masterminding a huge gunrunning exercise into Ulster at Howth in 1914, would seem surprising. That, as attorney-general and prosecutor, he ultimately denied Casement permission to appeal from the Criminal Court of Appeal to the House of Lords was perhaps more shocking.

Not long after that he became Lord Carson and sat on the judicial committee. How times have changed!

Master Guy Mansfield was Called to the Bar in 1972 and to the Bench in 2000.

Hs practises from One Crown Office Row. He is the Inn’s representative for the Four Jurisdictions annual conferences. He was Chairman of the Bar Council in 2005, is a Council Member of JUSTICE and a member of the Queen's Counsel Complaints Committee. He currently leads the government team for the defence in the Kenyan Emergency Group litigation.

Four Jurisdictions Conference: Dublin

87

Adopt a Barrister: Florida MASTER ANTHONY ARLIDGE

On 9 May this year, as part of the American Inns of Court ‘Adopt-a-Barrister’ scheme, I was made an Honorary Member of the Craig S. Barnard Inn of Court in West Palm Beach, Florida.

In the sixties Craig became a long-haired, Dylan-loving, antiwar protester. He switched his studies to law, moved with his family to Florida and when qualified became a public defender, conducting appeals in capital cases. Despite Craig’s well respected work opposing the death penalty within and beyond the State, Florida still retains the death penalty. At the age of 39, Craig died from an epileptic seizure. The Palm Beach Inn of Court was renamed in his honour.

When my invitation arrived, the United States election had not yet taken place. When it did, Palm Beach County voted for Clinton, but the rural vote ensured, as it did across the country, that the votes in the Electoral College went to Trump. My hosts were falling over themselves to assure me of their distaste for their new President. As its name suggests, Palm Beach has a wonderful beach fringed with palms. It is separated from West Palm Beach by the Intracoastal Waterway - a wide inlet inside the sandbar which

88

forms Palm Beach and runs many miles north; it is a yacht haven. Along Palm Beach itself there is an incredible line of villas in eclectic styles, which own the beach from the High Water mark. Amongst them is one in high Spanish style with an elaborate gate and much security. This is Mar-a-lago, President Trump’s exclusive club. I presented my credentials, but withdrew when I was asked for a $200,000 entrance fee.

It is right in the flight path of West Palm Beach airport, which has to be closed when the President visits. It is here that the lovely Betty Resch comes to protest. Betty qualified late and practises in family law. She has 13 stray cats and 6 recovery dogs and husband Lou who, being retired, looks after the menagerie. He is a sports addict and it takes a lot to lure him from his television and home. I discovered that by some stroke of misfortune he was a Blackburn Rovers supporter and upset about their relegation from the Championship.

This common ground drew him out and he entertained us

to a lovely last night dinner by the Intracoastal. Betty had been on the Women’s March in Washington and formed an immediate bond with my partner, Heather Lockwood, who, though not on the march, had knitted a pink pussy hat and worn it to show solidarity with her American sisters. I should have seen trouble ahead.

Before arriving in West Palm Beach, Heather and I went to New Orleans. In England it was cold at night and in the mornings, and we were looking forward to the warmth. We were treated to two tornado watches and two enormous storms, one while we were visiting the Whitney Plantation, which has an antebellum home and a very moving museum including original slave homes. There was a slave revolt there and when it failed some 90 odd slaves were executed. Their heads have been modelled in bronze from photographs and are exhibited on sticks to commemorate their suffering.

The ring leader was put in a bale of straw and burned to death. More happily we stayed in a beautiful 18th century hotel in the French Quarter, sailed on a Mississippi steamer, ate fabulously and heard some very good jazz, particularly in Preservation Hall.

Now we were met at Fort Lauderdale Airport by the President of the Inn, Timothy O’Neill, a larger than life property lawyer. He had a fund of good stories and happily a keen sense of irony. He took us to the Hilton, where we were to stay, and to meet Donna Eng who would take over as President on 10 May. She whisked us off to dinner, where we met Betty, blonde Jennifer and brunette Jennifer (too many surnames to remember) and former Judge Cox (as it turned out a trouble maker) and Manny Farach – the last two former Presidents of the Inn. Sad to say they had researched too much of my complicated past. Whether or not because of this, we swiftly bonded. Donna had scandalised her strict Catholic family by eloping and marrying outside the Church.

Romance is still alive. On the following Sunday Betty drove us to a local nature park where we of course saw alligators, though, it being daytime, they were asleep. Then we went to the Morikami gardens. In the early 20th century, a Japanese businessman proposed establishing Japanese agricultural colonies in Florida, an idea eagerly embraced by the local authorities. Mr Morikami came to farm pineapples. The colony failed, because the lack of Japanese women drove most of the colonists back to Japan. Morikami remained and during World War II bought large tracts of land. After a prolonged period, the local county agreed to accept the gift of this land. It has been turned into the most beautiful Japanese garden.

Tim O’Neill took us out one night to dinner with the improbably handsome Mr Sutton, who turned out to be a cousin of Dara Ó’Briain. We had a restrained and sober dinner in the Irish manner. I had to sing for my supper or at least lunch the next day, addressing the judges in their modern courthouse, which has the most amazing facilities.

West Palm Beach is a rich county and this is reflected in a very spacious building. The judges have counsel and paralegals to research for them. There are victim suites and four resident psychologists on site to assess prisoners, particularly juveniles. My speech was relatively reserved for me. When I concluded, Judge Cox said the audience would like to hear from Heather about our legal system. She was much less reserved. Then some female judges asked her about child care facilities for English lawyers, and this feminist alliance swiftly side-lined me. My self-worth was restored the next day when I made sure Heather did not speak.

I was adopted as an honorary member of the Inn in an evening reception in the lovely 1916 Courthouse, now a museum. To commemorate the event I was presented with a beautiful inscribed rosewood plaque. The invitation announced the recent publication of my book the Lawyers Who Made America. Tim enquired if he was in it and I had to confess to a glaring omission. I talked about the many links between the Middle Temple and those who had established first the colonies and then the United States. To revive the audience there were wine and canapés.

On our way back to England, we stayed a couple of nights on South Beach, Miami in an art deco hotel. The hotels in this part of town are low rise and face the beach, which is a huge area of white sand, and though there are umbrellas and loungers, there was no crowd. For our last evening we went all-American, going to see the Miami Marlins lose at baseball to the Atlanta Braves; we had hot dogs and Heather bought a Marlins’ peaked cap which is very fetching. Then sadly home, jet lagged but thankful. We had met some lovely people. Donna is planning a visit from their Inn to ours next year, so you will have a chance to meet them. I shall have to find where Blackburn Rovers are playing.

Master Anthony Arlidge was Called to the Bar in 1962, took Silk in 1981 and became a Bencher in 1989. His practice is in general crime and fraud. He is the coauthor of two leading text books, Arlidge and Parry on Fraud and Arlidge, Eady and Smith on Contempt of Court.

The Lawyers Who Made America is on sale in the Treasury Office.

Adopt a Barrister: Florida

89

Adopt a Barrister: Tacoma, Washington COLIN WITCHER

In February 2017, as part of the American Inns of Court ‘Adopta-Barrister’ scheme, I travelled to Tacoma, Washington for a week as a guest of the Hon. Robert J. Bryan American Inn of Court. Whilst there I received warm hospitality from members of the Inn and enjoyed a thoroughly enriching experience, both professionally and personally.

The occasion marked the 30 year anniversary of the Hon. Robert J Bryan American Inn of Court and also of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Batson v.

Kentucky 476 U.S. 79 (1986). In their decision, the Court held that racial discrimination in the selection of jurors not only deprives the accused of important rights during a trial, but is also devastating to the community at large because it undermines public confidence in the fairness of the system of justice. The racial composition of juries formed the subject of the Inn’s 30th Anniversary Lecture, at which I was invited to present a keynote address. Demonstrating a clear contrast to the selection process for American juries, I presented a short paper on juries in England and Wales, including the Appellate Court’s approach as to concerns arising from racial composition together with research on the issue. The audience to that address included students, lawyers and judges, including a State Supreme Court Justice.

I was fortunate enough to later have a private audience with all of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington and a guided tour of the State Capital after hearing legal arguments before the Court. The actionedpacked week covered the full spectrum of the legal system in the State of Washington. It was a thoughtfully prepared programme, including meeting the Dean and students of Seattle Law School, observing various court proceedings and watching the classic film, The Princess Bride. Such a film was crucial background viewing, as I was later to display my acting skills in a skit based upon the film at an Inn meeting.

I visited a variety of courts around the state, including

90

Adopt a Barrister: Tacoma, Washington

observing a very interesting legal argument in respect to the admissibility of an expert witness’ evidence. There were a number of opportunities to engage with lawyers and judges, where we could discuss our respective approaches to trial preparation, trial presentation and of course, court dress.

Britain generally was a topic discussed throughout my week as judges were intrigued by ‘Brexit’ and the impact upon human rights and the like. I often did not have answers to proper and probing questions on ‘Brexit’; we simply do not know what the future shall bring. However, what was clear from my week in Tacoma was that our brand ‘the Bar’ remains of international appeal and, as a profession, with a focus on independence and integrity, we are respected globally. The week - in addition to court observances and meetings - included trekking Mount Rainier in the snow with the President of the Inn, Susan Caulkins, a live glass blowing demonstration at the famous Tacoma Museum of Glass and dinner with federal judges, where the cocktail of choice was a London Gin in my honour. Every member of the Inn was enthusiastic, passionate and engaging.

The Hon. Robert J Bryan Inn of Court, in my view, upholds the finest traditions of the Inns of Court: collegiality, integrity and inclusiveness. In a world of ever increasing uncertainty, to know that there is a common desire to achieve justice, to ensure the continual development of one’s peers and to set the benchmark for those that follow, the Inn and all it stands for should be applauded. I would like to close by taking the opportunity to thank the Hon. Robert J Bryan Inn of Court for their kindness and effort in organising my week with them. I must give special mention to Susan Caulkins (and Teresa and the dogs!) for her fine hosting, and to Judges Bryan, Arend and Strombom, together with Mrs Justice Stephens, for their kindness and giving up their valuable time to meet me. It was an honour to forge what I hope is a lasting friendship with members of the Inn; by the close of the week the President of the Inn was introducing me as her ‘kid brother’ - I had well and truly been adopted.

Colin Witcher was called to the Bar in 2010 having been awarded the Jules Thorn Scholarship by the Inn. He practises from Church Court Chambers, London, specialising in general crime, corporate crime and financial regulation.

In 2014, he was awarded the Pegasus Scholarship and in 2015 was elected to the Executive Committee of the CBA followed a year later by the Executive Committee of the SEC.

Deferred Prosecution Agreement MASTER EDWARD GARNIER Seven years ago, when Solicitor General, I started work on the development and introduction of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement into the English and Welsh criminal justice system. In 2010 the Coalition Government had decided that public expenditure needed to be drastically reduced in all departments and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), supervised by the Law Officers, was no exception. Its revenue budget of about £40 million a year was to be cut to just under £30 million. Although the SFO received additional ‘blockbuster’ funding from the Treasury, unquestionably it was going to be under pressure financially.

I therefore borrowed from the United States the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) system. This allowed for companies to admit to criminal acts, to agree with the Department of Justice (DoJ) to pay a penalty and, where appropriate, compensation to its victims, to be of good behaviour for a term of years and, where appropriate, to be monitored by an independent accountant to ensure it was set on the right path. If the terms of the agreement were adhered to the DoJ withdrew the prosecution at the end of the deferment period. But whereas in the USA there is barely any judicial supervision of these agreements, it was clear to me that I would not get political or legal support for DPAs here without there being real judicial supervision of the proposed agreements and their being brought in by statute.

The Crime and Courts Act 2013 was the legislative vehicle.

There have now been 4 English DPAs brokered by the SFO, with Standard Bank in 2015, XYZ in 2016, Rolls-Royce in January 2017 and Tesco in April 2017. They have all been approved by a judge, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division, Sir Brian Leveson, as required by the Crime and Courts Act. They all largely, but by no means entirely, involved allegations against the respondent companies under S7 of the Bribery Act 2010 of failing to prevent bribery. Sir Brian described the investigation into Rolls-Royce as devastating for the company – it concerned serious criminal conduct over a period of 24 years by Rolls-Royce’s civil and defence aerospace and energy divisions in seven foreign jurisdictions and, but for the factors without which the judge accepted a prosecution would have been inevitable, the biggest SFO investigation since its inception would have ended up in the Crown Court for a long trial or sentencing after a plea.

Whilst recognising that there will be cases where the use of a DPA would be wrong and contrary to the interests of justice, and where the closure of the implicated company is the only just and appropriate conclusion flowing from egregious conduct. What influenced the judge in that DPA to approve it were the following factors: the importance of incentivising the exposure and self-reporting of wrongdoing, the company’s cooperation with the SFO, its previous good conduct, its subsequent work to improve its anti-bribery compliance programmes, the change in its management and its management culture, the impact of a prosecution on employees and other innocent third parties, and the saving in time and expense to the state of conducting a lengthy and wide-ranging prosecution (the SFO had already spent £13 million on the investigation).

Rolls-Royce agreed to pay over £500 million in a discounted penalty, interest and costs and has now started again with a clean slate. The court was able to approve a pragmatic but just agreement, which was built on the flexible but principled approach developed in the two earlier cases.

Within 3 years and in 4 cases the SFO and the court have built a model that can be followed with confidence in future to the benefit of the country, its corporate sector and its criminal justice system. The DPA has in that short time come of age and proved its worth.

Master Edward Garnier was Called to the Bar in 1976 and Called to the Northern Ireland Bar 2010. He took Silk in 1995 and sat as a Crown Court Recorder from 1998-2015. He practises from One Brick Court and specialises in defamation, media law, international human rights and corporate criminal law. Conservative MP for Harborough 1992-2017; Parliamentary Fellow, St Antony’s College, Oxford, 199697; Shadow Attorney General 1999-2001; 2009-2010; Solicitor General 2010-12. Knighted 2012; Privy Council 2015; Led for the SFO in Standard Bank 2015 and RollsRoyce 2016-17 DPAs. Co-author of the chapter on DPAs in Lissack & Horlick on Bribery.

Deferred Prosecution Agreement

91

Why do we need a new International Environmental Court?

MASTER STEPHEN HOCKMAN

This article contains a summary of a lecture I gave at Middle Temple on 29 March 2017. It reflects a view formed during twenty years of practice in the field of domestic and international environmental law.

NEED The natural environment is probably humanity’s most important resource, but its importance has only gradually become apparent to developed countries, let alone to developing countries.

We now know that, if we do not adjust our behaviour, catastrophic climate change will make life infinitely worse for large parts of humanity with virtually no one unaffected. We must do something to solve that problem; we must learn how to adjust our behaviour.

I see the solution as being twin-tracked, and readily acknowledge that the more important of the two tracks is a change of attitude and culture; a greening of social practice.

People must learn how to moderate their behaviour voluntarily and develop a new and more respectful culture towards the environment.

But there is another track; in many cases of fundamental social change, what one tends to see is an interaction between changes in attitude and changes in law, regulation and government policy. It is my opinion that an international environmental court (‘ICE’) should form part of this second track.

One might ask, why does this require a new institution at the international as well as the domestic level? The late Sir Robert Jennings, sometime President of the International Court of Justice at The Hague (ICJ), acknowledged the ‘… trite observation that environmental problems, although they closely affect municipal laws, are essentially international; and that the main structure of control can therefore be no other than that of international law’.

In general, those court cases at the domestic level, in which success in protecting the environment has been achieved, have been in the field of public law, involving

92

judicial review of governmental action, for example the familiar ClientEarth litigation relating to air pollution. Even in that case, widely regarded as an illustration of the positive potential of domestic environmental litigation, it must be noted: first, there was no dispute as to the existence of the relevant environmental obligation or its breach; and second, the domestic courts up to the Court of Appeal refused to grant a remedy. It was only upon a reference by the UK Supreme Court to the Court of Justice in Luxembourg that it was held that it was open to our courts to grant a mandatory order against the Government to undertake stronger measures. After Brexit even this measure of success will presumably cease to be attainable, and thus, if anything, the success of the ClientEarth case itself demonstrates the need for an ICE. I would add that since I gave the lecture, President Trump has announced that the US will be withdrawing from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. His decision may be thought to strengthen still further the case for a new body at international level.

PROPOSALS The idea of an ICE has been variously proposed since World War Two. In 1992 the International Court for the Environment Foundation published a draft statute for such a court. In 1994 a group of international lawyers founded the International Court of Environmental Arbitration and Conciliation. So far as I am aware, both projects are ongoing but no great progress has been made.

The first international tribunal to have had the remit to deal with environmental cases was the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), established in 1899. In 2001 the PCA adopted optional rules for disputes relating to the environment and/or

natural resources. However, to bring a dispute in the PCA at least one party must be a state consenting to be bound, and its remit is therefore limited accordingly.

The ICJ, established in 1945, may also resolve environmental disputes. To its credit, the ICJ established a distinct ‘Chamber for Environmental Disputes’ in 1993 but it was abandoned in 2006; in 13 years the specialist Chamber did not have a single dispute referred to it.

To say that the ICJ has not assisted the development of environmental law would be to do it a major disservice.

Its 1996 Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion highlighted the potential, catastrophic effects of nuclear weapons on the natural environment and recognised that, ‘the environment […] represents the living space, the quality of life and the very health of human beings, including generations unborn’. This Opinion was followed by the seminal cases of Gabcikovo and Pulp Mills, both of which established important principles.

In September 2015 it was recognised in a speech given at the UK Supreme Court by Master Philippe Sands that a clear statement by a body such as the ICJ as to what is or is not required by the law may itself contribute to change in attitudes and behaviour. He pointed out that, as Lord Atkin famously held in 1942 in the case of Liversidge v Anderson, ‘amidst the clash of arms, the laws are not silent’, and suggested that today, amidst the warming of the atmosphere, the melting of the ice and the rising of the seas, international courts should likewise not be silent.

BENEFITS I see the potential benefits of an ICE as including: • better flexibility in dealing with complex, technical and scientific environmental data, including a pool of dedicated scientific experts to assist; • a centralised system of dispute settlement that is accessible to a range of actors; • clarification of legal obligations and harmonisation of international law related to the environment, thereby increasing legal certainty and predictability; • encouraging the use of preventative and injunctive measures to minimise ongoing environmental damage; and • building trust among states, individuals and the business community through the provision of workable solutions to modern environmental concerns.

It could even become the standard compliance and dispute settlement mechanism for environmental treaties, of which over five hundred exist.

CONCLUSION

CHARACTER A limitation of any body like the ICJ is that it can only adjudicate on disputes between states, each of whom has accepted its jurisdiction. An ICE would be a different sort of institution, which would also be able to adjudicate between states and non-state actors, including NGOs and corporations, an institution which could apply international environmental law or domestic environmental law when appropriate.

Above all, I see the need for such a tribunal to develop the principles underlying the law more proactively. In recent years, especially in various domestic supreme courts around the world, including our own, courts have not just recited methodically and rigidly the existing legal framework but have identified and applied broad principles. At an international level there is, as yet, very little jurisprudence in which the balance is struck between the ever-increasing need for sources of energy and the equally important imperative of environmental protection. I see a role in the medium term for an ICE to develop the principles underlying the law as well as to adjudicate on cases.

The time to press for the establishment of an ICE has never been better; despite President Trump’s withdrawal, the Paris Agreement still, in my opinion, demonstrates international appetite for strong environmental regulation. What is now required is the drive, vision and resources to take the project forward.

As expressed by Alfred Rest in 2004 in The Law of Energy for Sustainable Development: "…alongside national courts and tribunals, international judicial control is indispensable for the proper protection of the environment on a regional and global level, as well as for the proper protection of the global commons and the human rights of those individuals that are threatened or injured in cases of transnational pollution… [it] is also strongly needed to control the activities of states, to remind them of their collective responsibility for the protection of the environment and to guarantee the implementation and application of international environmental agreements."

Master Stephen Hockman has been Head of Chambers at 6 Pump Court since 1997. He specialises in environmental, health and safety and energy law, and has conducted environmental cases as far afield as Hong Kong and the British Virgin Islands. He took Silk in 1990, was Chairman of the Bar in 2006 and was Treasurer in 2015.

Why do we need a new International Environmental Court?

93

Do we need more terrorist legislation after the recent attacks in Manchester and London?

MASTER MAX HILL The UK, in fact England, has suffered the worst combination of terrorist attacks for many years. Since 22 March 2017, we have all lived through the pain of witnessing murderous attacks at Westminster Bridge, Manchester Arena, and London Bridge followed by Borough Market. The attack outside Finsbury Park Mosque on 19 June marked the fourth in this series of major terrorism events.

It came as no great surprise when the Prime Minister, speaking from outside Downing Street, declared that ‘enough is enough’ shortly after the London Bridge attack, going on to announce her intention that Government should review the ‘counter-extremism strategy’, including a review of available legislation together with sentencing powers for terrorism offences.

94

After the General Election in early June, the Government review swung into action. At the same time, commentators noted that the Queen’s Speech at the opening of the new Parliament was largely devoid of intended new legislation, and in relation to ‘terrorism’ there appeared a reference to a ‘commission for countering extremism’ – which I take to be a reference to non-violent extremism, where our current legislation generally deals with violent extremism – but nothing further.

I succeeded my distinguished and rightly lauded predecessor (Master) David Anderson QC on 1 March 2017. Just in time to witness the horror that unfolded on Westminster Bridge exactly three weeks later, incidentally whilst I was sitting as a Recorder at the Central Criminal Court.

My task is to annually review our terrorism legislation, essentially the Terrorism Acts 2000 and 2006, together with the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIM) Act 2011 and the Terrorist Asset Freezing Act 2010.

I am on record, from when I first came into post as Independent Reviewer in March this year, saying that in general we don’t need more terrorism offences, and there may be examples of redundant terrorism offences which time has proved are not as necessary as Parliament thought.

Careful study of the relevant section of the Crown Prosecution Service website reveals that a wide range of statutory offences were deployed in charging terrorism cases last year, including preparation of terrorist acts (section 5, 2006 Act), encouraging terrorism (section 1, 2006), belonging to a proscribed organization i.e. ISIS (section 11, 2000, together with inviting support for such an organisation, section 12), funding terrorism (section 17,

2000), disseminating terrorist publications (section 2, 2006), Interestingly, training for terrorism under sections 6 and 8 of the 2006 Act was not charged at all in 2015 or 2016. Inciting terrorism overseas was charged once in the same two-year period. Possession of articles for terrorist purposes under section 57 of the 2000 Act was charged once in 2015 and not at all in 2016. Some revision and trimming of the current legislation may yet be possible, and that would be a good thing. In general, I would suggest that our legislators i.e.

Parliament have provided for just about every descriptive action in relation to terrorism, so we should pause before rushing to add yet more offences to the already long list. But I cannot say with certainty whether the ongoing government review will throw up an example or two that legislators have not yet covered. Maybe that will emerge, and if so it will be my job to take a hard look. It would be foolish to discount the possibility of one or more new offences for a new age, though I am yet to find any.

So where do we go next? It seems to me, thinking about the range of statutes in use by prosecutors as shown by recent cases, that we do not lack for legal powers to bring these cases to court. We do need to encourage investigators and prosecutors to use the full range of current powers at their disposal; which is not to say that they are ignorant of what Parliament has provided, but we do need to see the use of financial, identification, fraud, firearms, public order, offences against the person, and conspiracy offences being added to the indictment, in order to capture the full range of criminality represented by future cases. There should be nowhere safe for terrorists to hide. In fact, terrorism-related cases charged in the year ended December 2016 totalled the use of 56 Terrorism Act offences, and 62 non-Terrorism Act offences (in other words, where other criminal statutes were used). More of this is the way forward. The Government review will doubtless focus on these matters.

We live in a modern, increasingly tech-savvy world. Can we legislate to rid ourselves of online terrorism? My answer is that Parliament has already done so in meaningful ways including the dissemination offence noted above, section 2 of the 2006 Act. We lawyers should look hard into such areas, to see whether any amendments might hone these offences given recent technological advances. We should also look to see whether sentencing provisions in 2017 are apt for our world, for example where Parliament drew a line in 2000, and where 17 years is a long time in tech terms. But apart from that, further legislation does not strike me as the answer.

Criminalisation, and thereby alienation of tech companies who are there to serve us and to help us - albeit for colossal financial reward on their part - that cannot be the answer. So no, or very little new legislation, as it seems to me.

My work as Independent Reviewer takes me to all corners of the UK. I am responsible for reporting on the legal provisions of Schedule 7 of the 2000 Act, which empower officers to stop travellers at border controls nationwide, together with pre-charge detention under the 2000 Act, whether in Northern Ireland or Scotland as well as our ordinary legal jurisdiction encompassing England and Wales, and all facets of British society. I am grateful for the welcome wherever I travel, but I note in particular a general view often expressed to me, namely that there is ‘one law for Muslims, and another for the rest’. In discussion, I often find that many are confused as to the reach of our legislation, and find it hard to accept that legislation is intended for all citizens and not for one or more segments of society.

This confusion extends to strong views on the use of the Terrorism Acts to bring criminal charges in some instances but not in others. Many feel that charging the killer of Jo Cox MP with Murder, rather than a specific terrorist offence, was evidence of ‘one law’. Of course I always point out that the Muslim extremist killers of Fusilier Lee Rigby were also charged with Murder.

It is a feature of modern times that we have a raft of terrorism legislation, which sits alongside general statutory and common law offences. It would be the ideal, I suggest, to do away with specific terrorism laws, in order to deal with all cases and all offenders under general criminal laws. I do not envisage that happening in the near future. Meanwhile, more must be done to dispel the belief that our laws are deployed in an unequal fashion, whether for ‘port stops’ under Schedule 7, or for specific criminal offences.

Master Max Hill was Called to the Bar in 1987, appointed a Recorded in 2004, took Silk in 2008 and was made a Bencher in 2012. He was Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association 2011-12 and Leader of the South-Eastern Circuit 2014-16. He was appointed as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation in March 2017. He remains a self-employed barrister and is Head of Chambers at 18 Red Lion Court. He is Chairman of the Kalisher Trust and former Chairman of Trustees and current Patron of London children’s charity Scene and Not Heard. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.

It is a feature of modern times that we have a raft of terrorism legislation, which sits alongside general statutory and common law offences.

Do we need more terrorist legislation after the recent attacks in Manchester and London?

95

Is it Right to Demonstrate that Role Models Have Feet of Clay?

ADAM SPEKER In January of this year, David Beckham was chosen to appear on the 75th anniversary programme of Radio 4’s Desert Island Discs. An unsurprising choice. He is probably the most famous (ex-)footballer in the country, perhaps the world. He is smart and presentable and, in discussion with Kirsty Young, was engaging and open, sharing heartwarming anecdotes about his upbringing and his life with Victoria (aka Posh Spice).

About a week later, a different side to David Beckham was apparently revealed when the contents of hacked personal emails, which had been the subject of an injunction in this country, were reported by European media outlets.

The emails were said to demonstrate that Beckham had raged about not being awarded a knighthood in 2013, had complained that Katherine Jenkins was an undeserving recipient of an OBE and had described the Honours Committee in terms I will not repeat here. The reports damaged the image of the all-round nice guy.

What happened to David Beckham provides an opportunity to ask whether there is a public interest in knowing whether or not a public figure is as golden as his or her public persona suggests. Is it better for society to see only the Beckham of Desert Island Discs or also the one apparently revealed when the mask has slipped? This is an issue that has troubled the courts.

In 2003 a footballer, we now know to be Gary Flitcroft, was granted an interim injunction to keep private the fact that he, a married man, had had affairs with two women. The Court of Appeal (in A v B plc [2003] QB 195) discharged the injunction and, in the course of his judgment, The Rt Hon. The Lord Woolf said that: Conduct which in the case of a private individual would not be the appropriate subject of comment can be the proper subject of comment in the case of a public figure. The public figure may hold a position where higher standards of conduct can be rightly expected by the public. The public figure may be a role model whose conduct could well be emulated by others. He may set the fashion.

96

Later, Lord Woolf explained that: ‘Footballers are role models for young people and undesirable behaviour on their part can set an unfortunate example’.

The suggestion that footballers should be held to higher standards than private individuals, and that it was good to tell young people that their heroes were unheroic, surprised some of Lord Woolf’s colleagues. In the Court of Appeal in Campbell v MGN [2003] QB 633, The Rt Hon. The Lord Phillips, commented: ‘We do not see why it should necessarily be in the public interest that an individual who has been adopted as a role model, without seeking this distinction, should be demonstrated to have feet of clay’.

A different Court of Appeal in McKennitt v Ash [2008] QB 73 sought to restrict the categories of those whom it considered could be thought to be role models. They agreed with the view of the Court in Campbell. The Rt Hon. Lord Justice Buxton said: The first claimant, she clearly does not fall within the first category mentioned by Lord Woolf CJ, and ‘hold a position where higher standards of conduct can be rightly expected by the public’: that is no doubt the preserve of headmasters and clergymen, who according to taste may be joined by politicians, senior civil servants, surgeons and journalists.

Some might question why journalists were included and judges and barristers omitted, but Buxton LJ’s point was clear enough.

Yet, the courts could not let go of the role model argument.

In a claim brought by Rio Ferdinand against MGN, the publishers of The Sunday Mirror, [2001] EWHC 2454 (QB) The Hon. Mr Justice Nicol accepted evidence to the effect that the England football captain ‘was expected to be a role model for young fans and a high standard was therefore demanded of the person who filled that role – both on and off the pitch’.

He concluded that it mattered, when balancing Ferdinand’s privacy rights with MGN’s rights to freedom of expression, that:

England players are special players. And that carries with it an extra weight of expectancy and responsibility … If you are an England player you are living out the dreams of thousands and thousands of kids and millions of people. And while you don’t want that weight of moral expectation weighing too heavily on anybody’s shoulders, it is part of your responsibility. They have to accept that off the field they are role models.

It was not explained how it would improve the dreams of thousands of kids to know that Ferdinand, the temporary England captain, may have had sex with someone other than his wife.

A similar reason was given by The Hon. Mr Justice Lindblom for refusing an injunction to Steve McClaren. One fact for the decision was that McClaren, as a former England manager was still a prominent figure who held positions of responsibility in the national game. As such, the public apparently had a right to know about his extra-marital relationship.

Even the Strasbourg court is in on the act. In determining whether his privacy rights had been infringed, the court in Axel Springer v Germany (2012) 55 EHRR 6 gave weight to the fact that the claimant played the protagonist in a popular television series. It was appropriate, it said, to reveal his drug-taking because his fans could have been influenced into imitating his drug-taking, if it had taken place in public view. As Professor Gavin Phillipson has commented, that fans would be likely to imitate his drug-taking if they knew about it was an odd justification for telling them about it.

One which may appeal to a ‘hedonist libertarian or a drug dealer’ but ‘strange to see [from] an international court’.

In the last of these cases, to date, The Hon. Mrs Justice Elisabeth Laing sought (again) to narrow the role model argument and take it back to the position suggested

by Buxton LJ in McKennitt. In AMC, KLJ v News Group Newspapers [2015] EWHC 2361, the Judge said: I only add that it is important to analyse what sort of a role model A1 is or can be. He is a role model for sportsmen and aspiring sportsmen. Any scrutiny of his conduct away from sport ought to bear a reasonable relationship with the fact that he is a sportsman. His position does not turn him into an example in every sphere of his existence. He is not a role model for cooks, or for moral philosophers. The fact that he is a prominent sportsman does not mean that he impliedly pontificates publicly about private morality.

Is there a sound basis for holding public figures to higher standards?

When Naomi Campbell’s case reached the House of Lords [2004] 2 AC 457, The Rt Hon. Baroness Hale suggested a possible justification for revealing a role model’s true character. She said:

It might be questioned why, if a role model has adopted a stance which all would agree is beneficial rather than detrimental to society, it is so important to reveal that she has feet of clay. But the possession and use of illegal drugs is a criminal offence and a matter of serious public concern. The press must be free to expose the truth and put the record straight.

The public interest in reporting the truth is long standing in English law, particularly the law of defamation where no wrong is done if the defamatory imputation is true. Whilst the tort of misuse of private information is supposed to protect different values to defamation, it may be that some judges are unwilling to allow public figures to cover up private information which is also defamatory and true and the ‘role model’ argument provides one justification for rejecting such claims.

Differences of approach to the truth mirror the debate that took place at the start of the 20th Century over what should be included in a biography of a deceased public figure. The rules of Victorian biography were clear: the misdeeds of the dead must be censored. ‘Lives’ meant public, not private, lives. These ‘rules’ were shattered most famously by Lytton Strachey with his debunking polemic, Eminent Victorians. Perhaps the desire to be nonjudgmental leads, curiously, to a position where the courts re-impose Victorian ‘rules’, which some judges might be more comfortable with than others.

Another justification may be because the ‘role model’ concept contributes to maintaining standards in public life. If a powerful person knows that his or her conduct will be judged to a higher standard than ordinary people, that person may think twice before acting improperly. This was one of the reasons given by the fictional King Charles III in Mike Bartlett’s play when he refused to sign into law privacy legislation that had been passed by both Houses of Parliament and by Lord Steyn in ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 at 127: ‘[freedom of speech] acts as a brake on the abuse of power by public officials.’

A third possible justification may be that ordinary people are happier to learn that those with distinct talents and gifts are as flawed as the rest of us. That would fit with research showing that it may be unhealthy for some people to spend too much time on Facebook because it can convince them that others have better lives than they do. To err is human.

But to know that our role models err is divine.

Adam Speker was Called to the Bar in 1999. He is a member of 5RB and specialises in defamation, privacy, media law and harassment. He acted for the defendants in Thompson v James & Carmarthenshire County Council and the claimants in Cheshire West & Chester Council v Pickthall.

Is it Right to Demonstrate that Role Models Have Feet of Clay?

97

Sir Christopher Clarke VALEDICTORY ADDRESS, 27 FEBRUARY 2017 They say that distance lends enchantment to the dreariest views. But I must say that I count myself glad, looking back, to have been a member of one of the greatest professions, and to have had the privilege of serving as a judge in the Commercial Court and the Court of Appeal.

Casting an eye back over 40 years, it is difficult sometimes to recognise the Bar then. When I started, fees were often fixed in guineas: 5 and 2 was quite respectable. Barristers, unless chums, called each other by their surnames and did not shake hands. Pupillage awards by Chambers were nonexistent, which made my gratitude to the Middle Temple for an exhibition and a scholarship so much the greater. The gift it gave me began an association for a professional lifetime association which I have greatly valued.

Looking back in the warm glow of reminiscence, the years from 1970 onwards seem now like a golden era.

There was something called civil legal aid. The ingĂŠnue civil practitioner actually appeared in court, albeit often in road traffic accidents involving two stationary vehicles, undefended divorces and possession actions, and later industrial tribunals as they were then called.

As the years went by more demanding work came. In those days the Judge had read very little beforehand and the case was opened to him by counsel who appeared sometimes to be in the same predicament. The White Book was still manually portable; the Civil Procedure Rules were not even an idea in the mind of God, or Harry Wolf as he became more familiarly known, and case management was what you did with wine. A chambers of 17 was large. Moving outside one of the Inns was incredibly adventurous and the acquisition of a telex and then a fax was top of the range modernism.

We have, of course moved on in the vital cause of increasing efficiency in the resolution of civic disputes and for the better; despite the effect on occasion of a law which is as immutable as that of the Medes and Persians, namely that each and every attempt to improve civil procedure carries with it at least one compensating disadvantage.

On account of sins committed in a past life I appear to have had a somewhat disproportionate experience with Inquiries - Crown Agents Inquiry; Summerland Fire Inquiry in the Isle of Man; and the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. I have no intention of saying anything more now than that I am glad

98

to have played a part in an inquiry which (a) made up for its short but defective predecessor; and (b) reached a result which has largely, and rightly, been accepted as sound and lanced a boil in the body politic of Northern Ireland where political sepsis is not unknown.

I would highlight four features which make the link between Bar and Bench so formidable a force for good. The first is integrity. To be able in 99 out of 100 cases to trust the advocate not to be trying to mislead you is a benefit beyond price. That it exists is a function of the ethos and the still relatively small size of the Bar, certainly in it various subdivisions.

The second is competence. I have had the real pleasure of reading the work of, and hearing, the most masterful of advocates, and, although unwelcome as it is to say it, some of the sub-optimal. And it is the continuing high calibre of our judges that causes England to be the jurisdiction of choice in many business spheres.

The third is independence, whether it be from the client in the case of a barrister or, in the case of the judges, from the clamour of the press, the commentariat, the politicians or the establishment, or some rowdy and belligerent pressure group. The independence of the judiciary is sometimes referred to with lukewarm enthusiasm; but an independent and highly competent judiciary makes us the envy of less happy lands.

The fourth is interdependence by which I mean the interaction between Bar and Bench between members of the Bench when more than one judge is sitting. It is a clichĂŠ to say that oral advocacy is important. But a clichĂŠ is the repetition of a familiar truth. It is precisely when the crackpot points in the skeleton have been put out of the way and Bar and Bench engage with the critical issue (and not just for half an hour) that the decision making process begins to crystallise and a path to the right answer can be found. On another level, it is the discussion between members of the court in borderline cases that I have found particularly rewarding.

The system works, although the challenges to its continuing to do so increase daily. There is about to be a shifting of the legal tectonic plates as the composition of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal undergoes major change. I wish those whose task it will be to manage the eruption all good fortune.

In a previous millennium and another life, I used to work from time to time in Hong Kong. I was there on one trip over Chinese New Year and had been working a fair amount in the offices of the solicitors. They had an Amah who was known as the Senior Partner. This was because however important and stressful the meeting she would fling the door of the conference room open and say ‘Who want coffee, who want tea?’. I was given to understand that she would appreciate it if I left some money in an envelope marked with the Chinese characters for Happy New Year. So, I put what I thought was a not ungenerous sum into the envelope for her. When we reassembled four days later she flung the door open and said: ‘Who want coffee, who want tea?’. She then pointed at me and spoke somewhat excitedly in Cantonese. I asked my instructing solicitor to translate. He seemed strangely reluctant but I pressed him to do so. Well, he said, literally translated what she says is ‘Thank fat boy for small gift’.

Well the boy has not got any slimmer. But the number of those to whom he owes thanks has risen exponentially. I am profoundly grateful (i) to those who have borne with me on my path, and particularly the members of this court; (ii) to my former chambers for having the courage to accept me back and; (iii) to my clerks, Steve, David, Gillian and Keith, who have borne with my curious ways and occasional anxiety states in a manner beyond the call of duty; and to all those who, whilst not being my clerks, have helped out on different occasions and in different ways, and last and foremost (iv) my beloved wife, without whom such achievements as I may have had would not have been possible, and my children without whom they would not have been necessary.

Valedictory Address: Sir Christopher Clarke

99

The Estate in Focus IAN GARWOOD As we tip the balance into the second half of the year, it is an ideal time to bring members up to date with works that have been undertaken on the Estate in the previous twelve months, and to look forward at planned maintenance and projects for the next twelve. I hope you find this brief overview of the Estate informative.

Following a significant amount of structural works to the Hall roof timbers in the early 1900’s, Parliament resolved that the internal roof timbers should be inspected and measured for movement every ten years. Excepting World Wars and other significant events, when it has been necessary to postpone the inspections to the next year, we have adhered to this cycle. The last inspection took place during August and September 2016 when Hall was again filled with scaffolding, which is a particularly complex operation, considering the relatively narrow entrance and surrounding historical fabric.

The advent of accurate laser equipment has negated the need for tape measures and levels to identify any movement, but it is still necessary to install scaffolding to inspect the timbers for decay and pest attack together with removal of the inevitable build-up of dust over ten years.

The works to stabilise the roof with metal ties and support straps coupled with extensive treatment to eradicate deathwatch beetle in the 1900’s seems to have done the job. Apart from localised areas of timber treatment and some minor remedial works, the inspection last year confirmed that the roof structure is in good condition for its age.

Last year we also replaced the communal boiler plant located in the Ashley Building, which provides heat and hot water to the Ashley Building and adjoining Hall complex, together with Queen Elizabeth Building and Garden Court.

This followed replacement of the communal boiler plant in Lamb Building in 2015. Both sets of plant had reached the end of their service life and the opportunity was taken to install modern energy efficient boilers and controls.

100

On a site the size of Middle Temple there will always be works in progress to upgrade services, either due to their age or to comply with changing regulations. Towards the end of last year we completed a programme to replace the lighting in the common areas to all our tenanted buildings. The opportunity was taken to upgrade to LED fittings that also incorporate emergency lighting to assist exit in case of fire. Last year we started a seven-year programme to replace all of the fire alarm systems throughout the Inn. We have taken this decision to not only harness modern technology, providing systems with the ability to self-test and monitor, but to also provide robust and reliable coverage throughout our buildings.

With the recent tragic incidents in this country and abroad we have reviewed our current security provision and have put in place a number of enhancements including upgrades to our CCTV and access control systems. Our new Security Manager, Martin Dolby, who joined the Inn in June this year, will be introducing further measures to ensure that we all remain as safe and secure as reasonably possible.

Looking forward to the next twelve months on the Estate, we have two large projects coming up. The largest will be the redevelopment of 1&2 Garden Court, programmed to start in June 2018, with an expected contract duration of 24 months.

This follows an extensive evaluation of all our buildings from which it was decided to commence a programme of redevelopment starting with our Victorian buildings. The solid over engineered construction of these buildings has severely restricted modifications to their internal layouts, which has stifled the installation of modern facilities and prevented the formation of modern efficient layouts required by barristers’ chambers today. As part of these works, the opportunity will also be taken to introduce two external platform lifts to provide step-free access to Garden Court and Fountain Court from Temple Place. No date has yet been set for the next redevelopment project but it is reasonably certain at this point in time that it will not take place before 2022.

time to carry out these works and, due to the number we have to undertake each year, we unfortunately cannot fit all of them into the August/September vacation period. I am grateful to all our tenants for putting up with this necessary inconvenience.

Besides scaffolding, summer does bring with it the warmer weather and the chance to enjoy the gardens and planted courtyards on the Estate. I know that our gardens bring a lot of pleasure to our members and tenants, and the wonderful feedback that our gardeners receive spurs them on to achieve even more spectacular results. Since the beginning of 2016 our gardens have been awarded: • The Flowers in the City Campaign for the Church Court Garden – The James Miller Trophy awarded by The Worshipful Company of Gardeners.

In August we will commence works to replace the roof coverings to Middle Temple Hall which, subject to any unforeseen complications, is due for completion at the beginning of 2018. Last replaced in 1947-49, the current clay tiles are showing signs of deterioration and, although some of the lead dressings have been replaced since then, there is evidence that these are not able to cope with the flash downpours that are becoming the norm. Despite the best efforts of the most eminent Architects and Surveyors over the years, the central lantern has continued to cause problems with water penetration since it was replaced after the War. This issue is caused by the strong vortices produced by the steep roof pitch coupled with the difficulties of dressing the complex shape and intricate mouldings of the lantern in copper. Our intention, subject to Statutory approval, is to change the current copper dressing to lead, which is much more malleable and thus forgiving on old structures. The following image shows one of the many attempts in the late 1980s to irradiate the problems.

The Hall was closed throughout August, whilst scaffolding to support a temporary roof structure was put in place, and reopened for normal business at the beginning of September.

To minimise the visual impact of the works, the scaffolding was covered by a special sheeting with a photographic image of the Hall with special lamps installed to give the impression of daylight through the stained glass when viewed from inside.

Summer in the Temple would not be complete without the usual scaffolding in place to carry out cyclical redecoration and external repairs to our buildings. There is never a good

• The City in Bloom Best in Show Award for the Church Court Vegetable Garden • The City in Bloom Gold Award for the Church Court Vegetable Garden • The City in Bloom Gold Award for Elm Court Garden • The City in Bloom Gold Award for Middle Temple main garden area • The Worshipful Company of Gardeners Floral Award Summer 2016 Our overnight lodgings located in 3 Middle Temple Lane continue to prove very popular with our members. The Raleigh suite was closed for six weeks over the summer in order to refurbish the bathroom. All of the other suites were also closed to carry out annual maintenance. I should perhaps remind our readers that our overnight lodgings are for the exclusive use of the Inn’s members and may be booked for short stays, directly through our website (www.middletemple.org.uk), at prices ranging from £135-£165, with special rates for weekend usage.

Ian Garwood is responsible for the Inn’s extensive Estate and portfolio of historic properties, covering all aspects from asset management, building repair, major refurbishment projects and property acquisitions to tenant management.

Through a joint arrangement with Inner Temple, Ian is also responsible for maintaining the fabric of Temple Church on behalf of both Inns. Initially studying for a Diploma in Architecture, Ian joined the Inn in 1979 as Assistant Surveyor and after a change in career direction went on to qualify with an Honours Degree in Building Surveying. He was appointed as Surveyor to the Middle Temple in 1998 and subsequently Director of Estates in 2004. Ian still maintains his passion for Architecture and is keen to ensure that the Inn maintains its historical heritage whilst meeting the modern day needs of the Bar.

The Estate in Focus

101

Middle Temple Historical Society Events Calendar 2017 Monday 23 October 2017 Sally Smith QC Marshall Hall: The Great Defender Marshall Hall is probably the most famous of the criminal advocates of the late Victorian and Edwardian era. Sally Smith QC, a recent biographer of Hall, will describe his victories and foibles.

Monday 27 November 2017 Master Philippe Sands East West Street Master Philippe Sands is the Professor of Law at University College London and renowned international Human Rights lawyer. He will describe how he discovered not only what lay behind a family secret of why his grandfather left the Ukraine at the outbreak of the First World War but also the unsuspected links between his family and two great international and humanitarian lawyers, Rafael Lemkin and Hersch Lauterpacht.

2018 Tuesday 16 January 2018 Barney Sloane London and the Black Death Barney Sloane has made a special study of the impact of the bubonic plague of 1348 on this major medieval city using both archaeological and documentary evidence.

Wednesday 7 February 2018 Outing: The Old City at Night We meet at 6.30pm at the entrance to St Paul’s tube station for a professionally guided walk through the squares, alleys and graveyards of the City of London.

Tickets are £8 each. Places are limited. Please book by 24 January 2018 at mths@middletemple.org is essential.

102

Tuesday 20 February 2018 Dr Emma Rhatigan and Master Philip Bartle The Temple Sermon of John Donne John Donne was Preacher at Lincoln’s Inn between 1616 and 1621. His sermons in the Inns of Court were specifically tailored to a congregation which valued witty, intellectual preaching containing legal references. One such sermon was preached at the Temple Church in the early 17th Century.

The meeting starts at 6pm in the Temple Church for an abridged reading of the Temple Sermon by Master Philip Bartle before moving to the Bench Apartments at 6.30pm.

Dr Emma Rhatigan is Lecturer in Early Modern Literature, University of Sheffield and an editor of the Oxford Edition of The Sermons of John Donne.

An exhibition of the Inn’s unique collection of Donne’s printed works will be held in the Library in February and March.

Thursday 12 April 2018 Lesley Whitelaw and Renae Satterley The Treasures of the Archive and Rare Book Collection This will be held in the Rutledge Suite at 6.30pm followed by drinks in Tasker’s. This is not a supper talk and there is no charge but places are limited so bookings should be made at mths@middletemple.org.uk by 5 April.

Supper talks start with drinks in the Prince’s Room at 6.30pm. Tickets cost £30 (or £15 for students of the Inn). Bookings must be made at mths@middletemple. org.uk no later than four days before the event. For catering reasons it unlikely that late bookings can be accepted. Once a booking is made payment should be made by cheque payable to the Society and sent to the Middle Temple Historical Society, c/o the Treasury, Ashley Building, Middle Temple Lane, EC4Y 9BT. Membership costs £10 a year. For enquiries and bookings please contact mths@middletemple.org.uk

2017-2018 MT Historical Society Events Calendar

s

iversary, Kirker ebrate in style. vel on the ?

KIRKER HOLIDAYS F O R D I S C E R N I N G T R AV E L L E R S

Kirker Holidays provides carefully crafted tailor-made holidays to over 140 destinations in 40 countries - including 70 classic cities and 250 relaxing rural locations throughout Europe and beyond. We also organise a series of escorted Cultural Tours & Music Holidays, including our own exclusive Music Festivals on land and at sea.

Expert Advice

Our knowledgeable team has many years of experience and regularly visit the hotels and destinations that we feature so that we can give you first hand advice.

Added Value

We have a range of special offers to include complimentary nights and hotel upgrades and in many destinations we also offer complimentary entrance tickets to museums.

Extensive Brochure Range

Kirker’s collection of brochures includes Italy, Sicily, France and Spain & Portugal, as well as Southern Africa and the India Subcontinent. For those who prefer to travel with a small group of like-minded companions and an expert lecturer, Kirker also offers escorted Cultural Tours & Music Holidays.

Unique Concierge Service

Kirker’s Concierge will arrange opera and ballet tickets, pre-book entrance for museums and galleries, book private guided tours, and recommend and book restaurants to ensure that you can sit back and relax whilst Kirker ensures the smooth running of your holiday.

Speak to an expert or request a brochure:

020 7593 2293 quote code XMT www.kirkerholidays.com

The Free Representation Unit has been around since 1972. Since then we have offered an unrivalled opportunity for junior lawyers, particularly Bar students, to gain advocacy experience at the start of their careers. Many distinguished silks had their first advocacy experience representing a FRU client.

We work in the areas of employment, social security and criminal injuries compensation. We act both at first instance and in appeal tribunals. Many of our clients are vulnerable and on low incomes and without our assistance they would likely be litigants in person.

In the year to the end of June 2016 our volunteers represented clients in more than 600 cases.

To find out how you can volunteer for us or make a donation to support our work, please visit our website www.thefru.org.uk

Widespread cuts to legal aid and the closure of advice centres mean thousands more people every day are being forced to undergo legal proceedings without help. At an automatic disadvantage and under significant stress, most people are confused and overwhelmed.

PSU volunteers give free, independent assistance to people going through civil and family courts without any support.

Join the Friends of the PSU, be invited to exclusive social events and help people facing court alone.

www.thepsu.org.uk friends@thepsu.org.uk Charity number: 1090781

During 2017/18 The Inn will continue to offer a free and confidential counselling service on site to all students and junior members of the Inn to 7 years' call. The service offers support with both personal and professional issues from a qualified and experienced therapist. For more details about the service including how to access please contact Christa Richmond, Director of Education Services: c.richmond@middletemple.org.uk.

103

THE AUTUMN READING 2016

Detention hearings in Northern Ireland in the 1970s MASTER DAVID BLUNT An extract of Master Reader’s reading given on 22 November 2016.

Those who took part in the 1970s Detention Hearings in Northern Ireland are a dwindling number. Soon, none of us will be left. I believe that there are usually lessons to be learned from history, and that therefore it is worth recording what took place.

A few weeks before I arrived at Long Kesh, the clerks inform me that the Attorney General wants to see me, but that it is nothing to be alarmed about. You are pleased that your undoubted talent, long recognised by yourself, has now been recognised by the high-ups. Once there, you are greeted warmly and told that no particular skills will be required (that is somewhat deflating). You don’t have to go, but he would be grateful if you would.

A power of internment without trial, and effectively without the right to a hearing or an appeal, was provided in the Special Powers Act 1922, following the creation of the Republic of Ireland in 1921. This Act, intended to expire in 12 months, conferred on the Stormont Government of Northern Ireland extraordinary coercive powers, including wide powers of arrest, and internment under what became Regulations 11 and 12, powers to ban marches, powers to abridge freedom of expression, and the power to impose house arrest. At the end of the 12 months it was renewed and, remained in force until repealed by the UK Parliament in 1973.

In 1966 Irish nationalists held parades throughout Ireland to mark the 50th anniversary of the Easter Rising. At about this time the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) emerged. In April and May 1966 the UVF petrol bombed a number of Catholic homes, schools and businesses. The nationalist parades and the Loyalist responses to them resulted in an upward spiral of persistent violence and disorder involving the Official as well as the Provisional IRA. The fatal March on Bloody Sunday took place on 30 January 1972. In August 1971, the Northern Ireland Prime Minister, Brian Faulkner, after consultation with Edward Heath, resorted to internment, exercising the powers conferred by Regulations 11 and 12 of the Special Powers Act. Under these provisions anyone could be interned at the discretion of the Executive, without being told the grounds for their incarceration. Internment was indefinite, or until the Executive determined otherwise. 342 persons were arrested on 9-10 August in dawn raids carried out by the Army amid claims of abuse and assault. Only Irish Nationalists were arrested not a single Loyalist. Many of the detainees turned out to have no links with the IRA. The swoop failed to include militants in the Provisional IRA. It also removed the leadership of the Official IRA, who were disciplined, and whose targets were principally the Army and the Police, leaving the militants in

104

the Provisional IRA, which had splintered off from the IRA after 1962 (a time when the IRA had opted out of violence) to pursue a sectarian campaign. Internment led to ever increasing levels of indiscriminate violence. At times, elements of the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) in Belfast resembled the Mafia, driven by greed rather than by political or sectarian ideology.

Within the terrorist organisations they acquired military rank, power and authority, and access to money. They had a vested interest in sabotaging all attempts at restoring peace and law and order - as did some of the politicians. People were murdered and tortured within their own communities if they were suspected to be providing information to the other side, or to the authorities.

On 24 March 1972, the UK government pushed through the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, suspending the Stormont Government and imposing direct rule. The Government also repealed the internment provisions in the Special Powers Act, and proposed to phase out Internment and replace it with a system which provided that detention could only be ordered by an independent Commissioner following a hearing in which the respondent could give evidence and be legally represented. They also substituted trial by judge alone for trial by jury in relation to all serious crimes - the so-called Diplock courts. The objective was that, wherever possible, offences would be dealt with through the Diplock courts which, subject to minor amendment, were conducted in accordance with established criminal procedure. In 1972 the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order was approved.

Justification for detention without trial was found firstly, in the extraordinary level of violence in Ulster, and secondly in the near impossibility of effecting successful prosecutions. The statistics themselves speak for the level of violence. In 1971 there were 1,022 explosions, 1,756 shooting incidents and 175 deaths. In 1972 there were 1382 explosions, 10,628 shootings and 467 deaths. The ineffectiveness of the Criminal Justice System was the consequence of the intimidation of witnesses and of jurors. Lord Windlesham, in seeking the approval of the House to this procedure, acknowledged that Internment had become the central grievance of the minority community and said that Detention replaced Internment, ‘substituting independent legally qualified persons to assess allegations of terrorism in place of the Executive and give those persons the necessary powers to enable them to reach the truth’.

The Crown was represented by barristers from the Bar of England and Wales. The respondents were represented by solicitors and barristers from Northern Ireland. A typical day’s hearing would begin the evening before, when we and the Commissioners were given the papers for the next day folders containing a few short statements from anonymised intelligence officers setting out the ‘evidence’ relied upon.

We would make our way down the corridor to one of the prefabricated classrooms used for the hearings. Sometimes we never started, because the detainee was refusing to attend.

Sometimes we would start late because counsel for the respondent was refusing to be searched or was having some altercation with the guards at the gate. The respondent was asked to confirm his name. If he was a Nationalist he might simply state that he did not recognise the jurisdiction of the tribunal or of the United Kingdom government, and leave. The allegations were read out - amorphous enough not to risk the identification of any witness or informant. The Crown called its anonymous witnesses first. In general, witnesses gave their evidence from behind a screen and via a voice scrambler. We called no witnesses other than intelligence officers from the Army, the Special Branches, or the mainland police. It was exceptional in the extreme for there to be any direct evidence.

Usually evidence was, at best, first hand hearsay (provided by informers - paid or unpaid), and very often second-hand hearsay or worse. Sometimes the witness would refuse to answer questions if he thought the answers risked identifying his source. The respondent might give evidence, and might call a character witness - perhaps describing a lifestyle thought to be inconsistent with involvement in terrorist activities.

The Brechtian paradox of the procedure was that the strongest evidence, which was most detailed and hence, if true, most damning (but also most capable of refutation), was never disclosed to the respondent or his counsel. When that evidence was reached the respondent and his counsel were excluded from the hearing, and the evidence was given in their absence. There was no Special Advocate who could remain in the hearing and apply some independent scepticism. Brought up in the tradition that prosecutors should be even-handed, counsel for the Crown did their best to fulfil the role formerly fulfilled by Special Advocates. The justification for the exclusion was, of course, that the greater the detail, the greater the risk that the source would be identified – and then probably killed.

If the allegation was untrue and the respondent, if he had known what the allegation was, would in fact have been able to provide a convincing alibi, none involved in the process would ever know. At the close of the evidence the respondent’s counsel would address the Commissioner, usually with passion and eloquence, endeavouring to make bricks without straw.

Generally, when a detainee was released, it was because the information relied upon was so patently weak that an interim custody order should never have been made at all. A detention order had to contain a statement of the grounds on which it was made, and would be expressed in such a way as not to risk that any source would be identified. Sometimes a witness would unexpectedly withdraw a piece of extremely damning information against a detainee - for example, against one who appeared to be a high-ranking officer in one of the para-military organisations. That would result in someone who looked like a dead cert for a detention order, being released. We never knew whether the retraction was genuine, or whether the detainee was being released so that someone could kill him - or whether some deal had been done with the intelligence services. This was a strange world in which we operated - in which everything in the rule book had been torn up.

Although it always seemed to be raining and never seemed to get light, the gloom was occasionally broken. One such occasion was the character evidence of a Catholic priest, given on behalf of a youth aged about 20.

‘He is a good young man. He was in the Scouts. He wouldn’t do anything bad. He is well known for his good

work and for selling poppies for Armistice Day. If he is released I’ll keep an eye on him.’

‘Father, before today, when was the last time you saw him?’

‘It was a while back, but I’ve heard good reports of him.’

‘Father, please answer my question - when did you last see him before today.’

[Pause] ‘I think it was at his christening, but he comes from a good family.’

As you can imagine, counsel for the Crown rapidly came to the conclusion that this was not the kind of work for which we had joined the Bar. The process was deeply flawed - it was ineffective at establishing the truth, it was unjust, it was counterproductive, and it was dangerous. The intelligence services themselves were relying principally on reports from others, many of them paid informers, who had an incentive, when they needed some cash, to invent evidence against other members of the community - the intelligence services themselves were not in a strong position to know the truth. Those detainees who were already sympathisers, or members of one of the terrorist organisations, could receive further training. Those who were innocent were likely to be supporters of a terrorist organisation by the time they were released - if they ever were - either out of resentment, or because they had been indoctrinated or intimidated whilst within one of the compounds. Long Kesh was a university for terrorism.

It was undoubtedly dangerous to detainees and witnesses due to the risk that during a hearing information might be released which, unintentionally, enabled an informant or an intelligence officer to be identified. Some whose cases we dealt with were visibly trembling and they were, I believe, frightened of being released. In fact, no deals were done with us - we had no role other than to present the cases. However, I have no doubt that deals were done with the intelligence services and that that was one possible explanation of why sometimes intelligence officers would suddenly cast doubt on the information they had hitherto relied upon. We were not the only ones to recognise that the whole system was flawed. In 1974 Lord Gardiner, the former Lord Chancellor, was asked by the Northern Ireland Secretary to chair a committee of enquiry.

A number of members of the English Bar provided evidence to the enquiry and unanimously condemned the entire process.

The Committee reported in January 1975, recommending that detention be ended. It was wound up by August of that year. Thereafter, those suspected of committing terrorist activities were dealt with via the Diplock Courts. Trial by jury for all criminal offences was restored in 2007.

Master David Blunt was Called to the Bar 1967 he was a member of 4 Pump Court until he retired in 2016. David ultimately specialised in Technology and Construction Court work, sitting as a deputy judge in that court and also in other divisions of the High Court. He served as chairman of the Students and Barristers Affairs Committee 2007-12 and was a prime mover in setting up COIC`s matched-funding scheme providing funding for chambers unable to themselves fund pupillages.

Currently, he is the Inn`s Director of Advocacy.

The Autumn Reading 2016 Detention hearings in Northern Ireland in the 1970s

105

THE LENT READING 2017

Middle Temple Ablaze MASTER PAT EDWARDS

Fire has repeatedly threatened, and shaped, the Temple over the centuries. Apart from the Great Fire of London, there have been many other conflagrations perhaps less well known.

An extract of Master Reader’s reading given 14 February 2017.

My Reading in February explored the impact of fire on the Temple. The Inn kindly embraced the theme, with flambeaux at the doors welcoming those arriving for Reader’s Feast and atmospheric red lighting within Hall. I was greatly helped in my research by Lesley Whitelaw, the Inn’s Archivist, and excited to see documents like a sketch of the only Middle Temple building lost in the Great Fire of 1666 showing the names of the occupiers, a beautiful drawing by Sir Christopher Wren of the cloisters which replaced those destroyed in 1679, and many accounts from Middle Templars of the damage suffered in World War II and the heroic efforts of members of the Inn during the Blitz. Eye-witness accounts of earlier fires come from Samuel Pepys; the other diarist John Evelyn; Windham Sandys who related how James, Duke of York, an Inner Templar whose portrait hangs in Middle Temple Hall, saved Middle Temple in the Great Fire, and Sir Roger North, a Middle Templar, who vividly described the 1679 fire. There was so much material that I had reluctantly to discard much of it in order to keep my Reading to an acceptable length.

We know little, however, about the Temple when first occupied by lawyers. The members of the Knights Templar in England, who built the round church which survives today, were not burned at the stake like those in France. However, the dissolution of the Order in 1312 after that fiery event enabled lawyers to move in.

My Reading mentioned the fires which heated and lit our Elizabethan Hall, though the first major threat from fire came in 1666, not from an open hearth and candles, but from the City’s wooden buildings. That fire is of course

106

well documented. John Evelyn, a Middle Templar, gave an account of a shocked population: The conflagration was so universal and the people so astonished that from the beginning I know not by what despondency or fate they hardly stirred to quench it; so that there was nothing heard or seen but crying out and lamentation running about like distracted creatures without at all attempting to save even their goods; such a strange consternation there was upon them.

Samuel Pepys, however, not a Middle Templar though it is believed that some of his family members were, described much action to save possessions: About four o’clock in the morning, my Lady Batten sent me a cart to carry away all my money and plate and best things…Which I did, riding myself in my nightgown, in the cart; and, Lord! To see how the streets and the highways are crowded with people running and riding, and getting of carts…. to fetch away things.

I have mentioned the actions of James, Duke of York, who returned when the fire in the Temple broke out anew, to use gunpowder to create firebreaks. Windham Sandys described some opposition: one of the Templars came to the Duke and told him it was against the rules and charter of the Temple that any should blow that house with gunpowder, upon

which …the Duke’s Master of the Horse… took a cudgel and beat the young lawyer to the purpose.

This may have been forgivable, for ‘about one o’clock the fire was quenched, and saved the Church and hall; so the Duke went home to take some rest, not having slept above two or three hours since Sunday night’. Thus, after several days, the fire halted just short of Middle Temple.

We fared less well in 1679 when fire originating in chambers in Middle Temple Lane caused huge devastation, though again our Hall survived. Sir Roger North described the heat melting the glass of the windows and ‘flame which came issuing at the windows with a noise and fury like so many vents of hell’. The cold was intense and water to quench the flames froze. A Middle Templar, the Duke of Monmouth, used gunpowder to destroy buildings and isolate the fire.

He was more successful than young Inner Templars who, lacking water, poured beer on the flames. The Lord Mayor and the City Sheriffs also came to assist but the young Inner Templars resented the Lord Mayor’s sword as an assertion of authority within the Temple and struck it down. The Lord Mayor retreated. Reputedly, he became drunk in a tavern, and on his way back to the City stopped and sent away a fire engine heading for the Temple.

The extensive rebuilding was undertaken by Dr Nicholas Barbon, a former physician turned speculative developer.

Inner Temple objected to Barbon’s plan for a solid building to replace the cloisters, providing more accommodation for Middle Temple, and both Inns separately and competitively began reconstruction work. Inner Temple account books record the payment of £3 ‘to the laborers for three severall tymes throwing in the earth upon the Middle Temple digging their foundacon in the Cloysters’. Resolution came with Sir Christopher Wren’s elegant compromise of retaining the cloisters but increasing their width with a larger building above.

I mentioned more benign fires enjoyed at Frost Fairs on the frozen River Thames, below Middle Temple, where, according to an 1814 newspaper, ‘kitchen fires and furnaces were blazing...and animals from a sheep to a rabbit and a goose to a lark, were turning on numberless spits’, and then moved on to the two World Wars. The Inn prepared for aerial

bombardment on both occasions, but its grievous losses in World War I were of members and staff serving in the forces overseas not its buildings.

The Blitz lasted from September to November 1940.

In October, a land-mine caused a tremendous explosion and widespread damage, most seriously, for this Inn, to Hall. A huge piece of masonry penetrated the east gable, smashing the minstrels’ gallery and burying the oak screen under rubble. Still, most of the double hammer beam roof was intact along with the High Table and the Cupboard; and seemingly irreparable damage to the screen and panelling proved capable of salvage. This involved sifting the debris by hand to recover small portions of wood and carvings, gathered into 200 sacks and kept for post-war reconstruction.

On 10 May 1941 the Temple suffered more devastation than in all the previous raids. The roof of Temple Church collapsed, leaving only the outer walls of the Knights Templar’s round church. The fire spread, destroying the Master’s House, Christopher Wren’s Cloisters, and many other buildings. As in 1666, fires smouldered on for days.

When the war ended in May 1945 there were further fires in the Temple - celebratory bonfires fuelled by broken doors and furniture. Miraculously, in the whole of the war enemy action caused no fatalities in the Temple and, almost as importantly, not a bottle of wine stored in Middle Temple’s cellar was broken!The post-war reconstruction in Middle Temple was the work of architect Edward Maufe, visible in particular in the re-sited library and many new sets of chambers.

I hope that my Reading showed how fires have over the centuries brought out the spirit, fellowship, loyalty, ingenuity and resilience of members of Middle Temple and others associated with it, from Royalty to staff, and gradually shaped the Temple we know and love today.

Master Pat Edwards was Called to the Bar in 1967 and to the Bench in 2003.

She was Head of the Office of Fair Trading’s legal services division from 1996 to 2004, before which she worked in a number of Government Legal Service posts, including Deputy Legal Adviser to the Home Office.

The Lent Reading 2017 Middle Temple Ablaze

107

Employed Bar Awards.

What are they?

CHLOÉ CINA Let me tell you…

Recognition at the self-employed Bar is a well-trodden path. Whether it is a recommendation in Chambers & Partners that a barrister is ‘absolutely superb’ or ‘quite simply stunning’, an application for Queen’s Counsel which is the award for excellence in advocacy in the higher courts, or an application for a judicial appointment supported by countless high ranking members of the judiciary, it is safe to say that hard work and excellence at the self-employed Bar is rewarded by professional recognition.

For the Employed Bar, recognition is ‘a road less travelled’. Over the years, the profession, whether through the Inns or other professional bodies, has sought to increase the visibility of the Employed Bar. Several years ago, in a bid to drive the Employed Bar agenda forward, Middle Temple designed a set of specialist Employed Bar advocacy courses for the profession. To this day, this remains the sole provider of advocacy development for the Employed Bar. The Treasury Solicitor, Master Jonathan Jones, together with Master Christiane Valansot, have supported this initiative since its inception. I teach as an advocacy trainer on both the Self-Employed and Employed courses and I see completely why there is a need for the Inn to support both branches of the profession. What the Employed Bar training material recognises is that advocacy in the public and private employed sectors is as vital a skill as in the courtroom and is a capability that needs to be honed and developed in much the same way using many of the same skills.

In addition to the recognition described above for Employed Bar advocacy, there’s also been a bubbling enthusiasm for summer celebrations. Garden parties, summer extravaganzas and the like have always been driven

by Chambers and the Inns, setting the profession’s standard for that year’s generous offerings of wine and canapés.

Recently, the Employed Bar Garden Party took root and has been a great success, attracting Employed Barristers from across the profession.

With this scene setting in mind, the question posed in the title, namely ‘Employed Bar Awards. What are they?' can be answered. This year the Bar Council decided to recognise the vital contribution of barristers working in-house in HM Forces and in the public, private and third sectors. The decision followed the results of last year’s Employed Bar survey.

Employed barristers responded to the Bar Council stating that they wanted greater recognition of their achievements and the Bar Council took this on board, recommending that more be done to recognise the Employed Bar in its ‘Snapshot Report: The Experience of Employed Barristers at the Bar’ of November 2016. It is equally possible that the free flowing

108

Employed Bar Awards. What are they?

wine from summer garden parties helped establish the first ever Employed Bar Awards in 2017. Whatever the impetus, having been fortunate to attend the impeccably well organised awards ceremony at the Tower of London, which took place on 30 June 2017, I felt proud to be an Employed Barrister. For me, 2017 is another important milestone on the Employed Bar’s road to recognition in the profession.

This year’s event consisted of six categories of Employed Barrister of the Year. They were: • Employed barrister of the year • Young employed barrister of the year • Outstanding achievement by a public service barrister • Outstanding achievement by a barrister in a corporate organisation or solicitors’ firm • Employed advocate of the year • Outstanding performance by a HM forces barrister Nominations resulted in three finalists for each category, whose names and those of the winners can be found at the Bar Council Website Employed Bar Hub. Middle Temple sponsored the Young Employed Barrister of the Year, awarded to Matthew Johnston for his work on the migration crisis. The award was presented by Master Reader, Master Pat Edwards, a former senior lawyer at the Government Legal Service and proceedings were graced with a fine speech by Master Robin Knowles (The Hon. Mr Justice Knowles CBE). The finalists were testament to the diversity and importance of the work conducted by the Employed Bar and the event left everyone glowing with pride. There were so many great achievements

by Employed Barristers being recognised in 2017. No doubt this awards ceremony will go from strength to strength as Employed Barristers continue to achieve recognition.

Chloé Cina is the UK Head of Sanctions at HSBC. She was Called to the Bar in 2005 and is an advocacy trainer at Middle Temple on the Self-Employed and Employed Bar course. She worked at UNESCO in Paris from 2000-2004, practiced at the Criminal Bar and then joined the Treasury Solicitor's Department in 2008 as an Employed Barrister. She worked predominantly in the National Security team on terrorism and sanctions related litigation, joining the Foreign & Commonwealth Office as a developed vetted legal adviser in 2014. She is a leading expert in the field of sanctions and security policy in the EU and UN. She led the Iran nuclear legal team for the UK before joining HSBC in 2016.

The Children’s Concert 2016: a Record MASTER STANLEY BURNTON It has been a fine tradition of the Middle Temple to put on a concert for children towards Christmas every year. The concerts are not confined to members of the Inn and their guests, and we are very happy to have members of the other Inns and their families. In the past, we have had small ensembles performing music aimed at a young audience and, frankly, small attendances.

Last November, with the invaluable collaboration of the Bar Musical Society, we were able to be more ambitious and more successful. We staged performances of Ravel’s Mother Goose Suite and Prokofiev’s Peter and the Wolf. We also had a full orchestra, most members of which were the barrister members of the Bar Musical Society. It is remarkable how many barristers and judges are fine musicians – as witness Master Treasurer’s piano recital on 31 January last. The orchestra was ably conducted by Nikolas Clarke and led by Damian Falkowski, the Honorary Secretary and Chairman of the Society respectively.

The stories were narrated by Sir Richard Stilgoe, songwriter, lyricist and musician - a great actor who was perfect in his role.

The star piece was, of course, The Story of Peter and the Wolf. Each character - young Peter, his old grandfather, the panicky duck, the sly cat, the bird, the hunters and of course the hungry wolf - is represented by a different instrument of the orchestra, which gives each of the players a starring role as well as introducing the audience to the distinctive sounds of each instrument. All ends happily at the end, apart for the wolf, of course, and the poor duck.

The title of this article refers to the record created by the concert. We had no fewer than 197 children in the audience, accompanied by about 170 parents and grandparents, members of all the Inns of Court. The concert was a sell-out.

As I said when I introduced the orchestra, never in the long and glorious history of Middle Temple Hall have we had the pleasure or the presence of so many children.

The concert was a great success. The children, of all ages, listened attentively. After the concert, many came to view the instruments up close, to touch and to try to play them. In addition to giving pleasure to so many children and their parents and grandparents, the concert raised over £1200 for the Orpheus Centre, a charity supported by Richard Stilgoe that provides accommodation and support to young disabled adults. A very worthwhile cause.

I am extraordinarily grateful to the players and other members of the Bar Musical Society for making this concert possible, and in particular to Nikolas Clarke for his organising the event. We are aiming for a repeat in November 2017 and I remain ambitious. We will be having a performance of SaintSaëns’ Carnival of the Animals – with two grand pianos plus the orchestra of the Bar Musical Society. Please put Sunday 19 November 2017 in your diaries. Keep an eye out for the booking dates and book early to avoid disappointment, since I am sure the concert will sell out again especially as Sir Richard Stilgoe has kindly agreed to participate again.

Master Stanley Burnton was Called to the Bar in 1966 and took Silk 1982. He was appointed to the Court of Appeal in 2008 and retired in 2012. On his retirement he returned to his former chambers, One Essex Court, to practise as an arbitrator. In 2015 he was appointed as the Interception of Communications Commissioner. He is chairman of the British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII). He is also the President of the Slynn Foundation, and a trustee of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law. Master Burnton is an Honorary Fellow of St Edmund Hall, Oxford, and a Visiting Professor of Queen Mary College, London. He was elected as a Bencher in 1991 and was Treasurer in 2010.

The Children's Concert 2016: a Record

109

The Survive and Thrive Programme FELICITY MCMAHON

The Survive and Thrive series was created by Middle Temple’s Membership Committee with the aim of providing something for members of the Inn that other events do not provide.

The events focus on areas that we hope will be useful to all members in their professional and personal lives. The programme kicked off in October 2015 and the 2015-16 programme attracted a total attendance of well over 500.

The 2016-17 programme has built on that start, with a total attendance of over 750 spread over four events. Events are free for Middle Temple members, £10 for others. Clerks, partners and others involved in the lives of members are welcome. Drinks and networking take place both before and after each session.

The first event of the 2016-17 programme was held in Hall on 9 November 2016: ‘Perfect the art of public speaking - on the TV & Radio, to a Committee or Regulator or even at a wedding!’ This took as its theme the fact that people tend to assume barristers are excellent public speakers, as we can all speak and present confidently to courts and tribunals.

However, the reality is that public speaking is a rather different skill which not all of us take to naturally. The prospect of giving an after dinner or wedding speech, or appearing on television, can fill even the battle-hardened courtroom advocate with horror. The event was moderated by Master Robin GriffithJones, Master of the Temple, who proved that he had no need for public speaking tips himself, and was able to share his own advice with the audience. Our speakers were David

110

Crystal, Professor of Linguistics at the University of Bangor, and Claire Gillingwater, a PR, media and presentation training professional, owner of Dunnell Gillingwater and Associates.

They covered how to engage a large audience, tell a story and inject a little humour; as well as tips for managing nerves.

They also spoke on practical matters such as how to wield a microphone and presentational techniques including the importance of posture and speed of speech.

On 23 February 2017 Master Igor Judge was moderator for ‘How to communicate effectively and sell yourself... without saying a word.’ He was joined by Richard Hytner, former Deputy Chairman of Saatchi & Saatchi Worldwide, now Founder of beta baboon; and Louise Chester, Founder and Managing Director of Mindfulness at Work. This event focused on that most important but often overlooked aspect of communication – listening. Speakers discussed the power of silence in conversation, empathy and developing ‘presence’. Richard Hytner was able to share techniques and a number of useful practical tips; and some of those present managed to get a free copy of one of his books. Louise Chester told us of the benefits of being more mindful and spoke about concentration. ‘Multi-tasking is a myth’ was one of the more memorable quotes of the evening. Louise even had members trying out mindfulness together in Hall. [On that subject, Middle Temple offers mindfulness sessions in Tasker’s – please see the website for more details.]

The Survive and Thrive series has often drawn on our distinguished Honorary Benchers to provide moderators for events, and the event on 3 May 2017 continued this tradition.

Master Sebastian Faulks led ‘Optimise your brain and improve your memory’. Given his deep interest in the human mind, explored in his works, he was an ideal choice to moderate this event. Dr. David Lewis, Neuropsychologist and founder of the independent research consultancy Mindlab International, shared the latest in neuropsychological research with the audience, giving a fascinating insight into how the brain, and memory really work. Dominic O’Brien, eight times memory world champion, talked through practical memory techniques, including mapping and link techniques which the audience were encouraged to try out together. It was fascinating to see how linking things to be remembered to objects on a journey really can improve the ability to remember them, and do so in order. Trying the technique out again over networking drinks afterwards showed that it really had stuck! Dominic once memorised 54 decks of cards after just a single-sighting of each card, and he gave an impressive demonstration of his skills to all those in Hall.

The events focus on areas that we hope will be useful to all members in their professional and personal lives.

Events in Hall are live-streamed on the Middle Temple website, for those who are not able to make it into London on the day. For those of you who missed these events, video and some of the presentations given are also available on the website, if you are logged in as a member. Events are also always live-Tweeted using the hashtag #survivethrivemt.

On 14 June 2017, the first smaller, more focused Survive and Thrive event took place in Parliament Chamber. Invitees, including barristers, clerks and circuit leaders attended ‘How to lead and nurture talented people’. Rachel Spearing, founder of the Wellbeing at the Bar initiative, talked attendees through the research that had been done by Wellbeing at the Bar, and what it showed about the stresses members of the Bar find themselves under. She also referenced the excellent resources now available on the Wellbeing at the Bar website at https://www.wellbeingatthebar.org.uk/ which provides advice and support for barristers, clerks and those who support them. Nigel Redman, retired England International rugby player and Elite Coach Development Manager for British Swimming, shared with us the lessons about performance management that have been learnt in British swimming. There are a good deal of similarities between elite sport and the Bar, both being stressful professions, where performance on the day matters a lot, full of individuals who are prone to perfectionism. It is hoped that those who attended can take the lessons back to those they lead.

The next Survive and Thrive event is already planned for 7 November 2017: ‘The simple pursuit of happiness: how to achieve happiness and health goals'. Master Robert Lisvane will be moderating, with Stephanie Davis, CEO of Laughology, and Dr Nerina Ramlakhan, Physiologist, Sleep and Stress management expert, speaking. Stephanie Davis will explore themes including: confidence, achievement and success, positive relationships, support and coping skills. Dr Nerina will discuss the changes we can make

to transform our sleep amidst a world of 24/7 technology and competitive demands; as well as exploring how some people are able to create a good balance in their lives, and how we might emulate them. Over 100 tickets have already been taken up, and can be obtained via https:// survivethrivepursuitofhappiness.eventbrite.co.uk. We look forward to seeing many of you there.

A full Survive and Thrive programme for 2018, consisting of both large events in Hall and some smaller events, is currently in development. At each event we ask for feedback from the audience, including what topics they would like to see covered next. No doubt we will also be returning for more on some of the subjects already covered, which in addition to the above include: ‘How to think like the SAS, perform like an athlete and bounce-back like an entrepreneur’ and ‘Social Media - What’s the point & how to use it successfully’. This is a series really driven by the needs of members, and suggestions are always welcome.

Felicity McMahon was Called to the Bar in 2008. She is a barrister at 5RB specialising in media law, including privacy, defamation, harassment, reporting restrictions and data protection. Her work often includes consideration of the balance between Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Events in Hall are live-streamed on the Middle Temple website, for those who are not able to make it into London on the day.

The Survive and Thrive Programme

111

2017 London Marathon SOPHIE SHAW, DANIEL MILES & JAMES KEELEY The London Marathon really does seem to bring out the very best of London. The support from start to finish was remarkable, and save for running another London Marathon, I am sure I will never hi-five so many children, dogs and supporters in one day again. Having been cheered on by one of my clerks in Rotherhithe and some friends in Bermondsey, I had been slightly dreading the long stint in Docklands, but the crowds there were also fantastic and it seemed to pass very quickly. Finishing along the Embankment, past Middle Temple, and around Westminster was a brilliant experience.

I am so grateful to Middle Temple for giving me yet another opportunity (albeit less legal this time), and many thanks to all those who have sponsored us in support of the Middle Temple Scholarship Fund Appeal and the Royal Society.

Sophie Shaw was Called to the Bar in 2015 and is currently one of the most junior tenants at Brick Court Chambers.

She read Law at Clare College, Cambridge and studied at Utrecht University on an Erasmus Year.

112

Having wanted to run a Marathon since I was 10, I jumped at the chance to finally achieve my dream when Middle Temple offered me a place on the world famous London Marathon.

After a training regime that was derailed by a bout of shin splints that had been defeated by six weeks of rest, two pairs of magic socks and one new pair of trainers (that would have probably cost less if they were made of solid gold), I was ready to go.

A mere 30 minutes after the starting gun was fired I crossed the start line and was away, ducking and dodging through other runners whilst trying to make sure I didn’t expend all my energy before reaching mile five.

After settling into a rhythm I was able to drink in a truly amazing experience. Crowds shouting my name, strangers offering water, oranges, pizza and cheering whenever I slowed down and started to walk.

Music was a constant feature, from Ska bands to choirs, to rappers and pubs blasting music out of speakers, there was a constant desire to get round the next bend, just to find out what was waiting for me. A truly unforgettable moment was when I saw Tower Bridge, followed by the crushing realisation that I was merely half way round a seemingly never ending course.

Flagging spirits were recovered when I hit the 20 mile mark as I realised that I can normally run six miles in my sleep

I took up running late in life. Partly as a result of comfort eating to deal with the stress of the day to day bump and grind of the Bar, I found myself at 45 approaching 20 stone.

I was a heart attack or stroke waiting to happen. I decided to change my life through running. I started off with going around the block and then onto ParkRun. Week by week my times got progressively better. I lost a lot of weight. I did my first 10km in Richmond Park and then I ran for Birmingham Children’s Hospital in Birmingham’s half marathon. I did my first marathon in Brighton in 2016 before first running the London Marathon in 2016.

I was delighted to hear that I had received a place in the London Marathon for Middle Temple. Throughout the winter I trained, sometimes getting up at 5am before Court, or at 10pm when I got home in the evening. I entered races to keep me motivated such as the ‘Knacker Cracker’. This is a 10km race early on New Year’s Day. It saw me drag my body up five large hills, whilst experiencing the ignominy of having people dressed up as Princess Leia or a parrot run past me!

I did the Leith Hill half marathon, which saw me run through thick mud, up steep inclines and endure a hailstone shower.

Most importantly, I ran the Manchester marathon for Uplift.

Uplift is a charity set up by Jodie Woodward, a barrister, who at around the age of 30 was diagnosed with breast cancer. She has established Uplift to help young women like herself. It was an incredible day and I achieved a fairly good time.

Running the London Marathon for Middle Temple, and especially for our Scholarship Fund Appeal was simply incredible. To be able to give back to an institution that has given me so much in so many ways was an honour. I received so much love and encouragement around the 26.2 miles that I never hit any wall. As I came into the Embankment I looked over and waived at Domus. Another wonderful opportunity given to me by Middle Temple. Please get involved in the work of our Inn, you will get so much more than what you put in. and I wasn’t going to be defeated by something I could do in my bed!

Looking back, it was an amazing experience that I would recommend to everyone, as long as they have a few days of leave and plenty of alcohol waiting for them afterwards.

Daniel Miles is a member of Middle Temple's Front of House team and has been working at the Inn for around two years.

James Keeley was Called to the Bar 1993.

He is a specialist advocate in serious sexual allegations and is a tenant at 36 Bedford Row. He is passionate about bringing on the next generation of advocates and is a trainer of Advocacy at Middle Temple and has judged moots at Bar School. James is an elected member of the Bar Council, serves on the Bar Council Equality, Diversity and Social Mobility Committee and is a member of the Criminal Bar Association Executive Committee. Outside of the Bar he is the Vice President of a charity for young people, Endeavour, and a Patron of a charity called True Honour that educates professionals about so called Honour Killings and FGM. 2017 London Marathon

113

A Musical Evening with John Dyson and Friends MASTER STEPHEN OLIVER This event took place on Tuesday 31 January 2017.

It was a revelation.

We all know what a great venue for music our Hall is. Some very memorable performances have taken place there. John Dowland and his friends performed here 400 years ago, and now, Temple Music and our own Music Nights bring worldclass performers here. But few of us knew what musical talent there is among lawyers in the Inn and to what effect that talent can be directed.

Master Treasurer took the initiative. At the start of his year (2017) as Treasurer, he brought two friends of his to the Hall to create a musical entertainment with a purpose: to raise money for the Middle Temple Scholarship Fund Appeal. He is a fine pianist. He once studied with Dame Fanny Waterman, the Chairman of the Leeds International Pianoforte Music Competition, and has remained a life-long friend of hers.

One friend was Sir Michael Harris, a fellow pianist. He and Master Dyson had been in chambers together for many years.

I’d heard that both these accomplished musicians used to come to our Hall in the early hours of the mornings after public concerts had taken place there. The two of them came to play duos while the Steinways were still in place. Master Harris went on to become President of the Social Security, Medical Disability and Child Support Tribunal. This happy musical relationship continued throughout their judging careers.

The other Friend was Professor Gabriel Gorodetsky, the distinguished historian who is known throughout the world for his work The Grand Delusion, Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia, as well as for his recent publication The Maisky Diaries – Red Ambassador to the Court of St James (1932-43). Professor Gorodetski is also a clarinettist.

The Concert was held before a large and prestigious audience. The two pianists started with a performance of Schubert’s Grand Rondeau in A major Op 107. This was written in the last few months of Schubert’s short life. Two pianists playing together on one piano need to communicate a sense of mutual confidentiality and awareness of one another. The Grand Rondeau has a cheerful and tuneful start; there is then a more disturbed centre passage after

114

which it returns to the calm of the opening melody. These were vividly presented by the players and we in the audience were drawn into the performance.

Fauré's Dolly Suite Op 56 is a series of pieces for four hands on one piano, each written to mark anniversaries in the life of Dolly, the daughter of Fauré's mistress. Those of us old enough to remember tuning into the BBC Home Service’s Listen with Mother were taken back down the years by the delightful Berceuse which introduces the other pieces that followed.

Then Gabriel Gorodetsky joined Master Treasurer to play Schumann. Fantasiestucke Op 73 (Tender) is romantic in character and the playing brought to mind a picture of rolling countryside in autumn. They created the spirit of song in the second piece (Lively and Light).

The Concert ended with Schumann’s beguiling Romanz no 2 Op 94, played by Gabriel Gorodetsky alongside Master Treasurer. This led last year’s Treasurer, Master Christopher Clarke, to endorse the enthusiastic applause and to remark on how special it is to have Benchers who, quite aside from reaching pinnacles in the law, have such talents to share with the Inn. He recalled that Master Treasurer had opened the evening by commenting that he had ‘peaked’ as a pianist at the age of 17. If that were so, we reflected, we have been lucky that he went on to peak as a judge as well.

The evening raised the spectacular amount of £21,000 for our Scholarship Fund. This included donations and special dispensations to buy tickets for students and staff, who otherwise would not have been able to be there. It could not have been a happier and more friendly occasion.

Another JD and Friends: an Inn event in the 17th Century The Inn’s records show that Master John Dyson and his Friends had been following in the footsteps taken just over 400 years ago by another JD and his two friends.

Among the Inn’s archives is an invoice for five guineas addressed to the Treasurer. This shows that Master John

The evening raised the spectacular amount of ÂŁ21,000 for our Scholarship Fund.

Dowland, the great English composer and lutenist of the time, came and performed at the Inn on a January evening in 1608. With him were two renowned lute players. The occasion was Candlemas, the last night of the Revels. There had been a purpose in that event too. Several years of plague had closed the Inn and then the Treasurer of the Inn had evidently decided to make that last night of the Revels an event to be remembered. Just over 400 years on our own Treasurer, with an instinctive sense of history, created, in Master John Dyson and Friends, another event to remember.

Master Stephen Oliver has been a Bencher since 1986. He was President of the Financial Services and Tax Tribunals, combining that role for many years with an involvement in music as chairman of the Blackheath Halls, Vice-Chairman of the London Sinfonietta and trustee of the Britten-Pears Foundation.

A Musical Evening with John Dyson and Friends

115

The Middle Temple Garden Party: 4 July 2017

116

The Middle Temple Garden Party: 4 July 2017

117

The New Lord Chief Justice Master Ian Burnett On 14 July 2017 Master Ian Burnett was appointed Lord Chief Justice, taking over from The Rt. Hon. The Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who took office in 2013, following the retirement of Master Igor Judge.

Master Burnett was educated at St John’s College, Southsea, on a scholarship from West Sussex County Council.

He went on to study Law at Pembroke College, Oxford. He was Called to the Bar in November 1980.

He joined Temple Garden Chambers in 1982 and became a sponsor in the Inn’s Sponsorship scheme in 1983.

He was elected a Bencher in 2001 and subsequently became Master of the Silver, a role he held until May 2017.

During the early years Master Burnett’s practice was in common law and public law. He became a Junior Counsel to the Crown, Common Law from 1992-98 and was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1998. He became Assistant Recorder in 1998 and Recorder in 2000. He was Head of Temple Garden Chambers 2003-08.

Master Burnett was appointed a Deputy High Court Judge in 2008 and Deputy Chamber, Security Vetting Appeals Panel in 2009. He was appointed Judge of the High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, in 2008 and was a Presiding Judge on the Western Circuit 2011-14.

He was appointed to the Court of Appeal on 6 October 2014 and became Vice-Chairman of the Judicial Appointments Commission in 2015. Aged 59, he will become the youngest Lord Chief Justice since Lord Parker of Waddington in 1958.

Middle Templar Chief Justices of the King’s Bench 1413-23 1526-38?

1539-45 1545-52 1555-57 1557-59 1559-74 1592–1607 1616-21 1627-31 1635-42 1663-65 1683 1733-37 1737-54 1754-56 1788-1802 1818-32

1859-80

Middle Templar Lord Chief Justices of England 1880-94 1913-21 1921-22 1946-1958

2005-08

2008-13 2017

118

The New Lord Chief Justice

Sir William Hankeford Sir John Fitzjames Sir Edward Montagu Sir Richard Lyster Sir William Portman Sir Edward Saunders Sir Robert Catlin Sir John Popham Sir Henry Montagu Sir Nicholas Hyde Sir John Bramston Sir Robert Hyde Sir Edmund Saunders Philip Yorke, first Baron Hardwicke Sir William Lee Sir Dudley Ryder Lloyd Kenyon, first Baron Kenyon Charles Abbott, first Baron Tenterden (Middle Temple and Inner Temple) Sir Alexander James Edmund Cockburn, twelfth baronet

John Duke Coleridge, first Baron Coleridge Rufus Daniel Isaacs, Earl of Reading Alfred Tristram Lawrence, first Baron Trevithin Rayner Goddard, Baron Goddard (Inner Temple; Hon Bencher Middle Temple) Nicholas Addison Phillips, Baron Phillips of Worth Matravers Igor Judge, Baron Judge of Draycote The Rt Hon Lord Justice Ian Duncan Burnett

New Masters of the Bench 2016-17 These Masters of the Bench were all Called to the Bench between October 2016 and July 2017, following their election by Parliament. They are Called by Master Reader in a ceremony usually held in Hall attended by their guests, fellow Benchers, members of Hall and students. After dinner, each of the new Benchers is introduced by Master Treasurer and gives a brief address. Bench seniority is determined by date of Call to the Bar for members of the Inn, and at the Treasurers’ discretion for Honorary Benchers. This list is in order of seniority, with the most recently called Bencher, ‘Master Junior’ at the end of the list. At each Inn event, “Master Junior” replies to the Treasurer’s toasts to The Queen, Domus and Absent Members.

A full list of Masters of the Bench can be viewed on the ‘Members’ section of the Inn’s website.

The Hon Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean Justice Ang was appointed Judicial Commissioner in 2002, and was appointed Judge of the Supreme Court of Singapore in 2003. Prior to these appointments, she was a lawyer in private practice and was appointed Senior Counsel in 1998. Justice Ang was a member of the sub-committee on the Review of Arbitration Laws, appointed by the Attorney-General in 1991and is also a member of the Rules Committee, Supreme Court; the Senate and the Executive Board of the Singapore Academy of Law. She is the Chairperson of the Singapore Mediation Centre.

The Hon Justice Quentin Loh (Honorary) Justice Loh was appointed a Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore in 2009 and a Supreme Court Judge in 2010. Prior to his joining the Bench, he was the Deputy Managing Partner of Rajah & Tann LLP from 2003-2009. Prior to joining Rajah & Tann in 2001 as a member of its Executive Committee, he was Managing Partner of Cooma, Lau & Loh, a firm he cofounded in 1978. He was appointed Senior Counsel in 1999.

Until his appointment as a Judicial Commissioner, he was also a founding director of Maxwell Chambers, a dedicated building for holding arbitrations.

Chelva Retnam Rajah SC Chelva Rajah is Head of Dispute Resolution at Tan, Rajah and Cheah. He is the son of founding partner, A. P. Rajah.

He has a distinguished practice in both litigation and arbitration, particularly in substantial commercial disputes, property-related matters and insolvency.

He was the President of the Law Society of Singapore from 1990 to 1992 and was appointed a Senior Counsel in 1998.

He is on the panel of Accredited Arbitrators, Singapore International Arbitration Centre.

Thio Shen Yi SC Thio founded TSMP Law Corporation in 1998 and is currently its Joint Managing Director. He read law at St John’s College, Cambridge, topped the English Bar Examination in 1992, and was admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore in 1993.

His areas of practice include corporate and commercial litigation, construction and engineering disputes, banking, financial and trust litigation, competition law and information technology disputes. He was appointed Senior Counsel in 2008 and is currently serving on the Council of the Law Society as President.

New Masters of the Bench

119

Loretta Lynch (Honorary) Sworn in as the 83rd Attorney General of the United States in 2015. Studied at Harvard College and Harvard Law School. In 1990, after a period in private practice, Ms. Lynch joined the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York. There, she specialised in prosecuting cases involving narcotics, violent crimes, public corruption, and civil rights. In 1999, President Clinton appointed her to lead the office as United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. In 2002, she joined Hogan & Hartson. While in private practice, Ms. Lynch performed extensive pro bono work for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, established to prosecute those responsible for human rights violations in the 1994 genocide in that country. She is married and has two children.

Chief Justice Tom Bathurst AC (Honorary) Thomas Frederick Bathurst was appointed Chief Justice of New South Wales in 2011.

Graduating with degrees in Arts and Law from the University of Sydney in 1971, he went on to practise as a solicitor in 1972.

He was admitted as a barrister in 1977, specialising in corporate law and litigation and was appointed QC in 1987. Served as President of both the Australian Bar Association (2008-2010) and the New South Wales Bar Association (2009-2011), the Executive Committee of which he was a member from 2002. Made a Companion of the Order of Australia in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List in 2014.

Sir Mark Elder CH CBE (Honorary) Music Director of the Hallé, a Principal Artist of the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment and Artistic Director of Opera Rara. He was Music Director of English National Opera from 1979 to 1993 and has been Principal Guest Conductor of the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, BBC Symphony Orchestra and London Mozart Players. Has appeared annually at the BBC Proms in London for many years, including, in 1987 and 2006 the internationally televised Last Night of the Proms. He has made many recordings and since the launch of the Hallé label in 2003.

Knighted in 2008, awarded the CBE in 1989 and appointed Member of the Order of the Companions of Honour in 2017.

Dr Andrew Parmley (Honorary) Studied music at Manchester, London and Cambridge Universities and at the Royal Academy of Music. He became a teacher and is, at present, Principal of The Harrodian School. After ten years as a member of the Court of Common Council he was elected Alderman for the Ward of Vintry in 2001 and served in the office of Sheriff 2014-15 and Lord Mayor 2016-17.

Giles Goodfellow QC Giles was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge and University of Virginia Law School. After successfully completing pupillage, he has practised at the Revenue Bar as a member of Pump Court Tax Chambers, taking silk in 2003. He is a Governor of the John Lyon Foundation and a trustee of the John Lyon Charity. He pursues (more often watches) a wide range of sports and hobbies with continued enthusiasm but with diminishing energy and skill.

120

The Hon Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-Li CJ GBM QC (Honorary) Geoffrey Ma Tao-li GBM QC SC is the incumbent Chief Justice of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. Between 2001 and 2010, he has held various positions in the High Court of Hong Kong, including Chief Judge, Justice of Appeal, and Judge of the Court of First Instance. Before his judicial career, he was the Head of Chambers at Temple Chambers in Hong Kong. He is qualified to practise in England and Wales, Hong Kong, Australia and Singapore.

Judge Marc Jaeger (Honorary) Has a law degree from the Robert Schuman University of Strasbourg; studied at the College of Europe; admitted to the Luxembourg Bar (1981); attaché de justice delegated to the office of the Public Attorney of Luxembourg (1983); Judge at the Luxembourg District Court (1984); Legal Secretary at the Court of Justice of the European Communities (1986-96); President of the Institut Universitaire International Luxembourg (IUIL); Judge at the General Court since 11 July 1996; President of the General Court since 17 September 2007.

Professor Thomas Glyn Watkin Called to the Bar in 1976. Has been a Professor of Law at Cardiff and Bangor, where he founded the law school.

Having drafted legislation for the Church in Wales he became the First Legislative Counsel to the Welsh Government.

Married with one daughter, he is also a non-stipendiary priest in the Church in Wales.

James Flynn QC James Flynn QC was Called in 1978 and took Silk in 2003. An erstwhile Legal Secretary at the European Court of Justice and partner in the Brussels office of Linklaters, he has practised from Brick Court Chambers since 1996, specialising in competition and (for now) EU law.

Principal extra-curricular interests are poetry and music.

Richard Todd QC Richard is a specialist in relationship generated disputes. He was leading counsel in Radmacher v Granatino and Petrodel v Prest. He is co-author of Practical Matrimonial Precedents, The Essential Family Practice, At Court, Todds’ Relationship Agreements (with his wife Elisabeth) and consulting Editor of Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law (HMSO). He graduated from Trinity College, Oxford. He sits as a Deputy High Court judge and practises from 1 Hare Court, London and Temple Chambers, Hong Kong.

Angus McCullough QC A Harmsworth Exhibitioner, Angus was Called in 1990 and took Silk in 2010. In chambers at 1 Crown Office Row, he has a varied civil practice, and is a founding editor of the acclaimed UK Human Rights blog. He is a trustee of the Barristers Benevolent Association. Before turning to law he read zoology at Oxford. He keeps chickens, guinea fowl, and bees.

Jonathan Arkush A member of Enterprise Chambers, Lincoln’s Inn, practising mainly in commercial law, real property, trusts and contested probate. In 2000 became an accredited mediator and mediation is a significant part of his practice. Since 2003 he has held a part-time judicial role as Deputy Chancery Master in the High Court.

The Hon Mr Justice Graeme Mew Called to the Bar in 1982. Appointed to the Superior Court of Justice (Ontario) in 2013. President of the Commonwealth Lawyers Association (2005-07). Judicial officer, World Rugby. Director of the Sports Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada and the Ontario Superior Court Judges’ Association.

Jonathan Peacock QC Read law at Oxford (1st Class) and was Called in 1987. Since then he has practised at the Revenue Bar (11 New Square, Lincoln’s Inn), advising on all tax matters, direct and indirect, and corporate and private client. He appears in courts and tribunals in the UK and elsewhere and has acted both for and against the UK Government in tax avoidance matters. Chairman of Revenue Bar Association (2013-16).

Professor Jeffrey Golden (Honorary) Chairman of The P.R.I.M.E. Finance Foundation in The Hague, and a member of the Foundation’s Panel of Recognised International Market Experts in Finance.

A Governor and Honorary Fellow of the London School of Economics and Political Science, where he has also been Visiting Professor. A member of chambers at 3 Hare Court.

He retired in 2010 from Allen & Overy LLP, having joined as a partner in 1994 after 15 years with the leading Wall Street practice of Cravath, Swaine & Moore. Has acted extensively for the International Swaps and Derivatives Association and was a principal author of ISDA’s master agreements.

Professor Nick Hardwick (Honorary) Studied English at the University of Hull.

First worked in the voluntary sector, with young offenders for the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, and then leading the charity Centrepoint before moving to run the British Refugee Council. In 2003 he was appointed to establish and run the Independent Police Complaints Commission as its first Executive Chair. He was appointed as Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons in 2010. He has combined roles as Professor of Criminal Justice at Royal Holloway, University of London with chairing the Parole Board for England and Wales.

Clive Anderson Called in 1976, Clive Anderson practised at the Bar for about 15 years. In the 1980s he began a career in broadcasting, making comedy, chat shows and more serious programmes, including Whose Line Is It Anyway?, Clive Anderson Talks Back, and All Talk. He currently presents Loose Ends and Unreliable Evidence.

Bob Neill MP After graduating from LSE, he spent 25 years as a barrister specialising in criminal law. He served as a councillor in Havering, and later as a London Assembly member, during which time he led the Conservative group. Elected as the MP for Bromley and Chislehurst in 2006, his roles have included Local Government Minister and Deputy Chairman of the Party. Since 2015, he has chaired the Justice Select Committee and co-chaired the APPG for London.

The Hon Mr Justice Nicholas Francis A Harmsworth scholar. Called in 1981.

Joined 2 Dr Johnson’s Buildings in 1982.

Assistant Recorder 1998, Recorder 2000, QC 2002. Became Head of Chambers in 2002 until appointed to the High Court Bench (Family Division) in 2016.

Specialised in high net worth divorce from about 1995. In practice specialised in pre and post nuptial agreements and was a pioneer of the private FDR process. Married with three children; Keen dinghy sailor.

David Mason QC Cranleigh School. Second Lieutenant RRF 1982, West Berlin. University of Leicester LLB 1985. Chambers in London 1986-91. From 1991 in Fountain Court, Birmingham. Number 5 Chambers since 2005. Recorder since 2003. Took Silk in 2010. Practice at the Bar in Crime and Regulatory. Interests outside work include skiing, shooting, golf, singing, walking and wine.

Judge Carl E. Stewart (Honorary)

By U.S. presidential appointment in 1994, Chief Judge Stewart began federal service on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and is currently its Chief Judge. He has served as a military lawyer in the U.S. Army and a Louisiana state court trial and appellate judge. Since 2003, he has served as a member of the Board of Trustees of the American Inns of Court and is currently its president.

Sir Vernon Ellis (Honorary) After a career at Accenture, he was Chair of the British Council from 2010-16. He chairs the National Opera Studio, the Leeds International Piano Competition and the Britten-Pears Foundation. He chaired ENO from 2006-12. He is a Director of FTI Consulting and chairs Martin Randall Travel and One Medical Group. Knighted for services to Music in 2011.

The Hon Rosalie Silberman Abella (Honorary) Rosalie Silberman Abella was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2004, the first Jewish woman appointed to the Court. She chaired the Ontario Law Reform Commission and the Ontario Labour Relations Board and was the sole Commissioner of the 1984 Royal Commission on Equality in Employment, creating the term and concept of ‘employment equity’. She is married to Canadian historian Irving Abella and they have two sons, both lawyers.

New Masters of the Bench

121

Stephen Hough CBE (Honorary) Combines a distinguished career as a pianist with those of composer and writer. Named by The Economist as one of 'Twenty Living Polymaths', Hough was the first classical performer to be awarded a MacArthur Fellowship and was appointed CBE in the New Year’s Honours 2014. Has garnered many awards including the Diapason d’Or de l’Annee, several Grammy nominations, and eight Gramophone Awards. As a writer he has been published by The Telegraph, The Times, The Guardian and The Independent.

Paul Double Has been Remembrancer of the City of London - the official channel of communication between the City of London and the Royal Households, Parliament and the London Diplomatic Corps and the City’s parliamentary agent - since 2003. Called in 1981, he is a graduate of the University of Bristol and holds a LLM from UCL. Amanda Hardy QC Called in 1993 and took Silk in 2015.

Specialist area is Revenue law. Was a Queen Mother’s Scholar. Honorary Secretary of the Chancery Bar Association, on the STEP Main UK Technical Committee, a member of the Revenue Bar Association, a Liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Tax Advisors and a governor of Brentwood School.

Richard Wright QC Studied Law at the University of Leeds and thereafter a Diplock Scholar. Called in 1998. Head of Chambers at Park Square Barristers in Leeds with a mixed prosecution and defence practice in Crime and Regulatory Crime. Appointed Deputy District Judge (Magistrates Courts) in 2006, Recorder in 2012 and Silk in 2013.

Tom Little Called to the Bar in 1997. A criminal and public law practitioner. Appointed by the Attorney General as Junior Treasury Counsel at the Central Criminal Court in 2012 and Junior Counsel to the Crown ‘A’ panel in 2014. He was appointed a Recorder of the Crown Court in 2012.

When not working he enjoys spending time with his young family and watching sports of all types.

Jeremy Nicholson QC Jeremy practises in construction, insurance and professional negligence, in England and overseas, from 4 Pump Court, London. He also sits as an arbitrator. He was called in 1977 and took silk in 2000. He is an advocacy trainer for the Inn and the Western Circuit. His interests outside law include travel, sailing, architecture, and theatre.

122

New Masters of the Bench

Dr Charles Mynors Qualified as a planner and surveyor, and practised at the planning Bar for 26 years. He is the author of a number of practitioners’ texts, and has been a diocesan Chancellor since 1998. He has been a member of the Estates Committee of the Inn for almost 20 years.

In 2016 he joined the Law Commission, to lead its project to simplify planning law in Wales.

Sandie Okoro (Honorary) A British lawyer was appointed Senior Vice-President and General Counsel for the World Bank Group in February 2017, joining from HSBC where she was General Counsel of Global Asset Management. Sandie has received numerous accolades and lifetime achievement awards in the United Kingdom for her career and volunteer efforts on diversity, women’s empowerment and leadership.

Dame Judith Macgregor (Honorary) British High Commissioner to South Africa from 2013 until March 2017, when she retired from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. She previously held posts dealing with Western and Central Europe, Security and Migration and was Ambassador to Mexico from 2009-13. Dame Judith led the FCO Women’s Association for 10 years overseeing significant progression for women in the Diplomatic Service.

Martin H Brinkley (Honorary) The Dean and Arch T. Allen Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law. Before returning to the law school in 2015, he clerked for Chief Judge Sam J. Ervin, III of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and practiced law for 22 years.

Dean Brinkley served as President of the North Carolina Bar Association (2011-12) and acted as pro bono counsel to dozens of non-profit institutions. Dean Brinkley lives in Raleigh with his wife Carol. They have three children. He is an avid amateur classical pianist and chamber musician.

Professor Nicholas Hopkins (Honorary) Professor Hopkins is Law Commissioner for Property, Family and Trust Law. He was appointed to the Law Commission following a career as an academic and he holds a Chair in Law at Reading University. He has written extensively in academic journals on property law and the family home, and is co-author of OUP’s Land Law: Text, Cases and Materials (2015) and Land Law: Core Text (2017).

He is an academic member of the Property Bar Association and Chair of the Board of Modern Studies in Property Law, a network of property scholars.

Obituary: Master Arthur Mildon Arthur Mildon was born into a Methodist family from Devon. His father was a Methodist minister and he was his parents’ first child. He was born in Yorkshire but subsequently spent most of his childhood on the Isle of Wight before moving to Plymouth. He was educated at Kingswood School in Bath before his further education was interrupted by World War II. He served in the army from 1942-1946 seeing active service in North Africa, Palestine and the mountainous region of central Italy. When the war ended, he held the rank of Captain and was charged with responsibility for administering the Austrian town of Malnitz in Carinthia.

After demobilisation in 1946 he went to Wadham College, Oxford, where he read Law. He became President of the Liberal Club and was active too in the Oxford Union and became its secretary.

He was Called to the Bar by the Middle Temple in 1950 and joined a set of chambers at 2 Garden Court. He also joined the Western Circuit.

1950 was not an easy time to embark on a career at the Bar for someone who had no private money and no legal connections. He did have one advantage, in that Plymouth was a small community and some local solicitors gave him some work. He seized the opportunity with both hands and so he succeeded in developing a solid common law practice, doing principally criminal, family and personal injury work, but anything else which came his way. His practice required him to spend many weeks travelling on the sleeper from Paddington to Plymouth or on occasions to Bodmin. Passengers to Bodmin would have to leave the train at Bodmin Road station, 4 miles away from the town, at 5.30am. The trick was to take instead the night train to Plymouth, where you could stay on the train until 8am, have breakfast at the station and take the first morning train on to Bodmin. Arthur Mildon’s West Country work brought in a reliable income, but at a cost in terms of family life. Nearer home and more congenially, he also built up a practice in Hampshire.

As a senior junior his practice widened to include inquiry work. It was an area well suited to his skills and appealed to him. During the 1970s he was involved in the planning inquiries into the building of the A329(M) motorway near Wokingham and later the M3 at Winchester. His inquiry work grew after he took Silk in 1971. Most significantly he was counsel to the inquiry into the death of Maria Colwell, the tragic case of a small girl killed by parental abuse which went undetected by social welfare agencies although there were warning signs.

Despite the light shown on this dark area by that inquiry, it was far from the last such inquiry.

In 1979 he was elected a Bencher of the Middle Temple.

He was a strong supporter of the Inn’s activities and of the Temple Church.

In 1986 he was appointed a Circuit Judge. He served in that office for 10 years and from 1994-96 he was President of the Medico-Legal Society.

One of his pupils was the late Lord Toulson who delivered the Tribute at Master Mildon’s memorial service in the Temple Church in June 2017. In Lord Toulson’s words: ‘His openness and integrity made him universally trusted by judges and opponents. More than that, he was very well liked. He was one of those rare people about whom one never heard a bad word spoken.’

Arthur Mildon died on 16 August 2016.

Written by David Mildon QC.

Obituary: Master Arthur Mildon

123

Obituary:

Master Daniel Hollis Leading criminal barrister known for his insouciance and the sometimes startling brevity of his advocacy in court Dan Hollis was one of the foremost criminal barristers of his generation and a longstanding head of his own chambers whose laid-back charm, wit and minimalist but deadly effective advocacy gained him the respect of his peers. His style adhered to the principle that less is more. It was this characteristic that informed perhaps his most notable contribution in court when he delivered what is thought to be the shortest closing speech for the defence in a criminal trial.

Standing to address the jury, Hollis chose not to launch into a long peroration. Instead he simply shrugged his shoulders and then sat down again, as if to say there was no more to say or perhaps suggesting to the jury that no one could possibly convict on the evidence before them and they must know that.

On that occasion he received a note from his client thanking him for his ‘speech’ and saying it had made a great impact on everyone, including his co-defendants who were all members of a gang of bank robbers based in Wembley. All their convictions were later quashed thanks to Hollis’ performance.

That sort of approach in front of the bench took both nerve and courage and Hollis used it at the other end of another trial when he delivered what is thought to be one of the shortest opening speeches for the prosecution in a murder case. He rose before the court and said to the jury that a man had been stabbed to death.

Then he gave the date, the time and the location - the market square in a certain town - and revealed that three witnesses had seen the man in the dock do it. He concluded by saying that he would now call the first of them to give evidence.

As one of his long-time colleagues, who observed the first of these two performances, put it: ’It was the brevity of his advocacy that was so effective. Dan was devastatingly charming but equally dangerous. He was one of those people who could put it in very few words perhaps with a raised eyebrow or a knowing smile and get away with it’. Some, including his second wife Stella, used to joke that Hollis was actually bone idle but his record of success in big cases spoke for itself. Just as he performed in court, he ran his chambers now the QEB Hollis Whiteman chambers at Laurence Pountney Hill off Cannon Street with the lightest of touches, always seeming to know exactly what was going on without anyone quite understanding how.

Daniel Ayrton Hollis was born in Blackheath in 1925, the son of Norman Hollis and Phyllis (née Ward) and the grandson of Henry Park Hollis, the first astronomy correspondent of The Times. His early years were spent in Blackheath. In 1937, aged 12, Hollis suddenly found himself uprooted when his father, who worked for P&O, was posted to Australia. The family moved to Melbourne where Hollis attended Geelong Grammar School and became captain of rowing.

After the fall of Singapore in 1942, the family returned to

124

Obituary: Master Daniel Hollis

Britain, travelling on the last P&O ship out of Sydney across the Southern Ocean, through the Panama Canal, evading U-boats that were waiting in the Caribbean. Before leaving Australia, Hollis had taken, and passed, his matriculation exams a year early, and with those results and a letter from his headmaster he was accepted to read jurisprudence at Brasenose.

During his first year at Oxford, aged 17, he joined the Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve as a midshipman and spent much of his time learning Morse code and how to read charts in preparation for naval service. From 1943 to 1946 Hollis served first in the North Atlantic and then in the Mediterranean as a navigation officer on escort vessels.

After VE day, which he spent on leave in Liverpool, he was on his way to southeast Asia when the atom bombs were dropped to end the war. He spent the next year around Hong Kong and was demobilised in 1946 in time to resume his Oxford degree. He graduated in 1948 and was Called to the Bar in 1949. He married Jill Turner, whom he had met at Oxford in 1950. They had twins: Sarah, now a consultant psychiatrist, and Simon who died in his mid-30s.

Hollis’ early career as a barrister was in a common law set at Harcourt Buildings, where he discovered that he preferred oral advocacy to paperwork. He sought the advice of Mervyn Griffith Jones, a leading criminal barrister, who introduced him to a young clerk, Michael Greenaway, and suggested they both join the criminal set of Christmas Humphreys who had just been promoted to the bench. The advice was followed and the foundations of a chambers that was to become Dan Hollis’ chambers at Queen Elizabeth Buildings were laid.

Having divorced his first wife in 1960, Hollis married Stella Hydleman, also a barrister, in 1963. She survives him. They had a son, Gideon, now a solicitor working in the City. He took Silk in 1968 becoming head of chambers that year, a position he retained for 27 years. Greenaway was his senior clerk until he retired a few days after his 70th birthday in 1995.

Hollis sat as a commissioner and then a recorder at the Old Bailey from 1971 to 1996 and was a deputy High Court judge from 1982 to 1993. He was a Bencher from 1975 where, as Master of the Silver, he used his interest and knowledge of silver and modern craftsmanship to add new pieces to the Inn’s collection.

Hollis was a strikingly handsome man. In the early 1990s the artist June Mendoza met him at a judges lunch at the Old Bailey, was struck by his appearance and asked to paint him. The resulting portrait still hangs at the top of the stairs in his old set of chambers.

Daniel Hollis was born on 30 April 1925 and died on September 4 2016, aged 91.

Extracted from, and reproduced by kind permission of, The Times.

Obituary: Master Gordon Borrie As director-general of fair trading in the 1980s and early 90s, Lord Borrie was a key player in Margaret Thatcher’s attempts to attack cartels and make markets more competitive.

However, his own political allegiance was with the left, and he was subsequently involved in Tony Blair’s New Labour project, becoming a Labour peer in 1995. He went on to supervise the advertising industry as chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority.

Borrie’s main impact lay in attacking cosy clubs that excluded outsiders and left the public paying more than they should for goods or services. His targets while at the Office of Fair Trading included the London Stock Exchange, the beer industry, estate agents and car dealers. But while he managed to stimulate change in such bastions of conservatism, the result was not always welcomed – beer prices rose rapidly after the ‘tie’ between brewers and pubs was broken, while British firms on the stock exchange were soon swallowed by US and continental rivals. In confronting the City establishment by complaining that stock market practices restricted competition, he eventually ushered in the ‘Big Bang’ deregulation that transformed London’s financial markets in the late 1980s.

Towards the end of his 16-year spell in office he became impatient with the constraints on his powers, and keen to move into the private sector. But he was enticed into the Labour fold, becoming a member of the Commission on Social Justice, which formulated the New Labour approach to social and economic policy in the mid-1990s. He also advised on competition policy, resulting in the creation of the Competition Commission after Labour came to power in 1997.

Born in Croydon, Gordon was one of five children of Alice and Stanley Borrie, a City solicitor. The family moved to north Wales at the start of World War Two , where Gordon went to John Bright grammar school in Llandudno. A bright student, he went to Manchester University at the age of 16 to study law.

By that time he had developed a taste for politics and public speaking, sparked partly by Labour’s successful 1945 election campaign, which he followed enthusiastically.

At university he became chairman of the Labour club and, after graduation and national service in Korea, Labour candidate for Croydon Northeast at the age of only 23. He was defeated in the 1955 general election and four years later stood in Ilford South, again unsuccessfully. That was the end of his dalliance with Parliament until he became a peer.

Borrie practised as a barrister for a few years after leaving university, but abandoned that in 1957 to become a lecturer, and published several books on the consumer and the law.

Initially he worked at the Law Society’s College of Law, but

moved to Birmingham University in 1965. He was made professor of English law in 1968 and stayed at the university until he was appointed director general of the OFT in 1976.

During this time he became a leading expert and author on consumer and competition law, and spent three years on the council of the Consumers’ Association in the 1970s.

His job at the OFT was to identify, and tell ministers how to rectify, anti-competitive business and commercial practices.

This included advising on whether controversial takeovers should be investigated by the Monopolies Commission, which put him occasionally in the spotlight, especially during the long-running battle between Tiny Rowland and Mohamed Al Fayed for control of Harrods.

He demonstrated objectivity, persistence, charm and no little political skill in repeatedly challenging powerful industries such as beer and cement. However he had only limited success in attacking the protectionism of the professions, notably that of his own, law, although towards the end of his career he chaired the accountancy profession’s then supervisory body, the Accountancy Foundation. Thatcher gave him a knighthood in 1982, and he was made a QC in 1986.

After leaving the OFT, Borrie was a non-executive director of several companies, including the Woolwich Building Society, Mirror Group and the cable company Telewest. He continued to be active in public life well into his 70s, chairing the Advertising Standards Authority from 2001 until 2007 and serving on several other boards as well as being an active Labour peer.

He married Dorene (nee Toland) in 1960.

Gordon Johnson Borrie, Lord Borrie, died 30 September 2016 Extracted from, and reproduced by kind permission, of The Guardian.

Obituary: Master Gordon Borrie

125

Obituary: Master David Turner-Samuels My grandfather, David Turner-Samuels, who has died aged 98, was a barrister and QC who practised with great passion for more than 50 years, working well into his 80s.

He was involved in many high-profile trials, including the controversial Shrewsbury 24 trade union case in the 1970s, the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings and libel cases for Private Eye magazine.

David was born in Newcastle, the son of Moss TurnerSamuels, also a QC, and his wife, Gladys (nĂŠe Belcher). Moss was the Labour MP for Gloucester under Clement Attlee.

After David had finished his education at Westminster School, he joined his father at Middle Temple and was Called to the Bar in 1939. That year, he also married Norma Verstone.

Almost immediately, David signed up with the Royal Artillery in south Asia. In 1942, he took part in Operation Ironclad, the invasion of Vichy French-controlled Madagascar, and in 1944 in the Battle of Imphal in India.

Once the conflict was over David and Norma had two children, Michael and Elizabeth. He resumed his legal career joining Cloisters Chambers, known then for its leftwing views. Although David was not a political hardliner, he loved to fight for the underdog. In the 70s, he won, in the Caribbean a series of landmark human rights cases in the Privy Council, and was admitted to several of the Bars in order to practise there. His love of the region led him to have a home in Trinidad.

His highest profile cases concerned the IRA bombing campaigns. He led the civil claim brought by the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings, who alleged they had been seriously beaten before confessing. Lord Denning in the Court of Appeal upheld their conviction and in the House of Lords the claims were again struck out, but history subsequently vindicated everything David had argued.

Apart from the law, David also had a passion for travel and photography and he regularly travelled all over the world. He continued this passion well into his 90s, treating his friends and family to impressive detail about his expeditions in his emailed ship’s blog.

126

Obituary: Master David Turner-Samuels

His first marriage ended in divorce, and in 1976 he married Norma Negus, a judge. She died in 2009. He is survived by Michael and Elizabeth, by his grandchildren, Nick, Ben, Anya and me, and by his great-grandchildren Eleanor, Isabella, Natalie, Evelyn and Ethan.

David Turner-Samuels died 19 November 2016.

Extracted from, and reproduced from the obituary by Katie Turner-Samuels, published in The Guardian.

Obituary: Master Frances Patterson Frances was born in 1954 in Stockton on Tees. As a young teenager she moved with her family to Cheshire and attended the Queen’s School, Chester. There she began to act with Chester Youth Theatre, and clearly enjoyed being centre stage and holding an audience. She read history at Leicester University, graduating in 1975. She was active in organising stage reviews and it was whilst appearing in a sketch as Queen Victoria that she met her future husband, Graham Nicholson, who was appearing as Dr Livingstone. That unlikely fictional pairing led to marriage in 1980. They went on to have three children, Oliver, Leo and Simon.

She was Called to the Bar in 1978, becoming first a pupil of John Jarvis (later QC) in London, and then of Philip Raynor (later Judge Raynor QC in Manchester) in the Chambers that were then at 460 Royal Exchange, and are now Kings Chambers.

When she began pupillage there was no female member of Chambers still in practice. Some of a less progressive view thought that she would go off and have children, and if she returned to practice would not do so full time. How wrong they were. She started off, as one did on circuit at that time, doing every kind of work.

The planning work took a little time to arrive, but when it did, it came in abundance. By 1987 she was junior for Trafford MBC in the Greater Manchester retail inquiry, although in fact doing all the work for its case – and carrying on doing so while pregnant. The greatest and the best from the Planning Bar were there. It lasted for several months, and two of the three proposals were in her client’s Borough. She was completely on top of a substantial case; Silk was plainly inevitable.

In 1993 the Manchester City Council’s case supporting the proposal for the airport’s Second Runway was in need of urgent care and attention. Frances was instructed, put everything in order, so that when the inquiry started in 1994 its case was clear, coherent and very powerful. I felt sorry for our opponents’ witnesses when cross examination got under way.

They might see off the blunderbuss, but then they had to face the elegant rapier wielded by Frances.

Her first application for Silk had been unsuccessful, as it was for many of us. She was adamant that she would not apply again. A team of us, barristers and clerks, worked on her until she had agreed to change her mind. We virtually insisted on watching her sign the form. Her application was of course successful in 1997. She rapidly became the Silk of choice for many developers and authorities. From the major expansion of the University of York to the charging scheme for the Humber Bridge, she cut a swathe through the work.

Preparing and presenting a case for a major scheme at an inquiry involves leading a team, including experts. They loved working with her, and a large amount of work came from experts recommending her to clients.

When preparing a case, Frances could emit some steam from the joints, but never once it started. On her feet, she had a languorous voice and wove a sort of mesmerising charm over witnesses when she cross examined them. As an opponent, if you saw her push her sleeves up over her elbows, it was a sure sign that she was about to reach the bit of cross examination where your witness was reduced to a shadow of his former self, and now wanted to agree with anything that nice Ms Patterson said. Inspectors were no less susceptible. After an opponent had laboured noisily to at least get the Inspector’s attention, Frances would then flash a smile, close her eyes for a

second, utter a languorous phrase or two and then again have the inquiry entirely under her spell.

She became Head of Kings Chambers in 2004, and under her leadership Chambers moved to new premises and purchased both their Manchester and Leeds premises. She was a powerful voice in getting the Administrative Court to move to the regions and in setting up the Northern Administrative Law Association, which had its inaugural meeting at Kings Chambers. In 2005 she became a Bencher of Middle Temple.

In 2010 she left the Bar to become the Public Law Commissioner for England and Wales, and is regarded by fellow Commissioners as having been an outstanding success in that role. She also led a major project on Electoral Law reform, which reported in 2016. She secured funding for individual projects from departments across Whitehall at a time when the Commission’s budget had been severely cut. She also did a great deal to ensure that the Commission was an effective law reform body for Wales. The Care Act 2014 implements the Law Commission recommendations on Adult Social Care in England and Wales for which she was responsible; several of the other projects she led await implementation.

Having been appointed a Deputy High Court judge in 2008, she was appointed a High Court judge in October 2013.

She enjoyed great success as a High Court judge, becoming lead judge of the Planning Court. Her notable cases included the challenge by the Irish National Trust to the development order for Hinckley point. She was also deputy Chair of the Boundary Commission and it was widely considered that she was destined for even greater success. Many of the succeeding generation of female barristers have said that they saw her as a role model of how to combine family and career, and she was generous in giving advice and encouragement to them.

In her career, until her recent illness, she had not taken a single day off through sickness, and was notably fit, having completed the London Marathon and other running events.

Her diagnosis of pancreatic cancer was only two months before her death on 21 December 2016, but before then she had the great joy of seeing her two older sons married.

I was lucky enough to have been her friend and colleague for 36 years. To say that she will be much missed in the High Court, on the Northern Circuit and amongst her wide circle of friends is an understatement. After her death, her life was remembered by a humanist ceremony in Hall, which was overflowing with those who wished to be present.

Frances Patterson died 21 December 2016.

Written by Master Andrew Gilbart.

Obituary: Master Frances Patterson

127

Obituary: Master Richard Hill Rear-Admiral John Richard Hill was born on 25 March 1929 in Merton, Surrey, and spent his early years in Egypt, where his father worked for the Air Ministry. He entered the naval college at its wartime home at Eaton Hall, Cheshire, was cadet captain in his final term and won the Robert Roxburgh prize for top marks in his passing-out examinations. He was a midshipman on the China station 1946–47, passed his sub-lieutenant’s courses with first-class certificates in five subjects, and served almost continuously at sea until 1962.

He specialised as a navigator and impressed with his precise, meticulous and confident ship-handling: one of his feats of pilotage was to take the frigate Cardigan Bay 50 miles up the Rajang river into the heart of Sarawak. Hill was promoted early to commander, but on the ‘dry list’, which meant that he could not expect to command at sea; as, in his words, a ‘words-person’, he found himself at home at a desk in the MoD. There the future First Sea Lord, Sir Henry Leach, described him as ‘outstanding, intelligent, accurate, rapid, and possessed of unremitting application’.

He attended the Imperial Defence College (1965-67) and after a defence fellowship at King’s College, London, he joined the British delegation to the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea. When the delegation tabled draft articles about the freedom of navigation on the high seas and passage rights in territorial waters, he proved particularly adept at lobbying international delegates, including those from the Soviet Union whom he found to be sympathetic. Promoted to captain, he was Defence and Naval Attaché at The Hague from 1975 to 1977. His ambassador reported him to be ‘outstanding’ as an administrator and as a diplomat, and commented that he and his wife entertained beautifully and made many Dutch friends.

In 1977-80 Hill returned to the MoD in the rank of commodore on the Defence Policy Staff. His chief, the future Field Marshal Sir Nigel Bagnall, admired his exemplary ability and integrity.

Hill was Flag Officer, Admiralty Interview Board, from 1981 to 1983 when he retired from the Navy.

The following year he was appointed to the ancient office of Under Treasurer of the Middle Temple, where he remained for 10 years, combining the functions of general manager, finance director, land agent, educationist, student adviser and welfare worker for some of the most opinionated lawyers in the land.

Hill oversaw a minor revolution, including the establishment of an Inns of Court Council, of which he was the first secretary.

Once, when a fire alarm sounded, he was heard to yell: ‘Run you lazy buggers, run!’ While at the Middle Temple, Hill wrote and drafted several books. In total he wrote more than 10 including The Prizes of War (1998), which explored the motivation of the 18th Century Royal Navy, and a masterly biography, Lewin of Greenwich (2000). He wrote on weekdays from 6.30 to 8.30am before commuting for 40 seconds from his flat to his office; on

128

Obituary: Master Richard Hill

Saturday mornings in Hampshire he edited The Naval Review (1983–2002), a quarterly journal in which naval officers debated the higher aspects of their profession. As editor Hill was evenhanded and reasonable.

He was much in demand as a councillor, trustee or chairman of several academic and maritime organisations, and though conventional honours were not his, he was made an Honorary Bencher of the Middle Temple in 1994 and one of the first fellows of the Society for Nautical Research in 2015.

Among his other achievements Hill was from earliest youth a poet, his works published under the pen name ‘Lepidus’; he experimented in many verse forms. His autobiography was an annotated anthology of his own poetry, A Light on Shore (2009). Hill’s one ambition was to write ‘one halfway decent sonnet’, but, a modest man, he wrote that he was ‘not at all displeased’ with this 17-syllable haiku: ‘The tree and the word live for us / each in its kind seeding the future’.

His wife was greeted with a new poem on each birthday. Hill had fallen in love with the 16-year-old Patricia Sales during a visit of the frigate Tintagel Castle to Portland, and it was his present of a book on flower-arranging sent later from the Far East which sparked her interest in Ikebana, resulting in her becoming a master of the art, and president of the UK Ichiyo School of Ikebana. They married in 1956 and she survives him with their son and two daughters.

Rear-Admiral Richard Hill died 25 March 2017.

Extracted from, and reproduced by kind permission, of The Daily Telegraph.

Obituary: Master Richard de Lacy

Richard de Lacy died in hospital in the Cayman Islands at the age of 62. He had been seriously ill for some months.

Richard leaves behind him two daughters and a son (Barbara, Edward and Philippa), and a grandson Felix, of whom he was extremely proud.

He was born and brought up in Hull, and was proud of his Yorkshire roots, though I also recall him mentioning that his family’s roots went back to the Norman Conquest and thereafter to the Welsh Marches.

After schooling at Hymers College, Hull, he was a Classics Scholar at Clare College, Cambridge (1972-75) who then switched to reading law. He was Called to the Bar in July 1976. He took Silk in 2000, and was elected to the Bench in March 2001, which was unusually soon after his promotion to Queen’s Counsel.

His practice was initially in Chancery Chambers, but he moved to what is now 3 Verulam Buildings in 1986 in order to broaden his practice into banking and commercial work. He was there when I joined those Chambers in 2000. Soon after I joined, however, he decided that his best prospects lay in a return to more traditional Chancery practice. He joined 3 Stone Buildings, then under the leadership of Geoffrey Vos QC, in about 2004.

Some eight years later, he decided to take up a position as Head of Dispute Resolution in the Cayman Islands offshoot of the Channel Islands firm of Ogier, and later in association with another firm, FrancisGrey, Attorneys-at-Law, in Grand

Cayman. Throughout his time in the Caribbean, he kept up his tenancy in 3 Stone Buildings, now part of Three Stone.

His move to the Cayman Islands meant that he was much less frequently in the Inn, though he came to the Temple whenever he was in London and in particular attended services in the Temple Church whenever he could.

He served on the Inn’s Scholarship and Prizes Committee for a number of years as well as on the Finance Committee 2004-07. He was also involved in Advocacy training for many years and attended Cumberland Lodge weekends and also spent many evenings teaching on the pupils’ course.

But his interests in serving the profession went well beyond the Middle Temple, with service on the Pegasus Council, on the Barristers’ Benevolent Association, and on the Bar’s Disciplinary Committees.

Richard was also passionate about music, and sang in the Philharmonia Chorus for some years. His interests in Who’s Who were listed as ‘“music, equestrianism, wine’. In that entry lies a clue to the knowledgeability and originality of his character and approach to life in general. A kind and loyal man who was always keen to help others, he will be much missed at the Inn and elsewhere.

Richard de Lacy died 24 July 2017.

Written by Master Michael Blair.

Obituary: Master Richard de Lacy

129

Staff News New Starters The Inn warmly welcomes the following members of staff who have joined in the last year.

Louise Burton, Business Analyst Louise joined the IT Department in July 2016 to oversee the implementation of the new Membership system. Louise has worked in IT for over 20 years concentrating mainly in process management & business analysis both in the private and public sectors.

Christopher Bates, Scholarships Officer Joined in August 2016 as Education Assistant Chris has moved on to take over as Scholarships Officer within the Education Department.

Graduating from Keele University Chris went on to study the BPTC in Birmingham and was called to the Bar by Middle Temple in July 2016. When not at work, he enjoys cooking food from a range of cultures, as well as attending theatre and concert performances on a regular basis.

Migena Toci, HR Administrator Migena joined the Human Resources Department in August 2016, having graduated LLB (Hons) from Kingston University. Migena has completed the CIPD Level 3 course and is currently working on completing CIPD Level 5, a qualification for human resource management professionals. She has a passion for photography and enjoys capturing beautiful sceneries.

Lia Jhala, Membership Services Administrator Lia joined the Membership Department in August 2016 and is the Membership Services Administrator. She assists members with their updates and other membership related operations, social media for upcoming events and is the Assistant Editor of the Middle Templar Magazine. She successfully passed her Apprenticeship in Business Administration and enjoys travelling.

130

Stephen Brown, Accounts Assistant Stephen joined the Finance Department in December 2016 as an Accounts Assistant and he is currently studying CIMA to become a qualified Accountant. He previously worked in the finance department at Boeing Defence UK Ltd. in Bristol after graduating with a degree in Economics & Politics from the University of Plymouth. Stephen also has a keen rugby player and was captain of his previous club.

Aaron Woods, Commis Chef Aaron joined the Catering Department in December 2016 as a Commis Chef, prior to this he worked for Baxterstorey for one year and has 5 years’ experience within the kitchen.

Aaron enjoys cooking in his spare time

Teresa Jackson, CAD Technician Teresa joined as the CAD Technician in December 2016. She has a background in design and has a City and Guilds Certificate in Computer Aided Design. She has worked with a wide range of both private and public sector clients. While working with Shell, IBM and GlaxoSmithKline, she was responsible for ensuring that the master drawings were up to date and organising the office moves. Teresa has worked on several large scale refurbishment projects including HM Treasury, the Home Office and the Allied Irish Bank.

Madeleine Cirdei, Education Office Assistant Maddy joined the Education Department in January 2016. She graduated with an LLB from Warwick University in July 2016, having studied European Law with a year abroad in Paris, and she has a keen interest in energy law. She has previously worked part time in Birmingham as a mentor for Debate Mate, an educational charity. Maddy is an avid salsa dancer and enjoys travelling to salsa congresses abroad.

Adje Evariste, Kitchen Porter Adje joined the Catering Department in January 2017 as a Kitchen Porter. He previously worked for Gordon Ramsay Restaurant at Claridges for 5 years. Prior to that he worked for L'Atelier de Joël Robuchon and Searcy’s at the Gherkin.

Adje enjoys playing sport in his spare time.

Bogdan Neaga, Chef de Partie Bogdan joined the Catering Department in February 2017 as a Chef de Partie. He previously worked for Brasserie Joel and has 7 years’ experience within catering.

Serena Locatelli, PA to the Director of Membership Serena joined the Membership Department in February 2017 as the PA to the Director of Membership and Development. She previously worked at Anthony Gold Solicitors where she was PA to their Family Mediator and had worked for 14 years. She graduated from the Academy of Contemporary Music in Music Business. In her spare time she works as a Freelance Makeup Artist.

Victoria Platt, Projects Archivist Victoria joined the Archive Department in March 2017 after working for three and a half years as an Archives Assistant at the V&A Museum’s Archive of Art and Design. Prior to this, she worked at Queen Mary, University of London Archives and the British Motor Museum Archives. She finally qualified to be an Archivist in 2016 when she was awarded her postgraduate qualification in Archives Administration from the University of Aberystwyth, after three years of self-study. In her spare time she enjoys living history, re-creating historical costume, and participating in Baroque and Renaissance dance.

Harpreet Dhillon, Assistant Librarian Harpreet joined the Library team in April 2017 as the Assistant Librarian.

Alexandra Simion, Demi Chef de Partie Alexandra joined Middle Temple in June 2017 as a Demi Chef de Partie, she previously worked for Brasserie Joel and has 6 years of experience within catering.

Martin Dolby, Security Manager Martin joined the Inn in June 2017. After a 23-year career with the British Army, Martin then worked for several years in Afghanistan as a Security Contractor. Upon his return to the UK he worked as a Security Manager for University College London and then most recently in the same role at the Crown Estate. In his free time, he is an Adult Volunteer with the Army Cadet Force and likes to travel.

Annabelle Michael, Assistant Librarian Annabelle started working as the Library Assistant (Graduate Trainee) in July 2017.

She has just completed an MA in Continental Philosophy at Warwick University, following a BA in English Literature and Philosophy at Lancaster University. She is now hoping to pursue a career in law librarianship.

Alexandra Stan, Events Administrator Alexandra joined the Events Department in July 2017 as the Events Administrator.

Siobhan Cawkwell, Events Supervisor Siobhan is one of our members, she started studying the BPTC in September 2015 after completing a degree in Law at Bournemouth University. She began working as casual staff for the Events Department. In April, Siobhan successfully applied for the position of Events Supervisor. She was Called to the Bar in July 2017 and is looking forward to continuing at Middle Temple until she achieves pupillage nearby. In her spare time, she enjoys playing with her pug and travelling to exciting and exotic lands.

Staff News

131

Middle Temple Calendar 2017-18 Tuesday 3 October 2017 Temple Music Foundation: Masterclass with Julius Drake at Inner Temple Friday 6 October 2017

Music Night: King Masco

Saturday 7 October 2017

Ordinary Dining

Sunday 8 October 2017

Sunday Lunch

Monday 9 October 2017

Guest Lecture: The Rt Hon Lord Hodge

Wednesday 11 October 2017 Temple Music Foundation: Outcry Ensemble at Middle Temple Thursday 12 October 2017

Call Day

Monday 16 October 2017

Scholar’s Dinner

Tuesday 17 October 2017

Bench Call

Thursday 19 October 2017

Private Guest Night

Monday 23 October 2017 Middle Temple Historical Society: Marshall Hall, The Great Defender Sally Smith QC

Thursday 2 November 2017

Karaoke Night

Saturday 4 November 2017 Northern & North-Eastern Circuit Dinner at Aspire, Leeds Monday 6 November 2017 Guest Lecture: Lord Ken MacDonald QC Monday 6 November 2017 Temple Music Foundation: Chamber Concert by IMS Prussia Cove at Inner Temple Tuesday 7 November 2017 Survive and Thrive: The Simple Pursuit of Happiness: How to Achieve Happiness and Health Goals Sunday 12 November Sunday Lunch and Remembrance Sunday Tuesday 14 November 2017 Reader’s Feast: His Honour Richard Havery QC - A Brief History of the Middle Temple Tuesday 14 November 2017

Temple Music Foundation: The Sixteen at Temple Church

Saturday 18 November 2017

CPD Day

Tuesday 24 October 2017

All Inn Dining

Thursday 26 October 2017

Grand Day

Sunday 19 November 2017 Children’s Concert: Saint-Saëns: Carnival of Animals

Monday 30 October 2017

Tasting at the Temple: Bordeaux

Monday 20 November 2017

Bar Choral Society Autumn Concert at Inner Temple

Tuesday 31 October 2017 Temple Music Foundation: Francesca e Francesca at Temple Church

Tuesday 21 November 2017 Music Night: Soraya Mafi and Graham Johnson Thursday 23 November 2017

Call Day

Tuesday 31 October 2017

Tuesday 28 November 2017

Bench Call

Moot Final

Wednesday 29 November 2017 Temple Music Foundation: Ian Bostridge at Middle Temple Thursday 30 November 2017

Private Guest Night

Monday 4 December 2017 Tasting at the Temple: Champagne Wednesday 6 December 2017

Christmas Lunch I

Thursday 7 December 2017

Christmas Lunch II

Monday 11 to Friday 15 December 2017

Temple Music Foundation Winter Festival

Tuesday 12 December 2017

Parliament Dinner (Benchers only)

Wednesday 13 December 2017

Christmas Lunch III

Thursday 14 December 2017

Christmas Lunch IV

Thursday 14 December 2017

Revels

Friday 15 December 2017

Revels

Sunday 17 December 2017

Carol Service Lunch

Thursday 21 December 2017 Hall closes after Lunch and Michaelmas Term ends

132

C e l e b r a t i n g L u x u r y S i lv e r

Thursday 4 January 2018

Hall re-opens for Lunch

Wednesday 9 May 2018

New Silks’ Reception

Tuesday 15 May 2018

Survive & Thrive

Tuesday 16 January 2018 Middle Temple Historical Society

Thursday 17 May 2018

Annual Dinner

Monday 21 May 2018

London Legal Walk

Tuesday 23 January 2018

All Inn Dining

Saturday 27 January 2018

Burns’ Night

Saturday 3 February 2018

Cambridge Society Dinner (at Clare College, Cambridge)

Monday 5 February 2018

Tasting at the Temple: Sherry

Tuesday 6 February 2018

Bench Call

• T: +44 (0) 207 242 0518

Friday 25 May 2018

Easter Term ends

Tuesday 5 June 2018

Trinity Term begins

Wednesday 6 June 2018 Amity Dinner at Inner Temple (Benchers only) Monday 11 June 2018

Moot Semi-final

Friday 16 February 2018

Tuesday 12 June 2018

Bench Call

Monday 18 June 2018

Moot Semi-final

Music Night: Callum Au Big Band

Saturday 17 February 2018

Ordinary Dining Night

Sunday 18 February 2018

Sunday Lunch

Monday 19 February 2018

Guest Lecture

Thursday 22 February 2018

Private Guest Night

Thursday 1 March 2018

Survive & Thrive

Tuesday 6 March 2018

Academics Dinner

Thursday 8 March 2018

Call Day

Thursday 22 March 2018

Private Guest Night

Monday 26 March 2018

Bench Call

Friday 28 March 2018

Hilary Term ends

Tuesday 10 April 2018 Music Night: Southbank Sinfonia and Stephanie Childress. Easter Term begins

E: sales@johnsurtees.co.uk

Monday 22 May 2018 Music Night: Anna Huntley and James Baillieu

Tuesday 13 February 2018 Reader’s Feast: His Honour Jeremy Connor

Saturday 3 March 2018 Circuit Judges Dinner at Middle Temple Hall

Vault 16, 53-64 Chancery Lane, London Silver Vaults, London, WC2A 1QS

Saturday 5 and Sunday 6 May 2018 Four Jurisdictions Law Conference in Belfast

Wednesday 10 January 2018 Treasurer’s Reception and Evensong (Benchers only).

Hilary Term begins

Tuesday 17 April 2018

Bench Call

Monday 23 April 2018

Oxford Society Dinner

Thursday 26 April 2018

Private Guest Night

Tuesday 19 June 2018 BACFI and Temple Employed Bar Forum Garden Party Monday 25 June 2018

All Inn Dining

Tuesday 26 June 2018

Music Night: Nash Ensemble

Monday 2 July 2018 Temple Women’s Forum Garden Party at Inner Temple Tuesday 3 July 2018

Middle Temple Garden Party

Sunday 8 July 2018 Temple Big Picnic at Inner Temple Tuesday 10 July 2018

Bench Call

Thursday 19 July 2018

Private Guest Night

Thursday 26 July 2018

Call Day

Tuesday 31 July 2018

Trinity Term ends

Friday 3 August 2018

Hall closes after Lunch

Monday 3 September 2018

Hall re-opens for Lunch

The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting was established to fulfil a single, core mission: to consistently and authoritatively monitor, explain and disseminate new law-changing cases.

Over 150 years on from our founding and untrammelled by the constraints of print publishing, we are building on that original mission by launching an all new Open Law platform that combines ICLR’s expert legal draftsmanship and curation with the power of Big Data.

The Honourable Society of the Middle Temple

THE OPEN LAW PLATFORM FOR ENGLAND AND WALES

• Free access to a vast collection of case law

Judgments handed down in the Court of Appeal, Administrative Court and other divisions of the High Court from 2000 to the present day are available to all, free of charge. In addition, we’re opening up ICLR’s index of leading case law dating back to 1865 for the very first time.

• Intuitive, Google-style searching

Merely publishing a large amount of legal material and making it freely available isn’t enough: the search engine behind the content needs to be powerful and forgiving. The full power of our subscription service search engine is available in front of the paywall. Search by case name, citation, judge, subject matter and free text from a single search box that makes suggestions as you type.

• Overnight case summaries

Case summaries that explain the key facts and legal holdings are available for every case of interest and value within 24 hours of the judgment and are written by the same reporters who produce reports for The Law Reports and The Weekly Law Reports.

• Personalisation

Customise ICLR.3 to show you the content that matters to you.

Find out more at iclr.co.uk/open-law

#freethelaw Ease. Power. Clarity. Authority.

@TheICLR

Issue 57 Michaelmas 2017

Alongside our free open law service, we also offer our professional edition, designed to make your case law research as intuitive and focused as possible.

The Middle Templar Issue 57 Michaelmas 2017