The Inner Temple Yearbook 2022

YEARBOOK

Her Honour Judge Deborah Taylor

To honour and celebrate the natural beauty of the earth’s most precious woods, Steinway & Sons has created the MASTERPIECE 8X8 collection, a limited edition of eight grand pianos and eight upright pianos in its hand-crafted veneer, designed to showcase the quality and unique personality of each wood and bring it to life.

MASTERPIECE 8X8 pianos are issued as model B 211cm grand and model K 132cm upright. The model B is equipped with , the most modern technology Steinway currently has to offer.

For more information or to arrange a private appointment at our London showrooms, please call: 0207 487 3391 or email info@steinway.co.uk

Steinway Hall London W1U 2DB www.steinway.co.uk

Figured Sycamore Model B 211cm Spirio | r

Inner Temple Yearbook 2022–2023

Treasurer: Her Honour Judge Deborah Taylor

Reader: Sir Robert Francis KC

Reader Elect: The Hon Mr Justice Soole

Sub-Treasurer: Greg Dorey CVO

Treasury Office: Inner Temple London EC4Y 7HL 020 7797 8250

Yearbook@innertemple.org.uk innertemple.org.uk

Master of the Yearbook: Minka Braun

Editor: Emma Hynes

Assistant Editor: (Bar Liaison Committee) James Batten

Assistant Editor: Henrietta Amodio

Yearbook Manager: Nadia Ruiz

Desk Editor: Carolyn Dodds

Archivist: Celia Pilkington

Education & Training Editorial Team: Julia Armfield

Photographs: Garlinda Birkbeck, Paul Clark, MPP Image Creation, James Brittain, Inner Temple photograph archive

Yearbook Design: Noun Ltd, 10 Kingshill Court, High Wycombe, Bucks HP13 5FN wearenoun.com

Brandworld Design: SomeOne, 67 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4QS someoneinlondon.com

Advertising: HDTL Ltd hdtl.co.uk

Printed by: John Good Limited, Progress House, Butlers Leap, Rugby CV21 3RQ johngood.com

FROM THE EDITOR

Welcome to the 2022–2023 edition of The Inner Temple Yearbook. Just as we were going to print, we had the sad news that Her Majesty the Queen has passed away. It is a time for reflection on the Queen’s remarkable contribution to this country, and also a time for looking forward with hope for our new King.

Our cover features the new building, fresh from the construction works which saw us decant and disperse to other lodgings around the Inn. We have finally realised the vision for Inner Temple as it was designed to be many years ago. We have also created spaces and facilities for future generations, who will gather, learn and socialise together. In this work, we combine our past and our future.

There is another seismic change which is, at least from my perspective, abrupt and sad. It is tradition that the Editor of The Inner Temple Yearbook only serves for three years. Yet I have managed to get to the fourth edition before anyone noticed. Clearly, we all lost a year with COVID-19.

Having considered it carefully, I have concluded that the Yearbook will probably not fall apart without me. I leave it in the very capable hands of Henrietta Amodio and the inimitable Minka Braun, Master of the Yearbook. I must also highlight Nadia Ruiz for liaison with the designer and sourcing design images; Celia Pilkington for providing fascinating historical material; and Julia Armfield for managing the Education and Training section of the Yearbook. These people really are the force and the talent behind this publication. Finally, I should like to thank all those who have so generously given their time to write articles for this and recent past editions.

At times I have been thanked for my work as Editor, but it is not a role that requires thanks. It has been nothing short of my complete pleasure to have contributed to this Yearbook, and in my very small way, to this historic Inn.

Hynes Gatehouse Chambers

Emma

Henrietta Amodio

Celia Pilkington

Julia Armfield

Nadia Ruiz

Honourable Society

Temple

Photo: James Brittain

I From the Editor 1

Emma Hynes

I From the Treasurer 4 Her Honour Judge Deborah Taylor

C Celebrate the Life: 6 Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

T Sir Thomas Hewitt KC: 8 A Man of Many Parts The Sub-Treasurer

READER’S LECTURE SERIES

RL Calling Out Evil: 12 Citizens Acting When Governments Do Not Martin Elliott MD FRCS

A Ivy Williams (1877–1966): 15

First Woman Called to the Bar of England and Wales, 10 May 1922 Dr Frances Burton

T Is There a Case for 20 Anonymity in Social Media

Master Guy Fetherstonhaugh, Master Andrew Caldecott, Caroline Addy, Adam Wagner

T The Grand Re-Opening 24 The Treasurer, Master Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal

T The Crime of Ecocide 42

Master Guy Fetherstonhaugh, Master Geoffrey Nice, Philippe Sands KC, James Cameron

T A Hanging Matter 46

Master Alison Foster and the Director of the Treasury Office

TC Memorial for those lost to Covid 50 Sir Christopher Clarke

L Library Facilities and Services 52

E Education & Training 53

T Project Pegasus: 28 A Personal Perspective Master Oliver Sells

READER’S LECTURE SERIES

RL Calling it out: 31 Professionals, their Regulators, Equity and Fairness Master Vanessa Davies

T Inns of Court 34 Alliance for Women Master Leigh-Ann Mulcahy

TC The Temple Church: 36 Restoration & Renewal The Master of the Temple

C Celebrate the Life: 40 Master Stanley Brodie Courtesy of The Times/News Publishing

COIC The Council of 77 The Inns of Court

C Tribute to Fiona Bartlett 78 Master Tracy Ayling

T Crime Does Not Pay 80 Master Minka Braun

READER’S LECTURE SERIES

RL Education for 82 Human Flourishing Master Michael Stevenson

A John Selden and Legal History 86 ‘Liberty Above All Things” Master John Baker

T The Inner Temple Moltenos 91 Master Simon Brown

C Celebrate the Life: 96 Master Richard Southwell Dean of Salisbury Cathedral, Howard Page KC

L There and Back Again 98 Head Librarian and Deputy Librarian

C Celebrate the Lives 100

T The Rule of Law in Times of 104 International Conflict: Shortcomings of the International Order

Master Geoffrey Nice, The Lord Hannay of Chiswick GCMG CH, Master Andrew Cayley, The Rt Hon Dominic Grieve KC

G Creating Moments 108 of Sanctuary The Head Gardener

A Distances without Scale and Compass: 112 John Adams of The Inner Temple (c 1643–90)

Dr Stephen Gadd

T The Inner Temple Big Picnic 114

READER’S

SERIES RL Becoming British: 132 Why Test for Citizenship?

T Asylum & Immigration: 116 Do Sovereign Island Nations have a Duty to Provide Refuge? Master Geoffrey Nice, Master Robert Buckland, Master Rehana Popal, Anthony Vaughan

T The Evolution of the 120 Practice of Law in Malaysia: A Post-Pandemic Picture Karyn Khor

I In Memoriam 122 A Timeline 123 The Archivist

Master Thom Brooks T The Inner Temple Summer Party 136 A History Society Review 139 Master Donald Cryan TC Temple Church 140 Independence Day Sermon Deborah Enix-Ross TC Weddings and Baptisms 142 I Bar Liaison Committee 144 I New Silks 2022 146 I New Masters of the Bench 2022–2023 148 I Masters of the Bench 150 (in order of seniority) I People Finder 154

Committees 156

TC The Inns of Court Gainsford Trust 126 — providing support, comfort and help for 130 years The Reader of the Temple Church

T A Royal Connection 128

Master Michael Lawson

T Royal Silver and The Inner Temple 129 Richard Parsons

FROM THE TREASURER

Shortly before going to print, we heard the deeply sad news of the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. This came at the end of an extraordinary week in which we saw Her Late Majesty receive the resignation of her 14th Prime Minister, and appoint her 15th Prime Minister, only to be taken seriously ill shortly afterwards. In the week of national mourning following the announcement of her death, we witnessed an outpouring of national and international appreciation and admiration for her long reign of selfless and dutiful service to her peoples. For most of us, Her Majesty was Queen for the whole of our lives, certainly for our working lives, embodying the values of integrity and regard for the constitution which are so important for society and for the rule of law. On behalf of The Inner Temple, I have sent deepest condolences to His Majesty The King and to our Royal Bencher, Master Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal.

Respectful of the period of national mourning and after careful deliberation, we took the decision with Gray’s Inn to cancel the planned Joint Amity visit to Washington and the subsequent visits to four Caribbean jurisdictions, which were due to start on 10 September, and would have continued over the period of the funeral. Though disappointing, especially after so much work had gone into planning the visits, cancellation was undoubtedly the right course, understood and unconditionally supported by those in the United States and Caribbean we were due to meet, whose own respect for Her Late Majesty was apparent in their dealings with the Inn and the condolences they expressed.

On any view 2022 has been an extraordinary year to be Treasurer: it is the year in which Project Pegasus, long in the conception and execution, was completed, and the Inn reopened in enhanced glory; the year in which we emerged from the dark days of separation by the COVID-19 pandemic to celebrate with heightened appreciation the ability to meet and enjoy each other’s company in the Inn; the year of the 100th anniversary of the Call of the first women to the Bar of England and Wales, reminding us that the modern era in our long history only began within living memory; the year which marks the provision of the new Bar Course this autumn in the new Education and Training Centre, reintroducing and reinforcing the provision of education and training at the heart of the Inn; the year of the Platinum Jubilee and death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

The coming together of all these strands took me back to 2014, when I was one of the members of the Strategic Review Group (SRG), established under the chairmanship of Master Hunt to provide the Inn with a strategy which would “articulate a vision of a thriving Inner Temple in 2020 and beyond, with a clear plan of route, in a fast changing domestic and international landscape”. The SRG reported in April 2015, with a strategy which set the Inn on course for the achievements of 2022. Recommendations included that the Inns support the establishment of a virtual Inns’ College working together to improve the standard of training courses for the Bar and reduce their excessive cost to students, and that the Inn should redevelop the Treasury Building to improve its educational provision, with a state of the art auditorium and smaller teaching rooms at the heart of the development, and with the Library closer to the Education and Training Department. The SRG was unpersuaded of the case for a bespoke international arbitration facility, and instead strongly recommended the design of flexible space capable of many uses.

Her Honour Judge Deborah Taylor

This year has seen these recommendations come to fruition. The new Inns of Court College of Advocacy (ICCA) Bar Course has gone some way towards achieving the intended goals of higher standards and lower cost, but despite encouragingly high success rates there is still more progress to be made. Project Pegasus has provided the Inn with a new state of the art auditorium, education and training rooms, and breakout spaces capable of many uses. The Library is integrated into the heart of the new building, more easily accessible to members and students on the new course. Since the reopening in May 2022, we have all been able to enjoy a wide variety of events, educational and social, and the decision to design for flexible rather than limited use has proved sound. With advances in remote hearings changing the nature of many court proceedings, a purpose built arbitration centre might well be standing empty. On the other hand, the new facilities provide opportunities for improvement not only in the education and training the Inn provides to students but also for continuing education for members of the Inn through events which focus on the interests and needs of practitioners at all stages of their careers, and in different branches of the law. It is important that we continue to use the space we have imaginatively, to benefit all members of the Inn. Although we are now beyond 2020, the domestic and international landscape is as fast changing as ever.

The Inn continues to attract high quality candidates for Call to the Bar. I have already had the great pleasure of welcoming newly called barristers and congratulating them on their achievements at three Call Nights and two additional Call Receptions held for those who were called online during the pandemic. A realistic apprehension of the difficulties of pursuing a career at the Bar did not affect their enthusiasm, nor the pride of their families and friends, making these occasions a highlight of the year.

The Inn has also encouraged more involvement with the Circuits. I have been able to visit and meet members of the Inn on all of the Circuits and to host dinners to encourage understanding and involvement by the Inn’s Academic Fellows, and academics from universities in the North East and South West, as well as London. The increased opportunity for members of the Inn on Circuit to become involved and attend meetings remotely has been an unexpected and lasting benefit of COVID, as the universal use of Zoom has caused the unlamented end of the squawk box phone.

It is a truth universally acknowledged, not least in Treasurers’ articles in the Yearbook, that being Treasurer of The Inner Temple in any year is a great privilege. I have felt that privilege acutely when I consider my good fortune in being able to take part in all of these activities, no longer affected by the pandemic and Project Pegasus. The year has passed swiftly, but there is still much to do in the autumn and winter months.

To mark the 100th anniversary of the Call to the Bar of Ivy Williams, all four Inns have joined together to form the Inns of Court Alliance for Women (ICAW), the successor to the Temple Women’s Forum, to support equality for women in the profession, to improve retention, and to increase diversity at senior levels in the Bar and Judiciary. Recent Bar Council research has shown that there is still much to be done to achieve equality of opportunity and remuneration, particularly for women from minority backgrounds. The Inn continues to make a strong contribution to improving equality, diversity and inclusion through outreach work, the fair allocation of scholarship funds and support for those from all backgrounds starting, and already established in their careers. Thanks to a working group of the EDI Sub-Committee, a new Equality & Diversity training module has been created for volunteers assisting with education and training activities. This profession specific training will support the new Volunteer and Participant Code to ensure best practice, safeguarding and monitoring of the Inn’s activities. The training will be offered first to volunteers taking part in the volunteering survey and subsequently will be rolled out to all members involved in the Inn’s governance.

In this week of national mourning following the announcement of her death, we are witnessing an outpouring of national and international appreciation and admiration for her long reign of selfless and dutiful service to her peoples.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the staff of the Inn for unstinting enthusiasm and constant support. In particular, I thank the Sub-Treasurer Greg Dorey for his good counsel and unwavering good humour. I have also been most fortunate in having the assistance and support of the Reader Master Robert Francis (Sir Robert Francis KC), and the Reader Elect Master Michael Soole (The Hon Mr Justice Soole), both of whom have been outstanding in their roles this year, and into whose most capable hands I pass the reins for next year.

It is the year in which Project Pegasus, long in the conception and execution, was completed, and the Inn reopened in enhanced glory.

Her Honour Judge Deborah Taylor Master Treasurer

HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II, 1926–2022

The Inner Temple joined the nation in mourning the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The Treasurer and members of the Inn are deeply thankful for Her Majesty’s long reign and service to the nation. The Union Flag flew at half-mast over the Treasury Building for the period of national mourning in memory of the Late Queen and a book of condolence is available for members to sign.

The Inner Temple had the honour of receiving Her Majesty The Late Queen Elizabeth II at the Inn on numerous occasions including for the Rededication of the Round in Temple Church in 1958; the 400th Anniversary of the Letters Patent granted to The Inner and Middle Temple by James I in 2008; and more recently in 2013 for a special service following restoration of the Temple Church Harrison & Harrison organ.

HM The Late Queen attending attending a service and reception on 13 May 2013 to re-dedicate the Temple Church organ © Chris Christodolou

13 November 1952

Her Majesty The Queen laid the foundation stone of the rebuilt hall of Inner Temple.

23 March 1954

Her Majesty The Queen, accompanied by HM The Queen Mother, visited for the Rededication of the Chancel.

9 November 1955

Her Majesty The Queen, accompanied by HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, visit The inner Temple Hall for a Grand Day dinner.

7 November 1958

Left: Rededication of the Round Church attended by Her Majesty The Queen, HRH The Duke of Edinburgh and HM The Queen Mother. Right: The Queen inspecting the charter.

17 December 1966

Amity Dinner attended by Her Majesty The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, who was also attending a service of thanksgiving in the Church.

26 June 1985

Service of thanksgiving for the 800th anniversary of the consecration of the Round Church 1185–1985 in the presence of Her Majesty The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh.

24 June 2008

400th Anniversary of the letters patent granted to the Inns by James I, commemorated by a service of thanksgiving in the Temple Church, attended by Her Majesty The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh.

7 May 2013

Service of Rededication for the completed restoration of the Temple Church organ in the presence of Her Majesty The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh. Photo © Chris Christodolou

6 June 2022

A joint loyal address from the Treasurers of The Inner Inner and Middle Temple is sent to Her Majesty The Queen in celebration of her Platinum Jubilee.

SIR THOMAS HEWITT KC: A MAN OF MANY PARTS

By The Sub-Treasurer

As a frequent visitor to Lynton in North Devon (linked to Lynmouth by a water-powered funicular railway), I was intrigued to see a sign at the gatepost of the Villa Spaldi on Lynton North Walk which read “1837–1923: Sir Thomas Hewitt KC loved this place and built this house & gardens c 1870”. Further research revealed him to be a distinguished former member of The Inner Temple. One of his sons (Copley de Lisle Hewitt) was also a member of the Inn and another a member of Middle Temple.

Sir Thomas was a highly intelligent man, a German speaker (part-educated in Darmstadt) who played chess at international level and founded both a chess club and publication. He aspired to the Bar, but first qualified as a solicitor in 1864. Two years later he became associated with another Inn, as a Captain in Gray’s Inn Rifles, a branch of the Middlesex Reserve Volunteers. He was Clerk to the Commissioners of Taxes for City of London in 1882; then President of the Clerks, only retiring in 1916; and was called to the Bar by The Inner Temple in 1884. The shareholders of the Ocean, Accident and Guarantee Corporation elected him Director, then Chairman in 1888. He was placed on the Commission of the Peace for the City of London the same year. In 1889 he became Director (and later Deputy Chairman) of the Artisans and General Labourers Dwelling Company and was much interested in good housing for working people.

In 1892 Butterfield published Hewitt on Corporation Duty, the standard text for many years. Sir Thomas became Queen’s Counsel in 1899, and later King’s Counsel (the last time this happened prior to 2022). He was President of the Chamber of Arbitration of the City of London from 1901, overseeing the tax affairs of City (that is, 25 per cent of the country’s Schedule D income tax returns). In 1902 alone he dealt with 11,387 appeals. By 1905 he well deserved his knighthood. When the London Arbitration Court was reorganised in 1906 he left – and stood, unsuccessfully, as the Liberal Unionist candidate for North West Cornwall (Camborne), reducing the Socialist majority. Edward VII appointed him High Sheriff of Devonshire in 1908. He was elected Mayor of the Royal Borough of Kensington in 1909 but turned it down; then accepted the appointment in 1912; but declined a second term in 1913. He was made a Freeman of the City of London and it was suggested he should be Lord Mayor, but his sons allegedly talked him out of this for financial reasons.

Sir Thomas became Queen’s Counsel in 1899, and later King’s Counsel (the last time this happened prior to 2022).

Sir Thomas married his first wife, Elizabeth Jane Wilson, in 1864. She died the following year, probably of the after-effects of giving birth to their daughter. “Alas”, he wrote in family notes and clearly thought of her for long afterwards. But in 1869 he married again, happily, to his cousin Fanny Dugard Powles. Canon Charles Kingsley (of The Water-Babies fame) conducted the ceremony. Lynton was a favourite holiday destination and it was while walking on cliffs at Lynton North Walk that he suggested she throw a stone to mark the site of a summer house. They employed Bob Jones, the only local builder, to construct The Hoe, a large and lovely house on a steep, bare hillside down to the sea. It has been little altered since. Gardens, bowered walks and terraces were created and 27 acres of woodland established which are now rich in wildlife. The views are fabulous. They went on to have three sons.

The Hewitts encouraged local people to visit their gardens and woods and play tennis. They sponsored many local projects, such as purchasing goats from the Sandringham Royal Herd to help with TB. Their descendants still wander the cliffs.

“The Little Lady” Fanny (he was well over six foot tall) built poor houses, started lace-making classes and helped Belgian refugees. It is slightly strange in retrospect that Sir Thomas’s memory is little marked in modern Lynton, in contrast to Sir George’s: it has been suggested that a grand manner may have somewhat alienated those for whom he and his wife did so much. He died peacefully, after lunch, in his study aged 85.

But it was Sir Thomas’s collaboration with Sir George Newnes, the publisher of Tit-Bits, The Pall Mall Gazette and The Strand Magazine, and a chess partner, which had the greatest impact on the locality – changing isolated Lynton into a holiday destination of choice. He persuaded Sir George to build the grand Hollerday House on the hillside above The Hoe in the 1880s, but it was sadly destroyed by fire in 1913. Together they planned the 900-foot long Cliff Railway down to Lynmouth, 450 feet below, and Sir Thomas probably gave the land for it and became a Director. It opened in 1890 and remains accidentfree. Bob Jones was Chief Engineer. Sir Thomas’s interest may not have been entirely altruistic, because it enabled him to transport his car on a flat-bed carriage, up the hill to Lynton North Walk. The two of them were also driving forces behind the creation of The Lynton and Barnstaple Railway from 1895–8. Sir Thomas was firstly a Director and then took over from Sir George as Chairman for nine years in 1910.

The Hoe became Hewitt’s Hotel before becoming Villa Spaldi, owned by the charming Tito and Angelika Spaldi, and is now available for purchase. Sir Thomas rests in a quiet corner of Lynton Old Cemetery, together with Fanny’s smaller grave.

Greg Dorey CVO Sub-Treasurer

Lynton was a favourite holiday destination and it was while walking on cliffs at Lynton North Walk that he suggested she throw a stone to mark the site of a summer house.

They sponsored many local projects, such as purchasing goats from the Sandringham Royal Herd to help with TB. Their descendants still wander the cliffs.

A business event or a celebration, a get-together or a birthday party, a meeting or a private dinner. Since 1847.

Speak to Searcys Events Team 020 7101 0220.

Perfect for any occasion – from dining and afternoon tea experiences, to Searcys Champagne and English Sparkling Wine and signature tea sets. Scan to SHOP ONLINE Discover more at Searcys.co.uk

CALLING OUT EVIL:

CITIZENS ACTING WHEN GOVERNMENTS DO NOT

By Martin Elliott MD FRCS

I spent the greater part of my life as an academic paediatric cardiothoracic surgeon, working to save or improve lives with a team equally devoted to caring for others, irrespective of belief or background. For over 25 years of that career, I was involved in heart, lung, and tracheal transplantation. Donating one’s organs for transplantation is an act of supreme generosity; one human thinking of the needs of another, potentially unknown, person. There are never enough organs to meet demand, and prioritisation is necessary. Nations supporting transplantation have constructed systems which maintain databases of donors’ relevant details to be matched with a similar dataset of potential recipients. This ensures the best tissue match and the transplant of a non-diseased organ. Transplant data should thus be transparent and auditable.

In 2016, as Gresham Professor of Physic, I was approached by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC (GN), then Professor of Law at Gresham. He had been asked by an NGO, End Transplant Abuse in China (ETAC), for a legal opinion on evidence they had accumulated concerning forced organ harvesting (FOH) in China; people being killed so that their organs could be transplanted.

GN felt the problem too serious for a simple legal opinion. Evidence of FOH had been available to the international community for well over a decade, but neither individual governments nor international organisations had taken any action. What should we, the people, do if such bodies fail to act against so clearly unethical and illegal practices?

GN advised the establishment of a People’s Tribunal based on principles laid down by Bertrand Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre at the 1966 International War Crimes Tribunal. Regina Paulose describes People’s Tribunals as “independent, peaceful, grassroots movements, created by members of civil society to address impunity that is associated with ongoing or past atrocities”. They are established when the authorities have taken no action. They permit citizens, acting as jurors, to make a judgment based on evidence presented to them.

After reading a truly shocking summary of evidence, and with some trepidation (China is a powerful state), I accepted the invitation to join The China Tribunal and joined five others under the chairmanship of GN. We had no previous knowledge of the alleged crimes, and no relevant political allegiances. There was a great deal of written evidence to review, largely accumulated over the previous decade by two Canadians, David Matas (human rights lawyer) and the late David Kilgour (former Secretary of State), and Ethan Gutmann, an American journalist now resident in London. The tribunal read all this material and more that ETAC provided. There were also two public hearings held in London at which oral evidence from relevant witnesses was presented in person, with questioning from the tribunal members. All the evidence, written, oral and video is available on the tribunal website for you to make your own conclusions.

We heard that the Chinese government, in the form of the Communist Party (CCP), had, in 1999, become concerned about the rapid growth of the peaceful Falun Gong spiritual movement, which then had over 80 million practitioners, including within the CCP itself. The President, Jiang Zemin, saw them as a threat to CCP values and implemented a crackdown on the Falun Gong. Thousands of its practitioners were detained without trial in the established Laogai system of camps. Conditions were brutal, encompassing torture, sexual violence, and extrajudicial killing.

The CCP simultaneously ordered an expansion in organ transplantation, to catch up and overtake the west. In the early 2000s there was exponential growth in transplant facilities, related research, and staff. In 1984, China had passed legislation permitting organ removal for transplantation from executed prisoners. Whilst this has never been repealed, international pressure resulted in a gradual decrease in the number of executions, officially for many years the sole source of donor organs. A formal voluntary organ donor system was not established until 2011, and then only registering a relatively small number. Yet in the era from 2000–14 between 60 and 100,000 transplants were performed per year (estimated from scientific publications, hospital websites and individual surgeons’ reports; China held its transplant data as a state secret, in contrast to the rest of the world).

Outside China, people in need of a transplant can wait months or years for an organ, and a significant number die on the waiting list. Within China during this era, transplants were available for a large fee (between $50,000 and $150,000) to transplant tourists and Chinese citizens practically on demand, with waiting times as short as days, and with organs being available ‘in reserve’ if a problem arose. This would not be possible without a pool of readily available donors; the Falun Gong and other detainees provided that pool. In support of this contention, evidence was presented of camp inmates being subjected to blood tests and ultrasound examinations consistent with assessing organ function and potentially tissue typing. There was no evidence for any other purpose.

Whilst some organs (eg a single kidney, a lobe of liver or part of a lung) can be taken from a live donor, others such as heart and whole lung result in the death of the patient. Ethically, such organ extraction can only take place after brain-stem death (brain death) for which there are well-established criteria, including apnoea (absence of spontaneous breathing). After brain death criteria have been met, the donor is ventilated mechanically and supported in the best physiological state prior to transplantation. More recently, donation after circulatory death either sudden (uncontrolled) or elective withdrawal of support (controlled) has become accepted. The tribunal was told of (and by) surgeons who had removed vital organs from living patients, causing their death, and evidence of supposedly brain-dead donors who were intubated on the operating table for ventilation. They cannot have been brain dead.

After brain death criteria have been met, the donor is ventilated mechanically and supported in the best physiological state prior to transplantation.

From such evidence, and much more, we concluded, beyond reasonable doubt, that the People’s Republic of China had sponsored forced organ harvesting, and that Falun Gong practitioners had been the principal source of such organs. Further, we concluded that the PRC had committed crimes against humanity, namely deprivation of liberty, murder, torture, rape and other sexual violence, and persecution based on racial, national, ethnic, cultural, or religious grounds. Genocide was not proven.

CONSEQUENCE

Local and international responses were slow. Early news coverage was limited and some, we came to learn, suppressed. There was a general feeling at the time (post-Brexit) that trade trumped human rights, a view which I am not convinced has passed, despite the horrors uncovered. Gradually however, the tribunal’s judgment has begun to make an impact, demonstrating confidence in the evidence reviewed. Here are some examples:

Legislation

in June 2021, 12 UN special rapporteurs and human rights experts issued formal correspondence on the issue to the Chinese government. legislation dealing with transplant tourism and/or organ harvesting has been passed or is in progress in France, the UK, Canada, USA and Korea. additional resolutions have been passed on the subject in the EU parliament and in the US senate.

Medical associations

Canadian, British, American and Australian medical associations have all issued statements condemning FOH and quoting the China Tribunal.

More than 1,000 individual US and Canadian signatories to a statement condemning FOH. The International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation has published a paper stating that, given the body of evidence, submissions to the ISHLT from China relating to transplantation or organ and tissue donation will not be accepted until independent proof that the practice of FOH has ceased.

Global Rights Compliance

This human rights legal group has published detailed guidance on how organisations (medical, academic, or commercial) should deal with China in the light of the China Tribunal findings. Already corporations are taking note of how they might frame new contracts with China.

EFFECTIVENESS

Has the China Tribunal been effective? It has clearly had an important impact, but one cannot feel comfortable until FOH in China is proven to have ended. Such proof will not be available until China ceases to obfuscate and embraces transparency. International organisations are either not permitted, or are unwilling, to audit China’s data. Further, China’s policy (the United Front) of exerting external influence via academic and professional organisations may well limit either access or will.

SOME PERSONAL REFLECTIONS

This was a chastening and humbling experience, both as an ordinary citizen and as a surgeon. I was astonished by the proven brutality of a state against its peaceful citizens and horrified by the necessary complicity of medical staff in carrying out the procedures, either organ extraction or insertion, without questioning the source of organs. The ethical spine of transplantation had been fractured. As a researcher and a member of the public, I was appalled that transplant data were held as a state secret, and that what data were available were highly questionable. Such secrecy and lack of transparency are indefensible.

It was humbling to observe the bravery of those who gave evidence at significant personal risk to themselves or their families. Humbling to read the extraordinary research work undertaken by those who investigated the reports of FOH from China. And humbling to be amongst an international panel of such expertise, wisdom, and commitment (all giving their time pro bono).

Surgical treatment decisions are based on the best data obtainable, but such data are rarely complete. We must use our judgment, based on the evidence before us. This was also the situation for the China Tribunal. It is worth restating that we entered the tribunal process with no predetermination or bias. We were open to all evidence presented to us. Despite multiple invitations to China via its embassy and to individual Chinese surgeons and its supporters in the ‘west’, none chose to submit evidence. It would have been good to be able to assess contrary data or evidence; none was forthcoming, either during the tribunal or in the two years since, despite international coverage. It would have been good to be able to assess contrary data or evidence; none was forthcoming, either during the tribunal or in the two years since, despite international coverage.

After much debate, we decided not to campaign after the judgment was published, however tempting that was. A judge, after making a decision, does not campaign on behalf of the plaintiff or defendant, rather letting her or his judgment stand. We felt that it would be of greater effect for others to use our published judgment in whatever way they wished, hopefully both to stop the practice of FOH and to bring to justice those who might later be subject to charge. Time will tell if that approach has worked.

A judge, after making a decision, does not campaign on behalf of the plaintiff or defendant, rather letting her or his judgment stand.

Totalitarian regimes and leaders from Russia to Myanmar, from Iran to China have flourished, and exhibited extreme cruelty to those with opposing views. How can ordinary citizens respond? In this context, I have concluded that People’s Tribunals are valuable. They can and do both shine a light on issues ignored by governments and precipitate change that most people would think authorities should already have undertaken. Ordinary citizens can review complex evidence and can make judgments which, with appropriate exposure and publicity, can both influence public opinion and lead to an appropriate global response from legislators. Ordinary citizens, encountering evil, can fight back.

Further information:

The principles and the history of People’s Tribunals have been described in: Paulose, RM (Ed); (2021) People’s Tribunals, Human Rights and The Law. Routledge, New York www.chinatribunal.com

https://globalrightscompliance.com/project/do-no-harmpolicy-guidance-and-legal-advisory-report/ Clive Hamilton & Mareike Ohlberg (2020); Hidden Hand: exposing how the Chinese communist party is reshaping the world; One World Publications, London

Martin Elliott MD FRCS

Acting Provost of Gresham College, London Emeritus Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery at UCL

IVY WILLIAMS (1877–1966):

FIRST WOMAN CALLED TO THE BAR OF ENGLAND AND WALES, 10 MAY 1922 – AN ENDURING INSPIRATION TO 100 YEARS OF WOMEN LAWYERS

By Dr Frances Burton from a lecture delivered on the centenary of Dr Ivy Williams’ Call to the Bar, 10 May 2022

It is unsurprising that Ivy Williams is such an enduring inspiration when one considers the five separate reasons for the remarkability of this first woman finally being called to the English Bar on 10 May 1922 and her contribution to establishing women as fully functioning members of the Bar, even if she personally chose not to engage in a court practice. Nowadays she would clearly be the academic member of the advocacy team in some high-profile case in which her specialist legal expertise was relevant. Sadly, this practice of leading practising barrister academics being associated with the Bar as members of chambers for practical use in such cases had not really developed in her lifetime. However, it is now a practice quite prevalent, especially in the higher courts: surely Ivy would have wanted to bring in her specialist contribution in this way if she had lived to 145 instead of merely to 88!

So, what are the reasons for her importance to this day, with her leading academic text even in paperback as though it were one of this year’s books of the year?

First, Ivy Williams’s life was a long one, stretching from the latter part of the Victorian era and some way into the period of most ambitious commercial and social growth of the 19th century. She was born well before either of Queen Victoria’s Jubilees of 1890 and 1900, when people’s daily experiences, especially of women, and at whatever level of society, were completely different in that last quarter of the 19th century from their lifestyles in both 1922 –after the social change of WWI – and 2022’s theoretical gender equality, a hundred years later in the 21st.

But it was also a lifetime in which she and her parents and family would already have both seen and successfully managed great change, from her birth to parents within a longstanding rural Oxfordshire family background, on both maternal and paternal sides, to her death as Dr Ivy Williams, Honorary Fellow of an Oxford College and living in academic North Oxford in 1966. That is the decade which famously marked that supposedly great post-WWII watershed of modern gender equality in the 20th century and beyond. ‘Theoretical’, since it is now 52 years since the Equal Pay Act 1970 and 12 since the Equality Act 2010 … yet it seems we are now still not entirely successful in this pursuit of genuine equality, as made clear by Caroline Criado Perez’s notable publication, The Invisible Woman

In fact, it seems that she and her brother were both born at a time of significant change in their own family, as well as social contextual upheaval generally. This took their parents right away from Oxford for the five years 1875 to 1880 on what we would now call ‘a career break’ or ‘adult gap year’ – and far from their respective families’ established pastoral Oxfordshire origins, and their developing commercial activity in the City

of Oxford in which her father, George St Swithin Williams, had set up a high street office, both as an Oxford solicitor and proactive small businessman. Owing to their parents taking this period of ‘time out’, both her brother and she herself were born respectively in Ryde on the Isle of Wight, and Newton Abbot, a Devon market town equally far from her family’s Oxfordshire agricultural origins. This shift of perspective was quite a ‘sea change’, albeit a fairly usual one in that period of the 19th century, in which many families were definitely moving with the times, so that the remainder of her achievements are almost just a further development waiting to happen.

Secondly, even before 1922 Ivy’s was to an extent a tirelessly crusading life. A Dr Williams, also the first woman Law don, either at Oxford or any other university in the United Kingdom, she had already lived through and successfully personally managed the life she wanted. She did this by finding a route over all the hurdles in the way of women’s legal academic – never mind professional – advancement. These obstacles strictly persisted when she was a girl and in her early adulthood, of which she clearly strived to take no notice and allowed no diversion from her goals. Indeed, her confident surmounting of all of those hurdles long before 1922 no doubt laid the foundations for the 20th century lifestyle women barristers could later expect on equal terms of membership of the legal profession. Not able to matriculate or graduate from Oxford University (having followed the Jurisprudence course at the Oxford Society for Home Students) she simply took the London University’s External Degree examinations (which was in effect, until well into the 21st century, a correspondence course lightly supervised by the group of London University colleges which issued materials in the form of syllabuses, reading lists, regulations, past exam papers and advice, but no tuition as such. The examinations for these London degrees were a system for which she had already prepared with tuition on her course at the Oxford Society for Home Students, and which was widely used by civil servants overseas, unable to attend in person at an English university as well as to hold on to their jobs governing the Empire).

Ivy thus graduated from London with an LLB in 1901 and an LLD in 1903 and then persisted towards her ultimate aim of pressing to collect her Oxford degrees – BA Jurisprudence, MA and BCL – which was only eventually permitted by Oxford University in 1920 when the rules were changed). In 1923, Oxford gave her a DCL for her learned work on the Sources of Law in the Swiss Code, still available 99 years later. At the same time, she endowed two Law scholarships, one for women only, and both in memory of her brother Winter, two years older than her. As soon as he had qualified as a barrister, being a man, he had been able to be called, but had then died young at the age of only 27, leaving Ivy to persist in her ambitions alone.

Indeed, because even the first Woman’s Call in 1922 was by no means the end of the story, Ivy’s perseverance up to that date inspired important developments in the history of women in the law generally and at the Bar in particular, especially in the two decades of the later 1920s and 1930s. Without this, women lawyers would probably not have been at all well placed to take advantage of the opportunities they eventually found becoming available to them in 1939–45, so as to advance their progress in the profession during WWII. This, of course, was when, while the men were at the war, someone had to ‘hold the fort’ in their absence, which unsurprisingly resulted in women being available and competent in those wartime years between 1939 and 1945 to take on work in the law that might otherwise have had to be left undone unless women could be roped in, as of course happened in all the other walks of life where these gaps were similarly filled if women could be found to fill them. In other words, WWII was not only about Land Girls, and about the present Queen qualifying as a young adult Princess ATS driver and motor technician, as we are now being reminded at the approach of her Platinum Jubilee.

Examining that later period together with the years up to when Helena Normanton and Rose Heilbron obtained Silk as KCs in 1949 – only 28 years on from that first 1922 Call – and only another seven until Rose Heilbron became Recorder of Burnley in 1956 (which was then the very first female such appointment, and an important one as that was and is still the first rung on the ladder towards permanent judicial posts), it is quite likely that but for the solid background of women being Called between 1922 and 1939, and their sterling record in 1939–45, such closely post-WWII advances might never have happened. This was because – although the 1919 Act immediately allowed female law students to join the Inns and the Law Society

and permitted those professional bodies and everyone in the profession and outside it to get used to the change – the women students still had to qualify. Thus, while the legislation also allowed 3,700 new lay magistrates to be appointed immediately after the passage of the 1919 Act, and thereafter the magistracy relied heavily on female JPs, women coming into practice and in the judiciary took much longer to establish.

Thirdly, the 1920s and 1930s in any case followed a very rocky period, between the unsuccessful challenge to the Law Society in 1913 by the aspirant solicitor, Gwyneth Bebb, and Lord Buckmaster’s 1919 professional enabling Act. In the famous 1913 decision, the court hearing the case famously decided women were not ‘persons’ and therefore had no right to admission to the profession, and all seemed over, at least for the time being, when Miss Bebb married and started a family. On the successful enactment of Lord Buckmaster’s statute, women could suddenly after all be admitted as law students to the Inns of Court and the Law Society. But by the time she could have taken advantage of it to enter the profession Gwyneth Bebb had sadly died in childbirth, having in the meantime entered Lincoln’s Inn as a Bar Student.

However, after the usual intervening period between Admission and Call, and having taken the same steps to full qualification as men (that is, for Call to the Bar, fulfilling their Inn membership obligations and passing the Bar or Law Society examinations, as there were then no compulsory pupillages) women barristers could, from 1922, finally make use of their newly called status (or qualification as a solicitor if that pathway was chosen). For the Bar, that meant women could either go into independent practice in chambers or engage in one of the so-called ‘non-practising’ roles. Nevertheless, this did not mean that noticeable change came quickly because, apart from the time lag between the successful admission applications and reaching Call at least two years later, this was strange new ground for women to familiarise themselves with. Nor was this instantly set automatically to produce an inrush of newly-qualified women barristers (or solicitors) since, apart from time having to be taken to achieve readiness for Call or entry onto the Roll of Solicitors, these pioneer women had decisions to make as to how to go about their newly-possible careers. Moreover, the period 1913–1919 had been a slow one – of virtually static and struggling hope that Lord Buckmaster would, in fact, get the 1919 Act through the legislative process, and without much universal expectation that it would actually happen – so after 1922 and up to the end of the 1920s, the new entrants to the profession only emerged slowly into practice or non-practising roles.

However, in Ivy Williams’ case, following her Call in 1922 that entry into the qualified profession as a new member of the Bar was instantly achieved by her going straight back to the Oxford Society of Home Students, where she remained in her academic context teaching law, one of the principal employments for non-practising barristers and especially women, and where she remained until her retirement in 1945. From around 1930, there was a noticeable increase in middle class women taking the plunge into practice – those, of course, from families with some private income available to fund the risks of incurring more expenses than fee earnings. One of these was Dorothy Lever of Middle Temple, who had two brothers already in the law and with family political and government connections,

In the famous 1913 decision, the court hearing the case famously decided women were not ‘persons’ and therefore had no right to admission to the profession.

Dr Ivy Williams © Getty Images

and who had married a solicitor. She also had good connections in both London and the North, a part of the country where it was perceived as often easier to establish a practice, following which she had a lifelong career as a magistrate and Chairman of one of the busier central London courts and, having an interest in law reform, as a contributor to two government inquiries. In these circumstances, perhaps WWII has to be seen as a benefit to the development of an increasing corpus of women at the Bar. Whereas it was clear that men’s practices were adversely affected by the war when they came back to the Bar in the immediate post-WWII years of 1945 to 1960 (which was also a fairly gloomy time of rationing until 1954, together with a certain parsimony in an era of high taxation) the period definitely seemed to have helped women’s practices. Indeed, there was some evidence that women barristers actually benefited from men’s absence in wartime. Moreover, these favourable conditions for women at the Bar continued to some extent because of the provision of legal aid by the Labour postwar government in 1949, until what later came to be referred to as this ‘blank cheque’ was restricted by successive Conservative governments. Nevertheless, unfortunately it is clear, from Lady Justice Nicola Davies’ recent address at the relaunch of the 2022 Inns of Court Alliance for Women, that it is ‘dispiriting’ that for those in independent practice at the Bar now, gender equality still has “a considerable way to go” 100 years after the Bar was opened to women. Indeed it looks at present as if gender equality might have reached a plateau. There are now quite a few successful women barristers and women judges in the higher courts, a lot of codes and rules and regulations, however at the other more basic end of independent practice, ethnic minority women are apparently earning only 41% of the income of white male barristers. We know from frequent media comment that some criminal practitioners, particularly women, are not earning enough at the Criminal Bar to make a profit after meeting the expenses of their practices, which is why they keep telling the press they are going to go on strike. Fourthly, Ivy did not – as she might have done – rush straight off into practice in court (which some still apparently think to be the only, and only suitable, prime activity for barristers) but went directly back to her already prestigious university academic appointment. Her achievement in obtaining Call to the Bar immediately must next be given credit for the important benefit to her successors of thus establishing the value of merely actually qualifying as a barrister, whether male or female, and even without an intention to practise as an advocate in court. Indeed, this finally achieved step did immediately enable women to work in other important law-related but more family-friendly contexts outside actual practice in the courts, which it is clear many of them were yearning to do at that time in 1922, including in other walks of life and not only in the law as such.

This was in particular because education is well fitted to provide a foundation for more than practice as a legal practitioner: Patrick Polden’s research, establishing the very varied roles taken up by women called between 1922 and 1939, has indicated the wide range of activities available to barristers at that period. Many continue today, and they are attractive to women seeking a more family-friendly occupation than advocacy in a court practice. These have included women barristers taking up appointments as company and legal secretaries, court clerks, civil servants including in the government legal service, legal executives, local government employees, law reporters, editors in publishing houses, employees of solicitors’ practices and more, all of which were promoted in Glanville Williams’ 1945 first edition of his famous book Learning the Law Further, Polden’s painstaking survey of Calls to the Bar of women from 1922 up to the 1939 closure of the preWWII window made it clear that qualifying for the Bar and establishing a practice might still appeal as an occupation for women from professional families who were able to rely on even a small private income to supplement their earnings and their management of the daunting expenses of establishing a practice at the time (when today’s extensive scholarships were not in place), especially if they were also able to obtain some income from university law teaching. A number of such women continued to come from the North, where establishing such a practice was often thought to be easier for men as well as women, and where many members of Eastern European families which had escaped to England to avoid the Nazification of countries invaded before WWII were settled on the North-Eastern and North-Western Circuits. This, for example, included the North-Western cities where Rose Heilbron built a heavyweight criminal practice that enabled her to be appointed to the recordership of Burnley. However, as time went on women came to be in practice in London and the South as well as in the North, which meant that such practices could also be supported by part-time academic work in London and Oxbridge, including at the Inns of Court School of Law, which in the more immediate post-WWII years recruited the part-time services of some of the most distinguished academics rather than using entirely full-time employed staff, as later became the case. Moreover, this entirely appropriate law-related employment for newly qualified practising barristers could be engaged in at weekends even by practising barristers working flat out in court all week. This clearly included academic law teaching even in less prestigious colleges than Ivy’s Law School of St Anne’s College, Oxford, which was by then the new persona of the Oxford Society for Home Students when it became a full College of Oxford University from 1952. A number of women built substantial practices in this way in those post-WWII years.

Academic Oxford women on the river in 1906 © St Anne’s College Library

Thus, following Ivy’s lead in returning to her Oxford post after Call in 1922, many young barristers of both sexes taught at universities at weekends while devoting their weekdays to practice. Women barristers who obtained a tenancy in chambers often also sought hourly paid teaching sessions, delivering to law students the rounded academic tuition that is made possible when a student’s grasp of black letter law is holistically informed while they are studying for their law degrees by the tutor’s familiarity with the law’s practical context in what used to be formally recognised and valued as the academic stage of legal education – that is, learning in depth the theory and principles of the law.

Professor Clare McGlynn’s 1998 title, The Woman Lawyer makes clear the substantial practical contribution of women lawyers to academic law teaching (often still allied, unfortunately, with lack of promotion on equal terms with men).

Fifthly, Ivy’s spectacular achievement of being the first woman to be Called to the Bar, as soon as it was possible in 1922, also highlighted the importance of Oxford’s role in late 19th century women’s education, which is recorded on the Law Faculty website. This is despite the fact that, although she studied Law at a College at Oxford with a prominent feminist profile, pre-1922 circumstances which restricted women’s access to Oxbridge degrees dictated that her first degree was actually from London and not Oxford.

That part of the Oxford women’s education story had begun in 1876, the year before Ivy was born, when a group headed by the wife of the Dean of Christ Church founded both the Oxford Society of Home Students and the nearby Wychwood School for girls, both designed primarily for the bluestocking daughters of dons and similarly educated persons of substance who, already living in Oxford, would have liked to be able to study to a tertiary education standard at their local university, and indeed could study in such a manner, even though they could not formally graduate until 1920.

Thus, there is a clear case for our not being led astray by the fact that Ivy’s birth took place in Devon, which seems always to have been a red herring in her story, having no real influence on her life. She was clearly always an Oxford person, as demonstrated by her lifelong attachment to both the university and the city in all the years she lived there, taught at the Oxford Society for Home Students, and then retired to North Oxford, having also founded the two law scholarships (one for women only) in memory of her brother Winter. He had no more connections with the Isle of Wight, where he was born, than she did with the West Country. Her parents’ antecedents on both sides were from solidly Oxfordshire rural backgrounds, originally around Witney and Summertown (once a completely distinct village only later swallowed by Oxford City), and her father, George St Swithin Williams, who was born in Cote near Witney (as were many of her parents’ antecedents for several generations), had been admitted and practising as a solicitor in Oxford since the 1850s.

Ivy was educated at home with her brother, and, instead of going to school, studied the same curriculum as he did (which, it seems, included Russian which perhaps explains her fluency in several European languages – including those needed to prepare and write her text on the Swiss Constitution – as well as Latin).

In 1891, Jackson’s Oxford Journal recorded that she had obtained Distinction in three subjects in the Oxford & Cambridge Schools Examination: German, French and Additional Mathematics. In 1892, it also recorded that she had passed English grammar, Latin, German, French, Arithmetic, Algebra, Euclid, Geography and English History: with Distinction in Latin (where she was second of the girls), German (with the country’s top mark) and French (where she was twelfth). In 1893 (when she was still only 16 and 10 months) her results were so good that

she obtained a certificate of exemption from the University’s first examination for women, which came with a statement to entrants that the University would allow women to take its examinations, but they would get no degree nor be allowed to matriculate! She then went on, from the age of 19, to read Jurisprudence at the Oxford Society for Home Students while still living with her family at 12 King Edward Street, and duly passing the University’s examinations, but of course not receiving the degrees she won – BA in 1901 and BCL in 1903 – until 1920, when the rules were changed. Nevertheless, there was still the option, which of course she took, of what was then called the University of London External Degree, now known as the University of London International Programme, by which a student could study remotely for the LLB and LLM of that University. Many still do so (just as at the Oxford Society of Home Students in the pre-1920 period). This was a graduation route favoured not least by many who wished to obtain such an external London degree while continuing to work in their employments rather than to attend any physical class, though many did and still do obtain instruction through home and overseas colleges and private tutors and/or, in the remoter past, by the form of distance learning known in pre-digital times as ‘correspondence courses’ – ie work marked by post, and now of course marked online. Meanwhile Ivy’s brother Winter, being a man, was not restricted from being Called to the Bar as soon as he was qualified to do so but was able to read Jurisprudence in Oxford at Corpus Christi College, although he, like Ivy, chose to take the London University examinations, which were regarded as demanding and the qualification prestigious. At the time of the 1901 Census, he was still living with his family at number 12, although at the age of 25 he was by then a young barrister, having also become a member of Cowley Parish Council when he was at the time about to occupy a farm at Cowley, in the tradition of the family’s former agricultural connection.

This was a graduation route favoured not least by many who wished to obtain such an external London degree while continuing to work in their employments.

However, he very soon died there prematurely, at the age of only 27, in 1903; following his funeral at St Mary-the-VirginChurch in Oxford, he was buried in Holywell Cemetery, but sadly his father George then died in 1904, leaving Ivy’s mother, Emma, a young widow, whereupon she and Ivy themselves moved to Cowley until 1920, when they finally moved to Staverton Road in North Oxford. This was certainly somewhat more practical for the later stages of Ivy’s life, after she retired from teaching law at the Oxford Society for Home Students in 1945 and was made an Honorary Fellow in 1956 following the newly-named St Anne’s College having become a full college of the University in 1952 with North Oxford premises.

In later life Ivy’s sight failed and in the late 1940s she wrote a Braille primer to help people like her who were losing their sight. However, by this time her fame was long-established and well recorded and appreciated, not only in Oxford, but at the English Bar and wherever feminists celebrate women lawyers’ contribution to, and participation in, the law.

Dr Frances Burton Emeritus Research Fellow, University of Buckingham and retired barrister

For the full recording of this lecture: innertemple.or.uk/ivywilliams

THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF THE LAW: IS THERE A CASE FOR ANONYMITY IN SOCIAL MEDIA?

From a panel discussion held on 26 October 2021 with Master Andrew Caldecott (5RB), Caroline Addy (Doughty Street Chambers), and Adam Wagner (Doughty Street Chambers), moderated by Master Guy Fetherstonhaugh (Treasurer, 2020 and 2021).

Master Guy Fetherstonhaugh: Tonight’s question is the case for anonymity in civil proceedings and in social media generally. It’s not always a bad thing, anonymity. Some of us will well remember the admonition of Captain Mainwaring: “Don’t tell him your name, Pike!”

I was brought up in Jersey and, of course, that was occupied by Germany during the Second World War. There’s a fascinating museum in Jersey about the occupation. And one of the rather chilling exhibits is the letters that were written by some of the islanders to the German authorities, basically ratting on their neighbours, saying – and I anonymise the name: “You should know that ‘Mrs Voisin’ has a radio in her loft upstairs.”

And there would then be a search of the house. Mrs Voisin was carted off to Ravensbrück and never seen again. Letters like that were written anonymously of course. But there were checks on their use or abuse. After all, it took an awful lot for somebody to go out and post the letter to the Germans, and they could have been caught in the act. What we see much more recently in modern times is an explosion in anonymous communications, many of them completely undetectable.

And the question is, for tonight’s debate, whether that’s a good thing, are there any good aspects of anonymity that should continue to be protected? Whether it’s practical to try and do away with anonymity – matters of that sort. Who better to debate this topic tonight than our three speakers, starting with Andrew Caldecott, King’s Counsel from 5 Raymond Buildings. Our second speaker will be Caroline Addy from Doughty Street Chambers. Our third speaker is Adam Wagner, from Doughty Street Chambers as well.

Master Andrew Caldecott: When I started at the Bar, ‘online harm’ would have been thought an aggravated consequence of railway trespass. But now it is at the centre of political and social debate for a wide variety of reasons. I can name four by way of example. Firstly, radicalisation – and I emphasise that the director of MI5 said the other week, that’s as true of white supremacist organisations as it is of what we might otherwise call ‘the usual suspects’. Secondly, suicides and extreme distress caused by bullying. Thirdly, racist abuse of footballers and others. And lastly, and not unimportantly, fake news, often generated by foreign states.

The starting point is the rule we’re taught in the cradle about statutory construction: look for the mischief. But in a case where freedom of expression is engaged, you must also look at the virtues of the particular form of speech you’re analysing. And a good starting point is this statement by the United Nations rapporteur: “Throughout history, people’s willingness to engage in debate on controversial subjects in the public sphere has always been linked to possibilities for doing so anonymously. The Internet allows individuals to access information and to engage in public debate without having to reveal their identities.” This feature is by no means unique to the Internet. In 1995, Mr Justice Stephens, an American judge, observed: “Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious fraudulent practice, but an honourable tradition of advocacy and dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.”

And one should also consider the places where anonymity is under siege. Take Russia since 2012. The Federal Service Communications maintains a list to enable it to block URLs, domain names, and IP addresses. It was originally designed to prevent drug-dealing, child pornography and suicide-related material, but in 2014 it was deployed to block criticisms of government and local administration. In 2017, Russia banned all anonymised VPN networks which sought to criticise government, and in 2019 heavy fines were introduced.

In China, Sina Weibo, a micro-blog platform, had 500 million users in late 2018. They introduced real live registration, and intense government interference immediately followed. And bear in mind that Twitter and Facebook are blocked in China. Be careful what you wish for.

Now, what weapons does English law currently offer against the malign anonymous poster? Well, obviously the criminal law has terrorist and postal communications legislation directed at harmful content. But the problem is a prosecution requires an identifiable defendant. In civil proceedings, there’s the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction, designed to identify the anonymous wrongdoer, but it’s slow and costly. And often it’s unproductive faced with Tor and Proton emails, and all the other weapons available to the cloaked Internet user.

The law of harassment can be used against persons unknown and then served on the relevant address. And that was done recently by Mr Justice Saini in a case called Blackledge v Person(s) Unknown, where he said: “The facts of this case are a striking example of how the Internet and social media can be used to abuse and damage innocent individuals with apparent impunity.”

Another area of development is the law of contempt. In the Angela Wrightson murder case, the first jury was discharged following prejudicial posts on social media attached to media Facebook pages, and then shared. They reached both the witnesses and the defendants, and the Divisional Court ordered that the media should deactivate their comment columns on the trial coverage during the retrial.

The Online Safety Bill seeks to impose duties of care in relation to illegal content, with particular emphasis on children, on search services and user-to-user services, and it gives OFCOM a role in relation to codes of practice. But section 23 imposes a duty to protect freedom of expression and privacy of users within the law. And that highlights a core issue in our discussion. Does an anonymous social media user have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her identity in this jurisdiction?

In a case called Author of Blog v Times Newspapers, Sir David Eady held that blogging was an essentially public activity and didn’t give rise to any reasonable expectation of privacy. One possible solution is requiring the registration of a real identity behind your public anonymous identity, open to release if a court considers it necessary.

Does an anonymous social media user have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her identity in this jurisdiction?

In a case called Author of Blog v Times Newspapers, Sir David Eady held that blogging was an essentially public activity and didn’t give rise to any reasonable expectation of privacy.

Caroline Addy: It’s worth reminding ourselves of the situation before Internet use was widespread. Anonymous participation in any public discourse was actually quite rare. Attitudes to anonymity were generally negative. That’s why we call anonymous letters poison pen letters. And when we look at litigation, the procedure has always been very much that anonymity is exceptional, and its use kept within very strict boundaries. Open justice is essential, and that requires knowing who people are.

Justice Toulson said: “Who will guard the guards themselves? In a democracy where power depends on the consent of the people governed, the answer must lie in the transparency of the legal process. Open justice lets in the light, and allows the public to scrutinise the workings of the law, for better or for worse.”

Derogations from this have traditionally been pretty unusual and required strict justification. And in the media the ability to keep a source anonymous has been subject to similar boundaries and rigorous justifications. In both situations, the key element to enabling anonymity is that there is somebody – an intercessor, whether it’s the legal representative or the journalist – who has effectively researched and considered the competing considerations, and is in some way, by their professional expertise and standing, a guarantor to the authenticity or likely authenticity of the source.

The issue we have now is how to deal with a situation where anonymity is not exceptional, it’s routine. The consequences of routine anonymity are paradoxical. It’s what makes this subject so interesting and so difficult, because it may allow, for example, brave dissent against oppressive regimes. But it also allows backlash against that sort of dissent, and a distortion of whether or not the dissent or the countervailing view is the one that has the widest support. It enables many people who are incredibly vulnerable, marginalised, discriminated against to find community online and to find support, because they are anonymous. And at the same time by doing that very thing, it can permit what are actually extreme and dangerous views or proclivities to become normalised. Because online you consider that you are one of many, not one of the few. So, it enables both truth-telling and lying. And the difficulty that we have is that once everyone is anonymous, then openness and transparency become impossible. And that has real consequences for our public discussion of just about anything. We end up in our individual silos, where nobody puts their name to particular positions. The other thing that I think happens which is so dangerous for democracy, is that anonymity flattens all voices. We don’t know who people really are. We can’t assess their experience, their knowledge, their credibility or their judgement. They’re all just names on a screen with no form of CV that we can actually assess or check ourselves. It’s perhaps not surprising then that most of what appears online is immediately and vociferously countered by others. There is no trust in the large avalanche of information we receive because we can’t do that important assessment.

And the difficulty that we have is that once everyone is anonymous, then openness and transparency become impossible.

Now we find that what occurs online has really become something that cuts across any number of protections, legal or otherwise, and delicate balancing acts that we have previously relied upon in civic society. And its ability to do that, to undermine so many areas – whether it be the Dark Web and selling drugs, or political discourse, or upsetting criminal trials by the dissemination of prejudicial information – is all fuelled by the ability to remain anonymous.

It won’t have escaped your attention that the effects of this are felt very unequally across society. If you’re a woman, the sort of threatening behaviour and abuse to which you are subject online is of a different order of magnitude from that faced by men. And for every other protected characteristic you may have, that increases more and more and more.

It’s really for us to decide what kind of cultural value we place on anonymous speech, and whether the game is worth the candle. And I would say that the harmful consequences are such that we can’t continue with the status quo. Only the rich or very well supported can really take this on by means of civil proceedings. I think criminal prosecutions are as much guided by what hits the headlines as what really is the most egregious case, but we have to decide as a society where we feel this ranks as a harm, and what we’re going to do about it.

It’s really for us to decide what kind of cultural value we place on anonymous speech, and whether the game is worth the candle. And I would say that the harmful consequences are such that we can’t continue with the status quo.

Adam Wagner: I want to start with Homer Simpson, who said of alcohol, that it’s both the cause of and the solution to all of life’s problems. We might think, from reading the newspapers or reading online commentary, that social media at the moment is playing that role in our collective consciousness – that it is both the cause of and the solution to all of life’s problems. I don’t think that’s right. I think that social media is very present in our existence, in our public conversation at the moment, but it in many ways is the effect and not the cause.

There are some important reasons why people want to become anonymous. I’ll just pick up on four. First of all, that they want to express themselves, but don’t want their employers to see what they are expressing. It’s clear from the current debates, that it’s very easy to be misunderstood or judged harshly for opinions which may even be very reasonable opinions or may have been reasonable last week but are not reasonable now, or may have been reasonable and – may be objectively reasonable – but because something is happening in another part of society, that suddenly for a period they’re not reasonable. Secondly, people may be afraid of governments and other actors who may retaliate against them for expressing unpopular views or organising protests. In this jurisdiction, that may be less of an issue, but it’s certainly a very big issue in other jurisdictions – in Russia and China and other places without as much protection from liberal democratic institutions.

A third reason: people may have a different gender identity online than their gender identity in their life. They may be testing out a new gender identity that they would not want yet for people to know about. A fourth reason, and this comes back to the vicious circle that Caroline identified, that for people who suffer online or indeed offline harassment or stalking, having an anonymous account can be an easy way to carry on engaging in social media without having to face the torrents of abuse that define online harassment.

Under human rights law, anonymity is one of those very unusual issues which makes friends of two rights which are usually at loggerheads: the right to privacy under article 8 and the right to freedom of expression under article 10. Both of those rights are what’s known as ‘qualified rights’. So, whilst they do protect, in the case of article 8, the right to private and family life, home, and correspondence and, in article 10, the right to freedom of expression, including holding opinions, receiving and imparting information, those rights can be interfered with, proportionately, for a legitimate aim. For example, for the safety of others or various other reasons.

Under human rights law, anonymity is one of those very unusual issues which makes friends of two rights which are usually at loggerheads: the right to privacy under article 8 and the right to freedom of expression under article 10.

And that’s how the case law has played out. There have been various public statements on anonymity, and in fact, generally speaking, the public statements of international courts have been pro anonymity, although the case law has been a bit more nuanced. So, for example, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights recommended in 2013 that anonymous platforms should be promoted, and the use of authentication services used proportionately. And they said the protection of anonymous speech is conducive to the participation of individuals in public debate, since by not revealing their identity, they can avoid being subjected to unfair retaliation for the exercise of a fundamental right.

The Council of Europe’s Declaration on freedom of communication on the Internet, which was in 2003, said that member states should respect the will of users of the Internet not to disclose their identity, but also said, importantly, this does not prevent member states from taking measures and cooperating in order to trace those responsible for criminal acts in accordance with national law and the various other protections. There’s lots of case law now, both here and in Strasburg, about the principles to be applied when holding blogs or platforms responsible for anonymous comments which are posted on their sites.

So, my point is that anonymity on a principled basis is important. But the second point is that on a practical basis, it’s very difficult, if not impossible, to create a system which doesn’t do more harm than good.

Guy Fetherstonhaugh KC Andrew Caldecott KC Caroline Addy Adam Wagner

For the full video recording of this lecture: innertemple.org.uk/anonymity

THE GRAND RE-OPENING

After a mammoth effort to complete reinstatement of the Treasury Building, the Inn was relieved and delighted to celebrate the official re-opening on Wednesday 4 May in the presence of the Inn’s Royal Bencher, Master Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal. The evening began with a rousing service of Choral Evensong officiated by the Master of the Temple. Undeterred by a sudden change in the weather, Her Royal Highness, accompanied by the Treasurer and Reader, was able to enjoy the full impact of walking from the Temple Church into the new main entrance of the Treasury Building.

While visiting the Library, Her Royal Highness met Master Sally Smith, Chair of the Library Committee and Robert Hodgson, Librarian and Keeper of Manuscripts, as well as Library staff and the Archivist. In this centenary year of the first women to be called to the Bar of England and Wales, Her Royal Highness graciously agreed to be photographed with past female Treasurers. After meeting Master Juliet May, Chair of the Education and Training Committee, Struan Campbell, Director of Education, and The Princess Royal Scholars, Her Royal Highness was accompanied by 2020/2021 Treasurer, Master Guy Fetherstonhaugh, to view some of the training rooms and then to meet members of the Project team, including Richard Snowdon, Director of Properties, Hugh Broughton and Adam Knight of Hugh Broughton Architects. Having also met past Treasurers, members of the Finance Committee and Chairs of Advocacy Training, Qualifying Sessions and Student Engagement Committees, Her Royal Highness was accompanied by the Treasurer into the Hall for the speeches, published below.

The Treasurer and Master HRH The Princess Royal with past female Treasurers; Master Heather Hallett, Master Elizabeth Butler-Sloss and Master Elizabeth Gloster

Meeting Princess Royal Scholars

Good evening, and a very warm welcome to all of you here tonight – to our Benchers and members involved in the Inn’s governing committees, student society representatives, Princess Royal Scholars, our staff, our close partners and those who have played key roles in delivering Project Pegasus.

It has been my pleasure to show Your Royal Highness around our refurbished and redeveloped building today. We are extremely grateful that, as our Royal Bencher, Your Royal Highness shows a continuing and keen interest in The Inner Temple, not least in our triennial legal book prize. Your Royal Highness has also kindly agreed to be Patron of the Friends of Temple Church. We enjoyed a beautiful Evensong there this evening and look forward to the Church’s own Restoration and Renewal Project taking shape in the coming years.

We are delighted that Your Royal Highness can be here today to reopen our Treasury Building officially. Project Pegasus has been challenging to implement but the satisfying results we see today entirely justify the vision and investment of the Inn. It was our duty to undertake this work to enable us to look forward and meet the increasing needs and demand for better teaching facilities and improved technologies to deliver new teaching strategies for the future. The Royal Charter of 1608, reaffirmed by HM The Queen in 2008, places important responsibilities on us to provide for the accommodation and education of students and barristers. The redevelopment of the building will meet those needs, and in addition afford us great benefits and opportunities in terms of revenue to fund these central purposes.

Our period of closure has also enabled us to make many other associated improvements to our buildings, including improved audio-visual facilities throughout the building and better acoustics here in the Hall, a much-needed makeover of the Pegasus Bar, better storage facilities for our silver, and imaginative rehanging of our paintings. We now have greatly improved kitchens, from which we are all benefitting tonight.

This year, 2022, marks the centenary of the first women being called to the Bar of England and Wales. We will be marking this important 100-year milestone more specifically later this month. I am delighted that The Inner Temple and our nearest neighbour Middle Temple both have women Treasurers in office this year. Your Royal Highness was our Royal Treasurer in 2011 and we are delighted to have all three previous women Treasurers here tonight. After the rehang of the pictures, the first portrait we now see on entering this building is that of our first female Treasurer, Master Butler-Sloss and, as we have seen this evening, the portrait of Your Royal Highness is at the entrance to our new third floor Education and Training Suite.

This year, 2022, marks the centenary of the first women being called to the Bar of England and Wales. We will be marking this important 100-year milestone more specifically later this month.

Today our focus is on our transformed Treasury Building and the contribution it will make to future generations of barristers. It is with very great pleasure that I call on Your Royal Highness to declare the building open again.

Project Pegasus has been challenging to implement but the satisfying results we see today entirely justify the vision and investment of the Inn.

Her Honour Judge Deborah Taylor Master Treasurer

HRH meeting Vicky Portinari and Henrietta Amodio

Choral Evensong

Master HRH The Princess Royal with Richard Snowdon, Director of Properties, and Master Guy Fetherstonhaugh

HRH meeting past Treasurers

THE GRAND RE-OPENING: SPEECH BY MASTER HRH THE PRINCESS ROYAL

Thank you, Master Treasurer for your very kind words of welcome, and the invitation to join you this evening on this rather important moment. And all of you I’m sure have been hugely involved in getting everything ready for today. I think the hoovering went on quite late. This is a real treat to be truly opening a new build, a new project. I have to say I have probably been Royal Bencher of The Inner Temple for slightly longer than I had remembered. So, I’ve seen a few changes, but of course this – Project Pegasus – is something else. It truly is the biggest development since the 1950s. And it’s a very significant event to be able to reopen it completed and ready for action.

Nice too, because you can all come here again after three years. Now that probably sounded like an inconvenience and an irritation three years ago. In retrospect, not quite so bad given that you wouldn’t have been allowed in any way for two years. And in terms of time, a mere hiccup in a 700-year history of the Inn. Sure, we can put up with that.

Well, of course, I was last here in 2019, which was at the very start, and that was the dinner – the joint Amity Dinner between The Inner and Middle Temples. My grandparents, of course, attended the original dinner not long after the devastation of World War Two. So that rebuilding – very much in mind at that moment, and another rebuild now, building on that extensive redevelopment, refurbishment – and probably finding some of the things which weren’t done quite that brilliantly back in the 50s, so not a bad time to do so. And the redesign by Hugh Broughton Architects is a really clever plan. It’s a development of Sir Hubert Worthington’s post-war incomplete designs and has really enhanced the Inn’s integral collegiate spaces. I hope you all have seen that for yourselves now. What we also forget, fortunately, with the passage of time, is probably how many years that it has taken of meticulous planning to get Project Pegasus to this point. To see that project come to fruition, I hope will have been enormously satisfying for all members of the Inn, and particularly for those who are members of the project team so closely involved in this major redevelopment by Sir Robert McAlpine Special Projects, and some of whom I’ve met tonight. We’ve been reminded about the importance of education to the Inns. So, these new spaces are providing state-of-theart training facilities, and it’s bringing that old and new together to create a very new era in the Inn’s life and work.

It will certainly enhance the Inn’s core purpose of providing excellent legal education, and it will enable it to continue to provide the outstanding library services to train students and pupil members of the Inn. A lot of that – as technology has grown on the back of the pandemic, and if there was something to be gained from all that pivoting that went on so busily during the pandemic, learning the lessons of how much technology could do for you, but also learning what it doesn’t – has added to the success of this building and this project.

It already has an impressive record of outreach activities. And I think this will hugely help you to encourage underrepresented groups to enter the profession and contribute to its diversity, as you also provide support for students through the generous annual scholarships, worth some £2 million, out of an annual budget of some £5 million spent on all aspects of education and training.

I’ve also had the opportunity to meet some of the recipients of those scholarships tonight. And I think it’s obvious that they have also been well-supported, and very effectively so, through the Inn’s excellent education programmes provided by the Education and Training Department, with a bit of pivoting thrown in just to add a little variation.

May I finally just offer my congratulations to all of you who have brought The Inner Temple to this point in its long history. I certainly wish you well in continuing that history, which we will be a small part of – for a bit longer – possibly. But for the way in which you continue to support the education and training of students, pupils and barristers in upholding the rule of law, and I hope you all feel that this is a contribution to the long-term future of that, which is what the Inn has always stood for.

So, it gives me a very great pleasure to declare the Treasury Building is reopened for business – but you couldn’t have done this yesterday! Congratulations!

It already has an impressive record of outreach activities. And I think this will hugely help you to encourage under-represented groups to enter the profession and contribute to its diversity.

Master Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal

Master HRH The Princess Royal meeting Struan Campbell and Master Juliet May

PROJECT PEGASUS:

A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE

By Master Oliver Sells

It is perhaps a truism that all major public construction projects contain elements of risk, some known and some not. They may include timing, heritage listing, planning control and cost inflation, but this project was engulfed by something wholly unexpected and potentially overwhelming. Nobody could have been expected to foresee a pandemic before it erupted upon us all in the spring of 2020 and as I write this in August 2022 its consequences, both for the Inn and our wider society are still far from clear.

This is a project with a long period of gestation: discussions began as long ago as 2015 and continued for several years before approval of the final plans by the City of London in 2018. It has had one excellent and consistent aim throughout; to make the Inn once again a centre of legal education and professional development for both student and barrister members. Of course, a significant side benefit is the reducing of cost for those taking part. For too long entry to the profession has effectively been restricted by the high cost barriers imposed by the current providers

View from the third floor to the Master’s House and Garden

Several sites were considered for such a teaching facility (and rejected) but the final choice has the benefit of both simplicity and boldness, namely, to reconfigure the Treasury Building, built after the War, and make it fit for the next century. It is worth noting that the original post-War plans for the building had a mansard roof incorporated but this was never completed: it can be truly said that this project, designed by Hugh Broughton Associates, is finally completing the original Worthington brief from 1953.

A whole new student area with eight training rooms and a 120-seater lecture theatre above the Library and the Hall is now in place, transforming the building from the inside but leaving the façade largely unaltered. A spacious new entrance hall, a new central staircase and a new Library entrance have combined to make the interior space open and welcoming, with learning and training at its heart without losing the sense of elegance of the earlier design. I recognise it is early days, but I sense that the overwhelming view is that the newly configured building is an excellent mix of the new and the old.

The work to the Library was, from the outset, a matter of controversy. The original double height rooms were much loved and gave a sense of space and light that was always going to be missed. However, I am happy to report that the new configuration not only reflects the central place of a library in such a building, but also retains the combination of space and an intimate and personal desk space with natural light abounding. It is a remarkable achievement in a constrained space and great credit must go to the Master of the Library, Master Sally Smith whose input has been crucial. The new Librarian and Keeper of Manuscripts, Rob Hodgson, and his team have brought fresh ideas, new layouts and a sense of welcome which should encourage much more use than was evident in the recent past.

After the initial and inevitable controversies were out the way, construction began in earnest in 2019 and continued unabated and largely unnoticed through the years of the pandemic. In some ways the lockdowns made life easier for the works to go on in an Inn largely empty of members, but it is much to the credit of those involved that the pace did not slow, thanks to the direction of the Sub-Treasurer. The result is a most happy blend of the new and the familiar: the entrance hall is wide and spacious leading to a central staircase up the first floor public rooms which remain largely unchanged. They have retained much of their original elegance whilst being updated and renewed. The Grinling Gibbons carving is now a wonderful feature of the Parliament Chamber (to my mind the finest room in the building).

The study space and the lecture theatre are as yet untested by a serious influx of members, but the initial impression is one of some style and a mixture of modern material and traditional furnishings. Some of the books from the Library have found their way to the top floor and give a feel of quiet learning to the space. The new term will bring upwards of 300 students to the Inn, a percentage of whom will be the first to attend the new Inns of Court College of Advocacy course on this site. It will be interesting to see how it works in practice. There is an abundance of natural light and fine views across London to the south. On the north elevation there is double height window reminiscent of the studio houses in Chiswick. The catering facilities have been upgraded and modernised and the dining hall now boasts improved acoustics. Time will tell!

It is common now for new public buildings to provide gallery space for public art; a very recent example is the new library at Magdalene College in Cambridge with its own gallery devoted to East Anglian paintings. We have not yet gone that far but much work has been done on the collection of pictures, and many have been cleaned, moved and rehung. There is now a sense of cohesion and continuity to the collection which creates an entirely new feel to the public rooms and their linking passageways.

I sense that the overwhelming view is that the newly configured building is an excellent mix of the new and the old.

Parliament Chamber

New roof and mansard windows

Fourth floor reception space

Much credit is owed to Master Alison Foster, the Master of the Pictures, and Henrietta Amodio, the Director of the Treasury Office. They have achieved much with the material to hand. I sense that this is still a work in progress, why not expand the art collection into a gallery with a worldwide legal theme as befits a legal and academic institution with so many members in so many countries?

There is one striking new commission of the Five Supreme Court Justices, executed by Howard Morgan (see A Hanging Matter). This has, perhaps unsurprisingly, produced quite a wide range of views. Morgan was, of course, well known for his portraits and groups over many years but by his own admission some of his work was both “profoundly disturbing” and “tantalisingly indecipherable”. Into which category this work falls I leave the reader to determine!

As we all emerge from the long tail of the pandemic, it may be too early to form a clear view of the future use of this building let alone of our Inn as a whole. Will the new space be economically viable? Will chambers work resume as before? Will students continue to learn online? Will a car park be needed at all?

There are many unanswered questions to be faced but institutions like The Inner Temple, which have survived for hundreds of years, do not do so by taking a short-term view. They need to have confidence enough to plan and build for the next century and beyond. I believe that this project, directed with such skill and clarity by a number of Treasurers over recent years, will come to be seen as a mark of just such vision and foresight. It bears comparison with the great postWar rebuilding of the Inn in the fifties and hopefully presages another such development, that of the Temple Church.

Project Pegasus is now complete. As I walk through the rooms in the middle of the vacation, the building is quieter even than a Norfolk beach; all signs of the contractors have gone and the new roof blends seamlessly into the skyline.

From the outside it looks as though nothing has really changed. The architectural relationship with the gardens and buildings which surround it is entirely harmonious and respectful. Inside all is ready for the new legal year. All it needs now is people.

From the outside it looks as though nothing has really changed. The architectural relationship with the gardens and buildings which surround it is entirely harmonious and respectful.

Oliver Sells KC

Master Oliver Sells is a member of the Estates Committee and a trustee of the Temple Church

CALLING IT OUT: PROFESSIONALS, THEIR REGULATORS, EQUITY AND FAIRNESS

By Master Vanessa Davies

What does it mean to be a professional? What is regulation as applied to professionals? Why and how do regulators and professionals intersect, and what do the boundaries of that intersection look like?

Concepts which today define a profession emerged nearly 500 years ago: exclusive rights of practice in return for guarantees of expertise and high standards; tests before admission to that exclusive circle; obligations of prudence, integrity, diligence – all for the wider public benefit. Professions are now seen as distinct from mere occupations, being granted status and privileges by the State, on the understanding that they serve a useful purpose for society. A professional makes a technical promise: they will control a complex body of knowledge and skill; and makes a moral promise: they will put that body of knowledge and skill to the public good, over their own selfinterests or indeed the interests of a government. They are expected to take personal responsibility for their work, and exercise independence of thought and judgement. They will have a Code to which they have voluntarily subscribed that sets out their ethical conduct towards others. Those Codes increasingly prescribe or guide conduct in relation to a professional’s activity beyond their immediate casework.

We can see how this manifests itself for example, for barristers and for doctors, in requirements laid down by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) in the Professional Statement for Barristers, in our Core Duties as laid out in The BSB Handbook, and by the General Medical Council (GMC) in Good Medical Practice There are many common features across these two professions, including the specific obligations to

Be active in the pursuit of equality and respect for diversity, not tolerating unlawful discrimination, in themselves or others.

Be personally responsible for their professional practice and prepared to justify their decisions and actions

The BSB Handbook and Good Medical Practice are drafted in the second person – you will, you should, you must, you must not – because what’s in these documents bites on you, personally and individually. In signing up to our Codes we take on a heavy burden of obligation and high standards. And this can be hard to do: individual professionals are of course human beings. As Master Reader said in 2013:

“It is because not all professionals do live up to the high standards expected of them that we have professional regulators.”

Regulation exists to mitigate harm to individuals and the wider public or society: we regulate because there is some potential mischief to control in respect of something we hold to be good. It is “the intentional use of authority to

affect behaviour of a different party according to a set of standards and involving instruments of information gathering and behaviour modification”. The study of regulation has evolved considerably, and multiple theories of regulation now exist. My own bias is towards public interest theories of regulation: I believe that some things should not be for sale, and that economics cannot drive everything.

Regulators do fundamentally the same four things:

They set the rules that whatever is being regulated must comply with.

They act as gatekeepers, permitting activities to happen when specific conditions are met through authorisation, licensing or registration.

They monitor what the regulated sectors, entities or individuals are doing.

They act when things go wrong, through remediation or enforcement activity – which can ultimately mean a loss of authorisation or registration or licence.

Regulation seeks to incentivise positive behaviours and disincentivise negative behaviours in a social or economic system, particularly where inefficient operation (or failure) of a market does public harm, or where there are asymmetries of knowledge or power. Where there are such asymmetries, regulation emphasises values beyond market economics, which will not provide a sufficient framework for the range of “social and political values which are established in liberal democracies and can be seen as constitutional in nature”. The administration of justice, for example, relies on “a body of professionals who are concerned to preserve its integrity”.

It is a characteristic of the professions that individuals are regulated. This reflects the social and economic history of the professions, which have been largely ‘self-regulatory’ in this country and many others: those who practise the profession in question have had “the authority to delineate a sphere of expertise, establish qualifications for membership, limit competition from non-members, and impose ethical rules of conduct”.

In claiming self-regulatory authority, professions sought to create an “occupational realm shielded from both the market and the state. (…) They contended that regulation of practice was necessary to protect professional judgment from the potentially distorting effects of competitive forces” and that they “were better suited than government authorities, by virtue of expertise, to determine the institutional arrangements best suited to the exercise of that judgment”. The institutions of the professions became embedded in statute over the course of several centuries. By “institutions” I am referring, for example, to the General Council of the Bar until 2010, the Inns of Court, the medical Royal Colleges across the UK, the incarnation of the GMC until 2003.

But by the turn of the 21st century there were pressures for change.

For the medical profession, the Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry of 2002 and the Shipman Inquiry reports from 2002 – 2005 were the catalysts to transform the GMC from being “an organisation designed to look after the interests of doctors”, to the patient and public-interest focused body that the 1983 Medical Act presaged, and by a 2002 amendment, required. Regulation was professionalised, governance transformed to include eventually 50 per cent lay members on an openly appointed and not elected Council. An oversight regulatory regime across all the individual health professions’ regulators was established in 2012: the Professional Standards Authority (PSA).

For the legal professions, the pressures for change to the regulatory model were different. In very simple terms there was “erosion of (…) cultural and political authority” in a number of ways, not least of which was an apparent “failure to address incompetence and client neglect”, and a perceived “failure to prevent clients from engaging in conduct that harmed third parties or the legal system” itself.

In England and Wales, post 1979 market liberalisation and deregulatory ideologies exerted pressure for reform of restrictive practices and promotion of competition and innovation, ostensibly for the benefit of consumers.

The Legal Services Act of 2007 was “superimposed on the pre-existing (self) regulatory arrangements”– giving us a “regulatory framework which is far from straightforward for lawyers, let alone clients, to navigate”. Importantly, it contained the first real steps away from exclusive selfregulation of lawyers. At the Bar, regulatory responsibility passed in law and in practice to the independent BSB. This is required to have non-barrister majority governance. Like the other legal regulatory bodies, the BSB is subject to a statutory oversight regulator – Legal Services Board (LSB).

The health and legal regulators all now find themselves somewhere between those poles of market and state, enabled through their current governance arrangements to retain the “epistemic and stake-holder benefits of selfregulation while minimising the risk of self-interested behaviour and fostering public accountability”.

They conduct a (difficult) statutory balancing act between public interest and professional objectives.

A horologist reading this will know that a regulator – in very simple terms – is the device by which the rest of the timepiece is kept accurate. It’s a useful metaphor for the regulation of professionals because it demonstrates the absolute interconnectedness and mutual dependency of the many parts.

No regulator in a constitutional democracy is effective without the legitimisation, trust and confidence of those subject to its regulation, or of the public the regulated profession serves. In order to uphold the ‘contract’ the professions have with the public, regulators set great store by requiring those they regulate not to behave in a way that is likely to diminish trust and confidence which the public places in them or the profession. This is no less true in respect of the regulation of doctors, as GMP makes clear: “you must make sure that your conduct justifies your patients’ trust in you and the public’s trust in the profession”. In this sphere as indeed others, the regulator holds the ring between the profession and the public: and must resolve any conflict in favour of the public interest. Increasingly, regulators don’t just wait until things have gone wrong: they try to influence and promote behaviour that will better support the public interest. Professionals are all working in an organisational context or system, including at the selfemployed Bar, and regulators have become more ambitious about influencing those contexts and playing a role in not just keeping up with but also informing wider debates. Not least of these is in relation to equality, diversity and inclusion.

The BSB has, as a public body, general and specific duties under the 2010 Equality Act. It also has a statutory regulatory objective of “Encouraging an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession”. But quite rightly its rationale for its ambitions in this area go beyond the mere legal. In its Equality Strategy for 2020–2022, the BSB asserted two further reasons for what it does in this space: A public interest rationale – A profession which is representative of the people it serves is more likely to meet the diverse needs of its clients, and in doing so will be more likely to maintain the trust and confidence of the public as well as support for the rule of law.

A moral rationale – “We believe that the promotion of equality and diversity is morally the right thing to do and helps to combat social injustice. It is unfair for a person to experience disadvantage or discrimination on the basis of difference.”

So how do those rationales get wired into the regulatory system and practice?

Regulatory Codes fundamentally show you how to belong to a professional group, and what will happen if you breach the Code: ultimately you will be excluded from the professional group.

It would be naïve to suggest that there are not also unwritten cultural codes, which are exclusionary in quite a different way. But increasingly the latter – the ones that are highly normative, that are about fitting in rather than the more valuable fitting together – are rejected in favour of the explicit articulation of requirements for diversity and inclusion in the written regulatory Codes and Guidance.

To pursue an agenda about equality and inclusion regulators must engage with others, exercising a delicate combination of regulatory force and soft power – consistent with the structure of professional regulation which now exists, in a more sophisticated approach than hitherto.

In its new Equality Strategy for 2022–2025, the BSB set the following specific objectives (of four):

1. to clarify expectations of the profession on equality, diversity and inclusion, and highlight opportunities for change.

2. to hold the profession to account for reducing racial and other inequalities across the profession.

The very characteristics of being a professional that I have set out, require us, when we see or experience any form of discrimination or indeed other wrongdoing, to both “call it in”: take opportunities to explore more deeply and find mutual understanding across differences; and to “call it out”: let someone know that their words or actions are unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Principles of candour and transparency must operate between professionals and their regulators. Organisational and personal interests must never be allowed to outweigh the duty to be honest, open and truthful.

Ours is a profession where we are expected to be fearless and courageous and to persevere in the representation of our clients and in upholding the rule of law. Where we don’t let our independence and integrity be compromised in our work or outside of it.

Why on earth would we do anything different in relation to diversity and inclusion and tackling the barriers to them?

We, whether as individuals or as the institutions of the profession, should certainly demand no less perseverance, courage and fearlessness, independence and integrity from our regulator. And we should not fear, but actively engage with the regulator in what they have set out to do: we are all on the same side on this one.

Dr Vanessa Davies

Former Director General of the Bar Standards Board

For the full video recording: innertemple.org.uk/callingitout

THE INNS OF COURT ALLIANCE FOR WOMEN:

“AN ALLIANCE OF PURPOSE”

By Master Leigh-Ann Mulcahy

The Inns of Court Alliance for Women (ICAW) is the new incarnation of the Temple Women’s Forum (TWF) which started in 2011 as a collaboration between Inner and Middle Temple to encourage and support women throughout their careers and to increase retention and diversity within the profession. This year, it has become an all-Inns collaboration led by me for The Inner Temple and fellow co-convenors; Her Honour Judge Khatun Sapnara representing Middle Temple; Lady Justice Nicola Davies representing Gray’s Inn; and Chief Chancery Master Karen Schuman representing Lincoln’s Inn. The Alliance was launched at Gray’s Inn in February 2022.

The Inns of Court Alliance for Women has committed to continuing this work, recognising the challenges and barriers to career progression and wellbeing faced by women in the law, and the intersectional disadvantage faced by women from non-white ethnic backgrounds and by women with disabilities. Working together as an entity of the Four Inns will increase its reach and influence.

The Alliance commits to:

i. provide a safe forum where issues facing women in the profession can be discussed;

ii. support the Inns’ commitment to equality, diversity, inclusion and social mobility;

iii. take an intersectional approach to talks and events to ensure the voices of women facing inequality are heard; and

iv. promote initiatives across the four Inns to support access, retention, and progression of women in the profession.

The launch of the Alliance on 9 February coincided with a dispiriting report by the Bar Standards Board publishing quantitative evidence that women barristers are likely to earn less than male barristers and those from minority ethnic backgrounds are likely to earn less than white barristers. The starkest finding is that female barristers from minority ethnic backgrounds represent the lowest earning group, with average income of 41% of that of white male barristers. White male barristers comprise the highest earning group. Evidence of gender disparities has not been limited to publicly-funded work. Further, the income gap is evident from the outset of barristers’ careers indicating that this is not an issue attributable solely or predominantly to childcare commitments. Analysis by The Lawyer concluded that the Employment Appeals Tribunal was male-dominated; claimant firms tended to opt for male silks, City employment practices largely used male counsel, and men dominated instructions in the Court of Appeal.

Even when comparing barristers in the same main practice area and seniority, by year of Call, female barristers and barristers from minority ethnic backgrounds still earn less on average than their equivalent male and white barristers. In her speech at the Alliance launch, Lady Nicola Davies said “the findings highlighted the relevance of an intersectional approach, considering gender and ethnicity together, when evaluating the issue of gender income disparity amongst barristers. The differences in income can be significant, for example women over 15 years call working in financial and commercial law on average earn less than half of their male equivalent’s earnings”. The most concerning aspect of research in this area is that the gender income gap has consistently widened over the last 20 years despite an increase in the number of women barristers working at the Bar.

Alongside this research, qualitative research into the experiences of women barristers has shown that many women barristers have serious concerns about fair access to work. In 2016, the Bar Standards Board surveyed women barristers about work allocation. While many respondents considered that monitoring worked well, others expressed concerns about a lack of transparency.

To support Heads of Chambers and Senior Clerks in their development of practical solutions to ensure a fairer allocation of work, the Inns of Court Alliance arranged a hybrid panel discussion held at Middle Temple Hall on 9 March, Foundations for a Fairer Future to which Heads of Chambers and Senior Clerks were invited by the Treasurers of all four Inns. Chaired by Maggie Semple OBE of the QC Appointments Panel, panellists included Rachel Krys, E&D Consultant in charge of the Bar Council Accelerator Programme; David Stone of Allen & Overy; Nkumbe Ekaney QC, joint Head of Chambers at 1GC Family Law; Susanna McGibbon, Treasury Solicitor; Joanne Kane, former Chair of the Young Barristers Committee of the Bar Council; and Rachel Holmes, Chief Executive of Matrix Chambers. The Alliance received positive feedback overall about the importance of this conversation in taking practical steps to improve equality in the profession.

After 50 years’ Call to the Bar and a fearless track record of campaigning for social justice and gender equality, Baroness Kennedy spoke of the ever greater importance of upholding the rule of law in a time of growing populist politics.

Guests at the event had the great privilege of meeting some of the Afghan judges who had been helped by many lawyers in this country, prominent among them Baroness Kennedy and Mrs Justice Maura McGowan, Treasurer of Middle Temple, as well as the Inns of Court. Though there is still much to be done to improve equality, this year, we celebrate three significant milestones:

First, three years on from the centenary of the first woman to be admitted as a solicitor, Carrie Morrison, this year is the centenary of the first woman to be called to the Bar, Dr Ivy Williams.

Secondly, this is only the second time we have had two female Treasurers of the Inns of Court at the same time – Her Honour Judge Deborah Taylor at The Inner Temple and Mrs Justice Maura McGowan at Middle Temple (and Lady Justice Nicola Davies will be Treasurer of Gray’s next year).

On 23 June, the Alliance held a cross-profession networking garden party event, the eighth of its kind since the inception of the Temple Women’s Forum and now firmly established as one of the main diversity events of the Inns’ calendar. Attended by over 600 female practitioners, male allies, solicitors, and judges, we were honoured to have leading human rights, civil liberties and constitutional law silk Baroness Helena Kennedy as speaker at the event. After 50 years’ Call to the Bar and a fearless track record of campaigning for social justice and gender equality, Baroness Kennedy spoke of the ever greater importance of upholding the rule of law in a time of growing populist politics.

Thirdly, we now have the first Lady Chief Justice in the United Kingdom; The Rt Honourable Dame Siobhan Keegan, Lady Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. Dame Siobhan has tasked Adele O’Grady QC, Suzanne Simpson SC and Anna Rowan to take forward a gender initiative in Northern Ireland, with a launch event planned for October 2022.

The Alliance is grateful to Andrea Dallling for compiling a summary of research relating to gender equality and the experiences of women at the Bar of England and Wales, and to Dominique Smith for creating a guide signposting female barristers to resources which can be found on the Alliance pages of the Inn’s website innertemple.org.uk/researchsummary

Though met by resistance from some, overall, the Alliance received positive feedback about the importance of this conversation in taking practical steps to improve equality in the profession.

Leigh-Ann Mulcahy KC Fountain Court Chambers

Baroness Helena Kennedy addressing the Alliance Garden Party

Co-convenors Leigh-Anne Mulcahy KC and Lady Justice Nicola Davies

THE TEMPLE CHURCH: RESTORATION & RENEWAL

By the Master of the Temple

In 2020 our project of Restoration & Renewal could get under way thanks to a most generous donation from the Julia and Hans Rausing Trust, given in honour of Mrs Rausing’s mother Lady Helen Delves Broughton, née Shore, called to the Bar by Inner Temple in 1951 and for several years a tenant in Hailsham Chambers. It has been a delight to be back in touch with Lady Broughton.

The Church has now received a game-changing grant of £408,500 from the City of London Corporation’s Community Infrastructure Levy Neighbourhood Fund, which will take the project through all our consultations with the architects, statutory consultees and, above all,

with the Inns, to the submission of our plans for planning permission. The Corporation’s grant will also cover the costs of 18 months’ fundraising for the building work itself and of three years’ outreach, to maximise the benefits which the project will bring within our reach. We are immensely grateful to the City of London Corporation for this pivotal support.

It is already clear that the coherence of the project as a single, articulated whole is attractive to the statutory consultees and to potential funders. We are now planning our fundraising campaign for the £7 million which will be needed if we are to complete all the project’s parts.

The arch of the Great West Doorway. All the crisp well-preserved foliate carving are 12th Century; all the degraded carvings are 19th Century.

12th century voussoir from the innermost order, removed in 1842 and now in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

Section of the innermost order. The figured/foliate stonework is 19th century. We propose its enhancement by jesomite casts to make it ‘legible’ once more.

The Temple Church was last subject to major repairs in the 1950s. It had been badly damaged in the Blitz and was elegantly and austerely restored by Walter Godfrey. Seventy years later, however, the Church is ill-equipped to fulfil its expanding role within the work and vision of the Inns. We are at work on a major programme of Restoration & Renewal.

Since the 1950s, the roles of the Inns and of the Church have changed out of all recognition. The Church, of course, remains the Inns’ collegiate chapel: it is, in the phrase of a recent Middle Temple Treasurer, “the beating heart of the Inns”. Of all this year’s services for our community here, the Memorial on 30 March for the Inns’ members who died during the pandemic was surely, for such a church as ours, the most moving and fitting of all. The address, a reflection on so many lost friends by Master Christopher Clarke of Middle Temple, is on pages 50–51

The Inns now want us to embody and promote the Inns’ public-benefit outreach as well to neighbouring boroughs, and the Inns’ own service to jurists and to visitors from all over the world. We are already delighted to welcome to this wonderful building in the middle of London – and just yards from Fleet Street, in the middle of the Temple’s restorative, therapeutic calm – a large number and wide cross-section of London’s residents and workers and a rising proportion of those, from many jurisdictions, with a personal, professional or potential interest in the Rule of Law.

Our present provisional plan for the repair of the West Door. We will focus entirely on the badly decayed stone installed in the 1840s. There is now a ‘toolkit’ of techniques available. Marked in green: 12th century stone. Marked in blue: proposed new stone, replacing decayed stone of the 19th century. Marked in purple: proposed Jesomite/plaster-based casts. Ringed in red: the (only) ten 12th century stones that would be affected by stones’ renewal.

The Church is a natural magnet for Londoners and visitors alike. It is an outward-facing link between the Inns and the wider world; it is the Temple’s one building that is reliably open to the public, Monday-Friday. It is an accessible symbol and centre of legal London, and of all its past and present connections, capacity and character. The North American Friends of the Temple Church are already established, to publicise the church and to raise funds among the American lawyers who value highly their connections with English law and our shared legal tradition. Our services for the USA’s Independence Day and Thanksgiving are now highlights in our calendar; and this year Canada Day entered our annual diary too. At our Independence Day Service on 1 July, Deborah Enix-Ross, now President of the American Bar Association, gave a sermon that was both prophetic and intensely personal: it is on pages 140–141

We also know what further potential there is. Our ongoing Magna Carta Exhibition, with its principal loans from the House of Lords and the Victoria & Albert Museum, has now been seen by over 175,000 visitors. Visitor-numbers are rising again and approaching their pre-pandemic levels. The audiences at our expanding programme of Temple Music Foundation concerts are enchanted by the building and its acoustics. Ever more delegations of international lawyers have the Church high on their lists of places to see.

Stonework of the 12th century in green, 19th century in pink; the worst decay to the foliate orders ringed in red. The close correlation can be seen between the 19th century stone and the worst decay.

12th century foliate carving from the outermost order, removed in 1842 and now in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

Section of the outermost order north side. The lower, badly degraded foliate stonework is 19th century. We propose its replacement by new stone.

We all recognise that Fleet Street has been greatly affected by the pandemic. The City of Westminster was already, before the lockdowns, redesigning the Aldwych; and through the City of London Corporation and the Business Improvement District (composed of local businesses) now being established, plans are being laid for the rejuvenation of the whole commercial and cultural mile from the Royal Courts of Justice up to St Paul’s. (We are already watching the start of the Salisbury Square development, as I write.) Set on the string of Wrenian pearls from St Mary-le-Strand up to the Cathedral, the medieval beauty of the Temple Church and the lovely architectural palimpsest of the whole Temple stand out. We look forward to working closely with the Corporation to ensure that the Church serves ever more of London’s workers, residents, and visitors, without ever breaking into the quiet and concentration of the Temple’s working day.

RESTORATION & RENEWAL

To equip the Church, then, for its expanding work over the coming century, we plan to transform the whole modern ‘envelope’ around the Church’s historic core: all the front-ofhouse and back-of-house facilities can be reconceived and radically improved, to make the Church as welcoming and lovely a place to visit as any in London. We are looking forward to two transformations. The West Doorway, with its view through the Round along the length of the Chancel, needs to become again the principal, all-year entrance to the Church for the congregations, audiences, and visitors at the Church’s whole programme of services, concerts, events, and exhibitions; and the present (confined and dilapidated) ‘back-stage’ facilities need to be radically redesigned and improved, with the choir-school removed to a larger and more suitable space.

We are, thanks to the City of London Corporation’s grant, now starting the project’s RIBA Stage 3. This will take us through to our application for planning permission. The outline below is still subject to consultation with the statutory consultees – among them Historic England, the Corporation itself and London Diocese – and with the Inns. The Project Board is chaired by Master Christopher Clarke of Middle Temple, who has known and loved the Church since his own wedding here 48 years ago.

It is an honour to have HRH Master The Princess Royal as the Royal Patron of the Friends of the Temple Church; and The Rt Rev and Rt Hon Dame Sarah Mullally, Dean of the Chapels Royal and Bishop of London, as the Friends’ Ecclesiastical Patron.

All our needs have been recognised for some time. Two changes have brought into sharp focus the potential benefits of such a transformative plan.

First, the Great Norman Doorway itself, with its degraded and in places ‘illegible’ carvings, has seemed to be irreparably damaged. Nobody would propose the replacement of 12th century stone, however badly worn it might be. Recent research into the stonework, however, has shown that all the well-preserved, crisply-carved stones are 12th century; and all the badly degraded stones are replacements, installed in 1842. (Four of the 12th century stones removed in 1842 are now in the Victoria and Albert Museum. To everyone’s surprise, the ancient stones left in situ have survived the last 180 years almost as well as those protected in the V&A.) To re-beautify the Doorway now would be to do supremely well what was, with the best intentions, badly done in the 19th century. There is now an extraordinary ‘toolkit’ of techniques – and there is still a cadre of craftspeople – with which to recover such carvings’ former glory. The Doorway is in its design as unified and coherent as an Old Master painting in the National Gallery and can be as beautifully and comprehensively repaired. Perhaps the nicest decision to be made will be the proper degree and kind of intervention, if any, upon the capitals and demifigures. It is now possible to envisage the Doorway as once more the fittingly spectacular, uplifting entrance that it was designed to be to its own 12th century rotunda, and so onwards into the 13th century Chancel. Our brides and their fathers – and occasionally their mothers – will confirm what a wonderful view, along the length of the Church, it is!

Photograph of 1927: Capitals and Demifigures, north side.

Photograph of 1927: Capitals and Demifigures, south side.

Photograph of 2019: Capitals and Demigures, south side.

Drawing by F. Nash, 1818: Capitals and Demifigures, north side.

Drawing by F. Nash, 1818: Capitals and Demifigures, south side.

Draft

Secondly, the Inns are now making available such musical and educational benefits as they offer to their boy-choristers to four similarly musical girls and young women too; and we have started a programme of musical outreach to primary schools in neighbouring boroughs. The success of both schemes makes clear that they must become part of our strategic vision for the future. At this point the present single-room ‘choirschool’ in a subterranean corridor is worse than inadequate.

On weekdays the choristers already spill out into the Chancel itself in the very hours most precious for an evening’s concert-rehearsals. The time has come to find a new home for the choir-school; the back-stage facilities in the northern corridor can then be reconceived for visiting performers.

The solution lies in the three lovely, airy gables of the Chancel’s post-War roof-space. The central gable of the roof can provide a soaring, inspiring place for the training of the choir’s gifted and talented children and young adults. There is space for an integrated suite of the Church’s offices, uniting all the Church’s work efficiently (and literally) under one roof and instantly enhancing the co-ordination between its different parts. A lift can give access, in an external tower built on the north side of the present, post-War organ-chamber. The central gable can become, in addition, an entirely distinctive space for smaller meetings and round-table discussions less well suited to the Chancel below. Step-free access to the Triforium (the circular walkway over the Round’s ambulatory) can be gained from the Chancel’s roof-space. Every square inch of the Church can, at last, be fruitfully used.

With all these elements in place, the rest of the jigsaw is readily completed. A combined ramp and steps from Inner Temple Lane down to the Porch, making the West Doorway genuinely accessible to all, can echo and accentuate the curve of the Round’s exterior northern wall of 12th century ragstone. The Porch can be glazed in to maintain a steady temperature and humidity, and so become a foyer and welcome-area all the year round. A door can be inserted in the Chancel’s north wall, directly opposite the present South Door, as an exit into the new educational centre and shop designed to extend the present vestries to the west; here we can engage visitors of all ages in the Church’s history and in our repair of the West Doorway. (We expect to display – not to destroy – any 19th century stones we remove.) We are exploring the installation of the appropriate environmental technologies to make the Church net zero-carbon: ground source heat pumps; and solar panels on the south-facing roofs of the Chancel’s gables.

And at this point we can look forward to a greatly expanded programme of events of all kinds for a greatly enhanced and far wider-reaching public benefit and for a steadily rising income to the Church.

It was from the Temple that, on 9 May 1215, King John issued the Fourth London Charter, granting to the City of London the right in perpetuity to elect its own Lord Mayor, on condition that on the day of taking office the Mayor presented himself to the King or his justiciar to swear fealty. 807 years later, the Lord Mayor’s Show still brings the Lord Mayor before the Lord Chief Justice. It is a great pleasure to be working so closely with the City of London Corporation on the restoration and renewal of this jewel in London’s crown.

HRH Master The Princess Royal writes: The Church is now launching its appeal project, Restoration & Renewal. Over the coming years, the former glory of the Norman Doorway will be renewed, the access to the Church enhanced and the Church’s provision for congregations, performers and visitors transformed. The Church will be well equipped to service the Inns themselves, London and the whole Common Law world for the coming century.

King James I entrusted the Church and its care to Inner and Middle Temple in 1608 by Royal Charter. All through the succeeding centuries the Inns have maintained the Church on the Sovereign’s behalf, and in 2008 Her Majesty The Queen confirmed and renewed the Charter. I am glad to be the Royal Patron of the Friends of the Temple Church. I look forward to seeing the project completed, and to the Church continuing to be interconnected with the Inns and their ideals and their promotion world-wide of the Rule of Law.

Draft plan for the conversion of the roof-space.

Proposed stairs and ramp down to the West Entrance.

Planned routes on the project’s completion.

The Reverend Robin Griffith-Jones Master of the Temple

The central gable of the post-War roof. Back to the Future: the Church’s gabled choir-school, 1904, rehearsal taken by Sir Henry Walford Davies.

plan for the conversion of the roof-space to accommodate the choir’s rehearsal room and the Church’s offices.

CELEBRATE THE LIFE: MASTER STANLEY BRODIE

Colourful silk who revelled in the theatre of the courtroom and established key case law on the crime of endangering life.

Stanley Brodie’s glass was invariably half full, no matter how damaging the blow. “I won the right to open in the Court of Appeal,” was his breezy retort after a defeat in the High Court. His colleague Michael Beloff QC described him as “the epitome of an adherent to Rudyard Kipling’s injunction to treat triumph and disaster just the same”, which was just as well as he tended to represent clients of dubious reputation.

Brodie specialised in commercial law. He defended the Turkish-Cypriot businessman Asil Nadir on charges of theft and false accounting involving up to £200 million in the collapse of Polly Peck International, and represented Trendtex, a Swiss corporation, in a case against Credit Suisse that centred on the way in which the company financed its dealings with the Central Bank of Nigeria.

He also appeared for Imperial Tobacco, seeking a declaration that the company’s Spot Cash lottery would not breach gaming laws. He was successful in the Court of Appeal, but the House of Lords rejected his argument, saying that it could not pre-empt a potential criminal investigation. Yet he declared his mission accomplished: the publicity surrounding the case had increased the company’s market share.

Imperial Tobacco provided much lucrative work thanks to its refusal to settle cases brought by employees. Beloff recalled that there was always a certain moment when, whatever happened, the briefs were deemed delivered and the client paid the lawyers’ fees. In one case they were to be deemed delivered at 9pm and the pair sat patiently in Brodie’s room until the clock struck that hour, at which point the not particularly athletic Brodie leapt up and declared: “We did it.”

Brodie was not only a marvellous pleader but also creative in his arguments. He once represented a student who wanted to be called to the Bar but had failed the exams four times, the maximum number permitted. Brodie said that the process breached the first rule of natural justice, which is to hear the other side, adding in words whose very opacity carried a concealed threat: “And otherwise left much to be desired.”

On another occasion he was appearing in the Court of Appeal, where it was the custom to allow counsel confidential advance sight of a reserved judgment so that they might prepare to give notice of a further appeal. When the presiding judge asked in court if Brodie would be making such an application, he caused uproar by replying that he had no doubt that it was an excellent judgment, but he did not know if his client would be appealing against it because he had not yet read it.

One of Brodie’s early cases, R v Cunningham (1957), is still taught to law students. He was appearing on behalf of a man who had removed a gas meter to steal the money inside, but in so doing had allowed gas to leak, poisoning his future mother-in-law. The man’s conviction was quashed on appeal because, as Brodie argued, mens rea, the intention to commit the crime of endangering life, had not been established. It gave rise to the notion of ‘Cunningham recklessness’, whether the defendant foresaw the harm that occurred.

Stanley Eric Brodie was born in Allerton, near Bradford, in 1930, the son of Abraham Brodie, a doctor, and his wife Cissie (née Garstein); his uncle, Israel Brodie, was Chief Rabbi from 1948 to 1965. He was educated at Bradford Grammar School and read law at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was President of the Law Society and friends with Jeremy Thorpe, the pair enjoying weekly lunches at the Shamrock restaurant. When Thorpe became Treasurer of the Liberal Party, he appointed Brodie as an unpaid deputy, though Brodie had no recollection of his responsibilities.

He was a law lecturer at the University of Southampton, practised on the North Eastern Circuit and was called to The Bar in 1954. Two years later he was fined £3 for speeding, the first of several similar run-ins with the authorities.

His first marriage, in 1956, was to Gillian Joseph, the actress daughter of Sir Maxwell Joseph, a property tycoon. They had two daughters, Charlotte and Henrietta, who lead private lives. The marriage was dissolved, and he met Elizabeth Gloster at a Lincoln’s Inn ball. They were married in 1973 and she became known as Britain’s highest-earning female barrister before her elevation to the Bench.

He is survived by their daughter, Sophie, a former journalist who now works in the City, and their son, Sam, a City lawyer. After his divorce Brodie bought a Rolls-Royce. When Sophie stood for the Conservatives in Doncaster North against Ed Miliband at the 2010 general election Brodie drove to the constituency in his new car to support her, although it was perhaps not quite the image she had been hoping to project.

He took silk in 1975, was a Recorder of the Crown Court and from 1984 to 1989 was a deputy official referee, now known as a judge of the Technology and Construction Court. In 2000 he was Treasurer of The Inner Temple.

Enjoying an expansive lifestyle, he attended opera at Glyndebourne, spoke fluent Italian and kept a speedboat that he moved around various Italian ports. Brodie later bought a yacht that was moored at Troon, close to his estate in Ayrshire.

As a member of 2 Hare Court and later Blackstone Chambers, Brodie was a mentor to generations of younger barristers and was especially encouraging to women in the profession. When one junior colleague who had just given birth was due to argue a case in court, he told her: “Don’t worry, I’ll do it. You just turn up.”

He became trenchant in his views, taking issue with a recent reorganisation of The Inner Temple library. He was a frequent correspondent to The Times letters page and a plan in 2011 to cut the number of Magistrates Courts was one of many subjects to draw his ire. For more than 40 years he was unwavering in his opposition to the European Union and in 2019 produced a pamphlet arguing that the courts had no role to play in deciding Brexit.

Brodie’s flair for the theatre of the court never wavered. Beloff records how once his colleague arrived for a 10.30am sitting after the court had taken their seats. He apologised, saying that his watch said 10.29am. The presiding judge said: “Mr Brodie, my watch says 10.31”, to which Brodie responded with selfsacrificing sycophancy: “Your lordship’s watch is always right.”

Stanley Brodie QC was born on July 2, 1930. He died of kidney disease on May 3, 2022, aged 91.

Courtesy of The Times / News Licensing (abridged)

Brodie was not only a marvellous pleader but also creative in his arguments.

Enjoying an expansive lifestyle, he attended opera at Glyndebourne, spoke fluent Italian and kept a speedboat that he moved around various Italian ports.

THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF THE LAW: THE CRIME OF ECOCIDE

From a panel discussion held on 22 November 2021 with Professor Philippe Sands KC (Matrix Chambers, Professor of Law and Director of the Centre on International Courts and Tribunals at UCL) and James Cameron (Co-founder of FIELD and founder of CIEL), moderated by Master Geoffrey Nice (Gresham Professor of Law 2012–2016) and introduced by Master Guy Fetherstonhaugh KC (Treasurer, 2020 and 2021).

Master Guy Fetherstonhaugh: The purpose of this series of Social Context of the Law talks is to enhance an understanding of the law and its social importance. And we do that through the open discussion of difficult questions that the law is asked to address, and concerning which there may be equally plausible but conflicting views.

We are extremely grateful to our distinguished speakers for giving their time to discuss what is one of the most important issues facing us today: Professor Philippe Sands KC and James Cameron. Sir Geoffrey Nice KC is chairing this evening.

Philippe Sands: In 1972, the Prime Minister of Sweden, Olof Palme, in his opening to the famous UN Conference on the Human Environment, evoked the idea of a future crime of ecocide. In 1998, I was in Rome with Andrew Clapp and we drafted the preamble to the Statute of the International Criminal Court. And there was a move to include environmental protection, but it was felt that it was premature at that point.

There matters rested until the remarkable Polly Higgins came on the scene, and almost single-handedly evoked and ran with this idea. Frankly, she was in the wilderness for many, many years, and even I was sceptical about whether the time was right. Sadly, she passed away in April 2019, and the struggle has been now taken up by the marvellous Jojo Mehta and a large group of people around the world – to put into the Statute of the International Criminal Court a new crime which would protect the environment.

Jojo Mehta got in touch with me and 11 other colleagues with whom I had the privilege of working for six months on an independent working group to draft a workable definition of the crime of ecocide. This evokes the concept of genocide, but we were absolutely clear that we would not go, if you like, with the innards of genocide. The difference between a genocide and a crime against humanity goes in large part to the need to prove a special intent in the case of genocide, to prove the intention to destroy a group, in whole or in part.

And that doesn’t work in relation to ecocide, because no one intends to destroy the environment in whole or in part. The destruction of the environment is always the unintentional incidental consequence of some other act, which is intended no doubt to produce some social benefit. So, the very first thing that we did as a working group was to agree that we had to stick with the term because it had developed a life of its own, but in defining its content, we were much more in the direction of ‘crimes against humanity’ type of language.

Let me say something about what we came up with. We agreed at the outset that we would do all we could to proceed by way of consensus. And we all agreed we’d be willing to make the compromises that needed to be made. I just want to make a number of key points. The first thing we wanted to do was to sever the link between the protection of the human and the protection of the environment – to come up with a definition that was not anthropocentric. In the definition we’ve come up with, ecocide means unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment caused by those acts. We did not want to make the crime of ecocide dependent upon proving harm to human beings. Harm to humans could be a factor, but it would not be a necessary factor.

Ecocide means unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment caused by those acts.

Second point, we wanted to come up with something that was simple. We all know that less is more, and that the more complex our definition, the more likely it was that it would prove to generate resistance. And a third point, we wanted to come up with a definition on which we could point, in respect to every word or idea contained in our definition, to an existing international criminal law norm, so that we could say to the states that we’ll have to run with this if it’s to go any further. Yes, the whole is new, but the parts all have support in precedent. Because, as we know so well, governments are extremely cautious creatures, deeply conservative, and if you can show that it’s been done before in another context, you’ve got more of a chance to run with it. That is what we did on this definition.

Fourth point, we had a tremendous battle in our group on whether to include a list of certain acts which could be characterised as criminal, and nearly half the group was absolutely adamant that we must do that. A little more than half the group strongly opposed it, myself included.

In the end, I’m glad to say that view prevailed. We took the view that, as with crimes against humanity in the old days, it will be for a prosecutor to decide whether a certain act does or does not come within the definition and, of course, ultimately for the judges to decide what to do with it.

I’ll just finish by saying what has happened since we have come up with our definition. We went into the enterprise in good faith and, of course, we hoped that something might happen, but I could not have foreseen what has happened.

I have had a large number of countries get in touch, mostly behind the scenes, and say: “Yes, this has to happen”.

I was very pleased that last week the parliament of Belgium, its Foreign Affairs Committee, became the first to adopt a resolution proposing two things. Firstly, that Belgium adopt an internal domestic law on the crime of ecocide, based on the definition we came up with. Secondly, mandating the Belgian government to lead international negotiations for the amendment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) statute to include a fifth crime. This week it is expected that the Belgian parliament as a whole will adopt a resolution in that direction.

So, things are moving along. I would say the situation now is not whether this happens, it is when it happens and how it happens. But I have no doubt that there will be a crime of ecocide on the statute of the International Criminal Court at some point. I am not starry-eyed about what that means when it comes, but I think it’s an important nudge in the right direction for recognising that our responsibility to protect the global environment includes a responsibility backed by force of international criminal law.

I have no doubt that there will be a crime of ecocide on the statute of the International Criminal Court at some point.

James Cameron: I remember very vividly Polly Higgins coming in to our old offices and her setting out her stall, trying to persuade us to really take this idea up. And I, like Philippe, was not sure that we really could commit to the strength of this idea then. I didn’t think that ecocide and the agreement that she had put it in – it wasn’t just a single concept, she’d put it in a kind of international criminal agreement on the environment – was the right approach. Insofar as there were crimes to be discussed, I was more interested in national courts and tribunals being the place to bring them and using the existing rights argument – including existing human rights.

I remember vividly the classes that we taught on human rights and the environment were always very vibrant. There were fantastic contributions in those classes with people who were thoroughly engaged in the possibilities that existing human rights law had when directed at the problem of the environment. They allowed all sorts of avenues of inquiry to open up, including how to extend rights beyond human rights to rights that could be possessed by mammals – other species. We have all sorts of examples of legal constructs to help represent ideas, and to do justice to situations where the person affected cannot speak for themselves.

I remember those classes being incredibly creative and interesting around those themes, but I didn’t think that ecocide was the best way of getting at them then. In our career we try to use legal arguments to deliver outcomes, to be very focused on how the law can be transformative – how the law is, in some sense, a reflection of our will to perfect ourselves, something beyond our own capacity to organise, to self-organise, something you put into your constitution, the way in which the law is capable of expressing our best aspirations for ourselves. When you place that in the context of the very significant threat that we have created, in a system that is so much more powerful than ourselves, the natural environment, and where we are very literally at risk, then it does seem logical to ask harder questions about how our legal system could protect ourselves from ourselves, by attributing duties to that natural system upon which we depend for our survival and prosperity.

So, I’ve started to think more about how that original idea of Polly’s and this new commission that Philippe was a part of works in the context of some progress in the creation of international environmental law, but not enough? And where there is a movement, particularly a movement of the youth, that is looking for an outlet for perfectly justifiable rage, for righteous indignation that needs direction, for something that will not be satisfied entirely by existing political forces.

I am concerned that this movement doesn’t have enough outlets for their rage, it isn’t adequately directed. It does seek redress. It wants justice. In the language of the law, it might be articulated in a more kind of discursive way or a more general way than a lawyer would normally wish to see, but that is how they express themselves. They want climate justice and they’re not satisfied with what is presented to them.

So, in that sense, ecocide provides some language for them, some process for them, that could lead to an outcome that would satisfy that clamour. I do think we are invited by it to think more creatively about how the legal order could give effect for that desire to see the environment adequately protected in law, and the pieces of environment that are most vulnerable to climate change, for example, given expression in the legal order. And you can do that. You could do it with the concept of natural capital, too. That’s interesting as a parallel theory, more obviously manifested in economics. But still, if you have a concept of natural capital, and you ask yourself, how might I protect natural capital – in practice, you inevitably are going to need the law.

Well, that’s not so far removed from the concept of ecocide – creating rights in the protection of the environment, for its own sake, not simply for its utility to humans. And I can see some opportunity to be creative about what institutional voice could be created for this abstract idea. That’s why I think it’s quite useful to go back to well-established concepts like trustees, advocates general, guardian ad litem, ombudsman – these are all ways in which one could give effect to the definition that Philippe has described, which I think is much more useful than the idea of ecocide is. I think if you combine the idea with that definition, I can see it being implemented into a legal order, thereby creating procedural rights to courts and tribunals, not just hanging all of our hopes on the ICC to come up with something that could be actionable there.

But there, at least, you can hold up the kind of most egregious abuse of power that would require that tribunal to be used. And I’m afraid I can imagine leadership being as crass as to deliberately harm the environment. I also can imagine that if you had such a criminal sanction associated with a criminal law at the international level, it would act upon the minds of some of the most abusive leaders, who care little or nothing for the effect of their decisions on the natural environment, which has consequences beyond their shores. So, there’s a very good reason for having international law take responsibility for this argument. Because the kinds of concerns that we have about the global environment are never adequately addressed by a single nation or decisions made within a single nationyou need some kind of international jurisprudence and the capacity to implement it as well. I see a real value in that kind of advocacy.

Master Guy Fetherstonhaugh: We are spoiled with the pair of you, Philippe and James. What better pedigree can speakers possibly have to come along and address this topic than the two of you, titans in your field. And then you, Geoffrey, it’s not just the Uyghur Tribunal that you are absolutely renowned for, your own part in this field goes back a very, very long period of time. And what’s remarkable, and everybody should appreciate this, is that you are the originator of this Social Context of the Law series.

My own thoughts, lastly, on the topic we’ve been addressing are: yes, I think genocide is difficult to apply in practice as a concept, but that’s not really the point. I think the point about the invention of the crime of genocide is that it dignifies the human spirit, it’s all about the good guys, isn’t it, recognising that something must be done. So too, I think with ecocide. I’m not in a position to share your confidence, Philippe, that this will be on the statute book fairly soon. But it is a remarkable statement coming from an experienced barrister like you. Barristers are famous for havering and being diffident and sitting on the fence in their opinions, and I am absolutely reassured and delighted by your statement as to the future. Let’s hope it’s not too long coming.

Guy Fetherstonhaugh KC

Sir Geoffrey Nice KC Philippe Sands KC James Cameron

For the full video recording of this lecture: innertemple.org.uk/ecocide

The kinds of concerns that we have about the global environment are never adequately addressed by a single nation or decisions made within a single nation you need some kind of international jurisprudence and the capacity to implement it as well.

A HANGING MATTER

By the Master of Pictures and Director of the Treasury Office

To the outsider, the task of re-hanging the Inn’s distinguished collection of paintings might have appeared to be a straightforward matter involving calculation of the number of old paintings displaced by reconfiguration of the Treasury Building as against the number of new spaces made available. Quite easy one might think! In fact, the task involved many hidden complexities, many choices that only became apparent once detailed planning of the re-hang began, in preparation for reinstatement of the Treasury Building. The refurbished Treasury Building prompted a challenge to previous assumptions and encouraged a comprehensive re-visit to the presentation of this important collection in the unique hanging space afforded by the Inn. A significant early decision was made by the Project Pegasus Interior Design Sub-Committee not to hang original works from the existing collection on the third and fourth floors. Rather, the reception spaces and training rooms would provide an ideal opportunity to create displays of images from the archives to inform particularly student members and to stimulate curiosity about the Inn’s history and estate, with copies of the irreplaceable royal letters, precious illuminated manuscripts, and early maps and drawings including the Temple Church and Garden. The fourth floor reception space with its glass roof and stone walls was a perfect setting for a Warholesque exhibition of Inner Temple ‘Firsts’ bringing to light the range of achievements by the Inn’s global membership. Crucial to those displays, ultimately devised by museum display designer John Ronayne, were the research and editorial work by the Archivist, Celia Pilkington, and by Kate Peters in the Treasury Office. Sincere thanks are also due to Master John Baker for his patient, erudite research into attribution and provenance for labelling purposes.

The fourth floor reception space with its glass roof and stone walls was a perfect setting for a Warholesque exhibition of Inner Temple ‘Firsts’ bringing to light the range of achievements by the Inn’s global membership.

Fourth floor with Inner Temple ‘Firsts’ display © James Brittain

The paper planning exercise in the abstract, for the re-hang of over 130 portraits and other pictures (many of which had been donated to the Inn by past members or families of the subjects), was daunting. It was only on in-person viewing inside the refurbished Treasury Building, access to which continued to be restricted even after commencement of the reinstatement, that the physical display truly took shape and the aesthetics of the plan became obvious.

It was clear from the outset that the imposing portraits of Lord Chancellors dating back to the 16th century, the Geoffrey Kneller royal portraits, and the four large and extremely heavy portraits (over 130kgs each) of Inner Temple ‘Fire Judges’ by renowned 17th century portraitist John Michael Wright, were best suited in their former positions in the Hall. While much has changed in the Treasury Building, a deliberate decision was made to retain certain works in their old places, familiar to the Members. Certain other groupings likewise: the Luncheon Room collection of views of the Garden, Temple Bar, Temple Church, and the wider estate curated by the former Master of Pictures, Master Tom Shields, has been rehung as before, maintaining its particular, timeless charm. Similarly, the 16th and 17th portraits in the Parliament Chamber, including that of jurist, polymath and scholar, John Selden (attributed to Sir Anthony Van Dyck), sit very well beside the newly conserved over-mantle Grinling Gibbons wood carving.

The elegant setting of the Drawing Room, with its 19th-21st century portraits of distinguished advocates and judges, including Clement Attlee, Edward Marshall-Hall KC, Master Higgins (Her Excellency Dame Rosalyn Higgins GBE KC JSD FBA) and Master Woolf (The Rt Hon the Lord Woolf of Barnes CH FBA), invited sympathetic review. New clusters of smaller paintings now add further interest to the room, complementing

the ‘drawing room’ style. A portrait of past Treasurer Master Griffiths (The Rt Hon The Lord Griffiths MC) given to the Inn by his widow, now has greater prominence among familiar faces.

One of the most exciting aspects of the re-hang was positioning works on the new staircase. We are extremely fortunate to have available the large portraits of Sir Edward Coke, Sir Thomas Littleton, Sir Henry Rolle and Sir Thomas Streete. The scale and grandeur of these pieces are surprisingly well-complemented by the recently cleaned, repaired, and conserved carved marble Pegasus by Johannes Michel Rysbrack. Commissioned by Benchers of the Inn in 1737, the Pegasus, though badly damaged in the war, survived the Blitz, and having now been stripped of its somewhat clumsy post-war repair work, has been beautifully conserved by Cliveden Conservation. Members will be moved to see how simple and effective this striking relief appears, flying high on the north elevation. Opposite is a striking glass screen depicting a contemporary interpretation of the Pegasus to announce the new Education and Training centre. Another interesting area was the new main entrance hall. Given the painted panelled walls which lend themselves less well to a busy hang of paintings, a more minimalist approach has been taken to the ground floor, where the Inn’s first female Treasurer Master Elizabeth Butler-Sloss (The Rt Hon The Baroness Butler-Sloss GBE) is now, rightly, prominently on display. The Terence Cuneo painting of Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II dining in Hall on 17 December 1966, is now on more public view in the main entrance. Henry Arthur Payne’s fine watercolour ‘Choosing the Red and White Roses in the Temple Gardens’, a study for a fresco by Payne in the East Corridor of the Palace of Westminster, provides a rich and intense focus of colour and is much enhanced by the space and lighting in the entrance area.

Conservator removing coffee splashes

Scaffolding for re-hang of Edward Coke portrait Picture placement decisions

Paintings store in Treasury Office

Other paintings formerly sited on the ground floor may now be viewed in their new homes on mid-floor landings and on the new third flight of stairs. Changes to the first floor corridor and Ante Room include the highly effective re-hanging of the Andrew Festing portrait of Sir Peter Taylor, Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales 1992 – 96. This is best viewed from the opposite end of the corridor where it is a striking, powerful presence, particularly when lit, after dark. The portrait of Master Higgins by Joel Ely has relocated to the Ante Room where it may be viewed from the Hall. The Ante Room also houses a reimagined grouping of former Lord Chancellors, Masters Irving, Straw and Falconer and affords a better position to the portrait of Royal Bencher, HRH The Prince Philip between the large windows. The 2001 David Cobley portrait of Master Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal has been fittingly re-positioned on the third floor by the new education and training spaces, officially reopened by Her Royal Highness on 4 May 2022.

Dame Elizabeth Lane, the first woman appointed as a judge in the County Court, the first female High Court Judge in England and the first female Bencher, now hangs in a new space near the Drawing Room. Nearby, dominating the space rather in the manner of an ecclesiastical painting from a much earlier age, is the striking 2018 commission ‘Five Supreme Court Judges’ by Howard Morgan RP who sadly did not live to see it framed and hung. The Pegasus and other flying objects abound in the painting of the ‘Supremes’, as they are affectionately known, and make the dramatic, unorthodox portrait an interesting addition to the collection.

Lord Taylor of Gosforth

Restored Grinling Gibbons wood carving in the Parliament Chamber

Main staircase © James Brittain

Grinling Gibbons structural repairs in progress

Dame Elizabeth Lane, the first woman appointed as a judge in the County Court, the first female High Court Judge in England and the first female Bencher, now hangs in a new space near the Drawing Room.

A wholesale re-hang of the staircase behind the Library, now less used due to the new main entrance to the Library at the south of the Treasury Building, has led to the creation of the Gandhi Suite – a meeting room in the Buttery with adjoining small ante room, where the bronze bas relief of Gandhi on a wooden mount presented to the Inn after he was readmitted to the Inn, is on display. The suite will soon contain a display of copied documents relating to Gandhi’s admission to the Inn.

Though conservation work to the Inn’s large collection has been continuing for many years, Project Pegasus provided a timely opportunity for several of the large and not easily accessible Hall portraits and their frames to be cleaned and conserved –as advised in condition reports prepared by conservator Hamish Dewar. Whilst much work has been done, some of the older and more fragile paintings will need to be assessed regularly to preserve this legacy for future generations of Members to learn about and enjoy. It is fair to say that in our view it has been learning and enjoyment that has characterised the re-hanging task undertaken for project Pegasus – no mention of which would be complete without particular mention of Chezzy Brownen who, with unfailing charm, project-managed reinstatement of the Treasury Building, working tirelessly with art handlers, carpenters, electricians and SRM contractors to make this satisfying, and we trust, inspiring endeavour possible.

The Hon Mrs Justice Alison Foster DBE Master of Pictures

Henrietta Amodio Director of the Treasury Office

Marrying the old and the new © James Brittain

Main staircase © James Brittain

First floor with portrait of Elizabeth Lane to the left

Painting of HRH The Princess Royal Five Supreme Court Judges by Howard Morgan The Rt Hon the Baroness Butler-Sloss GBE

MEMORIAL FOR THOSE LOST TO COVID

An address by Sir Christopher Clarke at the Service of Thanksgiving in The Temple Church on Wedensday 30 March 2022 for those who died during the pandemic.

“No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were.

Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee”.

I have quoted these well-known words of John Donne, one-time Reader of Divinity at Lincoln’s Inn, because over the last two years, while the bell may have been able to toll, the spread of COVID and the measures taken to close off normal life have meant that many have passed from us with a funeral attended by very few and with no memorial service or gathering possible; and with severe restrictions on our ability to communicate with the relatives of those who have died. But we can at last be here in this our Temple Church, this evening, to gather together and remember those whom we have lost.

Those who have gone from us are over 200 in number. Any mention of names by me could be thought inapposite, since for each person named another could equally well have been chosen, and all deserve equally to be remembered. Nevertheless, it appeared to me fitting to indicate the range of those from our community who have departed this mortal life.

Two had been members of the House of Lords and Supreme Court. The first is Donald Nicholls, a former Treasurer of The Middle Temple, one of the most accomplished and most modest members of our highest tribunal ever. His death was sadly followed, all too shortly, by that of his widow Jennifer. The second is Brian Hutton, a former Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, who once topped the IRA’s most wanted list.

From the Court of Appeal we have lost Roy Beldam, of The Inner Temple who once, with considerable fortitude, dealt with a litigant who brandished a gun at the Court until he said to her “Madam, justice cannot be dispensed at the barrel of a gun”, whereupon, fortunately, she fled; John Laws, a former Treasurer of Inner, whose passion for, and aptitude in respect of, administrative law and matters Greek was largely equal; and Andrew Leggatt, of Inner, a former Chairman of the Bar, Paul McCartney’s former counsel, a kind and humane man, whose dry, laconic and sometimes acerbic wit will long be remembered.

Amongst Honorary Benchers we have lost Robert Armstrong, the former Cabinet Secretary, whose grandfather was William Henry Draper, the Master of the Temple from 1919–30, Jonathan Sachs, the former Chief Rabbi and Roger Scruton, the distinguished conservative philosopher.

And from overseas, we have lost Sir Austin Ward, a former Chief Justice of Bermuda; once described as “A quiet man gifted with a sharp wit for any lawyer who was less than thoroughly prepared”; and Surinder Singh Ninja, an Indian legal visionary (who aged 12 moved to Huddersfield from the Punjab) but in 1975, after being unable to obtain a tenancy, returned to India where in one of his first cases, the judge found it difficult to decipher his Yorkshire accent, and where he became, in the end, a justice of the Indian Supreme Court.

From the High Court we have lost Margaret Booth, a pioneer for women at the Bar (being only the tenth woman appointed as a QC) and in the judiciary (being only the third woman appointed as a puisne judge – at a mere 46) and an editor of Rayden on Divorce; Richard Curtis, a former presiding judge of the Wales and Chester Circuit; William MacPherson of Cluny, a former Treasurer of Inner who, in the course of no more than a year, sifted through a morass of material in the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry and concluded that the police were institutionally racist; and Richard Plender, whose grandparents perished in Theresienstadt, and who was a distinguished European lawyer, both as an academic and a practitioner.

From the Circuit Bench we have lost, inter alios, Brian Appleby, a brilliant advocate, one of the first silks not to move to London on becoming a QC, with the added distinction of having been Chairman of Nottingham Forest FC; Stuart Bridge, a first class academic and Yorkshireman and former Chairman of the Law Commission; Roderick Denyer, the former designated civil judge in Bristol who, on his first day as a pupil in chambers, reportedly turned up dressed in a sharp Italian two piece suit, orange shirt and brown shoes, only to be told, in the supercilious humour of those times, that he “looked like a solicitor”; David Elfer, a Titan of the Western Circuit and for four years a judge at Southwark, whose career was cut very short by ill health; Alistair McCreath, a greatly admired judge and model judicial trainer who, after Birmingham and Worcester, became the resident judge at Southwark, and successfully fought off the court’s sale; John Mitchell, who only retired from the Bench two years ago, a great supporter of Middle Temple students and the 2021 Lent Reader, who sadly did not live to deliver his lecture; Mervyn Roberts, who was a circuit judge, a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and of the Parole Board; Owen Stable, senior judge at Snaresbrook who percipiently held Robert Maxwell to be unfit to run a public company and laid claim to fame as Lord Bingham’s pupil master; John Weeks, a Chancery Circuit judge on the Western Circuit, who controversially described a very well-known pop singer as “devious, truculent and unreliable when his own interests were at stake”; and Margaret Wilby, a district judge who retired early to pursue an interest in archaeology and died tragically following a fall.

Amongst our barrister members we have lost Pat Edwards, whose last job was as Legal Director to the Office of Fair Trading, and who in retirement was a most active and hardworking Chair of the Scholarships and Prizes Sub-Committee of Middle of which she was, by her will, a most generous benefactor; Sibghat Kadri, of Inner, the first ever Queen’s Counsel of Pakistani and Muslim origin and a founder and former Chairman of what came to be called the Society of Black Lawyers. He was elected the first President of The Inner Temple Student Association, defeating John Laws, who nevertheless did well thereafter.

We have lost Bertrand de Speville, of Middle who came to England from Rhodesia, practised here and then became Solicitor General and Head of the Independent Commission against Corruption in Hong Kong until the handover, after which he founded an anti-corruption consultancy; George Pulman, of Middle, a practitioner as permanently jovial as he was accomplished, a diocesan Chancellor and a tireless

supporter of law students; Eldred Tabachnik, of Inner, who qualified as an Advocate at the South African Bar, came to England and almost single handedly created employment law as an area of practice in its own right. Others lost are Giles Wingate-Saul, of Inner, one of the most admired members of the Northern Circuit and one of the founders of the Northern Circuit Commercial Bar Association; Richard Southwell, a former Treasurer of Inner and one time President of the Courts of Appeal of Jersey and Guernsey; and Johnny Veeder, of Inner, who developed a brilliant practice in international arbitration, oversaw with others the recreation of the London Court of International Arbitration, had a great sense of humour and was a master of spoofs.

Of those who have died, several lived to a great age, far past the three score years and ten to which the psalmist refers as an ordinary life span. But some have left us far too soon, included among whom is Mark Cannon, of Middle, a specialist in professional liability and construction and insurance and former Chairman of the Professional Negligence Bar Association [aged 62]; Robin Dicker, of Middle, who enjoyed a meteoric rise to the top of his profession in his chosen fields of commercial, finance and insolvency and restructuring law, at the pinnacle of which he remained for years with seemingly Olympian ease [aged 60]; Edmund King, of Inner, a fantastically talented lawyer with a first in Jurisprudence from Balliol, a Kennedy scholar at Harvard and the top scholarship from Inner, who combined a brilliant legal mind with a fantastic sense of humour (aged 45). He was married to Louise Hutton, Brain Hutton’s daughter, herself a talented silk at the same Chambers, Essex Court. We have lost Simon Kverndal, of Middle, an Englishman from the Norwegian shipping family, a great racquets player, a wine expert and a fine shipping lawyer [aged 62]; Michael McParland, of Inner, a lawyer of great distinction and renowned scholarship in cross border disputes and conflict of laws and best known to the general public as a legal commentator on televised US trials for Sky News, BBC and ITV etc. [aged 61]; and others.

And we lost far, far too young Elizabeth McGahey, of Inner, who practised in family law in Cardiff; and Charlotte Wycherley, a new junior in 5 Essex Court who died tragically young in her mid-twenties.

From the non-lawyer part of the Temple community and those close to them, we have lost Stuart Collins, the nephew of Bobby Grier, one of The Inner Temple’s porters; Stuart died as a result of injuries sustained while serving with the British Army in Afghanistan. We have lost two longstanding members of the congregation: Trever Dannatt, a great architect, the last surviving member of the group that built the Royal Festival Hall, who died aged 101; and Roger Duff, a gentleman who, in later years was severely stooped and whom many of the regular congregation would recognize.

We have lost Philip and Christine Deller, the parents of Roland Deller the very new Chief Executive of the Temple Music Foundation; David Dorey, the brother of Greg Dorey, the Sub-treasurer of Inner; Wendy Grayson, the wife of Edward Grayson, the sports lawyer. Wendy lived in the same flat in Middle Temple for over 60 years. She was the cousin of Peter Taylor, the Chief Justice. Although called to the Bar (one of the few women at the time) she never practised as a barrister. She was, however, for many years the chief editor of the All England Law Reports under her maiden name of Wendy Shockett; Paul Harrison, the Head of Music at the City of London School; Stella Gallagher, whose son William looks after Inner Temple’s silver, and Jean Mulady, the mother of John, a member of Inner Temple’s security staff.

I have referred to this list of people, saying a little something about them, because to refer to these ones alone shows the enormous breadth of achievement and of contribution that members of our two Inns and of the Temple family make to the common weal. And it serves to remind us of the importance of community, and in particular a community such as ours, in an enterprise which is a force for good.

The Inns are, of course, peculiar institutions. Nobody starting from scratch would establish them as they are now. They are a combination of degree-awarding institution, professional gateway, property owning company, church owner and funder and quasi-charity, established by the Royal Charter of James 1, renewed in 2008 by Her (now Late) Majesty.

It is perhaps apposite that I should recall some of the words of the Charter. It begins with the recital:

“ Whereas our realm of England, having flourished mightily for so many ages in the arts of peace and war… is acknowledged with good reason to owe a great part of its happiness to the ancient laws proper to this realm…. And whereas the Inns of The Inner and Middle Temple, London, having long been among those foremost celebrated colleges of all Europe continually filled with persons studious and learned in the aforesaid laws, have for a long time been dedicated by the liberal bounty of our forebears, as Kings of England, to the use of those studying and professing the said laws, to which, as to the best seminaries of instruction and upbringing, a great many young persons of honourable background, excellently endowed in mind and body, have daily flocked from all parts of this realm, and from whom by reason of their highest merits many have been advanced, both to arduous positions in the state and in the administration of justice, wherein they have provided high examples of prudence and integrity, to the honour of the said profession, the advancement of this realm, and the no mean benefit of the whole commonwealth, as is to us abundantly manifest…”

There then follow words granting the lands of Inner and Middle Temple in perpetuity in relation to which the Charter specified that:

“ We will and by these presents for us, our heirs and successors, do strictly command [that the Inns] shall serve for the accommodation and education of those studying and following the profession of the aforesaid laws, abiding in the same Inns, for all time to come.”

It is of these two great bodies that those whom we now hold in our hearts chose to become members or to serve; and who contributed to the achievement of the good purposes for which they have ever existed.

As Donne reminds us, we are all the less by the loss of any single member of our community. But, as our opening anthem also said:

“Justorum animae in manu Dei sunt et non tangent illos tormentum malitiae.”

“

The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God. There shall no torment touch them.”

Let us entrust them to His safekeeping. May they rest in peace. Amen.

The Rt Hon Sir Christopher Clarke Master of the Bench of Middle Temple

LIBRARY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

The Library is open to all members of The Inner Temple and to members of the other Inns of Court. It is a legal reference library, staffed by experienced information professionals, which offers users access to a wide range of print and electronic resources in a comfortable working environment.

The Library offers the following facilities and services:

A quiet environment for study

A comprehensive collection of English legal materials, including the most up-to-date editions of major practitioner texts An extensive archive of old editions of practitioners’ works Specialist Commonwealth and Scottish collections Collections which are all on-site and easily accessible A range of commercial legal research databases PCs for online research, access to email and word processing Equipment and software for users with hearing or visual impairment Free Wi-Fi Photocopying, scanning and printing facilities

A document supply service

An enquiry service (in person, by telephone and by email) Assistance with online searching and legal research An overnight loans scheme for barristers Legal research training for pupils and students Legal research FAQs on our website Tours for students and pupils Web access to the library catalogues of the four Inns AccessToLaw, a gateway site providing annotated links to selected UK, Commonwealth and worldwide free legal websites accesstolaw.com

Current Awareness blog for legal news, changes in legislation and new case law innertemplelibrary.com Quarterly electronic newsletter social media pages with information on Library services, news and events facebook.com/ innertemplelibrary and twitter.com/inner_temple Range of guides available in the Library or for downloading from our website

More information on the Library’s collections, services and contact details can be viewed at www.innertemplelibrary.org.uk

EDUCATION & TRAINING

A YEAR IN EDUCATION AND TRAINING

The 2022/2023 academic year has been one marked by a gradual return to ‘normal’ in the wake of COVID-19 and the ongoing Pegasus Project. The Education and Training Committee (chaired by Master May) and Education Department have worked with these challenges to provide a unique year of learning, capitalising on lessons learned from online education and remote Outreach, whilst moving towards new formats of hybrid learning made possible by the Inn’s brand-new facilities.

OUTREACH

It has been a period of development and transition for the E&T Outreach team, with a number of events necessarily held online over the previous year now once again offered in person. Among these, it was possible to run Circuit Insight Events in Birmingham, Brighton, Liverpool, Exeter, Manchester, Sheffield, Nottingham and Swansea (the first outreach events to be held in person since the start of the pandemic) and it was enormously rewarding to once again be able to meet with aspiring barristers on circuit and connect them with members of the profession. In addition to this, a total of five Discovery Days for sixth form student were run throughout the year and in May 2022, the Inn was also able to welcome 127 university students to The Inner Temple for the annual Dinner to the Universities (the first time this event has been held at the Inn since the start of Project Pegasus). That having been said, the popularity and accessibility of online events has persisted over the course of the year, and the team looks forward to moving into a hybrid era of blended online and in-person events, with a view to providing maximum flexibility for aspiring barristers based around the country. More information on the year’s events can be found on pages 56

SCHOLARSHIPS

In March of this year, the Inn received 395 applications for the Bar Course awards and, after allowing for withdrawals, interviewed 354 candidates. We have awarded 142 scholarships and exhibitions, to a total of £1,726,650. In addition, the Inn also received 87 applications for the GDL awards and, after allowing for withdrawals, interviewed 77 candidates at the end of June. We have awarded 32 scholarships and exhibitions, to a total of £265,600. Having had to find new ways of working during the COVID-19 pandemic has helped the team to advance our online interview offering for those that are unable to attend in-person interviews, and we hope to be able to offer candidates the choice of online or in-person interviews in the future. We can’t thank our interviewers enough for their flexibility and dedication – as well as their patience as they attended test calls so that we could make sure everything ran smoothly.

QUALIFYING SESSIONS

The Inn has continued to meet the goals laid out by the BSB’s Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), with all students and transferring legal practitioners now required to attend ten Qualifying Sessions under five separate educational themes before being Called to the Bar. The department has continued to run a diverse range of QS online over the course of the year, including the EDI series (on topics such as disability at the Bar and tackling harassment) and a well-received series of sessions addressing ethical issues which might arise in Criminal and Civil contexts. There has been some opportunity to move out of the fully online format imposed by the pandemic, with a variety of lectures held in person, albeit with hybrid streaming options, from the middle of the year onwards. Likewise, we have been lucky enough to return to in-person training (with necessary safety precautions in place) for all three of this year’s residential advocacy weekends, as well as implementing a new set of in-person Circuit Education Days, which have added hugely to our ability to provide accessible training outside of London. More information on the year’s events can be found from page 62 onward.

The Education and Training Department are exceptionally grateful to the Qualifying Sessions Committee (chaired by Master Rory Phillips) for all they have done to ensure the programme ran seamlessly throughout the year. The Inn now needs your support. If you are a practitioner on circuit and feel you can support a Qualifying Session, please get in touch with the Education and Training Department asap.

ADVOCACY TRAINING

The Chair of the Advocacy Training Committee, Adam Constable KC, explores in his article on page 72 the challenges that were overcome by the department and the Advocacy Training Committee to deliver a full programme of Pupil, New Practitioner and Teacher Training courses online during the pandemic, as well as the opportunities these created to develop hybrid learning programmes now in-person training has resumed.

THANK YOU

As always, the Inn is immensely grateful to all its members who volunteer for our education, scholarships and outreach programmes. With their ongoing support, and the support of new volunteers, the Inn will continue to do everything it can to meet the evolving needs of those training for the Bar through to established practitioners. If you would like to volunteer to assist with any of our programmes, please do get in touch.

THE E&T TEAM

JULIA ARMFIELD

Education Programmes Manager (Pre-Pupillage)

jarmfield@innertemple.org.uk 020 7797 8207

STEPHANIE BAUGHEN

Widening Access Manager sbaughen@innertemple.org.uk 020 7797 8262

VANESSA BENNETT

Education Programmes Manager vbennett@innertemple.org.uk 020 7797 8261

STRUAN CAMPBELL

Director of Education scampbell@innertemple.org.uk 020 7797 8214

JAMES CARLBERG

Outreach Co-ordinator jcarlberg@innertemple.org.uk 020 7797 8240

GEORGINA EVERATT

Scholarships Manager geveratt@innertemple.org.uk 020 7797 8211

HELEN GASKELL

Education and Student Support Co-ordinator hgaskell@innertemple.org.uk 020 7438 2386

SHAHZADI HUSSAIN Pegasus Trust Co-ordinator shussain@innertemple.org.uk 020 7797 8210

EDWINA

TIFFANY-ROCHELLE LOUIS-BYFIELD Education Engagement Co-Ordinator tlouis-byfield@ innertemple.org.uk 020 7797 8257

RICHARD LOVERIDGE Education Operations and Project

rloveridge@innertemple.org.uk 020 7797 8212

DAVID MILLER

Education Programmes Manager (Practitioners) dmiller@innertemple.org.uk 020 7797 8209

KERRY UPHAM

Regional Education Officer kupham@innertemple.org.uk 020 7797 8189

EDUCATION AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT

Treasury Building, Inner Temple, London EC4Y 7HL 020 7797 8208

innertemple.org.uk

twitter.com/ TheInnerTemple facebook.com/ TheInnerTemple

OUTREACH: A YEAR IN REVIEW

It has once again been a busy year for the Outreach Team, but also, as so often has been the case in recent years, one with a great deal of change. 2021/22 has been a year of transition as relaxation of COVID-19 restrictions and the reopening of the Inn after Project Pegasus has gradually allowed us to bring back in-person events. We are incredibly excited to once again be able to welcome prospective barristers to the Inn, but it is also an opportunity for us to assess the lessons we have learned during the pandemic and incorporate those into our activities going forward.

There has recently been a good deal of change within the Outreach team. We were saddened to lose Daisy Mortimer, our Widening Access Manager, in June 2022. Daisy has worked tirelessly throughout the challenges of the pandemic to ensure that the Inn remained committed to providing opportunities and experiences for those considering a career at the Bar, particularly those from underrepresented backgrounds. Daisy has had a hugely positive impact on the lives of many who have engaged with the Inn’s outreach activities, and she is much missed by both members and colleagues, who wish her well in her new role.

This having been said, the popularity of our online events has not gone unnoticed, and we have observed that some felt more comfortable engaging and answering questions in an online context. We are now moving forward into a hybrid era and over the next year the team will be looking to offer greater flexibility and choice to our attendees, offering a mixture of both online and in-person events. We will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of both types of events to inform our strategy going forward.

In addition to the Insight events, we have continued to run Discovery Days for sixth form students, running five in total across the year. These all took place before the re-opening of the Treasury Building but we are looking forward to welcoming these groups back to the Inn at in-person events during the next academic year.

In Daisy’s place Stephanie Baughen has taken over the role of Widening Access Manager and James Carlberg has been appointed to the Outreach Coordinator role. Both are exceptionally excited to further develop and build on the excellent work carried out at the Inn to date.

After a year of online delivery, we were very pleased to once again be able to offer Insight events on Circuit. Throughout the year we ran events in Birmingham, Brighton, Liverpool, Exeter, Manchester, Sheffield, Nottingham and Swansea. These were the first outreach events to be delivered in person since the start of the pandemic. It was fantastic to once again provide the opportunity for aspiring barristers to meet and talk directly to members of the profession.

In May 2022, we were also able to welcome 127 university students to The Inner Temple for the Dinner to the Universities for the first time since the start of Project Pegasus. These students represented 56 universities, which is the highest number of universities to be represented to date. Of these 127 students, 72 were PASS scholars from both our 2019/20 and 2020/21 cohort, whom we had previously been unable to invite to an event at the Inn. The evening was very successful and we received hugely positive feedback from our attendees. We are very grateful to all of our members who attended the evening and made the event worthwhile for one and all.

We are, as ever, incredibly grateful to all of our amazing volunteers who have continued to support our outreach events through this ever-changing period. Being able to hear from those working in the profession is the highlight of attending such an event and we would not be able to do what we do without your kind support. If you would be interested in hearing more about volunteering at our events, we would love to hear from you! You can contact us at outreach@innertemple.org.uk

Students and members attend the Dinner to the Universities

STRENGTHENING TIES WITH ACADEMICS AND UNIVERSITIES

DINNER FOR LEGAL ACADEMICS

Prior to the pandemic, the Inn hosted three Dinners for Legal Academics a year in London. We used the opportunity of Project Pegasus to strengthen our connections on Circuit. We hosted the first in-person Legal Academics dinner since 2019 earlier this year and were happy to host members and academics in Newcastle. The Dinners for Legal Academics are an opportunity to foster links between academics and the Bar locally, as well as to further debate and understand the work of The Inner Temple. It is one of the ways of supporting our outreach programmes, as we provide careers guides to academics in attendance and offer talks to their students so that they are more aware of the Bar as a career. At the Newcastle dinner we had a good representation from academics at local institutions including Northumbria University, University of Sunderland, Newcastle University, Durham University, and Teeside University.

We also welcomed guests back to the Inn for the first time for the dinner held in London. We had a wide range of representation from universities in and around London including Kingston University, University of Sussex, University of Reading, University of Warwick, as well as King’s College London and University College London. Both evenings were a fantastic advert for the Inn and its outreach aims, and we were able to reach a wider pool of academics. At the London event we had some of our Academic Fellows in attendance and they were able to expand on what becoming a Fellow of the Inn means.

The dinners also serve to support recruitment for the Academic Fellows Scheme. The current Fellows scheme is geared towards early-to mid-career academics who become honorary members of the Inn for a three-year term. They support our education and outreach work and share their own research with our students, practitioners and judges. The first cohort completed their fellowships in 2010 and continue to support the Inn as Associate Academic Fellows. To coincide with the ten-year anniversary

Another benefit of these dinners is that we are able to meet and reconnect with members across various circuits who are committed to volunteering. We have added members to the Outreach volunteer database if they have advised they are able to assist with our outreach programme

ACADEMIC FELLOWS SCHEME

The first group of four Inner Temple Academic Fellows was appointed in 2010, with four Fellows appointed in each of the subsequent years. This has produced a total of 40 Fellows over the ten-year period of the Scheme. Amongst these 40 Fellows, 29 different universities have been represented. There has been an almost even split between Fellows from Russell Group universities (which are research intensive ones) and Fellows from universities outside the Russell Group. We have been pleased to have a highly diverse group of Fellows over the years covering a range of fields of legal academic scholarship. Our Fellows have enriched the work of the Inn by delivering talks at the Inn, helping to organise university events with the Inn’s Outreach Team and organising conferences or other activities at or in conjunction with the Inn. The Fellowship scheme has clearly been successful in establishing a new way to connect the Inn with more academics across the UK than ever before.

DINNER FOR ACADEMIC FELLOWS

We hosted the first dinner since 2019 (when it was held at The HAC due to the start of Project Pegasus). We were delighted to be back at the Inn and were joined by practitioners from various practice areas who were able to converse with our Fellows long into the evening. It was a fantastic evening and we look forward to bringing together our Fellows again next year!

Do contact ekoroma@innertemple.org.uk to express interest in attending future dinners.

Edwina Koroma

DISCOVERY DAYS: WORKING WITH SCHOOLS

We are hugely proud of the Inn’s long-standing work with school sixth form students. First known as the Schools Project and more recently as the Discovery Days, the Inn has a fantastic tradition of inviting nonselective state schools to bring Year 12 and Year 13 students to the Inn for a taste of a career at the Bar.

For our 16–18-year-old visitors, being Called to the Bar could seem like a lifetime away, and some may wonder what the point of engaging that early on is. However, as we all know, for someone wishing to pursue this career, advanced planning is essential. Whilst barristers enter the profession through a plethora of routes, those options start to narrow down as early as sixth form itself. A law degree is not a pre-requisite, but what somebody chooses to study at university will have implications on how long their route to the Bar will take and, as such, how costly that route will be. It is therefore vital that we offer opportunities for young people to learn about how to access the Bar and make an informed decision about whether such a career path is for them as early as possible.

The events are highly popular, with 569 students registering for the opportunity in 2021/22. We target schools who have a high proportion of students on free school meals. On a Discovery Day, students receive advice and guidance about pursuing a career at the Bar and participants are given the chance to hear from a panel of barristers and to take part in legal exercise workshops. The activities are designed to help young people gain an understanding of what being a barrister involves, the types of skills involved and importantly, whether it might be a suitable career for them.

We are also extremely proud to be working in partnership with the Sutton Trust Pathways to Law Programme. This two-year programme aims to offer information and guidance to young people considering a career in law, in addition to helping them develop the skills and confidence necessary to pursue it. The Inner Temple is proud to be able to host each of the students on Pathways to Law at one of our Discovery Days. Claire Maton, Head of Employability Programmes spoke of the opportunity as “an incredibly valuable offering to Sutton Trust students, giving them a unique insight to life at the Bar and a brilliant opportunity to meet with barristers in person, which is why it has been a cornerstone of the Pathways to Law Programme for many years. We are delighted to work in partnership with The Inner Temple”.

The pandemic has challenged the way we deliver activities and who we target at our school events. Prior to 2020, Discovery Days typically served schools in London or surrounding counties due to their proximity to the Inn. However, online events have attracted schools from Gateshead to Exeter. The ability to reach under-represented young people across the country is essential. In 2020, the Social Mobility Commission published a report detailing the impact of living in a social mobility ‘cold spot’. These social mobility cold spots are spread across the country, where a combination of factors from education to family background can detrimentally affect a person’s career opportunities and earning prospects in adulthood. If we want to ensure that the Bar is open to all, it is vital that we work in these areas.

Whilst barristers enter the profession through a plethora of routes, those options start to narrow down as early as sixth form itself.

We want to continue make sure that we are able to provide high-quality outreach to young people across the country. How we do that going forward will require some further evaluation and thought. In 2022–23, we are planning to continue running online events, alongside in-person events, to extend our geographical reach, but the question remains as to whether online events will remain as popular as they were during the pandemic, and whether the experience will be quite the same. As we move into a new year, we will be looking to explore new ways of engaging with young people in regions across England and Wales.

Stephanie Baughen Widening Access Manager

THE AMBASSADOR PLATFORM

It might be ironic, but in many ways the pandemic has actually encouraged us to increase our reach and connectivity with those considering joining the Bar across the UK and the world. Over the last two years, the Outreach Team has been taking advantage of new technologies, which have not only helped us to reach our target audience during lockdown but will also help us to engage with many more people in the future.

One such form of technology has been The Ambassador Platform. This platform was originally designed for universities to enable prospective undergraduate and graduate students to speak directly to a student ambassador and now offers us the opportunity to connect aspiring barristers with those studying at the Bar Course in a similar way.

Visitors to the platform are invited to ask the ambassadors questions about their experiences and personal journeys to the Bar Course. Whereas previously they might have only had the opportunity to engage in conversation with somebody with lived experience of studying for the Bar at a one-off event (and then only if they lived within easy reach of such an event), it is now possible to strike up a conversation and ask those questions from the comfort of their own homes. We are hugely grateful to our six ambassadors, who have set up welcoming profiles and volunteered their time to answer questions.

For those considering a career at the Bar who don’t have much, or indeed any, experience of engaging with the Inns, nor any connections to those in the profession, the

opportunity to speak to those who have made that journey can help to break down a barrier. It also provides those who live in more remote areas the opportunity to find the answers to their questions without additional travel costs.

The Inns first used The Ambassador Platform in 2020. Since then, 112 users have set up accounts leading to 78 conversations and total of 890 messages being sent. The platform has also enabled us to reach aspiring barristers across the world with over half of our users listing a nationality other than British.

The Ambassador Platform can be used by anybody who is 16 or above. The platform has a number of safeguarding features in place and ambassadors receive training to ensure it is a safe environment for all.

Across the coming year, we are looking to build on this foundation to promote the tool more widely, particularly amongst groups who are under-represented at the Bar. In order to continue this offering, we are now looking for new volunteers who can act as ambassadors. If you are studying for the Bar Course, or about to commence the course, and you are interested in sharing your experiences with others, please contact us at outreach@innertemple.org.uk

Stephanie Baughen Widening Access Manager

The Ambassadors Platform

INNER TEMPLE SCHOLARSHIPS

2022 BAR COURSE AWARDS

PETER TAYLOR SCHOLARSHIP Ellie Mullett

STEPHEN CHAPMAN AWARD

Alastair Holder Ross

PRINCESS ROYAL (5 Awarded)

Daniella Adeluwoye, Daniel Cook, Rita Lourenço Baião Dias, Faith Osifo, Adam Weisz

MAJOR SCHOLARSHIPS (20 Awarded)

Katie Bacon, Rachel Bill, Alessio Compagnino, Sophie Drake, Sonya Edwards, Allegra Enefer, Rosanna Harrison-Pope, Lara Honour, Samuel Killcross, Jake Long, Armando Martins Brelaz de Castro, Tomas McCabe, Josephine Moreton, Freya Morgan, Maud Mullan, Joshua Neaman, Brogan Riley, Eleanor Schaff, Charles Sinden, Sean Sutherland

EXHIBITION AWARDS (115 Awarded)

Alfred Crowley-Rata, Rosie Shouler-Harris, Eaindra Cho, Andrew Jones, Charlotte Jerram, Megan Bithel-Vaughan, Thomas Rowland, Gabriel Barton-Singer, Oliver Snelgrove, Jamie Arthur, Laura Bell, Henry Fahrenkamp, Benjamin Moodie, Gareth Horrocks, Atiya Kanji, Ruby Turok-Squire, Vilte Pranauskaite, Louis Flood, Anjolaoluwa Alabi, Emily Andrew, Samantha Archer, Morgen Ardouin, Byron Austin, Ciranne Barrass, Emily Bethell, Jack Bickerton, Alexis Boddy, Julia Brechtelsbauer, Niamh Brennan, Ruby Breward, Leon Cording, Julie Davis, Kit De Vriese, Francesca Dickens, Isabel Dutton, Rihab El-Hussain, Lloyd Ellis, Joy Elson, Robyn Emery, Georgia Faulke, Karen Fulton, Roisin Gambroudes, Sophie George-Moore, Emma Germany, Moresal Ghafooryar, Josh Gibson, Mia Gibson, Joseph Godber, Marianne Hardy, Caprice Harper, Declan Harris, Sanjana Hegde, Katharine Higgs, Laura Hildt, Fred Holker, David Horwich, Jo Hughes, Emily Jarron, Matthew Johnson, Jonathan Kilgallon, Joshua Kinsella, Su-Lynn Kok, Anna-Alexia Kotsaki, Yusuf Lahham, Georgina Lane, Thomas Langley, Samuel Larner, Armela Lasku, Jillian Laws, Felix Levay, Kay Lima, Katherine Luckhurst, Appin MackayChampion, Joseph Maggs, Daniel Mander, Grace Martins, Natalie Mason-Bass, Payel Mazumdar, Cressida McGill, Tess McGovern, Connor Mew, Wayne Miller, Lucy Moran, Rachel Mottershead, Bradley Murphy, Natasha Niccolls, Konstantina Nouka, Charlotte O’Donnell, Maria Odueyingbo, Shiloni Osuchukwu, Holly Parker, Lucie Penn, Katy Phillips-Farmer, Isabella Ponsonby, Annie Purcell, Moghda Qadery, Abbey Robertson, Deia Russell-Smith, Chatura Saravanan, Marianne Schonle, Finn Selman, Khola Shah, Caitlin Sheard, Nobuhle Sibanda, Imogen Smalley, Fatima Soomro, Caleb Suggitt, Harriet Summerhayes, Victoria Taylor, Jessie Taylor, Holly Twist, Oana Uta, Hayley Webster, Reece Williams, Roheema Yasmin.

This year, the Inn received 395 applications for the Bar Course awards and, after allowing for withdrawals, interviewed 354 candidates over two Saturdays in March. We have awarded 142 scholarships and exhibitions, to a total of £1,726,650.

2022 GDL AWARDS

PRINCESS ROYAL (2 Awarded)

Ilona Roberts, Finn Judge

MAJOR SCHOLARSHIP (4 Awarded)

Alex Coombs, Alex Ewing, Charlotte Gamble, Nelli Kichigina

EXHIBITION AWARDS (26 Awarded)

Weronika Betta, Kinza Bungish, Ruari Clark, Charles Coverman, Robert Durdin, Niamh Foley, John Good, Conor Hogan, Isabel Holt, Sarah John, Richard Jones, Iza Kashif, Leo Kirby, Oskar Luong, Laura Maxwell, James Miller, Devina Mohanlal, Alice Morley, Helena Nugent, William Robinson, Geneva Roy, Aisling Sims, Hazrat Umar, Lucy Walch, Samuel Wall, Emily Whewell

This year, the Inn received 87 applications for the GDL awards and, after allowing for withdrawals, interviewed 77 candidates at the end of June. We have awarded 32 scholarships and exhibitions, to a total of £265,600.

BAR COURSE SCHOLARS

Adam Weisz – Princess Royal Scholarship

This scholarship is critical to me. Having elected to change career in my late twenties I found my modest savings rapidly depleted during my GDL year, even with scholarships easing the financial burden. Before receiving the Princess Royal Scholarship I was considering whether to postpone the Bar course until I was in a more financially stable position – with no guarantee of when that would be. The scholarship has provided me with the certainty, safety and confidence to pursue my new career.

Bar, however the financial aspect always stood in the way. I am so grateful the friendly yet professional panel recognised this self-belief.

Grace Martins – Exhibition Scholarship

Everything, otherwise it would have been impossible to complete the Bar course.

‘What was your experience of the application process?’

Tomas McCabe – Major Scholarship

Konstantina Nouka –Exhibition Scholarship

The panel was very friendly and understanding of my reasonable adjustments!

‘Do you have any advice for future candidates?’

Charlotte Jerram – Benefactors Award & Exhibition Scholarship

Atiya

Kanji

– Benefactors Award & Exhibition Scholarship

This scholarship was monumental in giving me the confidence and financial support to pursue the Bar. Without it, a future at the Bar would not have been possible for me. Receiving it has helped me understand my own strengths as a Bar aspirant, relieved me and my family of the financial stress of paying for the Bar course, and given me a tangible connection to the wonderful support system in place at The Inner Temple. I am truly grateful for this scholarship.

Alexis Boddy – Exhibition Scholarship

As a career-changer and an older applicant, it means a great deal that The Inner Temple have shown faith in my abilities and my potential. The financial support is truly life-changing and will be instrumental in helping me pursue the Bar course. I now feel more empowered and confident in my endeavours and am so excited for the path ahead.

Byron Austin – Exhibition Scholarship

The scholarship has enabled me to pay for the Bar course, which I would certainly not have been able to do without this scholarship. Aside from the obvious financial aspect, being awarded an Exhibition Scholarship has filled me with confidence. To know that The Inner Temple and the barristers that interviewed me believe that I will be a barrister is undoubtedly one of the best feelings I have ever experienced. The process itself was amazing, with support available at each stage.

Morgen Ardouin – Exhibition Scholarship

As an individual from a less wealthy background with no previous lawyers in my family, it also broke stereotypes that the Bar is just for those well off and well connected. I had belief in myself that I could succeed at the

The application process was not just challenging, but enjoyable and rewarding. Everyone gets an interview, demonstrating The Inner Temple’s understanding that different people have different strengths. The interview was also great practice for pupillage interviews.

Holly Parker – Exhibition Scholarship

The application process was very straightforward and there was so much guidance given for every stage of the process. I especially found the scholarship advice evening really helpful. I even attended The Inner Temple’s debate society to get some practice in for the advocacy part of the interview.

Connor Mew – Exhibition Scholarship

The process was extremely smooth and at every step of the way there was clear and welcomed support from the Inn’s committee

Gabriel Barton-Singer – Benefactors Award & Exhibition Scholarship

The scholarships team are unfailingly helpful, diligent and informative. I felt clear about every step of the process, and on what measures we were being assessed.

‘What was your experience of the scholarship interview?’

Emily Andrew – Exhibition Scholarship

I thoroughly enjoyed the interview. In particular, when discussing one topic, the interviewing judge asked me a question, to which I responded, and he then attempted to make me change my answer. I felt as though this was a true-tolife example of a career at the Bar. I also appreciated how engaged the panellists were in my answers, especially given how many individuals were being interviewed.

Nobuhle Sibanda –Exhibition Scholarship

I felt welcomed and encouraged to be myself. It was not rigid or uncomfortable, rather the panel seemed genuinely interested in getting to know me. I really felt like they wanted me to succeed and that was the greatest confidence booster.

In terms of preparation, practice reading judgements and assimilating the key facts, legal arguments and ratios in a limited amount of time. Outside of this, try and be as relaxed as possible. Be yourself and know that whatever the panel decide, you will succeed. Self-belief and perseverance are key to attempting a life at the Bar.

Deia Russell-Smith –Exhibition Scholarship

My top tip would be to truly be yourself and not what you think the interviewers want. I was able to use some wacky and wonderful experiences to highlight my skills which made my interviewers laugh and allowed me to build rapport. There is not one type of person who will succeed at the Bar so own your own experiences and your brilliance will be showcased naturally.

Vilte Pranauskaite –Exhibition Scholarship

Pay attention in the Q&A sessions and have notes with what you think you might want to mention during the interview to hand. Even though I only used a bullet point or two from my pre-interview notes, having them with me was very assuring.

Sonya Edwards – Major Scholarship

Really take the time to fill out the application form. You are presenting yourself so give yourself the best possible start. Attend pre-interview sessions that the Inn holds near interview season and practice answering the style of questions in the appropriate manner. Above all, be yourself. The Inn wants to know you and help you, not a variation on what you think a barrister should be like. Top tip-believe in yourself and remember you are good enough.

Bradley Murphy – Exhibition Scholarship

I would encourage all applicants to be themselves. It is a misconception that the Bar is a uniform profession in which individual difference is not appreciated. I would therefore urge all applicants to view the entire application as a piece of advocacy for the subject they know more than anyone else about: themselves.

‘What does being awarded a scholarship mean to you?’

QUALIFYING SESSIONS ROUND-UP 2021/2022

The 2021/2022 academic year has been a period of readjustment for the Education & Training Department, both in response to the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Project Pegasus building work at The Inner Temple. The department has worked hard to continue to run its annual programmes as seamlessly as possible despite these combined pressures, with many events held online or at external venues over the course of the academic year. The importance of providing a comprehensive and engaging programme of Qualifying Sessions despite the circumstances was paramount, and the department was fortunate in having a dedicated roster of volunteers and members willing to assist in running training sessions, panels and lectures.

Following on from the format of the previous year, the Qualifying Sessions programme for 2021/2022 was predominantly held online via Zoom, with a few notable exceptions. Of particular import, the Inn’s three annual Student Advocacy Weekends were once again held in person, at venues in Windsor and Crewe, having been held on Zoom the year before (a not inconsiderable undertaking for volunteers, students and staff, since it involved two and a half full days spent online in each case!). In addition to this, we were extremely happy to welcome students and trainers back to the Inn for the Advocacy and Legal

Session Title Session Date

Legal Research Training

16 September 2021 AND 20 October 2021

Introductory Evening for London Students 21 September 2021

Foundational Skills Course 1 October 2021 AND 2 October 2021

Introductory Evening for Students Outside of London 1 October 2021

Advocacy Skills Session 3 October 2021

Reader’s Lecture Night: “Becoming British” 4 October 2021 Wellbeing at the Bar 5 October 2021

EDI Series: “Class and SocioEconomic Diversity at the Bar” 13 October 2021 Advocacy Skills Session 18 October 2021

Ethics in Practice 21 October 2021

Mooting Masterclass 25 October 2021

Social Context of the Law Series: “The Case for Anonymity in Social Media” 26 October 2021

EDI Series: “Being LGBTQ+ at the Bar” 27 October 2021 Circuit Pupillage Advice Evening 3 November 2021

Circuit Session: “How to Crossexamine a Vulnerable Witness” 10 November 2021 Pupillage Q&A 11 November 2021

Reader’s Lecture Night: “Education for Human Flourishing – what would it mean for the law?” 15 November 2021

Mock Trials 17, 22, 24 AND 30 November 2021

Social Context of the Law Series: “The Confines of the Crime of Ecocide” 22 November 2021

Advocacy Teacher Training Weekend 27 – 28 November 2021

Rawlinson Cup Debate & Final 29 November 2021

Circuit Ethics Session 30 November 2021

December Student Advocacy Weekend: “Pandemic Fraud” 10 – 12 December 2021

EDI Series: “Women at the Bar” 11 January 2022

Advocacy Masterclass 17 January 2022

Spotlight On: Civil Pupillage 19 January 2022 Circuit Education Day (Manchester) 22 January 2022

Research Training event held on Saturday 30 April; the first Qualifying Session to be held in the new facilities. A few additional highlights of the year included the new series of Circuit Education Days, held at regional centres around the UK, and a series of exceptional lectures as part of both the Reader’s Lecture Night and Social Context of the Law series.

The department is looking forward to holding many more sessions in person over the 2022/2023 academic year, whilst building on the lessons learned over two years of online teaching. The access benefits of Zoom learning cannot be overlooked, and the department certainly hopes to weave online learning into its future offerings in a more permanent fashion, although bearing in mind that in-person learning is, in many cases, unrivalled. The collegiality and unique setting of the Inn cannot be denied, but the accessibility and openness fostered by the online format has also been made increasingly clear to us. We hope, as a department, to bring a programme of blended online and in-person learning to the fore of our educational programme from now on.

The E&T Department is exceptionally grateful to all its Bencher and member volunteers, whose time and assistance has been completely invaluable to the running of this year’s QS programme.

Circuit Session: “Tackling Discrimination”

25 January 2022

January Student Advocacy Weekend: “The Court of Protection” 28–30 January 2022

Spotlight On: Crime & Family Pupillage 8 February 2022

Reader’s Lecture Night: “Calling it out: professionals, their regulators, equity and fairness” 14 February 2022

Mock Trials 15, 17, 22 AND 28 February 2022

Ethics In Practice 19 February 2022

Circuit Session: “Moving on with Legal Research” 22 February 2022 Education Day 26 February 2022

International Practice Panel 28 February 2022

Reader’s Lecture Night: “Organs of the State?” 7 March 2022

Circuit Education Day (Northumbria) 26 March 2022

Circuit Education Day (Bristol) 9 April 2022

Advocacy and Legal Research Training Day 30 April 2022

May Student Advocacy Weekend: “Family Law in the 21st Century” 6 – 8 May 2022

EDI Series: “Disability at the Bar” (Joint Event with Middle Temple) 9 May 2022 Ethics in Practice 11 May 2022

Circuit Education Day (Nottingham) 14 May 2022

Circuit Session: Advocacy Masterclass 16 May 2022

Social Context of the Law Series: “The Rule of Law in Times of International Conflict: Shortcomings of the International Order” 17 May 2022 Rawlinson Cup Debate & Final 26 May 2022

Social Context of the Law Series: “Asylum and Immigration: Do Sovereign Island Nations have a Duty to Provide Refuge?”

13 June 2022

Advocacy Before International Criminal Courts & Tribunals 14 June 2022

Circuit Ethics Session 20 June 2022

Advocacy Before the International Court of Justice 21 June 2022

Spotlight On: Alternative Routes to Practising at the Bar 30 June 2022

Magna Carta Moot 4 July 2022

EDI Series: “Tackling Harassment” 12 July 2022

Julia Armfield Education Programmes Manager (Pre-Pupillage)

CIRCUIT EDUCATION DAYS

With an increasing number of Bar Course providers located all around the country and almost half of The Inner Temple’s student members based outside of London, our provision for student members has urgently needed to become less London-centric.

Following the changes in 2020 to the Qualifying Sessions framework (particularly the rule which allows students to attend up to five Qualifying Sessions on Circuit) and taking feedback from students and members into account, the Education and Training Department has spent the last few years focusing on improving our regional provision and making our overall programme as widely accessible as possible. Many sessions across our QS programme are now digital and therefore easier to attend, not to mention less costly in terms of transport and accommodation. In addition, a section of the programme has been specifically devised in conjunction with our members on Circuit, with the goal of providing relevant career advice and information for students based in locations other than London.

With COVID-19 restrictions easing this year, the Education and Training Department decided to take the traditional format of the London-based ‘Education Day’ on tour. This would give Circuit students the opportunity to gain three qualifying points in one day whilst also networking with other students and practitioners based in their area. To most effectively use our resources, we ran the sessions in four centres close to Bar Course providers across the country. This year they were run in Manchester, Newcastle, Bristol and Nottingham by our members based locally.

STUDENT FEEDBACK

“ the day was amazing… I feel very confident [re: pupillage applications] into next year. The barristers… were so kind, encouraging and helpful to talk to as well.”

“Friendly and relaxed environment, highly knowledgeable barristers there who genuinely wanted to help. Well organised and fun to attend.”

Each day was held in the city centre and included an Advocacy lecture, an individual Mock Interview and CV Review session, and a discussion on Equality, Diversity and Inclusion at the Bar. Our thanks are due to all our volunteers for their time and expertise in putting together and running these days.

The format was the same in each city but the content differed slightly based on the members tasked with organising proceedings at each location. Whilst Master Rhys Taylor and Samantha Hillas held a discussion on advocacy in financial remedy proceedings in Bristol, Master Peter Joyce gave a lecture on advocacy in Nottingham. Chris Gutteridge from Exchange Chambers gave a talk on the work being done to improve Equality, Diversity and Inclusion at the Bar in Manchester, whilst a student-led and practitioner-guided discussion on the future of EDI at the Bar took place in Nottingham. A Mock Interview and CV Review workshop also saw students in each city benefitting from one-on-one time with experienced practitioners, who advised them on their pupillage applications and interview techniques.

We had some wonderful feedback from the students who attended these sessions and we’re now looking forward to putting together the programme for next year with the help of our volunteers. In 2023, we plan to run a further four Circuit Education Days in Liverpool, Cardiff, Birmingham and Leeds. If you are interested in contributing to any of these sessions, please contact Kerry Upham.

Kerry Upham Regional Education Officer

“Insightful lecture on advocacy; daunting but immensely useful CV and Mock Interview workshop; and very inclusive and excellent talk on diversity.”

“Fantastic session, very insightful and felt I learnt a lot.”

“I found the day extremely helpful. Thank you to everyone who gave up their time to make it happen.”

Bristol Newcastle

QS SPOTLIGHT:

EDI ONLINE SERIES

The EDI Online Series is one of the cornerstones of our annual QS programme, providing as it does a varied and accessible insight into the treatment of those with different protected characteristics at the Bar, as well workshops and talks on ways to improve conditions and support for everyone in the profession.

Over the course of the academic year, we have runs panels and interactive sessions on topics ranging from Being LGBTQ+ at the Bar to Tackling Harassment, and are hugely indebted to the wide range of speakers who have given up their time to assist in putting together a challenging and rewarding programme. Whilst we are sensible of the many benefits of inperson training, we believe that the online format is particularly valuable to sessions of this nature, providing greater accessibility irrespective of geographical location, cutting down on travel costs and providing useful support tools to students such as the ability to view subtitles during a session. We hope to hold a small number of these events in person as the overall QS format moves to a more blended approach next year, although it may at some point be valuable to hold a mix of online and hybrid EDI sessions, dependant on student needs.

Session Date

Class & Socio-Economic Diversity at the Bar

Being LGBTQ+ at the Bar

Women at the Bar

Weds 13 October 2021

Weds 27 October 2021

Tues 11 January 2022

Disability at the Bar (joint event w. Middle Temple) Mon 9 May 2022

Tackling Harassment at the Bar

Tues 12 July 2022

THE INNER TEMPLE EDI SERIES – 2021/2022

NO DECISIONS ABOUT US, WITHOUT US:

WHAT DOES THAT ACTUALLY MEAN?

A report on the Disability at the Bar Session – Monday 9 May 2022

I was proud and privileged to act as Chair in the recent joint Inner and Middle Temple EDI event titled “Disability and the Law”, aimed at student barristers. I should explain, for those of you who don’t know: I am a disabled practitioner at Cloisters Chambers, who specialises in Claimant discrimination cases in Employment Tribunals and County Courts. This joint event was the first time Inner and Middle Temple have collaborated on an EDI Qualifying Session!

The event presented a vital opportunity for representatives of the ‘Disabled Bar’ to speak to Bar students about what it is like to be disabled and to come to Bar, as well as the experiences the disabled can have with ‘the legal profession’ as clients, parties and witnesses.

First, the students heard from Daniel Holt, a disabled soon-tobe pupil at 39 Essex Street and a leader in the Association of Disabled Lawyers. He spoke about pitfalls inherent in practice if you are disabled and the solutions that chambers and the wider profession should consider and work towards if they want that experience to be better and more fulfilling for the disabled barrister.

Mary Prior KC is a leading barrister practising from 36 Criminal Group who specialises in vulnerable clients and, in particular, clients with mental impairments. She talked about the positive side of neurodiversity as it affects lawyers (both solicitors and barristers) and the absolute need for that group within our society to be represented by neurodiverse and other disabled barristers.

A third panellist (who has requested anonymity for this article), as well as Christina Warner of Goldsmiths Chambers in London, both spoke about disability as it pertained to practice in Family Law. The third panellist discussed both the pitfalls and triumphs of pursuing the Bar as a neurodiverse practitioner, whilst Christina spoke to the issue of intersectionality and how her route to the Bar had been affected as a disabled woman from a working-class background.

Finally, Diego Soto-Miranda of 1 Essex Court, London was both funny and insightful about life practising at the Commercial Bar if you are disabled, and the benefits and detriments of it. The event represented one of the first opportunities this cohort of students would have had to hear from a panel on which all of the speakers were either disabled or in the position to represent people who were disabled. It was testament to how long and arduous the journey is to get to the Bar if you are disabled, but how worthwhile it is.

The event represented one of the first opportunities this cohort of students would have had to hear from a panel on which all of the speakers were either disabled or in the position to represent people who were disabled.

It is also the first time that Inner and Middle Temple have cooperated in bringing disabled barrister voices to the next generation. I speak for the panel above when I thank both Middle and Inner Temple for the remote platform from which to share our views and to invite discussion.

I have been a barrister since 1993 and suffered a stroke on the day before the millennium; I can attest to many years when I felt alone, convinced that I was the only barrister with a disability. Now I feel part of the disabled lawyers’ community and, since the talk, feel that our voices as disabled lawyers are being heard. It is simple morality to listen to us, if not to agree with us. Perhaps I can give you some food for through with this note from the UN Convention of Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 4(3): “In the development and implementation of legislation and policies to implement the present Convention, and in other decision-making processes concerning issues relating to persons with disabilities, States Parties shall closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities…, through their representative organizations.”

John Horan Cloisters Chambers

CRIMINAL FRAUD

A FOCUS ON THE FRAUD CASES ARISING FROM THE PANDEMIC

Inner Temple Advocacy Training Weekend – Cumberland Lodge, 10–12 December 2021

Given that the 2021 Cumberland Lodge weekend was the first student advocacy training weekend to take place in person again following the COVID-19 crisis, it was perhaps fitting that the topic at hand should be that of the fraud cases arising from the pandemic. Organised by Master Kathryn Arnot Drummond and Ben Brown, the weekend took place over 10–12 December and was a welcome return to in-person training for students, many of whom had only taken part in Zoom training so far!

The global pandemic proved to be extraordinarily fertile ground for fraud. Criminals used the global crisis to target victims through impersonation scams, investment scams, romance scams and through exploitation of the unprecedented £70bn Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (‘furlough scheme’). It has been estimated that more than £5.5bn of taxpayer money from the government’s Coronavirus assistance schemes, including the furlough scheme, self-employed support and “eat out to help out”, was paid out to fraudsters.

The furlough scheme paid 80% of the wages of up to 11.5 million workers placed on leave since March 2020. With HMRC having announced that it has stopped or recovered around £840 million of over-claimed grants in 2020/21 alone, and the fact that more fraudulent claims will be hunted down through the Fraud Investigation Service, pandemic fraud will be an issue that has to be tackled for many years to come. It is against this background that pandemic fraud was rightly considered to be an important theme and focus of the December 2021 Inner Temple Advocacy Weekend.

The weekend began with an introduction by Master Geoffrey Payne. In a lively and refreshing welcome, the students were encouraged to work hard, prepare well, and embrace the opportunity to develop their advocacy skills in a supportive and friendly atmosphere.

The welcoming address was immediately followed by a group ethics session (also led by Master Payne). In a challenging and engaging session, the students analysed and solved ethical problems that many might encounter in professional life as a barrister. Guidance was provided on what to do if you think your client is guilty or if they admit guilt, if you inadvertently come by some confidential information, or if the Judge makes a decision favourable to your client which is based on what you know to be a critical error of fact or disclosure error, such as an outdated list of previous convictions. As with all ethical problem scenarios, the students participated in a debate of differing views and possible solutions in order to unearth the appropriate course of action in each scenario.

In time honoured tradition, the Saturday morning panel was a particular highlight of the weekend, and a hugely impressive panel of speakers gathered to discuss fraud arising from the pandemic in detail. The panel comprised of Master Sara Lawson KC (General Counsel, Serious Fraud Office), Master John Griffith-Jones (Chair, StepChange Debt Charity/Former Chair, FCA), Katrina Cray (Director of Financial Crime and Fraud, British Business Bank) and Alexandra Webster (Managing Associate, Simmons and Simmons LLP).

The panel spoke across a wide range of topics, including the SFO’s role and involvement in tackling pandemic fraud, how the pandemic had provided a perfect climate for fraud to escalate, how banks were monitoring, identifying, and reporting fraudulent activity, and how the legal landscape may change to tackle the unintended consequences of the government’s Coronavirus assistance schemes in the future. A question and answer session followed the panel talk, providing the students with an opportunity to further broaden their understanding of the topics discussed.

Following on from the panel discussion, the students eagerly broke off into their respective group sessions to tackle the Student Advocacy Exercise written by Ben Brown. The exercise centred around an alleged fraud by false representation case in an outdoor clothes retailer. The prosecution case was that the defendant, Steven Hillary, had made a series of claims to the government under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme to receive money to pay 80% of the wages owed to his employee, shop manager Heather Snowdon. It was alleged that three of the claims made (amounting to £4,800) had been false because Steven Hillary was still requiring and asking Heather Snowdon to work for him, which was not permitted under the furlough scheme. In doing so, Steven Hillary’s company had made a financial gain, and it was alleged that this was dishonest. The defence asserted that Heather Snowdon was never asked to work whilst on furlough and was either taking part in training or volunteering for another organisation, both of which were permitted under the scheme.

The students were required to familiarise themselves with s.2 Fraud Act 2006 and the question of dishonesty. Students were asked to prepare to examine and cross-examine both Steven Hillary and Heather Snowdon and to perform speeches on behalf of the prosecution and the defence. The students had to have a good grasp of the detailed case papers that were required to be utilised throughout the activity and this included agreed facts and text messages between both Steven Hillary and Heather Snowdon.

The students thoroughly embraced the exercise throughout, and it provided an excellent opportunity for them to develop, display and enhance their advocacy skills with the assistance of their allocated Group Leaders and Judges.

On Saturday afternoon, the students were able to watch and enjoy the Advocacy Master Class, organised by Master Arnot Drummond and presided over by Master Owen Davies, as Tom Godfrey played the role of prosecution counsel and Lisa Wilson played the role of defence counsel. The mock trial centred around a simple fraud allegedly committed by a company secretary, Jackie Perdy, who had withdrawn £58,900 cash from the company bank account. The students were able to enjoy the twists and turns of the trial as they witnessed clear examples of orchestrated “bad advocacy”, which were always swiftly remedied with a clear headline and rationale for correction given by Master Arnot Drummond, who was on hand with a whistle throughout. The Advocacy Master Class proves to be an effective advocacy training tool time and again, as it enables the students to witness first-hand the errors that they may have been making themselves and provides them with the tools to address those issues. In what would perhaps be considered a shock to every independent observer given the strength of the evidence against her, Mrs Perdy was unanimously acquitted by the jury of onlookers, much to her delight.

Before dinner on Saturday night, the students were treated to the keynote address delivered by Master Reader, Her Honour Judge Deborah Taylor. In a hugely informative talk, the students were provided with an invaluable insight into the development and progression of fraud trials at Southwark Crown Court, including the technological advancements in the presentation of evidence. Further to that, some invaluable advice was also shared on how all advocates should approach submission advocacy in front of experienced Judges with a busy list.

On Saturday night, a very pleasant dinner was had by all with perfectly balanced seating plans allowing all students the opportunity to speak with Group Leaders, Judges, and guests.

It was clear that all the attendees appreciated and enjoyed having the opportunity to mix in a relaxed social environment, as practitioners and students were able to socialise freely and exchange knowledge and stories to the benefit of all. For the more daring, there was also the opportunity to participate in some karaoke before the night finished.

The weekend proved to be a hugely successful event and the feedback from the students was universally positive, with a huge sense of relief and gratitude that it had been possible to host an in-person Advocacy Weekend against the continuing backdrop of the pandemic.

Huge thanks must be offered to all those that so generously offered their time to assist with the event by participating as a Group Leader or Judge. All those that attended left Cumberland Lodge with a far broader and more detailed understanding of the fraud cases that have arisen from the pandemic, something which will inevitably serve them very well in the future.

The weekend proved to be a hugely successful event and the feedback from the students was universally positive, with a huge sense of relief and gratitude that it had been possible to host an in-person Advocacy Weekend.

Ben Brown Mountford Chambers, Co-Organiser E

INNER TEMPLE STUDENT SOCIETIES

DEBATING SOCIETY

By Sarah Kinsella and Monty Fynn (Co-presidents)

At the beginning of the legal year in September, with the Project Pegasus ongoing, the Debating Society’s activities continued online. The Society has found many advantages to moving online and, even with the Inn now re-opened, has kept its weekly debating practice sessions on zoom. This has increased the diversity of our members, with students from all over the country able to attend, and has opened the Society up to many with caring and other responsibilities.

The Society’s competitive debating season began in October 2021 with members competing in three intervarsity competitions: Imperial, King’s College London and University College London. The Society also took part in the prestigious Cambridge IV competition in November. We were particularly proud to have so many novice debaters starting with us in September and rising to the challenge of their first competition later in the year.

The Inner Temple Rawlinson Cup 2021 ran in November, with the final taking place in front of a large audience. After a two-year hiatus due to the pandemic, it was fantastic to finally host an in-person debate, albeit not in the Inn itself. Congratulations to all the finalists and the winner, Youcef Boussabaine. We are very grateful to Lady Rawlinson, and the rest of the Rawlinson family, for their continued support of the competition.

In December, we had our Christmas social and in the new year began weekly interview advocacy sessions to practice debating questions often asked in pupillage interviews. We were joined by successful pupillage applicants from previous years who gave advice, and many attendees went on to successfully obtain pupillage. After the Inn re-opened, the Society hosted The Inner Temple Rawlinson Cup 2022 in May. The winner, Alice Needell, gave an excellent speech on replacing magistrates with District Judges, in a Final judged by Master Treasurer, the Master of Debating and the Master of Student Societies. The summer will bring a summer picnic in Lincoln’s Inn Fields and the annual Public Speaking Competition, before the competitive debating season starts all over again in September.

The Society wishes to pay tribute to Michael McParland KC, who sadly passed away in December 2021. He was a wonderfully supportive Master of Debating and members will miss his friendliness, advice and fantastic sense of humour.

ITSA

By Nicole Terry (President)

This year ITSA was able to return to holding in-person events for the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic. We ran several in-person events while seeking to retain the inclusivity that virtual events allow.

We began the year with two parallel Halloween socials, one in-person and one online, to allow for maximum attendance. The Omicron wave forced us to postpone our Christmas Party, but it was successfully held in-person in mid-February. ITSA Burns Night was our most successful in-person event, with more than 150 attendees enjoying a traditional Scottish dinner and a Ceilidh at the Institute of Directors. Our most recent social event, the Summer Party, was recently held as an in-person bottomless brunch in a pub in Old Street.

We continued the events aimed at widening access to the profession which were begun by the previous committee. In January we hosted and moderated 13 pupillage application panel discussions and Q&As. More than 30 practitioners practising in a variety of areas generously donated their time to assist over 1000 potential applicants. We also held an informational event for Scholarship applicants, which was attended by more than 400 potential scholars.

As 2022 marks the 100th anniversary of women being called to the English Bar, ITSA organised a panel event on International Women’s Day to discuss the past and future of women at the Bar. Five panellists at varying stages of their careers, from a Court of Appeal Judge to a pupil, spoke to more than 50 students, attending in-person and online, about their experiences at the Bar and explored some of the challenges that female barristers are currently facing.

Now that construction has been completed on the new Inner Temple Treasury Building, ITSA hopes to organise a welcome social for the incoming class of students in September.

MOOTING SOCIETY

By Camilla Charleson Gallacher (President)

INTERNAL MOOTS

The Inter-Varsity Mooting Competition kicked us off in January with the winning team from Oxford Brookes. Our special thanks go to Master Hughes and the Master of Mooting for judging the finals.

The Lawson final in June brought us back in-person in a newly-refurbished Inner Temple. It was a roaring success and after five rounds the winner was Lucas Jones. Special thanks to the judges Master of Mooting, Guy Fetherstonhaugh KC, and Master of Student Societies.

The Commercial Law Moot, in conjunction with One Essex Court, saw Lucas Jones again victorious. Congratulations to all the finalists: Maud Mullen, Andrew Ratomski and Richard Hine and our thanks to fantastic judges Master Camilla Bingham from One Essex Court and Professor Louise Gullifer KC (Hon), Rouse Ball, Professor of English Law at The University of Cambridge.

The over-subscribed Ecclesiastical Law Moot was a huge success with the final held inside Temple Church with a judging panel lead by the Dean of the Arches, Morag Ellis KC. The winner was Gabriel Barton Singer and runner up Sarah Kinsella. The finalists enjoyed extensive feedback over lunch with the Judges after the moot.

We hosted the Inter-Inn Mooting Competition this year. The semi-finals were our first successful hybrid event in the midst of train strikes and the final was held in the brand-new Lecture Hall at The Inner Temple followed by a drinks reception.

EXTERNAL MOOTS

We won the 4 Pump Court Pride Month Moot and were delighted to have this reported in Legal Cheek

We signed up two team in the LSE-Featherstone Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Moot and they both qualified to the oral rounds and Alice Needell won the Landmark Chambers Advocacy Award for Best Advocate.

The Inner Temple Telders team ranked fourth (out of 25) in the competition.

TRAINING

We have run roughly monthly training sessions with volunteer practitioners giving their time to advise aspiring barristers. Ryan Hocking delivered a workshop on Judicial Intervention, and we had an interactive session with Sophie Lawrence on Advocacy.

The Mooting Society will be expanding their reach by running mooting workshops aimed at younger prospective members at the Inn’s upcoming Discovery Days

DRAMA SOCIETY

By Benedict Harwood (President)

After the difficult setbacks of the pandemic, the Drama Society was finally able to fully rear its theatrical head once again this year. Kicking off the academic year with a brand-new crop of fresh members, the Society was able to put on its first live production in two years with its Christmas pantomime Pinocchio: No Time to Lie, written by Eoin O’Sullivan and Quintin Langley-Coleman and directed by Lily Hayes This raucous and ridiculous romp across the worlds and characters of several Brothers Grimm fairy tales saw music, laughs and standing ovations throughout two smashing sold-out performances at Bridewell Hall on 7 and 8 December, showcasing some of the finest and wackiest talent at the student Bar.

Following a transfer to a brand-new committee in the spring, the Society is excited to be bringing its first-ever show to the Edinburgh Festival Fringe this August. After two years of COVID-19-induced development hell, the brand new original musical Guilty! A Legal Musical Comedy, will be playing at the Olive Studio at Greenside@Infirmary Street from 22–27 August. The show follows an excited but naïve pupil barrister as her supervisor educates her about misconceptions of the Bar, through telling stories of her own career at the Bar and putting on trial some of fiction’s most notorious villains. The show can be found in the official Edinburgh Fringe guide here: tickets.edfringe.com/whats-on/guilty-a-legal-musical-comedy

RACIAL EQUALITY SOCIETY

By Kofo David (Chair)

The Racial Equality Society (RES) is a sub-student society in The Inner Temple, established in 2019.The main aim of RES is to improve the representation on the Bar of ethnic minorities. To be a member you must identify as an ethnic minority, though our main events are open to all.

Due to lockdown our activities over the last year have been virtual but we hope to get into the realm of face to face imminently.

On 12 March 2021 we had a mock interview scheme to help members better understand what to look out for during the interview stage of the pupillage application process.

On 25 March 2021 we had a conference dubbed “Combating the Impostor Syndrome”. This looked at the different aspects of self-confidence that deterred members from participating fully in their journey to the Bar.

On 28 October 2021 we had a Black History Month event titled “Black Champions in Law”, which brought new aspiring barristers together with senior barristers who shared their experiences of the Bar.

On 19 January 2022, working with ITSA, we had an event “Pupillage Applications 2022” to help prepare members for the round of pupillage applications. Now we are planning towards the 2022 Black History Month event.

The Master with oversight of RES is Dr Tunde Okewale MBE. The current Chair is Kofo David, the Vice-Chair is Jyoti Kumar, the Wellness Officer is Ilona Duro and the Social Media Officer is Ifeoluwa Omotosho. These are the core officers, but help is always needed, and members are included in everything we do. Do you identify as an ethnic minority and want to get more involved and perhaps be an officer or a pioneer of one of our projects?

If the answer is yes, then please email innertempleres@ gmail.com and follow @InnertempleRES on Twitter.

CALL TO THE BAR

The Legal Services Act 2007 defines a barrister as “an individual who (a) has been Called to the Bar by an Inn of Court, and (b) is not disbarred by order of an Inn of Court”. Call is the conferral of the ‘Degree of the Utter Bar’ and the title ‘Barrister’. The degree is conferred on those who have completed the required academic, vocational and Inn’s Qualifying Session stages, and who have satisfied the Inn that they are fit and proper to be Called to the Bar. In order for a barrister to be able to practise, they must also complete the professional training stage of qualification (pupillage).

Brandon Ashford and family

Ben Thompson

Annie Francis

Christie O’Connell and parents

Raeesa Rajmohamed and Master Ikram

Yudaya Babirye

Lauren Gardner and Emma Talbot

Alice Oladipupo and twin sister Alexina

Dhiraj Mondal and guests

ADVOCACY TRAINING AT THE INNER TEMPLE

Education and Training is one of the key functions of the Inn. One of the jewels in the crown of the Inn’s wideranging programme of support to students and new practitioners (NPs) is the ambitious advocacy training schedule. Each year, more than 160 students, pupils and NPs take part in numerous training exercises, under the watchful guidance of more than 70 volunteer trainers.

What does The Inner Temple’s advocacy programme involve? The students are given mock sets of papers based on realistic cases, with indictments or pleadings, witness statements and, for more advanced training, expert reports, which have been carefully constructed to enable advocacy exercises to expose teaching points. The Inn runs two full scale programmes each year, for pupils and NPs (new barristers up to three years in practice). Undertaking a certain amount of specific advocacy training as a pupil and in the first year of practice is compulsory, and provision of this training through the Inn is a key way in which their educational requirements are met.

The Inn runs four short residential courses each year, two for pupils and two for NPs, which have taken place for many years now at Wotton House, a charming country retreat in Dorking. The weekends are tightly packed with back-to-back teaching sessions, making for long and hard-working days, and a well-earned dinner and refreshment at the bar on the Saturday night. The environment is usually enlivened by bemused wedding guests who seem always to be sharing the venue; they are surely not told when booking their ‘big day’ that there will be name-badged and slightly panicked young barristers lurking around every corner and occasionally trying to crash their inevitable disco.

In the lead up to each weekend, trainers lead case analysis sessions, which are intended not only to help the students prepare the specific exercise at hand, but more generally to learn the best way to structure their analytical thinking in every case they encounter in real life. Case analysis sessions are regarded amongst the trainers as one of the hardest, and perhaps most subjective, element of the programme to teach, and in recent years much effort has been directed at producing more consistent guidance. For the NP course, the Inn is extremely lucky to be able to call upon real medics and accountants who give up their time to act as expert witnesses in two specifically crafted exercises. The NP course, therefore, also includes mock expert conferences, which are often the first time many of the practitioners have encountered expert witnesses first-hand.

Once fully prepared, the pupils or NPs are required to make opening or closing submissions, conduct examinations in chief and cross-examinations, and argue relevant applications. All of this is videoed, watched live and critiqued by our cadre of trained members of the Inn, according to what has become the standard advocacy training technique: the ‘Hampel’ method, so-named after its creator and great pioneer of advocacy training, George Hampel, a Bencher of our Inn. In broad terms, the technique is designed to focus on one – just one – aspect of the student’s performance each time. The student is given a ‘headline’, a short and pithy – and ideally memorable – description of what is to be improved. There follows a systematic review covering the reasons why improvement is required, an explanation of how in practical terms the issue can be remedied and – much to the fear of almost every trainer – an impromptu demonstration of how it could have been done better (with, it must be accepted, sometimes varying degrees of success). The student then leaves with the tablet upon which their performance was recorded, and watches the performance with a second trainer, who reinforces the first learning point and, where appropriate, identifies another area for improvement. Watching themselves back is the bit which the students always say is both the most excruciating but the most revealing and rewarding element of the process.

As with court life itself, prior to COVID, it would have been unimaginable to embark on providing this teaching programme wholly online. However, the only choices available were to abandon education in the teeth of the pandemic, or create a virtual environment in which to deliver the course and, through the extraordinary efforts of the Inn’s Dean of Education, Professor Cheryl Thomas KC, and under the stewardship of my predecessor as Chair of the Advocacy Training Committee, Master Griffiths, the entire programme shifted to a virtual world throughout 2020 and 2021. Undoubtedly, the camaraderie and social contact involved in face-to-face teaching, and particularly the weekends at Wotton House, were missed; and, as everyone now knows, long days in front of a computer camera are surprisingly more demanding than carrying out the same task in a room. However, the transition online has allowed the course leaders to develop and improve the overall model now that the pandemic is over, and in-person teaching is once again possible. Some aspects of the teaching – particularly the case conferences and case analysis sessions – are staying online, reducing the inconvenience to those who otherwise would struggle to make the evening session in London. The weekends (and weddings) at Wotton have, however, happily returned.

In addition to the four weekends at Wotton, there is a whole series of additional teaching days, focusing principally upon submission advocacy, all of which takes place at the Inn itself. Until this year, little groups would gather in various rooms dotted around the Inn but, from now on, will take place in the extraordinary new teaching suite at the top of the Treasury Building. The state-of-the-art technology in the dedicated teaching rooms has made The Inner Temple world class in its advocacy training facilities.

As might be imagined, the Inn’s advocacy training programme is wholly dependent upon the skill, expertise and ultimately generosity of those members of the Inn. The Inn is lucky to have a dedicated core of superb trainers who regularly give up their time, and a wider pool who train less regularly but with no less dedication and enthusiasm when they are able to help. It would be wrong to give the impression that it wasn’t time consuming, or indeed, hard work. But there is little more rewarding than seeing the clear and obvious improvement that every student involved displays in such a relatively short time. The diagnosis of what may be capable of improvement in others’ advocacy is also, unsurprisingly, usefully in selfdiagnosis, and all trainers comment on how training others improves their own technique. One of the objectives of the Advocacy Training Committee in 2022 is not only to increase the pool of trainers, but to broaden the diversity of in person trainers and those in our training videos. The next teacher training session is in September: please do come and join us!

Each year, more than 160 students, pupils and NPs take part in numerous training exercises, under the watchful guidance of more than 70 volunteer trainers.

Adam Constable KC

Advocacy Training at The Inner Temple

PEGASUS SCHOLARSHIPS 2022

Understanding the practice of law in a wide range of other countries and the forging of links between the lawyers of the future around the world is becoming more and more important. Pegasus scholarships were established to address this need. As Incoming Pegasus scholars, talented young lawyers from other countries will be able to gain work experience in a first class set of chambers for three months. As Outgoing Pegasus scholars, young English barristers will be able to travel abroad, live and work in other common law jurisdictions and in the European Community.

To understand the US legal system, you’ve got to first read the constitution. To better understand the US legal system, you’ve got to visit the US. If you really want to understand the US legal system you’ve got to move around from state to state, to see the differences between state and federal courts. From court to court you’ll find that there’s a different mindset, an individual take on a collective application of law. However, if you want to best understand the US legal system, you’ve got to see it, feel it, you’ve got to live it. And that is what the Pegasus scholarship allowed me to do.

Jamil Mohammed 33 Bedford Row.

Below are extracts of reports from some of the Pegasus scholars who were finally able to visit the US in 2022 after a two-year postponement due to COVID-19. To read their full accounts, please visit The Inner Temple website. The website will also include reports from students who were able to visit a variety of other countries via the scheme.

Differences aside, one the best aspects of the programme was being able to observe innovations in the US courts that could potentially be translated to the UK. Although not part of our practice areas, we spent a day at the Brooklyn Supreme Court where we were introduced to the workings of the Mental Health Courts and the Integrated Domestic Violence Courts. The Mental Health Courts are a pioneering system designed to integrate treatment into the judicial system in order to ensure that people who need access to mental health treatment are given the necessary support with supervision from the judiciary to ensure that the programme is being adhered to through regular check ins with the supervising judge. In a similar vein, the Integrated Domestic Violence Court is an initiative designed to ensure all aspects of a case involving domestic violence (including the criminal case, any divorce or family proceedings) are dealt with by one court in front of a single judge rather than being dealt with piecemeal across the court system.

Tiernan Fitzgibbon Five Paper Buildings.

Despite being briefed for this scholarship twice before we arrived (our original placement in October 2021 was delayed due to COVID-19), when arriving in Washington DC, I don’t think any of us had quite anticipated how jampacked our schedule would be over the course of the placement. Not a moment was wasted during our six weeks as, each day, we were met by the most amazing hospitality from a variety of people across the legal sphere including: politicians, judges, attorneys, police officers, lobbyists, and court clerks. Each person we met graciously offered us unique experiences along with their unique insight into the United States’ legal system.

Despite the UK and US both finding their legal origins in the Magna Carta and only having diverged a mere 350 years ago, we observed stark differences between how our two jurisdictions operate. As an advocate accustomed to conducting criminal trials in front of juries, it was fascinating to see civil matters being determined by 12–14 jurors. In a criminal context, I was intrigued to see that defendants would always be sat next to their attorney regardless of their remand status. The attorneys I spoke with had little concern about defendants attempting to escape custody and reported such incidents as being rare and those that did try to escape were quickly subdued by the court security. Accordingly, they were particularly shocked by the prevalence of a ‘dock’ within UK criminal trials. Similarly, the established tradition of judges giving ‘summing ups to juries found disfavour with my American counterparts. I found myself questioning whether either of these features of a UK criminal trial were still necessary given their absence in the American system.

William Sneddon

5 King’s Bench Walk Chambers.

We were treated to a tour of the Supreme Court of the United States by Jen Fischell, the clerk to Justice Kagan (which included seeing the ‘highest court in the land’ – a basketball court which sits at the very top of the Supreme Court) and we also spoke with Lou Capozzi, clerk to Justice Gorsuch. Each year every Supreme Court justice hires four law clerks to help with his or her work. The process, Lou explained, is incredibly demanding with only the very best making it. The rewards for getting there are huge – the hiring bonus for an associate coming from the Supreme Court is as high as 500,000 dollars.

Multiple Supreme Court justices were clerks to the Supreme Court themselves as were many of top attorneys regularly appearing before the Supreme Court today. When clerks are appointed, their names will be reported in the news cycle and some clerks have even written books about their experiences as clerks in the Supreme Court. This is a significant contrast to the position in the UK where clerks perform similar roles to their US counterparts but enjoy a far lower profile.

We continued our Supreme Court experience with the American Inns of Court Celebration of Excellence – an annual celebration held in the court room of the Supreme Court to honour individuals who have contributed their talent, time, energy, and resources to furthering the ideals of the American Inns of Court. It was a genuine privilege to attend as guests of the American Inns of Court and to be recognised for being awarded our scholarships.

Spencer Turner 12 King’s Bench Walk.

We were welcomed with open arms wherever we went: we were given an art tour of the ‘Main Justice’ building in DC; Richard Schimel gave us a fascinating tour of DC and took us to Annapolis; Justice Scotland drove us to San Francisco; judges would introduce us to their courtroom; our hosts sacrificed their weekends to show us both the tourist attractions and the local hangouts (including wine and bourbon tours); Parker White organised a limo drive to Muir Woods; our names were displayed on the main board at the Sacramento State Assembly; professors and students at Howard University invited us into the faculty; and we were occasionally surprised with afternoon tea (one featuring Union Jack flags, homemade jammy dodgers and china teacups)!

It was a real privilege to have an insider’s view into a system I had previously never encountered, and I leave with knowledge that I am sure will help me to develop my own advocacy styles, client handling and outlook on our own justice system’s policies.

Lily

Walker-Parr 5RB Chambers.

A theme that ran through many of our conversations with attorneys and judges was the pre-eminence of mooting to legal practice in America. This was an entirely unexpected insight. Whilst practitioners in the UK might leave mooting behind when they finish law school, mooting was described as an indispensable part of case preparation for US lawyers. We saw various moot courts, from the permanent moot court in our host firm’s office, to perhaps the most prestigious in the country, the Georgetown Law Supreme Court Institute. Made to resemble the Court Chamber of the Supreme Court, every matter to be heard in the Supreme Court is mooted at Georgetown by one of the parties, on a strictly confidential basis. The moot judges are invariably those with considerable Supreme Court and subject matter experience. It seemed to be part of the fabric of legal life in the United States that practitioners would make time to moot their own cases or act as a judge in someone else’s, in order to improve the quality of the final submissions. Overall, I concluded that the benefits of mooting at such a level might be something UK clients, and courts, might be missing out on.

It was truly a privilege to spend six weeks in the United States learning about the American legal system and I am enormously grateful to all those who helped make my experience so special, including all the judges and attorneys who gave their time and welcomed us so warmly.

Daniel Webb Selborne Chambers.

For further information on Pegasus Scholarships, please contact Shahzadi Hussain

WE NEED YOUR HELP

The education and training provided by The Inner Temple would not be possible without the support and commitment of members, who give up their time to support a wide range of activities including Outreach, Scholarships, Qualifying Sessions and training for pupils and barristers.

Volunteering can have a wide range of benefits including the following:

Providing evidence of a commitment to the profession, which can help support Bencher, Judicial and KC applications

Learning from junior members about their experiences

Being part of the wider community of members who volunteer their time Helping to support The Inner Temple to develop and grow its education and training

Please find below some of the key activities which you can volunteer to support:

OUTREACH AND SCHOLARSHIPS:

Discovery Days for school students. Support for people aged 18 years old and over:

The Inn holds Insight Evening events during which attendees hear from, and network with, members of the profession

The Inn stages an annual Dinner to the Universities event for those interested in a career at the Bar

The Inn hosts training events for our PASS scholars and delivers talks at universities

The Inn holds scholarships interviews for the Bar Course, GDL and Internship Awards

The Inn facilitates an Ambassador Platform where current student members can share experiences with, and answer questions from, prospective students

SUPPORTING BAR COURSE STUDENTS

The Inn supports Bar Course students throughout their studies by providing Qualifying Sessions on a number of different topics and themes. These sessions frequently require volunteers to do the following:

speak at subject-specific panel sessions provide CV and application advice as part of workshop sessions

provide advocacy training at civil and criminal advocacy sessions act as judges and group leaders at Student Advocacy Weekends

It is important that students are given frequent opportunities to speak and network with established members of the profession, so volunteers are needed not just to train students, but also to speak to them during formalised networking sessions.

Qualifying Sessions are held in London, online and on Circuit.

The Inn is also looking for volunteers to support students in the following areas: Student Societies Call to the Bar interviews

STUDENT AND PUPIL SUPPORT SCHEMES

The Inn provides additional guidance and advice to students and pupils via a range of Support Schemes, including the following:

Mentoring and Mock Interview Support Schemes – In this role you would mentor a student member and conduct a mock pupillage interview with them Marshalling Scheme – In this role you would host student members for a period of marshalling in court (typically between one and five days) Pupils’ Support Scheme – In this role you would provide mentoring and guidance to pupils as part of a ‘buddy’ system

ADVOCACY TRAINING

Advocacy Trainers are established practitioners who are trained to teach advocacy at Pupil and New Practitioner courses held throughout the year at the Inn and at external venues. A potential trainer must attend a weekend training course, normally held in October.

INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES

The Inn has an international membership and we aim to remain in contact with those based overseas. With this in mind, the Inn would like to hear from members who are interested in supporting international activities.

If you are interested to volunteering in any capacity, you can contact education@innertemple.org.uk or visit www.innertemple.org.uk/membershipservices-support/volunteering-opportunities/

THE COUNCIL OF THE INNS OF COURT PUPILLAGE

MATCHED FUNDED SCHEME

COIC WELCOMES APPLICATIONS FOR MATCHED FUNDING FOR 2023–2024 AND 2024–2025 PUPILLAGES.

The COIC Pupillage Matched Funded Scheme (PMF) helps provide additional pupillages in chambers, and other approved training organisations, predominantly engaged in legally aided work. Encouragingly, a growing number of chambers are applying for COIC matched funded grants. COIC is set to support 34 pupillages in 2022. This is an impressive improvement on the scheme’s first year of operation in 2014, when it supported 14 pupillages.

How the scheme works

It is a prerequisite of the scheme that chambers understand that matched funded pupillages are in addition to those they would have offered in any event. COIC match pupillage funding already provided by chambers with a total grant of £9,650 for 2023–2024 London pupillages and £8,250 for 2023–2024 out of London pupillages, and £10,000 for 2024–25 London pupillages and £8,550 for 2024–25 out of London pupillages, to fund the first six months of a second pupillage. Chambers are responsible for ensuring that the total pupillage award meets the BSB’s minimum award for the year in question.

How to apply

Applications to match fund 2023–2024 and 2024–2025 pupillages are invited between 5 September and 21 October 2022. Decisions will be communicated during the week commencing 7 November 2022. Online applications can be made at coic.org. uk/pupillage-matched-funding.

To find out more please email Hayley Dawes at COIC on hdawes@coic.org.uk

Mrs Justice Lieven Chair, COIC Pupillage Matched Funding Grants Committee

As the only independent set in Sheffield, we have been using the COIC matched funding scheme for a number of years and have found it hugely beneficial for all in chambers.

As a chambers completing mainly publicly funded work, in particular crime and family, we’ve always had more than enough work for our members and pupils. The difficulty has been in justifying the outlay to recruit and train multiple pupils in any given year given our relative size.

Matched funding has meant that we have been able to grow our team from the junior end organically over a number of years. This has had the effect of spurring everyone else in chambers onto bigger and better cases, as those more junior are nipping at their heels. This has continued to repeat itself year on year: our original matched funding pupils are now established and valued tenants as they’ve moved up the ladder, and are now assisting the new pupils as they prepare to take on their first cases.

Pupillage can be a difficult year. We have always made it clear that our pupils are not in competition with each other. In this way, the pupils have an additional ally in their co-pupil(s), who know exactly what they are going through at that time – and we have certainly seen within chambers how invaluable those relationships can be as they forge successful careers together.

All of this simply wouldn’t have been possible without the COIC scheme, so we have much to be grateful for.

Chris Aspinall Bank House Chambers – Pupillage AETO

Pupillage is at the heart of Devon Chambers. As a comparatively small set on the Western Circuit, we understand the importance of recruitment and the benefits for both the pupil and the chambers from investing in the pupillage system. The COIC Pupillage Matched Funding Scheme has allowed us to extend that opportunity to more pupils. Over the course of the last four years, we have been able to take seven pupils in chambers, all of whom have successfully completed pupillage and taken up offers of tenancy within chambers. This has had an obvious benefit to chambers but, importantly, it has generated huge benefits for the pupils themselves. The size of chambers has meant that, without the generous support of the Pupillage Matched Funding Scheme, we would often have to offer only one pupillage each year; the ability to offer two enhances the companionship and collegiality available to our pupils. Together with fair recruitment, funded minipupillages, the Devon Chambers Student Forum and the Devon Chambers’ ‘Boot Camp’ scheme, the Pupillage Matched Funding Scheme plays an integral part in our progressive approach towards training the next generation of barristers.

Amy Edinborough Devon Chambers – Pupillage Coordinator

TRIBUTE TO FIONA BARTLETT FORMER DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

By Master Tracy Ayling from her speech at Fiona’s funeral reception on 10 June 2022

When I asked people at The Inner Temple for their memories of Fiona, a flood of replies came in. They all had three common themes.

Great Fun

Hard working

Lovely but with a hint of steel underneath. [There may be some debate at Wotton advocacy training this weekend about the order I have put these in, but this is my speech…]

Everyone has spoken of Fiona’s love of times at Highgate House, Cumberland Lodge and Latimer House and then Wotton advocacy courses. She enjoyed her glass of wine but particularly her singing and her karaoke. My husband Adrian and I remember well, her sitting on our sofa one Sunday evening after an Advocacy Training Committee lunch, singing to his playing or to that of Martin Griffiths. When the time came to let her hair down, she knew how to enjoy herself and encouraged others to do the same. She was, as one member of staff said, “a ball of energy and fun”. She found humour in everything. At times she was quite hilarious when things went wrong; whether it was the photocopier, the printer or something more important like accommodation at a residential weekend.

But she was amazingly hard working. It was not until I became Chair of Advocacy Training that I realised how much she put into the job. Very few people realise that she was at the forefront of developing advocacy. As Jo Korner said, “she was the first of the administrators from the Inn really to understand the importance of advocacy training and education and training generally – as well as understanding how to manage barristers and judges”. More of which in a moment.

You will remember how the government decided that all barristers in sexual cases had to be trained in how to cross examine vulnerable witnesses. They just decided. It was Fiona who took on the immense burden of finding facilitators, and having them trained, finding trainers and then finally organising endless sessions of complicated training for as many barristers as possible. The Inner Temple was at the forefront of that training. It was down to her vision but also her hard slog that Inner became the go-to Inn for that training and often allowed other Inns to participate in our courses. She did all that with quiet and unobtrusive efficiency.

It was the same with the Inn Open day in the Royal Courts of Justice. We didn’t just open our chambers. We had lectures and mock trials and people flocked in. Several people have told me that ‘Inner first’ was her mantra and she showed it in her hard work, and in her acts and deeds.

Wotton House New Pratictioners’ Weekend 2009 (Fiona, front row, sixth from right)

How she juggled everything from professional training and top level higher education policy and objectives to something like a student’s quibbles [I think about a bar bill] will always remain a mystery. She could see the biggest picture and the finest details. She was totally committed to the life and work of the Inn. She made sure it delivered the most professional, approachable, and helpful service to prospective students, Bar students and members, and the most meticulously planned and innovative educational opportunities. And she had a great sense of humour about it all.

But underneath the bubbles there was a firm intellect and drive. She was fiercely protective of her department and devoted to her members of staff.

One instance of her devotion to the Inn was our trip to Mauritius. I know it sounds very glamorous but actually it was a working trip to undertake some advocacy training. We arrived believing that we were there to train pupils. In fact, the Judiciary and senior Bar were expecting us to train them to be trainers for the future. Fiona had known how important this liaison with the Mauritian Bar would be. Out of a stretched budget and having to write a submission herself, she made sure that David Miller attended the course. Given that we (Jo Korner) had to rewrite the whole programme overnight, we couldn’t have done without him. Her foresight and hard work made sure that the event was successful and that we were invited to return.

But underneath the bubbles there was a firm intellect and drive. She was fiercely protective of her department and devoted to her members of staff.

But there was a steely side to Fiona. How she managed to persuade all those barristers and judges to give up their time, attend courses and teach I do not know.

I know I am not the only Chair of Advocacy Training when faced with a thorny issue on how to ‘deal’ with someone was told, “Sorry Tracy, you have to do this, you are a Bencher, and it is your responsibility to the Inn”. Always done in the nicest and most tactful way but we all did as we were told. And of course, her steely determination and lust for life allowed us to keep her for as long as we did. One of my correspondents said, “We have missed her over the last few years, and the Inn has lost one of its driving forces, but gosh we are lucky to have had her for as long as we did.”

So, with that sense of fun, and drive, we expect her to be standing in line for an audition with St Cecilia and the heavenly choir, joining our friend and hers Alistair McCreath. Whether it is that old Highgate favourite Like A Prayer or snatches of Les Mis there will (as David her husband said earlier) be no self-control. So, if you listen very carefully…

Ayling KC 2 Bedford Row

And of course, her steely determination and lust for life allowed us to keep her for as long as we did.

Tracy

Fiona with her assistant Fran Ellis and Master Sue Carr

CRIME DOES NOT PAY

By Master Minka Braun

Ordinarily, the Old Bailey hums with the energy of a Middle Eastern market. Its central lobby throngs with barristers, wigs in hand, negotiating pleas, discussing evidence, having urgent whispered conferences with clients. Even outside its courtrooms, the electricity is palpable. Which is why the Bailey is known as the cheapest theatre in London. But for two weeks this August, a stillness descended over the central lobby. Whilst the Bailey was open, there were few wigs to be seen, for the criminal Bar was on strike and London’s impecunious theatre goers had to find other entertainment.

The background to the Criminal Bar’s strike is to be found in the deteriorating working conditions and poor remuneration for the Rumpoles of today. The crumbling court estate serves as a poignant metaphor for the state of the criminal justice system, with collapsing ceilings no longer meriting even the arch of an eyebrow.

The crumbling court estate serves as a poignant metaphor for the state of the criminal justice system.

The fees paid to criminal barristers have decreased in real terms by 28 per cent since 2006, all the while demands placed on the Criminal Bar have grown significantly. In this time there has been a marked increase in requirements to draft written submissions, skeleton arguments, sentencing notes, without any increase in remuneration. Cases are seldom listed for counsel’s convenience and there is ordinarily no fee for trial preparation. So, when a criminal barrister prepares a case for trial and the case is listed for a date they cannot do, they are simply not paid for their pre-trial work.

Practising at the Criminal Bar is unsustainable for many, with criminal barristers of up to three years’ Call working punishing hours at a median rate significantly below minimum wage. The dire situation is compounded further by the fact that although cases frequently run for years, payment is only made by the Legal Aid Agency at the conclusion of the case. The present system has prompted an exodus from the Criminal Bar, currently at an all-time high. In 2021, only 2,400 barristers’ practice was entirely criminal work, down from 2,670 the previous year. If the exodus continues there will soon simply cease to be a Criminal Bar as we know it.

After concerns about the working conditions of the Criminal Bar had been raised for a number of years, the Ministry of Justice eventually agreed to launch its own independent inquiry, known in the trade as CLAR, chaired by the well-respected retired judge, Sir Christopher Bellamy (now Lord Bellamy).

In his report published on 29 November 2021, Bellamy’s central recommendation was that there should be an increase in funding for criminal legal aid “as soon as possible… of at least 15%” for both criminal solicitors and barristers. He described this as “the minimum necessary as the first step in nursing the system of criminal legal aid back to health after years of neglect…what is needed as soon as practicable to enable the defence side, and thus the whole CJS to function effectively”. He also addressed in his report the need for structural fee anomalies to be corrected, such as non-payment for preparation, pre-trial work and drafting.

The Criminal Bar’s initial optimism was short-lived. In its response to CLAR, the MoJ proposed a fee increase –but this was to apply only to new cases and only after October 2022. Given the backlog of more than 58,000 cases in the Crown Court, this proposed fee increase would not take effect for at least 18 months to two years.

T Crime Does Not Pay

2022–2023

The MoJ’s proposal wasn’t even the 15 per cent that Bellamy saw as “the minimum necessary”. It included VAT and fees paid to solicitor advocates, making it, in reality, no more than 9 per cent for the Criminal Bar. Once deductions were made for practice expenses and account taken of inflation, any remaining gains would be completely extinguished. And no provision was made for addressing the many structural fee anomalies identified in Bellamy’s Report.

The cavalier attitude of the MoJ incrementally galvanised and radicalised the Criminal Bar. In February and March 2022, the Criminal Bar Association balloted its members on adopting a policy of ‘No Returns’. This had the potential to cripple a criminal justice system which refused to list cases to accommodate counsel, and which only functioned because counsel accepted returns as a matter of goodwill.

Of the 1,908 who voted, 94 per cent voted in favour of adopting a ‘No Returns’ policy which began on 11 April 2022. The intransigence of the MoJ (with ministers refusing to negotiate or meet with the leadership of the CBA) prompted the Criminal Bar to be balloted again on escalating their action. 2,055 criminal barristers voted, with 81.5 per cent voting in favour of undertaking ‘Days of Action’. This escalation commenced on 27 June 2022 and involved criminal defence barristers refusing to attend court on a series of escalating days – culminating in a full week of ‘Days of Action’ with alternating strike weeks. This ran alongside the ‘No Returns’ policy and incorporated ‘No New Instructions’ where the criminal defence Bar also refused to undertake any new cases.

Despite this, the MoJ would still not implement CLAR (albeit Bellamy himself was now a minister in the MoJ). Accordingly, the CBA balloted its members once again on escalating their action. On 22 August 2022, the results of this ballot were announced. Of the 2,273 criminal barristers who voted, 79.5 per cent voted in favour of the first ever all-out strike of the criminal defence Bar, to commence on 5 September 2022.

Whether the criminal justice system, or indeed the Criminal Bar, will survive this extraordinary and desperate industrial action has yet to be seen. But what is undeniable and has been comprehensively evidenced by the reaction of the wider Bar to the Criminal Bar’s existential fight for its survival – is that we truly are One Bar.

Civil practitioners of every stripe have lived up to the rallying cry of “We Are One Bar” repeated over social media and at protests throughout the industrial action. The Civil Bar has donated countless hours of their time, providing legal advice (such as on the right to strike enshrined by articles 10 and 11 ECHR and on the vires of the Lord Chancellor to increase fees), assisting with briefing notes on wasted costs and contempt, arranging a hardship fund and helping to raise funds for impoverished striking criminal barristers. All of this was done unremunerated, and because we truly are One Bar.

Civil

Particularly heartening is the part that The Inner Temple and its members have played in supporting the Criminal Bar. The Sub-Treasurer’s Office has advised on funding for criminal barristers experiencing hardship and is providing some technical support to help the CBA establish a devilling scheme so criminal juniors can keep their heads above water during the Days of Action, with legal advice and assistance having been provided by Inner Templars, including Sean Jones KC, PJ Kirby KC, Anya Proops KC and Master Faisel Sadiq.

practitioners of every stripe have lived up to the rallying cry of “We Are One Bar”

Minka Braun

Garden Court Chambers Master Braun is one of the Inn’s representatives on the Bar Council

EDUCATION FOR HUMAN FLOURISHING

By Master Michael Stevenson

EDUCATION PURPOSES

The origins of education lie in the ancient world. In both the western and eastern traditions, education equipped a small minority of people with knowledge and understanding, capacities to contribute to the civic sphere and the interests and accomplishments that make life fulfilling.

Modern education systems continue to recognise the value of individual fulfilment. At the same time, by nurturing shared understandings of citizenship, interdependence and mutual interest, they seek to build cohesive societies. But above all they equip people for the labour market.

Over the last forty years, education policymakers around the world have pursued a common approach: an orientation toward science, mathematics and problemsolving within a broad curriculum, a commitment to helping all students perform well irrespective of background, and the expansion of higher education.

Those years have seen remarkable economic growth. But the supply of educated people has not kept pace with technological advances. Wealth gaps have increased. And the earth’s climate, natural resources and biodiversity have been damaged, perhaps irreparably. A related problem has emerged. Schools and universities sift students through examinations. Employers sort job applicants by looking at their scores and the institution from which they graduated. Michael Sandel argues that in a starkly divisive meritocracy it is education that determines winners and losers. Those who succeed may have applied themselves and, to that extent, merited their success. But they are also fortunate to be born with the skills society values. In the United States, in protest against excessive inequalities, the decline of their communities and a personal loss of social esteem, those who fail in education form the electoral base of populist politicians (The Tyranny of Merit, 2020).

It is time to recast the purposes of education – and link it back to human flourishing. First, we need to prepare young people to reorient the world that has emerged in recent decades. The creation of wealth through productive work will continue to be the engine of our societies and economies. But the moral space for economic activity should be redefined, to lie between a social foundation beneath which no-one should fall and an ecological ceiling above which the planet will be further degraded. Second, we need to ready young people for the day when artificial intelligence equals and surpasses their own.

It is machine learning that has galvanised AI. If the definition of intelligence is the capacity to achieve one’s objectives, then it is thanks to machine learning that robots can now achieve the objectives that humans set them in defined fields of activity. The near-term impact may prove dramatic, on work and on what it means to be a human.

In the short to medium term, employment could remain fairly stable, as AI addresses new areas of need for which there is demand. But eventually, most tasks will be automated and, in nearly all areas, demand will be satisfied with very few humans required.

AI’s impact on decision-making may also prove transformative. In the political sphere, algorithms are already used to target specific categories of voter with specific messages. Future citizens may delegate their political rights to an artificially intelligent agent which remembers their prior choices and the circumstances in which they were made, interprets them in the light of patterns in everyone’s choices and circumstances – and casts a vote accordingly. In the consumer sphere, an agent may remember every product preference ever expressed – and make the next purchase for us.

And this is merely Narrow AI, the capacity of machines to solve the problems humans set them in defined fields of activity. General Purpose AI, the capacity to learn, generalise and apply knowledge across multiple fields of activity, would significantly accelerate these effects.

An external algorithm that monitors each of the systems that comprise my body could know exactly who I am, how I feel and what I want – replacing the voter, the customer, and the beholder… People will no longer see themselves as autonomous beings running their lives according to their wishes and instead become accustomed to seeing themselves as a collection of biochemical mechanisms that is constantly monitored and guided by a network of electronic algorithms (Harari, Homo Deus, 2015).

The supply of educated people has not kept pace with technological advances. Wealth gaps have increased. And the earth’s climate, natural resources and biodiversity have been damaged, perhaps irreparably.

This is a bleak picture. But it is not inevitable. After all, the effects of digital technologies are not pre-determined: it is our collective response to disruptions that will determine their outcomes. We have the power to shape AI, to align it to human purposes and priorities, and to address, with its help, precisely the societal challenges described above.

The effects of digital technologies are not predetermined: it is our collective response to disruptions that will determine their outcomes. We have the power to shape AI, to align it to human purposes and priorities.

How might humans develop their intelligences, not only to exceed machines but also direct and complement them? Luckin argues that both humans and machines deploy cognitive/ analytical intelligence to solve problems, but that only humans understand that knowledge is dependent on context and that different viewpoints must be evaluated in order to reach conclusions. Humans differ fundamentally from machines in our social intelligence (the capacity to know others) and our meta-intelligence (the capacity to understand ourselves (Machine Learning and Human Intelligences, 2018). Here then is a second perspective on education for human flourishing. Education should enable us to flourish in the age of machines.

Education for human flourishing does not replace the education we have today. It enriches it in the service of a broader idea: to nurture, in every human being, a suite of distinctive human intelligences, that equip us not only to flourish as individuals but contribute to flourishing societies and economies, in balance with the planet.

CONCEPTUALISING EDUCATION FOR HUMAN FLOURISHING

Aristotle argued that human flourishing is the purpose of our existence; and that human flourishing consists of (a) moral, reason-infused activities that are meaningful to the individual and have some consequence in the world, (b) contemplation and (c) awe. From a modern perspective, we would want to add something about flourishing communities, societies and species. Flourishing is the purpose of existence only to the extent that individual, situational values are in harmony with collective and sustainable ones.

Flourishing is the purpose of existence only to the extent that individual, situational values are in harmony with collective and sustainable ones.

The challenges that confront twenty-first century societies are existential. Is the flourishing person someone who finds their highest potential in helping to resolve them? This goes beyond future readiness and even futures literacy. It is the capacity to support future transformation. Theory U is a conceptual framework for leaders, inviting them to close the ecological, social, and spiritual divides between self and planet, self and others and self and self. Grounded in the theory and practice of awareness-based system change, it proposes that changing the self is a means to changing systems; that the system is not an extraneous entity but we ourselves; and that the most important change occurs in underlying paradigms of thought (Leading from the Emerging Future, Scharmer 2016).

For leaders, read learners. The same creative and spiritual journey could characterise a young person’s education. Finding individual and collective purpose through learning, to help support future transformation, can orient education for human flourishing.

The OECD has identified three competencies, each with a suggested approach to assessment, that might potentially underpin education for human flourishing. They are adaptive problem-solving, ethical decision-making and aesthetic perception. The first reflects Aristotle’s emphasis on rationality and contemplation of the external world; the second his commitment to moral thinking; and the third his interest in nurturing a sense of awe. These competencies together hold out the prospect of a life that is meaningful to the individual and contributes significantly to better societies and economies. They all draw on intelligences that are, and may remain, the domain of humans: higher cognitive intelligence, social intelligence, and meta-intelligence.

Adaptive problem-solvers are capable of varying their behaviours and understanding to address new challenges and situations. They do this by applying what they have learned in one context to another context, drawing on higher-order thinking and decision-making skills, in order to solve complex problems. Adaptive problem-solving is closely related to the idea of innovation as the route to new value. At different speeds and with different emphases, economies around the world have become more innovative and entrepreneurial, in pursuit of growth and increased productivity. Critical to their success will be people who think creatively about the development of new products, the introduction of new enterprises, and the deployment of new business models.

Ethics is central to human flourishing, equipping us to evaluate and respond to the claims that others make on us. An ethical perspective combats prejudice against people with identities different from our own and balances the needs of the human race with the rights of other species and the planet itself. The Wisdom Task Force, meeting in Toronto in 2019, embedded ethical decision-making in its account of wisdom. The central idea is ‘perspectival metacognition’, combining intellectual humility, the ability to balance diverse viewpoints, perspectives, and contexts, and an orientation toward the common good and shared humanity.

Through aesthetic perception we appreciate the sublime: what is magnificent, mysterious, and greater than ourselves. By setting the everyday, however dismal, in perspective, the sublime consoles us. By opening up our spiritual selves it offers transcendence. Gardner defines aesthetic perception in terms of appreciating beauty. He sees beauty as a property of experiences. To count as beautiful, “an experience must be interesting enough to behold, have a form that is memorable and invite revisiting”. Looking at a picture, listening to a story or attending a concert are all examples. So too, potentially, are taking a shower or enjoying the walk home. (Truth, Beauty and Goodness Reframed: educating for the virtues in the 21st Century, 2011). A sensitivity to what is beautiful is the most ‘inward’ of the competencies. It is a vital source of depth, perspective, compassion and awe: inner resources that strengthen the individual in dealing with the external world.

Tomorrow’s young people, then, will be innovative, responsible, and sensitive to the sublime. They will be the creators of the products, services, and models of the future. They will be alert to the claims that others make on us. They will be open to the deepest emotions that human life confers.

EDUCATION FOR HUMAN FLOURISHING AND THE LAW

Lawyers need beauty in their lives as much as anyone – the hinterland that enhances life and work. And it is remarkable how many lawyers do fully engage in both the fine and performing arts. AI is already taking over important legal tasks, from document discovery to identifying precedents. But if the lawyer’s core responsibilities are adaptive problem-solving and ethical decision-making, as increasingly they are said to be, then the AI world should be one in which lawyers both flourish as individuals and help communities and societies flourish too.

But this is about more than desirable competencies for tomorrow’s lawyers. As adaptive problem-solving and ethical decision-making become central dimensions of human flourishing, then the law will be more tightly bound than ever into the purposes and activities of human existence; and legal frameworks and perspectives will need to be integral to the provision and experience of education.

Michael Stevenson Senior Adviser Education and Skills OECD Project leader, OECD High Performing Education Systems for Tomorrow

Ethics is central to human flourishing, equipping us to evaluate and respond to the claims that others make on us.

JOHN SELDEN AND LEGAL HISTORY:

“LIBERTY ABOVE ALL THINGS”

By Master John Baker

John Selden (1584–1654), Bencher of The Inner Temple, was buried in the Temple Church in 1654. His tomb may still be seen below ground near the South Door. On the epitaph which he composed himself – destroyed by bombs in 1941 – he claimed to hail from a family with knightly origins, an allusion to his mother’s distant kinship with the first Sir John Baker, whose arms he assumed with a slight difference. He had always been self-conscious about his origins: his father was a yeoman farmer and part-time minstrel, and he was brought up in a thatched cottage. But his modest background had not held him back. He was revered, in the words of John Milton, as “the chief of learned men reputed in this land”. Another said that what Selden did not know, no-one knew. His fame is undiminished today, at any rate among scholars. His works are still in print, and nine books have been written about him in recent years.

The Selden Society adopted his name because of his contribution to English legal history. This was not in Selden’s day an academical study. The universities were run by and for the clergy and did not teach English law or English history. There was an informal society of antiquaries in London, but its very existence was disliked by James I, who feared – correctly – that such studies might have political implications. He denied it a charter, and it fizzled out around 1607. The ‘third university’ in the Inns of Court was the intellectual milieu for men with wider interests. Money was

somehow found for Selden to go from Oxford to Clifford’s Inn and then to The Inner Temple, where he was called to the Bar in 1612. He kept chambers in the Inn, in Heyward’s Building (later Paper Buildings), for the rest of his life.

His name does not appear in the law reports. He made an income from written work in chambers, and as legal adviser to the Earl of Kent, but he showed no ambition for public advancement. When, in 1624, his turn came to lecture in Lyons Inn (one of The Inner Temple’s Inns of Chancery) – a routine step on the ladder of promotion –he obstinately refused and was thereupon disqualified for life from becoming a Bencher. Only ten years later, The Inner Temple elected him to the bench anyway; but by then it had become as much an honour for the Inn as for Selden.

For an explanation we must return to legal history. It is not known exactly how Selden became infected with his love of history, but that may be true of most historians: it is a congenital disease. There is no evidence that he played any part in the society of antiquaries, even though papers were read on the subjects which interested him. He received encouragement from Sir Robert Cotton, the antiquary, who met the young Selden at a Christmas dinner in Sussex while his father played in the minstrel’s gallery. Cotton’s house at Westminster contained a library packed with old books and manuscripts. There Selden was in his element. He delved deep into its treasures and was soon tempted into print.

A view of the Temple in 1671, re-engraved for the Inner Temple in 1770 © Inner Temple Archive

Cotton’s house at Westminster contained a library packed with old books and manuscripts. There

Selden was in his element. He delved deep into its treasures and was soon tempted into print.

While still a Bar student, at the age of 24, he published Jani Anglorum facies altera, the first history of the pre-1189 English legal system. The preface was tellingly dated from The Inner Temple on Christmas Day 1610. (Let us hope he found time for dinner in Hall, if not indeed for the Church.) The book is written in the over-elaborate, rambling style which became the hallmark of his writing – not helped by being in Latin. Typical of his many digressions, there is a long excursion on the suitability of women to exercise government. (Perhaps it is time for a study of Selden as a feminist.) But it showed that Selden already had a discerning approach to historical evidence. He rejected the old myths about a Graeco-British origin for English law, stories which (as he put it) were “patched up out of bards’ songs and poetic fictions taken upon trust”. He was sceptical about monkish chronicles. For instance, he pointed out that the Constitutions of Clarendon (1164) had been mangled and misreported by Matthew Paris, writing some 70 years later. He was nevertheless willing to accept the evidence of “a whole company of monks” (as he put it) if they corroborated each other. In particular, he accepted the series of chronicle accounts of the Norman Conquest which stated that William I had agreed, at a great meeting of his council, to confirm the old laws of Edward the Confessor. Despite the implication that William could have changed the law if he chose – and he did, obviously, add some new laws concerning land tenure – this showed that he did not overthrow the old English law. And Selden thought that when old laws were abrogated, it was always done by a parliament (whatever it was called). This belief in the essential continuity of English law was orthodox before 1600; indeed, a version of it had been taught in The Inner Temple as early as 1483. But Selden was now investing it with an authority derived from intensive scholarship: the long-received tradition in the legal profession was supported by trustworthy evidence and did not have to be discarded along with the myths about King Brut and the ancient Greeks. The law had evolved, but it was organically the same system.

In Titles of Honor (1614), also dated from The Inner Temple, Selden turned to biblical and Classical history for a supporting political philosophy. Monarchy, he argued, could not have preceded democracy. In a state of nature all men were equal, but people had found it inconvenient to be ruled by ‘giddyheaded multitudes’ and preferred to submit to a single ruler. However, since absolute or arbitrary monarchical power was as intolerable as unlimited liberty, kings came to govern by law. Selden must have been aware of the contemporary bearings of these opinions. James I’s concept of monarchy depended on kings having preceded parliaments, which were called merely to give advice, and on kings being legally capable of ruling without them. Although it was well established before 1603 that the monarch could not alter the law without parliament, now there was a king who did not at first seem to understand constitutional monarchy as it had been accepted in England. This was a central issue in the parliaments of 1610 and 1614.

English history was thought to be of assistance. The greater accessibility of public records enabled historical sources to be deployed in matters of state. Edward Coke of The Inner Temple was one of the first lawyers to make extensive use of the record office in the Tower of London, and of the rolls kept at Westminster, building up a collection of transcripts

for forensic use. For instance, as early as 1587 he obtained from the Crown Office a collection of precedents of habeas corpus; these were the basis of his 1604 treatise on Magna Carta, c. 29. It has been customary for modern historians to praise Selden’s historical method and denigrate Coke’s. But the difference between them has been greatly exaggerated. Before Selden was born, Coke had been searching for proof that the common law predated the Conquest. He was guilty of anachronisms, but he recognised the importance of finding the earliest evidence, and the danger of relying on chronicles written long after the event. Selden’s approach was no different, though he had more time to spend on historical investigation and was generally more sceptical. Selden called his approach ‘synchronism’. Even so, he fell into anachronisms as well as Coke, for instance in relying on the supposed letter from Pope Eleutherius (d. 189 AD) to the mythical British King Lucius, which Sir Henry Spelman exposed as a monkish forgery. There are other examples of anachronism in Selden’s writings. But then, historians never get everything right. These were not mere matters of curiosity. Legal history was a core vocational subject, of fundamental importance in the real world. As early as 1592, as Reader of The Inner Temple, Coke complained that it had become a matter of “great danger and still greater difficulty”. It seemed even more dangerous under the Stuart monarchy. Whereas today’s governments fret about tomorrow’s headlines, James I and Charles I were troubled by the past. Selden learned this personally when his History of Tithes (1618) was published. The right to tithes was a subject of much controversy following the dissolution of the monasteries, but it was clouded by layers of historical misunderstanding, and Selden decided to investigate it. His purpose, so he said, was merely to narrate the history and not to dispute the theology. But the underlying premise was that theology operated on a different plane from law and history. The origin of tithes was a matter of fact, not theory. Tithes had not, in fact, been paid in the early centuries of the Church, and parochial tithes could not have been, since there were no parishes. When the Church began, around 1200, to enforce the payment of parochial tithes, that was by positive ecclesiastical law, not divine or natural law: there was no reason in natural law why a person should be obliged to donate an aliquot portion of his income to another.

John Selden by Sir Anthony van Dyke © Inner Temple Collection

Selden claimed that his book set out the truth of these matters, to inform debate and allow the reader to form his own judgment. But it exploded like a bombshell. The king, who had not previously heard of Selden, summoned him to debate the issue; and the bishops summoned him for a dressing down. He was forced to acknowledge his error in publishing the book – not (as he insisted) error in its content, but in presuming to publish facts which might cast doubts on the Church’s rights. The book was thereupon suppressed. Worse still, Selden was threatened with imprisonment should he dare to publish any response to the refutations which were being speedily commissioned. He never again published anything quite as controversial. But he had discovered the power of history. And its special power – the reason why it so incensed divines and disturbed kings – was that it could only be countered by better history. In 1618, Selden had proved himself a consummate master of historical detail, from the time of Abraham to the present, and his notoriety would soon thrust him further into the public sphere. He was about to become the nation’s legal historian. In 1621, Selden the historian was employed by the House of Lords to clarify the judicial role of the House in relation to impeachment, and by the House of Commons to collect precedents in support of freedom of speech. The outcome was that the king saw him as a troublemaker and had him arrested. He was soon released without charge, but it was a call to arms. A law-abiding barrister had been deprived of his liberty, and his papers confiscated, for no given reason. Selden could not ascertain the reason – seemingly, it was just for doing historical research. If the intention was to silence him, it was badly misjudged. In fact, it had the opposite effect. Selden proceeded to make ‘the liberty of the subject’ the most burning issue of the period. He entered Parliament after the next general election, and was immediately in demand to serve on committees, draft bills and search for precedents. (This is doubtless the explanation for his unwillingness to be Reader of Lyons Inn the same year.) He spoke on numerous constitutional matters, usually producing strings of precedents which no one else knew about – and on which he could not easily be challenged. Most of all, he was closely involved in preparing the impeachment of the Duke of Buckingham, the king’s leading minister and favourite.

The intellectual difficulty for a historian who becomes involved in real-life affairs – in a world where history matters – is to distinguish between the historian’s impartial search for truth and the lawyer’s search for a viable and persuasive argument. The difficulty is especially acute for someone who knows much more than everyone else. It was around 1619 that Selden adopted the Greek motto, used on the Selden Society’s halftitles, which translates as ‘Liberty above all Things’. Whether this meant that liberty was above historical impartiality was a question on which Selden was about to be tested.

There was a brief hiatus in Selden’s parliamentary career when Charles I dissolved the 1626 parliament after four months, partly to save Buckingham and partly because it failed to grant him supply without unacceptable conditions. In exasperation he told the Privy Council that he abominated the very name of parliament. He decided to make do without it, and to raise funds by means of forced loans. Never mind that the lenders were unlikely to see their money again. Anyone who declined to pay would be locked up. The king asked the judges to confirm the legality of this procedure, but they refused. Crewe C.J. was dismissed, and about 70 loan-refusers were arrested. There was no intention of bringing them to trial, because the judges were unlikely to uphold the government. But in June 1627 five of them, known to history as the Five Knights, took the initiative themselves by applying to the King’s Bench for writs of habeas corpus. The Privy Council, duly alarmed, directed that the returns should state merely that the knights had been detained ‘by the king’s special command’. This was calculated to prevent any argument about the legality of forced loans, because it raised only two legal questions for the court. Was this a good return? And could the court grant bail? Each applicant was separately represented, and Selden was assigned to represent Sir Edmund Hampden, an Inner Templar –not to be confused with his nephew John Hampden, also of The Inner Temple, who contested ship-money ten years later. No doubt it was hoped that Selden might introduce some helpful history. His main argument, almost inevitably, was based on Magna Carta, c. 29: “No free man shall be imprisoned except by the law of the land”. If this was duly executed, he said, “every man would enjoy his liberty more than now they do”. Admittedly, ‘the law of the land’ was a flexible phrase which might encompass arbitrary imprisonment by the king; but it had been explained in 14th-century statutes as requiring “due process of law”. That meant, in Selden’s submission, a formal accusation by presentment or indictment. Chapter 29 also contained the phrase “nec super eum mittemus” (nor shall we send upon him). These words, said Selden, might not signify much; indeed, “a man cannot find any fit sense for them”. But in the chronicle of Matthew Paris (printed in 1571) – which he said was “very authentic” since Paris was the king’s chronologer – could be found what Selden claimed to be the text of King John’s charter.

The intellectual difficulty for a historian who becomes involved in real-life affairs – in a world where history matters – is to distinguish between the historian’s impartial search for truth and the lawyer’s search for a viable and persuasive argument.

Above: Common and statute law Opposite, insert: John Selden wall monument

This read “nec in carcerem mittemus” (nor shall we send him to prison). This could be taken as clarifying the original intent, and the first person ‘we’ emphasised that the clause referred to imprisonment by the king. If the king could imprison free men at will, they would be in no better position than villeins, and then the ‘no free man’ provision would be self-contradictory. This was a flimsy argument, since one of the statutes of due process had explained that chapter 29 extended to villeins.

The Crown was represented with consummate skill by Robert Heath, Attorney General and a Bencher of The Inner Temple. It must be wrong, said Heath, to argue that no one could lawfully be imprisoned without presentment or indictment, because it happened every day when constables arrested suspects for felony or magistrates committed accused persons for trial. Heath accepted that Magna Carta was fundamental, but he challenged Selden’s submission about its wording. Even if Matthew Paris’s version was correct, it was evident that King John’s charter differed in several respects from the statutory version of 1225; it was “but an inception”. It mattered little anyway, because the words added nothing to “no free man shall be imprisoned”. He then asked the Clerk of the Crown to read out all the statutes of due process cited by Selden, one by one, and explained why they did not support his argument. Most significantly, they actually said “presentment or due process”, in the disjunctive. Moreover, there was direct authority against the Five Knights in the opinion signed by all the judges in 1592 that someone committed by the Queen’s special command was not bailable. This prerogative was necessary in matters of state, such as the gunpowder treason; and in such cases (so Heath argued) the King simply had to be trusted.

The court accepted Heath’s argument and remanded the prisoners without bail. The Lord Chief Justice hinted that the defendants’ counsel had tried to inveigle the court by misrepresenting some of the precedents. It was a resounding defeat for Selden, who was overwhelmingly outgunned by Heath. The ‘due process’ argument had not been thought through. Moreover, the Magna Carta of 1215 had never become law and was relevant only as a precursor to the 1225 statute. Had an original copy been available, they would have discovered that the words “in carcerem” were not there anyway. Selden had probably not yet seen a contemporary version of John’s charter. What is telling is that he pressed the authority of Matthew Paris, which he had castigated in print in Janus Anglorum

The prisoners were released by the King’s command in January 1628, and there followed much debate as to whether the case had decided anything. No judgment had been enrolled, but only a note by the Clerk of the Crown that the prisoners were to be remanded. This could mean that bail had been decisively refused, or it could mean that the prisoners were remanded pending a decision. The ambiguity was normal; habeas corpus enrolments always ended in a ‘rule’ rather than a judgment on the validity of the return.

When a new parliament met in March 1628, with many of the imprisoned non-lenders as members, the issue was still alive. Having lost in court, Selden was determined to win the argument in the more receptive arena of the Commons. He produced a definitive text of the historical materials, which was entered in the Journals of the House, and set about

refining his case. At the same time, he launched some parallel constitutional campaigns, particularly against pressing soldiers and the use of martial law in peacetime. He was named to at least 50 committees and gave 130 recorded speeches. In April, a major debate on the liberty of the subject was staged at a joint conference of Lords and Commons. Heath led for the Crown, while the opposition was represented by three Inner Templars, Coke, Sir Edward Littleton and Selden. The underlying issue was that the King had taken undue advantage of an arguably legitimate principle to enable him to force people to hand over money to which he was not entitled. That infringed the sacrosanct principle that taxation could only be imposed by consent of parliament. It also infringed the principle – the real gist of the ‘due process’ statutes – that no one should be imprisoned indefinitely without trial. If the King did not have to give reasons for imprisoning people, there were no legal means by which unlawful reasons could ever be challenged. It might even be done to silence political opposition. Both Coke and Selden had experienced that, and they knew the despair of losing one’s freedom with no reason given and no date set for release. A legislative solution was therefore sought, confirming Magna Carta and the statutes of due process. Heath, on the other hand, continued to urge the need for a prerogative power to imprison without showing cause, relying not only on the judicial opinion of 1592 but on a decision by Coke himself as Chief Justice in 1615.

Selden retorted that liberty of the person was the most fundamental right inherited by every freeman of the kingdom. If there was a right there had to be an effective remedy, for otherwise the right would be vain and meaningless. And remedy indeed there was: habeas corpus, “the highest remedy in law”. There were a dozen precedents, said Selden, where prisoners committed by the King’s special command had been bailed upon habeas corpus. There was also an express judgment in 1344 that a bare command by the King was not a sufficient cause of detention. Heath’s ‘mysteries of state’ could not prevail over law. Selden now produced a more nuanced interpretation of the 1592 opinion. It said that those imprisoned by the Queen’s command could not be released by any court without a trial; they were entitled to be brought into the King’s Bench by habeas corpus, but if the return set out the cause of imprisonment they would not be released. The deliberate inconsistency left it open for Selden to argue that merely reciting the sovereign’s command did not amount to setting out a cause. Moreover, the wording presupposed that the prerogative power would only be used as a preliminary to jury trial. A more disingenuous submission was that the 1615 report of Coke’s judgment was the garbling of a young student. Coke, however, disarmingly confessed that it really was his opinion at that time; but he had changed his mind after members of parliament (including himself) had been imprisoned without known cause. This underlined the point that a principle accepted as sensible in one context had been grossly abused in another.

The outcome of all this was the Petition of Right, which was Coke’s idea rather than Selden’s. Selden hated compromise and would have continued to press for an ordinary Act, even though it was not achievable. But the Petition from both houses, having grudgingly received the royal assent, was effectively a statute.

It stands to this day as a guarantee that no one shall be compelled to pay any tax or loan without the consent of parliament, that no one shall be imprisoned without cause shown, and that no commissions of martial law shall be issued or executed contrary to the law of the land. It therefore achieved all of Selden’s goals. Although Coke deserves much of the credit, the victory was due in part to Selden’s tenacity and his industrious historical research. Selden was responsible for much of the wording, and his last-minute investigations into manuscripts helped to avert deadlock in the final stage. Not that everyone approved of his efforts. The Earl of Suffolk accused him of “taking a course to divide the King and his people”, and said he deserved to be hanged. Others have said that the mutual distrust between King and parliament fomented by Selden’s opposition hastened the Civil War and the King’s execution.

The Petition of Right was not the end of Selden’s parliamentary career. The Duke of Buckingham had still not been impeached, though that project fell through when Buckingham was assassinated during the recess. Selden then returned to the Petition of Right. The King and the law officers were already playing down its significance, and many instances were uncovered in which its terms had been violated. Selden was not going to take this quietly, and he continued to oppose the government so vigorously that on 4 March 1629 he was committed to the Tower. It was now Selden’s turn to make use of habeas corpus. The return stated that he had been committed for contempt against the King and his government and stirring up sedition. Littleton represented him and argued that these were not sufficient causes. “Contempt against the King” was too vague; sedition was not an independent offence known to the law and, even if it was, it was not a felony, and no one could be detained for a misdemeanour without bail. For the King to order such an imprisonment was contrary to the Petition of Right. The speech won much acclaim, and this time it was Heath who was discomfited. The judges advised the King that it would be wise to avoid a judgment by releasing the prisoners. The King (characteristically) rejected this advice and had the five members transferred from the King’s Bench prison back to the Tower, instructing the Lieutenant of the Tower not to bring them back again. The King’s Bench granted another habeas corpus anyway, returnable the next term.

In the meantime, Selden and eight other members were prosecuted in the Star Chamber for contempts in parliament in opposing the adjournment – when the Speaker had been forcibly held in his chair. The defendants argued that only parliament had jurisdiction over what transpired in parliament. The judges (under considerable pressure) rejected the argument; but the majority agreed that it was not a matter for the Star Chamber. The following term, back in the King’s Bench, the court offered to bail the prisoners if they would give sureties for good behaviour. Selden objected that to do so would be in derogation of the Petition of Right. He offered to give sureties for good behaviour after he had been bailed, but not as a condition of bail. The court declined his counter-offer.

Later the same year Heath was rewarded for his pains with a grant of Carolana, a vast territory in North America between Virginia and the Gulf of Mexico. Selden was rewarded with another two years of imprisonment during the King’s pleasure. Nevertheless, his misfortunes made him something of a hero, and that is why The Inner Temple was proud to elect him a Bencher in 1633. He had achieved more than most politicians can ever hope to achieve in the real world, and it was not disagreeable to him to return to tranquil scholarship, which he pursued with vigour for another quarter of a century. But that is another story. During this turbulent period, Selden had certainly been tempted to slant history to fit a legal argument. But he was speaking as an advocate rather than writing as a historian. The number of recent books about him show that his writings, however impenetrable to most of us, continue to fascinate today. His legal history may not have been successful in court. His views on Magna Carta and liberty may not have been original – they were shared by almost all the legal profession. But his achievement was to clothe them with meticulous scholarship and inspire the House of Commons at a critical moment in the nation’s constitutional history. Selden’s appeal to the past, bolstered by industrious archival research, gave them the proof they wanted of an ancient English constitution worth fighting for. And he was tireless in urging them on. In that way, he may be said to have lived up to his motto. Without liberty, we should not be remembering John Selden now. In that sense, perhaps, he was right that liberty had to come first.

Professor Sir John Baker KC LLD FBA

For the full video recording: innertemple.org.uk/libertyabove

The Selden Society: John Selden and Legal History | Inner Temple

Speaker Lenthall Asserting the Privileges of the Commons Against Charles I When the Attempt was made to Seize the Five Members by Charles West Cope

THE INNER TEMPLE MOLTENOS

By Master Simon Brown

The struggles of South Africa have produced many wellknown heroes and villains. Surprisingly, one eminent name rarely mentioned is Molteno, one of its leading families and philanthropists dedicated to battling imperialism, greed, corruption, and white supremacy, from settlement in the Cape until the fall of apartheid.

Five Moltenos were Inner Templars, three of whom were amongst the most outstanding people of their generations. The time has come for their history to be written and celebrated, as, more importantly, should be that of the indigenous African people who so hideously bore the brunt of it all.

Sir John Charles Molteno (1814–1886), who was born in London into a large Anglo-Italian family, emigrated to the Cape Colony in 1831, became its first Prime Minister in 1872. He was the father of 19 children, as well as being a leading merchant, sheep farmer and settler. The family prominently embedded itself into the fabric of the Cape through commerce, shipping, farming and politics, and were all acknowledged for their strong liberal attitudes.

His remarkable eldest child, Betty (Elizabeth Maria Molteno, 1852–1927), was an educationalist, ardent feminist, and apostle for universal (but qualified only by income level, property ownership and education) suffrage. A friend and supporter of Gandhi, she was regarded as “one of the most influential women in South Africa during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries” and “one of the most remarkable women of her generation”. Her partner was Alice Greene, related to Graham Greene.

One of the most influential women in South Africa during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries … one of the most remarkable women of her generation.

Four sons (Percy, James, Edward (Ted) and Clifford) were called to the Bar by The Inner Temple. Ted and Clifford became fruit farmers on an estate whose orchards produced more apples in the early 20th century than the total quantity produced by all the other growers in the Elgin Valley. Percy and James became leading opponents of the imperialism of Cecil Rhodes and of the Boer War. A grandson (Donald) was the staunchest of the white adversaries of apartheid.

Percy Alport Molteno (1861–1937) was admitted to The Inner Temple on 4 October 1881 and called on 26 January 1886. He was a stellar student at Diocesan College (Bishops) and Trinity College Cambridge (Mathematics and then Law Tripos). A polymath, he also excelled in all sciences. He practised law in the Cape for several years, but cases were thin on the ground. He moved to England with chambers at 2 Kings Bench Walk and married his childhood sweetheart who was the daughter of one of his father’s friends, the shipping magnate Sir Donald Currie who procured the exclusive Cape Government mail contract for his Castle shipping company that ran a weekly shipping schedule between England and South Africa, subsidised for speed of delivery by Molteno’s government.

On 5 June 1889, Percy opened a letter in his chambers instructing him on behalf of the Bultfontein Mining Company (one of Sir Donald’s corporate vehicles ) based at nearby Holborn Viaduct “to act as Arbitrator in the matter of the arbitration between De Beers Consolidated Mines Limited and this company for the fixing of the amount of the annual payment which is to form the basis on the consideration to be given by the De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd for the purchase of this company’s property” The agreement would give De Beers, Rhodes and business associate Alfred Beit of Hamburg, a much sought after highly lucrative diamond monopoly of the rich African mines. The arbitrator’s fee was substantial as the stakes were high. The four mines involved yielded £80 million over the previous 18 years and the subject was complex in law and fact, valuation and negotiation.

Elizabeth Maria Molteno – Civil and Womens Rights Activist, Cape Town © Unknown, Public domain via Wikimedia Commons

The young Molteno went to the mines, assiduously researched them, made detailed observations of their engineering and human workings, questioned figures with authority and incisively challenged assertions and valuations. A complete mastery of up-to-date mining conditions enabled him to arrive at a successful and amicable finding to the satisfaction of both parties. The exercise gave him an understanding that, in the infant days of machinery and technology, human physical endeavour and performance were vital to successful mining at the end of the 19th century.

The awful toil of the local African miners – the true heroes of the diamond and gold mining bonanza (as in any mining activity of the 19th/20th century) – from the local population was critical. His father-in-law was impressed. As a result, Molteno, now seeing his future in business, joined Donald Currie & Company which ran the Castle Line, delivering mail, plying trade and carrying passengers from the Cape to London and Europe. Eventually, it took over its main rival, the Union Line, and Molteno became the Chairman of the Union-Castle Line which now controlled the routes of South Africa’s foreign trade.

At this time, the bulk of foreign trade was fruit. In 1841, his father had unsuccessfully tried to export dried fruit. A global Phylloxera epidemic spread through the Cape vineyards in the 1880s and they were turned into orchards. Molteno’s brilliant mind and extensive detailed research of refrigeration – including that of California – revolutionised fruit exporting.

On 31 December 1892, his first shipment of refrigerated fruit arrived in Britain, opened by John X Merriman, a leading Cape politician who had served in Sir John Molteno’s Cabinet, and who became the Cape’s last Prime Minister. The fruit was in perfect condition; land prices soared, the fruit industry thrived, and the Union-Castle’s monopoly fortune was made. Rhodes, typically, seized the opportunity acquiring over 20 farms and turned his exquisite vineyard manor at Boschendal into a fruit farm.

Molteno and his brother, Charlie, established South Africa’s first fruit export organisation. Molteno himself became regarded as the pioneer of the lucrative South African export fruit industry.

The South African economy was set for a Golden Age. The discovery of diamonds had already begun it in 1869 (Sir Donald Currie, like Rhodes, was one of the main investors in gold and silver mines). However, the ill-fated Jameson Raid in 1895 ruined it. Molteno wrote “What a blow to all our hopes of friendly feeling and consolidation of races has been given by the wicked attempt of foolish men elated by the enormous gains which Africa has yielded to them – what a miserable return to have made over her for such benefits”. The men to whom Molteno was referring were the Imperialists Rhodes, Chamberlain and Milner, not his extremely wealthy father-in-law who was no Imperialist.

Molteno was deeply committed to South Africa and its people. He was a close friend of the great activist John Tengo Jabavu who described him as “a true son of the soil and a South African patriot”. He was a prolific letter writer, advocating responsible government (that is, full selfgovernment for the colony excluding defence and foreign affairs) and a vehement opponent of the ensuing Boer War.

After the disastrous war, he and his colleagues sold the UnionCastle Line to Cunard, following Molteno’s failure to persuade the newly formed South African government to renew the mail contract on the basis of an ongoing subsidy. Instead, he devoted his time and considerable fortune to post-war humanitarian support in ravaged South Africa. He was furious about the treatment of the Boers through Lord Kitchener’s tactics of scorched earth and concentration camps.

In 1906, Percy was elected as a Liberal MP for Dumfriesshire. As a radical, he was a civilised yet divisive figure inside and outside the party. Churchill, a fellow Liberal MP at the time but a staunch Imperialist, could not abide being in his presence, once creating a fuss in refusing to sit next to him at a prestigious dinner. He became deeply involved in creating the Union of South Africa in 1910. Although he had supported the cause of the Boers against the Imperialists during the war, he, along with two of his brothers who were Cape MPs, was opposed to the movement to unite all white South Africans to the exclusion of black ones.

He criticised the Boers for their brutality and treatment of indigenous Africans. He was sympathetic to African wishes to be treated in legal and political terms on the same footing as white people. Molteno prophetically warned the leaders in the Union of South Africa of the troubles ahead of Afrikaner nationalism and apartheid to which he could see no end. Defeated and disillusioned by South African politics, Molteno turned to supporting humanitarian issues such as the Vienna Emergency Relief Fund that he started in 1919 after WW1 (in which one of his brothers fought at the Battle of Jutland) and to the activities of the fledgling African National Congress (ANC). In 1921, he endowed the Cambridge University Molteno Institute which focused on plant and animal disease control in tropical and sub-tropical regions. His interest in science not only involved refrigeration but also hydro-electricity. He initiated, plunged into the details and finance of an innovative hydro plant on a stream that flowed from the mountains to provide electricity at his home at Glen Lyon on the Highland estate that his wife had inherited from her father.

As a radical, he was a civilised yet divisive figure inside and outside the party.

Percy Molteno MP © Cape Archives, Public domain via Wikimedia Commons

Described as “acutely intelligent and diligent” with enormous influence, opponents such as President Botha would listen to him and occasionally heed his cogent advice. Thoughtful, with highest level contacts and great wealth, he was yet a very unostentatious animal-loving man who repeatedly eschewed titles and honours yet served with the ‘great and the good’ on foundations such as the Royal Institute of International Affairs along with Otto Beit and Baron Rothschild. He established the Common Sense magazine to enable writers to present articles on controversial issues of the time that were to be based on reason, evidence and ethics, rather than on emotion and nationalism. He was a prodigious writer and correspondent and proud of his Italian Milanese heritage which, typically, he assiduously researched.

James Tennant Molteno, Percy’s brother (1865–1936), matriculated with honours from Diocesan College (Bishops) and law at Trinity College Cambridge where he was noted not just for his academic brilliance and diligence but for his unusual strength and physical fitness (he excelled in boxing, swimming and shooting). He divided his time at university between frenzied study and backpacking around Europe, attending drunken parties with fellow students. He also acquired a passion for horse racing and card-playing that remained with him for the rest of his life. After graduating with honours, he was admitted to The Inner Temple on 12 January 1886 and called to the Bar on 28 January 1889, before returning to Cape Town to become an Advocate of the Supreme Court.

He entered the Cape Parliament in 1890, at the age of 25 as an opposition MP. The Logan scandal in 1893 revealed the degree of corruption in Prime Minister Rhodes’s business dealings. Molteno, increasingly suspicious of Rhodes for what he considered his unscrupulous craving for power, immediately accused Rhodes of engineering the infamous Jameson Raid that took place in 1895, calling Leander Starr Jameson, his trusted lieutenant, a “fool” Prophetically, he wrote that the raid was the beginning of the divide between Boer and British that would eventually culminate in the Boer War.

In 1899, he petitioned Queen Victoria stressing the seriousness of the impending conflict. It included key information that was not disclosed to London by the British High Commissioner in South Africa, the arch Imperialist, Sir Alfred Milner who was intent on taking the Cape to war. Milner avoided delivering it. Molteno then used his family connections to take the petition – as well as Milner’s private statements on his warlike intentions – to the British press and parliament, causing great embarrassment to Milner and the Colonial establishment in South Africa.

Molteno was an exceptionally skilled debater and public speaker. In parliament however, he quickly gained a reputation as a jovial tease, with an uncanny ability to both foment and soothe disagreements in the house – while all the time taking an amused backseat. His friends and colleagues in parliament gave him the nickname ‘Baby Molteno’, as he was the youngest of his extended family to be politically active at the time.

Molteno was an exceptionally skilled debater and public speaker. In parliament however, he quickly gained a reputation as a jovial tease, with an uncanny ability to both foment and soothe disagreements in the house.

When war broke out, Molteno, like his brother Charlie, a fellow MP, was a fierce critic of the malpractices that took place in the Cape under British martial law, and regularly smuggled evidence of them out of the country via his family connections, to sympathetic MPs in the House of Commons.

He fought on behalf of his old friend and liberal ally, John X Merriman, who became the last Prime Minister of the Cape from 1908 to 1910. Like his oldest sister, Betty, Molteno was a strong advocate of women’s suffrage and in 1907 narrowly failed to achieve it, due to Merriman’s desertion from the cause, in what he described as the most painful thing of his career.

After the elections of 1908, when the Merriman government came to power, Molteno was the unanimous choice as Speaker. As Speaker of Parliament, Molteno abandoned his jovially anarchic style of politics, and became solemn and decisive. With the political storms of the Boer War and the upcoming Union, controlling parliamentary procedure was a challenge.

Sir James Molteno – First Speaker of South African Parliament

© Unknown, Public domain via Wikimedia Commons

The Cape House had also more than doubled in size since its creation and was considerably more politically diverse. It was therefore essential to wield a firm and detached authority over sessions that were often very raucous. However, remaining aloof and serious seemed to have sometimes been a challenge for Molteno. Parliamentary writer Ralph Kilpin found the contradictory Speaker rather amusing, and described in his book, The Old Cape House, how Molteno once firmly silenced disruptive parliamentarians who were roaring with laughter in the backbenches, only to whisper audibly to the culprit as he passed the Speaker’s seat later: “You can tell me the joke afterwards”.

In 1909, at the Cape Prime Minister’s request, he joined the South African delegation as legal adviser, and submitted the draft South Africa Act which had been drawn up at the National Convention in London. This was in spite of his voicing considerable problems with many of its provisions, particularly those pertaining to franchise.

Nevertheless, when the new Union House of Assembly was created, Molteno was asked to take up his office again. He had defeated the Transvaal’s candidate to become the first Speaker of the South African Parliament. In the ensuing year, he was responsible for compiling the first rules of procedure for Parliament.

Upon his final retirement, he wrote two racy volumes on the political life of the Cape including a protracted denouncement of Rhodes, Milner and other imperial figures which he claimed was a warning to South Africa of its future direction.

Donald Barkly Molteno (1908–1972) was a grandson of Sir John Molteno. From an early age he proved to be a serious boy with intense interest in current affairs. During WW1 he spent a lot of his time poring over war maps – his uncle, Captain Barkly Molteno, was in the navy and commanded HMS Warspite at the Battle of Jutland. He too attended Diocesan College (Bishops) and Pembroke College Cambridge, where he graduated in 1930 with honours in law. He was admitted to The Inner Temple on 29 October 1927 and called to the Bar on 17 November 1930.

Sir John Charles Molteno © Public Domain

He spent the next year in common law chambers practising in London and living at Toynbee Hall in the East End where he witnessed the Great Depression. He paid for his board by giving free legal advice to the poor living in the surrounding slums. He returned to South Africa in 1932 and was admitted as an advocate to the Bar of the Cape Provincial Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. He was appointed as Queen’s Counsel in 1952 and practised at the Cape Bar until 1964. He was the President of the Cape Bar Council from 1961 to 1963.

In 1936, the all-white South African government, under the Boer War Generals J B M Hertzog and Jan Smuts, passed the Native Representation Act which removed the right of those Africans in the Cape Province who met certain educational or property qualifications to be on the voters’ roll in parliamentary constituencies. Molteno was junior counsel to the former Chief Justice, Sir James Rose Innes, in challenging this, albeit unsuccessfully. Ultimately, only three seats in Parliament were offered to those Africans who had lost their right to vote but no black or coloured person was allowed to stand for election. In 1937, the ANC nominated the young Molteno as one of the three candidates it supported. He did so in the huge constituency called the Cape Western Electoral Circle and was duly elected. Over the next 11 years, he valiantly fought for the human rights of African South Africans making carefully crafted speeches on their behalf. As no coloured or Indian South Africans were allowed to be MPs, Molteno also acted as their representative in the whole of Union too. It was a heavy burden but one that was much appreciated by those he helped and represented. The South African Indian Congress founded by Gandhi wrote to him “conveying the gratitude of the Indian community for the liberal and sympathetic attitude shown by you towards our people”.

In the first half of the 1960s, successive laws and ensuing disobedience and violence produced a police state where police were free to use detention and torture on a routine basis. Molteno became increasingly active in the politics of constitutional reform – a hopeless venture for liberals at this time – and civil rights, playing a leading role in the Civil Rights League. He was successively involved in the Liberal Party and the Progressive Party writing the well-thought out, but doomed, two-volume Molteno Report on constitutional reform. His case load involved representing victims of banning, detention, house arrest, and other forms of police repression. Eventually, his legal practice perversely dried up due to his known principles and activities; any potential clients who might afford his services feared that briefing him would prejudice their cases in the eyes of the judges.

Molteno

The 1948 election saw Afrikaner nationalism triumph and Molteno withdrew in disillusion from front-line politics to build up a legal practice to support his family. The 1950s saw massive extension of the segregationist apartheid laws, excluding 80 per cent of the non-white inhabitants from ownership of the land, skilled employment and basic freedoms. Along with two other brave advocates, he spent the decade constitutionally challenging these laws (including the discriminatory Group Areas Act, Job Reservation Act, Pass Laws) with just the very occasional limited success. His reputation burgeoned and he was constantly sought out by desperate South Africans who were the victims of the torrent of racist laws. He became the key legal advisor to the ‘Black Sash’, a group formed by white South African women, to stand up for civil rights and oppose racism. In his obituary, it was recorded: “He taught us all we had to know about Civil Rights, about the inequities and iniquities of the pass laws and influx control… and so very much more. His knowledge and experience … illuminated all our efforts to inform and educate ourselves and the South African people”.

Rights League.

In 1964, he was forced to turn to academia and charitable works. He became a senior lecturer in Roman-Dutch Law at the University of Cape Town and, as one of the leading constitutional and civil rights lawyers of his time, was appointed the first Professor of Public Law at UCT in 1967. At the time of his untimely death at 64 he was Dean of the Law School. His entry in the Dictionary of South African Biography says, “he was a man of great humanity, as well as of brilliant intellect”. He is warmly remembered as ‘Dilizintaba’ (‘Remover of mountains’ or ‘Overcomer of obstacles’), a distinguished South African with a long record of service to his fellow countrymen, a superb incisive debater, an indefatigable fighter for civil liberties, and an implacable opponent of racial injustice.

Throughout his career in the related fields of law and politics Donald Molteno, like all Moltenos, was a living embodiment of those values that comprise the Cape liberal tradition from his grandfather’s day. First and foremost, it was a tradition that stood for limited government, or government under the rule of law. Second, it was non-racial in its approach, asserting that all persons of whatever race or colour were entitled to equality before the law and, subject to qualifications which were not racially defined, were eligible for the franchise at parliamentary and municipal levels.

The story of the Moltenos is one that should be much admired for their pioneering spirit, passion for equality and justice, determination, and bravery.

became increasingly active in the politics of constitutional reform – a hopeless venture for liberals at this time – and civil rights, playing a leading role in the Civil

His Honour Simon Brown KC

Over the next 11 years, he valiantly fought for the human rights of African South Africans making carefully crafted speeches on their behalf.

CELEBRATE THE LIFE: MASTER RICHARD SOUTHWELL

An address delivered by the Dean of Salisbury Cathedral, The Very Reverend Nicholas Papadopoulos, at a memorial service for Master Richard Southwell held on 20 June 2022.

“If one is in court or having to address a public assembly or the senate, a lavish and extravagant eloquence is appropriate. But when speaking of God, our master, the absolute sincerity of what we say will communicate to others not by our eloquence but by the substance of our lives”.

The Bible does not give lawyers a good press. Like the Pharisees, and like the tax-collectors, lawyers are the target of Christ’s invective. The specific criticism that he levels at them is that they use their mastery of words to increase the burdens that others bear.

Saint Cyprian was Bishop of Carthage and a Christian martyr of the 3rd century, but before his baptism and his ordination he practised as a lawyer. He was an advocate and a teacher of rhetoric. He was steeped in the dark arts of the courtroom: a master of words. In the letter that he writes to his friend Donatus, with which I began, he as good as admits this. He knows all about lavish eloquence – the well-tuned phrase, the irresistible argument. But he knows too that when we speak of God the elegance of our prose communicates nothing. When we speak of God the substance of our lives communicates everything.

“

And now these three remain” writes Paul “faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love”. If the substance of our lives communicates everything, then how greatly we have loved is perhaps the measure of the substance of our lives.

Richard died on 26 December, St Stephen’s Day. St Stephen was not a lawyer, but he was no stranger to the witness box, either. The biblical account of his life consists almost entirely of the record of his appearance before the court which condemns him to death. He confesses his faith in Christ and in consequence is stoned outside the city wall. So far as we know it, that is the substance of his life – that he gives everything for the sake of his love of his Lord. When good King Wenceslas, wealth and rank possessing, sets out to bring food and fuel to the peasant who lives a good league hence he does so on St Stephen’s Day. So far as the carol tells it, that is substance of his life: that in his love for his Lord he gives what he has to the poor. The intensity of his love even warms the feet of his page amidst the rude wind’s wild lament.

If the Bible gives lawyers a bad press, what is the law’s opinion of love? Lord Atkin spoke of Christ’s commandment to love in his celebrated judgement in Donoghue v Stephenson (1932 – as I’m sure I have no need to remind many of you). In that case a widow found a decomposed snail in the ginger beer that her friend had bought her, which unhappy incident established the tort of negligence independent of contractual relations. Lord Atkin said this: “The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? Persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected”.

Richard was a man of law to his fingertips, but a man of faith to his core. I’m sure he respected Lord Atkin’s dictum professionally; but I know he breached it personally. In law, to love is to refrain from harming others; in faith, to love is to live as did Cyprian, Stephen, and Wenceslas – to give without conditions. And Richard gave the Church so much. He was a lay Canon of this Cathedral, occupying the prebendal stall of Warminster, on the north side of the Quire. He represented us on the Crown Nominations Commission twelve years when our last Bishop was appointed. He would have loved to be here yesterday when our current Bishop was enthroned, an occasion attended by the Deans of Jersey and Guernsey, whose Bailiwicks are soon to become attached to our Diocese. He was Chair of the House of Laity in the Diocesan Synod, Chair of Heytesbury Deanery Synod, and a longstanding Churchwarden.

Richard was a man of law to his fingertips, but a man of faith to his core.

Now, anyone who serves the life of the Church for as long as Richard did might be forgiven for chafing at Lord Atkin’s words “you must not injure your neighbour” as the parish share, or the vicarage gutters, or the redrawing of the parochial boundaries reappears on the agenda for the 99th time Yet those who worked with Richard remember only his wisdom, his kindness, his generosity, and his integrity. If it’s the substance of our lives that communicates what we know of God; if it’s how greatly we have loved that communicates what we know of God; then in Richard’s life we have learned much of God.

In the north Quire aisle of the Cathedral, directly behind Richard’s former stall, are inscribed the words of T S Eliot which were read this morning: “All manner of thing shall be well When the tongues of flame are in-folded Into the crowned knot of fire

And the fire and the rose are one.”

Eliot understands that ultimately the righteousness of God and the mercy of God are indistinguishable: all that there is, is the love of God for those who have loved. To that love we have commended God’s faithful servant Richard. May he rest in peace – and rise in glory.

Dean of Salisbury Cathedral

Published by kind permission of The Very Revd Nicholas Papadopulos

Second address by Howard Page KC.

Belinda has generously asked me to say a little about Richard’s professional life.

It was at Trinity College Cambridge, as an Exhibitioner, that Richard’s formal legal education began, when he decided to read law rather than classics at which he had excelled at school. But the seeds of his interest in the law can, perhaps, be traced to his period of National Service in the Royal Navy between Winchester and Cambridge, when in a foretaste of things to come – and characteristically you may think – he took it upon himself to re-rewrite much of the Mediterranean Fleet’s Standing Orders while based at the Malta headquarters.

In 1961, following Call to Bar by The Inner Temple and a period of pupillage, he was invited to join Harry Fisher, Roger Parker, Gordon Slynn and Patrick Neill (as they then were) as a member of a small set of chambers specialising in high-end civil work at One Hare Court in the Temple. This was to remain his professional home for the next almost 40 years, until, in 2000, the chambers, joined forces with another set and moved to Lincoln’s Inn. There, Richard continued to practise, from a room with one of the finest views in London, until he retired in 2004.

What, more than anything, distinguished Richard was an exceptional gift of speed in digesting daunting quantities of documents and producing the opinion, judgment or whatever else was required of him, in finished form, while the rest of us were still sharpening our pencils. And it was this gift, coupled with astute judgment and innate courtesy, that resulted in leading City solicitors frequently turning to him as their counsel of choice in cases of particular complexity or delicacy, the development of an extensive practice in a broad range of commercial advice and litigation, and a case load which took him to San Francisco, the Dead Sea, Abu Dhabi, the Far East and Venice among others places.

It is, however, his pro bono roles as a leading member of the Bar Council for many years and as a Bencher of The Inner Temple – and, in 2002, Treasurer – that are most likely to be remembered as his lasting legacies. Among other things:-

He was the principal author of the Bar’s magnum opus in response to the Thatcher Government’s 1989 Green Papers on the future of the legal profession; he was the chief architect, in the face of considerable opposition, of the revolutionary idea that all practising members of the Bar should undergo continuing education and advocacy training; he was largely responsible for crucial, if unpopular, reforms of The Inner Temple’s finances; and, above all perhaps, there was his quiet, un-trumpeted initiative – aided by a fellow Bencher expert in pensions law – in establishing, for the first time, and building up a pension scheme for Inner Temple staff and his unstinting chairmanship of the trustees of that fund for the next 34 years – a role only relinquished shortly before his death: a remarkable story.

A natural candidate for appointment to the High Court bench, Richard preferred to maintain the flexibility that life at the Bar gave him to exercise his judicial skills in a variety of ways while simultaneously pursuing the extensive portfolio of voluntary sector interests.

He was a member of the Courts of Appeal of Jersey and Guernsey for eleven years (for the last five, as President of the Court), President of the Lloyd’s (Disciplinary) Appeal Tribunal for a similar period, a Deputy High Court Judge and an arbitrator. Of these, it was unquestionably the first that gave him greatest pleasure – sometimes sitting as many as a dozen times a year, first in one island then the other; and the regard in which he was held in those jurisdictions – notwithstanding, as you would expect, the occasional controversial decision – may be judged from the tributes paid to him on his retirement and the presence here today of a former Bailiff of Jersey who knew him well and, possibly, I believe of a former Bailiff of Guernsey too.

Yet, Richard was never too busy to take on one more role, though – truth be told – he was seldom content to be anywhere other than in, or close to, the driving seat of whatever organisation or enterprise was fortunate enough to become the object of his incisive mind and restless energy.

If he was prone to self-doubt it rarely showed. He could be trenchantly critical of those whom he judged incompetent, and he was never afraid of ruffling feathers where he thought ruffling was called for. “I do what I’m told”, a favourite dictum – invariably accompanied by a chuckle – may have been true in a family context but does not, perhaps, reflect a characteristic for which he will be remembered. And faced with robust counter-argument he was always good-humouredly ready, like the good sailor that he was, to adjust course – without necessarily changing destination. He also had an infuriating habit of being right.

Above all, Richard was never too preoccupied with weightier matters to be interrupted in order to give generously of his time to younger members of the Bar and others, to offer advice and encouragement and to pass on the wisdom of his own heroes and mentors whose industry, moral authority, or intellect he in turn admired.

We remember him as a loyal colleague, a figure of great distinction in the law and a wise and generous servant of his profession. And one who – always up-beat and enthusiastic – loved every minute of it.

Page KC Serle Court Bencher of Lincoln’s Inn

Howard

Master Richard Southwell © Birkbeck

THERE AND BACK AGAIN

By The Librarian and The Deputy Librarian

I took up the post of Librarian and Keeper of Manuscripts midway through the redevelopment of The Inner Temple’s Treasury building. For the next year and a half I found myself, like Bilbo Baggins, having an adventure which certainly involved “doing and saying things altogether unexpected”.

The adventure began in November 2020 but the adventures faced by the Library date back many years, resulting in a fascinating and exciting history and culminating in the newly reopened Library we have today.

THE STORY BEGINS

In May 2019 in an office block on Fetter Lane there lived a library. Not a lovely, oaken, carpeted, homely library: it was a temporary library, and that means practical.

After almost three years the arduous trip across Fleet Street to Fetter Lane and back again to The Temple is finally completed. The temporary library at Fetter Lane has now become another notch on the timeline of The Inner Temple Library history. It was a functional, well-appointed space, but fundamentally ‘removed’ from its home of many decades.

The calamities outlined inevitably took their toll on the library collections and much had been lost over the years particularly in the early 1940s:

“

It was not until after severe damage was done to the building and several thousand volumes destroyed that the order was given to evacuate the Library… By May 1941 approximately half the book stock had been moved to a dozen country houses. The remainder of the stock was destroyed by fire on May 10th, 1941.”

Starting with a single room in 1506 there have been many versions of The Inner Temple Library over the years due to various destructions: fire in 1666, blown up with gunpowder as a fire break in 1679, war in 1941–42. It will come as no surprise then that Fetter Lane was not the first temporary library of The Inner Temple. Following wartime destruction, a temporary library was opened in 2 King’s Bench Walk.

innertemplelibrary.org.uk/inner-temple/library-history/ However, that was not the end of the story as there was further misfortune during the evacuation itself. The 1841 volume of the British Almanac carries a note:

“This book was among those volumes which collided with an army gun carriage during evacuation of part of the library in the 1939–45 war, on the London-Oxford road.” It is reportedly the sole survivor of this collision.

There and back again

Temporary Library at 2 King’s Bench Walk

Fast forward to the present day and the library collections have returned to the heart of The Inn. If you were writing a slightly contrived Tolkien themed article, you might be forgiven for claiming the Arkenstone of the Inn had returned…

The process of reinstalling the Library collections following the redevelopment of the Treasury Building has been complex and exhausting for all of the team. We did not have five armies to help with the job. Instead, we had the Library staff and the assistance of the Jamie Briggs moving team. It is indeed a dangerous business going out of your door (as seen above), but our collections have made it back safely. More than 1,600 ‘tea’ crates were required to move the collections on their epic journey of a full 215 meters from Fetter Lane ‘back home’ to the Temple. Thousands of books have been recalled from storage in Oxfordshire and, although the route may have been similar to that used for the 1940s book evacuation, thankfully no gun carriage collisions were reported.

Now that we have returned, we continue to look to the future of the Library service because it’s the “only thing to do! On we go!” The way we support users present and future and the very alignment of the Library within The Inn as a whole are our key targets looking ahead. A new user charter outlines what you, as users, can expect from us and what we hope to receive in return from you. The best way for us to meet your needs is for us to work in partnership with you to enhance your library experience and improve our service provision. Feedback is always welcome. The Library continues to be a world class law library with vast collections of hard copy materials as well as access to many databases. In a library the size of ours you will still find what you need quickly and easily. After all “there is nothing like looking if you want to find something. You certainly usually find something”.

So, despite being fairly restrained with the Tolkien theme, all that remains to be said is “if ever you are passing my way, don’t wait to knock! Tea is at four; but any of you are welcome at any time!”. Tea isn’t actually at four, it is welcome all day in the Library as long as you have a drinks container with a lid!

*quotes taken from The Hobbit

Rob Hodgson Librarian and Keeper of Manuscripts

Tracey Dennis Deputy Librarian

Fast forward to the present day and the library collections have returned to the heart of The Inn. If you were writing a slightly contrived Tolkien themed article, you might be forgiven for claiming the Arkenstone of the Inn had returned…

CELEBRATE THE LIVES

SIR RICHARD CURTIS QC

24 May 1933 – 15 October 2021

After reading Law at Exeter College, Oxford, Master Richard Curtis was called to the Bar in 1958 and practised on the (then) Midland and Oxford Circuit mainly from 3 Fountain Court Chambers in Birmingham. In 1974, he was appointed a Recorder and in 1981, Honorary Recorder of Hereford. Master Curtis was elected a Governing Bencher of the Inn in 1985. After taking silk in 1977 he practised from 1 King’s Bench Walk before being appointed Recorder of Birmingham (as a Senior Circuit Judge) in 1989.

In 1992, he was appointed a Justice of the High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, serving until 2005. He was a Presiding Judge on the Wales and Chester Circuit from 1994–97. Widely regarded as a safe pair of hands he presided over some of the more sensitive cases that had attracted national attention such as the Baroness de Stempel trial in 1990; the private prosecution brought by the family of Stephen Lawrence in1994 and the Roy Whiting trial in 2001 for the murder of 8 year old Sarah Payne.

A senior member of the Midland Circuit paid tribute calling him “a giant in the field of law, respected for his intellect, an inspiration to many who followed his achievements and someone we all aspired to emulate”.

After retiring, Master Curtis participated in country life in Devon and enjoyed the occasional foray to the Garrick Club of which he was very fond. He was very proud of the vineyard he had established in Herefordshire in the 1980s and maintained a superb cellar throughout his life.

He leaves four sons Rupert, a solicitor, Alexander, a diplomat, Jonathan and Benedict who both make their livings in Scotland.

SIR EDWARD EVANS-LOMBE

10 April 1937 – 120 May 2022

Master Evans-Lombe was Called to the Bar by The Inner Temple in 1963 and took silk 1978. He was appointed as a High Court judge in 1993 and as a member of the Competition Appeal Tribunal in 2004. He retired as a judge in 2008.

Master Evans-Lombe was elected a Governing Bencher of the Inn in 1985.

THE RT HON THE LORD SAINSBURY OF PRESTON CANDOVER KG 2 November 1927 – 14 January 2022

Master Sainsbury had a lifelong career at the family supermarket chain Sainsbury’s. In 1969, he took over from his uncle Sir Robert Sainsbury as Chairman and Chief Executive, a position he held until his retirement in 1992. He was knighted in 1980 for services to the food retailing industry, was made a life peer in 1989 and became a Knight of the Garter in 1992. A great supporter of the arts, he was a governor of the Royal Ballet School, Chair of the Royal Opera House and a trustee of the National Gallery, providing funds, with his two brothers, to construct the Sainsbury Wing of the museum. He also made significant gifts to the British Museum and Dulwich Picture Gallery amongst others. With his wife, Anya Linden, Ballerina with the Royal Ballet Company, he ran the Linbury Trust supporting causes across a wide spectrum from arts, heritage and culture, to education access for young people and overseas humanitarian aid.

Master Sainsbury was elected an Honorary Bencher of The Inner Temple in 1985.

JOHN DEBY QC

19 December 1931 – 30 July 2022

Born and schooled in Sheffield, Master Deby won a scholarship to Winchester and later to Trinity College Cambridge. He was a brilliant classicist and winner of the King’s Prize for Read Latin in 1949. He was called to the Bar by the Inn in 1954. In 1959, he stood for parliament for a Sheffield constituency. He took silk in 1970 and was appointed a Recorder of the Crown Court from 1977 until 1995.

John had a great love and knowledge of both the ballet and opera and was a keen supporter of the Royal Opera House. He adopted Dubrovnic as a place of holiday refuge, supporting the rebuilding after the war with Serbia. About 2000, he and his life-long partner Geoffrey Faux (who died in2012) were made Honorary Freemen of the City, two of only a handful of foreigners ever to be so honoured.

Master Deby was elected a Bencher of the Inn in 1986 and served as Master of the Silver from 1991 to 2012. During his tenure as Master of the Silver he was responsible for commissioning the Pegasus candlesticks crafted by silversmith Anthony Elson; one pair for the Millennium, another pair for the Queen’s Golden Jubilee and four smaller candelabra for the Quatercentenary of the Royal Charter. He read Latin and Greek until his death.

NIGEL HAMILTON QC

13 July 1938 – 20 September 2021

Nigel John Mawdesley Hamilton QC, husband of the late Leone Morag Elizabeth Hamilton died on the 20 September 2021 in his 83rd year – a funeral was held on 14 October 2021. Lord Hunt of the Wirral delivered the eulogy.

Nigel (born in Ndola, Northern Rhodesia), attended St Edwards School, Oxford, before reading Classics at Queen’s College Cambridge. He was called to the Bar in 1965 and was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1981. Nigel married Leone in 1963, and they are succeeded by two sons Andrew and William. Nigel moved from Kent to set up a family home near Bristol in 1969 from where he did much of his work practisng on the Western Circuit and the Isle of Man. He set up St John’s Chambers in Bristol with Bill Huntley in 1982, and he was a door tenant at New Bailey Chambers in Liverpool. He was a Conservative member of Avon County Council from 1989 to 1993 and a member of the General Council of the Bar from 1989–1994. Master Hamilton was elected a Governing Bencher of the Inn in 1989.

Nigel was a keen fisherman, shooter and loved the outdoors. He moved to the Chew Valley so he could always have a close eye on Blagdon and Chew Valley lakes – both famous Trout fishing lakes.

Whilst he suffered a journey of cancer for a number of years in his later life, he managed to read a huge quantity of books in this time. He lived in his family home until his final days before passing away peacefully in his sleep.

MURRAY PICKERING QC

11 June 1934 – 11 May 2022

Master Pickering was Called to the Bar by The Inner Temple in 1963. He started his practice from 3 Essex Court and then Chambers moved on to 20 Essex Street, where he practised principally in commercial law, banking, financial transactions and international commercial arbitration. He took silk in 1985 and was appointed as a Recorder in 1992. Master Pickering was an elected member of the Bar Council from 1987 to 1992 and was a Vice-Chairman of the Professional Conduct Committee in 1991 and 1992.

Master Pickering was elected a Governing Bencher of the Inn in 1992. He was a frequent attender at the Inn’s social and collegiate events, including lectures and Call Night ceremonies.

JUDGE MARTIN L C FELDMAN

28

January 1934 – 26 January 2022

“For me, the law became a world of consequence, enlightenment, and joy,” declared Master Feldman in a speech he delivered in 1994. His “world of consequence” comprised a catalogue of achievements and glittering prizes. He was a US Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps reserve captain from 1957 to 1963. In 1983, he was nominated by President Reagan to be a Federal District Judge in New Orleans, and he was confirmed and commissioned the same year. He rendered nearly 40 years of distinguished and honorable service in that office. He was a board member of the Federal Judicial Center from 1991–1995. He was elected Chairman of the American Bar Association’s National Conference of Federal Trial Judges in 1996. He was Chairman of the Board of Advisory Editors of the Tulane Law Review from 2000–2014. Chief Justice John Roberts appointed him to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, where he served from 2010–2017. When he died, his was the second longest tenure of any active Federal District Court Judge in the country.

Master Feldman was elected an Honorary Bencher of the Inn in 1990, a gratifying legal milestone for so ardent an Anglophile. His friendships were a large part of the “enlightenment and joy” he found in his life in the law, notably, to name but one, his long friendship with Sir Ian Percival, Solicitor General from 1979–1983, and Lady Percival. Master Feldman was the United States district judge member of the Quadrennial Anglo-American Legal Exchange for 2004–2005. He celebrated his 70th birthday in 2004 with a dinner at the Inn.

He also enjoyed a long and remarkable friendship with Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court. He contributed a touching essay to a small volume called Antonin Scalia on Faith, which appeared after Justice Scalia’s death. Master Feldman left a cohort of talented, accomplished and devoted former law clerks, keenly appreciative of his guidance and mentorship. His beloved wife, Melanie Pulitzer Feldman, predeceased him in 2002. He is survived by his daughter, Jennifer Feldman Lund, of New York, and his son, Martin Feldman, Jr, of Jerusalem, Israel.

GILES WINGATE-SAUL QC 9 March 1945 – 7 September 2021

Giles Wingate-Saul was called to the Bar in 1967 and was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1983. Prior to his retirement, he had a Manchester and London based civil and commercial practice. His areas of practice included catastrophic personal injury (brain damage and spinal injury). He was a mercantile/commercial and construction mediator (trained by CEDR). He became a Deputy High Court Judge and Deputy Judge of the Technology and Construction Court. In 1996, he founded The Northern Circuit Commercial Bar Association, remaining as Chairman until 2002. He was also a member of the Personal Injury Bar Association, the Professional Negligence Bar Association, Technology and Construction Bar Association, the Society of Construction Law, Bar European Group and the European Circuit.

Master Wingate-Saul was elected as a Governing Bencher of the Inn in 1993. He was much involved in the Inn’s life on Circuit, particularly the Highgate House Weekends. He retired in 2005.

SIBGHATULLAH KADRI QC

23 April 1937 – 2 November 2021

Master Kadri (Sibghatullah Kadri QC) was called to the Bar in 1969. He went on to become a leading civil rights lawyer and an authority on immigration laws, Sharia law and race relations in Britain. He was appointed the UK’s first-ever Muslim Queen’s Counsel in 1989.

In 1970, he jointly founded the Society of Afro-Asian and Caribbean Lawyers, now known as the Society of Black Lawyers, and became its first Chairman. Three years later, having found it impossible to obtain a tenancy, he established his own set of chambers with the deliberate aim of combating racial prejudice within and beyond the Bar. His efforts were instrumental in persuading the Bar Council in 1982 to acknowledge that the legal profession needed to address the problem of racism by establishing a Working Party on Race Relations. This soon led to the formation of a permanent Race Relations Committee, on which Master Kadri served intermittently throughout the 1980s. For many years thereafter, he remained at the forefront of the struggle against racial discrimination in legal education and at the Bar.

Master Kadri was elected a Governing Bencher of the Inn in 1997. Last year he was Chair and plenary speaker of The Inner Temple’s first round table series Race and the Legal Profession

HIS HONOUR ALISTAIR McCREATH

6 June 1948 – 30 January 2022

Master McCreath was Called to the Bar in 1972. From 1973 for 23 years, he had an initially mixed, but latterly criminal law practice at what was then No 6 Fountain Court in Birmingham, before it became Cornwall Street. His judicial career began in 1986 when he was appointed an Assistant Recorder, subsequently becoming a Recorder in 1990. He was appointed a Circuit Judge in 1996 and sat full time as a judge until his retirement in 2017. Between 1996 and 2006, he sat at Birmingham Crown Court, trying a wide variety of cases, including serious sexual offences, major fraud and, latterly, murder. In 2006, Master McCreath was invited to move to Worcester Combined Court Centre as the Resident Judge. He became the Honorary Recorder of Worcester in 2007. He was appointed a judicial member of the Sentencing Council and trained for the Judicial College, where he was, among many roles, responsible for the development of courses, and the judge in immediate charge of continuing training for the criminal judiciary. In 2011, he was promoted to Senior Circuit Judge and took up his post as Resident Judge at Southwark Crown Court in September of that year, where he presided over many high profile trials. He became Honorary Recorder of Westminster in 2012. In that year, he was also authorised to sit as a Circuit Judge in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). In 2018, he was appointed as a judicial member of the Parole Board.

Master McCreath was elected a Bencher of The Inner Temple in 2008. He sat on various committees over the years, including the Education & Training, Library, and International Committees. He made a tremendous contribution to the Inn as an Advocacy Trainer, and frequently gave his time and considerable expertise to support the Inn’s training of students, pupils, and new advocacy trainers. He regularly proposed students for Call to the Bar and attended events to enhance the Inn’s connections with universities and legal academics.

MICHAEL McPARLAND QC

21 April 1960 – 9 December 2021

Master McParland was called to the Bar in 1983 and began his career in George Carman’s set, New Court Chambers. He took silk in 2017 and joined 39 Essex Street in 2018, after practising for nearly 19 years at Quadrant Chambers. Master McParland had 35 years’ experience of trial and appellate advocacy in domestic and international civil and commercial litigation, arbitration and cross-border insolvency proceedings. He was recognised as a leading expert in cross-border disputes and acted for a wide range of UK and international clients. He was licensed to practise as an Attorney-at-Law by the State Bar of

California and as a barrister in the British Virgin Islands. Master McParland was the author of The Rome I Regulation on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Oxford University Press, 2015), a leading conflict of laws textbook that has been cited as authoritative by judges in the Commercial Court and by the Advocate-General in the European Court of Justice. He became well known for his work as a legal commentator for televised US trials for Sky News, The BBC, ITV and other TV and radio stations.

Master McParland was elected a Governing Bencher of the Inn in 2018. He was Master of Debating and Assistant Master of the Drama Society, and a member of the Student Engagement and Support Committee. He gave much assistance to the Inn in these activities and committees and by hosting incoming delegations of international students, lawyers and judges, He also regularly took lunch in Hall.

THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF THE LAW: THE RULE OF LAW IN TIMES OF INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT:

SHORTCOMINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL ORDER

From a panel discussion held on 17 May 2022 with The Lord Hannay of Chiswick GCMG CH (Chair of the UN All-Party Parliamentary Group), The Rt Hon Dominic Grieve KC (Former Attorney General for England and Wales), Master Andrew Cayley CMG KC (HM Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service, formerly Senior Trial Attorney at the International Criminal Court), and moderated by Master Geoffrey Nice (Gresham Professor of Law 2012–2016,  International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Chair of the China Tribunal and the Uyghur Tribunal)

Master Geoffrey Nice: The Ukraine war has brought international humanitarian law and the trying of war criminals into sharper focus. It has required a rethink about what part international criminal law can play in stopping conflicts that may lead to war, and in what ways it may have failed to deal with crimes committed in war. For example, the public has become aware of how Russia’s power of veto in the Security Council of the United Nations can block trial by the International Criminal Court (ICC) of the most obvious crime of aggression that Russia may have committed.

Where international humanitarian law has sometimes been proved wanting, and war crimes trials have sometimes perhaps been shown to be deficient, may human rights law – which overlaps with international humanitarian law, the law of war – have been breached beyond what is justified in armed conflict and then disregarded in overlong tribunal hearings? If the law of war and the trials that follow fail mankind, may human rights themselves be gravely at risk?

However, at no point in time since the United Nations was founded in 1945, would or could its Security Council have been able to act against one of its permanent members. That’s a simple fact. The veto is for the five permanent members. Because just ask yourself the question: would Stalin, or indeed Roosevelt and Truman, have agreed if there hadn’t been a veto? No, they wouldn’t. So, to those who believe that the Charter could now be rewritten to abolish the veto, I fear I have to tell you, you are lacking in realism. And then there’s the other question, why not eject Russia or suspend it because it has acted so egregiously? Well, the Charter does not actually provide for that.

Tonight’s speakers have CVs available online to intimidate students and shame the rest of us: Lord David Hannay, GCMG, Companion of Honour; Andrew Cayley, CMG KC, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of the CPS; and The Right Honourable Dominic Grieve, Attorney General from 2010 to 2014.

Lord Hannay: I confess to some trepidation in accepting the invitation to address this distinguished gathering of lawyers on a subject which was summarised to me as: “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has prompted doubts about the effectiveness of international humanitarian law generally, especially in the light of the composition of the UN Security Council, while Russia sustains an effective veto on prosecutions at the International Criminal Court.”

I will address these issues more from a diplomatic and geopolitical angle than from a purely legal one. The UN has taken some heavy knocks since Russia triggered that war of aggression against Ukraine nearly three months ago, and who could not have been moved by the anguish and the anger with which President Zelensky addressed the Security Council for being unable to brand Russia’s aggression for what it is: a clear breach of innumerable provisions of international law, not least the founding Charter of the United Nations itself.

The UN has taken some heavy knocks since Russia triggered that war of aggression against Ukraine nearly three months ago, and who could not have been moved by the anguish and the anger with which President Zelensky addressed the Security Council for being unable to brand Russia’s aggression for what it is: a clear breach of innumerable provisions of international law, not least the founding Charter of the United Nations itself.

But you shouldn’t overlook the UN and the body of international law it has built up in the 75 years of its existence. Do not forget either, the vital humanitarian work of the UN’s agencies: the refugee agency, the migration organisation, the Children’s Fund. These are vital in circumstances such as occur in Ukraine. The High Commissioner for Refugees, and the migration institutions are helping to mitigate the suffering from the largest migration crisis in Europe since the Second World War.

But that brings me to the vexed question of impunity from war crimes, the prima facie evidence which accumulates daily in Ukraine, and which has naturally attracted a great deal of attention. Well, I was one of those who, immediately after the Russian invasion, signed an appeal to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its prosecutor to begin collecting evidence on the basis of which action could subsequently be taken. The positive reaction to that plea by the prosecutor was extremely welcome, as was the contribution that our own government is making to the court’s resources in this respect.

If the law of war and the trials that follow fail mankind, may human rights themselves be gravely at risk?

Ukrainian Monument of Independence located in the center of Kiev on Independence Square © Adobe Stock

And you have to welcome the appointment of Sir Howard Morrison, a distinguished former judge of the International Criminal Court, to advise the government of Ukraine on the marshalling of the evidence that would have to be brought before the court. Is this route to justice rendered nugatory by the fact that the ICC is not mandated by statute to bring charges of war of aggression? I don’t believe that does have that effect. First, the ICC has shown in several of its early cases that it is ready to tackle the issue of command responsibility, which is the link which will lead to Putin. Should the international community go further than that and establish a new international tribunal, like the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals after the Second World War, explicitly empowered to try cases of wars of aggression? I’m not at all sure that that would be either wise or effective. The citing of the Nuremberg and Tokyo precedents should remind us that those tribunals were only able to function as a result of the defeat in war of the offending regimes, the occupation of their capital cities, and the capture of their leaders. Well, in our nuclear weapons era, that’s not going to happen. We are not going to march to Moscow. And so it is important to bear that in mind if you want to weigh up the chances of an alternative route.

Now it’s often said that a country goes to war with the armed forces that it has, not with the ones it wishes it had. Well, I would argue in favour of going to court with the instances which already exist, not with those we would ideally like to have.

Now it’s often said that a country goes to war with the armed forces that it has, not with the ones it wishes it had. Well, I would argue in favour of going to court with the instances which already exist, not with those we would ideally like to have.

Master Andrew Cayley: I watched with real, profound sadness when I saw the failures of international institutions after the invasion of Ukraine. The UN Security Council couldn’t act because of Russia’s veto. So not only could it not refer the case to the International Criminal Court, it couldn’t refer the crime of aggression, because Russia vetoed it, but it couldn’t take any other measures under Chapter VII of the Charter. It was paralysed. So, it sent the matter to the General Assembly of the United Nations – and all that the General Assembly has done is to condemn Russia and request that it withdraws from the Ukraine, and of course that has not happened.

Then the Ukraine found a hook into the International Court of Justice – under the Genocide Convention, there is a provision where any Parties to the Convention who have a dispute over its interpretation can go to the permanent court and ask for the judges to give an interpretation. And Putin, and many of the other leaders in the Russian Federation, had given genocide as a justification for invading Ukraine.

And because this allegation had been made against Ukraine, Ukraine was able to go to the International Court of Justice and say: “Look, you need to decide whether this is genocide, because we say this is nonsense, but that’s what Putin says.” And the court acted, and it found jurisdiction for the Ukrainians, and it was able to take what are called ‘provisional measures’ to support Ukraine. Part of those provisional measures was to condemn Russia, ask Russia to respect international law calling for the withdrawal of Russian forces from the Ukraine, calling for the protection of civilians – and of course, nothing happens.

Let me talk briefly about the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, because that’s a court which had its problems. The Khmer Rouge Tribunal was a hybrid court. There were a lot of problems in establishing the court because the Cambodian government wanted to control the court. The Khmer Rouge was an extremist Maoist political movement – it governed Cambodia between 1975 and 1979. And during that time, it either murdered, worked, or starved to death over two million people. The court took many years to establish, but eventually it was established in 2007.

It wasn’t established in the same way as the Yugoslav Tribunal, which was a product of the Security Council. The court was staffed, by both Cambodian nationals and by internationals from the UN. All of the Cambodian staff were in the pocket of the government. So, any decisions that we tried to take were never really that independent. Was it corrupt? Yes. I struggled with that every day. I still struggle with it now. We did two trials. The first trial involved the trial of the commandant of S21, which was an extermination camp in Phnom Penh that murdered 18,000 people over the space of three years: women and children, elderly people, in the most horrific circumstances. We prosecuted him, convicted him, he got 19 years after trial. On appeal he got a whole life sentence. He died in prison two years ago: Comrade Duch.

We then tried the four remaining leaders of the Khmer Rouge, very elderly people. Two of them died during trial, one before trial. We ended up trying the deputy to Pol Pot who’d been the leader of the Khmer Rouge, and the former president, Khieu Samphan. We convicted both of them at trial, but Nuon Chea, the deputy to Pol Pot, died before appeal.

War in Ukraine – A damaged shopping center in Kyiv © Adobe Stock

And I’m afraid the truth is that the ultimate rationale is force States enforce the law. If we break the law in this country, we will end up in court because the state has the power to do that.

When one’s dealing with international tribunals, one has to recognise that, as there is no overarching international authority, ultimately, states can take action, and if they are strong enough, they will never be brought to justice, however badly they behave. It is no surprise that China, despite its gross human rights violations in a number of settings, is essentially immune from pursuit through the courts.

One of the complaints which is made about the International Criminal Court is that the countries which tend to end up in front of the ICC are often what might be described as ‘weaker states’, which can be effectively coerced by the leverage of others into accepting court jurisdiction. That’s what happened essentially with Milosevic over Serbia: a willingness finally to bend because the political advantages of bending to the will of the United Nations as expressed through the International Criminal Court are seen as being more advantageous than protecting Milosevic.

Ultimately, this is a flawed process. But that doesn’t make it an invalid one, however chaotic and difficult it might be. Over time, the standards of behaviour of states and individuals within it are subtly raised by the evidence that individuals can end up in front of international tribunals for breaches of international humanitarian law. It’s a drip feed, which we need as a country to add to. And indeed, we have been fairly consistent. Although it is worth bearing in mind there were times when the United Kingdom government thought it exceptionally irksome that allegations, for example of misconduct of UK forces in Iraq, should have to be investigated.

Ultimately, the process did work, if only, mainly, in establishing that in many cases the violations that had been alleged had not occurred. So difficult as it may have been, it was good for us.

eventually we will see Putin brought to justice, because you never know how the political impact of the existence of humanitarian norms will ultimately play out.

It needs us, as lawyers, to sign up to it and to argue for it, because there have been occasions, even in the United Kingdom, where people seem to think that it would be much nicer if we had an easier system. The government introduced legislation not so long ago, until it was got rid of successfully in the Lords, to seek to remove some of the requirements to observe international humanitarian law – or at least the ability to investigate it – from UK forces, something which I should add attracted massive resistance within the armed forces themselves, which I think shows how you can raise standards.

And before we despair, I will just say in conclusion, we undoubtedly, as we can see in the Ukraine, live in a violent world, but I think sometimes we underestimate the extent to which, despite our gross imperfections, the world is in fact a much less violent place than it has probably been at any time since humanity began. And for that, we have to be thankful for the rules-based system that we’ve been able to establish.

For the full video recording: innertemple.org.uk/shortcomings

Sir Geoffrey Nice KC

The Lord Hannay of Chiswick GCMG CH

Andrew Cayley CMG KC

The Rt Hon Dominic Grieve KC

CREATING MOMENTS OF SANCTUARY

The words ‘sanctuary’ and ‘oasis’ are often cited in reference to the Garden, words that conjure a feeling as much as a description. With recent events, these feelings are as important as ever. The vision is for this atmosphere to continue beyond the historic Garden gates, to connect the Garden to the existing courtyards across the Inn, adding more areas of green and sanctuary. It was with this in mind that planting designs for the terraces surrounding the Treasury Building and Hall were formed to coincide with the completion of Project Pegasus. The architecture and history of the building seemed the most appropriate place to start to inform the planting design. During Georgian times, the terrace to the front of Hall was considered the most pleasant part of the Inn. Protected and south facing, the aspect may have played a part in this, alongside the medieval architecture of the building. Following bombing in World War II, the Treasury Building and Hall were rebuilt. A neo-Georgian style was favoured by architect Sir Hubert Worthington rather than rebuilding in its former guise. The design focused on classical proportions and formal symmetry. Poignantly, given recent events, the newly crowned Queen Elizabeth II laid the foundation stone for Hall on 13 November 1952.

Many readers will already be aware that during the postwar construction of the Treasury Building, the Inn ran out of funds and so the full design of a mansard roof with dormer windows was not delivered. However, Project Pegasus has now completed Sir Hubert Worthington’s original design. The mansard roof structure and dormer windows are now in place, giving height and grandeur to the building. For the new planting designs, it was felt the classical symmetry of the completed Treasury Building needed to be accentuated, alongside creating a courtyard ‘oasis’ in front of Hall and next to the foundation stone laid by Queen Elizabeth II. The planting chosen is formal, yet soft and inviting, in addition to taking advantage of the microclimate of the south facing aspect. The planting and materials already present across the wider Inn have also been considered for continuity. Before the Project, the clipped Bay trees (Laurus nobilis) previously on the Pegasus Bar Terrace were relocated to new locations such as outside Paper Buildings. These were very welcome in their new homes and so the decision was made to keep them there. After much deliberation, clipped Bay trees were chosen again for outside Pegasus Bar and for them to repeat along the Treasury Terrace, their simplicity complementing the architecture and providing continuity to the others now located across the estate. In addition, the classical associations of Bay trees to wisdom are fitting for the educational purpose of the Inn.

The scale of the Bay trees needed to complement the scale of the building, and so larger specimen trees were sourced. The Bay trees alternate along the Treasury Terrace with planters of pollinator friendly English Lavender (Lavandula angustifolia) combined with airy Fennel (Foeniculum vulgare). These help to add softness and create the desired welcoming atmosphere. Stone bowls of trailing rosemary (Salvia rosmarinus Prostratus Group) add finishing touches to the aromatic planting scheme. These all lead to the showpieces at the entrance, the commissioned lead planters embellished with the Pegasus crest. The planters were made by the Kent based craftsmen at English Leadworks. These delineate the main entrances, providing a ‘firm handshake’ of a welcome as one enters the new building.

The Hall Terrace has its own character, the wish was for it to feel more akin to a courtyard with places to sit and contemplate. Four large rectangular lead planters were repositioned along the base of the wall. These had previously been around the pond before the Pond Garden project took place. These highlight the symmetry of the building and frame the engraved foundation stone to the centre. Within, Fig trees (Ficus carica) have been planted, the heat and protection of the walls hopefully ensuring a good crop of fruit as the plants mature. Soft waves of understory planting come from layers of bulbs and sun loving perennials. These have included the delicate Tulipa ‘Peppermint stick’ with its soft pink face opening to the sun; a choice selection of Benton Iris; the delicate grass, Stipa pseudoichu; and drumstick alliums, Allium sphaerocephalon All are thriving in the baking conditions. The beds either side of the entrance to the Treasury Building also include some choice selections including South African Leucadendron ‘Safari Sunset’, a member of the Protea family.

The classical associations of Bay trees to wisdom are fitting for the educational purpose of the Inn.

The main addition to the Hall Terrace comes from the structural planting formed of a row of pleached Lime (Tilia × euchlora) trees, enclosing the space. Pleaching is the art of training trees to form a raised flat screen. These were sourced from Majestic Trees and have large, glossy, heart shaped leaves which age to golden shades of yellow in the autumn. The pleached trees help to frame the building and the Terrace, allowing views outward to the Garden when sat on the iron benches. The Treasurer had the fitting idea of planting these trees as part of the ‘The Queen’s Green Canopy’, in dedication to the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee. These are planted directly opposite the engraved foundation stone. Planted to celebrate the Jubilee, the trees are now a reminder of a year of public celebration and also mourning. During this period of great change, it is hoped that the new planting design provides moments of ‘sanctuary’ and ‘oasis’ surrounding the Treasury Building and Hall for all who come to the Inn.

Sean Harkin Head Gardener

The Treasurer had the fitting idea of planting these trees as part of the ‘The Queen’s Green Canopy’, in dedication to the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee … The trees are now a reminder of a year of public celebration and also mourning. During this period of great change, it is hoped that the new planting design provides moments of ‘sanctuary’ and ‘oasis’.

DISTANCES WITHOUT SCALE AND COMPASS:

JOHN ADAMS OF THE INNER TEMPLE (C 1643–90)

By Dr Stephen Gadd

In July 1677, it was announced in The London Gazette that John Adams “of The Inner-Temple” had produced “A New Large Map of England full six foot square”, enabling merchants and armchair travellers for the first time to see at a glance the “computed and measured miles” between market towns and other significant places. Adams presented a copy of his map to The Inner Temple, where it would hang in the Library for many years.

Thomas Palmer had produced a somewhat sketchy roadmap of England and Wales in 1668, but this was based on surveys undertaken by Christopher Saxton (in the 1570s) and John Norden, and errors had accrued with the publication of each successive ‘new’ map, including those of John Speed. Also, as Adams observed, “The Space of One hundred years, and the late Civil War hath much altered the face of the Kingdom; many Castles and Ancient Seats have been demolished, and several considerable Houses since erected, Market Towns disused, and others new made”. Following an extensive survey, John Ogilby published in 1675 the first detailed strip-maps showing the country’s principal roads, but Adams seems to have perceived a need for a more comprehensive and spatiallyrepresentative map.

The Space of One hundred years, and the late Civil War hath much altered the face of the Kingdom; many Castles and Ancient Seats have been demolished, and several considerable Houses since erected, Market Towns disused, and others new made.

John Adams was born in Shrewsbury in about 1643 and followed his four older brothers in attending Shrewsbury School. His eldest brother, William, was admitted to Gray’s Inn in 1655 but never progressed to the Bar and settled back in Shropshire where he would later assist John as a surveyor. Following his marriage to Jane Wrottesley in about 1665, John became embroiled in litigation with his brother-in-law concerning his wife’s dowry, an experience of the law which may ultimately have led to his admission to The Inner Temple in 1672. Here Adams will have witnessed the publication of Ogilby’s maps and made contact with one of Ogilby’s surveyors, Gregory King, whom he engaged to engrave his 1677 map.

1692 Reissue of Adams’ 6ft 1677 map

Detail from the above map

Aware that he had needed to omit a great many places shown on Saxton’s and Norden’s county maps, Adams began to compile a list of them, and engaged King to supplement this list by extracting place-names from the recently collected records of the Hearth Tax surveyors. The resulting Index Villaris, published in 1680, contains no fewer than 24,000 entries detailing key information about each place, and King engraved a reduced version of the 1677 map to accompany it. The inclusion of geographical co-ordinates for every place, calculated by triangulating the distances between places reported by his correspondents, is testament to Adams’ vision and tenacity.

Within months of being called to the Bar in November 1680, and having decided that his triangulation calculations were inadequately exact, Adams was soliciting subscriptions for an Actual Survey of all the Counties in England and Wales, which was to be done “in a more particular manner than has ever hitherto been attempted”. He was encouraged by Robert Hooke and other members of the Royal Society, and Charles II proclaimed that he was to be helped to “make his observations from all the eminent high lands, hills and steeples for placing the cities, market towns, parishes, villages and private seats in their true positions”.

In 1682, Adams was in Lancashire (where he was admitted as a foreign burgess in Preston), and through his surviving correspondence with Sir Daniel Fleming we learn that he had been surveying in Devon and Cornwall in 1681, and that by the end of September 1683 he had hoped to have “one or more Counties Completed”. A ‘Specimen’ map of Shropshire at the British Library, resembling in form the 1677 map and again engraved by King, may date from this time, and includes some additional post roads, place-names, and adjusted mileages.

Within months of being called to the Bar in November 1680, and having decided that his triangulation calculations were inadequately exact, Adams was soliciting subscriptions for an Actual Survey of all the Counties in England and Wales.

By April 1685, Adams had enlisted the financial backing of several hundred subscribers and “made considerable progress”, but needed yet more funds, to which end James II proclaimed his support for “the speedy completing of so good and useful a work”. Following a bout of illness, in late April 1687 Adams asked to be excused from his duties at The Inner Temple and gave up his rooms there, perhaps to devote all of his energies to his survey. Evidently struggling to complete his survey and worried by ill-health, in a letter to Archbishop Sancroft in June 1688 Adams wrote that “if I live I resolve … to do the utmost that lyes in my power for the satisfaction of yor Lordship and the rest of my Encouragers”. Gregory King recorded that Adams died in 1690 “a Souldier in Ireland”, “before he had perfected any thing” of his survey, but William Gilpin suggested in 1694 that “Mr Adams’ papers (wch I believ may be retrieved) would improve many of ye Maps”. Indeed, it seems quite possible that Adams’ papers had already been acquired by Robert Morden, an engraver who, like King, had been an agent for the sale of Adams’ original map in 1677.

In 1695, without commissioning or undertaking any surveying work himself, Morden published a complete set of English county maps, which ongoing research may show to have benefitted from Adams’ work: curiously, his Shropshire map is especially highly-detailed. Further research might shed light on John Adams’ death in Ireland as a soldier in the year of the Battle of the Boyne.

Dr Stephen Gadd @docuracy

The author is a freelance historical researcher, GIS consultant, and opera singer. His recent engagements have included work for Layers of London and for the British Library’s Locating a National Collection project.

BL Maps * 4900.(1.)

THE INNER TEMPLE BIG PICNIC

THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF THE LAW: ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION:

From a panel discussion held on 13 June 2022, with Master Rehana Popal (33 Bedford Row) and Anthony Vaughan (Doughty Street Chambers), moderated by Master Robert Buckland (Secretary of State for Justice and Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain 2019–2021 and Inner Temple Bencher), and introduced by Master Geoffrey Nice (Gresham Professor of Law 2012–2016)

Introduction by Master Geoffrey Nice:

Master Rehana Popal is a former child refugee, and the first woman of Afghan descent to become a barrister in England and Wales. Her practice from 33 Bedford Row encompasses all aspects of public and civil law, with a significant focus on international protection of human rights, community and education law.

Anthony Vaughan practices from Doughty Street in public law and human rights with focus on cases involving immigration, criminality, national security, deprivation of liberty and human trafficking, with cases of great complexity being his speciality.

The Right Honourable Sir Robert Buckland KC MP, a member of this Inn, and a Welsh Conservative Party politician who served as both Solicitor General and then as Justice Secretary will moderate and contribute to the discussion this evening.

Rehana Popal: What is a refugee? The 1951 Convention is what protects refugees, and it defines a refugee as a person who is “outside his or her country of nationality, or habitual residence, and has a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of his or her race, religion, nationality, member of a particular social group, or political opinion, and” – this is the crucial part – “is unable or unwilling to avail him or herself of the protection of that country or to return there, for fear of persecution”

What led to the creation of our current refugee system? It first was started in the aftermath of World War One when millions of people fled their homelands in search of refuge. And governments responded at that time by drawing up a set of international agreements to provide travel documents and to allow these people to move between countries. These were effectively the first documented refugees of the 20th century.

Their numbers increased dramatically, and for obvious reasons, after World War Two. World War Two saw the secondlargest migration wave in the 20th century, as millions more were forcibly displaced, deported, or resettled. But throughout the 20th century, the international community steadily began to assemble a set of guidelines and laws and conventions to ensure that there was adequate treatment of refugees, and to protect their human rights.

The process first began under the League of Nations in 1921. And then in July 1951, a diplomatic conference was held in Geneva and adopted the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees which is now referred to as the ‘1951 Convention’. That convention was also later amended by the 1967 Protocol. Together, the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol remain the cornerstone of refugee protection.

One of the key questions that is always asked is: what is the difference between a migrant and a refugee? The terms are used interchangeably, when in fact there is a clearcut difference between the two. Refugees are forced to flee because of a threat of persecution, and because of a lack of protection within their own country. A migrant, in comparison, may leave his or her country for many reasons that are not related to persecution, such as for the purposes of employment, family unification or study. A migrant continues – and this is a key point – to enjoy the protection of his or her own government when they are abroad.

What is not relevant for the purposes of the Refugee Convention, or for the purposes of the definition of who constitutes a refugee, is how they seek to enter the country. And under the 1951 Convention, a person cannot be prosecuted or persecuted on the basis of how they seek to enter.

One of the key questions that is always asked is: what is the difference between a migrant and a refugee? The terms are used interchangeably, when in fact there is a clear-cut difference between the two.

DO SOVEREIGN ISLAND NATIONS HAVE A DUTY TO PROVIDE REFUGE?

So, who or what determines whether a person is a refugee?

The 1951 Convention does not prescribe a particular procedure for the determination of whether a person is a refugee – an individual assessment is the preferred approach. In other words, it’s up to each nation state to create their own process and how they choose to process refugees and determine their applications. Any procedure obviously must be fair and efficient. We cannot allow people to be left in limbo for years and years. And the process should also be very transparent so that people are aware of, if they have not been granted asylum, what the reasons are, and to have the mechanisms or the ability to challenge that decision.

And so we come back to the big broad question: does a sovereign island nation have a duty to provide refuge? Now if we were to break up the question of duty into two parts, one is a legal duty and the second is a moral duty. Do sovereign island nations have a legal duty to provide refuge? No, is the very simple short answer.

Ultimately, each state is sovereign. It is a matter for its country and its people, for its parliament or its elected representatives, to determine whether or not to be the kind of nation state that provides refuge for people fleeing persecution or needing protection. If parliament wishes tomorrow at the stroke of a pen to decide “We are going to opt out of the Refugee Convention and we are no longer going to be a nation state that provides refuge”, that is entirely within the gift of parliament to do so. That is very distinctly different from the moral question. Do sovereign nations have a moral duty to provide refuge? Now, on that basis, many of us would argue: “Well, absolutely, yes”. Particularly when the nation state in question is partially responsible for those people who are fleeing.

One of the cornerstones of the 1951 Convention is the principle of non-refoulement that is contained within article 33. And according to this principle, a refugee should not be returned to a country where he or she faces serious threats to his or her life or freedom. The principle of non-refoulement is considered a rule of customary international law. And as such, it is binding on all states, regardless of whether or not they have acceded to the 1951 Convention, or the 1967 Protocol. What they cannot do is essentially send individuals back to countries where they know they will be persecuted, because that would be a breach of international law, separate from the Refugee Convention.

Master Robert Buckland: The question for me isn’t so much a moral one. I take that as a given that we have a moral duty to accept refugees. The question is whether or not we have a legal one. I think that the obligations placed upon us by international convention are very important. Domestic law since that time has been built upon the fact that we are a signatory to Geneva and its 1967 extension.

When it comes to our record, I think that the United Kingdom has a very proud one. But it’s easy and unfair to somehow label the most recent developments as somehow a complete sea change from the past. I think this country does, and will continue to, warmly welcome refugees from whatever part of the world they come from. And it’s important for us not to be seen in any way to discriminate on the basis of where people are from. You know, there isn’t such a thing as a good refugee or a bad refugee.

Now the system itself is struggling. It is plagued by delay. It is beset by administrative difficulty, which is just as hard for the refugee as it is for the system. I deal regularly with cases where people have been waiting for years for their status to be resolved. And I think we are missing so many opportunities for them to make a contribution, and a constructive contribution, to our country whilst they have to wait. I think that the prohibition on work is wrong. Taking a leaf out of the Danes’ book, we should be legislating to allow asylum seekers the right to do some productive work whilst they’re here. They want to do it. I know from my own experience, sadly, the prohibition means that many take work of an irregular nature. And that means that they get exploited, and that means that the wages they earn are well below the living wage.

That is, I’m afraid, my lived experience and I think it’s a missed opportunity for refugees and indeed for our country. And that doesn’t mean because they are working that somehow then rights have to be acquired. I think everybody understands that the system of due process should take place and, indeed, the refugee charities that I speak to understand that there will be a need for deportations where due process has been exhausted and where the status of that individual is not one that’s been established to be one of a refugee.

And so we’re left with a rather confused debate at the moment. A debate that, as Rehana said, is often mixed up between migrants and refugees where the terms have become interchangeable, which I agree with her is inappropriate, and where perhaps the scale of the challenge isn’t fully understood, as well.

It’s a deeply controversial issue. It’s one that is occupying the minds of many of us whether we’re lawyers or not, but it is one, I think, that any responsible government does have to address even if, at times, the rhetoric that we hear is not up to the occasion and doesn’t actually deal with the reality of the challenges being faced, not just by asylum seekers themselves, but by the system that we have developed.

I think this country does, and will continue to, warmly welcome refugees from whatever part of the world they come from … There isn’t such a thing as a good refugee or a bad refugee.

Anthony Vaughan: “Do sovereign island nations have a duty to provide refuge?” And the unequivocal answer is: “Yes, they do”. They do because of the Refugee Convention. There is also a duty because of section 3 of the Asylum Appeals Act 1996, which retains the duty of the Home Office to act in accordance with the Refugee Convention. But it isn’t just about what parliament says. It is a norm of customary international law that you do not send a person on to a country where they would face real risk of serious harm and persecution. And so at the level of international law, the principle is absolutely sound.

The basis for this debate is that the government accepts the principle of refugee protection. This is a system which is aimed at people who haven’t got any criminal convictions or any concern on the part of the Home Office with respect to absconding or reoffending. This system is directed at people who are claiming asylum. It is not directed at people who are simply being resettled. What this system is doing is essentially taking advantage of existing legal machinery: so, the normal position is that an asylum seeker cannot be removed until their asylum claim is finally determined. Now, there are exceptions to that within the existing domestic framework, in respect, for example, of countries where it’s generally known that human rights would be respected.

In respect of countries like Rwanda, the government is taking advantage of a power which allows the Home Office to certify a given place as generally safe; but in order to use this, the Home Office had to come up with an agreement with Rwanda. There’s a big question which the High Court will ultimately be dealing with in these cases: is that Memorandum of Understanding worth the paper it is written on? At the moment, the indications are that it isn’t. The UNHCR position, before the High Court and Court of Appeal, was that they have very serious concerns about both the asylum processing stage and in relation to ongoing refoulement.

So, it simply isn’t right to say this isn’t about refugee status determination; it expressly is about that. And that is why we have to think very carefully about this scheme, in a country which is governed by the rule of law and due process. Do we want to sanction, as a country, the taking away of important rights for people who fall under the protection of the law? Or do we want to say that this is a flawed attempt to try to get out of the principle of refugee protection, which the government has presumably accepted that it will abide by?

It may be that it would be rather absurd to say that we don’t want to abide by that principle, because pretty much every civilised country in the world has committed to that principle. And so, what we have is the Home Office creating a system by meeting the Rwandan authorities on a few occasions, which may look okay on paper, as they present it to us. But even on the Home Office’s own evidence, they’re relying, for example, on the right of appeal to the Rwandan High Court, even though no asylum seeker has ever appealed to it before . So, we have no idea, since it’s entirely untested, whether or not that remedy is in fact a remedy, still less an effective remedy.

Then the issue of legal aid: is the person going to have access a lawyer? I think it’s in the Memorandum of Understanding that legal advice will be provided, but again, who’s paying for it? Is it provided in every case? What about interpreters? It’s all very well giving somebody an application process, but if the person can’t be understood, what’s the point of it? It’s very unclear in what circumstances interpreters are provided. There are lots of serious questions here, and very real access-to-justice concerns about this scheme.

Sir Robert refers to community cohesion as being potentially part of the basis for these policies. But you don’t get community cohesion from sending people back to torture. Also, this government’s response to the recent litigation has played into the “culture war” approach of creating the idea that you have lefty lawyers who are unjustifiably sticking their oar in when, actually, the reality is there is a very real concern that needs to be argued on behalf of affected individuals.

Sir Robert is right that the challenge in addressing small boats crossing the channel is tackling the smuggling gangs; but the reason why the UK can’t return people to France is because the power to do this, via the Dublin Regulation, ended when we left the European Union. The problem of small boats can only be addressed by providing safe and legal routes to claim asylum, without which people will die at sea so long as they are being left out in the cold.

To sum up, we must provide refuge for proper refugee status determination to take place in this country; and only if an asylum claim is properly and lawfully rejected on its merits, should any question of removal arise.

Sir Geoffrey Nice KC

The Rt Hon Sir Robert Buckland KBE KC MP Rehana Popal Anthony Vaughan

For the full video recording of this lecture: innertemple.org.uk/asylum

We must provide refuge for proper refugee status determination to take place in this country; and only if an asylum claim is properly and lawfully rejected on its merits, should any question of removal arise.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN MALAYSIA: A

POST-PANDEMIC PICTURE

By Karyn Khor

As the world cautiously emerges from the COVID-19 pandemic era, one thing has become abundantly clear: legal practice and the machinery of justice have changed drastically, and will never be the same again.

When Malaysian court buildings and law firms were required to close their doors by the government’s movement control order (MCO) on 18 March 2020, it was difficult to imagine how it would impact the legal practice and the administration of justice. In fact, many people still held on to a hope that, like other diseases before it, COVID-19 would only persist for a number of weeks at most. However, as it became increasingly apparent that this was not going to be the case and government lockdowns showed little sign of returning to ‘normal’, the Malaysian courts and lawyers sprang into quick and decisive action.

The goal was to restore the legal system to full operations as much as possible, in spite of the government’s lockdowns and social distancing orders, and whilst ensuring minimal negative impact on the health and wellbeing of the public at large.

These efforts have certainly borne much fruit. In the two years since then, many aspects of the Malaysian legal system have changed. The court’s existing electronic filing system, implemented in Malaysia around a decade ago, was quickly supplemented with improved digital case management systems, court recording and transcription systems, and voice-to-text systems. In East Malaysia, sentencing decisions in the courts of Sabah and Sarawak found assistance in an artificial intelligence tool. Court registrars were trained to use video conferencing as a means of carrying on trials when courts were physically closed or over the permitted capacity, which proved invaluable as many witnesses, plaintiffs, or defendants (or their counsel) were under quarantine, stuck overseas and unable to return, or otherwise unable to physically appear before the court.

With the introduction of new technologies and systems, the existing rules and guidelines also needed to be updated. The year 2020 saw new protocols developed for the administration of online court proceedings. Malaysian laws and rules governing court proceedings were also amended, such as the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 and the Rules of Court 2012. The principal change was to account for the use of ‘remote communication technology’, which is defined as ‘a live video link, a live television link or any other electronic means of communication’, for the running of trials.

Of course, Malaysian practitioners also played their part to ensure the smooth operation of the country’s legal systems. Outside of the courtrooms, law firms quickly sourced digital file management and contract management systems and carried out basic training for the use of video conferencing systems and the court’s electronic filing platforms, especially for the more senior practitioners who were less familiar with the technology. On the corporate side, meetings and negotiations were scheduled around video conferencing applications, and brought to the forefront various issues which suddenly needed an urgent resolution: the question of acceptance of a digital signature and ‘virtual’ witnessing of signatures, how exchanges of valuable, original documents were to be carried out amidst the government’s movement and quarantine restrictions, being among them. The ability to think outside the box had always been a valuable skill for a lawyer, and this was accentuated during the pandemic as clients sought out legal advisors who not only understood business strategy and boardroom dynamics, but also displayed the ability to adapt to fast-changing circumstances and properly navigate and manage a crisis.

The ability to think outside the box had always been a valuable skill for a lawyer, and this was accentuated during the pandemic.

One cannot speak of external stakeholders without also considering the importance of managing internal stakeholders, namely the lawyers, clerks, secretaries and other staff. As business owners, law firm partners also had to deal with the equally important question of retention, as the effects of COVID-19 caused many people to come to question – in some cases, unwillingly – their life’s direction and priorities. Ultimately, a variety of adjustments were made to provide staff with equipment and resources to work from home. Additionally, within the first six months employers began to pick up on the measurable, observable connection between employees’ mental health – a subject which had been very slow to pick up traction in professional circles in the two decades prior to COVID-19 – and work productivity and efficiency. Virtual ‘get-together’ events and online workspaces were set-up and implemented, in attempts to piece together a semblance of a pre-COVID-19 office environment, albeit temporarily. Many employers provided counselling or resources for staff to seek help for their lives outside of work, with multinational corporations and globally affiliated firms leading by example.

Local companies and firms with international networks, connections and affiliations thankfully found themselves already with one foot through the door, as the support which Malaysian companies and businesses received from their foreign counterparts was instrumental in speeding up the process of getting over COVID-19’s initial stumbling blocks. Some of them were already in the process of rolling out programs for mental health awareness and integration of technology into work prior to the COVID-19 lockdowns, and these businesses became the guiding light for others in the local markets.

On the part of the Malaysian courts, similar efforts were made to push the judiciary down a path of technological progression and integration as swiftly and smoothly as possible. Malaysian judges and clerks were dispatched to attend seminars, discussions and workshops on what COVID-19 would mean for the judicial system in the long term, and it is safe to say that, at the very least, Malaysians began to see a potential future where access to and administration of justice are but several mouse clicks away – a far cry from what the average Malaysian could have imagined barely five years ago.

These efforts may not have been ideal, and in many cases the road towards a sustainable process was not paved easily. Forcing an entire country’s workforce to adapt swiftly to new, strict rules is a perilous exercise on its own, much more so given that the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic went far beyond professional work and seeped into everyone’s personal lives. One must recall that all these changes happened while people were learning about COVID-19 itself, and adjusting their processes to every new guideline and standard operating procedure issued by the health authorities. One reminds oneself that, without COVID, these changes would likely not have occurred for many years to come, albeit with fewer sacrifices.

It was doubtless a challenging exercise to establish a new routine and to find a ‘system’ that works; COVID-19 had forced a swift and staggering evolution in legal practice. Now that the threat of COVID-19 has significantly reduced and any further technological integration has returned to being a matter of convenience rather than necessity, it is a good time to look back on where we’ve been for the last two years with a calm and steady gaze, so that the inefficiencies can be improved upon and properly resolved.

Without

If anything, it is clear that there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution. Even within our little country, population roughly 33 million, people from various walks of life were tested on how and what they were willing to personally compromise for the sake of their communities. Work-life integration, which in pre-COVID-19 days was a mere buzzword, seems to be the common way forward. Opposition to the digitisation of legal practice and the dispensation of justice will simply delay the inevitable. It has become a question of ‘when’, not merely ‘if’.

Now that the worst is – hopefully – behind us, it is exciting to imagine how we will step forward into the future. It was both humbling and encouraging that Malaysians were able to benefit from the experiences, infrastructures and technology of our global peers in adapting and integrating technology into business and legal practice. It is now abundantly clear that laws and guidelines to facilitate technology must be further developed clearly, to provide legal certainty whilst ensuring the law is properly upheld. Smart contracts, chatbots, artificial intelligence and more robust technological infrastructure (such as faster and more steady internet and affordable hardware with which to access it) in less developed countries and regions will become ever more crucial to ensuring equal access to justice. The increased efficiencies brought about by technology could be key to creating more jobs and increasing the overall happiness of the legal workforce, provided that care is taken to balance its profit-earning, cost-saving effects against the long-term benefits of ensuring the mental and physical health of the people who make the gears turn in the grand machinery that is the administration of law. Malaysia has proven that it is well equipped and very much capable of marching towards a technology-embracing future; it is the minds and hearts of its people that must be won over if Malaysia is to keep up with its ASEAN neighbours and international counterparts.

At this stage, just off the precipice of one of the most farreaching diseases our generation has seen, it would do the legal profession well to continue to push for the integration of technology in the development of our legal systems. Even if technological innovation is no longer ‘necessary’, other industries and professions continue to embrace it unswervingly, and therefore it is imperative that we in the legal profession do the same. We must make hay while the sun shines, and listen, learn, and share our own ideas amongst our clients, peers, and colleagues so that we, and the legal system we uphold and represent, continue to best serve the people.

Karyn Khor

This article was prepared with the great assistance and contributions of members of The Malaysia Inner Temple Alumni Association.

COVID, these changes would likely not have occurred for many years to come, albeit with fewer sacrifices.

Even within our little country, population roughly 33 million, people from various walks of life were tested on how and what they were willing to personally compromise for the sake of their communities.

Secretary of the Malaysia Inner Temple Alumni Association

IN MEMORIAM

The Inn mourns members of the Inn who have died in the past year:*

Dr Wojciech Kucharczyk 13/08/2021

Mr Richard Viney 26/08/2021

Mr Desmond Pollock 06/09/2021

Mr Giles Wingate-Saul QC 07/09/2021

Miss Georgia Lassoff 10/09/2021

Professor William Ballantyne 14/09/2021

Mr Nigel Hamilton QC 20/09/2021

Mrs Karen Judeh 21/09/2021

Mr Richard Genever 04/10/2021

Miss Pamela Lawrence 12/10/2021

Sir Richard Curtis QC 15/ 10/2021

Mr Sibghat Kadri QC 02/11/2021

Mr Michael McParland QC 09/12/2021

Mr Robert Blackburn 16/12/2021

Mr Richard Southwell QC 26/12/2021

Mrs Cynthia Langdon-Davies 31/12/2021

Mr David Parry 01/01/2022

The Rt Hon the Lord (John) Sainsbury of Preston Candover KG 14/01/2022

Judge Martin Feldman 26/01/2022

His Honour Alistair McCreath 30/01/2022

Sir Stuart McKinnon 28/02/2022

Mr Anthony Connerty 02/04/2022

The Hon Mary MacPherson 07/04/2022

Mr John Heffernan 24/03/2022

Mr Stanley Brodie QC 03/05/2022

Mr Murray Pickering QC 11/05/2022

District Judge James Britton 14/05/2022

Sir Edward Evans-Lombe 20/05/2022

The Rt Hon Viscount John Dilhorne 25/06/2022

Mr John Deby QC 30/07/2022

TIMELINE

By the Archivist

Elizabethan Actors

Only a short time, The Inner Temple was granted similar patronage when King James I granted the masters of The Inner and Middle Temple the “freehold of the Inns of capital messuages known as The Inner Temple” in 1608.

First Performances at the Inn

Formal plays were given during the reign of Queen Elizabeth (1533–1603). But in 1523, we find the first mention of the players or actors (istruonibus) in the Acts of Parliament. It is ordered that an allowance shall be made for them as in the previous year, which was apparently 20s. There is no mention of the play itself which Inderwick believes to be only a masque or interlude, which suggests that informal performances would have been common in the early 16th century.

An Exciting Theatre Scene

In 1623, when theatre had become an established part of the Inn’s culture, an extract can be found in the accounts for payments to the King’s Men for two plays on All Hallows Day and Candlemas 14 li. This acting company, otherwise known as Lord Chamberlain’s Men, or for a brief time, Lord Hudson’s Men, was renowned for its most famous member, William Shakespeare, The company’s prestige had earnt it the patronage of King James I which was given in 1603, “freely to use and exercise the art and faculty of playing comedies, tragedies, histories, enterllades, moralles, pastoralles, stage plays, and such other likes as they have already studies … for the recreation and solace of our loving subjects as for our solace and pleasure… as also within any town hall or moot halls”.

Originally the King’s players were based at the Globe Theatre. In 1596, Richard Burbage purchased the refectory of the Old Blackfriars monastery converting it with galleries above so that approximately 1,000 spectators could attend performances. The theatre became the hub of innovative drama and staging, with the company performing there for seven months in the winter and at the Globe throughout the summer.

Not only did members of the Inns of Court frequently attend the performances in Blackfriars Theatre but the close proximity made them a convenient choice for performances at the Inn. There are several references in the Inn’s accounts mentioning payments to the Blackfriars Players. The First Folio was published in 1623 and we also have the names of the 26 people who were likely ‘principal actors’ who performed at the theatre.

Although plays are never mentioned by name in the Inn’s records, it can be assumed that many of the plays published in the First Folio were performed at the Inn. One can but speculate whether The Duchess of Malfi by John Webster – published in the same year as the First Folio – was also performed as entertainment for members of the Inn.

In 1642, just after the commencement of the Civil War, the Long Parliament ordered the closure of all theatres with a declaration against stage plays as representative of ‘lascivious Mirth and Levity’ but they were resumed after the Restoration, with two performed every year until recent times.

Sir Christopher Wren (1632–1723)

25th February 2023 marks the tricentenary of the death of Sir Christopher Wren who was responsible for much of the rebuilding of the Inn between 1674 and 1682 following the Great Fire of London.

Among the Inn’s accounts for 1682 three are payments for various dinners at the ‘Devil Tavern’. Wren often visited the Temple to superintend the workmen engaged in the various works around the Temple. The foundations and doorway of 4 King’s Bench Walk are attributed to Wren.

There are sadly no surviving drawings of his buildings with the exception of the cloisters which lie within the remit of the Middle Temple.

In May 1682, he concluded that the church was “very ruinous for want of repair” and the cost for the work would not be less than £1,400 which was to be shared between the two societies with every Bencher contributing £3 and every barrister £2. 5s. Even students had to pay their share of £1. 10s each!

A description of the church after Wren’s restoration is to be found in the New View of London published in 1708:

“And lastly in the year 1706 the church was wholly new whitewashed, gilt and painted withing and the Pillars of the Round Tower wainscoted with a new battlement and buttresses on the South Side and other parts of the outside were well repaired; also the figures of the Knights Templars new cleaned and painted, and the iron work enclosing them painted and gilt with gold.

John Hales Treasurer of the Inner House

John Whitfield Treasurer of the Middle House

It is built of the ancient gothic order, the wall stone covered with finishing and strengthened with buttresses; has a treble roof covered with lead, and supported with neat pillars of Sussex marble, and the floor of the whole is paved with black and white marble, that of the chancel 2 steps higher than the middle, and 1 higher than the side aisles; the aisles are 5 in number viz 3 (as usual) running East and West and one cross aisle near the entrance into the chancel, and another parallel with the last, between the west end of the ranges of pews and the screen.

This church is not only antique in its order, neat in its workmanship, and rich in its material, but very beautiful in its finishing, qualifications that seldom are found in one structure. The pillars and floors are not only marble, but the windows are adorned with pretty small columns of the same species of stone. It is well pewed, and wainscoted with right wainscot above 8 ft high; the altar piece is of the same species of timber but much higher, finely carved and adorned with 4 pilasters, and between them 2 columns with entablature of the Corinthian Order; also enrichments of cherubims, a shield, festoon, fruit and leaves enclosed with handsome rail and banister. The pulpit is also finely carved and finniered, placed near the east end of the middle aisle, the soundboard in pendant from the roof of the church. It is enriched with several carved arches, a crown, festoons, cherubims, vases.

The round tower at the west end of the church is supported with 6 pillars wainscoted with oak 5 foot high.

The screen at the west end of aisle is the altarpiece of right wainscot adorned with 10 pilasters of the Corinthian Order, also 3 portals and pediments; and the organ gallery over the middle aperture is supported with 2 neat fluted columns of the Corinthian Order and adorned with entablature and compass pediment, and also the Queen’s Arms finely carved; the intercolumns are large panels in carved frames and near the pediment on the south side is an enrichment of cherubims and the carved figure of the Pegasus, the badge of The Society of the Inner Temple …”

The Swan

Christopher Wren by Godfrey Kneller © National Portrait Gallery, London

Admission of Edwin Chadwick (1800–1890), social reformer

Edwin Chadwick transformed public health in England and around the world. It is perhaps fortunate for us all that his early career at the Bar was so unsuccessful and that he was forced to support himself by writing scientific essays concerning the role of science in government. It was this work that led to his employment by the Royal Commission to inquire into the efficiency of the Poor Law, in which he recommended a central system using trained experts, rather than the parish system run by local representatives and self-government.

Partially as a result of this investigation he realised that much disease could be eradicated by sanitary reform. He convinced the Poor Law board that an enquiry was required to look into the causes of serious outbreak of typhus. He employed doctors to look at the conditions leading to poor health in the population, sending questionnaires to police officers, surveyors and factory inspectors to obtain additional data about the lives of the poor. This resulted in his Report on the Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Population of Great Britain which was published in 1842. He employed John Roe, the surveyor for the district of Holborn and Finsbury to advise on the most efficient way to make drains, leading to the recommendation that every house should have its own water supply.

His report led to The Public Health Act of 1848, marking the first time the government had taken responsibility for the health of its citizens. A Board of Health was established as a result of this Act; medical advisors and surveyors were employed to ensure that water supplies and drainage were installed throughout the country, with facilities for cleansing sewers and watering streets supplied.

He also contributed to many other areas of public policy including criminal justice, education of the poor, tropical hygiene, legislation relating to funerals and burials, the maintenance of roads and organisation of the civil service.

In 1884, he was appointed the first president of the Association of Public Sanitary Inspectors. He was knighted in 1889.

In 2012, he was hailed by Ekelund and Price as the “almost singular progenitor of public health in the UK and elsewhere. The one hundredth anniversary of his death in 1990 was an occasion of serious and deserved plaudits for him in the United States and abroad”.

1922

Centenary of the Call to the Bar of England & Wales of Liaquat Ali Khan, first Prime Minister of Pakistan 2022 marks the centenary of Liaquat Ali Khan’s Call to the Bar of England & Wales by The Inner Temple (1895–1951). Known in Pakistan as the Leader of the Nation, statesman, lawyer and political theorist, he was called to the Bar by The Inner Temple on 10 May 1922, and on 15 August, one day after the partition of India, became the first Prime Minister of Pakistan.

His career was long and varied and although he never practised at the Bar, the skills learnt in training for the Bar were put to good use as a politician. He returned to India in 1923 immediately following his Call determined to address the ill treatment of Indian Muslims under the British Indian government. He initially considered joining fellow Inner Templar Jawaharlal Nehru at the Indian Congress Party but eventually joined the All-India Muslim League led by another Inner Templar Muhammad Jinnah, convinced that Muslims of the subcontinent should have their own state to avoid the possible marginalised status they would have in an independent HinduMuslim state. The Pakistan Constitution is shaped according to an Islamic ideology rather than a European ideological pattern.

He was consistently an “eloquent and principled spokesman” who never compromised on his principles and from the moment of his election to the Provisional Legislative Council in the 1926 elections, he sought to address the mixed problems and challenges faced by the Muslim communities in the United Province.

He sought allies in the Soviet Union and China stating “Pakistan cannot afford to wait. She must take her friends where she finds them…!”

On 16 October 1951, Khan was shot twice in the chest while he was addressing a gathering of 100,000 Rawalpindi. The police immediately shot the presumed murderer who was later identified as professional assassin and Afghan national, Said Akbar.

He remains Pakistan’s longest serving Prime Minister, spending 1,524 days in power.

Celia Pilkington Archivist

Sir Edwin Chadwick © Courtesy of the US National Library of Medicine / public domain Liaquat Ali Khan, 1945 © public domain

THE INNS OF COURT GAINSFORD TRUST

— PROVIDING SUPPORT, COMFORT AND HELP FOR 125 YEARS

By the Reader of the Temple Church

In 1897, The Inner Temple’s awareness, with that of the other Inns, of the social problems on their doorstep, persuaded the Inns of Court to establish a ‘boys’ club and a working men’s club for the relief of poverty of those living within the vicinity of the Inns. So began a mission, to be known formally as the Inns of Court Mission and more recently as the Inns of Court Gainsford Trust, after Gainsford Bruce who was instrumental in its foundation.

Following his Call to the Bar by Middle Temple in 1859, Gainsford Bruce practised on the Northern Circuit before serving as the Conservative Member of Parliament for Holborn from 1888 to 1892, when he became a judge of the Queen’s Bench Division. Sir Gainsford gave his time to a number of charitable causes. The area around Kingsway, Holborn, Roseberry Avenue and Clerkenwell, as well as the land on which the Royal Courts of Justice was built in the 1870s, was notorious in those days for its slums, and for what one observer described as “nests of disorderliness”, infectious disease, prostitution, open sewers and defective drains.

The Mission’s premises in Drury Lane were opened in 1904 by HRH The Prince of Wales, who in 1892 as George, Duke of York had been made a Royal Bencher of Lincoln’s Inn. Originally established for working men and boys, the Mission expanded with the establishment of a ladies’ section in 1919 which provided various support services, including a children’s crèche. Some of the children became members of the Ladies’ Association and called themselves ‘Gainsford Girls’. Although they shared the same premises, the two sections did not mix.

For the men there was a gym in the basement and four full-sized snooker tables upstairs. It was from here that the Gainsford Amateur Boxing Club was run. A member of the club recalls: “It got kids off the streets”. They went on organised holidays and had a rich history of training boxers. On one occasion in 1958 the club was visited by Royal Bencher HRH The Prince Philip. It was suggested to some young men that they should apply to become barristers’ clerks.

In those days the wives of members of the Bench and Bar were encouraged to take an interest in the Ladies’ section and at that time it was the wives who actually did most of the club’s work.

In due course, in the 1980s the lease of the Mission’s premises in Drury Lane came up for renewal. Sir Ralph Gibson skilfully assembled a good deal with some developers who wished to redevelop the valuable site when Covent Garden was being regenerated following the move of the fruit and vegetable market to Nine Elms, Battersea. If it had gone ahead, the deal would have secured the future of the Mission. But when the Covent Garden Community Association heard about the proposals, they vigorously opposed them. They were seen as an attempt by a bunch of overpaid barristers to burnish their social responsibility credentials but really to enable some property developers to benefit from the redevelopment of Covent Garden Market. That effectively killed off the men’s and boys’ section of the Inns of Court Mission.

Members of the Bar were encouraged to get involved in the men’s section for one night a week and to make themselves visible, under the direction of such distinguished judges who chaired the Trust, such as Sir Leslie Scarman and Sir Ralph Gibson as they were then, both of whom went on, amongst other things, to become Chairman of the Law Commission. In 1972, there were 300 members on the men and boys’ side.

However, the Ladies’ Association continued, indeed it flourished. In the 1970s and 1980s, there were on average about 60 pensionable members, many of whom were widows. Members of ‘the Mish’, as it was affectionately known, met regularly for tea and conversation on Tuesday afternoons. There was often some form of entertainment as well: talks, quizzes, magicians, line-dancing and Irish folk singing all featured. The Master of the Temple, Master Robin Griffith-Jones, remembers as a boy on his way home from school, being taken by his mother (who was an active participant in the activities of the Mish) to meet the Ladies.

At Christmas the Ladies met for a lunch, which was hosted by the Inns, followed by carol singing led by the enthusiastic Metropolitan Police Choir, which seemed to grow larger and larger each year and was greatly enjoyed, not least for the badinage and mild flirtation that took place between the ladies and retired policemen.

The religious side of the Mish had been catered for from the start. The minutes of the Council Meeting in May 1945 recorded the announcement, “with a real sense of catastrophe”, that the Reverend George Davey was planning to retire and live in the country. A successor was promptly sought in order to maintain the monthly reading of lessons and prayers which, it was resolved, “must not be allowed to fall into abeyance”. There were also services at Easter and Christmas, conducted by the Master and, latterly, the Reader of the Temple.

There was a gym in the basement and four full-sized snooker tables upstairs.

They were seen as an attempt  by a bunch of overpaid barristers to burnish their social responsibility credentials.

There was an enormous number of other events and outings which were organised by the Gainsford Trust over the years, including visits to St James’s Palace and other royal residences. The Gainsford Ladies regularly contributed to Queen Mary’s Needlework Guild. In 1976, Mrs Allard, aged 90, who had made 60 garments, was presented to HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, a Royal Bencher of Middle Temple. The old ladies were still knitting in 2009 when a table of their woollies was apparently a sell out at the Bench and Bar Arts and Craft Exhibition.

In addition, there were country house luncheon parties at the homes of the Trustees, visits to the theatre and the Royal Opera House, day trips to the seaside at Clacton, Hove, Southend and Worthing, with afternoon tea and cakes of course, and perhaps a stop off at a pub on the coach journey back to London.

All of this charitable activity was funded by legacies and donations from the Bench and Bar and their families and friends. It used to be the practice, until recently, for the Trustees to write to congratulate the new Silks on their appointment and invite them to make an annual donation to the Trust.

There were also fund-raising events such as champagne parties at the Inns and a Ball at the Hurlingham Club and in the Inns. A ball programme in the early 1970s reminded participants that the purpose of the Mission had always been “to provide a good social, friendly and sporting centre in which to help build decent citizens”.

There were also regular opportunities for the Bench and Bar to reveal their creative talents in order to raise money the sale of paintings and other works of art from the Bench and Bar Art Exhibition, held in Lincoln’s Inn Old Hall. The Master of the Temple’s father, Mervyn GriffithJones (then the Common Serjeant of London) donated two of his paintings to the Mission for sale. In 2001, HRH The Prince of Wales (a Royal Bencher of Gray’s Inn) generously lent one of his watercolours for the exhibition.

The lockdown restrictions caused by COVID-19 dealt heavy blows on so many, including charities like the Gainsford Trust. As a result, the regular Tuesday afternoon meetings which took place in a community hall at Leather Lane, punctuated by outings and events, could not take place and hospital visits were no longer permitted. Not only did the number of beneficiaries begin to decrease but retiring members of the Trust’s Council (many of whom had given years of devoted service) became increasingly difficult to replace, with the wives of Judges and barristers often pursuing high-powered jobs themselves and contributing to family life, without the time to commit to voluntary associational activity of the kind represented by the Gainsford Trust.

As a result, after much deliberation, the Trustees decided earlier this year, with the approval of the Trust’s Council, to transfer the Trust’s assets to the Barristers’ Benevolent Association to continue the work of providing support, comfort and help to members of the Bar and their dependants consistent with the Trust’s objectives and the vision of Sir Gainsford Bruce.

The Rev’d Mark Hatcher

Master Mark Hatcher is a former Trustee of the Inns of Court Gainsford Trust. He is the Reader of the Temple at the Temple Church and an honorary Bencher of The Inner Temple.

Portrait of Sir Gainsford Bruce by Ralph Hedley, 1897 (in Middle Temple Bench Apartments)

© The Honourable Society of The Middle Temple with kind permission of the Masters of the Bench of Middle Temple

A ROYAL CONNECTION

By Master Michael Lawson, Master of the Silver

The Platinum Jubilee celebrations this year turned our minds to the royal connections which the Inn has enjoyed over the centuries. We would not have experienced the stability we have over the years, had it not been for the Royal Charter granted by James 1 in 1608 (“the Temple to serve for all time to come for the accommodation and education of the students and practitioners of the laws of the realm”) and confirmed by Letters Patent by Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth in 2008.

Our Royal Benchers and Royal Treasurers attest to the continued connection between our Inn and the monarchy. There is a number of silver items in our collection which have a royal connection, some of which have been described in previous additions of the Yearbook. This year Richard Parsons, our silver expert for 40 years, has written about some less well-known items given, or used, by recent monarchs. We welcome this enduring connection and appreciate their continuing interest in our affairs.

The re-opening of the Treasury building in June by our current Royal Bencher, HRH The Princess Royal was a memorable occasion. The substantial works carried out recognised our need to adapt the post-War building to meet our current and future needs and despite some sadness at the loss of the original Library, the building exudes a confidence in the Inn of its continuing importance as a community of ‘practitioners of the laws of the realm’ and a seat of education for its students.

Down in the basement a significant change has been made to the silver vault. The old wooden cupboards, fitted in the early 1950s at the time of the building of the Treasury, were no longer suitable for the Inn’s silver collection and larger pieces that were regularly used at dinners, for example the candelabra, were at risk of damage as they were taken out and returned. The room was stripped out, new display cabinets and improved lighting were installed but it proved impossible to install air-conditioning. Never mind! We are delighted, and grateful, for the new conditions in which our silver is kept.

We were also delighted to see the silver return to the Inn. During the renovations, various friends guarded our treasures – The Middle Temple, The Worshipful Companies of Vintners, the Pewterers and Goldsmiths all helped, thanks to Richard Parsons’ contacts, and we are most grateful to them all for their kindness. Not one piece was mislaid, and no damage done.

The old wooden cupboards, fitted in the early 1950s at the time of the building of the Treasury, were no longer suitable for the Inn’s silver collection.

His Honour Michael Lawson KC Master of the Silver

Newspaper from 1956 fit out

Vault refit in progress

The New Vault

ROYAL SILVER AND THE INNER TEMPLE

By Richard Parsons

The Inner Temple silver collection ranges from the strictly utilitarian to the entirely decorative. The shape of the object and any provenance is one consideration, but also what it might tell us from the past is to be found from any pictorial or script engraving on the surface. This is particularly evident from coats-of-arms, and those with royal arms make an interesting story.

(An almost adjacent entry in 1607–08 which might be read as an aside against the background of the recent work to the Inn a rather more modest figure than today:

“For building the library and repairing the old library £129. 7s. 1d”.)

It would appear that the gold cup was sent to Holland, accompanied by the rest of the royal treasure on the instructions of Charles I, to help pay for the royalist cause in the Civil War.

Royal contact with The Inner Temple has been evident from the earliest times. Perhaps not the earliest, but possibly the most important, royal connection to the Inn, is mentioned in the General Accounts Book for 1607–08. Here an object is described that it is believed no longer exists.

The passage records:

“To the King’s goldsmith for half the cup which is to be provided to His Majesty £333. 6s. 8d.”

A subsequent entry for the period 1608–09 states:

“To the goldsmith for making a cup of gold which was given to the King with a velvet case, the one half £7. 3s.”

One has to presume that the Middle Temple provided the other half of the gift to James I, because the princely donation referred to in the text was the granting of letters patent of the then members and their successors in perpetuity, of both The Inner and Middle Temples. This grant was for the virtual freehold of the lands on which the two Inns stand today.

The Dutch Layette Basket

The first Princess Royal, Mary, was the daughter to Charles I, who was exiled as a young girl to the Dutch court at the start of the Civil War in 1642. The exceptionally fine and large Dutch silver Layette Basket of 1645, found in the Hall showcase, is a testament to this. The centre of the basket has an embossed representation of the armorials of her husband, the young Prince William of Orange, and the British royal arms for Mary. Their son, also William, became King William III of Great Britain and Ireland. If one were to interpret the iconography found surrounding the coat-of-arms in the base, it is possible to draw a conclusion that this basket contributed to the existence of their son, with its historical implications. Over 350 years later, the present Princess Royal opened the additions to The Inner Temple Hall in June this year. Her mother, Queen Elizabeth II, visited the Inn on the 13 November 1952, and on that occasion laid the foundation stone of the New Inner Temple Building. She used a small silver rope-entwined-handled trowel and silver-banded ebony maul, both bearing the Royal Cypher and engraved ‘Inner Temple Hall, 13 November 1952’. This pair of miniature bricklayer’s tools was made by probably the finest designer silversmith of the post-war years, Leslie Durbin.

A sketch of the Gold Cup from a description in the Accounts Book 1607–08

There are further precious objects that reside in the Inn’s collection that have a royal pedigree. One is a silver gilt basket of basket-weave form with applied vines and grapes to the inner surface. Weighing over 55 ounces and a diameter of 13.1/4”, it is engraved in the centre with the royal coatof-arms of George III. This fine piece of work was made by Digby Scott and Benjamin Smith II, the celebrated London goldsmiths, in 1804. Scott and Smith received many royal commissions, and examples of their work can be found in the Royal Collection today. Their workshop was located in Greenwich from 1802 to 1807 and during their partnership they were the principal suppliers of silver masterpieces to the esteemed firm of Rundell, Bridge & Rundell. The basket was presented by Master Priestley in 1936 and was exhibited in the 1951 exhibition of Historic Plate in the City of London.

Associated with the above, is an ivory gavel and black oblong wooden block, the block showing signs of determined use. The block bears an inlaid plaque engraved ‘1949 to commemorate the Treasurership of His Majesty the King presented by the Deputy Treasurer’.

Another piece of royal treasure is a silver gilt snuffbox, made in London with the hallmarks for 1948. The form is plain oblong, all the sides being engine turned and the centre of the lid has a diamond and rose diamond blue enamelled plaque of a crown and the Royal Cypher. The inside of the lid is engraved ‘Presented to The Honourable Society of The Inner Temple by His Majesty King George VI, Treasurer 1949’.

Further in the collection are a set of six George II silver candlesticks, all with Royal Cyphers hallmarked for 1730, a pair of pretty silver gilt dishes, hallmarked for 1813 and engraved with a garter badge and the Royal Cypher of Queen Charlotte, wife of George III. These dishes were presented by Mrs Hansell in 1925. An Elizabeth II silver treasury inkstand presented by the Pearson family, engraved with the Royal Cypher, and inscribed: ‘Presented to the Right Honourable Lord Pearson CBE, by Her Majesty’s government in recognition of his services as Chairman of the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury 1973–78’. It would not be complete without mentioning the exceptionally fine silver gilt tazze bearing the maker’s mark for David Willaume and dated 1720, engraved with the arms of King William and Queen Mary and those of Charles Montagu, Earl of Halifax, being part of the Schiller bequest of 1947.

Finally, contained in a small box but on display in the new vault safe showcases, is a small silver Pegasus badge brooch which was commissioned in 2009, in preparation for the most recent Royal Treasurer in 2011, HRH The Princess Royal.

The Gavel and Block

The Pegasus Brooch

Richard Parsons Jeweller & Silversmith

HMQ laying the foundation stone

The George III silver gilt Basket

The George VI Snuffbox

BECOMING BRITISH: WHY TEST FOR CITIZENSHIP?

By Master Thom Brooks

The British Nationality Act 1981 required that anyone wanting to become a British citizen through naturalisation must have a ‘sufficient knowledge of life in the United Kingdom’, but it did not specify how this was to be done. Two decades later the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 set out that knowledge of life in the United Kingdom would be confirmed through a ‘Life in the United Kingdom’ citizenship test.

While other countries, like the United States, had used citizenship tests since the 1980s, the original catalyst for introducing a test in Britain was a concern that migrant communities were not well integrated, culminating in the May 2001 riots in areas like Burnley and Oldham. In that same month, the Australian government responded to a report, Australian Citizenship for a New Century led by Sir Ninian Stephen, where the government accepted its recommendations to introduce a knowledge test based around Australian values and citizenship responsibilities leading to the introduction of new citizenship ceremonies. This work was promptly commissioned in the UK through several reviews followed by a ‘Life in the UK’ Advisory Group chaired by Sir Bernard Crick. After a public consultation, this group recommended a test based around shared values and knowledge of public institutions leading to the launch of citizenship ceremonies across Britain. The idea was that making such a test a requirement for becoming British would ensure British values and knowledge of practical matters would be better understood and help integrate new citizens improving community cohesion.

The first test edition appeared in November 2005. It consisted of 24 multiple-choice questions to be answered over 45 minutes. Applicants must answer 18 or more correctly to pass. The test now costs £50 per attempt and its administration is outsourced. A second edition was published in April 2007 and the government started to require passing the test in order to apply for both Indefinite Leave to Remain and citizenship.

Both editions became best known for their errors. The first edition claimed Charles II lived in exile while in France, but he was in Holland. Applicants were required to memorise Sir Winston Churchill’s saying “never in the course of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few” when, instead, he had actually said “never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few”. It also claimed Northern Ireland was a part of Great Britain, rather than of the United Kingdom. Perhaps the most glaring error was the test claimed there were 645 Members of Parliament when there were actually 646. My best guess is that the 2005 General Election saw 645 MPs sworn in together as a candidate for the Staffordshire South seat had died about a week before polling day – a seat retained by Sir Patrick (now Lord) Cormack who was sworn in shortly afterwards as the 646th MP in that parliament.

The second edition tried to correct earlier mistakes. It had questions about where tax is paid, where dialects like Geordie are spoken and that fireworks are traditionally set off on 5 November. There are trickier questions about what the acronyms ‘GCSE’ and ‘quango’ stand for with various questions about general demographic information from the most recent census.

However, the second edition became outdated quickly as public bodies and programmes were merged, closed or renamed. Applicants needed to know about Education Maintenance Allowance and how to claim it after it was ended. There was also a question about which two places someone could contact to obtain a National Insurance number with one of the ‘correct’ answers that must be acknowledged having been closed. After parliament expanded the number of MPs to its current 650, the test required applicants provide the untrue ‘correct’ answer of 646. In my research, I discovered it was possible to sit a full test of questions that had answers which were no longer true and called on the government to update the handbook and ensure the test was fit for purpose. I also pushed for inclusion of information about British history and culture which had been largely absent.

In 2013, the coalition government published the third edition of the citizenship test handbook. While pleased it had corrected and updated its contents, the test was expanded to include an estimated 3,000 facts including 278 historical dates over 180 pages. British history and culture now formed some of the most substantial chapters, but what was once trivia became more trivial.

Yet lessons were still not learned. The new edition contained errors, such as claiming the largest denomination of currency is £50 when the Bank of Scotland, RBS and Clydesdale Bank all produce £100 notes. The former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had died two weeks after the current test was launched, but it has not been updated since and she is noted as still alive. There was no EU Referendum either in 2013 and so the test requires applicants know the UK is a member of the European Union along with the names of other member states.

Perhaps the most curious addition is information about Sake Dean Mahomed, of whom applicants must know more facts about him and his life than anyone else including when he was born (1739), where he was born (Bengal), his military service (Bengali army), when he came to Britain (1782), that he moved abroad (to Ireland), how he became married (eloped), his wife’s name (Jane Daly), how she is described (‘an Irish girl’), the year they eloped (1786), where they moved next (England), when he opened a business (1810), the name of it (Hindoostane Coffee House), what it was (Britain’s first curry house), what street it was on (George Street, London), what else he introduced (Indian head massage shampooing) and when he died (1851). Oddly, it is not noted that the restaurant operated only a few years before closing, that he was a shampooing surgeon to both King George IV and William IV and he was the first Indian to write a travel book in English, in 1794. While undoubtedly an important figure, it is far from clear why knowing he once eloped or a short-lived restaurant used to be found on George Street is a necessary requirement for becoming British.

Indeed, triviality runs through the test. For example, applicants must know the approximate age of Big Ben and the height of the London Eye. There are five telephone numbers noted in the handbook. The first is the National Domestic Violence Hotline and the second is the HMRC Self-Assessment Helpline. The other three are the front desks of the House of Commons, Holyrood and Welsh Assembly so one might book a visit. For some reason, the handbook forgets to include Stormont in Northern Ireland which can be visited, too. Other oddities include having to know various legal institutions like Magistrates Courts, Justice of the Peace Courts, Sheriff Courts, Youth Courts and County Courts, but not any mention of the UK Supreme Court. While the current test no longer requires knowledge of how many MPs are in parliament, applicants must know the number of representatives in the Welsh Assembly, Holyrood and Stormont. There is gender imbalance throughout as well. Only four women are listed with dates of birth in the history chapter. Her Majesty The Queen’s birthday is not – nor that she has two birthdays. Eleven men and only six women are noted in the test’s information on sport and culture, as well as three women for being writers. There are no female musicians, artists or poets mentioned.

One curiosity about the tests concerns language. Since its introduction in 2005, the test could be taken in English, Welsh or Scots Gaelic. Passing the citizenship test counted twice: it fulfilled the requirement for having “knowledge of life in the United Kingdom” and served as proof of knowledge of English, or a language with equivalency, when applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain or naturalisation. However, this changed after Halloween 2013. The test can still be sat in Welsh or Scots Gaelic, but the same test no longer counts for proof of English. Oddly, while the test is available in three languages, the test handbook is only in English.

There is a further issue about language. In April 2014, the coalition government granted the Cornish protected minority status. As a signatory to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, the UK was under an obligation to promote equality, preserve and develop the culture and identity of its officially recognised protected minority groups also including the Welsh, Scots and Irish alongside the Cornish. Yet while the test is available in other languages and its contents include information about their patron saints, national flags and food and famous citizens, there is no such equal treatment for the Cornish. In so doing, the government has needed to act on this for nearly a decade.

There is gender imbalance throughout as well.

British history and culture now formed some of the most substantial chapters, but what was once trivia became more trivial.

As a signatory to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, the UK was under an obligation to promote equality, preserve and develop the culture and identity of its officially recognised protected minority groups also including the Welsh, Scots and Irish alongside the Cornish.

The citizenship test has been badly in need of reform. After I published the first comprehensive report in 2013 on the test, famously claiming it was “like a bad pub quiz” (that I was pleased to find echoed by former Home Secretary Sajid Javid when in that role), there have been three House of Lords bodies – a Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Participation reporting in 2018, a Liaison Committee reporting earlier this year and an inquiry concluded this summer by the Justice and Home Affairs Committee – that have each accepted my recommendations that a new Advisory Group is established, that it includes individuals who have naturalised, that the group consults with the public and a new fourth edition focused on shared values and practical information is published urgently.

While the government has claimed repeatedly it intends to review the test and publish a refreshed new edition, this work has not commenced and is unlikely to begin for at least a year. During the pandemic, the Home Office paused all unannounced inspections of test centres which are yet to resume long after many of us returned to work and I recently uncovered evidence that Home Office guidance was not being followed. For example, the guidance has stated since the test’s launch that anyone who fails the test ‘must’ wait at least seven days before resitting the £50 test. However, the government confirmed someone had failed the test 118 times in a row during 2015 and 2016. This would have cost £5,900 in fees. There should not have been more than one test sat per week for 104 weeks during these two years, but the government admitted this was breached, they did not appear aware in accepting guidance was not followed and it raises further questions of how satisfactory this process has now become.

Despite its many flaws, I am supportive of a general test for citizenship. But the recommendations by several parliamentary committees as well as myself for an Advisory Group, wider consultation and a test more fit for purpose is more urgent than ever. Becoming British is a tremendously important status that many immigrants, like myself, are proud to have achieved. A fair, principled and competent test is easily achievable if supported politically and by the public. The British citizenship test should no longer be the test for citizenship that few British citizens can pass. Nor, as my research has revealed, should it be allowed to continue as a source of resentment by new migrants who feel the unfair requirements at unreasonable costs is not a sound example of British fair play. In my view, we should recreate the test as more of a bridge than a barrier bringing us closer together. I remain optimistic that this vision will some day soon become a reality – in this most curious aspect of nationality law.

Professor Thom Brooks Professor of Law and Government and Dean of Durham Law School

Creating unforgettable events

The traditional simplicity of the Hall and Bench Apartments provides the perfect backdrop for an array of events, from corporate dining and receptions to birthdays and weddings.

With bespoke packages designed around your event, you can choose rooms for morning, a ernoon, evening or weekend hire.

Taking all the stress away from you will be your dedicated event planner who will guide you every step of the way. All you need to do is sit back and enjoy whilst your vision comes to life.

020 7797 8230 | venuehire@innertemple.org.uk | innertemplevenuehire.co.uk

Standing events: Up to 400 guests

Seated events: Up to 250 guests

www.juliusrutherfoord.co.uk

THE INNER TEMPLE SUMMER PARTY

THE INNER TEMPLE HISTORY SOCIETY REVIEW

By Master Donald Cryan

The Inner Temple had, to a large extent, neglected its own history and even its own archives until the closing decades of the last century, when, guided by Professor Sir John Baker QC, Master Baker, the country’s pre-eminent legal historian, it began to gather its archives in a central location and to employ an archivist. Largely through Master Baker, articles on our history and the history of the profession began to appear in The Inner Temple Yearbooks. But still there was no formal history society and no regular series of talks on historical matters related to the Inn or legal history.

It was not until shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic that The Inner Temple History Society was formed, and it has continued to thrive throughout it. Since the start of the pandemic, the talks have gone online and attendances have greatly increased and have become international in their reach, with particular interest being shown by members of the American Inns of Court and the Selden Society. Attendances, which before the pandemic had been counted in the seventies and eighties, are now in the hundreds. As the impact of the pandemic has faded, it has been possible to have in-person attendance, but the benefits of live streaming and recording have not been lost and will continue.

The Society’s talks are aimed at all those with an interest in the history of the Inn, its members and legal history. As might be expected of an institution which, through itself or its members, has been involved in most of the turbulent events of our history and which has bred some of the greatest advocates and jurist of the Common Law over nearly 700 years, there is much to be said. The reach of the talks has become international, enhancing the standing and reputation of the Inn as a place of interest and learning. Going forward, through the Inn’s new superb teaching and training facilities it will be able to use the state-of-the-art lecture theatre and online streaming ability. The post-talk receptions will be held in the new reception area with its unique setting.

As things began to open up, the History Society itself in a way became part of history. It held a lecture on 10 May 2022, the 100th anniversary of the Call of the first woman to the Bar of England and Wales, Dr Ivy Williams. It was attended by the Inn’s Treasurer, Her Honour Judge Deborah Taylor, and a raft of women judges from the Court of Appeal, the High Court, and the Circuit Bench together with many of the Inn’s women Queen’s Counsel and barristers. The Inn was able to record the course of history for future generations. The speaker was Dr Frances Burton who, as a young undergraduate at St Ann’s College Oxford in the early 1960s, had been introduced to Dr Ivy Williams and so in that way also the event touched history.

Shortly before the Ivy Williams talk, Professor Michelle O’Callaghan had delivered a talk entitled Crashawe’s Library and the Circulation of Books in the Seventeenth Century. It gave a vivid picture of the life of the Inn in one of its most dynamic periods when Crashawe, as Master of the Temple Church, had both Sir Edward Coke and John Selden as his parishioners, and the struggle between the crown and parliament over the interwoven issues of politics and religion, royal and parliamentary power were becoming heated.

Professor O’Callaghan’s talk had followed on from a talk by Master Baker, hosted by the Inn entitled John Selden and Legal History “Liberty Above All Things”. It is reproduced in this year’s Yearbook. That talk was in the annual Selden Society and Four

Inns of Court lecture series. The series has become an important part of the History Society’s calendar. During the pandemic The Inner Temple hosted two of them. They have attracted very large audiences with attendance on four continents.

On 1 November 2022, the next talk in the joint series is to take place at the Middle Temple, but The Inner Temple will be fully engaged. As with the other talks, the topic will demonstrate the relevance of legal history to the issues of today. It will focus on aspects of our constitution. The speaker, Lord Judge, the former Lord Chief Justice and the current Convener of the Crossbench Peers entitled his talk, 1622, the King’s Prerogative –2022, the Prime Minister’s Prerogative. Continuing Constitutional Turbulence and it is bound to attract great interest.

In recent times it has become apparent that the dissolution of parliament is always a critical moment in our democracy. Who should have the power to dissolve parliament? How should it be exercised? During the passage of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022, Lord Judge said:

“We have become habituated – have we not – to the steady, apparently unstoppable accumulation of power in No 10 Downing Street, and we have done so while simultaneously the authority and weight of parliament itself, and the House of Commons in particular, have been diminishing. It is astonishing to think that we are now proposing to resurrect the medieval concept of the prerogative, the concept on which the divine right of kings was based. King James and King Charles, just across the road, will be laughing as they turn in their graves. The King lost his head in part because he kept dissolving parliament.”

In and around 1622, the early Stuart kings asserted the divine right of kings and the dispensability of parliament, but over the centuries the sovereignty of parliament has triumphed as the fundamental principle of our unwritten constitution. Lord Judge will address the steady accumulation and use of political and prerogative powers by prime ministers in the context of the actions of the early Stuart kings and the views of Coke and Selden.

Before that talk, on 10 October 2022, at a time when historic and modern slavery are the subject of so much topical interest, Sir Michael Tugendhat (Master Tugendhat), author of The Rights of Mankind: Liberty in France and England (1159–1793), will speak of the disappearance of slavery, as a legally recognised status, in Northern France and England around the 13th century, and how that momentous development gave rise to the legal recognition of equality, liberty, and other human rights, and inspired the eventual abolition of slavery worldwide in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Next year, I and Richard Parsons, the Inn’s long-standing adviser on its silver collection, will start the year’s programme with a talk on The History of the Inn in Ten Objects

Please watch out for further information on the Inn’s website. Some of the events carry a modest charge to cover the cost of the reception and all of them require registration whether you want to attend online or in person.

His Honour Donald Cryan Chair of the History Society History Society talks innertemple.org.uk/historylectures

TEMPLE CHURCH INDEPENDENCE DAY SERMON

3 JULY 2022

By Deborah Enix-Ross, then President-Elect, American Bar Association Thomas Jefferson by Gilbert Stuart © Public Domain

Good morning. It really is an incredible honour to speak before you today at this magnificent Temple Church, the cradle of common law, America’s church in London, whose history is entwined with the lawyers and ideas that birthed and nurtured democracy, liberty, and freedom in my home country.

Reverend Griffith-Jones, thank you for your kind and generous invitation. We are so grateful for all you have done, and continue to do, to strengthen the familial bonds between the lawyers of the United States and the United Kingdom, along with your steadfast support and great love for your considerable extended family at the American Bar Association (ABA).

To my ABA friends and colleagues, thank you for your support and presence, both in person and by live stream. And no, I will not be preaching a fire and brimstone sermon!!!

I bring greetings to all of you from my minister, Reverend Alison Philip, and the parishioners of my home congregation, First United Methodist Church in Westfield, NJ, about an hour’s commute (on a good day), from my law office in Manhattan.

I grew up in New York City attending Salem United Methodist Church, a still thriving intergenerational and multi-ethnic community whose motto is “In the Heart of Harlem”. I would be remiss if I did not mention Salem, my mother church.

As we begin our time together, let us pray: May the words of my mouth and the meditation of all our hearts be acceptable in your sight, Oh Lord our Rock and our Redeemer.

As I mentioned, I am a native New Yorker, having grown up in Harlem. I’m what’s known as a ‘church baby’. I spent all day Sunday and many weekdays running around Salem church.

I, in turn, raised my own church baby. My son, Parker. One of my favourite comforts about church life is the tradition of giving bibles to children.

I remember my son’s favourite bible was one that his paternal Grandma Pearl gave him.

Now, if you’ve ever had small children, you’ll know that when they’re being too quiet, you wonder what they’re doing. So one day, Parker was being particularly quiet, and I yelled out, “Parker, what are you doing?” And he said, “Reading my Bible”. And I thought, Oh, OK, what kind of a mommy am I, if my first thought was the child was getting into something bad?

Tomorrow, July 4, is America’s Independence Day – or perhaps what some on this side of the pond call the day Americans got into something bad. I must confess it’s a bit disorienting for me to be in the Mother Country for the occasion, but it also provides a fresh and welcome perspective..

Many of you know last week marked the first anniversary of Parker’s death after a long illness. Some say losing a child is a pain from which no mother can ever recover.

The story about Parker and his bible comforts me because it calls to mind and heart my everlasting love for my incredible, wonderful boy who grew up to be an incredible, wonderful young man.

But on this occasion, I see that it is also a story that connects to motherhood, with all its hopes, fears, joys, tears, and seemingly constant lessons in trusting the process of relinquishing control. Of allowing, maybe even encouraging independence.

It’s a story of independence that, as every parent learns, stirs in souls well before youth and expresses itself in countless ways both ordinary and unexpected: a baby’s first giggle, a toddler struggling to pour a glass of milk, or tie a shoe (do they even have shoestrings now?!), a child crossing the street without holding hands, a teen leaving home for university.

It’s a story of independence that, as every parent learns, stirs in souls well before youth and expresses itself in countless ways both ordinary and unexpected.

Or indeed a colony breaking with the Mother Country and starting an unprecedented experiment in selfgovernance — with these opening words from Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:

“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

In this era of hashtags and tweets, can we pause to reflect on the beauty, majesty and power of those words.

The Declaration goes on to state:

“

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

At its most basic level, independence means having full autonomy over one’s life. Of course, it is not lost on me, a Black woman, that at the time of this great Declaration, slavery existed, and women’s rights were deeply curtailed.

1 Peter 2:16 tells us “Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God”. That is why we must constantly guard and protect our freedom and independence.

As we grow from each other, we grow with each other. The covenant is an enduring covenant.

It’s a story from Scripture told countless times and countless ways, from Creation to the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, from Exodus and the revelation at Sinai to the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Rachel weeps for her children; but the bond between them endures.

For America’s lawyers, among the most venerated of places anywhere beyond our own shores is in Runnymede, where Magna Carta was sealed in 1215. In 1957, the ABA solicited donations from members to erect a memorial there to the legacy of Magna Carta.

Engraved in stone are the words “Freedom Under Law”. Since then, we’ve returned in 1971, 1985, 2000, and for the 800th anniversary in 2015 with our British family — including the Queen! — to rededicate the memorial and recommit to the tenets of Magna Carta.

The barons and King John could scarcely have imagined that the words to which they agreed would launch the progression of the rule of law. They birthed precepts that made possible the United States Constitution, the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the framework of justice in America, the United Kingdom, and indeed much of the world. The line between Runnymede in 1215 and Philadelphia in 1776 is direct and inseverable.

Wesley was an enlightened leader in countless other ways. His coinage of the phrase “agree to disagree” is particularly impressive given today’s age of incivility and sharp divisions. Wesley used the phrase in 1770 in a memorial sermon for George Whitefield, where he acknowledged, but downplayed, the two men’s doctrinal differences. As he said, “There are many doctrines of a less essential nature … In these we may think and let think; we may ‘agree to disagree’. But, meantime, let us hold fast the essentials…”.

Those essentials include another maxim widely attributed to Wesley, which I learned as a child and try to live by even now. I will leave it with you today as both a blessing and a challenge: “Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can”.

It is the bonds between us and the generations before us and after that give the highest and most sacred meaning to independence.

It is indeed our sacred, moral duty always and in everything we do to promise to protect and preserve our independence and fight for those who are not yet free!

For the 750th anniversary, the former ABA President and Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell extolled the close relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom in a speech at the Royal Courts of Justice. He said, “In war and peace our nations have sustained the same ideals and the same principles that we proudly attribute to Magna Carta”.

As a lifelong Methodist, I mustn’t leave this pulpit without reflecting a bit on our common ancestor, John Wesley, the founder of Methodism who, in spite of his infamous streak of independence from the Mother Church, considered himself a lifelong member of the Church of England.

Under Wesley’s direction, Methodists became leaders in many social movements of the day, including Abolition. In this sense, he and many of his countrymen were more enlightened by Providence than many of America’s equally devout founders who nevertheless were blind to the self-evident injustice and evil of slavery.

On this Independence Day, we remember martyrs like Crispus Attucks, a Black man who escaped enslavement and was the first colonist killed in the American Revolution. Attucks remains an important symbol in our nation’s struggle for freedom and equality as does our new federal holiday of Juneteenth, a longtime informal celebration that marks the day, on 19 June in 1865 when enslaved people in Texas were first notified of their freedom, some two years after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued.

On the eve of America’s Independence Day, I can think of no other place that I’d rather be than right here, the Temple Church, with all of you.

As it was said in Matthew 19:6, “What God Has Put Together Let No Man (or Woman) Put Asunder”. Amen and Hallelujah!

The barons and King John could scarcely have imagined that the words to which they agreed would launch the progression of the rule of law.

It is indeed our sacred, moral duty always and in everything we do to promise to protect and preserve our independence and fight for those who are not yet free!

Deborah Enix-Ross President of the American Bar Association Senior Adviser to the International Dispute Resolution Group of Debevoise & Plimpton in New York City

John Wesley by George Romney

© Courtesy of the National Portrait Gallery, London

WEDDINGS AND BAPTISMS

Lauren Thomson and Robert Fernandez, 30 April 2022

© Helen Abrahams | IG–@helenabrahamphoto

Hugo Hibbert and Clover Hamper-Potts, 9 April 2022

© Hubert Cecil Photography

William McPhail and Beatrice Sapsford, 27 November 2021

© Paul Rogers Photography

Hervé Durán Rodriguez and Louise Tomlinson, 2 April 2022

© Charlotte Bromley-Davenport

Jack and Harry Shaw (twins) baptised on 5 March 2022

© Eclection

Mark Shaw and Elizabeth White 16 April 21

© Heather Shuker (Eclection Photography)

Alfred Mountford baptised on 3 April 2022

NATHAN RASIAH

SARAH VINE KC Doughty Street

ALIX BELDAM KC (HON) Registrar of Criminal Appeals and Master The Crown Office

SARAH ABRAM KC Brick Court Chambers

LISA LINKLATER KC Exchange Chambers

VICTORIA WINDLE KC Blackstone Chambers

ELIZABETH DAVIES KC Garden Court Chambers

TOBY WATKIN KC Landmark Chambers

PROFESSOR

REHANA

THOMAS MUNBY KC Maitland Chambers

RICHARD THOMAS KC Doughty Street

NEW MASTERS OF THE BENCH 2022–2023

Listed in order of Bencher status and by Call

BARRISTER GOVERNING BENCHERS

HEIDI

JOHN MEHRZAD

THOM

Listed in alphabetical order

HIS HONOUR JUDGE DENNIS WATSON KC Liverpool Combined Court Centre Called to the Bar: 25/07/1985

HER HONOUR JUDGE SPIRO Harrow Crown Court Called to the Bar: 24/11/1994

JUDGE MARK SUTHERLAND WILLIAMS Manchester Civil Justice Centre Called to the Bar: 12/10/1995

HIS HONOUR JUDGE PAYNE Aylesbury Crown Court Called to the Bar: 12/10/2000

OVERSEAS BENCHERS

ACADEMIC BENCHERS

HONORARY BENCHERS

PROFESSOR JUDITH BOURNE PH.D. Head of Department and Professor of Law

DR AUGUSTUS CASELY-HAYFORD OBE Director of V&A East

PROFESSOR NORMAN DOE Director of the Centre for Law and Religion, Cardiff University

PAUL MANDUCA MOM Chairman

SIR KENNETH OLISA OBE CSTJ Lord-Lieutenant of Greater London

LEMN SISSAY ESQ OBE MBE

Speaker, Writer

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE GLENNA THOMPSON JSC Justice of the Supreme Court, Sierra Leone

MRS JOHANNA HIGGINS Commissioner Criminal Cases Review Commission

HIS HONOUR JUDGE LAZARUS Maidstone Combined Court Centre Called to the Bar: 14/10/2004

MASTERS OF THE BENCH

Honourable Society of the Inner Temple Masters of the Bench in Seniority Order

TREASURER 2022

Her Honour Judge Deborah Taylor (J)

ROYAL BENCHER

HRH The Princess Royal KG KT GCVO QSO (R)

READER 2022

Sir Robert Francis (O)

READER ELECT 2022

The Hon Mr Justice Soole (J)

His Honour Anthony Thompson KC (S)

Ian Hunter Esq KC (S)

Sir Peter North CBE DCL FBA KC (H)

Sir Martin Jacomb (H)

Patrick Ground Esq KC (B)

Professor Sir John Baker KC LLD FBA (H)

His Honour James Wadsworth KC (U)

Jules Sher Esq KC (U)

Sir Michael Tugendhat (U)

John Crowley Esq KC (S)

His Honour Duncan Matheson KC (U)

Her Honour Christian Bevington (S)

Miss Caroline Willbourne (B)

Her Honour Judge Hughes KC (J)

Michael Sayers Esq KC (U)

Sir Richard Henriques (S)

Martin Bowley Esq KC (O)

The Honourable Justice Stephen Breyer (H)

The Honourable Justice Anthony Kennedy (H)

Tom Shields Esq KC (S)

MASTERS

OF THE BENCH, EX-TREASURERS

The Rt Hon Sir Stephen Brown GBE (U)

The Rt Hon the Baroness Butler-Sloss GBE (S)

The Rt Hon The Lord Lloyd of Berwick DL (S)

The Rt Hon Sir Konrad Schiemann (O)

The Rt Hon Sir John Chadwick (S)

The Rt Hon Sir Bernard Rix (O)

The Rt Hon Sir David Keene (S)

The Rt Hon Sir Anthony May (S)

Vivian Robinson Esq KC (S)

The Rt Hon The Baroness Hallett DBE (U)

Simon Thorley Esq KC (O)

The Rt Hon Sir Stephen Tomlinson (O)

The Rt Hon Sir Martin Moore-Bick (S)

His Honour Donald Cryan (Hon) LLD (O)

David Pittaway Esq KC (B)

The Rt Hon Dame Elizabeth Gloster DBE (O)

The Rt Hon Lord Hughes of Ombersley (O)

Guy Fetherstonhaugh Esq KC (B)

MASTERS OF THE BENCH

John Willmer Esq KC (S)

The Rt Hon The Lord Woolf CH FBA (S)

Sir Oliver Popplewell (O)

The Hon Sir Charles Morrison KC (U)

The Rt Hon the Lord Mackay of Clashfern KT (H)

Professor Francis Reynolds DCL FBA KC (H)

Sir Michael Morland (O)

Nigel Inglis-Jones Esq KC (U)

The Rt Hon the Lord Scott of Foscote (S)

Sir Thomas Legg KCB KC (S)

Sir Allan Green KCB KC (U)

Neville Thomas Esq KC (U)

Sir Christopher Holland (S)

The Rt Hon the Lord Irvine of Lairg (S)

Her Honour Shirley Anwyl KC (S)

His Honour John Previte KC (U)

Richard Clegg Esq KC (U)

Michael Lyndon-Stanford Esq KC (U)

The Rt Hon Sir Jonathan Parker (S)

John Beveridge Esq KC (U)

His Honour Humphrey LLoyd KC (U)

Sir Edward Cazalet (S)

The Rt Hon Sir Mathew Thorpe (U)

William Crowther Esq KC (U)

Roger Henderson Esq KC (O)

The Rt Hon Sir Stephen Sedley (U)

Dame Rosalyn Higgins GBE KC JSD FBA (S)

Raymond Potter Esq CB (S)

Sir Sydney Lipworth KC (H)

The Rt Hon Lord Sumption OBE (S)

Nicholas Wood Esq (O)

Dame Elizabeth Slade DBE (S)

The Rt Rev and Rt Hon Lord Carey of Clifton (H)

Sir Ivan Lawrence KC (B)

James Goudie Esq KC (S)

Christopher Lockhart-Mummery Esq KC (B)

Richard Salter Esq KC (B)

Sir David Steel (U)

Neil Kaplan Esq CBE KC SC (HK) (S)

The Rt Hon Sir William Gage (S)

Paul Purnell Esq KC (U)

His Honour Jonathan Playford KC (S)

Sir Thayne Forbes (S)

Sir Brian Jenkins GBE (H)

The Baroness Mallalieu KC (U)

Anthony Anderson Esq KC (U)

Harry Turcan Esq (S)

Gerald Angel Esq (S)

The Rt Hon Sir Richard Buxton (U)

Professor Sir Royston Goode CBE FBA KC (H)

John Swift Esq KC (U)

His Honour James Stewart KC (U)

The Rt Hon the Lord Howard of Lympne CH KC (U)

His Honour Jeremy Roberts KC (S)

Sir David Clarke (U)

Sir Neil Butterfield (S)

His Honour Michael Lawson KC (O)

The Reverend Roger ter Haar KC (B)

Stephen Bickford-Smith Esq (B)

Mrs Margaret Bickford-Smith KC (B)

The Rt Hon Sir Jeremy Sullivan (U)

The Rt Hon the Lord Wilson of Culworth (U)

Gerard Elias Esq CBE KC (S)

The Rt Hon Sir Jack Beatson FBA (O)

Anthony Hacking Esq KC (S)

Sir Hugh Bennett (O)

Dermod O’Brien Esq KC (S)

The Rt Hon Sir Anthony Hooper (U)

Bruce Mauleverer Esq KC (S)

His Honour Neil Butter CBE KC (S)

Sir Mark Havelock-Allan Bt KC (O)

His Honour Simon Brown KC (U)

Jonathan Acton Davis Esq KC (B)

Anthony Temple Esq KC (O)

Richard Rampton Esq KC (S)

Sir Robert Owen (S)

Christopher Purchas Esq KC (U)

Miss Pamela Scriven KC (B)

Nicholas Padfield Esq KC (S)

The Rt Hon Sir Patrick Elias (S)

Michael Shorrock Esq KC (S)

Sir Gordon Langley (S)

Sir Christopher Pitchers (S)

Nigel Pascoe Esq KC (S)

Her Excellency Judge Joanna Korner CMG KC (J)

Oliver Sells Esq KC (B)

Kenneth Aylett Esq (S)

Andrew Tidbury Esq (B)

Sir Timothy Walker (U)

Nicholas Merriman Esq KC (U)

Robin De Wilde Esq KC (S)

Peter Birkett Esq KC (O)

Robin Purchas Esq KC (S)

Sir Geoffrey Nice KC (B)

Sir Frederick Crawford DL FR Eng (H)

The Baroness Deech DBE KC (Hon) (S)

Professor Sir Ian Kennedy KC FBA (H)

Sir Brian Keith (S)

Michael Spencer Esq KC (B)

Victor Temple Esq KC (S)

Sir Robert Akenhead (O)

Dame Caroline Swift DBE (O)

Justin Fenwick Esq KC (B)

Thomas Baxendale Esq (U)

Kevin de Haan Esq KC (B)

His Honour Jeffrey Burke KC (U)

Ian Glick Esq KC (B)

The Rt Hon the Lord Falconer of Thoroton (S)

The Rt Hon Jack Straw (S)

Judge Richard Posner (H)

Professor Andrew Ashworth PhD DCL FBA (A)

His Honour John Adams (S)

Robert Webb Esq KC FRAeS (B)

Nicholas Davidson Esq KC (B)

Miss Rosamund Horwood-Smart KC (O)

Stuart Brown Esq KC (S)

His Honour Judge Everall KC (O)

His Honour John Milford KC (U)

Stephen Solley Esq KC (O)

Dorian Lovell-Pank Esq KC (S)

The Hon Mr Justice Field (S)

Sir Hayden Phillips GCB DL (H)

His Honour Denis Orde (O)

The Rt Hon Sir John MacDermott (H)

Sir Jeffery Bowman FCA (H)

Justice Richard Goldstone (H)

His Honour Michael Fysh KC SC (S)

David Friedman Esq KC (S)

Nicholas Stewart Esq KC (B)

Timothy Raggatt Esq KC (S)

Dame Laura Cox DBE (U)

The Rt Hon Lady Black DBE (J)

Sir Richard Gibbs (U)

The Rt Hon The Lord Collins of Mapesbury LLD FBA (S)

The Rt Hon The Baroness Clark of Calton KC (S)

George Staple Esq CB KC (H)

Michael de Navarro Esq KC (S)

Godfrey Carey Esq KC (S)

Rex Tedd Esq KC (B)

His Honour Toby Hooper KC (O)

James Guthrie Esq KC (U)

Sir Raymond Jack (U)

His Honour David Hodson (U)

His Honour Richard McGregor-Johnson (S)

Dr Pehr Gyllenhammar (H)

Sir Alan Wilkie (O)

Peter Joyce Esq KC (S)

Christopher Moger Esq KC (S)

The Hon Philip Havers KC (B)

His Honour Iain Hughes KC (U)

Tim Charlton Esq KC (S)

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Floyd (J)

The Hon Mr Justice Patrick Chan (H)

Professor Sir Alan Dashwood KCMG CBE KC (S) Nigel Pleming Esq KC (B)

His Honour Owen Davies KC (O)

Charles George Esq KC (U)

The Rt Hon the Lord Cullen of Whitekirk KT (H)

M Jean-Paul Costa (H)

Michael Austin-Smith Esq KC (U)

His Honour Peter Collier KC (O)

Michael Redfern Esq KC (B)

Robert Smith Esq KC (S)

Andrew Trollope Esq KC (B)

Iain Milligan Esq KC (U)

Miss Elizabeth-Anne Gumbel KC (B)

John Marrin Esq KC (S)

Richard Drabble Esq KC (S)

Gavin Kealey Esq KC (B)

His Honour Gary Burrell KC (J)

The Rt Hon Sir Julian Flaux, Chancellor of the High Court (J) Edward Fitzgerald Esq CBE KC (B)

His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC (J)

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Nicholas Green (J) Sir Stuart Lipton (H)

Anthony Porten Esq KC (U)

His Honour Nicholas Browne KC (O)

His Honour Judge Pegden KC (J) David Wilby Esq KC (O)

The Hon Mr Justice Goss (J)

His Honour Judge Leonard KC (J)

The Hon Mrs Justice Alison Foster DBE (J) Roger Stewart Esq KC (B)

The Hon Mr Justice Ribeiro (H)

Professor Christopher Forsyth KC (Hon) (A) Dr Mads Andenas KC (A)

Professor John Spencer CBE KC (A)

The Rt Rev and Rt Hon Dr the Lord Williams of Oystermouth (H) Malcolm Bishop Esq KC (B)

Mrs Gay Martin (O)

Philip Sapsford Esq KC (U)

His Honour Simon Bourne-Arton KC (O)

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Nugee (J) Professor Dr Jürgen Schwarze (H) His Honour David Paget KC (O) Her Honour Elisabeth Fisher (S) Sir Peter Openshaw (S)

His Honour Christopher Critchlow (S)

The Rt Hon the Lord Macdonald of River Glaven KC (O)

The Rt Hon Sir Dennis Byron (V)

Terence Coghlan Esq KC (S)

Andrew Caldecott Esq KC (B)

Jonathan Gaisman Esq KC (B)

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Popplewell (J)

The Hon Mr Justice Moor (J)

Sir Alex Allan KCB (H)

Sir Edward Caldwell KCB KC (Hon) (H)

Ian Laing Esq CBE DL (H)

Sir Ian McKellen CH CBE (H)

David Spens Esq KC (S)

His Honour Judge Ford KC (O)

His Honour Judge Hammerton (J)

His Honour Thomas Crowther KC (U)

His Honour Nicholas Coleman (O)

Sir Brian Williamson CBE (H)

The Rt Hon Lord Hamilton (H)

The Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG (H)

Philip Mott Esq KC (U)

Thomas Seymour Esq (U)

Sir Nicholas Stadlen (S)

David Streatfeild-James Esq KC (B)

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Dingemans (J)

The Rt Hon Lady Justice Carr DBE (J)

Dr Mary Malecka (B)

The Reverend Robin Griffith-Jones (H)

Adrian Brunner Esq KC (S)

Nicholas Asprey Esq (S)

Augustus Ullstein Esq KC (S)

John Ross Esq KC (B)

Professor Michael Lerego KC (O)

Jeremy Storey Esq KC (B)

James Turner Esq KC (B)

The Hon Mrs Justice Lang DBE (J)

The Hon Justice Salihu Moddibo Alfa Belgore (V)

His Honour Judge Simon Davis (J)

The Hon Mrs Justice Arbuthnot (J)

His Excellency Judge Kenneth Keith ONZ KBE (H)

Sir Wyn Williams (S)

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Moylan (J) Robert Rhodes Esq KC (B)

His Honour David Tyzack KC (S)

Patrick Upward Esq KC (S)

His Honour Judge Melville KC (J)

Miss Sally Smith KC (O)

His Honour Judge Jeremy Richardson KC (J) Nigel Giffin Esq KC (B)

The Hon Mr Justice Jonathan Swift (J)

Christopher Brougham Esq KC (B)

Nicholas Atkinson Esq KC (B)

Miss Susanna FitzGerald KC (B)

Orlando Pownall Esq KC (B)

The Rt Hon Lord Justice William Davis (J) Richard Lissack Esq KC (B)

Abbas Lakha Esq KC (B)

Her Honour Frances Kirkham CBE (H)

The Rt Hon Lady Justice King DBE (J)

His Honour Ian Grainger (O)

Miss Margaret Bowron KC (B)

His Honour Nigel Seed KC (J)

Charles Gibson Esq KC (B)

The Rt Hon Lady Justice Simler DBE (J)

Stuart Catchpole Esq KC (B)

Iain Christie Esq KC (O)

His Honour Giles Forrester (S)

His Honour Gregory Stone KC (S)

Patrick O’Connor Esq KC (B)

James Corbett Esq KC (B)

His Honour Judge Bayliss KC (J)

Steven Kay Esq KC (B)

Sir David Green CB KC (B)

Peter Wright Esq KC (B)

Miss Deborah Eaton KC (B)

The Hon Mr Justice Lavender (J)

His Honour Charles Harris KC (O)

His Honour Judge Mark Brown (O)

The Rt Hon Dame Victoria Sharp DBE, President of the Queen’s Bench Division (J)

The Honourable Tan Sri Dato’

James Foong Cheng Yuen (V)

Guy Beringer Esq KC (Hon) CBE (H)

His Honour Nigel Lithman Esq KC (J)

Her Honour Judge Hildyard KC (J)

Andrew Goodman Esq (B)

Grahame Aldous Esq KC (B)

Matthew Reeve Esq (B)

The Hon Mr Justice Russell Coleman (V)

His Eminence Cardinal Vincent Nichols MA MEd STL (H)

Michael Humphries Esq KC (B)

Her Honour Judge Levitt KC (J)

His Honour Stephen Oliver-Jones KC (O)

His Honour Charles Wide KC (U)

Sir Thomas Woodcock KCVO OStJ DL FSA (O)

Professor Barry Rider OBE (A)

The Hon Mrs Justice Juliet May DBE (J)

Professor Robert Walsh (A)

The Honourable Justice Baragwanath KNZM KC (V)

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Peter Jackson (J)

Miss Tracy Ayling KC (B)

The Hon Mr Justice Dove (J)

The Honourable Justice Iain Morley (V) Dr Colin Ong KC (V)

Miss Helen Davies KC (B)

The Rt Hon Lord Bonomy LLD (H)

Judge Koen Lenaerts (H)

His Honour Simon Tonking DL (O)

Paul Bleasdale Esq KC (B)

Andrew Tait Esq KC (B)

Simon O’Toole Esq (B)

The Hon Mr Justice Cobb (J)

The Hon Sir Peter Caruana KCMG KC (V)

Dr Navinchandra Ramgoolam GCSK FRCP (V)

His Majesty King Jigme Khesar

Namgyel Wangchuck of Bhutan (H)

His Honour John Wait (S)

His Honour Philip Waller CBE (O)

The Rt Hon The Lord Maude of Horsham (O)

Michael Pooles Esq KC (B)

The Hon Mr Justice Martin Spencer (J)

Her Honour Patricia Lynch KC (J)

Miss Susan Jacklin (J)

Aftab Jafferjee Esq KC (B)

Richard Barraclough Esq KC (B)

Peter Village Esq KC (B)

Ian Stern Esq KC (B)

Miss Raquel Agnello KC (B)

Professor the Worshipful Mark Hill KC (B)

Ms Patricia Robertson KC (B)

Sam Stein Esq KC (B)

Professor Nicola Lacey CBE FBA (H)

The Rt Hon the Baroness Prashar CBE (H)

The Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia LVO (H)

Professor Timothy Endicott (A)

Professor Timothy Macklem (A)

Professor Julian Webb (A)

The Rt Hon Lord Reed (J)

His Honour Inigo Bing (O)

Charles Parsley Esq (B)

Miss Julia Dias KC (B)

The Hon Mrs Justice Finola O’Farrell DBE (J)

His Honour Judge Blair KC (J)

Alistair Schaff Esq KC (B)

His Honour Judge Neil Clark (J)

Harry Matovu Esq KC (B)

The Hon Mrs Justice Christina Lambert DBE (J) Miss Taryn Lee KC (B)

Philip Moser Esq KC (B)

His Honour Judge Simon (J) Alexander Hall Taylor Esq KC (B)

Professor Cheryl Thomas KC (Hon) (A) John Griffith-Jones Esq (H)

Michael Payton Esq KC (H)

Ms Libby Purves OBE (H)

Judge Paul Mahoney (V)

Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon (H) Nigel Aiken Esq KC SC (V)

The Most Revd and Rt Hon Justin Welby (H) Richard Benson Esq KC (S)

Mark George Esq KC (B)

His Honour Roger Thomas KC (J) Michael Burrows Esq KC (B)

Jonathan Laidlaw Esq KC (B)

Rory Phillips Esq KC (B)

The Hon Mr Justice M Griffiths (J)

Sir Richard Heaton KCB (U)

His Honour Judge Hiddleston (J) Tim Lord Esq KC (B)

Daniel Toledano Esq KC (B) Miss Sarah Clarke KC (B)

Adam Constable Esq KC (B)

Dr Vanessa Davies (O)

The Rt Hon Lord Menzies (H)

The Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis (H) Lyonpo Sonam Tobgye (H)

Philip Punwar Esq (V)

Professor the Hon George Hampel KC AM (A)

His Excellency Sir Elliott Belgrave GCMG KA CHB KC (V)

The Hon Reginald Rhoda Esq CBE (V)

Datuk Sulong Matjeraie (V)

Dame Alison Saunders DCB (B)

Ami Feder Esq (B)

His Honour David Mitchell (S)

John Ryder Esq KC (B)

Mark Wyeth Esq KC (B)

Jeremy Hill-Baker Esq (B)

Crispin Aylett Esq KC (B)

Richard Humphreys Esq KC (B)

The Hon Mrs Justice Roberts DBE (J)

Miss Máirín Casey (O)

Miss Eleanor Laws KC (B)

Martin Goudie Esq KC (B)

Alastair Hodge Esq (B)

Graham Chapman Esq KC (B)

Ms Desiree Artesi (B)

Miss Fiona Jackson (B)

Andrew Cayley Esq CMG KC (B)

The Rt Hon The Lord Hunt Of Wirral MBE (H)

The Rt Hon The Lord Remnant CBE ACA (H)

The Rt Hon Sir Robert Buckland KBE KC MP (O)

Professor Spyridon Flogaitis (A)

Paul Infield Esq (B)

Stuart Denney Esq KC (O)

Miss Anne Richardson (B)

The Hon Simon Davenport KC (B)

Professor Leslie Thomas KC (B)

Miss Sara Lawson KC (B)

Christopher Quinlan Esq KC (B)

Miss Camilla Bingham KC (B)

Ms Anneliese Day KC (B)

Scott Matthewson Esq (B)

The Hon Mrs Justice Kelyn Bacon DBE (J)

Miss Rachel Spearing (B)

The Hon Mr Justice Nasir-Ul-Mulk (V)

The Rev Hugh Mead (H)

His Honour Jeremy Carey DL (O)

Her Honour Judge Louise Bancroft (J)

Her Honour Judge Corbett (J)

His Honour Judge The Reverend James Patrick (J)

Dr Anselmo Reyes (V)

The Rt Hon Michael Gove MP (H)

The Honourable Justice Ann Ainslie-Wallace (A)

The Hon Mr Justice MacDonald (J) Christopher Sharp Esq KC (B)

His Honour Judge Tolson KC (J)

His Honour Judge Sloan KC (J)

His Honour Judge Robinson (J)

Thomas Kark Esq KC (B)

Her Honour Judge Munro KC (J)

Her Honour Judge Gillian Matthews KC (J)

Miss Ruth Henke KC (B)

David Wolfson Esq KC (B)

Paul Greaney Esq KC (B)

Dr Catherine MacKenzie (O)

Kieron Beal Esq KC (B)

Miss Saira Kabir Sheikh KC (B)

Justice George Wei (V)

Sir Timothy Le Cocq KC , The Baliff of Jersey (V)

Sir Michael Arthur KCMG (H)

Dr Tom Kinninmont (H)

Professor John Wass MA MD FRCP (H)

His Honour David Farrell KC (O)

His Honour Judge Aaronberg KC (J)

Lloyd Williams Esq KC (B)

Miss Penelope Reed KC (B)

His Honour Judge Lucraft KC (J)

Ian Winter Esq KC (B)

Adrian Keeling Esq KC (B)

District Judge Ikram CBE (J)

Her Honour Judge Evans-Gordon (J)

Andrew Warnock Esq KC (B)

Thomas Mitcheson Esq KC (B)

Ms Harini Iyengar (B)

Ms Minka Braun (B)

The Hon Mr Justice Butler (V)

Professor Iyiola Solanke (A)

Edward Chandler Esq (H)

Ms Fiona Gilmore (H)

Dame Clare Marx DBE DL FRCS (H)

His Highness Tunku Besar Seri Menanti Negeri Sembilan (H)

The Rt Hon Sir David Lidington KCB CBE MP (H)

The Hon Mr Justice Williams (J)

The Hon Mr Justice Choudhury (J)

The Hon Mr Justice Julian Knowles (J)

Patrick Maddams Esq Hon FRIBA (H)

Professor Nigel Lowe KC (Hon) (S)

His Honour Judge Simon Phillips KC (J)

Miss Elizabeth McGrath KC (B)

Nicholas Griffin Esq KC (B)

Cyrus Larizadeh Esq KC (B)

Miss Leigh-Ann Mulcahy KC (B)

Dr Annette Prandzioch (O)

Patrick Goodall Esq KC (B)

Simon Baker Esq KC (B)

Ms Catherine Callaghan KC (B)

Peter Clark Esq (B)

Faisel Sadiq Esq (B)

Miss Hui Ling McCarthy KC (B)

Ms Kay Firth-Butterfield (V)

The Hon Mrs Justice Cutts DBE (J)

The Rt Hon Lady Dorrian (V)

Lawrence Teh Esq (V)

Professor Thom Brooks (A)

Michael Stevenson Esq (H)

The Rt Hon the Lord Fowler (H)

Miles Young Esq (H)

YA Dato Faizah Jamaludin (V)

The Rt Hon The Baroness Buscombe (O)

His Honour Judge Townsend (J)

His Honour Judge Oliver (J)

Ms Alix Beldam KC (Hon) (O)

His Honour Judge Menary KC (J)

Her Honour Judge Nicholls (J)

Miss Lorna Meyer KC (B)

District Judge Foster (J)

Kyri Argyropoulos Esq (B)

Dr Paul Brown KC (B)

Her Honour Judge Clemitson (J)

His Honour Judge Bird (J)

Upper Tribunal Judge Frances (J)

Oliver Saxby Esq KC (B)

Benjamin Myers Esq KC (B)

Jason Sugarman Esq KC (B)

John Kimbell Esq KC (B)

His Honour Judge Petts (J)

Rhys Taylor Esq (B)

Charles Bagot Esq KC (B)

Carsten Zatschler Esq (B)

Miss Diya Sen Gupta KC (B)

Joseph Hart Esq (B)

Miss Elizabeth Fitzgerald (B) Miss Sonia Nolten (B)

Miss Rehana Azib KC (B)

District Judge Prest KC (J) Dr Tunde Okewale MBE (B)

Ms Kathryn Arnot Drummond (B)

Justice Vinodh Coomaraswamy (V) Professor James Goudkamp (A)

The Hon Alexander Downer AC (A) Christopher Hayward Esq (H)

The Rt Rev James Jones KBE (H) Dr Nikki Lack (A) Kannon Shanmugam Esq (H)

The Hon Mrs Justice Eady DBE (J)

The Hon Mr Justice Henshaw (J) Dr Adam Scott OBE TD (O)

Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs (J) Martin Bowdery Esq KC (B)

Andrew Oldland Esq KC (B)

Teertha Gupta Esq KC (B)

Simon Kealey Esq KC (B)

Thomas Cosgrove Esq KC (B) Robin Sellers Esq (B) Miss Kate Brunner KC (B)

Nicholas Craig Esq KC (B)

Ms Ruby Sayed (B)

James Kitching Esq (B)

Craig Hassall Esq KC (B)

District Judge Heptonstall (J)

Professor Rebecca Bailey-Harris (B)

Jonathan Rees Esq KC (B)

Miss Rebecca Dix (B)

Miss Bibi Badejo (B)

Jonathan Bremner Esq KC (B)

Ms Leonie Hirst (B)

Miss Jennifer Oborne (B)

Alderman Gregory Jones KC (B) Dr Shazia Choudhry (A)

Professor Dimitrios Giannoulopoulos (A)

The Rt Hon The Baroness Amos PC CH (H)

Professor Rachael Field (A)

Her Honour Judge Hampel SC (A)

The Reverend Mark Hatcher (H)

Ms Elizabeth Howe OBE (H)

Thomas Leighton Esq (H)

Her Honour Anne Molyneux MBE (H)

His Honour Judge Teague KC (J)

Jonathan Waite Esq KC (O)

The Hon Mr Justice Eyre (J)

Her Honour Judge Wigin (J)

Simon Mallett Esq (B)

Miss Karon Monaghan KC (B)

Miss Barbara Mills KC (B)

Her Honour Judge Anupama Thompson (J) Tom Weisselberg Esq KC (B)

Her Honour Judge Leigh (J)

Zachary Bredemear Esq (B)

David Temkin Esq KC (B)

Richard Honey Esq KC (B)

Miss Joanne Cecil (B)

David Wood Esq (B)

Christopher Bond Esq (B)

Miss Thea Wilson (B)

Ms Saoirse Cowley (B)

The Honourable Justice Glenna Thompson JSC (V)

Mrs Johanna Higgins (V)

Professor Judith Bourne Ph.D. (A)

Dr Augustus Casely-Hayford OBE (H)

Professor Norman Doe (A) Paul Manduca MoM (H)

Sir Kenneth Olisa OBE CStJ (H)

Lemn Sissay Esq OBE MBE (H)

The Hon Mrs Justice Hill (J)

His Honour Judge Dennis Watson KC (J)

Miss Caroline Goodwin KC (B)

Miss Christine Agnew KC (B)

Her Honour Judge Spiro (J)

Judge Mark Sutherland Williams (J) Miss Heidi Stonecliffe KC (B)

Ms Samantha Hillas KC (B)

Miss Sophie Cartwright KC (B)

His Honour Judge Payne (J) Dr Oliver Lewis (B)

His Honour Judge Lazarus (J)

John Mehrzad Esq KC (B)

Thom Dyke Esq (B)

Austin Stoton Esq (B)

Miss Fallon Alexis (B)

Ms Rehana Popal (B)

020 7797 8250

TREASURY

Sub-Treasurer

Head of the Sub-Treasurer’s Office

enquiries@innertemple.org.uk

Greg Dorey CVO 020 7797 8177 subtreasurer@innertemple.org.uk

Jennie Collis Price 020 7797 8177 jcollisprice@innertemple.org.uk Personal Assistant to the Sub-Treasurer Wanda Szwed 020 7797 8179 wszwed@innertemple.org.uk

Director of the Treasury Office

Henrietta Amodio 020 7797 8182 hamodio@innertemple.org.uk

Assistant to the Director of the Treasury Office Nadia Ruiz 020 7797 8182 nruiz@innertemple.org.uk

Membership Registrar and Data Protection Lead Jude Hodgson 020 7797 8206 jhodgson@innertemple.org.uk

Records and Membership Assistant Jacqueline Fenton 020 7797 8241 jfenton@innertemple.org.uk

Member Events and Administration Manager Kate Peters 020 7797 8183 kpeters@innertemple.org.uk

Member Events and Administration Assistant Rosy Humphrey 020 7797 8264 rhumphrey@innertemple.org.uk

Reception Supervisor (main entrance)

Archivist

Kushmanda Khetoo 020 7797 8247 kkhetoo@innertemple.org.uk

Celia Pilkington 020 7797 8251 cpilkington@innertemple.org.uk

EDUCATION and TRAINING 020 7797 8208 education@innertemple.org.uk

Dean of Education

Director of Education

Professor Cheryl Thomas 020 7797 8259

Struan Campbell 0207 797 8214 scampbell@innertemple.org.uk

Education Programme Manager Julia Armfield 020 7797 8207 jarmfield@innertemple.org.uk (Pre-Pupillage)

Regional Education Officer Kerry Upham 020 7797 8189 kupham@innertemple.org.uk

Education & Student Support Co-ordinator Helen Gaskell 020 7797 2386 hgaskell@innertemple.org.uk

Education Programme Manager Vanessa Bennett 020 7797 8261 vbennett@innertemple.org.uk (Pupils & New Practitioners)

Education Co-ordinator (currently vacant)

Education Programme Manager David Miller 020 7797 8209 dmiller@innertemple.org.uk (Established Practitioners)

Education Operations & Projects Manager Richard Loveridge 020 7797 8212 rloveridge@innertemple.org.uk

Education Engagement Co-ordinator Tiffany-Rochelle Louis-Byfield 020 7797 8257 tlouis-byfield@innertemple.org.uk

Widening Access Manager

Outreach Co-ordinator

Access & Support Officer

Stephanie Baughen 020 7797 8262 sbaughen@innertemple.org.uk

James Carlberg 020 7797 8297 jcarlberg@innertemple.org.uk

Edwina Koroma 020 7797 8213 ekoroma@innertemple.org.uk

Scholarships Manager Georgina Everatt 020 7797 8211 geveratt@innertemple.org.uk Pegasus Trust Co-ordinator Shahzadi Hussain 020 7797 8210 shussain@innertemple.org.uk

CHAIRS OF BENCH COMMITTEES & SUB-COMMITTEES

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Master Treasurer

ADVOCACY TRAINING COMMITTEE

Master Adam Constable

ARCHIVES COMMITTEE

Master Sally Smith

BENCHER NOMINATION COMMITTEE

Master Reader

COMMUNICATIONS SUB-COMMITTEE

Master Raquel Agnello

EDUCATION & TRAINING COMMITTEE

Master Juliet May

EMPLOYED BAR FORUM

Master Sara Lawson

EQUALITY, DIVERSITY & INCLUSIVITY SUB-COMMITTEE

Master Ingrid Simler

ESTATES COMMITTEE

Master Roger Stewart

FINANCE SUB-COMMITTEE

Master Sonia Nolten (Senior Bench Auditor)

INNS OF COURT ALLIANCE FOR WOMEN

Master Leigh-Ann Mulcahy (Co-Convenor)

INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE

Master Kieron Beal

INVESTMENT SUB-COMMITTEE

Master Matthew Reeve

LIBRARY COMMITTEE

Master Sally Smith

PEGASUS SCHOLARSHIP TRUST

Master Martin Goudie

QUALIFYING SESSIONS COMMITTEE

Master Rory Phillips

SCHOLARSHIPS & OUTREACH COMMITTEE

Master Fiona Jackson

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT & SUPPORT COMMITTEE

Master Saira Kabir Sheikh

TREASURER NOMINATION COMMITTEE

Master Guy Fetherstonhaugh

MASTERS OF THE CIRCUITS AND ASSISTANT MASTERS

European: Master Nicholas Green Master Kieron Beal

Midland: Master Paul Bleasdale Master Richard Benson

Northern Circuit: Master Louise Bancroft Master Nigel Bird Master Joseph Hart

North Eastern Circuit: Master Neil Clark Master Anne Richardson Master Gillian Matthews

South Eastern: Master Kathryn Arnot Drummond Master Fiona Jackson Master Oliver Saxby

Wales & Chester: Master Timothy Petts Master Rhys Taylor

Western: Master Christopher Quinlan Master James Patrick Master James Townsend

TEMPLE CHURCH COMMITTEE

Master Simon O’Toole (Treasurer)

MARSHALL HALL TRUST

Master Jonathan Waite TEMPLE MUSIC FOUNDATION

Master Guy Beringer

INNER TEMPLE REPRESENTATIVES ON EXTERNAL BODIES

BAR COUNCIL

Master Robert Rhodes Master Minka Braun Rehana Popal (BLC Rep)

BARRISTERS’ BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION Master Daniel Toledano

BAR TRIBUNALS & ADJUDICATION SERVICE TRIBUNAL APPOINTMENTS BODY Master Ingrid Simler (Chair) Master Julia Dias Master Ruby Sayed

COUNCIL OF THE INNS OF COURT Master Helen Davies Sub-Treasurer

COIC MATCHED FUNDED PUPILLAGE SCHEME Master Pamela Scriven

INNS’ STRATEGIC ADVISORY GROUP Master Treasurer Master Reader Master Helen Davies Sub-Treasurer

INCORPORATED COUNCIL OF LAW REPORTING

Master Margaret Bowron Master Mary Malecka

INNS OF COURT AND BAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST Master Rory Phillips

INNS OF COURT COLLEGE OF ADVOCACY

Master Adam Constable (Inner Temple Governor) Master Catherine MacKenzie (Academic Governor)

INNS OF COURT LIBRARIES LIAISON COMMITTEE Master Sally Smith

INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED LEGAL STUDIES (IALS)

Master Mark Havelock-Allan

SELDEN SOCIETY Master Donald Cryan

The Inn’s two equally stunning rooms, the Boswell and Chaucer, are available every day and are located on the 3rd floor of 3 Dr Johnson’s Buildings which was built in 1858 by the architect Sydney Smirke.

Whether you are in town for business or pleasure, our accommodation, along with the Pegasus Bar which is open Monday-Friday, o ers respite from a long day of meetings or sightseeing. Choose from the four-poster luxury of the Chaucer or the more modern Boswell with views overlooking Temple Church.

020 7797 8230 | venuehire@innertemple.org.uk | innertemplevenuehire.co.uk

CASE GENIE

AI powering the future of case law research