At the Bar - December 2019

At The Bar December 2019

2019-2020 Council Farewell to Executive Director Making the Future Possible www.nzbar.org.nz

Get a Sweet Deal on Lexis® Draft

Save 25% off the RRP for Lexis Draft and Lexis Draft Pro* Make your next drafting task the sweetest part of your day! For a limited time, we’re offering 25% OFF the RRP (excluding GST) for Lexis Draft and Lexis Draft Pro licenses. Sink your teeth into intuitive editing and proofreading features that reduce review time from hours to minutes by choosing the Lexis Draft that’s right for you: Lexis Draft

Lexis Draft Pro

Microsoft® Word and Outlook Integration Analytical & Legal Research through Lexis Advance® PDF Converter Collaborative Work Folders PermaLink to Cases and Legislation Language Editing with WordRake Proofreading & Risk Assessment

Take advantage of this special offer TODAY! Visit info.lexisnexis.co.nz/LexisDraftSWEETDEAL or call 0800 800 986.

LexisNexis.co.nz | Lexis Draft Sweet Deal

LexisNexis, Lexis Draft Pro, Lexis Draft, and the Knowledge Burst logo are registered trademarks of RELX Inc. © 2019 LexisNexis NZ Limited. All rights reserved.

MP102019CC

*Lexis Draft and Lexis Draft Pro SWEET DEAL Discount Offer Terms & Conditions: Offer is valid 21st October 2019 through 20th December 2019, 5:00pm NZT. Discount is limited to new LexisNexis® subscribers of Lexis Draft or Lexis Draft Pro for the entire term of the license including renewal terms.

Subject to the terms of the Lexis Draft and Lexis Draft Pro End User License Agreement set forth at http://www.lexisnexis.com.au/drafting/lexisdraft/termsandconditions, product trials in relation to this offer will be conducted from 21st October 2019 until 13th December 2019, 5:00pm NZT with no trial extensions. Contact a LexisNexis Representative to discuss multiple-license pricing options for the Lexis Draft and Lexis Draft Pro Discount Offer.

Offer is only valid in New Zealand and cannot be combined with any other discounts.

p4

p13

p33

p38

YOUR ASSOCIATION pg 4 From the President – Kate Davenport QC pg 7 Interview with Outgoing Executive Director,

Melissa Perkin pg 9 Your NZBA Council – Profiles of the NZBA Council Members pg 12 New Members pg 38 Conference 2019 – report and pictures pg 43 Auckland Christmas Drinks LEGAL MATTERS pg 11 Making the Future Possible – Lawyers for

Climate Action NZ pg 13 Zhang v R – an update on meth sentencing guidelines pg 22 Eleventh Annual Sentencing Advocacy

Competition – a report pg 24 Minimum Wage Act and legal workers – an

outline from the Aotearoa Legal Workers Union PRACTICE AND LIFESTYLE pg 17 Band Four Chocolate Cake – a recipe from @

StrictlyObiter inspired by the Zhang case pg 18 Private Investigations – what a private investigator

brings to your case pg 19 A Simple Guide to Saving Time, Money and the

Planet – using unified communications in your practice pg 28 Aligning Sustainability Values with Investment

Goals – is there a win/win? pg 26 Can You Afford to Be Off Work? – the benefits of

income protection pg 31 A Win For the Rule of Law – member benefit

partner, LexisNexis, is honoured for its work pg 33 Switched on Corner – petrol cars give way to zero

emission electric cars in this issue

p39 The views expressed in the articles in publication may not necessarily be the views of the New Zealand Bar Association.

EDITORIAL COMMITTEE David O’Neill - Chair Tel: +64 7 839 1745 Email: david.oneill@nzbarrister.com Melissa Perkin Tel: +64 9 303 4515 Email: melissa.perkin@nzbar.org.nz

Jacqui Thompson (Contributions & Advertising) Tel: +64 9 303 4515 Email: jacqui.thompson@nzbar.org.nz DESIGN AND LAYOUT BY Kirsten McLeod Tel: +64 9 834 2224

NEW ZEALAND BAR ASSOCIATION Tel: +64 9 303 4515 Email: nzbar@nzbar.org.nz Web: www.nzbar.org.nz PO Box 631 Auckland 1140

President’s Report

by Kate Davenport QC*

Kia ora koutou I hope, like me, that you are all looking forward to your summer break.

I think we all deserve it! Looking back over the four months since our last issue, I realise how much has been packed into that time. As usual this column is only a summary of some of those events, and a lot more happens behind-the-scenes, but I hope it gives you a flavour of the hard work that the NZBA does.

Resignation of Executive Director Our Executive Director, Melissa Perkin, has resigned in order to take up an exciting new role that will not only utilise her existing talents, but will provide her with a new career challenge. While we are happy for her sake, we are sad to see her go after almost 9 years.

Melissa has helped the Association grow and expand its activities over the time she has been with us. It is hard to pick out any one area, but we can certainly highlight her work in expanding our member benefits portfolio to the point where we now offer approximately 50 different benefits, all of which can be accessed via an app – which she has driven.

There have been several challenges over her tenure, particularly with difficult submissions on legislation. Melissa’s legal background has been of immense benefit to us in this work. It has also helped us with our media statements and interactions with the public.

On behalf of the Council and the Secretariat, as well as the wider membership, I wish Melissa all the best and thank her for the work she has done for us.

Queen's Counsel I would like to warmly congratulate the recently announced Silk appointees. They are: Stephen Hunter, Julie-Anne Kincade, Simon Foote, and Professor Janet McLean (all from Auckland); Nicolette Levy and Karen Feint from Wellington; Len Andersen from Dunedin; and Jonathan Temm from Rotorua.

This is a significant achievement for you all and I wish you the very best as you more forward in your careers.

Council news Following our election earlier this year, we have several new Council members. I was able to thank outgoing members of the 2018-2019 Council at our Gala Dinner at the Annual Conference and I do so again here. They are: Jenny Cooper QC, Maria Dew QC, Angela Corry, Lisa Hansen, Lara Steel, Rob Stevens, Dean Tobin and Sam Wimsett.

Under our rules, we can co-opt an additional three members to the Council, which we have done, and Josh McBride and Michael Webb will be rejoining us along with new junior representative, Sam Jeffs. We are also very pleased to note that Quentin Duff will be joining the Council, initially as an observer, and will also help with matters relating to tikanga and te Ao Māori. Profiles of the Council members appear on p9.

www.nzbar.org.nz

4

Before this year’s Annual Conference, we held a Council meeting. We took the opportunity of having not only Council members, but also the Secretariat, in the same place at the same time and undertook a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) Analysis. This allowed us to turn a lens on where the Association is now, where we would like it to be and how we are going to get there.

We will use this information to make plans for the future. It has already identified some opportunities for us and some improvements that we can make. Thank you to Maria Dew QC for facilitating this process.

Joint ABA/NZBA conference The inaugural Australian Bar Association/New Zealand Bar Association joint conference was held in August in Queenstown. I can confidently say that it was highly successful and that we all very much enjoyed it. The sessions were interesting and thought provoking, and I was pleased to see that the discussions around the various topics continued after the sessions had ended.

There were many people on both sides of the Tasman who made this event successful, but in respect of our own contributors, I want to thank Simon Foote for his work on the programme. Simon was also part of the winning debate team from the Gala Diner, along with Kathryn Dalziel. A more detailed Conference report appears on p38.

NZBA Committees Due to limited newsletter space, I can only note a few of the highlights from the last four months. I will be writing to committee members to thank them for their help with the work of the Association, but I would like to publicly acknowledge that work now.

Access to Justice: I have been working closely with the Access to Justice team, particularly on legal aid reform issues. We have had significant consultation with the Ministry of Justice, including the Secretary for Justice, which has proved extremely useful. We have been able to feed in our suggestions for change and improvement in the provider experience. This is an ongoing process and we will be reporting to the membership as we progress.

Criminal: It has been a very busy few months for our Criminal Committee and unfortunately it looks as if some of that work will spill over into the summer break, as we will be submitting on the Sexual Violence Bill. The closing date for submissions is 31 January 2020. We have a working group that is examining the proposed legislation to determine which provisions we support, and which we feel require change. If you have any comments that you would like to share with that group, please send them to SVW@nzbar.org.nz. The Committee has also provided feedback for the Ministry of Justice on the appropriateness of current experience levels for criminal legal aid suppliers.

Diversity: Our Diversity and Inclusion Committee has also been very busy. We have gained partial funding from the Law Foundation to further our research on the gender of counsel appearing in the Senior Courts. This funding will allow us to extend the research for a further two years and provide meaningful data that will allow us to propose improvements.

We were very pleased to have been a sponsor of the inaugural Pacific Lawyers Association Conference this year. The new chair of our Diversity Committee, Setareh Stienstra, spoke at the conference. She reported that the event was very worthwhile, and she will be feeding her key learnings back to the Committee.

Law Reform: The Association has made a submission on Te Ture Whenua Māori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill. It concludes that the changes proposed by the Bill to expedite efficiency in the processes and procedures of the Māori Land Court are directed at, and on an objective, view will facilitate, enhanced access to justice in material respects by those engaging with the Māori Land Court. We would like to thank Tim Castle for drafting the submission and Karen Feint for her comments on this issue. This submission will be made available on our website shortly.

We have been working with the Rules Committee on civil justice reforms and have provided feedback on several proposals. In particular, we have done a significant amount of work on proposals for the introduction of a shorter causes hearing procedure for the High Court. Our thanks go to Clive Elliott QC and Felix Geiringer and the rest of the team who have worked on this.

www.nzbar.org.nz

5

Chris Gudsell QC addresses the Faculty at the Workshop

Training: The NZBA held its Mastering Appellate Advocacy Workshop on 19 October 2019 at the Wellington High Court. We were very fortunate to work with Crown Law in putting together this workshop. The faculty included two Supreme Court judges, four Court of Appeal judges, two High Court judges and two Deputy Solicitors-General. The coaches included senior counsel from the bar and Crown Law. The workshop was hard work for all, but the feedback was overwhelmingly positive and reinforces how useful these courses are. I would like to thank all those who participated and especially Chris Gudsell QC, James Rapley QC, Charlotte Brook and the rest of the Mastering Advocacy Course Committee for organising and running this workshop.

Other activities I want to quickly mention three events out of the many that I attended. The first was the annual Ethel Benjamin address, which each year is given by a senior woman member of the profession or the judiciary. This year it was given by Solicitor-General Una Jagose QC and her speech was both inspiring and thought provoking. I congratulate her on it. If you want to listen to the address, it is available on You Tube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWclIznyKwg Members will recall that Ethel was admitted a year after women were permitted to become lawyers in 1897. It is fair to say that the male members of the profession were not kind to her. Only one man would walk with her in procession for the 1902 opening of the Dunedin law courts and the Law Society refused to allow her to attend its dinners and tried to impose a dress code on her.

Today, things are very different for women, but if there is one thing that we have learned over the last few years, it is that we cannot rest on our laurels. We urgently need to address cultural issues that are preventing women from progressing to senior ranks in law and are inhibiting entry, participation and progression by ethnically diverse people, including MÄ ori, Pasifika and Asian.

This was a theme that I took up when I addressed the court at the special sitting to mark the 150th anniversary of the New Zealand Law Society, in Auckland when I spoke on behalf of the NZBA. The Law Society is central to the structure and regulation of the legal profession and it was important to mark this anniversary, and to consider how the legal profession must change to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse society.

We commend the Law Society for undertaking its recently announced review.

We also held a networking event in early November in Auckland on Corporate Conduct, Regulation and the Courts – Where are we at and where to from here? Speakers included Antonia Watson, Acting CEO of ANZ Bank; David Bricklebank, ANZ General Counsel; Scott McKinnon from the Reserve Bank; Jane Anderson QC; and Michael Webb (who helped to organise the event). I briefly addressed the audience on the advantages of briefing a barrister and then the panel each considered the legal and social context of corporate responsibility. Thank you to Michael for all his efforts and to the ANZ Bank for providing the venue.

And finally In a personal career achievement, I was honoured to be appointed a Master of the Bench (or Bencher) of the Middle Temple (one of the four Inns of Court in the United Kingdom). Masters are elected by their peers. This was the first time in the history of the call ceremony that all of the new Masters were women. *Kate Davenport QC is the President of the New Zealand Bar Association. If you have any questions or comments about this column, please email president@nzbar.org.nz.

www.nzbar.org.nz

6

Interview with Outgoing Executive Director, Melissa Perkin Our Executive Director over the last (almost) nine years, Melissa Perkin, is moving on to a new role at the New Zealand Dispute Resolution Centre. While some of us will continue to see her through connections with that company, we will still miss her. In this interview, she reflects on her time with the Association and how it has changed since she first joined.

What was the organisation like when you first joined?

I started with the Bar Association in March 2011, following on from the first full time Executive Director Monique Pearson. During Monique’s term of over four years, there were numerous achievements including the creation of a business model, new Council structure, improved members’ services, the introduction of training and mentoring programmes, social events and enhancements to the website, newsletter and annual conference. She did this very effectively.

earning opportunities such as sponsorship and commissions from external suppliers.

This has been a big focus of my time with the Association. I have very much enjoyed working with these suppliers. It wouldn’t be possible to hold our annual conference without the significant financial contributions from our sponsors. Commission income has provided a much-needed injection of funds to enable the Association to continue to grow in its services to members and other activities.

We also had to look at our member benefit offerings. We already had a very successful professional indemnity insurance scheme in place, which has continued to grow. We have expanded our member benefit offerings from the insurance and a handful of other benefits, to the point where we now can offer benefits with over 50 companies.

My mandate was to continue to grow the membership, introduce new initiatives and revenue streams and to also drive forward the NZBA’s other strategic ideals. The NZBA wanted to widen its profile so that it was recognised as a representative body for all of those at the bar. There was a perception that it was mainly commercial and mainly Auckland-based.

We launched a member benefit app 3 years ago for members to download to their phones so that they could easily access these benefits. With the improvements in technology, we made the decision earlier this year to upgrade the app, so we can offer a new range of benefits called Benefits +. A considerable amount of work has gone into this new app, and it will be launched to members very soon.

Over the last few years, we have grown the membership numbers by 57%. Some of this growth was the result of changes to the membership structure in 2011 which saw the Public Defence Service join as a corporate associate member, and there has also been steady growth in the number of barristers joining.

We are also participating much more in the international arena. Our President is a member of the Council of the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration, and our Presidents speak at each World Bar Conference, the next one which is being held in Hong Kong in March next year. This year, our President Kate Davenport QC spoke at an IBA Conference in Budapest. In addition, we have strengthened our ties with the Australian Bar Association, particularly through participating in advocacy training and have recently held a successful joint conference with them in Queenstown.

We have also concentrated more on the regions outside of Auckland. The Association’s membership reaches from Northland through to Southland. One of the key changes is that the increased use of technology has allowed us to communicate more effectively with members around the country, as well as offer a greater range of services, such as online training, across the country.

In what other areas has the Association grown?

An important part of my role was to ensure the financial well-being of the Association so that it could achieve its objectives. We quickly realised that we had to look at a range of income

www.nzbar.org.nz

How has the Secretariat changed?

When I started, the only other member of staff was our Administrator Lisa Mills, who I am very pleased to say is still here! We later introduced

7

another part-time position for a Training Director and Jacqui Thompson joined us. Jacqui’s role later became full-time. This allowed me to concentrate more on the higher-level work, including dealing with submissions, liaising with other professional organisations, and our stakeholders.

was a significant undertaking both in time and financial resources, but it was critical as we had outgrown our old system.

We also moved some of our training on to a webinar platform which has made it a lot more accessible and more cost effective, and it is able to be accessed on demand.

With the increase in the Association’s activities, we realised that we needed some more support for administrative activities such as accounts and membership. We were lucky enough to find Dianne Tietjens who works for the Association part-time.

A relatively recent change is the use of online meetings – this has been revolutionary in its impact and provides greater convenience as well as time and cost savings.

Another example of improvements from technology is the recent adoption of board management software, BoardPro, which is being used for Council and Committee meetings. The time savings are considerable, and we no longer have to print large bundles of documents at considerable cost and environmental impact.

You mentioned submissions and liaising with other bodies. What did you bring to this role?

I hold a practising certificate as a barrister.

In addition to being at the Bar before coming into this role, I have previously worked for the Ministry of Justice as well as having spent time at another professional body which in part involved regulatory work. My legal background has been invaluable when reviewing submissions that we have prepared in response to proposed legislation, assessing reports and proposals from organisations involved in law reform and legal practice.

Has training changed since you started with the Association?

Yes, definitely. Apart from the development of the webinars, we have developed our Mastering Advocacy Programme, which delivers practical litigation skills training. This programme is modelled on best practice equivalents used in Australia, Hong Kong, Malaysia and the United Kingdom. We have received extremely positive responses, not just from the participants, but from members of the judiciary who have participated.

How is the Association positioning itself the future?

In 2017, the Council resolved to adopt a strategic plan and I was one of those involved in the drafting process. This is an important document that provides a blueprint for our activities and what we want to focus on.

Our Annual Conference sits outside the general training programme but of course does have a training element. This has grown over the years in size and remains a flagship event on our calendar. We also introduced a series of optional social activities to be undertaken at the end of the formal programme, that have proved to be highly popular. And, of course, we have hosted two international conferences with the World Bar Conference in 2014 and our first joint conference with the Australian Bar Association this year.

With the rate of change, preparing for the future is a significant challenge and it is difficult – if not impossible – to plan too far ahead. The technology revolution means that we are on shifting sands and have to be agile enough to adapt to the latest changes.

The Secretariat recognises this and there is a strong commitment from all staff to continuously improve the delivery of services to members. This is after all, a core function of the Association.

Are there any other developments that you are particularly pleased with?

Well, there are certainly too many to include here, but I would like to mention our work on diversity, access to justice and our improved mentoring programme. The Council, committee members and the Secretariat have worked incredibly hard on these developments and I have been delighted with the response and commitment. We have achieved some significant breakthroughs in these areas.

How has technology affected future planning?

One of the key responses to this was to look at the technology we were using. Shortly after I arrived at the Association, we looked at our financial management system. It was clear that we need something much more sophisticated that was able to give us more information on our financial activities. We changed to Xero, which has vastly improved the situation.

In 2016/2017 we changed our client relationship management system (CRM) and website. This

www.nzbar.org.nz

continued on page 25...

8

Your New Council 2019 -2020 KATE DAVENPORT QC President (Auckland) Kate is entering her second year as President, following a very busy first year. In addition to representing the Association at a range of ceremonial events (including the former Chief Justice’s Valedictory sitting and the Swearing-in of the new Chief Justice), Kate travelled to Budapest where she was member of a panel speaking on issues around bullying and discrimination. Kate has also been working hard with the Access to Justice committee on initiatives to improve legal aid and encourage pro bono services. In a personal career highlight, in a call ceremony in the UK on 26 November, Kate was elected as a Master of the Bench (or Bencher) of the Middle Temple.

QUENTIN DUFF - Observer (Auckland) A criminal litigation specialist, Quentin is Head of chambers at Matai Chambers in Auckland.

He graduated LLM from Victoria University of Wellington in 1997 and joined Kensington Swan the following year. He practised as a barrister on his own for 16 years before founding Matai Chambers. He has appeared as trial counsel and appellate counsel in the various courts of New Zealand. He has acted in transTasman disputes, Securities Act/Ordinance matters and prepared materials for cases in New Zealand, Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia and China. These cases include fraud, misleading information in a prospectus, intellectual property, employment, smuggling to murder. He has also acted for MNC providing opinions on various internal matters. Quentin is initially joining the Council as an observer.

PAUL RADICH QC President-Elect (Wellington) After a short break, Paul has rejoined the Council as President Elect. He practises out of Clifton Chambers in Wellington. Paul joined the bar in 2012, having been a litigation partner with Izard Weston, Bell Gully and Minter Ellison Rudd Watts. His practice includes general commercial litigation as well as public law, judicial review and constitutional law proceedings, including working on Treaty and Māori and matters. Paul took silk in 2014. Paul will work closely with Kate Davenport to ensure a seamless transition in October 2020.

JONATHAN EATON QC (Canterbury) Jonathan has been a member of the Council and Vice-President South Island since 2015. He was also a member of Council from 2005 to 2010. Jonathan is a member of the NZBA’s Management Committee as well as serving as the Chair of the Criminal and Law Reform Committees. He has the responsibility for the implementation of objective 4 of the NZBA’s Strategic Plan, namely, to ensure the NZBA is recognised as the voice of the independent bar. Jonathan has a strong interest in training and the development of pathways for a career at the independent bar and is a member of the NZBA’s Mastering Advocacy Faculty.

PHILLIP CORNEGÉ (Waikato/Bay of Plenty) Phillip Cornegé has been a member of the NZBA Training Committee for some time, as well as serving on its Technology Committee. He conducts training for the Association on running paperless hearings.

Phillip recently joined the Mastering Advocacy Faculty in Wellington to provide specialist support on using E-Casebooks in court. He helped with the redrafting of the Senior Courts revised 2019 Electronic Document Protocol. Phillip is an experienced trial and appellate lawyer, and has appeared several times in the Court of Appeal.

www.nzbar.org.nz

SIMON FOOTE (Auckland) Simon is a barrister at Bankside Chambers with a commercial litigation and arbitration practice. He went to the Bar in 2002, after working at major firms in Wellington, Auckland and London, and as a Crown Prosecutor in Palmerston North.

He was Deputy Chair of the 2014 World Bar

9

Conference at Queenstown and the NZ Bar Conference at Napier in 2015, then Chair of the 2016 Conference at Taupo, 2017 Conference at Blenheim, and the 2018 30th Anniversary Conference at Rotorua. He chaired this year’s joint NZBA/ABA conference in Queenstown.

Simon also serves on the Association’s Diversity and Inclusion Committee and the Access to Justice Committee, chairs the Membership Committee and participates as an advocacy trainer in the NZBA Mastering Advocacy Faculty.

JOSH McBRIDE (Auckland) Josh has been co-opted to Council. He joined the independent bar in 2010 and was a founding member of Richmond Chambers in 2014.

His practice is largely focussed on commercial litigation, although he also has an administrative law practice. Josh served on Council in 2018 – 2019 and was a member of the Mastering Advocacy Cross-Examination Faculty. Josh is the Chair of the Practice and Bar Care Committee and serves on our Technology Committee. He assisted with law reform issues relating to the 2019 Senior Courts Electronic Documents Protocol revision and the Arms Act legislation that followed the Christchurch Mosque killings.

FELIX GEIRINGER (Wellington) Wellington barrister, Felix Geiringer, practises in a broad range of legal fields. He has acted in a number of recent high-profile matters including representing Sir Tim Shadbolt in a successful defence of a defamation claim; representing Toni Waho in his successful trust law claim against Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust; and representing Nicky Hager in his judicial review and public law damages claims against the New Zealand Police. Felix’s recent cases also include matters involving commercial and company law, arbitration, administrative law, land law, professional discipline, inquiries, tort law, te Tiriti o Waitangi, sports law, and criminal appeals.

He frequently appears in the appellate courts, including multiple appearances in the New Zealand Supreme Court and the Privy Council.

Felix has joined the NZBA Access to Justice, Law Reform, and Annual Conference Committees.

SAM JEFFS - Junior Rep* (Auckland) Sam is a civil and commercial barrister with broad experience.

He had advised and acted for parties in a range of disputes arising from contracts, joint ventures, shareholdings, construction projects, trusts and estates, and employment relationships. Sam has appeared in a number of courts, including successfully in the Supreme Court, and various specialist tribunals. He also regularly assists arbitral tribunals determining international commercial disputes. Sam’s career has always been at the bar, having been employed by Sir David Williams QC, Philip Skelton QC and Kelly Quinn at Bankside Chambers, He is himself now a member of Bankside.

This is Sam’s first term on the NZBA Council. Sam was co-opted to Council and is on the Law Reform, Membership and Promotion of the Bar Committees.

www.nzbar.org.nz

10

RICHARD McGUIRE Associate Member Rep (Canterbury) Richard is a Senior Duty Lawyer Supervisor with the Public Defence Service, a position that he has held since 2011. Prior to that, he was a director in a firm in Christchurch where his practice included criminal defence law, family law and general practice. He held appointments as lawyer for child and as a youth advocate.

He was admitted to the bar in 1991. This is Richard’s first term as a member of the NZBA Council. He is a member of both the Criminal Committee and the Access to Justice Committee. He believes that access to justice remains an important issue for the Association, the wider profession and the community.

TIHO MIJATOV Junior Rep* (Wellington) Tiho is a barrister at Stout Street Chambers, Wellington.

His particular expertise and interest is in providing public law advice and advocacy. Before joining chambers, Tiho was a judge’s clerk at the Court of Appeal, where he gained wide experience in civil and criminal law. Tiho has been a junior barrister representative on Council since 2016.

He has worked on several initiatives, including as junior counsel (written submissions) for the New Zealand Bar Association and New Zealand Law Society as interveners in Fahey v R [2017] NZCA 596 (Court of Appeal). He contributes

to the NZBA's junior barrister membership and mentoring programmes. He is on the NZBA’s Law Reform, Membership and Practice and Bar Care Committees.

He regularly appears in the Invercargill, Gore and Queenstown District Courts representing defendants on a wide variety of criminal charges. Jono has represented appellants in both the High Court and Court of Appeal. He also has experience appearing before the New Zealand Parole Board. He is on the Criminal and Membership Committees.

DAVID O’NEILL - Treasurer (Waikato/Bay of Plenty) David was formerly a partner at O’Neill Allen & Parker, where he ran the litigation section of the firm until October 1995, when he left to join the bar.

His practice includes civil/ commercial litigation, intellectual property and insolvency law. He is also an arbitrator and has recently, with barrister Melanie O’Neill, launched an online dispute resolution service called “Setting the Bar” which focuses on mediating and arbitrating disputes, mostly below $100,000. David has served on the NZBA Council for several years as VicePresident (Waikato/Bay of Plenty), Secretary, Treasurer and Editor in Chief of the Association’s Newsletter, At the Bar. He is on the NZBA Bar Care Panel and is the Member Benefits Rep on the Membership Committee.

SETAREH STIENSTRA (Auckland) Setareh has hit the ground running in her first term on the NZBA Council. She has taken over chairing the Diversity and Inclusion Committee, as well as joining the Annual Conference and Law Reform Committees.

She recently attended the Pacific Lawyers Association conference on behalf of the NZBA. Setareh is based at Southern Cross Chambers with a practice in public law, property and general civil litigation associated with public law and property. She has been at the independent bar for 6 years and prior to that held Senior Associate roles at Simpson Grierson and Kensington Swan. She commenced practice in 1999. Being of Kurdish and Armenian descent, diversity at the independent bar and in the legal profession generally is a matter that Setareh cares deeply about.

SIMATIVA PERESE (Auckland) Simativa was admitted in 1990 and his career has been for the most part at the independent bar, practising in civil litigation. He has also acted on an inquiry called by the then Prime Minister Helen Clark; prosecuted on behalf of the Attorney General of Samoa; and appeared at all levels of courts in New Zealand, Samoa, and the Cook Islands. Simativa was the inaugural president of the Pacific Lawyers Association between 2002 and 2004. He was the Cabinet appointed chair of the National Pacific Radio Trust, which set up and operated the Niu FM radio network across New Zealand for Pacific People between 2002 and 2007. Simativa sits on the NZBA Diversity and Inclusion and Access to Justice Committees.

ANNE TOOHEY (Canterbury) Anne is a barrister at Canterbury Chambers in Christchurch and has a general practice in civil, employment and criminal litigation. Prior to joining the independent bar, she worked from admission in 1996 as a civil and criminal litigator in Wellington and Christchurch. She was a Crown prosecutor and then Crown counsel for 13 years.

Anne has been an advocacy trainer for the NZ Police and for PILON (Pacific Island Law Officer Network) for over 10 years, and has written many training materials, as well as co-writing a text-book in relation to advocacy. Anne is a member of our Annual Conference Committee, Criminal Committee, Membership Committee and Training and CPD Sub-Committee.

JONO ROSS (Southland Otago) Jono has joined the Bar Council as the Southland Otago Rep. Jono commenced work as a barrister sole in June 2017 following eight years in practice developing a speciality in criminal defence advocacy.

www.nzbar.org.nz

11

ESTHER WATT (Wellington) Esther was motivated to join the independent bar by her wish to focus on advocacy and the ability to promote access to justice by acting on a range of matters and for a range of clients, including in a pro bono capacity. Esther is keen to become involved in the initiatives outlined in the NZBA strategic plan. She is also keen to foster the collegiality of the independent bar and to promote it as a fulfilling career option to other litigators, particularly those at an intermediate level. Now in her second term on the NZBA Council, Esther is on the Law Reform Committee and is Co-Chair of the Annual Conference committee. She also appeared with James Rapley QC on behalf of the Association as intervenor in the recent methamphetamine guideline case, Zhang v R.

MICHAEL WEBB (Auckland) Michael has been co-opted and is in his second term on the NZBA Council. He commenced practice at the independent bar in 1995. He works principally in the areas of commercial, financial markets and government law. His work includes advice, negotiation, and dispute resolution as well as law and policy reform.

Michael is based predominantly in Auckland and Wellington, as well as in the Pacific. Michael has governance experience on the boards of public and private sector entities, including, until 2016, the Financial Markets Authority. Michael is on the Commercial Bar Sub-Committee and the Membership Committee. * A Junior Barrister is one who has been in practice for less than seven (7) years since admission.

New Members Will Anglin

DUNEDIN

Yoon Lee

AUCKLAND

Taryn Bayley

TAURANGA

Timothy (Tim) Lindsay

AUCKLAND

Isabelle Boyd

AUCKLAND

Donald (Don) Mackinnon

AUCKLAND AUCKLAND

Anna St Clair Brosnahan

WHANGANUI

Jessica Matheson

Rachel Burt

WELLINGTON

David Mayall

Karen Chalmers Roanna Chan Tracy Chubb Kerry Clark Amanda Courtney Jordan Curtis Hannah Cuthill Chris Dellabarca

Meryl Mikkelsen

CHRISTCHURCH

Robin O'Hair

WELLINGTON AUCKLAND ADELAIDE KAITAIA AUCKLAND

Tracy Flintoff

CHRISTCHURCH

John Hannan

AUCKLAND

QUEENSLAND AUCKLAND

Carter Pearce

AUCKLAND

Rebecca Rose

AUCKLAND

Davey Salmon

AUCKLAND

Sija Spaak

WELLINGTON

AUCKLAND

Thomas (Tom) Pasley

Karyn South

NELSON

HAMILTON

Emily Stenhouse-White Ruth Thomas

CHRISTCHURCH WELLINGTON AUCKLAND NELSON

Caroline Hannan

WELLINGTON

Shaye Thomas

HAMILTON

Nicola Keating

WELLINGTON

Carolina Tiumalu

AUCKLAND

Panama Le'Au'Anae

AUCKLAND

Rachael Woods

AUCKLAND

You Sun Lee

AUCKLAND

Ting-Chung (Danny) Wu

AUCKLAND

www.nzbar.org.nz

12

Making the Future Possible

by Jacqui Thompson*

Pour ce qui est de l’avenir, il ne s’agit pas de le prévoir, mais de le rendre possible.“ – Antoine de Saint Exupéry, Citadelle, 19481 Cooper is hoping that the 'conservative' nature of LCANZI’s membership will help it to be recognised as a serious organisation. In a recent Radio NZ interview, Cooper said: "We're definitely part of the establishment, we have a vested interest in the status quo, so when we speak on climate change it's hard to say it's just because we are naive or puppets of a left-wing conspiracy."3

Image by Gerd Altman from Pixabay

In 2018 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change, published a report that should have scared everybody into immediate action.2 Unfortunately, very few people read it.

After listening to a presentation that discussed the report’s findings at a conference earlier in 2019, Jenny Cooper QC and some of her colleagues realised that they had to do something. Cooper began by reading the report, which she describes as a very sobering read. Having read it, she said there was no way she could not act.

Cooper looked around for organisations with which she and her colleagues could become involved. The problem was that while there were many organisations working on climate change, none specifically focused on the sorts of issues that lawyers could grapple with.

This gap in the market led to the formation of the Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc (LCANZI).

The organisation’s board consists of three QCs and extremely well known members of the legal profession. There is a good range of skills and knowledge across the committee, from environmental and public law through to commercial law. They all share a real commitment to effecting change.

Climate Change Minister, James Shaw, also highlighted the nature of the membership at the organisation’s official launch event in Wellington on 25 November 2019. The Minister noted that the group had a broad array from the legal profession “…who wouldn't normally be accused of being kind of crazy hippies but are generally thought of as a fairly conservative bunch, who are really pushing the envelope on climate law.”4 LCANZI’s purposes are heavily based on advocacy for legislation and policies aimed at ensuring compliance with New Zealand’s obligations under the Paris Agreement and achieving net zero carbon emissions. It will also help community groups fighting for climate change to find free or low cost legal advice by connecting them with volunteer lawyers.

Cooper feels that up until now, climate change has not been on most lawyers’ radar. She says that this is a pity because lawyers in general are an influential and capable group who can ensure the law is fit for purpose to deal with these issues. The organisation’s first goal was therefore making lawyers better informed and more engaged. But obviously, a secondary aim is to raise awareness and engagement throughout the wider community as a whole.

Lawyers, says Cooper, have a role to play as being authoritative, independent voices who cannot be dismissed as teenagers or fringe groups. For this reason, the organisation makes a conscious decision to put science first. “We are not scientists, but we are capable of reading scientific evidence and communicating it to

Quoted on IPCC Special Report Website https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/(accessed 27 November 2019). Translation: As for the future, it is not a question of foreseeing it, but of making it possible, https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/download/ (accessed 27 November 2019).

3 Dreaver, C “Lawyers band together to dispel climate change scepticism” RNZ 26 November 2019 https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/404160/lawyers-bandtogether-to-dispel-climate-change-scepticism (accessed 27 November 2019) 4 Ibid 1 2

www.nzbar.org.nz

13

be subject to greater scrutiny; and • any new legislation would have to comply with the right to a sustainable environment.

non-scientists as part of our job. We are not commenting on climate change for political reasons, but because we have looked at the evidence and this is what it says.”

Traditionally the law has not been very good at recognising collective rights and interests around the environment, says Cooper. But she notes that the law is also an incredible tool for implementing society’s decisions around resource and risk allocation and how we operate together as a society.

The organisation has moved quickly into action.

It made a submission on the Zero Carbon Bill earlier in 2019. The Select Committee adopted some of the LCANZI’s recommended changes. In particular, the original bill constrained the scope of judicial review where decision-makers didn’t take the emissions targets into account in their original decision-making. The changes mean that courts can decide that in appropriate cases, the 2050 emissions target is a mandatory consideration for decision makers, and in some circumstances, a decision could be invalid if there has been a failure to consider the emissions target.

The organisation sent an open letter to the Minster for Climate Change, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney-General which was signed by 60 Queen’s Counsel in support of its proposals to amend NZBORA.5 One of the purposes of LCANZI is facilitating free or reduced-costed legal assistance to community groups working to fight climate change. The concept is that a panel will be established of members who are willing to provide free or reduced cost legal services on a voluntary basis. Cooper notes that there are already lawyers who provide enormous amounts of pro bono help in this area. “But we know this is an area where lots of lawyers want to help and be involved, and we thought this was an opportunity to take some of the pressure off what is currently a small pool of people who are doing this work, and give an opportunity to those who want to help,” says Cooper.

LCANZI is not looking to be a litigant but is providing the link between (for example) an NGO with a problem and a lawyer who could potentially help. Its resources are limited, and to date this service is operating in an ad hoc way. Over time, Cooper would like to introduce a little more structure to this end of the organisation’s work.

A key area of concern for LCANZI is the Resource Management Act (RMA) amendments and it wants to play a key role in this reform.

The organisation has written to Ministers David Parker and James Shaw, seeking urgent amendments to repeal 70A and 104E of the RMA and section 59(5)(b) of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012. It believes that these sections obstruct local authorities and the Environmental Protection Agency from addressing the effects of either air discharge provisions or applicants’ proposals on climate change.

Cooper is very pleased with what LCANZI has achieved in a short time. Membership has been growing steadily and is currently at around 250 and rapidly increasing, with the potential for it to grow to around 300 by the end of the year.

Membership is open to anyone holding a law degree. A practising certificate is not required.

Associate membership is also available for nonlawyers (such as students or those working in law firms, or people in other disciplines who want to help).

Another project underway is a proposal to amend the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) to recognise the right to a sustainable environment. The organisation believes that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society. Expressly recognising this right would promote Government action consistent with a sustainable environment and facilitate New Zealand’s transition to a low emissions economy.

According to LCANZI, it would mean that:

Reflecting on the past few months, Cooper says it has been exciting and there is no shortage of things to do; “I think it’s all positive. We will just keep doing as much as we can for as long as we can, and hopefully have a positive impact. Just because you can’t do everything perfectly right away, that is no reason not to make a start and • existing legislation would be interpreted in line give things a go. We are figuring it out as we go with the right to a sustainable environment; along but so far so good.”

• decisions by Government agencies that affect * Jacqui Thompson is our newsletter sub-editor. To join the right to a sustainable environment would LCANZI, see https://www.lawyersforclimateaction.nz/ https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5cf3039126905000011c02b0/t/5ddcc1222e47f65be357837f/1574748453274/2019.11.2 5+QC+letter+FINAL.pdf (accessed 27 November 2019)

5

www.nzbar.org.nz

14

Zhang – Case Note

by Jacqui Thompson*

2. The Fatu bands focused solely on quantity and it was unprincipled and unjust for it to be the sole determinant. This caused rigidity, preventing proper assessments of criminality, removing judges’ discretion and preventing the courts from having any regard or proper regard to other factors that were relevant to culpability, such as role and addiction.

3. Minimum periods of imprisonment were frequently imposed in a routine, mechanistic way, and without reasons being given. If reasons were given, reliance was typically placed on the need for deterrence. Judges regarded an end sentence of nine years’ imprisonment or over as automatically attracting a minimum period of imprisonment.

The highly anticipated decision of Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507 was handed down on 21 October 2019. As reported in our last issue of At the Bar, James Rapley QC and Esther Watt appeared for the New Zealand Law Society, New Zealand Bar Association and Auckland District Law Society as interveners. Six sentence appeals were selected for hearing together by a Full Court of five judges.

The case reviewed the guideline decision of the Court of Appeal in R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72, which created a series of sentencing bands based on the quantity of methamphetamine involved in the offending, and whether the offending related to supply, importation or manufacture.

There were, however, concerns that Fatu resulted in disproportionately severe sentences and some of its underlying assumptions were now incorrect. It was argued that: 1.

Sentencing for methamphetamine (and other drug offending) was based on a flawed premise that lengthy prison sentences are an effective deterrent, when scientific evidence showed that this was not the case. This over-emphasis on deterrence was contrary to the Sentencing Act principles and the New Zealand Bill of Rights. Ignoring personal factors perpetuated further inequality, particularly in relation to Māori.

www.nzbar.org.nz

In terms of deterrence, the scientific evidence presented to the Court suggested that severity of sentencing had at best a modest deterrent effect. However, the Court said that it would be wrong to wholly detach deterrence from denunciation, accountability and community protection when responding to a crime as harmful as dealing in methamphetamine.1 Further, failing to impose appropriate sentences of imprisonment would encourage dealing in methamphetamine.

1

15

At [90]

It was also noted that the legislative plan in s 8 of the Sentencing Act 2004 means that the courts are not permitted to apply a more lenient sentencing scale than that set by Parliament.

This precluded a radical departure from existing sentencing principles, and from Fatu itself, although it did not mean that was not possible to make modifications.

judges may find it helpful to have regard to the Council’s descriptions of roles and relevant indicia to be taken into account. It modified these to reflect New Zealand circumstances, and observed that any discount for associated mitigating personal considerations is a matter for the second sentencing stage.5 Role

The Court considered what weight should be given to the role played by the offender when assessing culpability. The Court said that in achieving justice in individual cases, there had to be flexibility and discretion in setting the sentence, notwithstanding guideline judgments.

The Court decided that quantity is an important consideration in fixing culpability but that it is not the only consideration. It is a reasonable indicator of harm to the community and commerciality. It also said that the role played by the defendant “…has a fundamental impact on culpability, and one that is more significant than can be accommodated by simply moving within bands.”2 It was concluded that we should retain the Fatu quantity bands but that they would be modified significantly, particularly to allow for the role of the offender in fixing culpability and thus the stage one sentence starting point:3 “… a more limited measure of engagement in criminal dealing deserves a less severe sentence than a significant or leading role.

Role may result in an offender moving not only within a band — as currently happens or is supposed to happen under Fatu — but also between bands.”

New: Zhang

Band one: < 5 grams

2 - 4.5 years

Community to 4 years

Band two: < 250 grams

3 - 11 years

2 - 9 years

Band three: < 500 grams

8 - 15 years

6 - 12 years

Band four: < 2 kilograms

10 years to life

8 - 16 years

Band five: > 2 kilograms

10 years to life

10 years to life

Leading

1. Operational or management function in own operation or within a chain; 2. involves and/or directs others in the operation whether by pressure, influence, intimidation or reward; 3. motivated solely or primarily by financial or other advantage, whether or not operating alone; 4. actual or expected commercial profit; and/or 5. some awareness and understanding of scale of operation.

1. Directing or organising buying and selling on a commercial scale; 2. substantial links to, and influence on, others in a chain; 3. close links to original source; 4. expectation of substantial financial gain; 5. uses business as cover; and/or 6. abuses a position of trust or responsibility.

1. Each can impair the rational choice made to offend, and thereby diminish moral culpability; 2. Diminished opportunity to make a rational choice also diminishes the deterrent aspect of sentencing, both general and specific; and 3. Some of these impairments alter the effect of a term of imprisonment on the individual offender and add to its severity.

This third consideration is one of proportionality.

In respect of social, cultural and economic deprivation, the court said that where it has a demonstrative nexus with the offending, it may

While the Court of Appeal did not adopt the double axis approach of the United Kingdom Sentencing Council, it said that sentencing

www.nzbar.org.nz

Significant

1. Performs a limited function under direction; 2. engaged by pressure, coercion, intimidation; 3. motivated solely or primarily by own addiction; 5. little or no actual or expected financial gain; 6. paid in drugs to feed own addiction or cash significantly disproportionate to quantity of drugs or risks involved; 7. no influence on those above in a chain; 8. little, if any, awareness or understanding of the scale of operation; and/or 9. if own operation, solely or primarily for own joint use on non-commercial basis.

Moving to the stage two analysis, the Court said that personal mitigating circumstances relating to the offender are applicable to all instances of Class A drug offending, as in any other offending. It identified some mitigating circumstances that were particularly germane to methamphetamine offending: addiction; mental health; duress or undue influence; and social, cultural and economic deprivation. These were relevant in three ways:6

The new Zhang bands are:4 Former: Fatu

Lesser

At [110] At [118] 4 At [125]

16

2

5

3

6

At [126] At [138]

be presented in mitigation regardless of the specific ethnicity of the offender.7 However, it specifically considered some of the statistics relating to Māori drug use and noted that Māori are more than four times more likely to be convicted of illicit drug dealing. It said that:8 “… ingrained, systemic poverty resulting from loss of land, language, culture, rangatiratanga, mana and dignity are matters that may be regarded in a proper case to have impaired choice and diminished moral culpability. Where these constraints are shown to contribute causatively to offending (whether associated with addiction or not), they will require consideration in sentencing.”

Band Four Chocolate Cake @StrictlyObiter *

Inspired by Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507 and Orchard v R [2019] NZCA 529.

As a starting point it serves 8-10.

Ingredients

Turning its attention to minimum periods of imprisonment, the Court of Appeal emphasised that minimum periods of imprisonment must not be imposed as a matter of routine or in a mechanistic way, but result from a reasoned analysis.9 As a general rule, lengthy minimum periods of imprisonment are properly to be reserved for cases involving significant commercial dealing. Secondly, any practice that an end sentence of nine years imprisonment automatically triggers a minimum period of imprisonment had to cease, as it was contrary to section 86 of the Sentencing Act and a wrongful exercise of discretion.

The ingredients available are any of the following. Before you start be sure to assess not only the presence of these ingredients but also to evaluate their nature and quality.

175 grams of butter (softened depending on personal circumstances) 1 and three quarter cups of sugar in cases of particular aggravation 1 tsp vanilla extract Up to 3 eggs 2 cups of flour, where the flour is of at least 60% purity No more than half a cup of cocoa, unless more is required 2 tsp baking powder 1 cup of milk Method Preheat the oven to up to 180 degrees Celsius, but this should not be seen as an upper limit and in appropriate cases this could go higher.

Counsel were encouraged in appropriate cases to make use of s 25 of the Sentencing Act, which empowers a judge to adjourn sentencing to enable an offender to undertake a rehabilitation programme and for the offender’s response to the programme to be taken into account when sentencing subsequently takes place. An appropriate case would be where independent evidence suggests the offending was caused by the factor(s) which the proposed programme or course of action is designed to target.10

Place the butter, sugar, vanilla in a large clean mixing bowl. Cream them together but ensure you continue to distinguish between them.

Add the eggs one at a time, being careful to avoid double-counting, then mix.

Sift in the flour and cocoa to the extent they apply.

This will be determined primarily by reference to their weight. Add the baking powder taking care to avoid excessive uplift.

Pour in the milk and stir gently. Then, step back and compare the mixture to other cakes you have baked in the past.

Finally, in terms of the applicability of the decision, the Court adopted its usual approach that the judgment only applies to sentences that have already been imposed only if:11 (a)

(b)

At [162] At [159] 9 At [169] 7 8

The mixture should still have a runny consistency but consistency is not an absolute end: the task remains an evaluative exercise.

an appeal against the sentence has been filed before the date the judgment is delivered (21 October 2019); and the application of the judgment would result in a more favourable outcome to the appellant.

At [180] At [191]; see also R v Vadati CA 256/05, 19 December 2005 at [8].

10

Place in oven and bake for up to half an hour, though consider whether it should be released from the ten-minute mark onwards.

Remember it is the end result that matters and not any individual step or ingredient. * Used with permission. For more of what Strictly refers to as “legal nonsense” please go to https://strictlyobiter.com/

11

www.nzbar.org.nz

Pour into a 30 centimetre tin. Some overlap at the margins is to be expected.

17

Private Investigations – the Modern PI

by Nick Mayer*

When you mention to people that you are a Private Investigator often the response is, “Ooh! How exciting!”

Their thoughts turn to Magnum PI and Tom Selleck in a Hawaiian shirt ripping around the streets in a Ferrari (or possibly the more edgy modern version in ThreeNow). But the reality is that Hawaiian shirts are not usually required for the job, and Ferraris are hard to come by.

PIs provide an incredibly varied and valuable service. Lawyers overseas have been using PIs regularly as part of their hearing/trial team, and many New Zealand lawyers now acknowledge the benefits of including them in the case at an early stage.

Often time constraints and deadlines make it difficult to get through the workload, such as interviewing witnesses, gathering and reviewing evidence, analysing documentation or just plain out finding the holes in the case. A PI can help with this, but also does so much more.

There is an array of internet tools and tricks available to a private investigator and some examples (but by no means all or the most important) are: •

•

•

•

Picturemate - allows you to search for hidden photo’s in Facebook; Spokeo – the people search engine that organises White Pages, public records and social media networks all in one place; Tineye – allows you to do a reverse image search on the internet and identify if an image has been used or published; Search engines – everyone knows about Google but not all search engines are the same. Different engines return different results and have different filters.

But it is more than just typing in a few keywords and pressing Search. You must know what you’re doing.

Gone are the days the private investigator needed to spend hours and hours driving around, scrolling and searching numerous public databases or libraries searching Council records, Birth Deaths and Marriages certificates, FSPR and PPSR records and other Companies Office-related databases in order to build a picture.

A PI’s training leads to one main purpose, and that is to obtain and corroborate facts. These are gathered by identifying difficult-to-find facts, witnesses or information to help support the defence, leaving lawyers with the time to concentrate on the legal aspects of the case.

The modern private investigator turns to Infolog as the number one tool that all private investigators must gain access to in order to succeed. At a set monthly price, Infolog is the one-stop shop that provides most of the essential information. Infolog provides (among others) motor vehicle registration searches, NZ Post address searches, Insolvency searches, Credit reporting and Vada checks, Passport validation, FSPR and PPSR information, a summary of information on directors, shareholders and companies obtained from the Companies Office. Some additional costs do apply but these should of course be included in the investigator’s hourly rate or an additional add-on price.

Having a private investigator who can bring a different point of view to your team can help you achieve success in your case.

Locating people, assets and conducting interviews are some of the core roles for any investigator. However, it’s the PI’s collection of valuable intelligence that can provide the leverage needed to reach a favourable settlement.

Although sneaking around in public places is still part of the PI’s role, being expert in finding

www.nzbar.org.nz

and accessing publicly available information on the web and various databases is vital for any investigation.

18

With time and money being saved collating the evidence, the modern investigator can now turn their time and energy to further assist with the legal proceedings. This might include – in no particular order: Reviewing Documents Reviewing documents and disclosure doesn’t need to be all too consuming. Consider using a private investigator, who has the necessary practical experience, to provide a detailed opinion of matters that need closer attention.

Most PIs have a Police background, so they are familiar will all aspects of a Police criminal disclosure pack. However, the PI you engage with may also have the additional expertise you need to review matters involving the Financial Markets Authority, Companies Office, Immigration NZ or even banking institutions. An independent view on the matter could be the breath of fresh air you need.

PI’s have considerable experience in doing this, so why not relieve some of the pressure?

Vetting for Court Whether it be a Crown witness, expert witness, the co-accused or even the client themselves, ensure that as much intelligence is gained as possible so you are not surprised. Better still, be ahead of the game should a person’s character come into question. A PI can find all that you need.

What should you consider when deciding to engage with a particular PI? A reputable and efficient PI should: • have professional indemnity insurance or similar; • be a licensed Private Investigator with the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority; • be a member of the New Zealand Institute of Professional Investigators Inc; • have a membership with Infolog; • have the experience to undertake the type of investigation you require. Review the PI’s website and look at their experience. Any PI who is unwilling to disclose this information publicly may not have the claimed expertise.

Conducting Interviews Let the trained PI conduct interviews for you, whether they be the defendant, supporting witnesses or even reluctant parties. Not only can the PI look to corroborate the information extracted from the subject, but they will provide useful insight into how a person will come up to brief.

Gathering Evidence Does your client have an electronic device in their possession that could be valuable to the case? A private investigator can take control of the item and have it recovered, cloned and analysed on your behalf and have the evidence prepared for court purposes.

Managing Witnesses Your PI has already built rapport with your witnesses and or client, so it makes perfect sense to have the PI at court to support the client and witnesses through the process. Most

So, next time when working a case that could benefit from some additional investigating, consider using the services of a PI. *Nick Mayer is a licensed Private Investigator with over 17 years of practical investigative experience, within the government and corporate sectors in NZ and abroad. Nick spent 13 years as an investigator with the NZ Police (including as a detective), NZ Immigration and the Financial Markets Authority. He is also experienced in Fraud and Workplace investigations.

For more information see www.nzprivateinvestigators.co.nz

Services to corporate and private clients include fraud, drug, cyber-crime and workplace investigations as well as criminal investigations involving the FMA, SFO, MBIE and NZ Police.

Contact:

Nick Mayer T: 021 662937 or 0800 746974 nick@nzprivateinvestigators.co.nz www.nzprivateinvestigators.co.nz

www.nzbar.org.nz

19

A Simple Guide to Saving Time, Money and the Planet

by Callum Mills*

Unified Communications (UC) is a frightening term that, at its simplest, means integrating services such as Chat, Presence Information, IP Telephony, Audio, Web and Video Conferencing, Desktop (screen) Sharing, Interactive Whiteboards, Speech Recognition and Voicemail. It is about being able to communicate online with someone (almost) as if they are in the same room.

and calls to both landline and mobile. There are no or low installation costs1, no separate maintenance costs and no upgrade costs.

Even if you are implementing a new telephone system for Chambers you only subscribe to the quantity of lines and services that you need at that moment in time. Increasing or decreasing that number when the headcount or requirement changes is both fast and simple.

UC allows you to easily and securely share information using video, voice, text and documents, increase personal efficiencies, save money and reduce your carbon footprint. You can save time (thereby improving your work/life balance) and money as you won’t need to travel unnecessarily for meetings.

Critically, you may think your impact on the environment is quite limited, but if we add up the emissions from travel across the legal profession, it would be considerable. Even a small car will produce at least 138 grams of carbon per kilometre and a domestic New Zealand economy flight produces 120 grams of carbon per kilometre.

Assuming an average of 10,000 kilometres per year and four return flights to Wellington that produces more than 1,670 kilograms of carbon. To state this in tree terms, you would need 77 fully grown trees to offset that carbon.

Meet where you are One of the most versatile examples of UC is the Meeting Room system. Provided you have a computer or smart-phone/tablet, and an internet connection, you can meet with anyone around the country (or indeed most places in the world although some have poor internet infrastructure) and even in large groups, all without leaving your office.

Modern systems provide a host of meeting services such as; • •

• •

automatic transcription; wireless desktop (screen) sharing so that you can all see the same document, presentation, recording etc; sharing videos and other media; polls to allow you to take a vote (including anonymous polls).

What and how much The UC components may come from one platform or a group of platforms, but they should present a consistent user interface and user experience. The services should be equally available when you are at your office desk, working from home or on the move, without loss of connectivity or functionality.

They may offer a capability to bring participants with disabilities into the conversation. Examples of this are built-in hearing loops and automatic closed captioning for the hearing impaired, facial recognition and hand signal commands for the visually impaired, and automatic language translation in audio or written formats for the linguistically challenged.2

The majority of UC systems are subscription based, allowing you to identify and control costs with a high degree of precision, while reducing capital expenditure. For example, an IP phone system uses the internet for making and receiving calls. A subscription may cost $20 per month per line – including all ongoing costs

Meeting room systems are no longer the realm of the rich and famous. Large screens and high definition cameras are not always necessary.

Depending on your purpose, a small standard personal computer such as an Intel NUC might be enough. Many people rely on their iPads or laptops.

Assumes usage of computer-based softphones and purchase of a suitable headset.

Features described are available in the latest version of Zoom UC or are scheduled to be available within the next few months. Other competitive platforms may not provide similar features.

1 2

www.nzbar.org.nz

20

The best thing you can do is talk to an expert who can assess what you will need from a meeting system and what subscription and equipment (if any) will best suit you.

On the topic of subscriptions, it is no secret that some of the better known meeting platforms offer a free basic level of access for personal meetings.

For example, one of the leading and highly popular systems, Zoom, allows you to conduct a meeting up to 40 minutes long.

However, these plans are not designed around business needs and have limitations that mean you are highly likely to want to upgrade fairly soon.

Stability and security There is an erroneous perception that cloudbased systems are at a higher risk of outage or jeopardy than a physical system in the office. This is simply untrue. Cloud systems have a several advantages over physical systems. For example: •

•

•

•

Cloud systems are typically sited across multiple data centres. If one data centre goes down another will take over; Complete system backups are taken at pre-agreed intervals, in some cases every few minutes; Data Centres have high levels of physical security and the best electronic security.

Security updates are regularly applied across all the hardware and software platforms.

If the power goes down, systems immediately switch to battery backup, and then within a few seconds the standby generators kick in for prolonged power outages.

How secure is your environment in comparison?

If the power goes off in your Chambers, all your systems including phone and internet may simply be unreachable. If you had a cloud based system the phone system would automatically switch to using your mobile phones (you would still be able to transfer calls, etc.). You can use

www.nzbar.org.nz

the mobile network and apps to access your data and attend UC meetings. If the outage was prolonged, you could simply have everyone work from home until power was restored.

UC makes sense from a time, cost, security and environment point of view. More of your colleagues will be using platforms such as Zoom to communicate with you and you will need to think about whether you are keeping up with the trend. * Connect NZ is wholly New Zealand owned and has enjoyed almost forty years of success in the technology market. We are New Zealand’s only official Zoom reseller. For more information, please contact Callum Mills at CallumM@connectnz.co.nz or call M +64 272 188 540.

21

Eleventh Annual Sentencing Advocacy Competition

by Kayla Grant and Nasif Azam *

The NZBA is proud to sponsor the annual sentencing Advocacy Competition and congratulates all those who took part.

Auckland Competition by Kayla Grant, Judges Clerk, Auckland The eleventh annual Sentencing Advocacy Competition, presented by the Ministry of Justice and the New Zealand Bar Association, was hosted by the Auckland and Hamilton High Courts this year. After preliminary rounds held in both Hamilton and Auckland, and a semi-final round in Auckland, the final round was held on 15 August in Courtroom 1.

The competition was open to students from the University of Auckland, University of Waikato and Auckland University of Technology.

Competitors were asked to carry out a mock sentencing exercise, with one acting as the prosecutor and one as defence, each seeking to use their advocacy skills to obtain the best possible outcome.

In the final round, the competitors were faced with the difficult scenario of an 18-year-old man charged with aggravated robbery and dangerous driving.

The finalists, Max Ashmore for the Crown and Charlie Barker for the defence (both from the University of Auckland), made submissions as to the appropriate sentence. Their submissions were creative and compelling, showing a high level of advocacy and skill.

Justice Moore presided over the final. His Honourâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s comments on the advocacy skills necessary in representing clients were very helpful, and demonstrated to the competitors and audience the particular value advocacy can have in tough cases. After some deliberation, and commenting on how close the final competitors were, Charlie Barker was announced as the overall winner on the night.

The competitors were also lucky to have Sam Wimsett of the New Zealand Bar Association in attendance to award their certificates and

www.nzbar.org.nz

prizes. Mr Wimsett spoke about the huge impact good advocacy in sentencing can have for both victims and defendants. Both Mr Wimsett and Justice Moore commented on the importance this competition has as one of the few opportunities law students have to practice criminal advocacy.

Something that sets this competition apart is that every round is judged by High Court Judges.

Having tips on mooting from the highest level is something all of the competitors commented on throughout the competition as something which made this a stand out competition amongst the others on offer at Law School.

The organisers gratefully recognise the generous support of the Bar Association, which provided the prizes and catering for the final, and thank all those who were involved in the competition.

22

Wellington Competition by Nasif Azam, Judgeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Clerk, Wellington The New Zealand Bar Association once again sponsored the Sentencing Advocacy Competition for Victoria University of Wellington law students in early August this year. This is the third year it has been running and it was hosted by the Ministry of Justice (Wellington High Court) with the help of the Victoria University of Wellington Law Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Society (VUWLSS) and the High Court judgesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; clerks.

The NZBA also sponsors the same competition for Auckland, AUT and Waikato students and it is hoped that it can be expanded to the South Island universities in the future.

this round and the improvements they had made to their advocacy skills after their first round.

The competition provides students in their second year or above of undergraduate legal studies a unique opportunity to learn about, and participate in, a first-instance sentencing hearing. It is a courtroom advocacy competition where participants-come-counsel are provided with a sentencing file for a defendant who has pleaded guilty to an offence and is coming up for sentencing.

This year, twelve students signed up and participated in a preliminary round involving a mock defendant who was a reverend. He had pleaded guilty to a charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, after violently attacking an old lawyer friend with a candlestick after being criticised for his choice of profession. The participants were provided with a sentencing file containing a Police summary of facts, relevant minutes of the Court, a Department of Corrections PAC report, a criminal and traffic history, and a victim impact statement.

They then submitted written submissions and authorities and appeared at a hearing in the Wellington High Court to present their submissions. We had a number of independent barristers, Crown Prosecutors and Public Defence Service members volunteer their time to judge the round and provide their advocacy experience and expertise in the form of feedback to the students. The practitioners enjoyed the experience and commented on the quality of the advocacy skills on display from the students.

Four of the students proceeded to a semi-final round, where they were presented with the same file as before but allocated to the opposite position from the one that they had taken in the preliminaries. The judges commented on how closely matched some of the competitors were in

www.nzbar.org.nz

Lauren Davis and Meghan Grant were ultimately selected as the finalists with Ms Davis appearing for the Crown and Ms Grant for the defendant. The finalists were presented with a new file involving a defendant who had pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter after being involved in a football hooligan gang brawl at a local pub while watching a world cup match.

They were provided with similar documents as before, but with an added psychological report commissioned by the Court.

The Hon Justice Clark volunteered her time to preside over the final. Her Honour asked discerning questions of the finalists, which challenged the students to engage critically with the factual and legal reasoning behind the submissions and the case law in the area.

Justice Clark commended both participants on their advocacy skills and their interest in this important and difficult area of the law. Following the event, there was a brief reception with nibbles and refreshments where Justice Clark and Lisa Hansen, the representative for the New Zealand Bar Association, awarded first place to Lauren Davis. The winner took home $700 and the runner-up $300.

The organisers, Nasif Azam and James Tocher from the High Court, and Natalie Vaughan and Jugjeet Singh from VUWLSS, are grateful to the Bar Association for their ongoing support of this competition. We believe it provides a fantastic opportunity to law students to have a go at courtroom advocacy and be exposed to the interesting area of law while receiving feedback from experienced members of the profession.

We look forward to hosting the competition again in the future.

23

The Minimum Wage Act 1983: A Summary by the Aotearoa Legal Workers' Union*

In 2019, the Minimum Wage Act 1983 (the Act) and Minimum Wage Order 2019 ensure that employees are paid an average of at least $17.70 per hour worked.1 KiwiSaver must be paid on top of this amount.2 For the purposes of the Act, the amount employees are paid per hour is calculated on (at most) a fortnightly basis.3 This means that each fortnight, the amount employees are paid (before tax/deductions) must be equal to or greater than the minimum wage for each hour worked. It cannot be averaged over a longer period, even if employees are paid monthly or budgets are based on hours billed per month.

'Hours worked' includes: • hours spent on billable and non-billable work; time spent waiting for work; • time spent waiting for work; • lunch breaks if the employee works through lunch; and • two paid ten-minute rest breaks (assuming the employee is working a seven to ten-hour day).

An employer who does not comply with the Act is liable for a penalty of up to $20,000 for each breach of the Act.4

Most salaried positions in the legal profession are not in danger of breaching the Act where employees work 40 hours per week. However, many employers do not check that employees are always paid more than the minimum wage when working longer hours.

Helpful calculations: There are three steps to calculate whether you are working for less than the minimum wage: Step 1: Fortnightly pay is annual salary divided by 26.

Step 2: Actual hourly rate is fortnightly pay divided by the number of hours worked in any given fortnight.

Step 3: If actual hourly rate is less than $17.70 per hour, the employee is being paid less than the minimum wage.

Example: Sam is employed by the law firm Belson TripVay and is on a salary of $47,000 per year. This averages to $1,807.69 per fortnight.

Minimum Wage Act 1983, s 4; and Minimum Wage Order 2019, cl 4.

Terranova Homes and Care Ltd v Faitala [2013] NZCA 435 at [34]–[35].

3 Idea Services Ltd v Dickson [2011] NZCA 14, [2011] 2 NZLR 522; Law v Board of Trustees of Woodford House [2014] NZEmpC 25, [2014] ERNZ 576 at [210]; and Minimum Wage Order, cl 6(d).

4 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 135(2)(b).

1 2

www.nzbar.org.nz

24

What can you do?

Fill out the Aotearoa Legal Workers' Union’s (ALWU’s) survey at https://alwu.org.nz/ minimum-wage/. Survey responses will provide ALWU with data for its minimum wage campaign.

When Sam works 40 hours per week (80 hours per fortnight), Sam is being paid $22.60 per hour. In these circumstances, Belson TripVay is complying with the Act. One month, Sam has a busy couple of weeks at work. Sam works 52 hours each week (104 hours that fortnight). If Sam is not paid any extra, he will be working for $17.38 per hour. The amount Sam has been paid is in breach of the Act and Belson TripVay needs to pay Sam an additional $32.32 for that fortnight. Sam shrugs it off because he thinks this is because he is not working fast enough. This is not an excuse for Belson TripVay not to pay Sam the extra $32.32.

Inform your employer. Employers may not realise that their employees are working for under the minimum wage and will correct this as soon as they know. It will help if you have carefully recorded your time. You can speak with a partner or a member of the HR team.

Join ALWU and ask ALWU to inform your employer. It can be easier to let someone else do the explaining. Please note that if you ask ALWU to get in touch with your employer on your behalf, you will not be able to remain anonymous. If you have been paid under the minimum wage and want to stay anonymous, we can speak to the labour inspectorate and ask them to investigate your employer.

Sam looks at the bill that went to the client at the end of his busy fortnight. Despite Sam spending 83 hours on the file, the client was only billed for 25 hours of his time. This does not change anything: Belson TripVay still owes Sam $32.32 for that fortnight.

Sam’s colleague Kim (also on $47,000) has an even bigger fortnight helping with some urgent litigation. Kim works for 80 hours one week and 65 hours the next (145 hours that fortnight). If Kim is not paid any extra, Kim will be working for $12.47 per hour. That is less than the minimum wage from eight years ago! Belson TripVay needs to pay Kim an additional $758.35 to comply with the Act. Belson TripVay has a time in lieu policy and Kim is offered a day in lieu at the end of the fortnight so that she can re-establish contact with her family and friends and get some sleep. This does not satisfy the Act’s requirements. Belson TripVay still needs to pay Kim an additional $758.35 as well as that day in lieu (since that day is part of its policy).

File a Statement of Problem in the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) to seek a penalty for non-compliance and for arrears of wages at the minimum wage (or ask ALWU to do so on your behalf ). We only recommend this option after you have tried at least two of the options above with no success. Filing in the ERA is expensive and will escalate the matter significantly. * The Aotearoa Legal Workers' Union (ALWU) was formed in early 2019, to support workers in the legal profession. For more information visit its website at https://alwu.org.nz/

...continued from page 8 When trying to make a difference to the profession, it isn’t the size of the organisation that determines success. It is the tremendous amount of goodwill and commitment within the Council, its committees, the wider membership and the hard-working Secretariat.

What do you think the future holds for the NZBA? Strategic thinking and planning is vital, with achievable short, medium and long term goals.

The Association needs to continue to provide strong leadership and to focus on the needs and interests of its members. Financial sustainability is an ongoing challenge, and will also need to remain an important focus. I am confident that

www.nzbar.org.nz

the team that is in place at Council, committee and Secretariat level will ensure the NZBA’s continued growth and success.

I leave the NZBA with the knowledge it is in good hands. I feel privileged to have worked with so many talented and committed professionals. I make special mention of Presidents that I have worked with, including Miriam Dean QC, Stephen Mills QC, Paul Mabey QC (as he then was), Clive Elliott QC, Kate Davenport QC and our new President-Elect, Paul Radich QC. I also want to thank the hard working and talented Secretariat team of Jacqui Thompson, Lisa Mills and Dianne Tietjens.

25

Can You Afford to Be Off Work?

MAS*

MAS is an NZBA member benefit partner. For more information please visit our website at https://www.nzbar.org.nz/financial-services If you had an accident or illness which kept you off work for an extended period, would you be able to maintain your lifestyle?

Typically, higher earning professionals have more significant financial obligations, meaning a disruption to their income can have serious consequences. And because barristers don’t receive KiwiSaver contributions from an employer, a break in their income can have longterm consequences for their savings as well.

Would you be able to pay your mortgage, utilities bills, groceries, and school fees?

Even if you could cover the essentials, what would a disruption to your income mean for your family’s quality of life? Would you be able to maintain the standard of living you’ve worked for?

Income protection insurance replaces a set amount of your income if you find yourself unable to work. And it’s not only needed when there’s been a catastrophic accident or major illness. Even relatively minor illnesses or accidents can have a significant impact on your lifestyle.

Kiwis don’t have enough income protection insurance The Financial Services Council estimates only around 14% of New Zealand’s working population has income protection insurance, and only 7% has looked into purchasing it in the last two years. We don’t think twice about insuring our cars but, for some reason, very few of us consider insuring our incomes, which are worth far more and underpin almost every aspect of our lives.

www.nzbar.org.nz

Clearly, ACC won’t be able to help if you’re unable to work due to a non-accident related illness or injury. It also offers relatively limited support to high-earning professionals. The scheme will only compensate for 80% of taxable income, with a maximum gross weekly payment of $2,015. In practice, this means that income in excess of $131,000 isn’t covered by ACC. It’s also important for self-employed professionals to remember that ACC calculates entitlements based on taxable income filed with Inland Revenue in the last full tax year before the accident occurred. This means you could be left short if your income fluctuates from year to year, or you have structured your income to optimise your tax position.

If you spend most of your working life sitting at a desk, for example, a serious back injury can limit how much work you can handle in a week. Similarly, relatively common illnesses like glandular fever might lead to you taking months off work, and working reduced hours for even longer before you’re back to full strength.

The problem is even more significant for wellremunerated professionals like barristers.

ACC is not the safety net you might imagine One reason New Zealanders don’t think about income protection insurance is because they believe ACC will cover all the costs associated with an injury and time off work. Sadly, that’s not necessarily the case.

Income protection insurance effectively 'tops up' the compensation you would receive from ACC after an accident, providing you with up to 75% of your pre-disability income. Unlike ACC, this insurance also protects you if you suffer an illness that prevents you from being able to work.

Get advice – the earlier, the better Income protection is only one form of insurance that can help you and your family if you suffer a serious illness or accident. Lump sum cover, such as trauma and permanent disability (TPD) insurance or life insurance, can also supplement incomes if the worst happens.

26

If you’re considering these other forms of insurance, it pays to take them out sooner rather than later. When you apply for life insurance, for example, your current health condition will be taken into account and, as you get older, you may find yourself paying more in premiums or not being able to get cover for certain medical conditions.

If you already have income protection or life insurance, it’s worth reviewing it regularly to make sure it still meets your needs. Older barristers in particular may need less cover as they approach the end of their career, have paid off their mortgages, and have financially independent children.

Unexpected accidents and illnesses can have major consequences for you and your family.

MAS advisers don’t receive commissions and a short conversation with one of them now will give you the peace of mind that you will be covered in future.

The best thing you can do, however, is get professional advice. Barristers will often have quite complex financial arrangements and alternative sources of income, such as rental property or investment income. These income streams need to be factored into calculations about how much insurance is needed, and how it should be split between income protection, TPD and life insurance.

This article is of a general nature and is not a substitute for professional and individually tailored business or legal advice. * © Medical Assurance Society New Zealand Limited 2019.

Elegant, secure, shared office space in Lowndes House, 18 Shortland Street, Auckland available for rent.

These offices are in vibrant Shortland St, conveniently located near the court and surrounded by top eateries.

The two neighbouring individual offices are available either individually or together. Both have natural light and are situated in a quiet and spacious wider office area. If required, the tenant has access to a reception, meeting rooms, and printing and kitchen facilities. This tenancy is ideal for a barrister who shares the requirement for security and confidentiality with the other tenants.

The space is suitable for an individual or small team, providing a sense of collegiality with other professionals and potential for referral of work.

Please contact Rachel Holland on 021 835 833 or at Rachel.holland@lowndeslaw.com for more information.

www.nzbar.org.nz

27

Shorter term tenancies also considered.

Aligning Sustainability Values With Investment Goals – Is There a Win/Win?

By Laetitia Peterson and Patrick Fogarty

Social attitudes toward sustainability are rapidly altering the shape of the investment landscape.

Investors around the world are increasingly conscious of how business practices may impact the environment and, in turn, future generations. As a result, many investors are interested in knowing how to align their sustainability values with their investment goals.

At The Private Office we regularly field questions from clients on sustainability. Often these questions quickly lead into conversations around return expectations. For instance, can one reduce a portfolio’s environmental footprint while maintaining sound investment principles, and achieving investment objectives?

For many, capturing investment returns and expressing values have long been considered diametrically opposed pastimes. Advisers have for years been met with awkward, reticent expressions from clients, when the topic of ethical investing bubbles to the surface. The underlying concern seems to be that there must ultimately be a trade-off for doing the right thing.

So, are these concerns founded? Until recently the answer to that question was “yes”. Investing in the first generation of socially responsible funds came with compromises, often in the form of reduced diversification, higher costs and question marks around expected returns.

So, what does the New Zealand landscape look like now? And to what degree has New Zealand adopted ethical practices in the investment industry? According to RIAA (Responsible Investment Association Australia) in their latest 2019 benchmark report, about 72% of managed funds in New Zealand are now classified as “responsible investments”. Responsible investments are defined as those that systematically consider environmental, social or governance issues. This paints a positive picture and is a clear indication that the investment space is heading in the right direction. There is however a lot of work still to be done.

Changing social preferences opened a new industry and the fund management sector saw the opportunity. With much zeal they raced to meet investor demand with the hope of capturing market share. While a global phenomenon, this trend was keenly felt in New Zealand when, in September 2016, it became apparent that many New Zealanders were unwittingly supporting questionable companies through their KiwiSaver schemes. The reaction was severe, and the financial services companies were listening.

Marketing departments sprung into life intent on pushing the latest ethical offerings. However a discerning public, unwilling to sacrifice returns examined the first iteration of funds and found them wanting. For most investors, socially responsible investment funds were branded as niche and reserved for those with a ‘green at all cost’ mentality. Only in recent years could one argue that the world of sustainable investing has started to enter the mainstream.

www.nzbar.org.nz

A growing number of individuals and institutions are asking questions like these, attempting to understand how they might align their investment decisions with their views on sustainable development. The challenge is how to adopt a sustainability approach with transparent reporting on metrics important to sustainability focused investors, all without compromising sound investment principles.

Interestingly, RIAA’s findings also indicate that “many NZ managers are yet to provide evidence of a detailed and systematic approach to responsible investment”. In addition, they highlight that the “dominant responsible investment strategy in NZ is negative screening”.

This is a process of excluding companies based on a set of social or environmental criteria.

While it is positive to see a meaningful change toward ethical practices, we are less thrilled to learn that most ethical investors still utilise an unsophisticated negative screening process at the detriment of portfolio diversification.

Negative screening was the industry’s first attempt at ethical portfolio construction. So how can this process be improved?

28

and potential emissions from fossil fuel reserves.

The strategies also seek to reduce exposure to a select list of other key sustainability considerations.

One way to approach this challenge is to focus first on developing an investment methodology that emphasises what research indicates are reliable sources of higher expected returns, while also aiming to minimise unnecessary turnover and trading costs before considering environmental criteria. For instance, in equity portfolios, this may mean starting with a broad universe of stocks ranging from very large companies to very small companies, and then systematically pursuing higher expected returns by increasing the weights of those securities with smaller market capitalisations, lower relative prices, and higher profitability.

Investments in companies are emphasised, reduced or excluded based on environmental and sustainability impact. In addition, our sustainability strategies seek to address a focused set of social issues identified as most important to our clients.

This approach delivers a set of investable companies with broad diversification and tilts towards academically proven areas of higher expected returns through time. Next, investors can evaluate those companies being considered for investment using a focused set of environmental criteria that reflect their primary concerns. Again, using share portfolios as an example, by using a holistic scoring system, rather than a completely binary 'in' or 'out' screening process, investors may be able to preserve diversification while recognising those companies with positive environmental profiles.

The way The Private Office approaches sustainable investing allows for a cost-effective approach that provides investors with the ability to pursue their sustainability goals, without compromising on sound investment principles or accepting lower expected returns.

The primary sustainability consideration of this approach is environmental impact from carbon emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions

www.nzbar.org.nz

We use a fund management approach that utilises a combination of security selection and weighting within and across sectors. This reduces exposure to companies with less sustainable practices and increase exposure to companies with more sustainable practices, while still maintaining broad diversification.

Our approach is also active regarding corporate governance. If we can help improve governance at the companies we invest in on behalf of our clients, we believe that can protect and enhance shareholder value. Where possible our fund managers managing our sustainable portfolios will use their considerable voting power at annual general meetings to push sustainable initiatives.

By using this more sophisticated scoring system as the basis for stock selection, rather than a binary approach, investors can preserve the benefits of diversification while overweighting those companies with positive environmental profiles. This involves looking at companies across the entirety of a portfolio and within individual sectors, with the goal of incorporating sustainability preferences while also maintaining the characteristics of the original strategy.

29

For example, if an investor is trying to reduce a portfolio’s greenhouse gas emissions and potential emissions from fossil fuel reserves, the worst offenders across all industries may first be de-emphasised or excluded from the portfolio altogether. An across-industry comparison of this nature provides an efficient way to significantly reduce the aggregate greenhouse gas emissions per unit of revenue produced by companies within a portfolio, with a minimal reduction in diversification.

Next, companies may also be rated on sustainability considerations within each industry. This added level of scrutiny recognises that, in the real economy, capital markets and the supply chain are highly interconnected. For example, a retail company may consume electricity from a utility company and transportation services from a trucking company, both of which are consumers of fuel from an energy company.

Comparing companies within sectors recognises this interconnectedness and this can be used to overweight the most sustainable companies within a given industry. This could include retail companies that improve the energy efficiency of their facilities, utilities that produce electricity using solar or wind power, trucking companies that improve the fuel efficiency of their fleets or use alternative-fuel vehicles, or energy companies that increase efficiency, reduce waste, and improve their overall environmental footprint. On the other hand, companies with poor environmental sustainability ratings relative to industry peers may receive a lesser weight or be excluded.

The strategy may also significantly underweight, or exclude altogether, companies that use particularly intensive factory farming methods, companies identified as manufacturers of cluster munitions and mines that indiscriminately affect humans and the productive use of land, companies cited for child labour practices, those linked to the production of tobacco, and the manufacturing of personal firearms.

About the authors Laetitia Peterson is the CEO and Founder of The Private Office, a wealth management firm with a unique focus on providing goals-based personal financial advice backed by an evidence-based investment solution. Being married to a barrister, Laetitia enjoys helping successful lawyers achieve the financial goals important to them and their families.

Prior to founding The Private Office in 2014, Laetitia worked at companies such as Goldman Sachs in New York and London and boutique funds management firm Liontamer, which she co-founded.

Patrick Fogarty is a Client Director at The Private Office.

He returned to New Zealand after 10 years with Dimensional Fund Advisers in London, where he helped grow the business into one of the largest fund managers in the UK and Europe. Patrick has extensive experience in the socially responsible investment space and helped to launch Dimensional’s socially responsible global equity fund. He is very familiar with evidence-based investing and has given numerous seminars on the subject. Having serviced hundreds of independent financial advisers, he has a clear view on how ‘real’ advice should be given.

Legal Tender Laetitia’s book explores the ideas of family stewardship, typical money behaviours, attitudes towards money, and lawyers’ views on wealth creation. It delves into the psychological effects of money and the impact of stress and financial worries, as well as the importance of personal resilience and creating a legacy worthy of a life well lived. Legal Tender will change the way you look at the value of your work as a lawyer.

The key takeaway for investors is that investing well and incorporating values around sustainability need no longer be mutually exclusive. The Private Office has recently launched its first sustainable series of portfolios and are proud to be at the forefront of socially responsible investing in New Zealand.

www.nzbar.org.nz

30

A Win For the Rule of Law LexisNexis*

Member Benefit Partner, LexisNexis will be recognised with an award by the United Nations Foundation for Strengthening Equality Under the Law, Transparency of Law, Independent Judiciaries, Accessible Legal Remedy Mike Walsh, the CEO of LexisNexis Legal & Professional, has received a Global Leadership Award from the United Nations Foundation in recognition of the company's contributions to advancing the rule of law globally.

Mr. Walsh was honoured at an event this evening alongside Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, award-winning author and feminist leader, Dr. Gunhild Stordalen, founder of EAT Forum, and several United Nations Heroes.

Previous honourees include Malala Yousafzai, Desmond Tutu, Ban Ki-moon, Barack Obama, Angelina Jolie, and Oprah Winfrey.

In a statement, Ban Ki-moon, the eighth Secretary-General of the United Nations, said, “I’d like to commend Mike Walsh on his award from the United Nations Foundation for Global Leadership in advancing the rule of law around the world. Mike and the committed team at LexisNexis have been at the forefront of using their core competencies as a business, innovation, and creativity to strengthen the rule of law in the 130 markets where the company operates. Mike is a leader who understands that societies without a predictable legal framework are societies where people do not invest in their future, or the future of their country, and that businesses do better when the world does better. He’s shaped a powerful mission for LexisNexis to advance the rule of law for a better future and to support peace and progress as a result.”

human rights abuses, violence and conflict. He said that LexisNexis is working with customers, businesses and organisations like the United Nations to strengthen legal infrastructures and support advances in the rule of law that will improve lives.

LexisNexis says that its global legal and news database contains 109 billion documents and records providing transparency into the law in more than 130 countries. The company also provides legal materials and training for courts in more than 100 countries. It helps to mobilise the business community to proactively engage in the rule of law with projects such as the United Nations Global Compact’s Business for the Rule of Law Framework (B4ROL).

LexisNexis also joined with the International Bar Association to launch the eyeWitness to Atrocities app in support of human rights. In 2017, the company received the Corporate Leadership Award from Freedom House and its Global Legal Department won the Financial Times Innovative Lawyers Award for advancements in the rule of law. In 2019, the company established the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation to help build legal infrastructures and solve deep-rooted legal challenges. * For more information, please contact Kumi Sharma, LexisNexis, kumi.sharma@lexisnexis.co.nz

Mike Walsh noted that five billion people in the world today live outside the umbrella protection of the rule of law, making them vulnerable to

www.nzbar.org.nz

31

The Laws of New Zealand A Vital Resource for Any Library

Fact Sheet LONZ is Comprehensive • Over 150 titles • It is a fundamental statement of what the law is and covers the whole of the law of New Zealand: statutory, regulatory, judicial • Links to international content and cases

LONZ is Authoritative • • • • •

Published for over 30 years Authorised by judges, academics and senior members of the profession Originated from Halsbury’s Law of England Editor-in-Chief is a sitting Supreme Court Judge Recognised as a work of extremely high quality & referred to by the judiciary

LONZ is a Vital Resource

For more information or to have a LexisNexis Representative contact you, visit info.lexisnexis.co.nz/LONZ LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are registered trademarks of RELX Inc. © 2019 LexisNexis NZ Limited. All rights reserved.

www.nzbar.org.nz

32

MP112019MS

• The “backbone” of legal research • Essential in practice areas covered in unusual titles and/or in relation to which there is limited coverage only in-market • A pathway to quick and easy research for overviews of any non-specialist areas of law • Available on Lexis Advance®, Lexis Red® and hardcopy

Switched On Corner We are taking the 'petrol head' out of our regular car column in this issue and looking at what even car journalist, James May (ex-Top Gear, now on that other programme that I can never remember the name of), admits is the future of the car – electric vehicles. Unlike Mr May who recently leased the hydrogen fuel cell powered Toyota Mirai and who owns a Tesla Model S, our columnists were more restricted to more prosaic choices.

The first contributions is from a helicopter pilot who, having purchased a new electric car has found that it isn’t about coming down to earth so much as being good to the earth. The second is our own renegade and Jeremy Clarkson fan, David O’Neill, who when faced with a crying, begging sub-editor, agreed to find an electric vehicle in which he was comfortable about being seen in public.

Electric Shock - Jason Haggitt The road to EV purchase, or how I singlehandedly lowered the sea level by a micron, now wear a smug look, and still get to eat steak.

I love an eye fillet, rare; but we eat less red meat in our household these days. We have a worm farm and a bokashi bin too and we’ve driven our landfill food waste to zero. It's all part of the family push to do our bit for climate action.

But before you picture me in a hessian kaftan tending my kale, know that I’m a petrolhead from way back (not that these behaviours are necessarily incompatible). I have made a career out of turning kerosene into noise as a helicopter pilot and I own a 28-year old Porsche 911 Turbo.

I adore the analogue nature of it, the foibles of its old school handling and the fact that you can empty its fuel tank in less than an hour of

www.nzbar.org.nz

hooliganism on the track. You drive it - it doesn’t drive you.

Changing jobs earlier this year I was looking at the spectre of around a hundred-kilometre round trip commute to and from my new role at the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust in Ardmore.

A quick check of the maths and it was going to cost approximately $22.50 per round trip in our Audi S4 (rough maths 10l/100km @ $2.25/l).

More to the point though, how could I reconcile this great carbon leap backwards with our steps to reduce our carbon footprint?

What about an electric vehicle? Range anxiety; looks only a mother could love; being constantly flagged down from the roadside by Uber customers. But let’s have a closer look, given the technology is apparently in the midst of a quiet revolution, with costs going down, range going

33

up, choice increasing and aesthetics recovering from the obvious lack of budget allocated to early EV styling. And given New Zealand’s electricity generation is 80% renewable it seems crazy not to make use of this green energy.

So, we examined the offerings in our budget ($60ishK) which included the VW e-Golf, Tesla Model 3, Kia Niro and the Hyundai Kona to name a few. There are plenty of others too in the small to mid-size category with a range of around 200 plus kms. In the end we went with the e-Golf.

Slightly less range (but who drives more than 220kms a day?), great handling, a hatchback that suited Hugo (the dog), driving aids including lane assist, front, rear and side assist, rest assist (you don’t have to drive it, it drives you), renowned German build quality, 5 year warranty and an 8-year battery warranty. Best of all it just looks like an everyday Golf - and who doesn’t like that?

Back at home, a minimal infrastructure install was required with the addition of a bog standard 10 amp outdoor plug for charging (the 911 gets to sleep inside).

So now when I set off for work, I simply disconnect the charging cord and there’s an 80% battery charge onboard (I have a programmed limit of 80% as it is apparently better for the battery life) and 220kms showing on the range meter (if I need aircon that drops it to about 190kms on an 80% charge). If it’s not rush hour I belt along on auto at the speed limit and if it is rush hour, I engage all the whizzydo cruise control and brain in neutral assist features, and put on my smug environmentally friendly face.

The driving experience remains enjoyable around town, with a low centre of gravity, considerable torque and instant throttle response. Ironically, the drive is not as electric as the 911 (but then there is the new Porsche Taycan Turbo S to aspire to).

The EV market looks to be gaining momentum over the coming year or two as battery development further increases range, affordability improves, and consumer choice broadens. But even right now the relatively limited kilometre range doesn't trouble me, despite a reasonably long commute; nearly 10,000kms in five months and we have not required the fast charge option (which takes zero to 80% charge down from about 15 hours to 45 minutes in the e-Golf ).

Ownership has taught me I’m not really a petrolhead, but a driving enthusiast (he says reaching for his anorak). I still love the 911, the noise, the big old-fashioned instruments, turbo lag, three pedals and a stick; the overall thoroughly engaging driving experience.

But I can enjoy this on an occasional sunny Sunday of my choosing. When commuting to and from work and on city errands, I enjoy a more disengaged, relaxing, easy in traffic and environmentally friendly form of transport.

And it just goes to show, you can still have your steak and eat it... just not every day.

Audi E-Tron – David O’Neill Apparently, this issue is devoted to environmentally friendly things. Hence my sub-editor implored me to test an electric car [Sub-Ed - never dreamed for a minute he would listen to me. He never has before].

On arriving at ARHT, I can plug into one of the outdoor plugs installed by the eco-employer for its EV drivers. But if I don’t plug in, I typically get home at the end of my shift with about 100kms still showing on the range meter and an electricity bill for my travels in the vicinity of $3 for the round trip, having observed the resultant lowering of the tide as I silently traverse the Harbour Bridge.

In my desire to get with the trend I approached the local Audi dealer to have a drive of their latest electric vehicle, the Audi e-tron. Because it is so popular, I was only able to get it for a couple of days but it did give me a feel of what an electric car is like.

Further, there is currently no road user tax on EVs and as far as I can determine, the annual maintenance is pretty much a WoF and refilling the window washer reservoir - no oil, filters, very little brake wear due to the regeneration system; practically nothing moving to lubricate or wear out.

The first impression when you approach it is that it looks like any other car. When you think about it, they are only a car but with a different mode of propulsion. It’s still got 4 wheels, 4 doors etc.

However, the wing mirrors on the side of the car are no longer there. They look rather like parts of a prosthetic limb and you expect some to

www.nzbar.org.nz

34

There is no gear changing, no noise, no... anything.

You can select sport mode which means that you gobble up the juice in the battery quicker, but go a lot faster. When you put your foot right down the power is quite phenomenal. It's completely effortless, completely silent and it just goes. There is no changing of gear or lurch as you accelerate hard, it is just a push back into the seat when the car gets quicker and quicker.

be bolted on later. These are actually cameras and the screens are on the door inside. It takes a bit of getting used to, but I'm sure you would eventually get there.

First impressions Like a lot of the latest Audis it has keyless ignition. As long as you have the key on you, you can start the car. The same goes for locking/unlocking the vehicle. You merely have to touch the handle and the car either locks or unlocks.

The seats glide back, you hop in comfortably.

It is mid-way between an SUV and a station wagon. The top half of the car looks like an ordinary station wagon/avant and the bottom half is an SUV. It is not as high as the SUV’s that Audi put out but certainly not as low as the avants that they also offer for sale.

Once belted in you touch the ignition button. To the uninitiated nothing seems to happen, apart from lights coming on in the dashboard. There is absolutely no noise. It’s quite eerie. It gets really weird when you then select drive or reverse and put your foot on the accelerator. The thing just moves.

The car I drove cost about $184,000. It had a number of added extras like a seat package, a trim package, a driver assistance systems and was the show car for showing the vehicle off. The basic vehicle is $148,500. All the performance figures are the same as follows: • Peak output – kilowatts 265 • Torque on boost - 664mm • Quattro drive • Acceleration 0-100km/h on boost - 5.7 seconds • Top speed - 200km/h Apparently driving around the city is just like driving a petrol powered car around the city, but you use more power. When you are out on the open road it is more seamless and more economical way of driving.

There isn’t a motor so-to-speak. If you open the bonnet (I couldn’t find the tag to get underneath it, but the salesman showed me how) there is a very large holdall that houses the charging cable. He said to me that if you plug the car into the normal power supply in a house it will take

There is virtually no noise apart from a slight whine which disappears once you get above 30km/ph.

The car has two dials in the instrument panel.

These show the boost and the speed. The tag above it shows how many kilometres are left in the battery and the computer registers your average kilowatts per 100km. This is rather like the litres per 100km that a petrol engine car gives through the computer.

www.nzbar.org.nz

35

[Sub-ed – the latest batteries are lithium-ion batteries, just like laptops and cell phones. When lithium-ion-powered battery packs are too worn out for driving, they still have up to 70-80% of their charge left. These batteries are now being repurposed for other tasks like supporting energy sources such as solar and wind. https://auto. howstuffworks.com/can-electric-car-batteriesbe-recycled.htm) In 2019 Toyota launched an initiative to pair old electric vehicle batteries with solar panels to power 7-Eleven stores in Japan https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/6/20951807/ electric-vehicles-battery-recycling. This is an issue that can be solved and which we have time to work on, whereas we have almost run out of time to work on emissions.]

about 47 hours from flat to be fully charged. If you have a 3-phase converter so that you get full charge into the vehicle in your house, then it will take 12 hours. If you get to one of the fast charger stations that seem to be popping up all around the city, then it’s 4 hours.

People apparently suffer from 'range anxiety'.

That is because you don’t have charging stations like you have petrol stations and people get anxious about whether or not they are going to get back from the beach, Auckland or wherever. I can imagine that if you are driving to, say, Wellington, you may have to do it in two parts. This car has a range of up to 417 kilometres.

VW E-Golf – David O’Neill

Battery warranty is good for 8 years or 160,000 kilometres.

It was appropriate that I also reviewed another electric car. I was given the VW e-Golf (yes, the same as the model reviewed above). It’s the Golf that we all know and love, but it is solely electric.

As I said earlier this is a car that is an Audi in every sense of the word except that it has an electric motor.

Consequently – what did I think? Quite apart from the idea that I had to get used to the fact that this car made no noise whatsoever, it was a lovely vehicle to drive. t handled well. The vehicle is heavy because it has 36 battery cells in it but by and large it went around corners very nicely, accelerated well and I have no doubt that you would be able to accelerate past most vehicles in a very short stretch of road thereby minimising your time on the other side of the road. I understand they used the e-tron down on the snow farm and it performed admirably. I also heard it was used on a back country road and the quattro drive performed flawlessly.

The version I drove costs $68,000. The specs are as follows: • Range – 220km • Acceleration – 9.6 seconds 0/100km/h • Power output – 100 kilowatts • Top speed – 150km/h And given these are electric cars, the charging time using a 3.6kw wall box is 10 hours 50 minutes and using a 40kw charger is 45 minutes.

Therefore, if you want an electric car that will take the family and loads of luggage, then this is for you. You just have to shell out a fair bit of money to get it.

Footnote I know this is an environmentally friendly vehicle because it doesn’t omit noxious fumes and other odorous emissions into the atmosphere, but I do wonder what is going to happen when the batteries collapse, fail or whatever and they have to be disposed of. Will that in itself become an environmental hazard on its own? I posed this question to the Audi dealership. They looked horrified that I would ask such a nasty question and then said – simple – they get recycled to tasks that don’t need the same power output.

www.nzbar.org.nz

36

So, as you can see, it’s not like pulling up to the gas station, spending 5 minutes and then leaving again.

However, it does have a 220km range (they claim this was AA tested with 2 passengers, air conditioning on, driving in normal mode from Auckland to Tokoroa). I suspect they probably suffered from range anxiety as they approached Tokoroa. I don’t know how many chargers are in Tokoroa, but I bet there weren’t many.

Anyway it’s mainly an 'around town' car. It was very peppy. I liked it. It was a great little car to drive, went quickly and quietly wherever you wanted to go, and it would be perfect for someone who kept their main drive car in the garage and just toddled around town picking up the kids, going to work or doing the grocery shopping.

I heard somewhere (I don’t think it was fake news) that the average driver in an urban situation does around about 50km per day.

As a consequence a small car like this would be perfect. Low maintenance, can charge overnight and go to and from work without ever having to go near a gas station. I don’t know much about the servicing of electric cars, but I suspect there isn’t a lot.

www.nzbar.org.nz

The car had air con, radio, phone hook-up, rear vision camera and was comfortable. In fact the only option available on the e-Golf spec sheet was leather upholstery. That will set you back a further $3500. Everything else, apart from automatic headlights, is standard.

By and large the car is ideal, albeit somewhat expensive when you compare it to your basic VW Golf for around town, but I am sure that like everything else, electric cars will come down in price.

All in all, the two cars are powered by the same system, but are quite different. One is a town and around runabout, and the other is a SUV crossover with a car and has significant range (read – less anxiety) available to it.

I confess that I still like my V8, but I can see that electric cars will have an important role to play in our society. It’ll be interesting to see the competition between electric cars and hydrogen cars (which appear to be the direct competitor with the alternative fuel source vehicles). * David O’Neill is a Hamilton barrister and arbitrator, the NZBA treasurer and in his spare time, he competes in rallies and writes motoring columns.

37

Inaugural Australian Bar Association/ New Zealand Bar Association Joint Conference Queenstown on 23 and 24 August 2019

The inaugural Australian Bar Association/New Zealand Bar Association joint Conference was held earlier this year at the Rydges Hotel. For the first time we joined with our counterpart Bar Association from Australia to present a Joint programme around the theme “Trans-Tasman perspectives”.

Overall, there were 240 participants from Australia and New Zealand. The speakers

www.nzbar.org.nz

discussed a variety of topics from appearing in inquiries and appellate advocacy skills, through to bullying and harassment in the profession, indigenous rights and the responsibilities of the media in the criminal justice system.

Following a much appreciated Mihi from Ngāi Tahu representatives, Michael Skerritt and Winsome, the Hon. Attorney-General, Hon. David Parker opened the conference and extended

38

it can be used to assert rights that have been ignored. Wellington barrister, Karen Feint, chaired the panel which included Hon. Justice Christian Whata, Tony McAvoy SC and Simeon Beckett.

The session was wide-ranging and, in many respects, eye-opening. There was strong support for developing this theme at future conferences.

The final session on Friday looked at Harrassment and the Culture of the Bar. Kate Davenport QC, Jenny Cooper QC, Matthew Howard SC, Kathryn Beck and Kieran Pender all spoke at this lively session and the discussion continued later that evening at the drinks session.

a warm welcome to the delegates from across the Tasman to Aotearoa/New Zealand. He was followed by our first keynote speaker, the Chief Justice of New Zealand, Rt. Hon. Dame Helen Winkelmann. This was followed by a useful session on appellate advocacy.

Saturday sessions began promptly at 8:30am with a discussion on the rights, responsibilities and role of the media in criminal justice, which was chaired by Garry Williams. The panel included Jonathan Eaton QC, Cate Brett Arthur Moses SC, and Marie Mills. This topic has, of course, exercised many criminal lawyers in New Zealand over the past year and continues to do so in the wake of the Millane trial. The speakers discussed strategies for dealing with media, not just at a policy level, but an individual case level.

Dr Anne Aly MP, our second keynote speaker, spoke about the current failures of responses to countering terrorism and violent extremism. An academic and MP, Dr Aly was the only Australian representative to speak at President Obama's 2015 White House summit on countering violent extremism. Her core message was that the socalled war on terror hasnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t worked and that we cannot eradicate this through military action.

Dr Aly discussed how the risk of terrorism depends on the opportunity, the capability and the intent to undertake it. There must be greater focus on the issue of intent and how to change this in the current Internet age.

She identified some of the online behaviours that indicate an engagement with radicalisation.

After lunch, New Zealand Deputy SolicitorGeneral, Aaron Martin, chaired a panel discussion on advocacy in inquiries. Panellists Simon Mount QC, Mary Scholtens QC and Rowena Orr QC shared their experiences from having been counsel assisting the inquiry and appearing for clients at inquiries. One of the key differences they noted was the increasing media presence, particularly in high-profile inquiries, which can add a great deal of stress to the advocateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s life.

The following session on indigenous rights was a fascinating look at both how the justice system can fail in protecting the indigenous cultures of Aotearoa and Australia, and how

www.nzbar.org.nz

Session 8 was divided into two streams. The Hon. Justice Geoffrey Venning, Hon. Justice Sue Brown and Clive Elliott QC, in a session chaired by Andrew Skelton, discussed initiatives for greater efficiency in civil procedure, including suggestions for a short causes procedure.

Meanwhile the other stream considered what criminal lawyers can teach civil litigators. This was chaired by Peter Callahan SC and Hon. Justice Michael Corboy, Marie Dyhrberg QC and Ken Archer spoke about the skills and understandings that criminal lawyers bring to hearings. The point was made that many criminal lawyers also do civil work, and in some cases, it is the civil work that funds their ability to take on the criminal work.

One of the highlights of all NZBA conference is the optional activities that

39

delegates can enjoy on the afternoon of the final day of the conference. This year, delegates were offered a choice of eight alternatives, including: a lake cruise and a private tour of Mt Nicholas station; a visit to New Zealand’s first Net Zero Energy accommodation provider, Camp Glenorchy; the Zip Trek Ecotour; for the less environmentally conscious there was the opportunity to enjoy Highlands Motorsport Park; a guided bike ride and wine tasting (possibly one might think a dangerous combination but all survived!); a 4x4 trip to locations used in the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit films; an exclusive cruise around Lake Wakatipu on the Pacific Jemm; or (for those who just can’t help themselves) nine holes of golf at Jack’s Point.

As usual, the conference closed with the Gala Dinner and this year we were once again able to enjoy a debate. The theme was “Bigger is Better” with the Australian team of Peter Dunning QC and Raelene Sharp arguing in the affirmative and the New Zealand team of Kathryn Dalziel and Simon Foote arguing the

www.nzbar.org.nz

negative. At the end of the debate, which was accompanied by much laughter and heckling from the audience, the judges declared the New Zealand team (naturally) the winners.

All agreed that the conference had been a great success and there was support for investigating a second joint conference to be held in two years’ time.

The NZBA would particularly like to thank the sponsors who made the event possible and successful. These were: Platinum sponsor: LexisNexis; Silver sponsors: AIG, Marsh, NZI and Thomson Reuters; and Bronze sponsors: CSC Buying Group and MAS. Other sponsors included Ludlows, Nuance, Stewart Partners, The Private Office and Younes Espiner.

* The 2020 Annual Conference will be held on 28 and 29 August in Tauranga. More information will be available shortly.

40

Photos from Conference

The conference dinner was held at the Skyline restaurant

The view from the Skyline as guests arrive by gondola

Peter Callaghan SC, Jonathan Eaton QC, Fiona Eaton, Marie Dyhrberg QC

Anthony Rodgers, Heather Rogers, Jane Glover, Kevin Glover

Lara Steel, Jane Anderson QC, James Gurnick, Helen Coutts

Attorney-General Hon. Vickie Chapman (S.A), Anne Toohey, Dr Elizabeth Brophy

Andrew Jollands, Merran Keil, Nicola Airey, Kelsey Rissman

Meher Gaven, James Rapley QC, Abi Skelton, Andrew Skelton

Derek Austin, Sarah Wroe, Earl Gray

Vivienne Crawshaw QC, Richard Marchant, Lynda Kearns

John Dixon QC, Nicky Ryan, Simativa Perese

Richard Phan and Regina Barber

Hon. Justice Richard Niall, Mark Robertson, Kylie Nomchong SC, Clive Elliott QC

Eska Hartdegan, Margaret Broadbent, Matt Pedersen

Abhijeet Patni, Deputy Solicitor-General Aaron Martin, Antonia Fisher QC, Stuart Grieve QC

www.nzbar.org.nz

41

Fiona Eaton, Shane Elliott

Kate Davenport QC, with outgoing Council members Sam Wimsett, Lara Steel, Rob Stevens, Lisa Hansen, Maria Dew QC, Jenny Cooper QC

ABA President Jennifer Batrouney QC (Aus)

Deputy Solicitor-General Aaron Martin

Dr Matthew Collins QC, Kate Davenport QC, Kylie Nomchong SC

Derek Nolan QC, Christine Nolan, Jane Anderson QC, Dr Tim Christmas

Jonathan Eaton QC, Mary Scholtens QC, John Luxton

Kate Wiseman, Hon. Robert Fisher QC, Glenn Jones

Matt Pedersen from Platinum Sponsor LexisNexis

Dr Matthew Collins QC, Hon. Raynor Asher QC

Meher Gaven, Rob Stevens

Paul Radich QC, Ian Robertson SC

Debate moderator, Kylie Nomchong SC, with the Australian team of Peter Dunning QC and Raelene Sharp

www.nzbar.org.nz

The winning New Zealand team Simon Foote and Kathryn Dalziel

42

The losing but valiant Australian team, Peter Dunning QC and Raelene Sharp

Simon Foote doing his best to advance cross-Tasman relationships

Kathryn Dalzielâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s argument ensured that Australian Border Control will give her a personalised welcome on her next trip to Oz

The audience enjoying the exchange of insults

Auckland Christmas Drinks

Melissa Perkin (holding flowers) with three of the Presidents she has worked with: Clive Elliott QC, Kate Davenport QC and Stephen Mills QC

Bal Matheson, Fletcher Pilditch, Josh McBride, Simon Foote

Brett Cunningham, Laura Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Gorman

Robert Stewart, Sarah Wroe

Ish Jayanandan, Clive Elliott QC

Bernard Robertson, Sam Lowery, John Hannan, Paul David QC

Sonja Clapham, Rachael Reed QC

www.nzbar.org.nz

Setareh Stienstra, Hon. Robert Fisher QC

43

Michael Webb, Hon. Raynor Asher QC, Paul Rishworth QC

2019 – 2020 COUNCIL CONTACT DETAILS

2013-2014 COUNCIL CONTACT DETAILS

KATE DAVENPORT QC – President Ph: +64 9 307 8787 kate@katedavenportqc.co.nz

PAUL RADICH QC – President Elect Ph: +64 4 974 5951 paul.radich@cliftonchambers.co.nz PHILLIP CORNEGÉ Ph: +64 7 282 0572 phillip@phillipcornege.com QUENTIN DUFF – Observer Ph: +64 27 242 7734 q@mataichambers.com JONATHAN EATON QC – Vice President Ph: +64 3 372 3466 j.eaton@bridgesidechambers.co.nz SIMON FOOTE Ph: +64 9 307 8784 swbf@simonfoote.co.nz FELIX GEIRINGER Ph: + 64 4 909 7297 felix@geiringer.law SAM JEFFS – Co-opted Junior Rep Ph: +64 9 973 0272 sam.jeffs@bankside.co.nz JOSH McBRIDE – Co-opted Ph +64 9 309 8765 josh@richmondchambers.co.nz RICHARD MCGUIRE – Associate Member Rep Ph: +64 3 962 4241 richard.mcguire@pds.govt.nz TIHO MIJATOV –Junior Rep Ph: +64 4 472 9027 tiho.mijatov@stoutstreet.co.nz DAVID O’NEILL – Treasurer / Vice President Ph: +64 7 839 1745 david.oneill@nzbarrister.com SIMATIVA PERESE Ph +64 9 300 5488 perese@xtra.co.nz JONO ROSS Ph +64 3 929 6646 Jono.ross@montrosechambers.co.nz SETAREH STIENSTRA Ph +64 9 309 7889 setareh@publiclawchambers.com ANNE TOOHEY Ph +64 3 260 3101 anne@annetoohey.co.nz ESTHER WATT Ph: +64 4 260 5041 esther.watt@stoutstreet.co.nz MICHAEL WEBB – Co-opted Ph: +64 9 377 6543 mw@mrhwebb.com