Photographs: Garlinda Birkbeck, Miranda Parry Photography, The Inner Temple photograph archive
Yearbook Design: Jon Ashby | Noun Ltd, 10 Kingshill Court, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire HP13 5FN wearenoun.com
Brandworld Design: SomeOne, 67 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4QS someoneinlondon.com
Advertising: HTDL Ltd htdl.co.uk
Printed by: John Good Limited, Progress House, Butlers Leap, Rugby CV21 3RQ johngood.com
/TheInnerTemple
@TheInnerTemple
@honsocinnertemple
@honsocinnertemple
@innertemple.org.uk
FROM THE EDITOR
In editing this edition of the Yearbook, I am reminded of the depth and richness of the Inn’s history. From the soil discovered at the bottom of the Treasury Building’s lift pit dating back circa 56 million years and the burial sites of the Iron Age Britons, Romans and Saxons who made their homes here, to the 12th century stone carvings adorning the Temple Church Doorway and the fires and bombings which threatened to destroy the Inn altogether.
I am also reminded that the Inn is nothing without its people. I have enjoyed reading about Sub-Treasurers and Librarians old and new (some more dedicated than others!), trailblazing South Asian barristers, the Sikh Bandi Chhor celebrations, and the adventures of members representing the Inn overseas.
It is clear that the Inn is ever evolving and our experience of it a brief snapshot in time. I wonder what our successors will write in future Yearbooks – hopefully they will reflect the ongoing efforts to promote diversity and inclusion at the Bar, positive experiences with AI, and an appreciation of the soon-to-be refurbished Temple Church featuring the new cohort of girl choristers. On the other hand, I hope that there will be no more reports of Sub-Treasurers fighting fires with bloody bandaged legs, or of cars crashing into lightwells…
A huge thank you to our contributors and Master Braun, Henrietta Amodio, Nadia Ruiz and the wider editorial team who have worked tirelessly to produce this important record of Inn life. I sincerely hope that you enjoy the read.
Until next year,
Lily Walker-Parr 5RB
L–R: Sandra Alvarez, Julia Armfield, Nadia Ruiz, Henrietta Amodio
The
C
Master
Master
Master
Training: Hampel Abroad
Master Faisel Sadiq
T The Social Context of the Law:
Do Magnitsky Type Sanctions Develop the Rule of Law?
Sir Bill Browder, Bronwen Maddox, Master Geoffrey Nice
L Waste Paper, Bookbinding,
and the Literary Imagination
The Graduate Trainee Librarian
RL
TC
FROM THE TREASURER
As I write this foreword to The Inner Temple Yearbook, we have just received the devastating news of the death of my counterpart, the Treasurer of Middle Temple, Paul Darling OBE KC. For the moment it is difficult to absorb the shock of it all. The time will come for reflection and tribute on his huge contribution to the life of the Bar, the Inns of Court, the legal profession and to broader public life – and for his wonderful character and charisma. For now, I just wish to express profound sympathy to his wife Camilla, his brother Ian and his wider family; to record Paul’s very particular contribution to the warm relationship which our two Inns enjoy and to remember with gratitude a personal friendship of 40 years and more.
On the theme of gratitude, I turn to the Inn’s staff. The year began with the Treasurer’s traditional early January allday walk around the estate, meeting as many as possible of all who work in the Inn. Many I knew, but many not: for example, in carpentry, plumbing and electrics. It was a treat to have this tour, not least because of discovering so many who have given long years of service to the Inn. That speaks so well of their loyalty and commitment to The Inner Temple, but I hope also of the Inn as a good employer. The day ended with a very happy staff reception in the Drawing Room. We are fortunate in each and every one who works for the Inn, and for the strong and skilled leadership which Greg Dorey and the departmental heads provide.
In similar measure we owe huge thanks to the many volunteers, from right across the Inn’s membership, who give so much of their time to our range of educational and outreach events within the Inn, at the residential courses and on the Circuits. Presentations and courses for school students, Bar students, pupils, New Practitioners (and, increasingly, Established Practitioners); the Practice Management course; seminars, moots and debates – none of these would be possible without that generous commitment by busy practitioners, judges and legal academics. To these we add the voluntary time given by so many non-members, for example the experts in a variety of fields, notably the accountants and medical practitioners on the New Practitioner course and the distinguished lecturers and members of discussion panels on a range of topics in and around the law. These include Master Nice’s ever-stimulating series under the banner of The Social Context of the Law – none will forget this year’s stirring debate on ‘Magnitsky sanctions’; seminars under the title of the International Practice Panel and Reader’s Lecture Nights. In simple terms, we could not achieve our educational mission without this magnificent voluntary help.
But the Inn depends on its volunteers for so much else: thus, for the scholarship interviews of each one of the hundreds of applicants and the Masters and Assistant Masters of the Inn’s activities and their committee members.
Moving through this year – from residential courses to seminars and lectures in our splendid theatre, to mooting and debating competitions to committee meetings on all manner of topics – it has been a privilege to witness all these contributions to our educational mission and to see their effect. A forest of student hands goes up for questions at the end of the lecture. Across the afternoon, a pupil cross-examiner is transformed before our eyes. These are moments to savour.
I also give special thanks to those who give their time to help the Inn in its responses to the many and various consultation documents as may affect the future conduct and regulation of the profession. In the past year these have included proposed change to the time of Call to the Bar and proposed reforms to academic legal training. These types of debate are an unavoidable feature of the modern regulatory landscape to which the Inn must respond constructively, in detail and, where necessary, with firmness. In all these ways we work closely with our colleagues in the other Inns and through the Council of the Inns of Court (COIC). Whilst retaining a healthy and constructive element of friendly and warm-hearted rivalry with our fellow Inns, we collaborate wherever possible and appreciate all that each brings to the discussion on the future of the profession.
Highlights of the year? As always, I have found Call Nights very special occasions. In contrast to the somewhat spartan event of my day, the modern ceremony combines a more fitting sense of occasion with a necessary emphasis on the high ethical obligations which practice at the Bar imposes. This is followed by a joyous celebration in Hall. For many of those called, the road ahead may be rocky, but after years of study and worry and expense it is right to have an evening of great cheer. More than ever this year it has been a delight to meet the families and friends of the callees, to hear their stories of how and when the first thoughts of a career at the Bar were implanted and to learn of their plans for the next stage.
As always, I have found Call Nights very special occasions. In contrast to the somewhat spartan event of my day, the modern ceremony combines a more fitting sense of occasion with a necessary emphasis on the high ethical obligations which practice at the Bar imposes. This is followed by a joyous celebration in Hall. For many of those called, the road ahead may be rocky, but after years of study and worry and expense it is right to have an evening of great cheer.
I have also particularly enjoyed the various dinners on Circuit (Cardiff, Birmingham, Leeds, Bristol; and Liverpool to come) and the opportunity they give to meet members who can only come infrequently to events within the Inn. These included the successful novelty of a joint amity dinner with Middle Temple in Leeds, preceded by a joint Qualifying Session at which the two Treasurers and the next Treasurer of Middle Temple (The Rt Hon Lady Justice Thirlwall DBE) spoke of their respective routes to practice at the Bar. As with so much more to be treasured, the recollection of Paul Darling OBE KC on vintage form will not be forgotten.
Until a late downpour, the Summer Party in the Gardens coincided with an evening of sunshine – a striking achievement this year. Nearly 600 members and their guests enjoyed delicious food and drink, and many took the opportunity to dance.
What next? I look forward to September travel with the Sub-Treasurer to Malaysia and Singapore, to meet the Inn’s alumni and colleagues from the Bar and Bench of those two jurisdictions. These visits celebrate both the international reach of the common law and our associated mutual commitment to the rule of law. In a world which is strikingly more dangerous than for many years past, that bond is surely more important than ever.
These visits celebrate both the international reach of the common law and our associated mutual commitment to the rule of law.
I end with thanks to my fellow Principal Officers, Masters Richard Salter and Helen Davies, and to our Sub-Treasurer Greg Dorey. Individually and collectively, they have given me unstinting support and wise guidance on the many and varied issues which arise on almost a daily basis. Whilst conscious of the privilege to serve as Treasurer, I was less confident of its potential pleasures. It is thanks to them, and to so many others across the Inn, that I have found it so rewarding and enjoyable.
The Hon Mr Justice Michael Soole Treasurer
SUB-TREASURERS OF THE INNER TEMPLE
By the Sub-Treasurer
Based on a much longer talk to the History Society in May 2024.
The distant origin of the role of the Sub-Treasurer (ST) of Inner Temple is not unknown. Geoffrey Chaucer, claimed dubiously to be a member of the Inn, wrote in the late 14th century – roughly when we have the first written evidence for The Inner and Middle Temples – of a “gentle Manciple”. My progenitor was a pilgrim in The Canterbury Tales Chaucer refers to the Manciple coming from “a temple”, rather than Inner Temple. But we probably had one and, though a caricature, Chaucer may be saying something valid about their reputation. Although uneducated, and working for over 30 masters, intelligent and learned in the law, the Manciple can “outpace” them all (“wipe their eye”) with native cunning. He was particularly adept at dealing with the Achatours, the catering suppliers of their day. He was a professional like the lawyers he serves but working for his own selfish purposes. As we learn, he is vain and pretentious. The adjective “gentle”, meaning well-bred, is of course ironic. Chaucer only wrote that the Manciple had short hair, like a priest. But the 15th century Ellesmere Manuscript of the Canterbury Tales depicts him as rosy-skinned, with a beard. He looks well-off and we learn he can live frugally and chooses not to give to the poor. We hear too that whether he purchases on cash or credit he always ends up ahead in his accounts, a financial impossibility – the Host of the pilgrims refers sarcastically to “small errors in your reckonings”. He is well observed in a mid-20th century painting by Polish artist Arthur Szyk: the flask the Manciple is holding out indicates hospitality, but he is also extremely well-armed.
Whereas the Manciple had 30 masters, I have some 360 Governing Masters of the Bench or some 600 Benchers in total to ‘outpace’. So where are the similarities between the Manciple and today’s Sub-Treasurer? Well, he bridged the gap between the legal and non-legal worlds, he supported his masters in practical ways, and he derived authority from them and was trusted by them (unwisely in his case).
A “servant of the apprentices of court”, almost certainly in the Temple, is mentioned as early as 1339 in manuscripts, but may have been lowlier than a Manciple. The first references to a Manciple and a Steward appear in the London legal quarter in the 1340s and 1350s, evidence of the establishment of collegiate legal communities at that time. Master John Baker has noted the local coroners’ records of that period might misleadingly suggest the Inns then were “dens of violent students, run by homicidal servants”.
Although the oldest known office in the Inns of Court is probably that of the Manciple, much had changed by Henry VIII’s reign. By then, the permanent domestic establishment consisted of the Steward; the Butler (and under-butlers); the Cook (and kitchen staff); and the Pannierman (or waiter). Later in the 16th century Porters are mentioned, concerned with security and good order, and there was a host of lesser servants (laundresses, lackeys and turnspits etc). The Pannierman blew the horn for dinner: later the Porters took on this role, in return for a pint of beer after every performance.
Clockwise from top left: Geoffrey Chaucer, Charles Lamb, Walter George Wrangham and his son, Roy Robinson, Captain Patrick Sheehan, Peter Little, Patrick Maddams and Greg Dorey. Above: The Manciple in the Ellesmere manuscript of Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales
Sadly, all The Inner Temple administrative records pre-1505 and all financial records pre-1606 are lacking. But the records refer to a Deputy Treasurer as early as 1526 and there are repeated references to such an officer from 1557, either as Sub or Under-Treasurer (both derived from the Latin sub-thesaurius). Why Inner Temple settled eventually on the Sub-Treasurer title, while the other Inns of Court fixed on Under-Treasurer (UT) is a moot point – perhaps we like to be different. The first Sub-Treasurers were appointed ad hoc by Treasurers as debt collection assistants and to audit accounts, and were Benchers effectively acting as Deputy or Vice-Treasurers. The titles clearly derive from times when the financial element of their roles was more prominent, though it still exists in a scaled-back form.
Only in 1682 did the Inn create a ‘standing Sub-Treasurer’ whose duties as then defined were extended later as business increased. It was ordered that the Sub-Treasurer, Steward and Chief Butler should always be appointed by Bench Table and confirmed by a Parliament.
Since then, the Sub-Treasurer has formally been the Inn’s principal administrative officer. The 1682 decision was probably linked to the fact that prompt payment of Commons had become a serious issue, resulting in occasional seizure of chambers and bonds in suit to recover arrears. The SubTreasurer’s terms of reference included receiving and accounting for income; reporting defaulters to Bench Table; and overseeing contracts for work done or goods bought. He also had to provide sureties of £2,000 for his performance, a huge sum of money. For this he received remuneration from various sources, including 5 per cent of all income. It was a complex arrangement and the incentive to ensure student numbers remained high and chambers were filled was considerable.
Anthony Belbin, a member of the Inn, was appointed to this restructured role. He had to attend every Parliament and record decisions; prepare all certificates and warrants of admittances into or out of the Inn; and supervise the Butler’s recording of exercises relating to Call to the Bar. In 1684, he resigned to become third Prothonotary at the Court of Common Pleas – his final disbursements were 15s for wine for Bench Table and a payment to the Master of the Revels for entertainment. In 1687, Bench Table agreed to suspend revels because he was ill and his lodging was near Hall; he died soon after. Thereafter, some eight incumbents of the role died while still in harness, while several resigned due to ill-health.
Not every Sub-Treasurer since Belbin has been prudent. He was succeeded by Thomas Riggs, a member of the Inn appointed as Under Treasurer. That title is then used up until the appointment of Gasgoigne Frederick as Sub-Treasurer in 1768, after which Sub-Treasurer is used consistently. But in 1694 “for all his manifold defaults [Riggs] is discharged from his place”. He was summoned to Bench Table to account for money he owed and various legal proceedings followed. Thereafter, Bench Table appears to have signed off the accounts of all his outgoing successors.
The payment of sureties on appointment continued until the mid-20th century. Essentially, this guaranteed the keeping of true accounts of all income and expenditure and responsibility for the safekeeping of the Inn’s assets – plate, linen, deeds, rolls, admission books etc. The largest such security was required from Francis Richards when he became Sub-Treasurer in 1724 – the payment was of £4,000 (about £1 million in current values), backed by two other people. This reflected the large sums passing through his hands and the fact that until much later investments of the society were made in his name. At the time of his appointment, the Benchers narrowly resolved that in future no petition for the appointment should be entertained that did not come from a member of the Inn admitted before the post had become vacant.
Samuel Salt was the last Under Treasurer and was a Middle Templar when admitted to Inner Temple in 1745; he occupied the post until 1768. He employed John Lamb as his clerk, John (also a waiter in Hall) being the father of Charles Lamb, author of ‘The Old Benchers of The Inner Temple’ in the Essays of Elìa. A line from the Essays features on the boy’s statue in our garden – “Lawyers, I suppose, were children once.” Salt treated the Lambs as family and was called to the Bar in 1753. He resigned to become an MP but continued to serve The Inn in many roles, becoming Treasurer in 1788 before his death in 1792. Master MacKinnon (Treasurer in 1945) observed in one of his essays that it therefore seems unreasonable that Elìa made Salt out as an absent-minded nincompoop, whose business was largely done for him by his shrewd clerk. Lamb’s accuracy, however, is thrown into question by the fact that he thought his own father a fine humorous poet – but as Master MacKinnon put it, “sorrier stuff was never penned.” Lamb was only 17 when Salt died. Lamb more generously credits a subsequent Sub-Treasurer John Spinks as kindly supplementing his meagre fare when he was a pupil at Christ’s Hospital. Spinks was succeeded by the Librarian Randal Norris in 1801. Norris seems to have been an indifferent Librarian and perhaps an indifferent accountant –after his death an investigation of the Inn’s account revealed large sums due to the Norris estate. He was followed in 1827 by James Gardner, a clerk to Norris, who suffered poor health and domestic problems and failed to carry out his duties properly. When Gardner died in 1833, he left substantial debts through his failure to purchase through the Stamp Office, students’ admission stamps and barristers stamps, for Calls to the Bar. An 1820 map of The Inner Temple estate shows that at that time the Sub-Treasurer’s residence was part of the Treasury Building. In recent years it has been a flat in Paper Buildings. Throughout the 19th century, those appointed Sub-Treasurer were predominantly the former clerks of their predecessors. In early 1870, however, Bench Table determined that only those people they proposed should be considered for the post. Their next appointment was Henry Hall Dare, whose job description is heavily focused on financial duties and oversight, but also covers the need to take care that the Temple is properly watched and warded, and to conduct all correspondence on the Inn’s business. He was followed in 1888 by one of the more distinguished holders of the office. Henry Waldemar Lawrence was born in Kathmandu in 1845, the son of Brigadier-General Sir Henry Montgomery Lawrence of Siege of Lucknow fame. Our Lawrence was a barrister of Lincoln’s Inn and later a JP for London and Surrey. In 1898, he became 3rd Baronet Lawrence of Lucknow and died in harness in 1908. His references included a glowing account from no less than Lord Napier of Magdala. Other references suggest Lawrence is rather overqualified for the job, though that might mean it was not seen as an illustrious role at that time. He won on a second ballot in Bench Table against the other remaining candidate, Chief Clerk Milton. Lawrence was succeeded by Walter George Wrangham, with Milton again coming an unfortunate second in the ballot. Wrangham was a barrister before being appointed SubTreasurer. During the First World War, he was permitted to work part-time at the Ministries of Munitions and Food. His resignation in 1927 was accepted with regret and sympathy, presumably because he was unwell, and he was awarded a
For courage shown by Sub-Treasurers, it would be hard to beat the record of Roy Robinson – our longest-serving incumbent (1927–1958) and previously Chief Clerk. Like many staff he joined the Auxiliary Fire Service during the Second World War and subsequently a separate Fire Guard for night duties at the Temple, where he supervised a joint fire-fighting rota. He and his wife Cecile displayed particular heroism as firewatchers during the worst air raid on the Inn, on 10/11 May 1941, when he sustained a bad gash in the leg but returned to firefighting, limping, after being bandaged. He received an honorary mention in the Inn’s records for bravery.
Salaries of Sub-Treasurers were remarkably stable between the complex arrangements made for Belbin, up to the late 20th century. Salt was paid a salary of £100. When Norris was appointed, it was recorded that “…every stipend, salary, allowance or emolument enjoyed by the Sub-Treasurer do cease and in lieu a salary of £300 per annum be paid”. He was also allowed a set of chambers and office space for free; had a grant towards employing a clerk; and received fees on admittances and certificates granted. In the late 20th century salary increases accelerated – possibly alongside the introduction of rents more closely aligned with the market. From time to time, there were also monetary gifts for special services, bonuses, gratuities and upon retirement, and for pensions and widows’ pensions. A proper superannuation scheme was in place by the time Robinson was Sub-Treasurer.
Until the late 20th century, Sub-Treasurers personally interviewed prospective new members before they were admitted to Inner Temple, to see if they were fit and proper persons. The most notorious interviewer was Commander Rodney Flynn. Master Peter Birkett has described his own somewhat confrontational admission interview with Flynn in a Yearbook article (2019–20). Other commentators describe hearing racist attitudes at such interviews, as well as advice to non-Muslims to sit next to Muslims at dinner so you could drink their port as well. In an oral history interview a member of Inner remarks that Flynn “…certainly didn’t approve of women at the Bar…”.
You did not want to be a student in trouble with the SubTreasurers in those days, up to 70 years ago. Times have changed, though my predecessor Patrick Maddams once told an interviewer that “I do, however, occasionally offer people advice. This is when you are not quite formally reprimanded. Somebody said to me they would rather have paid a £300 fine than have a word of advice from me”. Flynn was a tough man in other contexts too. In 1978, he wrote to the Under Treasurer of Middle Temple to thank him for an invitation to an Amity Dinner: “As a matter of record…I think I should point out that there is no ‘Amity’ between us…. Our only official Amity is with Gray’s Inn.”
I am indebted to Master Elizabeth Butler-Sloss (Treasurer, 1998) for the story of the driver whose car overshot the Inner Temple carpark and was upended in a lightwell. Commander Flynn merely passed by, commenting “that will cost a pretty penny”. When he subsequently crashed his car into the Inn’s red post box (there was apparently more than one such occasion) a crowd swiftly gathered – a Bencher present observed “that will cost a pretty penny”. It is recorded that Flynn was rescued by a former Lord Chancellor.
In his copious diaries, Master Monier-Williams (Treasurer, 1988) noted mournfully in 1976 that “Sadly the passing years have brought out a rather unpleasant ‘quarter deck’ attitude in my old friend Rodney Flynn…which has manifested itself in shortness of temper and lack of tact. This has made him unpopular with Bench, Bar and students. Sad because he has done much for the Inn…the welcome which students are given when they come to the Treasury to join the Inn leaves a lot to be desired”. In 1985, he concluded that 20 years was too long to be in situ as any Chief Executive. He wrote this following a farewell dinner for Rear-Admiral Tom Homan – Flynn’s successor – who he claimed, “brought with him a totally different, friendly approach and we shall miss him”. He had given some seven years of “wonderful service”. In 1977, Monier-Williams had attended the Bench Table that made the appointment. The Treasurer, Master Nield, had announced the unanimous decision and commented that “he went to Grammar School but passed by special examination into the Royal Navy”. Monier-Williams wondered whether “Master Treasurer was apologising or recommending him by the conjunctive use of the word ‘but’ ”.
Between the appointment of Flynn in 1958 and the retirement of Brigadier Peter Little in 2005, the Sub-Treasurers were all retired senior military men (the others being Homan and Captain Paddy Sheehan). This was also true of the other Inns – it was only in 2005 that the appointment of Patrick Maddams turned Inner Temple into what he called a “demilitarised zone”. The others followed suit (Middle Temple in 2011 and Lincoln’s Inn in 2012) except for Gray’s Inn which has stuck with a military appointee. Middle Temple recently remilitarised their Under-Treasurer.
As Treasurer, Master Evelyn Monier-Williams refers repeatedly to conflict with Captain Sheehan. “One of my main concerns during my Readership and Treasurership was the growth of a powerful bureaucracy consisting of the Sub- and Under Treasurers (S/UTs) of the Inns, working in collusion with the General Secretary of the Bar. These were on the main retired service officers and both individually and collectively they had strong ideas as to how the Inns should be run… these ideas did not always tally with the views of the Treasurer of the day whose duty it was to reflect the policy of the Bench. I myself came into conflict with the bureaucracy on more than one occasion, but I made sure that I as Treasurer representing the Bench of the Inn should have the final say.”
Master Monier-Williams mentions the “sinister development” of the four S/UTs meeting monthly, initiating policy and adopting a ‘divide and rule’ approach to getting it ‘rubber stamped’. He comments “Sheehan is an excellent administrator…but he does take the view that Treasurers should reign but not rule.
Before we know where we are, decision-making in the Inns will be in the hands of our Chief Executives presiding over a small cabal of their own favourites”. He was especially affronted at attempts to reduce the amount of student dining required, mentioning “gross disloyalty” and “obsessional hostility”.
But the most acute clash came when “The Sub-Treasurer has produced some extremely foul white wine – very sour and with a nasty taste. He really should know better! Adding insult to injury we have stuck our own label on it. Adding further insult to injury it has been served to the Bench! … This really was a ‘try on’ by the Sub-Treasurer in the interests of economy. It was a piece of impertinence and poor service…”. But the Master of the Cellar had the obvious solution: “ it can probably be used on student dining nights…”.
Monier-Williams explained the problem as follows: “In the old days the S/UT had quite an easy job to do. He had a small staff and life in the Inn Treasury was a somewhat leisurely affair.
Now the complex business of running an Inn demands quite a different kind of person. We tend to get ex-Service Officers of high calibre and they become impatient with subordinate roles. At the same time life at the Bar and on the Judicial Bench is becoming more demanding. In the result, more and more power passes from the Benches, who are the governing bodies, to a salaried employee…we must be vigilant.”
If there is a theme to the current century, it is that the role of Sub-Treasurer has become yet more complex and multidimensional. There is a far greater emphasis on efficiency, effectiveness and governance according to best practice and projects have had to become more imaginative. Peter Little presided over the Millennium and Golden Jubilee celebrations, Treasury Office and kitchen refurbishments amongst much else. Patrick Maddams oversaw the return of the Inn to a more serious and professional education and training function and played a major role in conceiving of and working up to Project Pegasus, the Inn’s refurbishment and redevelopment project. By modern Acts of Parliament, the Sub-Treasurer and Under Treasurer of Middle Temple have been assigned many of the functions of a local authority, deriving from “ancient custom”. But today we are only responsible for environmental protection, licensing, paving and lighting, public health and safety, refuse collection and water supply. It follows that we frequently have to respond to round-robin enquiries under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, but only in our capacity as local authorities and not relating to information generated by the Inns as private bodies.
Aside from overseeing the work of the staff, my duties now cover the management, financial administration and forward planning of the Inn, within a framework laid down by Bench Table and the Executive Committee. They include maintaining relations with a variety of relevant institutions and overseas jurisdictions, particularly those in the Common Law world, and working closely with Middle Temple to ensure the smooth running of Temple Church operations. I also, of course, managed both our Covid response and, for several years, have implemented Project Pegasus. I remain the first diplomat to be appointed in any Inn to the role and the only ever Ambassador. Sadly, I am the only extant Sub-Treasurer, the 25th such officer at Inner Temple.
The Sub-Treasurers have been around for centuries. Officers with that title started as assistant debt collectors and evolved into Chief Executives, managing 150 excellent staff and dealing with a hugely varied agenda – from the sublime to the occasionally ridiculous. Over the years they faced civil war, plague, fire, financial crises, air raids and substantial building projects. Some were humble and some grand. But few were as cunning as the Manciple.
Sub-Treasurer
For the full version of this lecture: innertemple.org.uk/subtreasurers
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.
Standing events: Up to 400 guests
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.
LAWYER OR POLITICIAN: WHAT IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL?
By The Rt Hon Dominic Grieve KC
From a Reader’s Lecture held on 13 November 2023.
It is a long time since I last spoke about the role of the Attorney General, for which it was my privilege to hold the office from 2010 to 2014. The Attorneys are rather silent figures. Indeed, it was always said that if the Attorney got in the news, it was either because the government was in serious trouble or the Attorney was in serious trouble, or possibly both.
The Attorney’s role is very varied, and that’s what I want to talk to you about. I was going to do three things. Firstly, to explain the history of the office and how it has evolved into its current form. Secondly, explain what the role is at present. And then finally, I thought we could have a debate around the role, including looking at calls for change (of which there have been quite a few) and indeed criticisms of the way in which the office exists or the role discharged.
It was always said that if the Attorney got in the news, it was either because the government was in serious trouble or the Attorney was in serious trouble, or possibly both.
Apart from the Lord Chancellor, the office looks to be the oldest in our governmental system, and it comes as no surprise that it first emerges with the development of our court system in the 13th century, in those immediate decades after Magna Carta. English kings could only dispense justice through their judges, and the reason for that was because kings had a partiality and an interest which they also needed to have represented. The role emerged because the king needed his interest to be represented in his courts. The first person of whom we know anything doing this role was a man called Laurence Del Brok, who appears in a record as receiving payment in 1243. It is unclear whether he was actually the Attorney General or was essentially a sergeant at law who had been retained for that particular purpose. In the 16th century, the role developed into a mixture of prosecuting traitors and asserting monarchical prerogative and property rights, and advising the government (or the council of the monarch) at the same time. While the Solicitor General started frequently to be a member of parliament, the Attorney remained a Crown official because he was holding an office of profit under the Crown. But things started to blur. Francis Bacon, in the early 17th century, was both Attorney General and a member of parliament. The Commons did not like it. They passed a resolution in 1614 that thereafter no Attorney General should at any time be of the House. But that objection frittered away, and by the end of the 17th century, it had become a semi-requirement that the Attorney should also be a member of the House of Commons. He and the Solicitor General were turning from counsel for the king into being the law officers of the government.
Above all, the Attorney turned into an adviser to government, whilst at the same time keeping a practice at the Bar. That continued until the 1890s when the Attorney and the Solicitor General ceased to have private practices, but they could still charge fees for the court work they did for the government, as well as being paid a retainer for being the law officers. This was an arrangement which did not appeal to Clement Attlee after the Second World War. Sir Hartley Shawcross then negotiated a package for the law officers that made them salaried like any other ministers of the Crown.
The big change that has happened in the last 40 years is about the role of the law officers in respect of both the scale of their advisory work and the scale of their litigation work. Up to the 1980s they had an enormous amount of work in court, although it could vary according to the taste of the law officer concerned.
The volume of other responsibilities now makes court work in practice quite difficult to juggle with the other duties for the Attorney General. The Attorney is not a member of the cabinet. He may attend it and usually does. He is its legal adviser, and by being present he is able to be aware of what is going on.
But what does the Attorney General really do today? First, some key aspects of the historic role are very much present.
Although the Attorney is appointed by the Prime Minister and he can be fired by the Prime Minister, the Attorney is the Sovereign’s Attorney General, not the Prime Minister’s Attorney General. The oath of office remains that set down in the middle of the 16th century and makes that clear.
To do the work, the Attorney and the Solicitor have a small department. When I was there, we were 42, of whom there were 17 lawyers brought in from elsewhere in government.
Nowadays, the Solicitor General is the deputy of the Attorney. The work is allocated out between the two of them. They have offices adjacent to each other. They work together and hopefully talk together and cooperate well together in a good relationship. Ultimately, it is the Attorney who handles the most important work and is the senior.
Although the Attorney is appointed by the Prime Minister and he can be fired by the Prime Minister, the Attorney is the Sovereign’s Attorney General, not the Prime Minister’s Attorney General. The oath of office remains that set down in the middle of the 16th century and makes that clear.
The first and most important aspect of the job is advising the government. Now, how is that actually done? Most advice, of course, doesn’t have to come from the Attorney at all, but from those lawyers in government who are embedded in departments. Since leaving office, I’ve heard, rather to my horror, sometimes it being described that the Attorney General is the minister in government who commissions legal advice. Well, if that is how some Attorneys have been viewing it, it is not constitutional, because it is absolutely clear that at the end of the day, the letter that goes out in the name of the Attorney or Solicitor is their advice, not somebody else’s.
By convention, the fact that the Attorney has or has not advised is never disclosed, nor the content, although there have been some exceptions. Lord Goldsmith’s advice on Iraq did eventually see the light of day. And, of course, Geoffrey Cox found himself the subject of a humble address by the House of Commons that forced his advice to Theresa May on how the Northern Ireland protocol would work in practice to be revealed. I spoke and voted against doing that, because if the Attorney’s advice is routinely revealed it is going to cause really serious problems – as it would in any relationship between client and lawyer.
By convention, the fact that the Attorney has or has not advised is never disclosed, nor the content, although there have been some exceptions.
Attorneys are there to apply the test of respectable legal arguments where the law is uncertain, particularly with international law. The reality is that most of the diet of work being done by the law officers concerns foreign affairs and treaties, constitutional and devolution issues, EU law, and important ECHR and Human Rights Act considerations.
In addition to that, there’s an absolute central principle that the Attorney has a duty of candour and the duty to advance proper arguments in court in defending the government’s position, which have to take precedence over just wanting to win a case. It is central to the role of the Attorney that the integrity of the government’s legal positions is maintained at all times. This also applies to Treasury counsel who may act for the Attorney in cases.
The Attorney also has a specific role in relation to the introduction of any legislation into parliament. Before legislation comes in, it has to go before a legislative committee. The department that is sponsoring the Bill produces a brief and vouches for the Bill being ready, points out if it has any unusual powers or retrospective effects, and vouches for its certificate of compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. But the Attorney has to approve that, and if the Attorney is not satisfied, he or the Solicitor General can turn up and say so. In which case – back to the drawing board, and it may delay the introduction of the legislation. The Attorney can also be an adviser to the House of Commons and the Lords, as long as there is no conflict of interest between the interests of the Commons or Lords and the interests of his work for government. Usually that means giving advice to the Standards and Privileges Committee of the Commons, but it can also involve a legal query in the House on a Bill.
The second role is the superintendence as a departmental minister of the Crown Prosecution Service, the SFO and the Service Prosecuting Authority. That means negotiating their budgets with the Treasury, meeting regularly with their heads, discussing the effectiveness of the service and major cases that might cause parliamentary interest. But, although nominally the DPP and the director of the SFO and service prosecutions are the appointments and the agents of the Attorney, the reality is that they are independent players, and the Attorney is there to protect them from political interference. The Attorney General has significant reserve powers of interference in prosecution, including directing a prosecution being brought, or putting in a nolle prosequi to stop one. But, since the reforms of 2007–08, there is a protocol by which the Attorney General will not interfere in prosecutorial decisions, except in cases of national security.
The Attorney has to also, by statute, provide consent to certain prosecutions. He has to act quasi-judicially in doing that to ensure that the public interest is being served, not somebody else’s interest. I never had to exercise any override. But it is there. It is an ability to look at what is going on and to try to make a sensible judgement on it. It is also true that anyone can write to the Attorney about a prosecution. We used to get lots of letters from private individuals whether consent was required or not. The Attorney could look at a case if he thought it right and might query what was happening if he thought that for some reason justice was not being done. The Attorney can also issue guidelines after consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions and others. These might be disclosure guidelines for prosecutors, for example. The Attorney also meets regularly with the Lord Chief Justice to discuss the functioning of the criminal justice system.
Finally, in this list, the Attorney has a multitude of functions as guardian of the public interest, in support of the rule of law and the operation of the courts. These are supposed to be done entirely independently of political colleagues. For example, he has power to refer certain unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal – an important power, but one which should not be abused. When I was in office, the view was that if we were referring more than 100 cases a year, we should be worried. It was also a concern if we did not have an 80 per cent success rate on the cases referred. The Attorney also acts as guardian of the public interest in bringing contempt of court cases against media who have breached the Contempt of Court Act. Finally, the Attorney is nominally the leader of the Bar.
I now want to turn to the controversy. The Attorney’s role has always attracted controversy, and most centres on the fact that people do not always like the decisions Attorneys make, and then allege that the reason why the Attorney has made that decision is because he is a politician and not a lawyer and has done it for political reasons. So, there have been calls for the role to be changed. The argument is that the political aspect of the work affects the professional judgment. Matters came to a head in the early 2000s following, firstly, Lord Goldsmith’s advice on the Iraq War, secondly, ‘cash for honours’ (in which Lord Goldsmith got enmeshed, in the sense that he pointed out that he could not resile from his duty to consider the issues in cash for honours as he had to consent to any prosecutions, including whether the Prime Minister might be prosecuted) and thirdly, the BAE bribery scandal – where it was alleged that he had intervened and put pressure on the director of the Serious Fraud Office to drop an investigation.
The view was taken that the range of roles was not a weakness but a strength, as the status of the Attorney as a senior practising lawyer in government and parliament, helped both maintain the independence of the prosecution authorities and guide their policies. It also ensured that there was someone in government who provides an understanding of why the government needs to respect and uphold the rule of law.
Some radical ideas were then put forward to change the role and remove the superintendence of prosecutions completely from the Attorney, which was considered by the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the time. In the end, however, the view was taken that the range of roles was not a weakness but a strength, as the status of the Attorney as a senior practising lawyer in government and parliament, helped both maintain the independence of the prosecution authorities and guide their policies. It also ensured that there was someone in government who provides an understanding of why the government needs to respect and uphold the rule of law – particularly following the significant changes that have taken place in the role of the Lord Chancellor. It has been pointed out in recent times that the talent pool in parliament for the roles of Attorney General and Solicitor General is diminishing. Between 1997 and 2015 barristers made up 5 per cent of the House of Commons, whereas between 1951 and 1974 it was 15 per cent, and the vast majority of those were silks of considerable experience. That means that, whereas most Attorneys used to be silks of at least five or even 10 years’ standing, now – with the recent exception of Geoffrey Cox – they have taken silk on appointment, or on appointment as Solicitor General. So, we should not be surprised that the issue has now come back again.
I can only give you my personal view. If we were to move to a system where the Attorney is a civil servant, I think that civil servant would be at a considerable disadvantage. Provided you have an Attorney General who understands what the rule of law is and the duties of the law officers, then, in practice, he or she is likely to have far more capacity to influence colleagues, understand their concerns and stand up to them, than somebody who has been brought in from outside. So, I think the politician has more clout than the civil servant, but the politician has to be able to understand what the duties of the Attorney are all about. I am confident my pupil, the current Attorney General, knows that very well indeed, whatever problems there may have been with her predecessor.
The Rt Hon Dominic Grieve KC Former Attorney General for England and Wales
For the full video recording: innertemple.org.uk/attorneygeneral
Searcys Champagne Bar and Brasserie at St Pancras International
Searcys Champagne Bar at Battersea Power Station
Searcys at The Gherkin
The Pump Room, Bath
THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF THE LAW: UKRAINE WAR:
PEACE-MAKING AHEAD – TRADITIONAL METHODS OF ACCOUNTABILITY OR NEW SOLUTIONS?
Taken from a discussion held on 20 November 2023 between Master Rosalyn Higgins, Sir Adrian Fulford and Yuriy Belousov (Head of the War Crimes Department at the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine), moderated by Master Geoffrey Nice.
Sir Geoffrey Nice: This event is about wars and, more particularly, how law, lawyers and judges may reduce the number of wars, which we may encounter in years to come. Our two speakers tonight are Dame Rosalyn Higgins and Sir Adrian Fulford. Later, we will be joined online by Yuriy Belousov from Kyiv in Ukraine. He is in charge of prosecuting war crimes. He has on his docket a modest 110,000 potential war crimes cases that are being investigated, and with such success. Before the termination of that war, it may be that Ukraine will have to think imaginatively about how it wants to deal with accountability processes, maybe moving beyond the standard methods of dealing with war crimes currently planned for that country.
What led me to suggest this title, was, of course, the Russia/ Ukraine war and these possible three premises. The first is that there is no real world order. There are bits of world order. Second, there are courts that do have some power to deal with war criminals, but it is a very patchy business. The third is that there is absolutely no evidence that war crimes trials, even when they do happen, deter the next warmongering leader of a nation from doing what he or she wants to do.
There is absolutely no evidence that war crimes trials, even when they do happen, deter the next warmongering leader of a nation from doing what
he or she wants to do.
And in light of where we are with two wars it may be thought that for law, lawyers and judges, perhaps the most important thing for us to focus on now is how, if at all, law can help in deterring the condition of war.
Dame Rosalyn Higgins: ‘Peace-making Ahead – Traditional Methods of Accountability and New Solutions’, this title carries with it several different ideas, including how to make peace, peace-making and issues of accountability for violations of the peace. Underlying this there is another question – how can future wars be deterred?
International law is to provide an operational system for securing values we all desire, but it is not only about resolving disputes. Of course, sometimes, dispute resolution will be needed, and there are today a huge number of structures serving that purpose. Sometimes, norms are needed to limit the parameters of conduct where dispute resolution fails, but these last elements are only a small part of the overall picture. We cannot totally avoid the topic of what exactly constitutes international law, what international lawyers call ‘the sources of international law’. The commonly agreed starting point is Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, which is appended to the UN Charter. Article 38 refers to international treaties, to international custom as evidence of a general practice accepted as the law, to general principles of law and – subject to certain qualifications – the teachings of leading jurists. The UN Charter itself does have something to say on peace-making. Articles 36 to 38 deal in some detail with making and keeping the peace. A huge amount of structure since that time has been built up to implementing those ideas. Peace-making does not lack for ideas and innovation.
To think about how future wars can be deterred, there are specific prohibitions on the use of international force in the charter. But conflict does still occur, and a body of law known as jus in bello will try to mitigate the ensuing horrors. This includes, but is not limited to, the growth of the idea of international criminal courts based on the violation of international criminal laws. My comments will be on the jus ad bellum, whether the actual recourse to the use of force is legal.
It is useful to refer to the two major conflicts shattering our world today. So far as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is concerned, the applicability of the jus ad bellum is relatively straightforward. All member states of the UN, including Russia and Ukraine, are covered by the provisions of Article 2:4, the prohibition of the use of force against states. Article 2:4 provides that all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
Clearly, claims that independent UN member Ukraine is really ethnically and historically part of Russia, that it is not a real state in spite of its UN membership, that it was about to attack Russia, that it was a puppet in the West in preparation for that attack, are not convincing. There is also a crucially important principle of international law, namely uti possidetis, which provides, in the post-war world, that international frontiers may not be changed by force, but only by the agreement of both parties.
There is also a crucially important principle of international law, namely uti possidetis, which provides, in the postwar world, that international frontiers may not be changed by force, but only by the agreement of both parties.
Article 51 of the Charter retains, in the face of a violation of 2:4, the inherent right of individual and collective self-defence. I do find it curious that many states supporting Ukraine have not invoked this provision but have allowed the dialogue to drift to one about what NATO, a collective regional defence arrangement allowed under Article 52 of the Charter, may or may not do without itself risking direct hostilities with Russia.
Now to turn to the other current example preoccupying us, jus ad bellum, in relation to Israel and Gaza – the international law of whether force may be used is deeply uncertain. The starting point is that the old pre-Charter law of reprisals, just war et cetera, are gone, and that everything is governed by the use of force. Article 2:4 is the key – all members have to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. And Article 51 – according to your view – either retains a parallel and inherent right of individual, perhaps collective, self-defence or provides an exception to the prohibition of the use of force in 2:4.
It is regrettable that ambiguity and uncertainty remain at the heart of these provisions. Among the several issues which have not been judicially resolved with any clarity, are the following: Is a single attack on a state required to trigger a proportionate right of self-defence? Necessity and proportionality remain within the present constraints of Article 51. How then to make an assessment of proportionality that is other than subjective? The use of force must be proportionate to the legitimate end sought. It can no longer be just punitive, whether it can be directed to non-repetition of the initial armed attack, as opposed to defence from it, is also less than certain. And here we have to recall that Hamas’s stated objective is to eliminate the State of Israel, so proportionality in response to that is very difficult to assess.
Further, and of critical legal importance, is the fact that Articles 2:4 and 51 are essentially inter-state. Neither Hamas nor the territory of Gaza constitute a state. Palestine is not yet a state, though its representatives are increasingly afforded standing to participate in UN events, including the International Court. So there, common sense prevails. But we must note that resolutions passed after the 9/11 attacks on the US by non-state actors indicate that the right to use force in the territory of another state in defence against attack by non-state actors was to be accepted.
A final question to show you how unclear the law is, is whether self-defence is applicable in situations of occupation. Israel long ago withdrew from Gaza, but some may argue that the constraints it continues to apply there in effect constitute occupation, and that argument is more easily made in respect of the West Bank. Do those under occupation retain the right to seek liberation by the use of force? And, like Hamas, are they liberated from the prohibition against targeting civilian targets? I myself think the answer to that question must be, “Surely not.” So, the problems of today, so far as jus ad bellum are concerned, are really because of a lack of clear articulation of the very real legal problems that are out there relating to them, and particularly to the role of non-state actors.
The problems of today, so far as jus ad bellum are concerned, are really because of a lack of clear articulation of the very real legal problems that are out there relating to them, and particularly to the role of non-state actors.
Sir Adrian Fulford: So, the division of labour is that I am going to look at the battlefield, a subject which is vast and complex. Consequently, I am not going to attempt a panoramic view but, instead, I want to focus on a single event which I consider to be critical in assessing whether the courts and the law have any utility when reflecting on what happens on the battlefield and how war is actually conducted.
Back in late 2019/early 2020, when I was interviewing candidates as the successor to my successor as the British judge at the International Criminal Court, I was in conversation with a senior British official working in the field of Foreign Affairs, who expressed his personal antipathy at the interest that was being shown by the ICC’s prosecutor into the role of coalition troops in Afghanistan. The view expressed was that the court surely had better things to be getting on with. The remark seemed to me to be tinged with a bit of outrage and a bit of anger. I think this is highly significant, and it is necessary to review the background to this and what has happened thereafter.
Three critical things have happened. First, on 20 November 2017, the Office of the Prosecutor had asked the Pre-Trial Chamber at the International Criminal Court for authorisation of an investigation which would cover the Taliban, the United States forces and other suggested unlawful acts in the context of the Rome Statute by members of other international forces, which would of course have included the United Kingdom. The request was refused by the Pre-Trial Chamber on 12 April 2019 – not because of admissibility or jurisdiction, which were accepted, but solely because the circumstances in Afghanistan then made the exercise untenable. The refusal by the Pre-Trial Chamber was the subject of an appeal to the Appeals Chamber, which was allowed on 5 March 2020.
The second is that there were key legal challenges to events in Afghanistan in this country, namely two claims in the administrative court, Saifullah v the Secretary of State for Defence and Noorzai v the Secretary of State for Defence. The claim in Saifullah is that the investigation into the deaths was not Article 2 compliant, and in Noorzai that there was a failure to investigate the claim, as well as a claim of a substantive Article 2 breach. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted in both cases, in 2019 and 2020.
Third: there were hard-hitting media investigations by the BBC’s Panorama programme and by The Sunday Times. Now I have no doubt but that those three events led Ben Wallace, the then Secretary of State for Defence, to set up what is my single event which I want to talk about tonight: the independent statutory inquiry led by Lord Justice Haddon-Cave into the circumstances of the deaths of various individuals at what is said to have been the hands of UK Special Forces between 2010 and 2013.
The inquiry will additionally scrutinise two Royal Military Police investigations into these events as to whether they were adequate. Lord Justice Haddon-Cave set out the gravity of the investigation by describing the task as investigating alleged numerous extrajudicial killings during that period, which were purportedly followed by a decadelong coverup, and two investigations by the Royal Military Police which are alleged not to have been fit for purpose. And in the meantime, the claims in Saifullah and Noorzai have been stayed, pending the outcome of the inquiry.
Lord Justice Haddon-Cave made an early visit to the ICC’s prosecutor in The Hague and in his open ruling on restriction orders he quoted from the ICC’s December 2020 report into the situation in Iraq by the Office of the Prosecutor, in which it was observed that what happened
“was the outcome of a more than ten-year long domestic process involving the examination of thousands of allegations, which resulted in not one single case being submitted for prosecution, a result that has deprived the victims of justice”.
Lord Justice Haddon-Cave also visited Australia, which released the Brereton Report on 19 November 2020, reporting on war crimes committed by the Australian Defence Force (ADF) during the war in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016. The report found credible information concerning 39 murders of civilians and prisoners by or on the instruction of members of the Australian Special Forces, which were subsequently covered up by ADF personnel. Those are all being investigated by Australian prosecutors, with the possibility of prosecutions to follow.
In this context, the principle of complementarity is key to the work of the International Criminal Court, and to ensuring that nations are not the recipients of arrest warrants aimed at their armed forces to secure their delivery to the cells of the ICC. What is meant by complementarity is that if the relevant country does not deal adequately with the alleged offences, the risk is that the ICC will step in wherever it has jurisdiction.
The hearings before Lord Justice Haddon-Cave began in earnest on 9 October 2023, and I suspect that they will be unprecedented in regard to the bright light they will shine on all of the evidence that relates to what happened in the context I have just described.
So, why am I reflecting on all of this? Well, my short point arising from these musings is that these recent events are simply unparallelled, and they signal what is a very helpful development for the future in terms of being able to control, at least to an extent, what happens on the battlefield. I do not pretend that war crimes in war will suddenly cease, but I do think there will be an ever greater and far more meaningful role for the courts and statutory inquiries in bringing individuals to account in ways unthought of when Alexander the Great left Macedonia en route for Persepolis, Napoleon marched into Russia, or the Americans and their allies went into Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is the nature of human affairs that awful things will happen, and the solutions for them will be imperfect. But I take great heart from the influence, in the context of Afghanistan, of the ICC and the British courts, in ensuring that alleged battlefield wrongdoings can be and are the subject of proper investigation and inquiry. This is a bright omen for the future whatever the Afghan inquiry ultimately concludes, and whether or not the ICC in the fullness of time launches its own separate prosecutions.
I take great heart from the influence, in the context of Afghanistan, of the ICC and the British courts, in ensuring that alleged battlefield wrongdoings can be and are the subject of proper investigation and inquiry.
Yuriy Belousov: I was focusing on the question regarding how to deter committing international crimes in the future. It is a difficult question, when you talk about one country which commits international crimes against another. But you know, if we take states as human beings, and we want to stop them from committing crimes, are we not asking ourselves the same questions? We think, how do we prevent people committing crimes? Traditionally, it goes to the severity of the punishment, which should deter people from committing crimes. At the same time, we need to nurture, to educate the socialised person so they should not commit crime in the future.
And I think it works with states – for many years, international society tried to educate, to nurture Russia, to have business with this country and to reduce the risk of any bad things being committed by Russia. But the problem is if the severity of the punishment does not work, or if you do not talk about the inevitability of the punishment. It is exactly what happened with the Russian/Ukrainian context.
We all know that the war started in Ukraine a long time ago. Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014, not 2022. And before that Russia attacked Chechnya, then Georgia, then Syria, and the world was pretending that they did not see what Russia is doing. That is exactly what gave Russia the feeling that there is no punishment for such actions. Let us come back to the analogy with human beings – if we see a person beating another one, and people around pretend they do not see it, the person starts to beat another person. No one reacts, and the person beats a third person.
I think that is exactly what was happening before 2022. Why 2022? Because in 2022 this subject started to commit such a serious crime that it was difficult not to see, even for the international community. Bucha maybe was the first example when the international society understood that we need to do something with this country. First, it was extremely important that the democratic world raised its voice. Second, it was the issue of inevitability of the punishment, and that is where international society faced a pretty big challenge.
Responsibility to stop war cannot be subcontracted to judges. It ultimately is going to lie with all of us.
At the moment in Ukraine, we have already identified 456 suspects for war crimes with 293 already in our indictments and our courts, and we have had 66 verdicts in the national courts. The problem is now that the world is not sure what to do with the biggest crime, the crime of aggression. So, we see two countries fighting with each other. So, we see definitely the aggressor who attacked one of the countries – an unprovoked aggression without any justification. And the world is still too shy to call it aggression, because maybe it is aggression, but how to prosecute this?
It is an interesting dilemma, because a lot of countries do not want to have a precedent. If you have a precedent, maybe someone would look at what we did a long time ago and we would be prosecuted. And the aggressor thinks that there is no reaction, “no one calls me aggressor. They are still thinking whether to have a special tribunal.” And inevitability of the punishment for international crime globally is the biggest problem, which will not prevent such cases in the future. What the punishment should look like is another issue, for researchers and scientists worldwide.
Sir Geoffrey Nice: Responsibility to stop war cannot be subcontracted to judges. It ultimately is going to lie with all of us.
Her Excellency Dame Rosalyn
BANDI CHHOR AT THE INNER TEMPLE
By Baldip Singh Aulak
On 17 November 2023, the Sikhs in Law association adorned The Inner Temple’s Hall with a resplendent display of Candles and Divas in homage to the revered Bandi Chhor Divas. It is a celebration etched deeply into the tapestry of Sikh tradition, commemorating a pivotal moment when the sixth Sikh Guru, Guru Har Gobind Jee, orchestrated and negotiated the liberation of 52 Hindu Kings from the shackles of Emperor Jahangir.
The grandeur of the occasion was unveiled with a procession that encapsulated the essence of Sikh ethos. At its forefront stood law student Sehaj Kaur holding the Khanda (doubleedged sword), a symbol of utmost sanctity within the Sikh faith. This poignant gesture bestowed prominence upon a woman, a testament to Guru Nanak’s profound belief in equality, echoing his profound words: “From woman, kings are born. So why do we discriminate against them?”
Following the Khanda, Bar Course students Anahad Singh and Preetam Singh draped in the robes of Sikh warriors, carried the Orange and Blue Nishan Sahib – the sacred Sikh flags, evoking the confluence of spirituality and the temporal realms. This symbolic procession by the vibrant youth of Sikhs in Law resonated as a testament to their guardianship of the future. Following them was The Rt Hon Lord Justice Rabinder Singh, an esteemed legal mind and the most senior ranking Sikh in the legal field in England and Wales, sitting as a Judge in both the Court of Appeal and Privy Council, and President of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Marching two strides behind was Baldip Singh (No5 Chambers and Chair of Sikhs in Law and Chief Judge of the Sikh Court), accompanied by the esteemed chief guest of honour, Mr Justice Talwant Singh (Delhi).
The procession diverged into two lines: one of the council members of Sikhs in Law; and the other by lawyers representing various faiths that embellish the cultural fabric of the UK.
Master Reader-Elect of The Inner Temple opened the celebrations by extending a heartfelt welcome to all present.
Baldip Singh then announced four appointments. Lord Justice Rabinder Singh and Mr Justice Talwant Singh were affirmed as patrons of the Association, vowing to support and steer its initiatives. Sharan Kaur Bhachu (42BR) was appointed as the Master of Advocacy, tasked with heading the Advocacy Training Panel, while Gurbani Kaur (Solicitor at the SRA) was called to sit as a member of the council. Mr Singh commended the six months of impactful endeavours by Sikhs in Law, both domestically and globally, as part of its mission to be a sanctuary and a bastion of safety for all, championing the universal values of unity and peace.
The keynote speech was delivered by Mr Justice Talwant Singh SA, who reiterated the essence of Bandi Chhor –a tapestry woven with the threads of unity that transcend the confines of race, religion, and gender.
Lord Justice Rabinder Singh lit a candle for world peace, encircled by senior members of the profession representing an array of faiths – a testament to the ethos of unity, equality, and peace at a time of turbulence in parts of the world.
The audience was then serenaded with the melodious notes of Kirtan and Sikhs in Law council member Paul Millan recited a universal secular prayer.
While celebratory in essence, the ceremony embraced a solemn tone, which resonated with the multicultural and international audience.
Sikhs in Law is a safe sanctuary for all, open to all. Visit: sikhsinlaw.co.uk for more information.
Baldip Singh Aulak No5 Chambers
Law student Sehaj Kaur holding the Khanda
Reader-Elect (2023), Master Richard Salter
Bar Course students Anahad Singh and Preetam Singh carrying the Orange and Blue Nishan Sahib
Baldip Singh Aulak
Bandi Chhor at
EMPLOYED BAR FORUM TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN –MY ONE BAR JOURNEY
Sarah Goom, Director General, Commercial with Trade and International Direct, Government Legal Department in conversation with Simon Regis CBE.
Simon Regis: Can you give us a quick summary of your career to date?
Sarah Goom: I was called to the Bar in 1992 and did a criminal pupillage at 2 Paper Buildings. It was the time of unpaid pupillages and there were eight or nine pupils in competition with each other for work and at the end of my pupillage I did not get tenancy. I did a third six and then squatted in a couple of other chambers but couldn’t get tenancy so decided to leave the self-employed Bar temporarily – or so I thought. I applied to what was then the Government Legal Service and was initially posted to the Criminal Appeal Office. I then moved as a prosecutor to HM Customs & Excise. I initially prosecuted drug importations and then moved to VAT and excise frauds. Then followed a secondment to the Attorney General’s Office as a criminal justice adviser specialising in fraud, followed by a move to what was then the Department for Trade & Industry to head a team prosecuting insolvency and company law offences. In 2008, I moved to the Serious Fraud Office prosecuting very significant boiler room and other frauds. So, I spent the first 13 years of my time in the GLS increasingly specialising in fraud.
In 2009, in one of those brilliant twists of fate that sometimes happen in the GLS, I was offered the role of solicitor to the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war. I spent four years at the Inquiry, and at the conclusion I decided that I did not want to return to fraud prosecution. At the Inquiry I had been exposed to the broad range of political, policy and legal issues in government and was keen to move to a role that would continue to give me that experience. I moved to a role heading Government Legal Department’s (GLD) division dealing with public and private law litigation against the Ministry of Justice, Home Office, Ministry of Defence, and the intelligence agencies. It was hugely interesting, and I enjoyed it immensely, but after five years I moved on promotion to director of Litigation at HMRC, and then moved to be director of personal tax advisory during the pandemic and helped develop the ‘furlough’ scheme.
In 2022, I moved back to GLD as the Home Office Legal adviser, leading on asylum and immigration, including the very challenging Rwanda scheme. In September 2023 I was promoted to my current role as Director General for Commercial with Trade & International where I have around 900 lawyers supporting six government departments, as well as all of the government’s commercial lawyers. My career has been hugely varied and interesting – I feel I have been incredibly lucky.
SR: What role has given you the biggest sense of achievement and why?
SG: The Iraq Inquiry. It was a non-statutory Inquiry and the chairman Sir John Chilcot wanted it to operate more like a Parliamentary Select Committee. There were no core participants and no legal representation either for the Inquiry or other parties – I was the only lawyer working on the whole Inquiry. I drafted all the questions on the legal issues which the panel put to the legal witnesses, including Lord Goldsmith the Attorney General, Jack Straw the Foreign Secretary, Sir Michael Wood the Foreign Office Legal Adviser and his deputy Elizabeth Wilmshurst. I also did the first draft of the legal chapters of the inquiry report. I am not an international lawyer, but the Inquiry had Dame Rosalyn Higgins, former president of the International Court of Justice as an expert adviser. I would draft questions and sections of report, take them to her flat and discuss and correct them – rather like an Oxbridge tutorial.
SR: Have any of your roles not met your expectations and why?
SG: The Criminal Appeal Office was my first GLS role in 1996. I had not wanted to leave the self-employed Bar and felt that I had failed by not getting a tenancy. This was the time that the drama This Life about life at the Bar was on TV and I could not watch it I was so devastated. At the Criminal Appeal Office, I thought I was going to be working closely with judges, but the reality was that I was just drafting the factual summaries at the beginning of the court’s judgements – it was a bit of a sausage factory, just churning them out. But after about 18 months I asked to arrange some work shadowing at Customs & Excise prosecutions office and after a week, I had an offer to move there. As soon as I arrived, I knew I had found my place.
Sarah Goom in conversation with Simon Regis
SR: We have called this session One Bar – Two Sides of the Same Coin to reflect the ‘One Bar’ concept. What are your reflections on how the employed and self-employed Bar complement each other?
SG: I took a great deal from pupillage and squatting that helped me get on in government and is still relevant to me now. For example, knowing how to draft quality instructions to counsel or how to chair a conference effectively – which I learned from being in conference and seeing it being done either well or badly. When I was head of the Litigation Division in GLD I introduced skills-based training teaching junior lawyers how to draft good instructions, and manage a conference, as not everyone had those skills and experience.
Also, my time at the self-employed Bar really taught me how to sift and evaluate evidence, identify key points, draft witness statements – and it was that experience that led to me being offered the role as solicitor to the Chilcot Inquiry. I had no background in international law or the law of armed conflict – but the then Deputy Treasury Solicitor thought my prosecution skills would be a good fit – and they were. Those skills are relevant to so much of what we do in GLD and why so many barristers find themselves at home here.
Also, I think that there is something about the confidence that being at the self-employed Bar can bring to leadership within the government legal profession. I am not sure if it is a coincidence, but the Treasury Solicitor and the three legal Directors General are all barristers – and we definitely do not lack confidence!
So, I very much believe that a career at the self-employed Bar is a complement to a government legal career and vice versa. I always thought that I would go back to the selfemployed Bar and I know a number of GLD lawyers who have successfully done that.
SR: What are the challenges?
SG: In terms of moving from the self-employed Bar to government, I need to acknowledge that the opportunities for advocacy in government are limited. GLD does have an informal scheme for those interested in advocacy to conduct immigration hearings in the Divisional Court. The scheme fell into abeyance during the pandemic, but we are currently refreshing it. HMRC do advocacy in the Magistrates Court on Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) cash seizures and some tax tribunals. There is undoubtedly room to do more, and we will work on that. But keeping up advocacy skills is a challenge.
I think there would always be a challenge in returning to the self-employed Bar in not having instructing solicitors. You need to be on the Attorney General Panels to be instructed in government work and need references, including from judges, to be appointed to those panels –so it is a bit chicken and egg. But people have successfully done it and it would be great to have more of a revolving door between the employed and self-employed Bar.
SR: What advice would you give to someone at the selfemployed Bar who wanted to move into the employed Bar space – how would you sell it to them?
SG: Working at the heart of government is an exciting and privileged position. Seeing the issues on which you are working on the front page of the newspapers is a huge thrill.
Seeing the issues on which you are working on the front page of the newspapers is a huge thrill.
The variety of work is a great selling point, the ability to move between different disciplines and subject matter – as you can see from my career. Many of us consider ourselves public law generalists but you can also choose to specialise. We offer roles in ministerial advisory teams, but also in our three expert services – Employment Group, Litigation Group and Commercial Law Group. And within those four specialist areas you can choose to specialise in a range of areas: we are currently recruiting for planning and energy law specialists and will continue to bring in the specialisms the government needs.
SR: What would Sarah today say to Sarah at the start of her career?
SG: I would say “It’s going to be alright”. I thought that by not getting a tenancy that I had failed completely – in fact I have had a much more interesting career than if I had stayed at the Criminal Bar, although I can also see that I would have enjoyed it.
SR: In reverse, what would Sarah at the start of her career say to the Sarah of today?
SG: I was quite idealistic then and I might have taken issue with some of the policies that I have worked on – but I wouldn’t then have understood the absolute necessity for civil servants to serve the government of the day with absolute impartiality.
SR: If you could invite six people to dinner, who would they be and why?
SG: I had to think very hard about this and found it easier to think of historical figures. Outside work I love going to art galleries and the cinema, and I am a bit of a foodie, so this is what I came up with:
Oscar Wilde – dinner table conversation would not flag with him there.
Elizabeth David to cook the dinner – she changed the way the British eat, and she would be interesting to talk to.
Artemisia Gentileschi the 17th century Italian artist. Her father was Caravaggio’s friend, and she would have known him. She had an international reputation during her life and portrayed women characters as central to the biblical and mythical scenes she painted but was overlooked for centuries until very recently – like many women artists.
David Lynch the film director – I love Twin Peaks and think he would be a quirky dinner companion.
I felt I should have some lawyers in there too:
Tom Bingham – the former Lord Chief Justice – his book The Rule of Law is the book I recommend to young people interested in becoming lawyers. He was also a lovely man. He was Lord Chief Justice when I was working at the Criminal Appeal Office and I remember him coming to our Christmas party and being so friendly with us.
My last choice is a bit pretentious but reflects my twin interests in law and food – the French 18th century judge Brillat-Savarin. He acted as a judge under both the royalist and revolutionary regimes before and after the French revolution, but more importantly was a renowned gourmet who wrote a book called The Physiology of Taste, coining the phrase “you are what you eat”. He also has a very delicious cheese named after him.
Sarah Goom Director General
Commercial with Trade and International Direct Government Legal Department
Simon Regis CBE
Deputy Director – Science & Intellectual Property Team
Government Legal Department
(Elected Master of the Bench in July 2024)
CELEBRATE THE LIVES
SIR OLIVER POPPLEWELL
15 August 1927–6 June 2024
Master Popplewell was born on 15 August 1927. After attending Charterhouse School as a scholar and Queens’ College, Cambridge as an exhibitioner, where he played first class cricket, he was called to the Bar in 1951, took silk in 1969 and was elected a Bencher of The Inner Temple in 1978. Between 1983–1999, he was a Judge of the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division. He chaired the inquiry into the Bradford City Stadium fire and presided over the libel case brought by Jonathan Aitken against The Guardian newspaper.
Master Popplewell became President of the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) in 1994, an office he held for two years, and was appointed Honorary Life Vice President in 2010.
In 2003, he read Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Harris Manchester College, Oxford, becoming one of the university’s most mature ‘mature’ students.
A prolific writer, his publications include: Benchmark: Life, Laughter and the Law, 2003; Hallmark: a Judge at Oxford, 2008; The Prime Minister and His Mistress, 2014; The Aphrodisiac of Power, 2016; A Fine Thing Chance, 2019; Munich: Why?, 2021, the last of which members of the Inn were lucky enough to hear him discuss in 2022 with Konrad Schiemann who described Master Popplewell as “an inexhaustible source of fun and stimulus”.
After the death of his first wife, Margaret, with whom he had five sons, he married Master Elizabeth Gloster.
A tremendously loyal supporter of the Inn, he regularly attended educational, social and cultural events at The Inner Temple. As recently as 20 May 2024, he attended a performance in Hall by the London Mozart Players, whose cello section includes his grandson, Leo.
SIR THOMAS LEGG KCB KC
13 August 1935–8 October 2023
Master Legg was born in 1935, the son of Oscar winning documentary maker Stuart Legg and his wife Margaret, whose father was Sir Maurice Amos, a barrister and law professor. Due to his father’s work, Master Legg grew up in New York, returning to the UK to complete his education.
After National Service in the Royal Marines from 1953 to 1955, he read history and law at St John’s College, Cambridge under the military education system. He was called to the Bar by The Inner Temple in 1960 and joined the Lord Chancellor’s Department soon afterwards, serving as Permanent Secretary and Clerk of the Crown in Chancery from 1989 until 1998. In 1984, he was elected a Master of the Bench of The Inner Temple. He was appointed an Honorary Queen’s Counsel in 1990 and knighted in 1993.
SIR MARTIN JACOMB
11 November 1929–8 June 2024
Following National Service with the Royal Artillery in Sri Lanka, Martin Jacomb read law at Worcester College, Oxford, and was called to the Bar by The Inner Temple in 1955. He practised as a barrister until 1968, building a successful practice in Chancery, specialising in tax and trust cases. He also defended the zookeeper and casino owner John Aspinall against a neighbouring farmer’s attempt to stop him keeping bears and tigers.
After thirteen years in practice, he embarked upon a successful career in business becoming Corporate Director of Finance at Kleinwort Benson Lonsdale (as it was then). From 1976 to 1985 he was Vice Chairman of Kleinwort and advised Margaret Thatcher’s government on the
floatation of British Aerospace in 1981, and BT three years later. He was Deputy Chairman of Barclays Bank between 1985 and 1993. In 1985, he was knighted for services to the City, joining the Bank of England’s court the following year. In 1987, he was elected an Honorary Bencher of the Inn. In 1994, he joined Lord Nolan’s committee on standards in public life. For six years he chaired the British Council. In 1998, he was appointed the third Chancellor of the University of Buckingham, retiring from the chancellorship in March 2010. He was also Chairman of the Canary Wharf Group from 2003–12. He is survived by his wife Evelyn Heathcote Amory, whom he married in 1960. Together they had three children.
Following retirement from the civil service in 1998, he was appointed to chair three key inquiries for the government: the inquiry into allegations that Sandline International was trying to sell arms in Sierra Leone, contravening an international embargo; a parliamentary inquiry into the overspend on Portcullis House; and between 2004 and 2008 as a member of the Audit Commission, to chair an independent panel examining claims relating to the second homes allowance.
In retirement, Master Legg was chair of the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, chair of the London Library and a consultant to Clifford Chance law firm. He served on the council of Brunei University and was visitor from 2001 to 2006. He was awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws (LLD) in 2006.
He is survived by Elisabeth, his fourth wife, and two daughters.
Sir Oliver Popplewell
Sir Martin Jacomb
Sir Thomas Legg KCB KC
RICHARD RAMPTON KC
8 January 1941–23 December 2023
After reading Classics at Queen’s College, Oxford, Master Richard Rampton was called to the Bar in 1965 and joined One Brick Court where he worked for more than 50 years, becoming Head of Chambers in 2000. He took Silk in 1987.
A renowned British libel lawyer, he was involved in several high-profile cases, including Lord Aldington v Count Nikolai Tolstoy, Andrew Neil v Peregrine Worsthorne, Gillian Taylforth v News of the World, the ‘McLibel’ trial, and George Galloway v The Daily Telegraph. His most famous case was perhaps Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt, where he defended Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books against David Irving. He learned German in order to familiarise himself with the wartime texts. By extraordinary coincidence, the actor Tom Wilkinson, who portrayed him in the film of the trial Denial, died in the same week as Master Rampton.
THE RT HON SIR WILLIAM GAGE
22 April 1938–13 September 2023
Master William Gage, ‘Bill’ was called to the Bar by The Inner Temple in 1963 after completing National Service in the Irish Guards and then reading history and later, law, at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge. He developed a common law practice of personal injury, landlord and tenant and crime at 2 Harcourt Buildings. He took silk in 1982 and was elected a Bencher of the Inn in 1991.
Among his most notable cases as a barrister was representing the chief marine superintendent of the Herald of Free Enterprise that capsized shortly after leaving Zeebrugge, Belgium in 1987. In 1993, Master William Gage was appointed a High Court Judge to the Queen’s Bench Division and was Presiding Judge on the Southeastern Circuit from 1997–2000. He became a Court of Appeal Judge and privy counsellor in 2004, sitting until 2008. He presided over the Jill Dando murder trial, one of the most-high profile
criminal cases in modern times, and over the trial of Siôn Jenkins who was accused of killing his foster daughter Billy-Jo, a case that remains unsolved.
After his retirement from the Court of Appeal, he was appointed Chairman of the three-year long Baha Mousa Public Inquiry into alleged British Army brutality against Iraqi prisoners in Basra. In his report he wrote that it was, “… an appalling episode of serious, gratuitous violence on civilians which resulted in the death of one man and injuries to others…”
Bill and his wife Penna were married for 63 years, with three sons and four grandchildren. They travelled widely together in Australia, Canada, India, South America, and throughout Europe. Bill was a fine game shot and fisherman. Penna was an accomplished stalker and a formidable rider across country.
Lady Gage recalls, “We had a lot of fun together and made a good team.”
Friend and colleague Jane Phillips recalls, “Richard was a Titan of the libel Bar, the famous cases he was involved in are far too numerous to mention. Immortalised on film in Denial for his role in defeating David Irving’s defamation case, he was not only the best of advocates, appealing to both judges and juries alike, but he was a great friend to all those lucky enough to work with him. As Head of 1 Brick Court, he led from the front, upholding the best traditions of the Bar whilst also being the kindest and most humane of men.”
Master Rampton was elected a Bencher of the Inn in 1995. He sat on and subsequently chaired the initial fit and proper screening panels for Admission and Call in the early 2000s. He is survived by Carolyn, whom he married in 1963, their three children and seven granddaughters.
THOMAS BAXENDALE
7 April 1947–15 June 2024
Born on 7 April 1947, the second of three brothers, Thomas Dawtry Baxendale was educated at Eton. He did National Service in the Welsh Guards and was called to the Bar by The Inner Temple in 1962. He did a first six pupillage in common law followed by a chancery pupillage at 24 Old Buildings Lincoln’s Inn, where he became a tenant and built up a practice specialising in trusts and probate. He was elected a Bencher in 1997.
He retired from the Bar in 2003 but was a regular in Hall where he would lunch every Wednesday with his friend, Edward Raw. His interests included horticulture, family genealogy, the arts and travel.
Master Baxendale was unmarried. He died suddenly of a heart attack at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital on Saturday 15 June at the age of 87.
Master Gage with his parrot (photoshopped by his sons) on his appointment to the Court of Appeal
Richard Rampton KC
Thomas Baxendale
DORIAN LOVELL-PANK KC
15 March 1946–29 October 2023
Master Dorian Lovell-Pank was called to the Bar in 1971. He joined 6 King’s Bench Walk in 1972, where he defended in and prosecuted almost every kind of criminal case, from minor theft and assault to contract murder and large scale fraud. He sat as a Recorder from 1989 and took silk in 1993. Alongside his distinguished practice, Master Lovell-Pank was widely involved with the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Council in programmes of judicial and legal reform and advocacy training of prosecutors and defence
SIR NICHOLAS STADLEN
3 MAY 1950–5 October 2023
Master Nicholas Stadlen was born in Hampstead in 1950, the son of former concert pianist and music critic Peter Stadlen, who had premiered several works of Anton Webern before escaping Vienna in 1938. His mother, Hedi, who had also fled Austria, was one of the earliest women students to study moral sciences at Cambridge.
HIS HONOUR JOHN WAIT
19 September 1949–8 August 2024
Behind Master John Wait’s modest and self-effacing manner was a man of integrity, principle and generosity. His priority was his family – his wife Tricia, their sons Nick and Joe and latterly their three grandsons – but his friends and his career in the law came an equal close second.
Practising on the Midland and Oxford Circuit from 1, Fountain Court, Birmingham he achieved a high level of expertise in both criminal and civil law and became much in demand. When ready to take Silk, he was encouraged to apply instead for the Circuit Bench and did so. This was a real loss to the Bar but brought about a resoundingly successful judicial career.
Whether as Resident Judge of Derby (2000–2008) or as co-director of the Criminal Induction Course (2008–13) his erudition, industry and genuine wish to help anyone who needed it brought him great respect and affection. He also
lawyers, particularly in Europe and Latin America. He was engaged by foreign governments to advise on the development of their criminal justice systems.
Master Lovell-Pank was elected a Bencher of the Inn in 1998. He was a leading advocacy trainer for the Inn, as well as for the United Nations in The Hague. He was committed to supporting the Inn’s activities, including attending Qualifying Sessions and calling students to the Bar. He served at various times as a member of the Advocacy Training, Bencher Nomination and International Committees.
After reading history and classics at Trinity College, where he was President of the Union, he worked with Lord Longford in 1972 to establish the British Irish Association, a cultural organisation dedicated to promoting good relations between the governments and peoples of the UK and Ireland.
Funding his studies by writing papers for the Gulbenkian Foundation, he was called to the Bar by The Inner Temple in 1976 after coming top in the Bar exams. He joined Fountain Court Chambers and developed a highly successful commercial practice. He took Silk In 1991 the same year that the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) collapsed into liquidation. He was first instructed to represent the Bank of England in relation to BCCI and then led the Bank’s defence of the claim brought by BCCI’s liquidators. It became one of the longest Commercial Court trials, lasting 256 days in court in 2004 and 2005. Master Stadlen’s opening speech was delivered over a record-breaking 119 days.
He was appointed to the High Court’s Queen’s Bench Division on 2 October 2007, after taking a ‘gap year’ to create a series of podcast interviews with wellknown figures – Gerry Adams, Desmond Tutu, F W de Klerk, Simon Peres, Hanan Ashrawi, David Blunkett and Tony Benn. On retirement from the Bench in 2013, Master Stadlen researched the history of anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa, interviewing five survivors from among Nelson Mandela’s co-defendants and legal team at the Rivonia trial of 1963–64 for a documentary film he wrote, directed and produced, Life is Wonderful: Mandela’s Unsung Heroes, released in 2018. He was posthumously awarded a National Order of South Africa.
Master Stadlen is survived by his wife, Frances, whom he married in 1972 and by their three sons.
employed his deep understanding of criminal law and practice to co-write both the Crown Court Companion (2011 and 2012) – which he dubbed ‘The Nutshell’ –and the Crown Court Compendium (2016).
As a judge Master Wait was patient and scrupulously fair but also rigorous and unafraid of taking tough decisions. In due time he became one of the, then few, circuit judges chosen to sit part time in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. As a colleague, teacher and mentor he actively enjoyed sharing his immense fund of knowledge, experience and wisdom. As a Bencher (2011) he served on the Inn’s Outreach Committee. As a friend he was unfailingly loyal and supportive. He was good fun too. Away from the law, John Wait was a keen sportsman (cricket, football, golf, rugby, skiing, squash, windsurfing) and a truly delightful companion.
His Honour John Wait
Sir Nicholas Stadlen
Dorian Lovell-Pank KC
HIS HONOUR DAVID MITCHELL
4 May 1950–6 June 2024
Master David Mitchell was a northern grammar schoolboy from Bradford who was proud to achieve a place at St Catherine’s College, Oxford. There he studied the law which would be his lifetime career and one he adored. After being called to the Bar by The Inner Temple in 1972, Master Mitchell became a successful barrister in Bradford, working hard but making plenty of time for his family and friends. From raucous times skiing to weekends in The Lake District, he was always in the middle of things. And usually with good wine and good food to ease things along – apart from when he was watching his beloved Huddersfield Town.
RICHARD BENSON KC
20 February 1946–4 November 2023
Master Richard Benson died on Saturday 4 November 2023, aged 77.
Master Benson was called to the Bar in 1974. He practised from Cornwall Street chambers in London and Birmingham specialising in defending criminal cases, particularly murder, manslaughter, serious sexual offences, and fraud. He took Silk in 1995 and sat as a Recorder of the Crown Court from 1995 until his retirement in 2018. He was a Visiting Fellow of Oxford Brookes
University where, pro bono, he lectured and conducted workshops in criminal evidence in addition to delivering advocacy training and providing mentoring for students.
Master Benson was elected as a Bencher of the Inn in 2013. He served as Assistant Master of the Midland Circuit for several years and was very involved in supporting circuit activities. He is survived by his widow, Alison, and twin sons.
A family move to London meant he eventually achieved his long held goal to become a judge, something which his family were immensely proud of. Master Mitchell was appointed as a Recorder in 1993; a Circuit Judge in 2001; as Designated Civil Judge for Kent in 2003; and then as Designated Civil Judge for London in 2007.
In later life the skiing took a bit of a back seat, but he indulged in that most mid-life man pursuit of cycling, which he attacked with his usual level of enthusiasm, buying all of the gear. He never lost his love of France and usually spent holidays there with a variety of his friends.
He was a huge supporter of education in all forms and so he was truly honoured to become a Judicial Governing Bencher in 2014, a role he undertook with dedication and delight. He also particularly looked forward to The Inner Temple carol service at Temple Church, as well as the garden parties in the summer.
He was a man who believed in fairness at all costs and lived his life according to that abiding principle.
THE HON MRS JUSTICE ROBERTS DBE 3 March 1953–10 June 2024
Master Jennifer Roberts died at 5am on Monday 10 June at the Royal Marsden Hospital, where she had been undergoing treatment for cancer.
After a brief early career modelling and working for Island Records in London, Jenny, as she was universally known, studied law at Southampton University and was called to the Bar in July 1988, when her young daughters were at school. Her progress thereafter was meteoric, and she quickly developed a stellar family money practice. She was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2009 and, in July 2014, she was elected a Bencher on her appointment as Justice of the High Court assigned to the Family Division. Respected for her fairness, she presided over several high-profile matrimonial disputes and difficult ‘right-to-die’ cases.
In 2014, she tried the biggest matrimonial finance case ever to come before the courts in England, Cooper-Hohn v Hohn with $1.5 billion (£870 million) worth of assets for distribution. At the time, few knew that just having been diagnosed with breast cancer at the start of the case, Jenny declined starting treatment until she had concluded hearing the case.
From 2017–18, Master Jennifer Roberts served on the Education & Training Committee. She was appointed a Family Division Liaison Judge in 2018, a role she continued until 2022. In September 2023, she was diagnosed with terminal cancer, but continued working until the end. Her husband, Richard, died in 2004; she leaves two daughters, Sophie and Melanie, and six much loved grandchildren.
His Honour Judge David Mitchell
Richard Benson KC
The Honourable Mrs Justice Jennifer Roberts DBE
GRAND DAY 2023
CHORAL EVENSONG
On Grand Day, 1 November 2023, Royal Bencher, Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal attended a service of Choral Evensong accompanied by Vice Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence KCVO CB CSM ADC. At a small reception after the service in the Round Church, Master HRH The Princess Royal and Sir Timothy Laurence met the Director of Music and choral scholars; members of the Temple Church Committee; members of the Temple Church Restoration Project Board; Inner Temple Scholars; and Grand Day guests including the Lady Chief Justice, The Rt Hon Baroness Sue Carr of Walton-on-Hill DBE; the Treasurer of Lincoln’s Inn, The Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Vos; the Treasurer of Gray’s Inn, The Rt Hon Lady Justice Nicola Davies DBE; and the Treasurer of Middle Temple, The Rt Hon The Lord (David) Lloyd-Jones.
Master HRH The Princess Royal reads the lesson at Choral Evensong preceeding Grand Day
Master HRH The Princess Royal and 2023 Treasurer, Master Robert Francis, meet Thomas Allery, Director of Music, and members of the choir
Master HRH The Princess Royal and Sir Timothy Laurence sign The Inner Temple Guest Book with the 2023 Treasurer, Master Robert Francis
Drink and dine at the Pegasus Bar & Restaurant
Open for drinks and dining fi ve days a week, the Pegasus is the perfect spot to recharge or relax away from the bustling streets of London.
From breakfast to dinner, our seasonal menus and fine selection of beverages o er something for everyone.
Alternatively, celebrate all your special occasions with exclusive hire available on weekends between 11am-11pm. Just moments from Temple Church, the Pegasus is a convenient location for pre or post church gatherings and concerts too. 020 7797 8230 | venuehire@innertemple.org.uk | innertemplevenuehire.co.uk
Standing events: Up to 50 guests
Seated events: Up to 40 guests
Master HRH The Princess Royal meeting members of the Temple Church Restoration Project Board
Master HRH The Princess Royal meeting (from left) Master Elisabeth Butler-Sloss, The Rt Hon The Lord Lloyd-Jones and The Rt Hon Lady Justice Nicola Davies
NEWS FROM TEMPLE CHURCH CHOIR
By Thomas Allery
Since singing is so good a thing, we wish all people would learn to sing. So said composer William Byrd in the preface to his 1588 collection of Psalms, Songs and Sonnets. The publication begins with his “reasons briefly set down to persuade everyone to learn to sing”, principles which still resonate today with the Temple Church’s choral and educational programme.
Temple Church boasts a choral tradition stretching back to 1841, when the Inns employed Dr Edward John Hopkins (1818–1901) to form a choir of men and boys. The principal role of the church choirs remains similar now to then: performing at Wednesday and Sunday services during the legal year. In the past year, the two choirs at the church have presented concerts including programmes of Britten (A Ceremony of Carols), Bach cantatas, Purcell odes, and themed concerts around the Song of Songs and Lamentations, spanning five centuries of musical history.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL
Choristers join the church choir aged eight and sing until they are 13. It is a truly unique and life-enhancing opportunity, providing a first-class musical education in the centre of London. Unlike many cathedral choirs in the UK, where choristers attend boarding schools, Temple choristers come from all over London to learn and sing in the church. In September 2024, in a new development, both boys and girls will have the opportunity to become choristers at Temple Church. This is a pivotal development for the choir and the Inns, and one which will open up the opportunity to more children from a range of backgrounds. A frequently asked question is whether this will make a big difference to the way we teach. The simple answer is “no”! We have a first-class team of teachers working with our choir, and we will continue to create a stimulating, supportive, and enriching teaching environment for our boy and girl choristers. Healthy and well-produced singing in children is the same for girls and boys; and central to our ethos is the nurturing of a vibrant, expressive, and flexible sound which can be adapted to the needs of different styles of repertoire. Giving the gift of singing and music to children is fundamentally about being part of their development as musicians and young people, and setting them up for their futures, from whichever background they may have come.
Apart from their musical training, choristers develop important life skills which set them up for all sorts of futures. Former choristers from English choirs include the likes of David Lammy, Rowan Atkinson, Alexander Armstrong, Ed Sheeran, and Alastair Cook. All of them fondly look back on the training they gained as young musicians in choirs and recognise how it shaped them for their futures.
As part of our educational programme, we provide a variety of enriching opportunities for the choristers including a singing competition, organ and composition workshops, and study trips. Being a chorister in a collegiate style choir is a unique learning experience, in which young people receive expert tuition from our teachers and perform a huge range of music alongside professional singers. We train our choristers to be young professionals from the start, and the training itself is very much learning ‘on the job’. After five or so years in the choir, young teenagers emerge with a professional level skill set and the ability to perform with true confidence and poise. In 2023, one of Temple’s final year choristers, Ivo Clark, performed at the Royal Opera House in their production of Handel’s Jeptha, and, in 2024, at Waterperry Opera’s production of Britten’s The Turn of the Screw
The church is proud of its sixth form scholarship scheme for sopranos, now in its fourth year, which offers talented students the chance to sing alongside our professional singers and develop their skills to the highest level. Our team provides a year-long programme of workshops, singing lessons, coaching sessions and performance opportunities, offering a unique chance to experience life as a professional singer in a supportive environment.
Choral scholars Alexander Technique workshop
Organ workshop with choristers
MUSIC IN THE COMMUNITY
The music department’s choral outreach programme to primary schools, established in 2022, is now a key element of our educational programme. With music provision in schools increasingly sidelined, our Sing Out project is designed to give musical opportunities to primary schools and demonstrate the power of community singing. Schools taking part receive a series of workshops led by our teachers which culminate in an interactive concert in the church for all participating schools. For many children, this is their first time in a church, and often the first chance they have to hear the organ and professional classical singers. Class and whole singing, once a mainstay of primary education, is now all but a forgotten art in many schools, and we are committed to sharing our resources and expertise generously, working alongside partner institutions to bring music back into schools as a core activity. One school taking part this year commented afterwards:
“It was a truly fantastic day. The children learned a variety of classical songs that they would never have had the opportunity to hear before and we were also very lucky to hear the church organ being played alongside some outstanding classical singing from the tutors. For school children from the East End of London, this was an amazing cultural experience, one we won’t forget in a hurry.”
Watch out for a number of new musical initiatives taking place in the church in the coming months, from moments of sublime tranquillity to high ceremony and celebration, from rousing carols to sparkling concerti. There really is something to suit all tastes and we look forward to welcoming you.
Thomas Allery was appointed Director of Music at Temple Church in 2023 and is responsible for leading the church’s music and choral programme. He has a wealth of experience as a director, organist, and harpsichordist, and is a specialist in 18th century music and historical performance practice. As a director, he is known for drawing on his experience as a chamber musician, and for his energy and direct communication with audiences. In regular demand as a continuo player on organ and harpsichord with a number of orchestras and groups, he also teaches basso continuo at the Royal College of Music. He is a founding member of the award-winning period music group, Ensemble Hesperi, with whom he has performed widely, recorded, and broadcast. As a community practitioner, he was worked extensively with the charity Live Music Now, including leading residencies in care homes and SEN schools in London. He is currently undertaking research into historical continuo treatises from the 17th and 18th centuries, exploring how they can be used in education today. In 2023, he was assistant conductor and lead continuo player for Grange Opera’s productions of Dido and Aeneas and Gluck’s Orfeo with The Sixteen and Harry Christophers.
Thomas Allery Director of Music, Temple Church
INTERNATIONAL ADVOCACY TRAINING: ARGENTINA
By Master Cheryl Thomas
In a unique international collaboration, The Inner Temple is training lawyers, judges and law professors in Argentina to help the country implement fundamental changes to its legal system.
A major shift in the law is happening in Latin America. Legal systems are moving from inquisitorial to adversarial trials, and Argentina is at the forefront of this change. The move away from mostly written court procedures to advocates arguing their clients’ cases orally in court before a judge or jury is seen as helping to improve people’s access to justice, making the court process more transparent and increasing public participation in the legal process. However, lawyers and judges in Argentina have only been trained in the inquisitorial process, and Argentina has turned to The Inner Temple for assistance in training its legal professionals in adversarial skills.
INNER TEMPLE/UCL ARGENTINA RULE OF LAW PROJECT
A group of 30 Argentine Law Faculty Deans, led by the Professor Martin Bohmer of the University of Buenos Aires, sought the assistance of Master Cheryl Thomas, Director of the UCL Judicial Institute and then Dean of Education at The Inner Temple. They requested help to develop an in-country ‘capacity building’ programme. The idea was to train a core group of lawyers and judges in Argentina on how to teach oral advocacy and legal ethics skills. They could then spread these new skills throughout law schools, the legal profession and the judiciary. Master Joanna Korner agreed to co-lead the project with Master Cheryl Thomas, and they put together a team of the Inn’s highly experienced advocacy trainers including Master Grahame Aldous, Master Jill Frances and Master Scott Matthewson. The Argentina Rule of Law Project is a collaboration between UCL and The Inner Temple administered by the UCL Judicial Institute.
TRAINING THE TRAINERS FOR ARGENTINA
The British Embassy in Buenos Aires has been instrumental in the project. During COVID-19 it funded the creation of an online Inner Temple Advocacy Train the Trainers course, hosted by UCL. The online training was so successful that two international legal pro bono organisations, ROLE UK (Rule of Law UK) and A4ID (Aid for International Development), then funded the team’s first in-person training in Buenos Aires in May 2023. At the British Embassy Residence in Buenos Aires, Masters Korner, Frances, Aldous and Thomas conducted training over five days. They ran ‘train the trainer’ sessions in the Hampel method of oral advocacy with an inaugural group of 12 Argentine lawyers, judges and law professors, as well as legal ethics training using The Inner Temple Method to a wider group of 45 Argentine lawyers and judges. The 2023 training was supported by funds from the Inn’s International Committee and UCL.
Advocacy teacher trainee Judge Santiago Quian Zavalia conducting a Hampel method room review in Spanish in the British Embassy Residence with a University of Buenos Aires law student
Master Joanna Korner running an advocacy teacher training session in the British Embassy Residence with the new Argentine Advocacy Skills Training Committee (on the left) and a group a University of Buenos Aires law students
NEW ARGENTINA ADVERSARIAL SKILLS TRAINING COMMITTEE
The 2023 training resulted in the creation of an Adversarial Skills Training Committee (ASTC) in Argentina, led by Professor Bohmer and the 12 trainee advocacy trainers. Almost immediately the ASTC began to receive demands from the Argentine judiciary, Ministry of Justice and other provinces in Argentina for training in British adversarial system skills. Professor Bohmer explained that “such a radical shift in our legal processes and professional roles demanded radical new ways of training. To have a tried and tested pedagogic method for training legal professionals in the adversarial process and such an impressive group of internationally qualified trainers has given our Argentine group of lawyers, judges and law professors a huge boost in confidence and enthusiasm to become advocacy and ethics trainers themselves. With the support of the UCL Judicial Institute and The Inner Temple we’ve now created an Adversarial Skills Training Committee in Argentina, and we are already receiving requests from more judges and prosecutors to be trained as soon as possible.”
In response Masters Korner, Matthewson, Frances and Thomas undertook a more extensive two-week training visit in May 2024 thanks to a substantial grant from UCL and travel funds from the Inn’s International Committee. The team provided refresher training for the new ASTC, expanded the training programme to include judicial case management, delivered new adversarial skills training in the Argentine province of Salta and worked with the ASTC to create a permanent training programme in Argentina.
DELIVERING THE HAMPEL METHOD IN SPANISH
The 2024 training started with a two-day refresher course in advocacy training with the ASTC at the British Embassy Residence. Since May 2023 the Committee had been meeting regularly in Buenos Aires to practise their advocacy training skills, and this produced remarkable results. All of the participants had improved significantly as trainers, with several achieving an advocacy teacher training level equivalent to the Inn’s higher New Practitioner grade. The second afternoon of advocacy teacher training was run entirely by the Argentinian trainee trainers in Spanish, with a new group of Argentine prosecutors and defenders being trained in the Hampel method. This training was delivered with confidence and authority.
The national importance of the project was made clear by the Argentine Minister of Foreign Affairs (Diana Mondino) and Minister of Justice (Mariano Cúneo Libarona) convening a roundtable with The Inner Temple/UCL team attended by a group of over 40 federal judges and prosecutors. The team ran sessions on the Adversarial System and Judicial Case Management, which generated considerable discussion and requests for further training.
EXTENDING TRAINING TO THE PROVINCES
The team then embarked on training outside of Buenos Aires in the province of Salta. The President of the Salta Supreme Court, Dra. Teresa Ovejero Cornejo, requested the team’s assistance with implementing the adversarial system at both the federal and provincial levels in Salta. The team met with the Federal Court of Appeal and the Salta Supreme Court, and then conducted a series of training sessions at the Judges Council Training Facility. This included sessions on the adversarial system, judicial case management and trial by jury. ASTC members Judge Santiago Quian Zavalia, federal prosecutor Laura Roteta and Professor Bohmer then demonstrated the Hampel method and ran a legal ethics session in Spanish with a group of over 50 judges, legal practitioners and law professors. Master Cheryl Thomas, the UK’s leading expert on juries, also met with the Salta Legislature to discuss a bill to introduce trial by jury in the province. The entire Inner Temple/UCL team met with the Federal Prosecutor’s Office in Salta to discuss how to implement the adversarial system in the serious cases they handle (drugs and human trafficking, money laundering and homicide).
NEXT STAGES OF THE PROJECT
The new Argentinian Advocacy Skills Training Committee are clear that continued input from The Inner Temple/UCL team is required to achieve the next stages of the project. The priorities include: (1) expanding the project’s judicial case management training; (2) increasing training capacity by identifying and training new trainers; (3) developing an adversarial system training course (for practitioners as well as law students) with training materials in Spanish; and (4) developing an evaluation programme for the training.
This project has given The Inner Temple a major new profile in international circles as a promoter of the rule of law. In an important step, Di Tella University Law School has agreed to serve as the ASTC’s administrative base in Buenos Aires, and the first courses in adversarial advocacy and ethics are starting in autumn 2024. A high-level policy summit is also being planned for 2025 to bring together the federal government, all 23 Argentinian provinces and other Latin American countries to share region-wide learning on the adoption of the adversarial system.
Cheryl Thomas
Professor
KC (Hon Causa) Professor of Judicial Studies UCL Judicial Institute
Masters Joanna Korner and Scott Matthewson running an advocacy teacher training session in the British Embassy Residence with advocacy teacher trainee Jose Barbaccia (Senior Partner, Gonzalez del Solar and Badino Lynch Law Firm) and a University of Buenos Aires law student
Master Scott Matthewson running an advocacy teacher training session in the British Embassy Residence with advocacy teacher trainee Judge Santiago Quian Zavalia and a University of Buenos Aires law student
VIEW FROM THE CIRCUITS
Joint Amity Dinner with Middle Temple on Circuit in Leeds
South Eastern Circuit Dinner
Midland Circuit Dinner
Western Circuit Dinner
SPORTS LAW AND ETHICS
By Michael Beloff KC
Sport matters. It matters to those who play, whether for pleasure or profit. It matters to those who follow matches, whether live on screen or in print. Sport can arouse profound emotions, sometimes joyful, sometimes sad.
Sport inspires loyalty, especially – but not only in – football, where it attaches to club teams, even those without a single player from the city or town or area which gives the club its name. Sport is significant in terms of economics, representing 1 per cent of the world economy which equates to approximately one trillion US dollars of annual activity. Sport is significant in terms of politics, however much it is argued that it should not be. Consider the recurrent debate as to which national federations should be invited to send teams to the Olympics and whether invited teams will accept an invitation.
English law has never provided a comprehensive definition of sport. As in so many areas of the law, context is all important. Recognition in law as a sport has implications for matters such as lottery funding and value-added tax. Ruling that bridge was not a sport, the European Court of Justice said, “The concept of sport … is limited to activity satisfied in the ordinary meaning of the term ‘sport’ characterised by a not negligible physical element.” All sports are games but not all games are, in law, sports.
A negligible physical element is a necessary, but hardly a sufficient, description of sport. To qualify sport as a physical activity must surely have rules which govern how it must be played.
Such rules – a match’s length, the weight of a discus, the width of a goal mouth, the type of footwear – are not compelled by the laws of physics or by some moral code. Subject always to the need to comply with the law of the land, they are constantly under review by sports’ governing bodies (SGBs) that are influenced by such considerations as the safety of participants, the enjoyment of spectators, the demands of television or the broadening of participation.
The rules define how the sport must be played, how victory is achieved, who should adjudicate whether the rules themselves have been complied with, who can enforce compliance, and who can administer a sanction (and of what kind) for breach of the rules.
A fundamental element in sports law – the so called ‘field of play rule’ – is that as long as referees or umpires (or other officials), assisted by technology, exercise their judgement or discretion in good faith, their decisions are beyond challenge otherwise than in so far as the rules of the sport themselves provide – for example, by on-the-spot applications to juries of appeal.
So, prima facie, the rule creates a sphere of autonomy into which even appellate sports tribunals, let alone courts, must not trespass. There are various justifications: the fear of constant interruption to the course of play by lawyers, the problems of rewriting a result after the event, the need to strengthen the match official’s hand and an arbitrator’s or judge’s perceived lack of expertise in the technical side of sport.
Beyond the boundaries of the field of play rule, sporting disciplinary offences contrary to the relevant code and other sports-related disputes are ever more frequently resolved by sport-specific tribunals, usually chaired by specialist sports lawyers rather than in the courts. In the UK, Sport Resolutions sits at the apex of domestic bodies. CAS, to whose jurisdiction during the course of this century most major global sports and all Olympic sports have subscribed, sits at the equivalent international apex. There is limited scope to challenge the decision of either body in the courts on grounds analogous to judicial review. Neither in Switzerland, nor in the Strand, will judges second guess the merits of the decisions of sports expert tribunals.
The major object of sport-specific law is to ensure that there be, as far as possible, fair competition, so that the result of a contest (luck apart) depends on talent and commitment and not on some form of cheating.
In Ivey v Genting Casinos, the Supreme Court was concerned with a card game of chance, Punto Banco. In his leading judgment, Lord Hughes (obiter) gave examples of cheating in sport, paramount among them the taking of performance-enhancing drugs – the most pervasive problem in modern sport.
As was explained by a CAS panel, “It is the trust and reliance of clean athletes in their sport, and not the trust and reliance in their physicians and coaches, which merit the highest priority. At the starting line, a doped athlete remains a doped athlete regardless of whether he or she has been victimised by their coach.” In this instance, the interests of the many have to be preferred to the interests of the one.
The result achieved by a doped athlete cannot stand and for pragmatic reasons, the advantage is presumed. The degree of care taken to avoid the infringement comes into play only when deciding whether, and for how long, the athlete should be subject to a period of ineligibility, taking account of factors such as age, degree of education in anti-doping and experience.
Anti-doping rules have to be compatible with the general law. They have generally resisted challenges that they fail that test. A striking instance is provided by the case Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission where the European Court of Justice found that anti-doping rules were prima facie anti-competitive but that they were justifiably so.
The anti-doping regime can only work if tests can be administered out of competition as well as in it. To that end, athletes subject to it have to provide details to their anti-doping organisations of precisely where they are at any time, so as to be available for testing – the so called ‘whereabouts rule’. This is a huge intrusion of privacy, but it is the price which is laid down to be paid for participation in their sport. The presumption is three strikes, three missed tests, and you’re out.
The major object of sport-specific law is to ensure that there be, as far as possible, fair competition, so that the result of a contest (luck apart) depends on talent and commitment and not on some form of cheating.
There is all but universal consensus that such taking is unacceptable. Since the turn of this century the World Anti-Doping Code, in its various versions, policed by the World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA), applies to almost all sports. WADA decides what are prohibited substances and can police the code by prosecutions for its breach.
Key to the Code is the strict liability rule. Faced with a charge of an anti-doping rule violation for presence in his bodily fluids or use of a prohibited substance, it is no defence for an athlete to claim that he was the victim of mislabelling, contaminated stock, or faulty advice from anyone at all.
Cheating in sport is not confined to doping. It is multi-layered, often fuelled by gambling. The follower of sport relishes its unpredictability, but for the gambler, predictability is all important. At its most serious, cheating is coincident with criminal law and amounts to corruption. At another level, it can be a breach of the civil law of an express or implied contract not to cheat. At yet another level it falls foul, not of the criminal or civil law at all, but only of the codes or rules of the game. It becomes a regulatory offence.
The three Pakistani cricketers persuaded (in aid of a purported betting coup) to bowl three no-balls at particular junctures in a test match against England at Lord’s in 2011 (so called ‘spot fixing’) were found guilty of a breach of the ethics code of the International Cricket Council, and later in the High Court also of conspiracy to cheat.
Forms of sport-specific cheating are plural and various: selecting ineligible persons for a team, claiming non-existent or less serious disabilities to improve one’s classification in Paralympic sports, breaking the rules as to engine construction in motor racing, or ball tampering in cricket.
Where criminal and regulatory offences coincide, the public authorities can (but sport’s governing bodies cannot) issue subpoenas or witness summonses and can access bank accounts to compensate the privilege against selfincrimination, which may not apply in sports disciplinary cases.
The sanctions in these two fora differ significantly. Courts can imprison but not ban. Sports tribunals can ban, but not imprison. Both, however, ordinarily have the capacity to fine.
The ordinary courts of law have a role to play in their traditional spheres of crime, tort and contract, but each of them is influenced by the so called specificity of sport.
Specificity also has its effect in statute in the context of the Competition Act 1988 (much influenced by European jurisprudence), but no less notably in the anti-discrimination law contained in the Equality Act of 2010, which outlaws (subject to certain exceptions) indirect or direct discrimination against persons with protected characteristics, but where there are sporting exceptions for disability, age and sex and gender reassignment. The first two of these occasion little controversy – the need for modifications in the interests of fair competition are obvious. Not so much the third.
No one seriously disputes the organisation of separate sporting competitions for men and women where physical strength, stamina, or physique are major factors in determining success or failure and in which one sex is generally at a disadvantage in comparison with the other. The vexed issue is: what does ‘woman’ mean in this context? Does it include females with differences of sexual development (DSD), intersex persons, persons reared as women but with male (not female) chromosomes, or persons born male who (postpuberty) self-identify as female ie transgender people?
Caster Semenya (the South African 800m runner who was required by World Athletics regulations to reduce her levels of testosterone as the quid pro quo to compete in women’s events) has challenged the validity of the regulations before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), having failed before CAS and the Swiss Federal Tribunal. The hearing has taken place, but at the date of this article the decision is still awaited.
As to transgender athletes, the guidance from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) – the body at the summit of world sporting governance – has changed over time but has recently asked global bodies to give equal consideration to the inclusion of athletes and fairness for women when drawing up eligibility criteria. Given the ambiguity of this steer, there has been no consistency in the choice made by international federations or national SGBs.
The majority of sports have always taken a binary view that there are women’s events and there are men’s events, and the defining and dividing factor has always been biological. Biology, indeed, has been the factor which creates different categories in all areas of sports – such as multiple weight categories in boxing and age categories in track and field. So, to admit someone who identifies as a female but whose male biology is unchanged to compete in those sports which are affected by biology, would create an unprecedented exception to a hitherto well-established sports-wide principle.
If the science still confirms that male biology gives an advantage in terms of sports prima facie, sport’s governing bodies should respect that fact in the interests of its guiding principle of fair competition. Whether the human rights of the distinct minority category of transgender women should trump the consideration of the cis-gender women majority is outside the scope of this lecture. It will ultimately be for the legislatures or courts to decide this contested issue.
The American poet Grantland Rice wrote, “For when the one great scorer comes to mark against your name” he writes not that you won or lost but “how you played the game”.
This concept of the spirit of sport, much discussed during the last Ashes series, distinguishes it from law. As the preamble to the MCC Laws, “Cricket owes much of its appeal and enjoyment to the fact it should be played, not only according to the laws but also within the spirit of cricket.” There is, of course, nothing to stop the spirit of cricket, or of any sport, being part of a legally binding conduct code; indeed, oddly, the International Cricket Council Code of Conduct for Players does precisely that. At least, if not embodied in that particular way, the spirit of sport could be deployed as an aid to interpretation of open textured sporting rules.
I fear that the spirit of sport is more breached than observed, especially in football with the so called professional foul, theatrical diving to win a penalty and running down the clock to prevent a late comeback by the currently losing team. However, I emphasise, this occurs not just in football. We recall examples of fair play in sport precisely because they are so few.
Fair play in sport may always be more an ideal than a reality. After all, WG Grace, the most famous of English cricketers, was once clean bowled and he simply reset the stumps with the explanation: “These people”, pointing at the spectators, “have not come to see you bowl, they have come to see me bat.”
In the modern game, money, reputation, career and national pride means that winning at almost all costs has firmly taken pride of place.
Michael Beloff KC Blackstone Chambers
Five times an Olympic Arbitrator for the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and Chair of the Ethics Commissions of international cricket, athletics and skiing. His memoir MJBQC: A Life Within and Without the Law is published by Hart. The third edition of his book Sports Law also published by Hart, written together with Rupert Beloff, Catherine Beloff and Professor Jack Anderson is in preparation. The full recording of this lecture can be found at: innertemple.org.uk/sportslaw
1500–2023: SNAPSHOTS OF THE INNER TEMPLE LIBRARY
By Master Sally Smith and the Librarian and Keeper of Manuscripts
This is a truncated version of a talk delivered on 18 March 2024.
Carter’s Orders for the Library, 1713 [Misc. MS no. 4]
When we (the then Master of the Library, and the then newly appointed Head Librarian) first met, we identified in each other a common satisfaction in looking at the lists of names of those who had held our respective posts and knowing that we walked in their footsteps. It is those names that have made the Library. The fabric has changed over the centuries, but our predecessors have forged a consistent chain throughout.
Times change, but the principles remain; the Library was, and is, here to provide members of the Inn, from judges to students, with the materials by which they can research and learn and feed their minds and souls.
Rob is the 13th Librarian; the first was appointed in 1709. I (says Master Sally Smith) was the 129th Master of the Library and I am already a footnote in history.
The first record of the Library is in 1506. For the first hundred years, the cupboards of books shared the space with the overflow of diners from Hall. By 1606, the Benchers began to frown upon this; the Library, they said, should be “kept sweet and cleanly for the exercise of learning and receiving noble personages”. By 1607, we had spread into another room. In 1608, Sir Edward Coke donated his reports (our first recorded donation) and from then on, the Library grew in size and status. That is until Sunday 2 September 1666, when the Great Fire broke out and the Library was destroyed. It was rebuilt by 1668; bigger and better.
Eleven years later in 1679, fire broke out in the Middle Temple. The spread was prevented by emptying The Inner Temple Library and blowing up most of it with gunpowder. It was rebuilt in a year, but it was still a place of gambling and wine and suppers, as well as books. No catalogue, no Library Keeper, no rules.
Then, in 1707, William Petyt, the Treasurer, who had been Keeper of the Records at the Tower of London, offered his extraordinary collection of manuscripts. A new library was built to house them in 1709, the same year the first Librarian, Samuel Carter, was appointed. Admitted in 1665, and called to the Bar in 1673, Carter received an annual salary of £20. An apparently “aged and impecunious barrister” and a seemingly inaccurate law reporter, Carter is more favourably remembered as the first to work on William Petyt’s collections. By 1713, he had produced the earliest catalogue of the Library. It identifies theological, historical, and philosophical collections. For ‘law books’, Carter reserved special treatment announcing that he had “made an alphabet”. Although Carter was not regarded as a trailblazer in his legal endeavours, librarianship at The Inner Temple had begun. Carter remains the only Inner Temple Librarian with an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography He was buried on 8 March 1713 in Temple Church. Joshua Blew stepped up to the role of Librarian in 1713. Entering service as the fourth butler in 1709, he became Librarian four years later. Over five decades, he rose to the rank of Chief Butler without ever relinquishing his library duties.
Josuha Blew’s recorded “extraordinary service” to the Inn is far wider ranging that the scant highlights that follow – he indexed and collated the rules and orders of the Inn, oversaw the workmen setting the gates of Hall, inventoried the effects of deceased members and, most importantly, attended the weighing of the meat. Blew revised Carter’s catalogue in 1715. Now entitled The Order of this Library, it established some enduring rules:
“All persons that take notes to bring their own paper, pens and ink”
“No person to write upon any book that shall happen to lie before them”
“No books to be lent out to any person whatsoever”
The subsequent catalogue in 1733 remained in use for four decades.
Blew was also a collector. Ten years after he relocated to 8 Fig Tree Court, the fire of 1737 destroyed both his chambers and his collections. In correspondence he laments both the destruction of his collections, and his wife’s illness which felt was “a result of the great fright at the time of the fire”. A posthumous auction catalogue of his effects shows his diverse interests, for they include such choice items as framed seaweed pictures, Roman artifacts, and a sword he attributed to Edward VI. The catalogue also lists “12 prints of birds etc. beautifully coloured by [George] Edwards”. Known as the “father of British ornithology”, Edwards published seven volumes containing hand-coloured etchings of birds and non-native mammals. In Gleanings of Natural History Edwards’s illustration for the ‘Gerba’ notes:
“Mr. Blew, Librarian to the Inner Temple, had also lately one of them living … the stuffed skin of which he lent me to examine.”
This was not the only specimen Blew provided. He resigned in 1763, financially secure in retirement, presumably to enjoy his remaining collections!
Receipt for the return of manuscript signed by Carter, 1710 [Misc. MS no. 4]
In 1763, Charles Chambers, a clerk in the Sub-Treasurer’s office, succeeded Blew. He supplemented the standard £20 salary with tasks such as winding the clocks and keeping the buttery books. He also received a one-off reward of £3 and 19 shillings for “apprehending two persons dropping a child”. Chambers continued Blew’s work of compiling and indexing the Inn’s Acts of Parliament and Bench Table Orders. However, unlike Blew, Chambers appears to have faced financial difficulties due to illness in later life, prompting his widow to petition the Inn for assistance after his death. The Inn granted her a £30 gratuity. Librarian until his death in 1777, he was buried on The Inner Temple side of the Churchyard. The records note “ground given; no fees paid”.
Our next Librarian, the Reverend William Jeffs (who in his capacity as Reader of the Temple Church had baptised Charles Lamb in 1775) was appointed in 1777. He was no stranger to the Library. In 1771, he assisted when Bench Table commissioned work to catalogue the Library’s books and insert an engraved bookplate into each volume. Two copies of the catalogue survive: one draft, and one more elegant and formal. Upon becoming Librarian, Jeffs received the same remuneration as Chambers: a £20 salary and a £10 allowance. He died in post in 1783, and his death prompted Bench Table to question “whether there shall be any Librarian in the future”. Ultimately, they affirmed the necessity of the role, introduced new guidelines for the position, and in 1784 appointed Randall Norris (the salary remained frozen at £20).
By 1801, Norris had become Sub-Treasurer and in 1806, he received £100 back pay for his continued library duties and an extra £20 for preparing the first printed catalogue (a revision of Jeffs’ work). His library credentials were questionable; in 1800, he failed to respond to a Select Committee inquiry about public records, only to deny possessing them despite evidence to the contrary. Charles Lamb wrote to Henry Crabb Robinson, affectionately criticizing Norris’s abilities:
Library interior, 1905
Randall Norris’ signature [Records of The Inner Temple, vol. 6]
Blew fecit, 1715 [Misc. MS no. 4]
Francis Maseres
“In him I have a loss the world cannot make up … To the last he called me Charley. I have none to call me Charley now. Letters he knew nothing of, nor did his reading extend beyond the Gentleman’s Magazine. Yet there was a pride of literature about him from being among books … Can I forget the erudite look with which, when he had been in vain trying to make out a black letter text of Chaucer in the Temple Library, he laid it down and told me that ‘in these old books, Charley, there is sometimes a deal of indifferent spelling’, and seemed to console himself in that reflection.”
That copy of Chaucer from 1602, read by Norris as ‘Charley’ Lamb looked on, is still in the Library collection.
Randall Norris stood down in 1818, and thereafter the operation of the Library changed. Those that follow are all now guided, supported, or controlled (depending on your point of view) by the creation of a new position.
Despite the presence of a librarian, “there were frequent unfavourable comparisons with Lincoln’s Inn”, and on enquiry it was discovered that Lincoln’s Inn had a Master of the Library, so The Inner Temple decided that they must have one too.
Francis Maseres was the Master of the Library that never was. He served as a Bencher for 50 years; he sat on every committee under the sun; he was Treasurer 1781–82. Nonetheless, he attracted disapproval. His correspondence is described as “readable without being exciting; matter of fact and unimaginative”; and he himself as “pedantic” and “lacking in tact and discretion”. But despite that, and with his passion for the Library, he was the obvious first Master of the Library, notwithstanding his having reached the age of 83 in 1818 when the post first became available.
Be that as it may, the Benchers made it clear that they were not having him, and the whole matter was rescinded “after a fortnight of considerable disagreement”. It was not raised again until 1825, Maseres having died in 1824.
The first official Master of the Library was Sir John Gurney. He was a clever lawyer with a practice that now could be described as human rights. He defended in a series of highprofile cases against publishers and activists charged with seditious libel and treason. He married the daughter of William Hawes, a great physician and philanthropist. That makes it all the more curious that he became known as a harsh, though independent, judge, now chiefly remembered as the last judge to sentence to death two men, consenting adults, for homosexual acts in a private room. That was in 1843. The committing magistrate himself pleaded for mercy for them. Charles Dickens wrote the case up. But both hanged and were posthumously pardoned under the Alan Turing Law in 2017.
Before Sir John Gurney became Master of the Library in 1818, the Library was under the guidance of “a tall, well-made figure, with a fine expressive countenance”. Reverend William Henry Rowlatt began his career at the Bar in 1804, but soon shifted to farming. His father suffered financial ruin due to “the criminality of others” in 1812, and by 1814 Rowlatt had taken holy orders. Moving to London, he immediately became The Inner Temple Librarian, and later Reader of Temple Church. He introduced several improvements, including better lighting and cleaning, extended opening hours, and new catalogues. He also secured a pay rise to £100 per annum, rising to £150 by 1838. By 1825, the Library was under strict rules as the Library Committee asserted its authority. Despite a petition in 1829 requesting an end to the rule that books might only be taken down by the Librarian, the rule was still in place in 1833. The Committee had concluded that it was perfectly acceptable and “as per the practice in the British Museum”.
Portrait of the Rev William Henry Rowlatt (Sylvester Harding Miniatures, DCPP/HAR/4) by kind permission of The Master, Fellows, and Scholars of Downing College in the University of Cambridge
In contrast to a seemingly successful library career, Rowlatt faced bitter disappointment in terms of his advancement in the Church. Despite being presented to the living of St Bride’s by the then Lord Chancellor, his obituary records that he was “prevented from enjoying [it] by a series of transactions literally singular in the history of Church patronage”. Rowlatt’s supporters believed that the living was illegally bestowed upon another preacher, perhaps at the behest of the Bishop of London. His grievances are detailed in his self-published 1835 pamphlet, Church Patronage: the Case of the Rev. W. H. Rowlatt … With Respect to the Living of St. Bride’s
In 1856, we encounter the seventh and first full-time Librarian, John Edward Martin. Contemporary newspapers paint a picture of the consummate librarian. The Westminster Gazette proclaimed that “His courtesy was proverbial, and his acquaintance with bibliography was by no means exclusively legal in its extent” whilst the Abergavenny Chronicle recorded that “Mr Martin was the refuge of the distressed barrister … few indeed were the legal points, however obscure, on which he could not at once name the works which ought to be consulted”. Books were clearly in his blood; his father was a bibliographer apprenticed to John Hatchard of Piccadilly.
Martin expanded the Library to eight large rooms over 20 years and simultaneously acted as private librarian to the Dukes of Bedford and Northumberland, and the Marquess of Ripon. His starting salary of £250 had risen to £350 by 1860, and £600 by 1880. Performance-related pay, perhaps.
The Westminster Gazette proclaimed that “His courtesy was proverbial, and his acquaintance with bibliography was by no means exclusively legal in its extent.”
Outside of the Inn’s records Mr Martin appears giving corroborative evidence before Commissioner Kerr in the case of an Inner Temple barrister accused of stealing a book from the Library, feloniously receiving the book with a guilty knowledge, and selling it for 10 shillings. The sentence – “imprisoned with hard labour for six months”. Be warned, would-be book thieves.
Already Sub-Librarian, John Edward Latton Pickering was promoted to Librarian in 1883. He was described by a later Sub-Treasurer as “a typical Victorian figure; very upright in carriage, austere in manner and possessed of the highest moral principles. He was also not an easy man to get on with. On the evidence of the catalogue which he helped to prepare he was obviously an excellent Librarian”.
His successor, Frederick James Snell, was Librarian from 1925 to 1939. According to a contemporary, “Snell the Librarian sat at a desk just by the clock tower. He also had a room, where a clutter of old books and MSS were kept, which he used for a nap every day after lunch, for about an hour, and where the staff had tea.” He resigned in 1939, perhaps fortunately so, as the clock tower was destroyed a mere two years later during the war.
Returning to library governance of the same period, between Sir John Gurney in 1825 and the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939, there were 120 Masters of the Library. Almost always they became Treasurer the year following their tenure as Master of the Library. They are all reflections of the historical traditional career of the barrister, with a vast predominance of young men from aristocratic and/or clerical families. Most were major public school and Oxbridge educated. Most went on to the Bench, either here or in the colonies. Many were politicians, many distinguished writers – mainly on legal subjects. They were elderly, taking on the joys of the Mastership of the Library and the distinction of being Treasurer as twin peaks of a long career.
War Damage to Library Steeple
Title page of Joshua Blew’s Earliest Catalogue with Rules, 1715 [Misc. MS no. 4]
Snapshots of
But amongst them all there is so much more. We find a close friend of Lord Byron, a Shakespearean scholar, and the nephew of Sarah Siddons. We find the bestselling author of a satirical novel with the snappy title Ten Thousand a Year, as well as three or four first-class cricketers, the man who became England’s first Director of Public Prosecutions in 1880, and the first Jew to graduate from Cambridge. Then there is Sir Harry Poland, who wrote his memoirs wonderfully titled Seventy-Two Years at the Bar, and Lord Darling, described by The Times as of “considerable literary power and no legal eminence”. He gave to the Library one of our greatest treasures – the earliest known depictions of the law courts. And amongst all that privilege, there were also whispers of equality of opportunity.
He gave to the Library one of our greatest treasures –the earliest known depictions of the law courts. And amongst all that privilege, there were also whispers of equality of opportunity.
Sir George Rose was Master of the Library in 1834, and Treasurer in 1835. To put him in context: he is sandwiched between Edmund Henry Lushington (Charterhouse and Queens’ College Cambridge, and Chief Justice of Ceylon) and Henry Bickersteth, 1st Baron Langdale (Caius College Cambridge, and Master of the Rolls). But Rose got to the Bar against all odds. He was born in Tooley Street in Southwark, and his father was a barge owner. Young George got a charity scholarship to Westminster School. He went to Peterhouse Cambridge, until poverty made him leave. Eventually he returned to take an MA at Trinity. He became a serious lawyer, and a famous wit and poet. A lot of his 18th century satirical political wit does not stand the test of time, but this ditty about his two opponents in a case – Mr Leach and Mr Hart – has done so:
“Mr Leach made a speech, angry neat and wrong; Mr Hart on the other part was right, but dull and long.”
And Rose was not the only one; a far more famous name two years later in 1836, Sir Frederick Pollock was Master of the Library – the first of a long line of very distinguished lawyers, Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, politician, mathematician, Fellow of the Royal Society – but he was born in Charing Cross, the son of a saddler.
Engraving showing the Old Hall, 1670, re-engraved 1770
Librarian’s Desk, Dec 30 1940
Library war damage
In a happy circularity, in 1882, Frederick Pollock’s son Charles Pollock also became Master of the Library, following in his father’s footsteps.
The pattern of annual Mastership changed in the Interwar period with the appointment of Charles Le Quesne in 1935. He occupied the post until he died in 1955. The difficult task of running the Library during wartime fell to Eric Albert Powell Hart. He was responsible for the evacuation of our manuscripts in the early part of the war, and suffered the appalling horror of the incendiary device that destroyed the Library in 1941. Contemporary reports record that more damage was done by water than fire, and that the foul weather resulted in many volumes being frozen to the shelves. The reports also record the deployment of library staff in non-traditional library duties such as shovelling ashes and removing lead and girders –all with the “rain, snow, and ice” adding to the difficulty. Despite all of this, Mr Hart was still at the helm when the new Library rose from the ashes in 1958. Hart worked his way up the ranks from Assistant Sub-Librarian in 1925, to Sub-Librarian in 1931, then Librarian in 1939. Retiring in 1964, he overlapped for some years with his successor, Wallace Breem, who was promoted to the role as Librarian and Keeper of Manuscripts in 1965.
Breem’s legacy to the Library includes widespread handwritten notes, comments and annotations in books, lists of staff duties and detailed reports. A founding member of the British and Irish Association of Law Librarians – BIALL, as it is known – is still going strong and Mr Breem is remembered through a memorial award in his honour, sponsored by both the Inn and BIALL. Whilst undoubtedly a busy librarian, he is also remembered as a distinguished author of three historical novels. Arguably the most well-known, The Eagle in the Snow, features a certain General Maximus, and was the inspiration for some key scenes in Ridley Scott’s blockbuster film Gladiator
There is a delightful small world symmetry in the fact that in 2012 the BIALL Wallace Breem Award was bestowed on the staff of The Inner Temple Library for their “considerable contribution to the legal information profession”, under the guidance of Breem’s successor, and Librarian number 12, Margaret Clay. Margaret modernised the Library with digital advancements: automating the catalogue, introducing online databases, launching the website in 1998, developing the AccessToLaw site, and introducing the ‘Current Awareness’ blog. Launched in 2007, it now reaches nearly 10,000 subscribers every day.
Margaret and the team packed up the Library when it closed for Project Pegasus in 2019, and when it reopened in its current reconfigured form in 2022, it was under new management. Rob Hodgson became 13th Librarian of The Inner Temple, mid-pandemic, in November 2020, and felt that being number 13 might be unlucky for some. In the interest of ‘making your own luck’ he posits a minor revision to the accepted chronology: for a brief three-month window in 1777, John Spinks took over the duties of Librarian until Reverend Jeffs formally took up his post. With a minor stretch of credulity, that makes Rob the 14th Librarian. A luckier number, perhaps.
Samuel Carter, the Inn’s first recorded Librarian, set out his rules, declaring:
“That no person not a student or Bencher of the House shall make custom of daily coming and staying there as if it were his own chambers and ordering clients to attend him as if it were a coffee house.”
What would he make of the Library today, with its sofas, bookable space, phone booth, and the coffee cups on every desk?
We briefly round off some of the more recent Masters of the Library. Masters Sedley, Sumption, Beatson, and Sharpe, all are exceptionally distinguished – variously judges, writers, and academics. Master Sharpe was the first woman to become Master of the Library.
Then I’m afraid [says Master Sally Smith] there is me. Someone analysing the Masters of the Library in 100 years’ time will say “we do not know much about her” and pass on with a sigh of relief to today, when Master James Dingemans has taken over the role.
And so, it goes on, we hope through another few centuries.
Sally Smith KC 1 Crown Office Row
Robert Hodgson
Librarian and Keeper of Manuscripts
For the full video recording: innertemple.org.uk/librarysnapshots
Members of Library Staff in 1958
Sir Patrick Spens, Treasurer, opening the Library in a Ceremony in 1958, with Librarain EAP Hart behind
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
A range of commercial legal research databases
PCs for online research, access to email and word processing
A variety of inclusive equipment, software and service adaptations
Photocopying, scanning and printing facilities
A document supply ser vice
An enquiry service (in person, by telephone and by email)
Overnight and weekly loans
Bookable one-to-one training sessions
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
Phone booth to make and receive calls
Bookable Basement Reading Room to take longer calls or for small group discussions
Current Awareness blog for legal news, changes in legislation and new case law (innertemplelibrary.com)
Social media pages with information on Library services, news and events: Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter
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 innertemplelibrary.org.uk
THE INNS OF COURT ALLIANCE FOR WOMEN
On 24 June 2024, guests at the Inns of Court Alliance for Women Garden Party were treated to an inspiring speech by their guest of honour, the Lady Chief Justice of England & Wales, The Rt Hon The Baroness Sue Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill (Master Sue Carr).
Lady Chief Justice Master Sue Carr
I am delighted to be here at the Inns of Court Alliance for Women Garden Party – we have brought the sun out! Looking out reminds me of summer 1988 when Ingrid Simler and I performed as Hermia and Helena in A Midsummer Night’s Dream under the beautiful tree down there.
It is very good to be able to get together in person and, amongst other things, to have a visual reminder of the progress that has been made for women in the Bar. This initiative has come a long way since Professor Dawn Oliver, as Treasurer of Middle Temple, had the original idea in 2011. The Temple Women’s Forum was set up in 2012/13. Then, in December 2021, to coincide with the 100th anniversary of Ivy Williams’s Call to the Bar, the forum became a four Inn entity – the Alliance.
I have spent a lot of time over the last year talking about the importance of visible representation. Simone de Beauvoir, in her 1949 book ‘The Second Sex’, wrote: “Representation of the world, like the world itself, is the work of men; they describe it from their own point of view, which they confuse with the absolute truth.” This quote captures how failing to include the perspective of women is a huge driver of an unintended male bias that attempts (often in good faith) to pass itself off as gender neutral. It is only once women come into positions of power or authority that these assumptions can actually be challenged – what a ‘Judge’ or ‘Barrister’ should look like, should sound like, or should be like. I know that many of these assumptions are being challenged right here today – both by the presence of the people around me and in the conversations had.
It is only when women are part of discussions in law that the unintended consequences of these gender biases can be identified, addressed and amended. One can see the practical impact of this in small changes: it was only as recently as the 1990s that women were allowed to wear trousers in courts in England and Wales. Of course, the focus on what women wear remains a point of debate; reading a press report on my first ever press conference as Lady Chief Justice, I was amused to be described as “striding into the room in a pair of three-inch stilettos”! The reason was not style or vanity – in fact, my trousers were simply too long.
Events like today serve to show just how far we have come in improving representation at the Bar. Having the first ever Lady Chief Justice is a step along that path. I remember the Attorney General jiggling for joy at this event in Lincoln’s Inn last year when the announcement had just been made.
Welcome by Her Honour Judge Khatun Sapnara, ICAW Co-Convenor (Middle Temple)
I knew when I took this role that it came with great responsibility and that people would be looking to me as a figurehead – I hoped to do a good job in the face of much scrutiny. Fortunately, I was able to receive swift feedback on my efforts when, two weeks into the job, I received an email from HR, which read thus:
“Dear Lady Chief Justice, We have been notified that your employment has been terminated. Your email account will shortly be closed. Please return your computer and work telephone to the IT department by 4pm on Friday.”
And there I was thinking that the first week had gone well.
Imposter syndrome is my least favourite phrase in the English language. However, I know that it is a feeling that many women at the Bar do experience. Please, don’t. If you have been given a role or a brief, it is because you have deserved it – earned it. Self-insight is an important and useful tool. But self-doubt is not. Back yourself. Maybe talk to a female colleague about it.
As with many other challenges, a problem shared is a problem halved. Throughout my career, I have found that the ability to speak to other women about their experiences – both their successes and the challenges faced – have been invaluable in providing guidance as I have forged my own path. Within the judiciary, there is a lot of support for women and for increasing diversity – reverse mentoring, judicial mentoring, pre-application judicial education programme and targeted outreach.
It is so important to have networks of people on whom you can rely, and with whom you can compare notes and share experiences faced. It is for this reason that I am so pleased to be here today – events such as this are crucial in forging connections, particularly at the Bar today, where working from home has become ever more common. Although, of course, working from home brings many benefits in terms of flexibility and accessibility, particularly for those with caring responsibilities, it does come at the cost of moments of camaraderie and casual conversations in corridors which can be so vital, not only for those at the junior end.
So, I hope that you enjoy today’s event and take this opportunity to talk to those around you – who knows what may come of it.
The Rt Hon The Baroness Sue Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill The Lady Chief Justice of England & Wales
For details of Inns of Court Alliance for Women events: innertemple.org.uk/icaw
THE TEMPLE CHURCH: RESTORATION AND RENEWAL
By the Master of the Temple
The grand Saracenic arch of this structure is still in being. It has suffered little. The figures are very perfect, and it would be almost a proof of deficiency in sight, to say that they are impaired by time. – Reuben d’Moundt, 1783 (abbreviated)
The Temple Church is one of the loveliest of London’s medieval monuments. Successive generations have reworked its internal decoration, but its structure and architectural details have remained unchanged since 1240. Even after the damage inflicted in the Second World War, a mass of prints and photographs of the Church animated Walter Godfrey’s superlative restoration.
Just one element defied even Godfrey’s skill and it is the most important single element of all. When you are next passing the Church’s West Porch to or from Fleet Street, take a moment to look over the railings at the carved West Doorway above and around the (magnificent!) arched door. Better still, find time to come through the iron gates and to take stock of this extraordinary artefact of the 12th century. The sevenorder archivolt, the capitals and demi-figures, and beneath them the clustered colonnettes. Here are various and rich carvings of vegetation, pinecones and semi-human heads, of latticework, rosettes, chevrons and beading. It must once have been a majestic Doorway, giving onto a spectacular view through the Round and along the length of the Church.
It is now also a wreck. Gone to ruin are the lovely figures praised by d’Moundt. Photographs from the early 20th century still show crisp, clear carving at every point of the Doorway. London’s pollution and one chemical intervention after another – every one of them intended to stop the stone’s decay – have wrought havoc with the carvings. It has long been assumed that the most badly degraded stonework is from the 12th century, the still-lovely carving from the 19th. But quite the opposite: in the last ten years, study of the Doorway’s stone-cutting, joints and mortar (wholly different in the 12th and the 19th centuries) has shown that all the beautiful, crisp stones are from the 12th century, all the decayed stones from the 1840s. The illustrations to this article make the point far more clearly than could any description!
Left: The West Doorway as it could look after the basic tier of repairs, to the archivolt and colonnettes. Right: 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. All the damage can be repaired without obtruding on the precious 12th century stones
It is rightly impermissible to tamper with medieval stonework, however badly worn away, but there are no such constraints in revisiting a failed restoration of the 1840s. The Doorway can therefore be returned to a completeness and beauty unseen for over 100 years; and this time the result will last for centuries. We are still in touch with the Statutory Consultees over the details of the work that we can and will now undertake, and it will be some time before our Planning Application is finalised, but only a few years will pass before the Doorway is again one of the glories of the Temple and of London.
It is thanks to the generous support of the two Inns that we can launch this programme of repair (The Letters Patent granting the land of the Temple to the two Inns, 1608, specified among the Inns’ duties “that they will well and sufficiently maintain and keep up the aforesaid Church, the chancel and the belfry of the same, and all other things in any way appurtenant to the said Church, in all respects and for all time to come, at their own expense, for the celebration there in perpetuity of divine service, the sacraments and sacramentals, and all other ecclesiastical offices, ministries and rites whatsoever in so far as it is befitting and has until now been used”). Once we turn to the whole envelope of structures to the west and north of the Church’s medieval interior, further needs and opportunities become clear.
The West Doorway can at the moment rarely be used except in high summer – and for the bride’s entrance at weddings! – if the temperature inside is to be kept steady. But if we were to get Planning Permission for some careful temperature control, the West Door could become again the principal and spectacular entrance, for most of the year, that it was designed to be. For this we must make the Doorway genuinely accessible to all visitors, with a ramp in the north-west churchyard, and the paving must be levelled. At this point the whole emphasis in access to the Church becomes the West Porch and West Doorway, appropriately lit to invite people to the glorious space within. We can re-imagine as the focal point, for anyone approaching the Church, its original, axial and re-beautified entrance.
Then comes the pressing need for far better facilities within our vestries, to prepare us for the most welcome arrival of girl choristers from September 2024, for our many visitors and their retail requirements, and for our rising concert, and audience, numbers. We need to ensure accessibility for everyone, safe provision for all the children, more space for our merchandise and for the preparation of refreshments, a smooth flowing route for visitors in, through and out of the Church – and simply (far) more loos within the Church’s own compound. The backstage facilities that have hardly been touched since Walter Godfrey finished his work here after the War can at last be re-equipped for the 21st century, for our rising profile in London and beyond and for commercial uses for which we have never been able to plan before.
Again, the Inns are supporting the Project with a very large grant (DDA and Safeguarding regulations clearly impose more appropriate but heavier responsibilities now than they did in decades gone by). The Inns are rightly requiring that the result will enable us to add more to our annual income than the new provision will add to our annual costs. We have already benefited hugely from the support of the Julia and Hans Rausing Trust and of the Corporation of the City of London’s Community Infrastructure Levy Neighbourhood Fund. Further (very generous) help has been offered by two charities already well known to us and we are turning our minds to the substantial fundraising that undoubtedly lies ahead.
Then comes the pressing need for far better facilities within our vestries, to prepare us for the most welcome arrival of girl choristers from September 2024, for our many visitors and their retail requirements, and for our rising concert, and audience, numbers.
Left: Section of the outermost order, north side. The lower, badly degraded foliate stonework is 19th century. Right: 12th century foliate carving from the outmost order, removed in 1842 and now in the Victoria and Albert Museum
Section of The innermost order. The figured foliate stonework, badly degraded, is 19th century
Crisp 12th century voussoir from The innermost order, removed in 1842 and now in the Victoria and Albert Museum
This is a major project. It is high on the list of governance and management tasks that we are undertaking as we transition into the Temple Church Trust. For the Project, we will continue to be grateful for the extraordinary expertise of Ian Garwood, Middle Temple’s Director of Estates, who has known the Church for 40 years and more. And it is now a delight to welcome Paul Cutts as the Trust’s CEO, once more through the care and support of the Inns, for all that he will contribute to our work and, in this context, particularly to every aspect of the Project. The Project needs the construction of a formidably expert and interlocking team to run and oversee it, and Paul’s arrival puts in place the keystone to the arch.
This is a major project. It is high on the list of governance and management tasks that we are undertaking as we transition into the Temple Church Trust.
We know that the Round Church is a small version of the Rotunda in the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem; the internal diameter of the Round (17 metres) is an almost precise and clearly deliberate one half of the diameter of the Sepulchre’s Rotunda. Then again: at the centre of Jerusalem’s Rotunda is the aedicule, the tiny chapel built around Christ’s burial place itself. In the Middle Ages the aedicule had a porch. We should think of the Round not just as a reduced Rotunda but also as a vastly enlarged aedicule, a Tardis that had so briefly contained within its symmetrically perfect microcosm of creation the Christ by and for whom all things were created, by whom all things consist, the firstborn from the dead, in whom all Fulness dwells (Colossians 1.16–19).
Ten years ago, we were able to refurbish the Church’s organ entirely through the generosity of the Inns themselves and of their members. It was a delight – and rather moving – that over 400 benefactors from within the Inns made possible the work that will last for half a century. This time we necessarily have in view a higher target for the work and a far longer timescale for its results. The stones that have lasted so well since the 1160s will be partnered with newly carved stones with a further 850 years of beauty in them.
We greatly look forward to introducing members of the Inns to the Project and all that it will offer for our future. Please look out for the opportunities we will be offering for guided tours of its hoped-for works and results. If you see me in the West Porch, peering Holmes-like at the carvings with old photographs in hand, do request an instant summary of the transformation to come. Exciting, and commercially vital, times lie ahead.
The Rev’d Robin Griffith-Jones Master of the Temple
In the V&A Museum are four carved stones from the West Doorway, removed in the restoration of 1840–42. They have therefore been spared both the worst of London’s pollution and all the chemical interventions of the last 180 years. They are in beautiful condition (they have just been exhibited in Paris, as examples of 12th century carving). Thanks to modern imaging and 3D printing, we can create perfect models of these three voussoirs and one abacus, for the use of our sculptors in their renewal of the archivolt and jambs.
Detail from the West Doorway today
EDUCATION & TRAINING
A YEAR IN EDUCATION: A VIEW FROM THE (NOT SO) NEW DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
This time last year I was the newbie in the Education and Training Department. I had arrived at the Inn earlier in the year with no past experience of working in the legal sector but armed with many years of experience of leading professional development and educational quality assurance in other professions. Over the past 18 months I have felt very supported by the committees which have an educational focus. It has been an absolute pleasure to work so closely with their chairs, namely Master Juliet May (Education and Training) as well as Masters Adam Constable (Advocacy), Saira Kabir Sheikh (Student Engagement and Support), Henrietta Hill (Qualifying Sessions), Fiona Jackson (Scholarships and Outreach) and Martin Goudie (Pegasus Scholarship Trust). I am delighted that Master May is now on the path to becoming Treasurer, taking up appointment as Reader-Elect in 2025.
I had some big shoes to fill when I arrived, replacing Struan Campbell who had done so much to take education and training forward with a particular focus on the wellbeing of our students and members.
The E&T team has a strong sense of camaraderie and everyone is very supportive of each other. At the start of June, Karen Taylor joined us as the new Head of Teaching and Learning. This is a newly established post which provides us with pedagogical expertise focused on our student, pupils and practising barrister educational programmes. Karen was previously working as Head of Apprenticeships at the London Institute of Banking and Finance, experience which will be extremely helpful especially should the barrister apprenticeship come to fruition.
We have had some notable developments in our programme in 2023–24. In November 2023 we hosted our first flagship event for established barristers. The theme was Open Source Evidence and you can read more about it elsewhere in the Yearbook. Such was the success of the event that we plan to run one full-day flagship event every autumn. For 2024 the topic will be Appellate Advocacy, comprising outstanding plenary speakers in the morning and interactive workshops in the afternoon.
In January 2024 we launched our new Digital Learning Hub. We have done this in partnership with the Inns of Court College of Advocacy (ICCA) whereby they provide us with a hosted platform which we can populate with our courses. We have great ambitions to make good use of the Hub to create more blended learning opportunities for most of our programmes. Our EDI training programme for committee members and volunteers was the first course to go live on the new Hub in January 2024 and has received great feedback.
The Inn’s scholarships are a source of pride and make an enormous difference to the lives of so many. In 2023 we awarded over £1.8 million in scholarships. In November some of our current scholars had a fantastic opportunity to meet Master HRH The Princess Royal at the Inn’s Grand Day. We are committed to ensuring that our processes for promoting and awarding scholarships are always fair and accessible to everyone regardless of their background or protected characteristics. With that in mind we are launching a new project over this summer to review our processes with a specific focus on equality, diversity and inclusion.
We have had to respond to several regulatory changes this year. In January the Bar Standards Board removed the waiver which previously allowed new practitioners to defer their training with the Inns due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This led to an unprecedented demand which we successfully met by increasing our training cohort sizes supported by additional advocacy trainers and expert witnesses. The feedback from new practitioners on these programmes has been very positive.
From September 2024 all Pupils Advocacy courses must be authorised by the Bar Standards Board. The application process to become authorised has been a significant exercise for the Inn which has included describing and evidencing the training and assessment of pupils and their trainers. I would like to extend a personal thanks to Masters Rehana Azib and Jennie Oborne who have played a major role in the production of our submission.
Over the course of 2024 we have been working on creating a new Education and Training Strategy for the Inn. This has been supported by a working group which is representative of our key committees and forums. We have also sought the views of our members directly through online and inperson listening events. We are expecting the Strategy to be launched this autumn and it will help to shape and direct our work over the next five years. One of the key themes within the Strategy is valuing volunteers. Our programmes and events would not happen without the contribution of so many members. We want to make volunteering easier and ensure that it is a fun and rewarding experience.
Thank you to all of our volunteers and we look forward to continuing to work with you in 2025.
Gail Fleming Director of Education
The
Inner Temple Scholars with Master HRH The Princess Royal
The 2023–24 academic year has been another busy one for the outreach team, as our programme continues to develop. Throughout the year, 700 people have engaged with our events. It has been such a pleasure to meet so many enthusiastic and motivated aspiring barristers, and we continue to be hugely grateful to all the members who have contributed to the success of these events.
The highlight of the year has most certainly been welcoming a brand new PASS cohort to the Inn, after the programme was briefly paused following the pandemic. This year we welcomed 61 scholars onto the programme.
PASS scholars have had three opportunities to visit the Inn, including the Dinner to the Universities. In addition to having the opportunity to meet with our practising barristers, it was fantastic to have our wonderful library team involved in delivering a legal research session and members of our Mooting Society who also kindly ran a workshop. The in-person events have been complemented by a series of online skills sessions and, of course, we are indebted to our partner chambers who have provided mini-pupillage placements for our scholars. To read about some of our PASS scholars’ experiences turn overleaf. It was also fantastic to meet those who joined us for our Insight events which we deliver in each circuit every year. This year, events took place in Swansea, Newcastle, Cambridge, Birmingham, Liverpool and Southampton. These were run in addition to three online events. Attendees valued the opportunity to hear from our volunteers from a variety of different backgrounds and those who had followed different pathways to the Bar, and commented on how welcoming and approachable everybody was.
Our Dinner to the Universities took place on 21 February with 137 students from universities all around the UK and over 60 members of the Inn. The Hall was full of lively conversations, as those starting out on their journeys to the Bar met and got to know our brilliant volunteers. Thank you to all those who attended!
Our Discovery Days successfully continued through our partnership with the Sutton Trust’s Pathways to Law programme. The Pathways to Law programme is open to sixth form students who aspire to a career in the law and who meet social mobility criteria through participating universities around the country. We worked with 266 students during the year through this scheme. The majority of these visited The Inner Temple and one event was held online. We were also able to offer the opportunity to attend an event in Leeds, and we are incredibly grateful to the Widening Participation Team at the University of Leeds for hosting this.
This year also saw the introduction of an online event aimed at careers advisors in universities, which we ran in conjunction with Gray’s Inn, Lincoln’s Inn and Middle Temple. The event proved to be very popular with 91 people attending.
All of the events would not have been as successful as they have been without the support and enthusiasm of our volunteers. We are truly grateful to each of you who have carved time out of your busy schedules to volunteer at our events! If you are interested in volunteering at outreach events visit: innertemple.org.uk/volunteering-opportunities
Dinner to the Universities
NOTES ON PASS
Since 2012, The Inner Temple has been proud to run PASS (The Pegasus Access and Support Scheme) which aims to improve access to the profession and to support high achieving aspiring barristers from under-represented backgrounds by providing experiences and developing skills that will support a career at the Bar.
We arrange a mini-pupillage for each participant with our partner chambers. We are deeply grateful to all of our partner chambers who accommodate our PASS scholars for a mini-pupillage and we always welcome hearing from new chambers who would like to support the scheme.
We asked some of our PASS scholars to provide a few words about their experience on the programme. If your chambers or organisation would like to get involved in PASS, please email outreach@innertemple.org.uk
FINN
PASS has been an invaluable stepping stone in my journey to the Bar. Principally, the Dinner to the Universities provided a unique opportunity to network with fellow aspiring barristers and established practitioners. This included meeting a King’s Counsel who, over a delightful meal, shared honest insights into balancing family life with a demanding legal career.
Another highlight of the scheme was a one-on-one video call with Her Honour Judge Caroline Wigin, a Judicial Governing Bencher of The Inner Temple. Her feedback on my CV was not only encouraging, but she also provided concrete suggestions for how I could reframe weaker areas. Additionally, Judge Wigin offered invaluable advice on steps I could take to further develop myself in preparation for future pupillage applications, which has given me a clearer path forward.
The virtual skills sessions, focusing on advocacy and interview techniques, were instrumental in my preparation for The Inner Temple’s Bar Course Scholarship interview. I am thrilled to have since been awarded a Major Scholarship and firmly believe that PASS played a crucial role in my success. I look forward to building upon this foundation as I make my first pupillage applications next year.
SIMRAN
I was told about the PASS programme by a friend who was preparing for the Bar Course, and she shared how the programme not only honed her skills but also solidified her decision to apply for a Bar Course Scholarship at The Inner Temple. Inspired by her positive feedback, I applied to be part of the 2023–24 intake and was delighted to be selected from around 200 applicants as one of the 60 participants.
From my very first visit to The Inner Temple, I felt an immediate sense of belonging. This institution is not just about tradition; it’s actively dedicated to fostering diversity and inclusivity within the Bar. My journey to the Bar has been unconventional –I transitioned into law post-pandemic, coming from a very different career, which is far from the ‘typical’ Bar candidate profile. The Inner Temple’s supportive environment has made this transition smoother and more welcoming, showing me that my aspirations of becoming a barrister are not just dreams, but achievable goals.
The PASS sessions have been incredibly enriching, enhancing my advocacy skills and providing valuable networking opportunities at events like Dinner to the Universities. These experiences are crucial in a profession where connections and skill go hand in hand.
Additionally, receiving the COMBAR Scholarship through the PASS programme has been transformative. It granted me access to mentorship from a barrister at a leading commercial chambers and a mini-pupillage with a commercial set that is both competitive and highly rewarding. These opportunities have significantly strengthened my future applications and deepened my understanding of a career at the Bar.
I am also grateful that the PASS programme helped me to obtain a Bar Course Scholarship with The Inner Temple and I can now start my Bar studies in September 2024.
To anyone contemplating a future at the Bar, I wholeheartedly recommend applying for the PASS programme. The combination of workshops, mentorship, and real-world experience it offers can truly enhance your prospects of securing a pupillage and successfully entering the legal profession.
The Inner Temple PASS Welcome Event
REFLECTIONS ON SCHOLARSHIPS
WHAT DOES BEING AWARDED A SCHOLARSHIP MEAN TO YOU?
Elizabeth Shanks
Peter Taylor Scholarship:
“Being awarded the Peter Taylor Scholarship is genuinely lifechanging. It represents a huge vote of confidence in my abilities and propensity to become a successful advocate. The scholarship has removed the financial barriers in going to the Bar, making my entry to the profession, as someone from a non-traditional background, possible. Having attended the recent Scholarships Reception, I already feel a huge sense of belonging to The Inner Temple community.”
Fidel Bonnah Exhibition Scholarship:
“Words that come to mind include: proud, capable and confident. Coming from a lower socioeconomic background and being brought up in a council house often equates to being seen as not worthy or incapable. However, being awarded a scholarship from The Inner Temple highlights that hard work and perseverance can overcome such stereotypes. The Inner Temple has believed in my potential to become a brilliant advocate. Their investment means that I can focus on studying and becoming the best version of myself.”
WHAT WAS YOUR EXPERIENCE OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS?
Daniel Cullen
Major Scholarship:
“I found the application process very well structured, with a clear and specific timeline at every stage. The application process really focused my mind on the crucial question: why do you want to be a barrister? Writing my application prompted me to reflect on all of my past experiences to consider how they had led me to the Bar. Some influences were already clear in my mind, but others were less obvious, and this process really clarified how deeply rooted my desire to be a barrister was. They had a real interest in what I had to say.”
Fidel Bonnah Exhibition Scholarship:
“My experience of the application process was a positive one. Prior to applying, I had the opportunity to ask various questions about the scholarship and the process through an open event, which was incredibly helpful. This interaction made me realise that there are no ‘silly questions’ when it comes to seeking clarification. In terms of the application itself, it was straightforward and user-friendly. Overall, the support and accessibility throughout the process made it a positive experience.”
WHAT WAS YOUR EXPERIENCE OF THE SCHOLARSHIP INTERVIEW?
Elizabeth Shanks
Peter Taylor Scholarship:
“The scholarship interview was such a positive experience. I was very nervous but was put at ease by everyone I chatted with at the Inn (including the chefs!). The barristers who interviewed me were very friendly and approachable, which I think allowed me to give my best performance!”
Sylvia Cullen
Major Scholarship:
“I really enjoyed myself! The panel seemed genuinely interested in what I had to say and I left the room with an increased feeling of determination and inspiration about the Bar as a career path.”
DO YOU HAVE ANY TIPS OF FUTURE CANDIDATES?
Daniel Cullen Major Scholarship:
“If you are considering applying but doubting yourself: apply. I would strongly advise you not to rule yourself out. Prior to applying, I think I really underestimated my chances of success. The Inn organises a number of webinars throughout the application period, which I would definitely recommend attending. I found these webinars incredibly helpful, both to ask questions about the process and what to expect, and to keep reflecting on my application prior to the interview.”
THE INNER TEMPLE SCHOLARSHIPS
THE INNER TEMPLE 2024
BAR COURSE AWARDS
PETER TAYLOR SCHOLARSHIP
Elizabeth Shanks
STEPHEN CHAPMAN AWARD
Eoin Jackson
PRINCESS ROYAL (5 Awarded)
Weronika Betta, Jack Hollingworth, Sam Hunt, Luca Montag, Michael Smith
MAJOR SCHOLARSHIPS (19 Awarded)
Marco Abousleiman, Saiba Ahuja, Joshua Ames Blackaby, Hari Bravery, Claudia Brooker, Lucy Burgin, Catherine Churchill, Daniel Cullen, Sylvia Cullen, Mary Fernando, Charlotte Gamble, Finn Judge, Ali Khalifi, Liam McKenna, Miranda Rafferty, David M Sims, Vita Sinclair, Benedict Springbett, Hannah Watson
EXHIBITION SCHOLARSHIPS (90 Awarded)
Irmak Akcebe, Tobe Amamize, Omotola Ariyo, Olivia Bailey, Lucy Barnard, Daisy Barrows, Georgia Bentley, Hugh Binnie, Ellie Blackburn, Ibironke Boboye, Fidel Bonnah, Chloe Brookes, Sophie Bucknor, Simran Chard, Jack Clayton, Iman Coan, Zoë Combe, Kirsty Cooper, Ashley Dempsey, Guanting Di, Alex Ewing, Niall Fahey, Ethan George, Rosie Good, Carys Gowers, Samuel Grankin, Sarah Hadden, Sarah Hair, Stephen Hare, Madeline Hinchliffe, Robert Hird, Rhiannon Hobby, Charlotte Hudson, Joshua Hurst, Iqra Hussain, Natasha Jacobs, Holly Jensen, Tamyah Jones, Mohammad Kamran, James Kent, Behram Khan, Vikita Khetani, Jordan Kiss, Rory Leventhorpe, Yijia Liu, Timothy Lo, Iona Makin, Elaine Margaret Guthrie, Conor McArdle, Christopher McHugh, Barry McTaggart, Louise Mian, Chloe Mitchell, Kavita Mohanty, Elizabeth Morris, Pui Ka Ng, Wan En Ng, Patrick Orme, Scarlett Paterson-Holt, Rochelle Phillips, Anaya Price, Aleksandra Ptak, Nadine Quayson, Meysam Rajaee, Aaron Rajesh, Lee Raynor, Joel Rosen, Charlotte Rumney, Mahera Sarkar, Zaki Sarraf, Quentin Schaefer, Tejal Shah, Saba Shakil, Jack Sheard, George Sheldon Grun, Sophie Shooter, Pragya Sinha Kumar, Caitlin Smith, Caitlin Smithey, Alexia Sri Tharan, Emily Stone, Eleanor Stromberg, Samuel Talalay, Juliette Thomas, Alexandra Ukah, Madeleine Underhill, Danielle Watts, Chloe Wilson, Sharon Winter, Jacob Zbos
This year, the Inn received 489 applications for the Bar Course awards and, after allowing for withdrawals, interviewed 435 candidates in March 2024. We have awarded 116 scholarships, to a total value of over £1.8 million.
THE INNER TEMPLE 2024 GDL AWARDS
PRINCESS ROYAL (2 Awarded)
Naomi Jennings, Lucas Jones
PRINCESS ROYAL (4 Awarded)
Rebecca Ebner-Landy, Harry Lederman, Tomaz O’Donoghue, Teck Wei Tan
EXHIBITION SCHOLARSHIPS (27 Awarded)
Mohammed Ali, Catherine Berus, Barnaby Burrowes, Henry Clement-Jones, Bysshe Coffey, Risa Cooper, Charlotte Gleed, Kate Grimsdale, Alba Kapoor, Anton Konshin, Annissa La Touche, Kelvin Ma, Charlotte Manson, Daniel Martin, Alexander Mash, Giuseppe Maurino, Kunalsing Narain, Haylie Page, Felix Parsons, Lara Petkevicius, Mali Pink, William Poole, Anna Power, Myles Scotland, Hamzah Sheikh, Charlotte Warren, Katie Wright
This year, the Inn received 94 applications for the GDL awards and, after allowing for withdrawals, interviewed 80 candidates over 14/15 June 2024. We have awarded 33 scholarships, to a total value of over £200,000.
QUALIFYING SESSIONS A Year in Brief
The 2023–24 academic year has been a packed one for The Inner Temple students, with nearly 50 Qualifying Sessions held in person and online across three terms. Students have been treated to a diverse and challenging programme of lectures, workshops and interactive training sessions, with topics ranging from the handling of Vulnerable Witnesses, to criminal ethics, to performance and presentation skills. In particular, we are proud of the development of our Circuit Qualifying Sessions provision, with a number of sessions held in person across the country at various city hubs. Our students on circuit are a vital component of the Inn’s life and community and it is more important than ever that our educational offerings centre their needs wherever possible.
Julia Armfield Education Programmes Manager (Pre-Pupillage)
A NOTE ON CIRCUIT EDUCATION DAYS
The Inn’s Circuit Education Days are yet another Education Department success story worth a round of applause and five minutes of your time to explain how you can get involved.
For the uninitiated, the Circuit Education Days take place over four separate Saturdays in the first quarter of the year in venues around England and Wales. This year was Bristol, Newcastle, Nottingham and Manchester; next year will be Cardiff, Birmingham, Liverpool and Leeds.
Kerry Upham and Julia Armfield have consulted widely, taken student and volunteer feedback into account and have developed a solid, dependable yet adaptable programme which runs as a well-oiled machine. When the well-oiled machine rolls into town, the 25 or so students who sign up spend an enjoyable, structured day covering practical skills, advocacy and, most importantly for that time of year (pupillage/scholarship interview season), opportunities for one-to-one mock interview practice and CV review.
What the students take from it is fairly obvious: a rare opportunity to mix with barristers in a relatively relaxed setting; bespoke advice from practising barristers about how to improve their chances in an increasingly competitive pupillage and scholarship application process; and, not to be flippant, our hosts usually do an excellent job when it comes to the lunchtime spread.
For the uninitiated, the Circuit Education Days take place over four separate Saturdays in the first quarter of the year in venues around England and Wales.
But, from someone who has now participated in a number of Circuit Education Days, let me list the things the volunteers take from it, in no particular order. For the avoidance of doubt, most of the points on the list below apply to all education and student events. The first one alone should grab your barristerial ego:
When you meet a baby barrister in five years’ time and they tell you that meeting you at an education event inspired/ motivated them, you may not remember the first time you met them, but you are unlikely forget the second.
You will expand your own professional network with other Inn volunteers who will be judges, barristers and Masters in different practice areas, in different chambers and in different areas of the country. I have never not taken something positive from those exchanges, even if only confirmation of my view that barristers are usually very funny, as clever people often are.
If you want to inspire the next generation of barristers, Saturday is the best day to do it. Everyone is tired after a day at work and Sundays are usually homework day. There will usually be an event taking place in a chambers near you and you do not have to go in all day – you can do an hour session. It gives you an opportunity to meet some of the brightest stars going through the process and to show Circuit in a positive light. Many of the students I have engaged with over the years know little about Circuit practice and some drift inexorably to London, lured by the sheer number of chambers and (they think) correspondingly increased chance of pupillage success.
It looks good on your CV if you are interested in applying for positions of responsibility.
Did I mention the lunchtime spread?
The Inner Temple volunteers are particularly scarce on Circuit. Kerry’s details are below if you would like to get involved. In the expectation I’ve sold it to you, you can help by either:
1 Asking your chambers if they can host an Education Day. We need a meeting room to hold a minimum of 20 people for talks and lunch, a few conference rooms for the one-to-one mock interview sessions and someone on hand to let people in the front door and show us where to go. If you can help with recommendations for local suppliers, the Education Department can sort refreshments. Students love coming to chambers. For many of them, much of their university life took place during the pandemic and mini-pupillages are hard to find.
2 Volunteering to come along to deliver a talk or advocacy session (which will be pre-produced to ensure uniformity of content across the four education days) or for the mock interview practice, for all the reasons above.
Master Samantha Hillas
QUALIFYING SESSIONS
Qualifying Sessions in total run by The Inner Temple (This refers to points awarded not events held)
Circuit Education Days hosted by 4 Chambers
Number of students attending Qualifying Sessions this year
Split between Online and In Person Qualifying Sessions and locations (These figures refer to number of events held not the number Qualifying Sessions awarded)
VULNERABLE WITNESSES
GIVING EVERYONE AN EQUAL VOICE
Report on The Inner Temple Crewe Hall Residential Weekend May 2024
On 2–4 February 2024, a residential weekend focusing on vulnerable witnesses within the law took place at Crewe Hall, organised by Master Annie Richardson and Master Craig Hassall, although unfortunately the latter could not attend the weekend itself. This was the first residential weekend which used a new template for the order of the weekend. The template had been developed within The Inner Temple Qualifying Sessions Commitee to take notice of the students’ wishes for the focus of such weekends to be upon advocacy, with a greater flexibility within the timetable.
The weekend was well attended, and as ever, several members of the Inn, from the Judiciary and the Bar, gave up their precious free time to assist in the running of the weekend.
The Chairman of the Qualifying Sessions Sub-Committee, Master Henrietta Hill, was present to cast her expert eye over matters, and her relaxed and friendly manner was very much appreciated by the students and the organisers!
The treatment of vulnerable witnesses within the law is a subject that encompasses many different legal disciplines, and although this was a weekend primarily focused on the criminal law, the same principles can be applied to the crossexamination of vulnerable witnesses within the family jurisdiction, for example.
The treatment of vulnerable witnesses within the law is a subject that encompasses many different legal disciplines.
The Friday evening session began with an opportunity to meet within allotted groups, followed by an introduction to the weekend by Master Henrietta Hill, and then the keynote speech was given by Master Neil Clark, who is one of the lead members of the judiciary for the section 28 procedure (whereby certain vulnerable witnesses can be cross-examined in a pre-trial recording). In his usual entertaining and informative way, Master Clark not only touched upon the initial pilot schemes in various courts, including his in Leeds, but went on to explain the difficulties encountered within the national roll-out, and what the future holds. He went on to give a very personal account of his familial experiences of vulnerability and disability, which was extremely well received by the students. Saturday morning began with the students practising their advocacy within the groups and getting to grips with their roles, which had been pre-allocated prior to the weekend. This was followed by a very interesting talk given by Alison Mullen, a Registered Intermediary. Her talk not only encompassed being an intermediary for vulnerable witnesses, but also attending upon vulnerable defendants in order to assist with their defence. There are relatively few intermediaries who are able to assist defendants, and therefore this part of the talk was particularly interesting. Alison spoke of her wealth of experience with a diverse group of witnesses, and showed how questions could be reframed to enable the particular difficulties of a witness to be managed, for example those on the autism spectrum, those with communication or speech difficulties and those with physical impairments. Her PowerPoint presentation enabled the students to see exactly how questions could be structured, and what her role was in guiding advocates to ask questions in the correct manner, which included their intonation and demeanour when speaking. The feedback from the students was encouraging, as few had any idea what an intermediary actually did and were able to learn how the courts have adapted to allow witnesses who would not otherwise have been able to gain access to criminal justice to do so.
The Saturday timetable allowed plenty of time for the students to practice their advocacy, both in their smaller groups and privately. The case study was an allegation of arson; this was specifically chosen to show that vulnerable witnesses are not purely found in cases involving sexual allegations and to minimise any adverse impact on the students. A neighbour’s house had been set alight, allegedly by the defendant, who lived in the house below. The victim of the arson was a single lady, vulnerable due to her physical health, which had worsened by the time of the trial, so much so that she had to give evidence via a live link from her hospital bed. A 12-yearold child had been alerted to the fire from her house across the road and, due to her age, her evidence would normally have been video recorded, including her cross-examination. Whilst of course this was not possible in the real sense, the students were able to see what would happen in such a situation, including a ground rules hearing to assist the advocates in tailoring their questions to suit such a young witness. Given a video recording of her ‘evidence-in-chief’ was not possible, the scenario included the fact that she did not like to see herself on camera and therefore Prosecution Counsel had to examine her in chief in the usual way.
The Saturday afternoon advocacy masterclass was an opportunity to see how things could be done in the worst possible way, as well as (hopefully!) the best. Master Neil Clark was the presiding Judge, trying to keep Prosecution Counsel – Master Jeremy Hill-Baker – and Defence Counsel –Master Caroline Goodwin – in check, a weighty task indeed. Master Annie Richardson was the unfortunate child witness who was subjected to the excoriating cross-examination of Master Goodwin (showing how NOT to cross examine) before she reverted to the correct way in which to examine a vulnerable witness. Hannah Smith, a group leader, was the injured party, confined to her hospital bed after the injuries she received during the alleged arson attack and subsequent health problems, and gave a very good performance, showing the students (as much as the restraints of the room allowed) how to give evidence via a live link. Imagination had to be engaged somewhat, but her recurring cough caused by the effects of the smoke inhalation was pure genius!
The Saturday afternoon ethics sessions were done within the group, a departure from previous weekends, to allow for greater discussion. The students were faced with a variety of problems, all based on real scenarios, and were encouraged to talk about how these might be solved. It would appear that the more intimate and informal format was well received.
After another practice for the Sunday morning advocacy sessions, the students were able to ask questions in relation to pupillage from a panel consisting of Master Henrietta Hill, Master Joseph Hart, Hannah Smith (whose job at the Nursing and Midwifery Council meant that students heard from an employed barrister) and Master Oliver Lewis. All the panellists had had a very different route to the Bar and gave extremely pertinent and helpful pointers to the students in relation to making pupillage applications and being interviewed for pupillage. So enthusiastic were the questions that Master Hill had to bring the session to a close as dinner beckoned, and the session was overrunning! The students were assured that they could continue to ask questions to individuals over dinner.
Saturday evening was rounded off by another delicious meal and a superb and tricky quiz set by the ever-dependable Julia Armfield (although there were questions which allowed those of us who usually dread quizzes to answer). Master Peter Birkett showed us all how to be MC of a loud and exuberant crowd, truly demonstrating why he has consistently been a master of the courts in which he has appeared over the last several decades. The dining room at Crewe Hall is both cosy and large, allowing all those attending the weekend to mingle and socialise, which surely is another equally important function of a residential weekend. Master Goodwin’s dulcet tones could be heard echoing down the room as she ‘gently’ encouraged her team to ever greater glory. As part of the new format, those students who did not wish to participate in the quiz were able to spend quiet time in one of the smaller rooms, thus enabling them to still be part of the camaraderie of the weekend.
Sunday morning saw the students, slightly less bright-eyed and bushy-tailed than the previous morning, having more time to practise their advocacy with their group leader, before performing in front of the group Judge. As ever, feedback was given, with the focus on the positive and taking into account the varying degrees of advocacy experience. There was also an opportunity to chat informally about life at the Bar, and questions about pupillage and CVs were answered.
Sunday morning saw the students, slightly less brighteyed and bushy-tailed than the previous morning, having more time to practise their advocacy with their group leader, before performing in front of the group Judge.
The weekend came to a close with a short farewell address before everyone enjoyed lunch.
Given that the weekend was the first of its kind under the new format, the feedback was eagerly awaited. The students appeared to appreciate the extra time to prepare for the advocacy sessions, and the opportunity to hear from a panel about their route to the Bar and their advice about pupillage. The atmosphere of the weekend was also welcomed. As is usual at these weekends, the opportunity to socialise with the Judiciary and the Bar, to ask questions within a less formal setting and to meet fellow students from other colleges’ course providers was much appreciated by all.
Master Annie Richardson
STUDENT SOCIETIES
DEBATING SOCIETY
Our weekly online practice sessions continued to draw high turnout, covering a wide range of topics from human rights, AI, and the judiciary to Santa, Taylor Swift, and superheroes. We also included several sessions specifically aimed at preparing for pupillage.
The Intervarsity Debating Competition returned in February 2024 after a lengthy hiatus. The event, held in honour of Master Peter Harrison, was a huge success with teams from various institutions coming together to compete at the Inn. Congratulations to the winners, Middle Temple!
Our members participated in external competitions, including those at Durham and Liverpool, where they showcased their debating prowess. Our internal competitions, the Rawlinson Cup and the Public Speaking Competition, ran again in 2024. We were particularly pleased to hold the final of the Public Speaking Competition in Manchester, to introduce debating to students based outside of London. Congratulations to Yousif Shami who won both internal competitions and to finalists Richard Jones, Nicole Wallace, Jesler van Houdt and Colette Russell for competing in front of a panel of Benchers. Final topics included the merits of returning to Europe, cancelling ‘cancel culture’ and whether democracy has had its day.
The Inner Temple also hosted the Inter Inn Debate competition. As the 2023 winners, we were thrilled that The Inner Temple made it to the final round against Lincoln’s Inn this year and came in second place.
Our debaters also found time for fun! Our Christmas social, a murder mystery about who killed Santa, tested our advocacy skills, while our post-pupillage debriefs and summer party were more relaxed affairs.
We would like to thank our committee for their hard work throughout the year, our members for their enthusiasm for debating, and everyone who has assisted the Society.
Mollie-Anne
Heywood and Abbi Robinson
Co-Presidents
RACIAL EQUALITY SOCIETY
We’re looking forward to a very exciting year ahead. Last year we were able to host a pupillage panel preparation session. The highlight was our free Black History Month inperson event that comprised a fantastic panel, networking opportunity, food, and drinks. The panel included Councillor Anthony Okereke (leader of the cabinet of Royal Borough of Greenwich), Master Tunde Okewale (barrister at Doughty Street Chambers and former Master of RES), Mark Gettleson (head of campaigns and community engagement in the City of London Corporation), and Councillor Valerie Bossman-Quarshie (educator and historian from the Borough of Islington).
We hosted our first South Asian Heritage Month event this year and plan to run similar celebrations in the coming months.
After extensive work and consultations, our Society Constitution is now available and sets out the principles and functions of this Society. We thank the Student Engagement and Support Committee, especially Master Selvaraju Ramasamy and welcome Master Ramasamy as the new Master of RES.
We are particularly grateful to the panellists who have volunteered, our outgoing Master of Activity Master Tunde Okewale, and others who helped make the events run smoothly.
Kofo David and Tahmina Miah Co-Presidents
Our weekly online practice sessions continued to draw high turnout, covering a wide range of topics from human rights, AI, and the judiciary to Santa, Taylor Swift, and superheroes.
Rawlinson Cup – Yousif Shami (winner), Nicole Wallace (runner up), Master Mark Sutherland Williams, Master Jill Frances and Master Treasurer (judges)
Black History Month Event hosted by the Racial Equality Society
THE INNER TEMPLE STUDENTS’ ASSOCIATION (ITSA)
It has been another busy year for ITSA. To begin with, we would like to say thank you to students of the Inn for attending the events that we have hosted, and barristers for joining panels and volunteering their time. There have been several highlights throughout the year.
The Christmas party was a super event and allowed over 50 students to mix and mingle after a term of study. The party also doubled as the prize-giving event for The Inner Temple’s inaugural Student Essay Competition which saw a strong collection of essays vie for the prizes on offer. Well done to those who submitted an essay, Joseph Maggs for coming in second place and Richard Matheson who won the competition. You can read his winning essay in this Yearbook. Thanks also to the panel of barristers who blind-marked the essays. Keep a look out in the autumn term when we publish details of this year’s question.
The Christmas party was a super event and allowed over 50 students to mix and mingle after a term of study. The party also doubled as the prize-giving event for The Inner Temple’s inaugural Student Essay Competition.
The start of the new year quickly brought in a flurry of events organised by ITSA. Once again, inclement weather conditions and the threat of strike action on the trains meant that pupillage application events were held online and reached students across the country. Several panel events were run to cover the main areas of practice and each of the knowledgeable panellists gave thoughtful and helpful advice to the students who dialled in. In amongst these events was the annual Burns Night celebration at the Inn which was a great success and hugely enjoyable night for all.
ITSA assisted the Education and Training Department with the inaugural Criminal Mock Trial competition in memory of Alexander Cameron KC. The final won by Casey-Mae Kellett took place at the Old Bailey on 5 February and was judged by Master Anthony Leonard. Well done to Neel Rokad for coming second and those who took part in earlier rounds. It would not have been possible without our volunteer judges, witnesses, and jury members. Special thanks to Alejandra Llorente Tascon, who initiated the project and wrote the fact patterns for each round, and to our sponsors 5 King’s Bench Walk, Three Raymond Buildings, and the Cameron family.
One of the biggest events hosted this year by ITSA was the Bar Scholarship Application Session where over 100 students dialled in to glean as much detail as they could manage about the scholarship opportunities. Good luck to all those who subsequently applied to the scheme.
Our most recent event was titled ‘Life in Chambers’ and was an in-person panel event which allowed a group of students, some having already secured pupillage, to hear what working as a barrister is like.
Our Essay Competition and Christmas Party, Burns Night, and Pupillage Application events are due to return in the next academic year. However, we are also excited to introduce our first events on circuit due to take place in Manchester and Birmingham and potential collaborative event with the Middle Temple Student Association as well. We look forward to giving you more information soon and seeing you there.
John Saddington President
Panto cast members at the ITSA Christmas Party
MOOTING SOCIETY
The Mooting Society has been building on last year’s success and continues to grow as the biggest and most active student led mooting society across all four Inns.
Michaelmas Term
To celebrate our long-established relationship with Pepperdine University, we held our annual Pepperdine moot to at the start of the academic year. This was followed by first training session series, with four in-person sessions focusing on introductory mooting skills. We wrapped up Michaelmas term with the start of our flagship competition – The Lawson Moot. This year’s competition saw 90 members sign up.
Hilary Term
We started the busy Hilary term with our second training session series. This series focused on advocacy skills, and it was delivered online over four weeks with the aim to make it more accessible for student members on circuit. Our annual Intervarsity Moot was held in February. This year’s competition was a huge success, attracting teams from all over the country – from Kent to Aberystwyth and from University of Law (Bloomsbury) to Dundee. The continuing success of the Intervarsity Moot reflects the growing reputation of both the competition and the Mooting Society itself. Moving on to March, The Lawson Moot was concluded with the Grand Final judged by Master Robert Reed, Master Treasurer and Master Mark Hill (Master of Mooting). We are deeply grateful for Master of Mooting’s effort in securing such a distinguished panel. Our external team was also very active during the Hilary term. In January, members of the society competed in the Worshipful Company of Arbitrators: Arbitration Competition and won the best roleplay award. The Inner Temple Team at the Jessup Moot also did very well in the national rounds, reaching the quarter finals before losing to the eventual winner. Finally, we also sent out a team to compete at The Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot in Vienna in March.
Trinity Term
To wrap up our internal competitions this year, we held the Ecclesiastical Moot in April and Commercial Law Moot in June. We received record number of registrations for both competitions, and we are very grateful for the continuing support from Master of Mooting for the Ecclesiastical Law Moot and Master Camilla Bingham and One Essex Court for the Commercial Law Moot. In addition to organising moots, members of the committee also delivered an introductory training session on mooting at a PASS outreach event and The Inner Temple team competed in the final round of the annual Inter Inn Mooting Competition. On the external side, we sent out two teams to compete in Telders International Law Moot Court Competition and International Criminal Court (ICC) Moot at the Hague in May and June. Both teams did well to qualify for the international rounds and learnt a lot from their time moot abroad. We wrapped up this term with our annual summer party on 28 June.
Edwin Chan President
DRAMA SOCIETY
The Drama Society kicked off the academic year with our annual Christmas pantomime, The Wizard of Laws written by Amanda Blue DeBell. The pantomime saw an Elle Woods Dorothy navigate her way through Oz with her friends Rex, Scarecrow, Tin Man and Cowardly Lion. Standing in their way was a witch, based on a not so popular politician, and her assistant, a member of the civil service. This legal take on The Wizard of Oz generated laughs and joy from audiences spread across two nights.
In May, The Inner Temple Drama Society went up against Middle Temple for the annual Temple Shakespeare Cup (also known as ‘The Shake Off’). The Inner Temple put on their production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Middle Temple put on their production of The Tempest. The competition was judged by actors Alexander Macqueen (Middle Temple Bencher) and Jane Garda, screenwriter Master Tom Kinninmont and film producer Tony Bracewell. Both casts got lots of laughs. In the end, Middle Temple won the competition and Thomas Isaac of The Inner Temple received a special mention from the judges for best actor for his role as Puck. Following our previous success at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, the Society is thrilled to be taking a talented cast up to Edinburgh this year for the festival. The Accused, written by Charlotte-Jane Buck and Tristan Greene, follows Daniel, a man accused of murder through a criminal trial where the audience performs the role of the jury. This dark comedy has many legal twists as well as songs and dance members. We promise you will not have seen anything quite like it. This play was also performed at SpaceUK between 19–24 August.
Charlotte-Jane Buck President
Alexander Cameron KC Criminal Mock Trial – Neel Rokad (runner up) and Casey-Mae Kellett (Winner)
Commercial Law Moot Final – Sarah Hair (Winner)
CALL TO THE BAR
“Attending the Call to the Bar at The Honourable Society of The Inner Temple was an unforgettable experience. The historic ceremony, steeped in tradition, filled us with pride and awe. Witnessing future barristers, including my son, embark on their legal journey was both inspiring and profoundly moving.”
Karu Ramesh Kumar (Guest of Callee)
“I was awed and amazed at the level of ceremony and the wonderful atmosphere on the day. It was a privilege to be a part of such an esteemed event, and to meet so many kind professionals who were genuinely supportive of the step the Callees were taking.”
George Tracy-Adams (Guest of Callee)
“The ceremony was truly incredible, and a day I will never forget. The speech by the Honourable Mr Justice Soole served to remind us of what a momentous occasion it truly was. I am honoured to finally be a member of the Bar, and I cannot wait to continue on my journey as part of The Inner Temple family”
Charlie Rose Taylor Castanheira (Callee)
Bethany Trussler
Master Desiree Artesi and Wayne Miller
Sub Treasurer, Master Treasurer and Remi Trovo
Callee Procession into Temple Church
Susanna Fadeyi
Abbi Robinson Cheng Zai Ze and guest
“Being called to the Bar by The Inner Temple represents the culmination of years of dedication and will be cherished forever. Celebrating this milestone with my parents and partner in such a historic and beautiful location made it truly unforgettable”
Talia Webster (Callee)
“Thinking of my family, lecturers, everyone who guided and supported me and, thanking them silently for cheering me on throughout this arduous journey. A very heart-warming, emotional, and special moment as I step forward to be called to the Bar. It was superbly and artfully organised and this made the entire ceremony most meaningful. I am proud to be amongst so many intellectuals from whom I can further learn to be an excellent barrister and fly like the emblem of The Inner Temple, including volunteering from afar to provide service to an Inn that means so much to me.”
Kiran Sharma (Callee)
“It is a great honour being added to the long list of barristers called to the Bar in the historic Temple Church. Trinity Call 2024 was a significant milestone that I will look back upon with fondness throughout my life”
Adam Lugun Raj (Callee)
Robina Khan
Talia Webster
Opeyemi Iman Rafait Kuku and guests
Matthew Banks
Karu Ashwin Karu Ramesh Kumar and guests
Kiran Sharma and family
NEW FRONTIERS IN EVIDENCE
The investigation and prosecution of international crimes –both in domestic courts (pursuant to universal jurisdiction statutes) and on the international plane (for example, before the International Criminal Court [ICC]) – has historically been constrained by systemic and institutional limitations on investigators’ and, consequently, prosecutors’ capacities to gather evidence in states in which crimes are alleged to have occurred. These limitations flow from the inaccessibility of alleged crime sites to investigators in states that decline to cooperate with international investigations, as well as a structural reality in which international criminal tribunals possess no police force of their own. International criminal tribunals have, therefore, operated in a paradigm which has relied on states’ cooperation to gather evidence for the successful prosecution of international crimes.
The advancement of internet, telecommunications, and GPS technologies has for some time been recognised as having the potential to disrupt this paradigm. Content uploaded to the internet by individual users (so-called ‘user-generated evidence’), together with other sources of online content (such as press reports) (together ‘open-source information’), provide investigators with new opportunities to pursue investigations in the absence of a physical footprint in situation countries, as well as in the absence of states’ cooperation in those locations.
The promise presented by these developments, however, does not come without risks and fresh constraints of its own. Open-source information, particularly in the form of audio-visual user-generated evidence uploaded to the internet by individuals whose identity may be unknown, presents hurdles to prosecutors seeking to rely on such material as evidence. This is not least because, in the absence of a witness to give evidence as to the authenticity and reliability of the content, the risk of its manipulation (for instance through the deployment of deepfake technologies) renders its authenticity and reliability and, consequently, its admissibility as evidence, open to challenge.
On 25 November 2023, the Inn organised and hosted, in collaboration with the TRUE Project, a one-day symposium that presented the first comprehensive examination of its kind of the legal and policy issues surrounding these developments. Master Joanna Korner moderated a packed schedule attended by over 100 legal practitioners, investigators and academics.
Master Sue Carr recorded a welcome speech. Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat, an open-source research and analysis platform which has pioneered investigation of open-source information, gave the keynote address. Mr Higgins traced the development of Bellingcat’s use and deployment of open-source information in the investigation of international crimes, and he introduced the symposium to the core techniques of geolocation and chronolocation which facilitate the process of its authentication. Mr Higgins also introduced the risks inherent in reliance on open-source information, including through its manipulation, and his presentation therefore set the tone for the examination of the legal and practical issues presented by these developments which were explored in further detail throughout the day.
Master Korner chaired the first panel session on the admission and evaluation of user-generated evidence. Dr Jonathan Hak KC presentation expanded on the risks presented by manipulation of open-source information through the generation of synthetic imagery, for instance developed by artificial intelligence image generators and deepfakes. Master McDermott Rees and Dr Alice Liefgreen developed these themes by presenting insights from the TRUE Project on the core research question of how deepfakes and related technological advances have impacted on trust in user-generated evidence, and what that means for user-generated evidence in human rights accountability processes. Through mock trial scenarios, online studies, case law analysis and engagement with practitioners, the TRUE Project’s findings presented a balanced picture finding that, on the one hand, although there is no ‘silver bullet’ available to cure the risks of manipulation and abuse of open-source information, these risks can be mitigated through effective methodologies of source, technical and content analysis.
New Frontiers in Evidence
Dr Micheál Ó Floinn presented on the presumption(s) of reliability under English law of evidence produced by computers in the context of digital evidence, a topic which the discussion demonstrated (in Dr Ó Floinn’s view, shared by this author) to be an area potentially ripe for law reform.
Master McDermott Rees chaired the second panel session on ethics and practice in the collection and preservation of user-generated and open-source information. Raquel Vazquez Llorente (WITNESS) provided participants with an introduction to the modalities for securing access to data through the European Digital Services Act. Andrew Finkelma (Meta, formerly Facebook) offered insights into obtaining disclosure from Meta. Dr Lambros Fatsis (City University of London) presented on the use of rap music as evidence, particularly in cases relating to gang violence. David Hassan (Office of the Prosecutor, ICC) introduced the OTPLink System for the submission of user-generated material. Following the luncheon adjournment, participants were presented with a choice of attending one of three panel workshops – on developments on synthetic media and generative AI, advocacy techniques concerning open-source material, and verification techniques.
The third session provided participants with a comparative analysis of the techniques, methodologies, and best practices employed and promoted by civil society and academic stakeholders operating in the field. Ben Strick (Centre for Information Resilience) described manual and automated processes employed in the collection and preservation of usergenerated evidence by the Centre for Information Resilience.
Dr Alexa Koenig (University of California, Berkeley) presented on the development of the landmark Berkeley Protocol on Digital Open-Source Investigations, and Siobhán Allen described the work of the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) in developing key admissibility and evaluation considerations. Nick Waters (Bellingcat) presented real world case studies on authenticating user-generated evidence deriving from the Al-Werfalli Case at the ICC, and the international armed conflict in Ukraine. The session provided practitioners with tools to deploy when litigating the admissibility and weight to be afforded to user-generated evidence.
The fourth session addressed the presentation of opensource information in Court. Her Excellency Judge Solomy Balungi Bossa (ICC) and His Honour Judge Gumpert KC presented on user-generated and open-source material from the perspective of the international and English benches. Sue Hemming, formerly Head of the Counter Terrorism Division of the CPS, gave the prosecutor’s perspective.
The fifth (and final) session offered participants an opportunity to reflect on mock trial hearings organised by GLAN in which the admissibility and weight of a piece of usergenerated video content was litigated in mock sittings of the Crown Court, pursuant to the rules of criminal procedure of England and Wales. Chaired by Master McDermott Rees and interspersed with video of the mock voir dire hearing at which the content’s admissibility was litigated, Master Korner provided the judicial perspective, Joshua Kern provided the prosecution angle, Master Andrew Cayley provided the defence perspective, and Dearbhla Minogue presented from GLAN.
In conclusion, the Inn and the TRUE Project’s ‘New Frontiers in Evidence’ symposium represented a new frontier of its own – a first of its kind forensic examination of a still emerging area of practice with significant potential, but also carrying risk. The symposium received excellent feedback, epitomised in a detailed blog post by Michael Karnavas, experienced defence counsel before the international criminal tribunals, who described the event as “highly informative and enormously useful” in a comprehensive review. The day’s success positions the Inn as a thought leader at the cutting edge of examination of the interaction between emerging digital technologies and best practice in their presentation in international and domestic criminal proceedings.
Joshua Kern
Master Korner gives the introductory talk
THE ADVOCACY PUPIL PRIZE
Advocacy is at the heart of what barristers do day in, day out. The requirement for new pupils to complete a pupil advocacy course is therefore entirely justified and, for me, most welcome. The course I attended, provided by The Inner Temple, certainly helped to prepare me for second six and being ‘on my feet’ for the first time.
The course I attended spanned several dates in October and November and was a well-constructed tour through all the elements that build one up to being a good advocate. I learned a lot, particularly about myself, and had a few misconceptions. For example, why were we being asked in the case analysis sessions to write closing speeches only? Surely that should come at the conclusion of one’s study of a case. Of course, I soon learned that if you correctly formulate your case theory, a closing speech is indeed what you will write first in preparation for trial. The discipline of then having to present my thoughts and strategies on how I arrived at my closing speech further sharpened my perception of the value of that approach and brought home the extent to which case theory intertwines all of the advocacy throughout a trial.
Next was the advocacy residential weekend held at The Berystede Hotel and Spa in Ascot. Was I alone in having absolutely dreaded the compulsory residential weekend which followed the initial sessions? Even before I realised that I would be required to roll around on the floor shouting words from Shakespeare? Thank you LAMDA for what actually turned out to be a good ice breaker with very useful lessons on presentational skills, such as voice projection and breathing, which are incredibly important parts of advocacy but are often forgotten.
Advocacy is at the heart of what barristers do day in, day out. The requirement for new pupils to complete a pupil advocacy course is therefore entirely justified and, for me, most welcome.
The actual advocacy sessions were extremely valuable. Over the two days we carried out civil and criminal advocacy including cross-examination, examination-in-chief and closing arguments. We were split into small groups of six where we would take it in turns to be the witness and our group leader played the judge. All feedback is valuable but seeing the recording of all the advocacy you have just delivered is both salutary and educational. I found the use of the Hampel Method, focusing on addressing one piece of critical feedback, really useful as it concentrated my mind on the changes I needed to make. Our tutors were also put to work delivering interesting sessions on witness handling, previous inconsistent statements and skeleton arguments which could be used in the relevant advocacy tasks we had to complete. The weekend also included a formal dinner where all the pupils and trainers got to sit together and chat about un-advocacy related things, before receiving a brilliant after dinner speech from Master John Ryder.
Applications day was the opportunity to have my skeleton arguments assessed prior to delivery of oral submissions. It gave me an insight into how to deal with bad character and summary judgment applications.
The final part of the advocacy course was a mock trial held at the Royal Courts of Justice. This was the first time for many of us doing a complete trial which included a prosecution opening, cross-examination, examination-in-chief and closing speeches. We also had the choice of making applications before the trial on bad character, hearsay and excluding evidence under section 78. The opportunity to examine a youth witness and learn about the protocols which needed to be implemented was very instructive, particularly as many second six pupils spend a lot of time in the Youth Court. The mock trial lasted approximately 90 minutes and we were given feedback on all aspects of the trial. For me, the ability to conduct a full trial from start to finish was one of the most beneficial parts of the course.
I am aware that all Inns provide different advocacy courses for pupils, but I am definitely of the impression that The Inner Temple’s course, with its diverse array of advocacy exercises, has been the most beneficial to its pupils.
Niamh Sexton
The Finalists – Niamh Sexton and Vistra Greenaway-Harvey
When I received my pupillage offer, I made a to-do list. Completing the Pupils Advocacy Course was one of the largest tasks. Having completed the BPTC LLM in 2021, I was keen to polish my advocacy skills and I placed great weight on the course. Course A started on the same day as my pupillage, therefore I opted for Course B. In January 2024 I entered the introductory evening not quite knowing what to expect but aware that the course was considered ‘intense’. On arrival, the overarching message was that the focus of the course was on development rather than assessment. I found that to be true.
THE CASE ANALYSIS SESSIONS:
The first part of the course involved case analysis sessions for criminal and civil cases. The brief yet informative lectures set out the importance of case theory and using your closing arguments as a road map to arguing the case. We were divided into groups to analyse the case further. I benefited greatly from the experience and teaching in the small groups as well as the wealth of knowledge and ideas the other pupils brought to the evenings.
THE RESIDENTIAL WEEKEND:
The course packs contained all the key information: locations, dates, times, cases and, of course, dress code. As I scanned through the requirements for the residential weekend, I was curious and concerned about the lines:
For
the LAMDA session on the Friday
at the residential weekend, you will need to be wearing loose clothing suitable for moving around in.
I was glad I heeded that advice as the sessions were very active and involved getting out of my comfort zone both physically and mentally. It is impossible to take oneself too seriously when crawling on all fours or reciting Shakespeare in the style of a bedtime story. These activities certainly broke the ice and created a sense of camaraderie within my group. The LAMDA session was fun, as were the games infused with core practical skills on how to use the voice, breath and diction to leave an impression. I learnt that wall plugs are the ideal size for holding one’s mouth open to practice diction; whilst I have not tried this myself, I often use the humming techniques I learnt in that session.
The non-legal presentations provided an opportunity to develop my oral skills without the pressures of an assessment. The assessments that inevitably followed over the next two days were broken up by further workshops. At times the schedule was very full, and quite similar to the housing possession lists in the county courts. It required me to prioritise my workload effectively.
The advocacy sessions themselves applied the Hampel method. The headline feedback was constructive and impactful. The immediate follow up with a demonstration from the room trainers ensured that I had an example of how to improve and an opportunity to do so the next day. For me, the video reviews showcased all uncomfortable body movements. I hope that I can keep those under control!
Crucially, the formal dinner on Saturday provided a space to hear anecdotes from a range of judges and practitioners. All shared the fear of getting ‘on your feet’. All demonstrated that fear was not a barrier to success.
PART II OF THE COURSE:
The applications workshop focused on oral and written skills. The session highlighted how much judicial intervention I could expect in the county courts and how to deal with this. After the session the group was provided with a template skeleton argument that I have used during pupillage.
Finally, the mock trial was the culmination of the skills learnt thus far. We had the privilege of performing in the Royal Courts of Justice, which created a sense of excitement and realism for my forthcoming second six.
I entered the Advocacy Course expecting a month or so of rigorous assessment and challenge. I welcomed this challenge as a necessary furnace in which my advocacy skills would be moulded. To my great pleasure, it was an opportunity for development more so than assessment, filled with moments for relaxation, development and a network of barristers that understood the fear and catalysed it into success.
Vistra Greenaway-Harvey
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 King’s Counsel 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
Support for 16 to 18-year-olds:
Discovery Days for school students
Support for people aged 18 years old and over:
The Inn holds Insight events during which attendees hear from, and network with, members of the profession. These take place at the Inn, on Circuit and online
The Inn stages an annual Dinner to the Universities event for undergraduate students who are 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
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)
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 innertemple.org.uk/volunteering-opportunities
THE COIC MATCHED FUNDING SCHEME
COIC welcomes applications for matched funding for 2025–26 and 2026–27 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.
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 £10,900 for 2025–26 London pupillages and £10,000 for 2025–26 out of London pupillages and, £12,000 for 2026–27 London pupillages and £11,000 for 2026–27 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 2025–26 and 2026–27 pupillages are invited between 2 September and 18 October 2024. Decisions will be communicated during the week commencing 4 November 2024. 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
As Head of Northampton Chambers, I take immense pride in our rich legacy as the oldest chambers in Northampton. Our commitment to excellence in advocacy, client care and fostering a supportive environment sets us apart in the legal community.
Although we are a smaller set, we cherish the close-knit and friendly atmosphere that permeates throughout chambers, from our experienced barristers to our dedicated clerks and aspiring pupils. It’s this sense of camaraderie that fuels our collective pursuit of excellence.
I wholeheartedly endorse the matched funding scheme as an indispensable tool in shaping the future of our profession. Through this initiative, bolstered by our collective investment, we’ve been able to nurture a vibrant cohort of barristers who embody diversity, talent, and dedication. These individuals are poised to lead our legal community forward with integrity and skill.
At Northampton Chambers most of our work is legally aided supporting vulnerable children and families involved in care proceedings. Whilst this may not always be the most financially lucrative avenue, it is undoubtedly some of the most rewarding in other ways. As a result, our chambers doesn’t always enjoy the high levels of income seen in commercial sets. Without the support of the matched funding scheme, our pupillage programme would simply not be sustainable.
I am deeply grateful for the opportunities this scheme affords us to continue our mission of delivering exceptional legal services whilst nurturing the next generation of barristers. Together, we’re not just shaping careers, we are making a lasting impact on the lives of those who rely on us for justice and support.
Maria Savvide Head of Northampton Chambers
5KBW is a predominantly criminal set and offer 12-month pupillages focused on this area. Chambers have quite deliberately remained small in comparison to other sets with a focus on quality work and excellence in advocacy. 5KBW is a very busy and thriving set with the opportunity to shadow and to become practitioners dealing with the most highprofile and the most complex criminal cases. We have a strong commitment to the future of the Bar and invest considerable time and effort in our pupillage programme, including mini pupillage and outreach work. To maintain the high standards of the Criminal Bar we continue to seek to attract and recruit pupils who demonstrate talent, dedication and enthusiasm and chambers have done so throughout the difficulties posed by financial cuts, the pandemic and by the CBA action. We are enormously grateful for the assistance provided over the last decade by COIC’s matched funding scheme enabling us to continue to invest in the future by offering more high quality and competitively remunerated pupillages. The application process is very straightforward. The matched funding scheme is a fabulous initiative from which the whole Bar benefits.
Charlotte Newell KC Head of Pupillage
USA
By Danielle Manson
In the months leading up to my Pegasus Trust Scholarship in the States, I felt both excitement and anxiety about six weeks away from home. However, nothing could have prepared me for the number of once-in-a-lifetimeopportunities I would experience.
We arrived in Washington DC to the warmest of welcomes from Ellen DelSole, an appellate tax attorney and member of the Pegasus Executive Committee, and her husband Tim, who cooked for us and took us on a tour of the pretty town of Fairfax, VA. We also visited the Autumn festival where I tried my first corndog, snow cone and (too much) All-American lemonade.
Next, Richard Schimel – another member of the Executive Committee – treated us to a driving tour of Washington DC, visiting memorials, museums, the Exorcist steps where Father Karras met his untimely demise, and we caught our first glimpse of the White House. We were also treated to a reception at Binnalls Law firm before our formal induction.
Those first few days in DC were a whirlwind, filled with generosity of both time and spirit of our hosts.
We then got our first taste of American advocacy in Montgomery County Court, where we observed family and criminal proceedings. We witnessed the use of white noise to distort conversations between the attorneys and the judge in the presence of the jury, and findings of ‘involvement’ as opposed to ‘guilt’ when dealing with juvenile defendants. As someone who represents youths in the UK criminal justice system, I was impressed by how carefully our American counterparts chose their language when dealing with children in court.
We then flew West, to Northern California. The sun was shining as we arrived in Sacramento, and so too was our host Art Scotland, a retired Court of Appeal judge.
Our first day on the West Coast was spent enjoying real American cheeseburgers from In-N-Out Burger and exploring Sacramento’s Old Town. Sadly, the beautiful Sacramento struggles with significant homelessness and drug addiction because of the increasing availability of fentanyl. Judge Scotland took us to meet Parker White, his partner Carole, and daughter Molly, who very quickly became like family (as did their gorgeous dogs, Jax, Maggie, Benji and Juno).
There isn’t space within this report to detail all of the amazing experiences Art arranged for us whilst in California, but some of the highlights include discussing diversity on the Bench with Judge Morrison England of the Sacramento Federal Court, learning about the lawmaking process at the State Capitol, experiencing “Home Court” (located inside the city’s jail) and watching Judge Brody make his way through a docket of 65 cases in one morning.
When I look back on my time in California, I cannot believe how much I learned. I had come to America knowing that there were differences between our two legal systems (the advocacy style being the most obvious), as well as cultural differences (access to abortion and the right to bear arms being the most contentious). However, I was not expecting to notice an almost complete absence of special measures – as the US Constitution protects an individual’s “Right to Confrontation”, even for child witnesses.
Also, because the States do not have the same data protection laws as the UK, everyone’s personal data is available online. Whilst this means that it is easy to obtain the previous convictions of a friend’s new partner (unlike in the UK where you would have to make an application pursuant to “Clare’s Law”), it also means that the home addresses of judges are accessible, thereby placing them at significant risk when presiding over contentious cases.
On our return to Washington DC, we were treated to a tour of the US Supreme Court, a private audience with Justice Jackson in her chambers and the AIC Celebration of Excellence gala dinner. The remainder of the week was spent visiting the Capitol Building, observing oral argument in the US Supreme Court regarding whether there exists a right for state officials to exclude and/or block individuals from accessing their social media pages, and celebrating Halloween with smores over the bonfire. We also observed excellence at the historically black college, Howard University (a personal highlight for me), a moot at the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown University, and guilty pleas being entered in the Federal Court in relation to the January 6th riots.
We then headed to Salt Lake City in Utah for our penultimate week with our fantastic hosts Larissa and Scarlet, where we tried horseback riding and learned about the Mormon faith and culture, upon which the entire city is founded.
Whilst in Utah, I was also interested to learn that in 2020 (prior to the overturning of Roe v Wade) the state passed a trigger law in anticipation of a change in constitutional jurisprudence regarding the provision of abortions, which (if enacted) would amount to a state-wide ban. However, despite Roe ’s overturning in the 2022 case of Dobbs v Jackson, a preliminary injunction blocking the trigger law was recently upheld by the state’s Court of Appeal, in what has been regarded as a particularly bold (and liberal) move, in a predominantly Republican state.
We also met with the US Attorney to discuss prosecutions in the Federal Court and the relationship between the State and 270 Federally-recognised Native American tribes. As a criminal barrister with no experience of the family courts, I was fascinated to learn that the Indian Child Welfare Act precludes a non-Indian family from adopting an Indian child.
Towards the end of the week, we were treated to a trip to the ski resort of Park City by a property attorney in Utah. We concluded the week by observing proceedings in both the District and Federal courts (including a grand jury returning their decision that a proposed prosecution could proceed) and having lunch with all five of the State Supreme Court Justices. Although short, our time in Salt Lake City was utterly fascinating and I left having learned a great deal.
We then visited Las Vegas before returning to Washington DC in time for a trip to the Pentagon, a tour of the impressive Department of Justice Building, and a fascinating meeting with the team at Georgetown University’s Prisons and Justice Initiative, before being treated to a Thanksgiving meal with by Ellen. It’s safe to say, we had a lot to be thankful for.
Whilst the Scholarship was exhausting, hard work and is categorically not a “free holiday”, I hope that this report demonstrates just what an amazing opportunity it offers. My experiences will certainly sit with me for the rest of my career.
Danielle Manson Matrix Chambers
INDIA
By Kat Shields
During my Pegasus Scholarship in Delhi, I had a unique opportunity to see court proceedings in various venues –from hearings before the Judicial Magistrates’ Courts right up to the Supreme Court of India. I was surprised by just how many hearings were ineffective. Many of my days were spent with Advocates rushing from court to court to request “a short date please”, which in reality could be an adjournment lasting for months or years. A very positive surprise was the excellent court facilities everywhere I went. Every court had up-to-date video link equipment, air conditioning, bustling canteen facilities and working lifts –a list which would be very difficult to tick off completely in any English Crown Court!
I arrived in India in July 2023 amidst a storm of patriotic sentiment. Chandrayaan-3 was setting off for the south pole of the Moon, Delhi was preparing to host the G20 summit, and the campaign for the enormous general election the following year was about to begin. There were literal storms, too: the capital city was experiencing one of its worst monsoon seasons ever, and the start of my scholarship was delayed by two unexpected problems. First, unprecedented flooding in the Supreme Court complex caused by the River Yamuna bursting its banks.
Second, a lawyers’ strike in protest at a High Court Judge being apparently banished to Kolkata for political reasons. My status as an English Barrister prompted many questions from the advocates I worked with in India. Once urgent questions about wig-wearing were addressed, my colleagues were especially curious about the jury system (abolished in India in 1973). I was proud to explain that England’s juries help to safeguard our criminal justice system from political corruption. Advocates in Delhi’s courts knew which tribunals to avoid if one’s client had links to the opposition.
Throughout my scholarship I saw first-hand the power and agenda of the current Indian government. I was extremely fortunate to be able to watch arguments made on behalf of the government in the Supreme Court in the Article 370 hearings. The case concerned whether the removal of Jammu and Kashmir’s autonomous status in 2019 was unconstitutional. I was sitting in Court as the government’s Senior Advocate admitted that there was no timeline for the restoration of democratic elections in the region, a concession which made international news.
My favourite part of the scholarship, which was split into four separate placements, was my time in the District Courts (the equivalent of the Crown Court). There were some legal and procedural familiarities, all set to the backdrop of peacocks’ cries outside. I was always completely overwhelmed by the sheer number of lawyers in every courtroom waiting for their cases to be heard; at times standing in court felt like being in Times Square on New Year’s Eve! The huge backlog in the criminal courts in India puts ours into perspective: there are tens of millions of trials pending. I saw one novel way of dealing with this, which was one courtroom being used to hear two trials at the same time. Whilst the Court Clerk was busy taking a witness’s testimony in English in one trial, the Judge was dealing with a legal argument in Hindi in another. The second trial was a multi-handed murder trial, and the defendants were permitted to roam freely around the courtroom (there was no dock) so long as they each remained hand-in-hand with a police officer. The use of handcuffs in India is seen as an unpleasant colonial relic, and verges on offending against the Constitution.
Aspects of my placements were tailored to my legal and personal interests. One of the reasons I applied for the scholarship was to improve my Hindi, and my placement at the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) was a real test of my reading and writing skills. I spent time working in Delhi’s slums with women who faced problems I recognised from our own criminal courts: domestic violence, controlling behaviour from partners regarding finances, and a feeling of despondency created by enormous court backlogs. The DCW fills a gap which would otherwise rely on pro bono work: assisting women to make reports at the police station (an experience akin to getting past a tricky GP receptionist); filling out lengthy court forms; writing witness statements and representing marginalised women in criminal, family and employment proceedings. A properly funded public service like this could be of great value in England as well.
The scholarship was an incredible experience and provided me with a truly special chance to forge lasting relationships with advocates in India. I would like to thank the Pegasus Trust and the Hingorani Foundation – Dr Aman Hingorani, Priya Hingorani and Shweta Hingorani, who carry on the work of Nirmal and Kapila Hingorani – for this opportunity and their support throughout. I would also like to thank Senior Advocate N Hariharan, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave and Advocate Akhand Pratap Singh for all of their time and guidance throughout the scholarship.
Kat Shields 7BR
Outside the Supreme Court of India, September 2023
USA
By Freya Foster
My Pegasus Scholarship got off to an auspicious start when I snagged a window seat on my flight to Washington DC. Arriving on a gloriously sunny day in late October I had a wonderful view of the trees that surround the city in their spectacular autumn colours.
Once I had landed and ticked off some of the key sights (the White House, Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial) my visit officially started in style with the American Inns of Court Celebration of Excellence Gala at the US Supreme Court. The evening began with the awards ceremony, which recognised the achievements of lawyers and judges from around the United States before a reception, which provided a great opportunity to speak to the other attendees, including former and current Pegasus Scholars.
Together with the other English Scholars, my week in DC continued with visits to the Capitol, Howard University and Georgetown University, and the US District Court for the District of Columbia. A particular highlight was observing arguments in the Supreme Court. We observed two cases surrounding the use of social media by public servants, which raised First Amendment free speech issues. I then moved on to New York and Philadelphia where I spent my time attending various courts. I met lawyers and judges from a wide variety of practice areas and discussed matters ranging from diversity in the legal profession, particularly in civil and commercial law, to the impact of litigation funding and the differences in civil procedure rules.
Similarities and connections between England and Wales and the US were everywhere, including the retention of the term ‘sovereign immunity’ to describe the immunity of government from lawsuits (derived from the traditional immunity of the Crown in this jurisdiction). However, what I found more interesting were the differences that forced me to reflect on the approaches we take in our jurisdiction and what we could learn from the US.
The arguments at the Supreme Court illustrated one such major difference. Within appellate advocacy in particular, there was a much greater focus on written argument – the purpose of hearings was to answer questions that the judges have about the issues they are considering, rather than to set out and argue the case in full. Lengthy written briefs were the norm and many judges and practitioners I spoke to were surprised to hear that our written skeleton arguments were often subject to strict page limits!
This focus on written advocacy is also perhaps one reason so many junior lawyers take time to work as clerks for judges – conducting research, drafting documents, and helping to draft opinions. Those that I met explained that one of the many advantages of clerking was the opportunity to do a large volume of drafting, a key skill in practice in the US given the focus on the written brief.
Another effect of the focus on written advocacy was that the time for oral submissions was quite short – in the Supreme Court arguments last around 30 minutes and the advocates only get a short period of uninterrupted submissions before the nine Justices start asking them questions. In the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, each advocate was given 10 minutes, while within the First Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York some of the advocates had less than five minutes to make their submissions! The effect of this was that in the latter court, five judges were able to hear argument in around 13 cases in a single afternoon. This also meant that many advocates were arguing their cases in a room filled largely with their peers (and not simply their opponents).
Arguing before peers is something that appears to be regularly done in the US. Mooting is not confined to students, and lawyers regularly test their arguments before peers and academics. This process was something that interested me as a practice that could be helpful at the English and Welsh Bar – not only does it seem to help foster links between universities and the legal profession, but it gives junior advocates the opportunity to run arguments past more experienced members of the profession. Although a moot would likely be a much lengthier process as oral arguments in the UK tend to last for hours, not minutes!
A notable difference in the appellate division was that leave to appeal was often not required. I therefore heard appeals on a range of issues – on issues of law and procedure in final and interim decisions in both civil and criminal matters. Based on the questions posed by the judges, I suspect a few cases may have been filtered out at such a permission stage.
Perhaps another reason why those appeals were pursued is because of the very different costs regime in civil litigation in the US. With a few exceptions, each party bears the cost of its own legal fees, even if they win. This is in stark contrast to the approach in England and Wales, where the losing party will normally be ordered to pay the legal costs of the other side. The effect of this seems to be that parties who can afford to do so make applications or motions, such as for summary judgment, even if they are unlikely to succeed – something most parties in this jurisdiction would likely avoid due to the costs consequences of losing.
With a few exceptions, each party bears the cost of its own legal fees, even if they win. This is in stark contrast to the approach in England and Wales, where the losing party will normally be ordered to pay the legal costs of the other side.
A final major difference was the continued use of juries in civil proceedings – while some civil cases proceed with only a judge, the involvement of a jury clearly changes the approach of the advocate in a number of ways. This includes more extensive use of examination in chief (or ‘direct examination’), a practice which is now somewhat unfamiliar to many English civil practitioners due to the use of witness statements in its place. Similarly, it was interesting to observe in a civil trial the introduction of an expert and the production of their evidence through direct examination – an approach that seemed alien to me at first but made sense when one considered that oral evidence was likely more accessible to a jury than a written expert report.
The need to introduce evidence in this manner also meant that, at trial level (in contrast to appellate proceedings), there are more opportunities for advocacy. It may have been at the forefront of my mind because of the statement released by the English and Welsh Judiciary in early November encouraging greater participation of junior counsel in hearings, but I noted that where there were a number of lawyers on a team, often different lawyers would examine different witnesses, meaning that most members of the legal team had the opportunity to deploy their advocacy skills in Court.
In between visits to the various impressive Court buildings, I also had the opportunity to see the sights – visiting some of the many museums in New York and DC (as well as the Rocky Steps and Statue in Philly!) and eating bagels and pizza at every opportunity. Looking back, it is difficult to believe just how much was packed into six weeks, but eventually the autumn leaves gave way to the first flurries of snow and, before I knew it, I was in a taxi on the way to JFK.
I am incredibly grateful to the Pegasus Trust and the American Inns of Court for this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, as well as to all of those that I met while on my scholarship, especially the judges and lawyers that took the time to show me around and answer the many questions that I had. In particular I would like to thank Ellen del Sole for so generously hosting both myself (and the other scholars) while in DC, as well as Cindy Dennis of the American Inns of Court and those at MoloLamken LLP who took the time to organise such an excellent and enjoyable programme.
Freya Foster Henderson Chambers
PARIS–LONDON BAR EXCHANGE: A TALE OF TWO CITIES
By Oscar Davies
The Pegasus fund and Bar Exchange Committee host the exchange in collaboration with the Paris Bar School (EFB) to organise training and networking for lawyers on both sides of la Manche. Applicants must be within the first seven years of practice and have a ‘working level’ proficiency in French, which may be demonstrated by studying French as part of your degree or taking intermediate to advanced classes in your spare time.
Last September, I spent a month in Paris learning from French lawyers, working in French, and understanding the differences between civil and common law systems. Whilst English and Welsh barristers cannot do advocacy in France (presuming you have not passed the Paris Bar), you will shadow other advocates and be placed with various judges in different courts. The exchange is varied and every week presents new opportunities and challenges.
I found the variety of this experience particularly enriching. As employment law is one of my main areas of practice, I was placed in a firm that specialises in employment law, Wire Avocats, in the 8th arrondissement. To give an example of one week:
Monday – I followed my supervisor to the Court of Appeal of Versailles – the case was about unfair dismissal; submissions from both sides only lasted 25 minutes in total (French courts decide much more on paper and very little orally). After I was released, I explored the Palace of Versailles’ gardens.
Tuesday – I visited the Conseil d’Etat (Supreme Court for public matters) and was led on a private tour by M. Ives Gounin, Counsellor of the State in charge of International Relations. I learned about the two Supreme Courts – the Conseil d’Etat and Cour de Cassation.
Wednesday – A visit to the Tribunal de Paris in Clichy (the new civil court building built by Renzo Piano, the architect who built Pompidou Centre) shadowing a judge on civil and commercial matters.
Thursday – I prepared research for a podcast and attended a rhetoric class by avocat Georges Saveur.
Friday – I attended the cross examination of French rapper ‘MHD’ at the Cour d’Assises (a central criminal trial court), whose car had been used in a gang-related murder. His culpability was in question (I later discovered that he had been found guilty and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment, but successfully appealed the verdict and was released in February 2024). The day ended with a champagne reception with members of the Franco-British Association.
My supervisor allowed me to explore different courts and allowed me to do cultural activities in the city. I visited the Conseil des Prud’hommes (the Paris employment tribunal), where I witnessed some very good advocacy, though one advocate reminded me exactly what not to do – he started a pompous invective about how the judges were all biased following Macron’s reforms, how claimants can’t win anything, and that his opponent was talking rubbish because his arguments are different from those in a book that the latter had published. It was certainly entertaining.
At the end of the stay, I prepared a mock trial which was held in the old Palais de Justice. Submissions are all in French and you are encouraged to prepare submissions à la française. The case concerned a petty theft and fraud. As a civil lawyer, criminal law was very much outside of my comfort zone, but it was a good exercise and I learned a lot about the style and substance of French legal submissions.
The mock trial was certainly challenging, but I felt supported by those in attendance, so it was quite fun. The drinks reception afterwards was a great opportunity to meet people from the Paris Bar and the Franco-British Association.
The exchange deepened my understanding of both the French language and the French legal system. I have since accepted instructions advising on international matters where most of the documents are in French. Most importantly, though, I now have a diverse network of lawyers who speak French and English who will no doubt be an invaluable resource in the future.
I would strongly recommend anyone interested in the above, and who fits the requirements, to apply in the next round, as it is an enriching and incredibly useful experience for any junior barrister.
Oscar Davies Garden Court Chambers
BERMUDA
By Emma Loizou
In early June 2023, I arrived in Bermuda to spend six weeks with Carey Olsen as part of the Inner Temple Pegasus Scholarship Scheme. I ignored BBC Weather which informed me that for every day for the foreseeable period it was going to rain. It soon became apparent that Bermuda was having record level rainfall. However, the weather didn’t dampen my spirits and the rain soon gave way to glorious sunshine and blue skies throughout my time.
Bermuda is a British overseas territory in the North Atlantic Ocean with a population of about 64,000. I was based in the City of Hamilton, which has a variety of restaurants, shops and bars. However, it is a small place, and it was easy to explore the rest of the island by bus, ferry and e-bike. People in Bermuda are very friendly and it was not uncommon to strike up conversations on buses, in supermarkets and in parks. Nonetheless, it is a very expensive place to live, especially since most goods are imported. It was initially comforting seeing products that I would be able to buy back home in the supermarkets – until I realised the price.
Carey Olsen is a leading offshore law firm. The Bermuda office, which is based in Hamilton, has been growing since it was established in 2017 and provides a wide range of corporate services and dispute resolution. During my time with Carey Olsen, I assisted on a variety of offshore disputes covering trusts, insolvency, commercial and regulatory matters. My work included drafting pleadings, skeleton arguments and submissions as well as assisting with advice. Being involved in such interesting and high value litigation work showed me why Bermuda continues to be such an attractive place for lawyers to work.
The legal system in Bermuda is modelled on the English and Welsh one. However, it follows the Rules of the Supreme Court 1985. I noticed the practical difference when tasked with drafting an originating summons to appoint receivers and a summons for summary judgment.
Bermuda is a key jurisdiction for trusts, drawing in many high net-worth individuals. During my time, I was fortunate to attend a variety of events including the Transcontinental Trusts Conference and the Private Client Global Elite Exchange, both of which attracted private client lawyers from all over the world.
Bermuda has some of the most beautiful beaches I have ever seen, a combination of its crystal-clear waters and pink sand. Its most famous beach ‘Horseshoe Bay’ can quickly get busy during high season when cruise ships are visiting the island. However, there are so many other beaches that it’s very easy to find quieter spots. My favourite beaches were on Cooper’s Island. I also enjoyed cliff jumping by Admiralty House Park.
My time in Bermuda coincided with Cup Match. Cup Match is a two day holiday which takes place every year in early August. During the holiday, two sides of the island, Somerset and St George’s, compete in a cricket match. Cup Match celebrates both the abolition of slavery in Bermuda on 1 August 1834 and the national hero, Mary Prince, whose book The History of Mary Prince, was the first account of the life of an enslaved woman published in the UK and was instrumental in abolishing slavery.
I had a fantastic time during my Pegasus placement. I am very grateful to Carey Olsen and to the Pegasus Scholarship Trust for providing me with an unforgettable experience. Everyone I met made me feel so welcome. I feel very fortunate to have made some good friends during my time there (some of whom I have already met up with since returning to the UK). I would recommend a Pegasus scholarship to all junior barristers who are keen to learn about legal practice in another country.
Emma Loizou Radcliffe Chambers
USA
By Liam Kelly
Eleanor Roosevelt once said: “True hospitality consists of giving the best of yourself to your guests.” This sentiment encapsulates the genuine warmth and generosity shown by all those I’ve encountered throughout my unforgettable Pegasus Scholarship to Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, Maryland, Utah, Virginia, and Washington D.C.
As a family lawyer, I wanted to use this scholarship to understand more about key issues within my practice area, but also about legal education and the culture and heritage of the USA. I can confidently say that I have explored these issues and more.
LEGAL EDUCATION
USA Pegasus Scholarships are arranged by the English and Welsh Inns of Court and its younger counterpart, the American Inns of Court (“AIC), founded in 1980. Although they share many values, there are over 300 separate Inns in the AIC – some generic, others specialised by practice area.
I had the opportunity to visit three different Inns: The Anthony M Kennedy Inn, Sacramento, the Earl Warren Inn of Court, Oakland, and the Sutherland II Inn of Court, Salt Lake City. Members of each Inn meet monthly to undertake continuing education, usually in the form of a pre-dinner “skit” (a short dramatic performance by members, addressing a legal or ethical issue) which is then discussed between members. Whilst skits are a world away from the continuing education offerings in the UK, both involve coming together to share learning experiences.
I also had the opportunity to attend the AIC Celebration of Excellence – an annual ceremony hosted at the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”). It comprised an award ceremony for those who made significant contributions to the AIC and the wider legal community and a formal dinner in the Great Hall.
During my visits to various law schools, including Georgetown and Howard Universities in Washington DC, and the McGeorge School of Law at the University of the Pacific in Sacramento, I gained insights into the structure of legal education in the USA. A key distinction is that law is only offered as a postgraduate degree. American legal programs also place a significant emphasis on developing advocacy and practical skills, such as drafting – in contrast to the UK where these skills are typically taught during postgraduate study on the Bar course and in pupillage.
Once an American law postgraduate student graduates and passes the Bar, there is no mandatory training akin to pupillage. Many new attorneys undergo supervision within their firms, but others choose to establish themselves in self-employed practice from the outset. Notably, theirs is a blended practice, with attorneys handling the full spectrum of litigation and advocacy. This distinction reflects a key divergence between the two legal systems.
FAMILY LAW ISSUES
It is impossible to consider everything I learned about family law within this short review, so I will address the doctrine of ‘community property’ in divorce proceedings.
In the USA, state law governs the distribution of property following a divorce, leading to the development of two doctrines for the division of assets: the common law property distribution, (or ‘equitable distribution’), akin to the English and Welsh system; and the ‘community property distribution’, applied in California and eight other states.
In essence, the community property doctrine presumes that most property acquired during the marriage is deemed ‘community property’, jointly owned by both spouses, resulting in an automatic 50 per cent distribution to each party upon divorce. This stands in stark contrast to the established doctrine in England and Wales, which considers needs, sharing, and compensation. Community property also applies to liabilities, equally assigning responsibilities to each party. While this distribution may influence alimony (or ‘spousal maintenance’ as it is known here in the UK), it entirely excludes separately owned property. Consequently, one party may be left without a share in assets like the family home, if the home was acquired before the marriage. Similarly, a business owned by one party, made feasible by marital sacrifices, may also be exempt from distribution.
Furthermore, unlike separate applications for divorce, financial remedies, and child arrangements in England and Wales, filing for divorce in most states allows the court to comprehensively address all family-related matters. This holistic approach offers distinct advantages, facilitating a thorough consideration of all relevant issues related to the family.
CULTURE AND HERITAGE
I embraced the chance to experience American culture outside our formal program.
My co-scholar, Danielle, and I went whale watching in Monterey Bay and Carmel, Northern California, and spotted seals, sea otters, dolphins and humpback whales preparing for their southward migration. Thanks to our generous hosts, Parker White and his partner, Carole, we also visited Yosemite and Lake Tahoe. Our tour of San Francisco included iconic spots like the Golden Gate Bridge and Lombard Street, and, of course, a ride on the famous streetcar.
In Utah, we rode horses in the Wasatch Mountains and visited Park City to see snow-covered mountain tops. Two nights in Las Vegas marked a drastic shift from the conservative culture of Utah.
Then came Washington DC, the nation’s capital, with its historic monuments and museums showcasing the USA’s history and diversity. As a first-time visitor to DC, the grandeur of monuments dedicated to civil rights leaders and presidents was truly spectacular. A personal highlight was a visit to the Archives of the United States, where we got an exclusive view of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights before the usual crowds arrived.
SUMMARY
My Pegasus Scholarship has been a truly once-in-a-lifetime experience which would not have been possible without the Pegasus Trust or AIC’s commitment to the program. My thanks go to Cindy Dennis and our hosts Ellen and Tim DelSole, Art Scotland, Parker White and Carole McCook, and Larisa Lee for whose hospitality I will be forever grateful.
NEW ZEALAND
By Talia Keskin
I was thrilled when I found out I was going to New Zealand as a Pegasus Scholar in 2023.
In the capital of New Zealand, I was welcomed to the firm of Luke Cunningham Clere (LCC), the Crown Solicitor in the Wellington region. I was honoured to be greeted with a mihi whakatau – a form of welcome ceremony attended by the whole firm – followed by waiata (a traditional Māori song) and sharing kai (food).
A Crown Solicitor is responsible for Crown prosecutions. LCC is a private firm warranted by Crown Law (like the Crown Prosecution Service and Government Legal Department) to conduct prosecutions in the District Court and High Court. There are two types of lawyer in New Zealand: (i) those who practice as barristers and solicitors, and (ii) those who are only barristers (‘barristers sole’). My colleagues at LCC were the former. Lawyers do either prosecution or defence work (not both, as we often do in England and Wales), but some of my LCC colleagues had previously worked as defence lawyers.
Whilst at LCC from October to December 2023, I attended client conferences, wrote submissions, attended a variety of hearings and trials, and saw some brilliant advocacy. I attended a month-long, multi-hander manslaughter trial in the High Court and was able to meet lawyers and police teams and see how the New Zealand system deals with lay and expert witnesses and juries. I did not have any rights of audience as a member of the Bar of England and Wales, although I was permitted to sit, robed, on counsel’s row.
Legal and police team on the manslaughter trial outside the Parliament building in Wellington
Many of the trials I saw shared formalities and procedure with England and Wales. However, I noted some significant differences, which included:
I. Either party can challenge up to four jurors ‘without cause’;
II. The Defence give a short ‘Defence statement’ (speech) after the prosecution opening speech to briefly set out the issues, in addition to their opening speech at the start of the Defence case that we are familiar with in England and Wales;
III. The jury cannot draw adverse inferences if defendants give a ‘no comment’ interview to police;
IV. It seemed to me that more defendants choose not to give evidence than in England and Wales;
V. The Defence does not have to provide any information to the prosecution about its case prior to trial and the prosecutor has to work out the Defence case in court by listening to cross-examination. There is no Defence case statement as in England and Wales.
Wellington has a vibrant café culture; for a small city of 200,000 people, it is packed with more cafés, restaurants and bars than I have ever seen. There are no Pret a Mangers or supermarket meal deals in sight which means workers venture to cafés for lunch (this is my theory why New Zealanders are so friendly and cheerful; no sweaty prepacked sandwiches…). Te Tohu Pakanga o Aotearoa (the New Zealand coat of arms) is displayed in courtrooms across the country. On the left is a European woman holding the flag of New Zealand, and on the right is a Māori rangatira (chief) holding a taiaha (traditional Māori weapon).
The view of the waterfront from Luke Cunningham Clere’s Wellington Office
Liam Kelly Deans Court Chambers
INSIDE THE NEW ZEALAND SUPREME COURT
The New Zealand Supreme Court is a beautiful building that looks like a cone of the native kauri tree, with a window into the courtroom from outside representing open justice. It was great to meet the Supreme Court judges and discuss law and rugby (everyone seemed to know I came from Cardiff, the home of Welsh rugby) before attending the Pegasus Scholar drinks function. Lawyers explained how New Zealand took inspiration from Wales in its approach to bilingualism. For example, the Māori Language Act 1987 (updated in 2016) mirrors the Welsh Language Act 1967 (updated 1993). The Waitangi Tribunal has considered the use of bilingual road signs in Wales and has commented that Wales takes bilingualism more seriously in Government services. The Rules Committee made proposals in 2023 to amend the High Court rules by softening them which, once approved by Cabinet, will bring the court procedure in closer to Wales’. Bilingualism in the courts of Wales and New Zealand is something I took a particular interest in and researched with my co-Pegasus Scholar, Georgie Rea of Garden Court Chambers. I am continuing this research now I am back in Wales. We are immensely grateful to the judges, lawyers, acivists and academics who offered their time, knowledge and expertise as part of our research.
However, it was by no means all work. I flew into Aukland initially and spent a week back-packing through North Island on the way down to my placement in Wellington. Well, there was a backpack involved, but there was also 30kg of court dress and swimsuits.
Highlights were: surfing at black sand beaches, hiking over active volcanoes, and visiting geothermal pools where I had kānga waru (a Māori steamed pudding) cooked in one of the pools. Up the volcano, I bumped into a judge and solicitor from Cardiff where I practice – small world! I visited New Zealand’s (and the world’s) longest place name, “Taumata whakatangi hangakoauau o tamatea turi pukakapiki maunga horo nuku pokai whenua kitanatahu” (85 letters), which beats Wales’ longest place name (“Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch” with 58 letters) which I also visited for the first time last year.
In Wellington, I spent two days canoeing along the Whanganui River and staying at a marae (meeting ground and a focal point for Māori communities) at the halfway point. This river was controlled by Whanganui iwi (tribes) for more than 700 years until European settlers arrived in the mid-1800s and the tribes’ traditional authority was undermined. In 2017, the Government gave the Whanganui River legal personhood, acknowledging that all its physical and metaphysical elements are a living whole (Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017). This recognised the unique ancestral relationship between the Whanganui River and Whanganui iwi and acknowledged te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi). The Te Tiriti o Waitangi is an agreement made between the British Crown and about 540 Māori rangatira (chiefs) in 1840. There is a te reo Māori (Māori language) and English language version. Relevant to te Tiriti o Waitangi today is the Waitangi Tribunal which has exclusive authority to determine the meaning and effect of te Tiriti o Waitangi and decide issues raised between the two language versions. It also “makes recommendations on claims brought by Māori relating to legislation, policies, actions or omissions of the Crown that are alleged to breach the promises made in the Treaty of Waitangi”.
I finished work at LCC before Christmas and spent three weeks travelling around the South Island before arriving back home to British winter and, thankfully, a full diary.
Visting New Zealand as a Pegasus scholar was a fabulously enriching experience. Special thanks to the Pegasus Scholarship Trust, the Crown Law Office and Inner Temple for the opportunity. Thank you to all my colleagues at LCC for their patience, warmth and guidance and for sharing their knowledge with me, Kate Feltham who was my first contact in New Zealand, and Wilber Tupua, my LCC buddy.
Inside the New Zealand Supreme Court
L–R: Wairēinga/Bridal Veil Falls; Mount Ngauruhoe; Emerald Lakes, Tongariro Crossing
ECHR
By Fiona Petersen
During my Pegasus Scholarship, I spent three months at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, working in the division for UK and Ireland. It was fascinating to see all the different stages of a case, from the initial admissibility assessment to Grand Chamber hearings.
When a completed application arrived at the Court, I worked together with the lawyers in the division to assess whether it complied with the requirements of a valid application (Rule 47 of the Rules of Court) and, if it did, to carry out a preliminary assessment of admissibility (for example, had the applicant exhausted domestic remedies, complied with the four-month time limit, or was it manifestly ill-founded?). If an application appeared to be inadmissible, I would prepare a note for the Single Judge, under the supervision of the nonjudicial rapporteur, explaining why that was the case. If it was not obviously inadmissible, I would prepare a note for the non-judicial rapporteur who would then decide to which panel of judges the case should be allocated. In addition to filtering new applications, I also helped the division process a number of individual applications linked to an inter-State application and carried out legal research for the lawyers.
Several exciting Grand Chamber cases were heard or handed down during my time at the Court. These included Ukraine and the Netherlands v Russia 43800/14, 8019/16 and 28525/20 (relating to the conflict in Ukraine, particularly in the Donbass, and also the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17), Semenya v Switzerland 10934/21 (concerning alleged discrimination against athletes with differences of sex development) and Nealon and Hallam v UK 32483/19 and 35049/19 (concerning compensation following miscarriages of justice). I was fortunate to be able to attend a judicial deliberation and a Grand Chamber hearing, which helped me to see how the Court functions in practice.
I am very grateful to the Pegasus Scholarship Trust for their generous support. It has been incredibly interesting to gain an insight into the operation of this international court and to meet lawyers from many different jurisdictions.
Fiona Petersen Twenty Essex
INCORPORATION OF THE TEMPLE CHURCH TRUST
By Master Simon O’Toole
The Round Church and original Chancel were consecrated in 1185. The present (second) Chancel was consecrated in the presence of Henry III in 1240.
For over 800 years, the Temple Church has been a place of Christian worship in the City of London.
In the area around the Temple Church and within the Temple Bar, evolved the Inns of The Inner and Middle Temple described in 1608 as “having long been among those four most celebrated colleges of all Europe continually filled with persons studious and learned in the aforesaid laws.” (Royal Charter of 1608).
It was by the Royal Charter that, on 13 August 1608, James I transferred the land and buildings used by the Inns of The Inner and Middle Temple to the lawyers who practised in both Inns. Included in the transfer of those land and buildings was the Temple Church in return for the two Inns agreeing to maintain it and pay an annuity to the Master of the Temple. The Sovereign retained the right to nominate the incumbent. The Church has the status of a Royal Peculiar.
The Royal Charter created a charity to “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.” (Royal Charter of 1608).
Nearly 416 years later, on 12 June 2024, the Inns transferred their responsibility for the day-to-day management of the Temple Church to a registered charity, The Temple Church Trust (Charity No 1205712). The Inns will retain ownership of the Church estate and provide an annual grant to the Trust to enable it to carry out the Inns’ obligations set out in the Royal Charter.
The purpose of the Trust is to manage the Temple Church for the benefit of the public. It will do so by advancing the Christian religion by maintaining the Church for the regular religious services on Sundays and Wednesdays during the legal terms and all other celebrations. The Trust will also support the Master of the Temple, the Rev’d Robin Griffith-Jones, in the provision of religious instruction and pastoral care and ministry to those who live and work within the Inns and in the vicinity of the Temple. The Trust will be responsible for preserving the architectural heritage of the Temple Church.
The Trust will assume responsibility for the selection and training of the choristers and the recruitment and maintenance of the choir. The Trust will raise funds to develop outreach activities to promote choral music among school children in London and the City in particular.
Rotunda view of ceremony reception
The Trust will work with the Master of the Temple and Director of Music, Thomas Allery, to develop a programme to advance the education of the public in its knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the history of the Temple Church and the Inns; the architecture of the Church; the relationship between law and religion; and church and other music.
The Inner Temple and Middle Temple, acting jointly, are responsible for appointing the Trustees of the Trust.
A Trustee is both a company director and a charity trustee. Paul Cutts has recently been appointed the first Chief Executive of the Trust and the Trust will become fully operational on 1 September 2024.
The Master of the Temple retains overall responsibility for the Temple Church and is accountable to the Bishop of London as Dean of the Chapels Royal.
The Temple Church had outgrown the governance structure of a joint committee of both Inns. The annual income of the church meant that it would be more tax efficient for it to become a registered charity. It would also enable the Church to incorporate a commercial subsidiary company, Temple Church Enterprises Limited, to expand the Church’s non-ecclesiastical activities.
The Church also wants to develop its highly regarded concert programme performed by the Temple Church choir and Temple Singers and to hire the various spaces within the Church for independent concerts and musical events.
The Church is one of the most historic and beautiful churches in London and an important heritage site. It is a popular tourist attraction. The Church also wants to develop its highly regarded concert programme performed by the Temple Church choir and Temple Singers and to hire the various spaces within the Church for independent concerts and musical events. The Church is also an excellent venue for exhibitions, seminars and other cultural events (many of which will be ticketed). The Church also generates income from the sale of the rights to film and record music in the Church.
The Trust will also be able to fund raise and use the income generated by Temple Church Enterprises to develop its charitable objectives.
The incorporation of a registered charity to look after the Temple Church on behalf of the Inns has been a significant step in the evolution of the Church which is “steeped in the history of Christendom, this country and of the whole Common Law World.” The Church website (templechurch.com) contains more information about services and events and the history of the Temple Church.
Simon O’Toole Treasurer, Temple Church Trust
I am grateful to Sir John Baker KC (Downing Professor Emeritus of the Laws of England, and an Inner Temple Bencher) for his translation of the Royal Charter.
Master of the Temple and The Reverend Mark Hatcher
Paul Darling OBE KC, Treasurer of Middle Temple, signing the Temple Church Trust document, with other signatories behind (l-r), Sir Christopher Ghika KCVO CBE, Under Treasurer of Middle Temple, Andrew Spink KC, Chair of the Temple Church Trust, The Hon Mr Justice Michael Soole, Treasurer of The Inner Temple, Simon O’Toole, Treasurer of the Temple Church Trust and Greg Dorey CVO, Sub-Treasurer, Inner Temple
SOUTH ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH
By the Assistant Archivist
During South Asian Heritage Month (18 July–17 August 2024) we celebrated some of our distinguished South Asian Members, starting with the earliest, Johannes Herapiet Wise Arathoon, who joined the Inn in 1861. Many of these early members were from Armenian families, who had settled in the Indian subcontinent. It was only after the dissolution of the East India Company in 1874, and the incorporation of large parts of South Asia into the English and Welsh legal system, that the Inn became attractive to many members from differing communities.
Many of our South Asian members led interesting and diverse lives, using the skills and ideas they learned at the Inn to further progress, not only within the legal world, but also in the fields of education, literature, and religious thought. Their values and skills were transported to their home nations, fostering self-determination and unity in the face of injustice, paving the way for many South Asian members today. Amongst the most famous, Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Muhammad Ali Jinnah, went on to lead their countries to independence and freedom.
BHICOO BATLIVALA
India (1910–83)
Admitted: 23 April 1929
Call: 8 June 1932
Born Mumbai in 1910 to a Parsi family, Batlivala was admitted to The Inner Temple on 23 April 1929, and called to the Bar on the 8 June 1932. Afterwards, she worked in the state service for the Maharaja of Baroda in Gujarat, becoming the first woman to work for the Baroda state service. She became Nehru’s secretary during his European tour and campaigned for Indian independence, and for Nehru and Gandhi’s release from prison during the Second World War. In 1939, she married Guy Robinson Mansell and settled in Surrey in 1946. She founded Cobham Hall School in 1962.
JOHN ALEXANDER APCAR
India (1849–1923)
Admitted: 26 September 1871
Call: 17 November 1874
Apcar was the son of an Armenian merchant who settled in Kolkatain 1830, fleeing Iran via Mumbai. By the time of his birth in 1849, Apcar’s family had created a successful shipping company which transported both people and goods. After being educated at Harrow School, Apcar was admitted to the Inn on 26 September 1871, and was called to the Bar on 17 November 1874. Nicknamed ‘Father John’, Apcar served in the Bengal Legislative Council and was later elected to the Calcutta Corporation, the municipal authority, in 1912.
HUMAYUN RASHEED CHOUDHURY
Bangladesh (1928–2001)
Admitted: 24 October 1949
Born in Sylhet in British India 1928, Choudhury was admitted to the Inn on 24 October 1949. In 1953, he left London to join the Pakistani Foreign Service. In Pakistan, and later Bangladesh, Choudhury had an illustrious career as a diplomat for several countries and organisations such as the UN and the NorthSouth Summit in 1981. From 1996 until his death in 2001, he was elected Speaker for the Bangladesh National Assembly.
COOMEE RUSTOM DANTRA
Myanmar (1905–97)
Admitted: 14 January 1924
Call: 26 January 1928
Dantra was born in Rangoon in 1905 and was the first woman from Myanmar to be called to the Bar. Some other members of her family were lawyers, including her father, Rustomji Sorabji, who was a member of Middle Temple. She was educated in Darjeeling,admitted to The Inner Temple on 14 January 1924, and called to the Bar four years later on 26 January 1928. She practised as a barrister until 1932, and then became a translator of French, German, and Dutch for English publications. In 1946, she translated for the International Military Tribunal in Japan.
MAHATMA GANDHI
India (1869–1948)
Admitted: 6 November 1888
Call: 10 June 1891
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was admitted to the Inn on 6 November 1888.
Born in 1869 in Gujarat, India, Mohandas Karamchand was the youngest of four children. When he turned 18, he set sail for London in September 1888, leaving behind his wife and two-month-old son. In London, he overcame his shyness through public speaking classes and was elected to the executive committee of the London Vegetarian Society. After Gandhi was called to the Bar on 10 June 1891, he returned to India where he was unsuccessful in founding a law practice. His experience of colonial discrimination in South Africa in 1893 compelled him to stay for 21 years to fight for the rights of the Indian population there.
MA PWA HMEE
Myanmar (1902–62)
Admitted: 21 January 1924
Call: 21 November 1926
Hmee was the eldest daughter of a civil servant. She was born and educated in Rangoon, Burma. She cut short her studies at Rangoon University and moved to London in 1923, perhaps hoping to become the first Burmese woman at the Bar. In fact, she was admitted to The Inner Temple a week after her co-patriot Coomee Rustom Dantra, on 21 January 1924, but was called first in November 1926. One press report emphasised her abilities and commitment to women’s rights: “She is an extremely well-educated woman, as well as being shrewd and quick-witted, and I should be sorry for any wife-beater out in Burma who has to stand in the witnessbox and undergo half an hour of her cross-examination.”
Hmee returned to Burma hoping both “to work among women” and to inspire their ambitions and was admitted to the Burma High Court. In 1928, she was appointed Assistant Judge, becoming Burma’s first woman judge. In 1935, she became an Honorary Magistrate (first class). She married U Myint Thein, a fellow lawyer who would become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1957. She was already ill when, following a military coup in 1962, her husband was imprisoned. He was allowed to be with her in her final days only under guard and with his brother taking his place in custody; she died on 26 June 1962.
By the time he returned to India in 1915, he was experienced in battling legal and physical oppression. Initially supportive of the British War effort in return for greater Indian self-determination, he and many Indians were left disappointed by the minimal concessions.
Assuming the leadership of the Indian National Congress in 1921, Gandhi led a unique campaign of non-violent nonconformism to protest against British imperialism and successfully maintained cross-community support. His arrest and imprisonment in 1922 led to his disbarment from The Inner Temple which was not overturned until 1988 when he was posthumously re-admitted.
Even after his death in 1948, he continues to provide inspiration and influence both at the Inn and internationally.
MOHAMMAD ALI JINNAH
Pakistan (1876–1948)
Admitted: (ad eundem) 1931
Jinnah was born in Karachi in 1876. Originally arriving in London in 1892 for a business apprenticeship, he quickly gave that up to train as a barrister.
He joined Lincoln’s Inn in 1893 and was called to the Bar three years later. He was admitted to The Inner Temple as an ad eundem member in 1931 for the convenience of its facilities whilst he was based in chambers at 11 King’s Bench Walk. He remained in Britain between 1931 and 1934, practising as a barrister before the Privy Council on a number of India-related cases.
Whilst working for the Bombay High Court, he quickly developed an interest in politics. He became a key member for the All-India Home Rule, and later advocated for a Muslim state within India. He became the first Governor-General of Pakistan in 1947.
EZLYNN DERANIYAGALA
Sri Lanka (1908–73)
Admitted: 21 November 1930
Call: 19 November 1934
Deraniyagala was the first woman to be admitted to the Colombo/Sri Lankan Bar and the second woman from Sri Lanka to pass her English and Welsh Bar exams (after Avabai Bomanji Wadia, 1913–2005). Her stated ambition was to use her legal studies to help her fellow countrywomen.
In a letter to The Ship, her college newsletter, in 1937, Deraniyagala spoke of the challenges of her professional life and the lack of work for women but stated that she hoped to write on the Roman Dutch legal principles which underpin Sri Lankan law through its Dutch colonial heritage. Whilst practising as a lawyer, she spent much of her time helping women through national and international women’s groups. She founded the Sri Lankan Women Lawyers Association in 1960 becoming its first president. She was also President of the International Alliance of Women from 1958–64 and was the first female delegate from Sri Lanka to the UN.
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU
India (1889–1964)
Admitted: 11 January 1909
Call: 19 June 1912
Nehru was born in Allahabad in 1889. He followed in his father Motilal Nehru’s footsteps as a barrister and political activist. Nehru first came to Britain in 1905 to study at Harrow School. He was admitted to The Inner Temple on 11 January 1909 and called to the Bar on 19 June 1912. He quickly rose to prominence with the Indian National Congress and was imprisoned because of the Quit India Resolution in 1942.
Following Indian independence in 1947, Nehru served as Prime Minister of India for 16 years.
REHANA POPAL
Afghanistan
Admitted: 18 May 2012
Call: 28 November 2013
Born in 1989 in Afghanistan, Master Rehana Popal is the first Afghan national to be called to the Bar and the first Afghan woman to work as a barrister in England and Wales.
After her Call to the Bar in 2013, Master Popal briefly worked for the UN. She now specialises in public and civil law with a significant focus on human rights, community, and education law at 33 Bedford Row. In 2022, she was elected a Bencher of the Inn.
PONNAMBALAM RAMANATHAN
Sri Lanka (1851–1930)
Admitted: 10 June 1886
Call: 17 November 1886
SIBGHATULLAH KADRI
Pakistan (1937–2021)
Admitted: 30 August 1961
Call: 25 November 1969
Queen’s Counsel: 1 January 1989
Born in 1937, in modern day Uttar Pradesh, Master Sibghatullah Kadri’s family settled in Karachi following the end of British rule. He became involved in student politics, leading to his arrest in 1958. Following a trip to Britain in 1960, he was admitted to The Inner Temple and was called to the Bar in 1969. He was elected a Bencher in 1997. Suffering from racial discrimination from within and outside the legal sector, Master Kadri fought for non-minority lawyers, founding the Afro-Asian and Caribbean Lawyers Association in 1969, renamed the Society of Black Lawyers in 1972.
Ramanathan was born on 16 April 1851 at the home of his maternal grandfather in Colombo, south western Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon). His early studies at university in Madras, which he attended with his brother Coomaraswamy, were not successful, and the brothers were recalled home without completing their course. Ramanathan became a law apprentice under Richard Morgan, Queen’s Advocate of Ceylon and, in 1874, he became an advocate of the Colombo Bar and went on to became editor of the official law reports (the Supreme Court Circular and the New Law Reports) for ten years. He was called to the Bar by The Inner Temple in 1886 and, at the same time, stopped practising law to devote himself to religion, philosophy, and politics.
He represented Tamils on the Legislative Council of Ceylon from 1879. He was elected to the legislative council in 1911, on which he served in various capacities until 1930. He was responsible for the release of the Sinhalese leaders who had been arrested following the 1915 riots. He travelled to London and had a number of personal interviews with Andrew Bonar Law, the thenSecretary of State for the Colonies, along with other ministers and MPs pleading for the repeal of martial law, and describing the atrocities committed on his countrymen by the Punjabis, the local police, and British troops. He wrote an account of this entitled, Riots and Martial Laws of Ceylon (1915). Soon after these representations, martial law was repealed and Sir John Anderson (1858–1918) was appointed as the new Governor.
KHUSHWANT SINGH
India (1915–2014)
Admitted: 17 October 1934
Call: 21 June 1939
Author, lawyer, diplomat, journalist, and politician Singh was born to a Sikh family in Khushab (modern Pakistan) in 1915. He was admitted to the Inn on 17 October 1934. After he was called to the Bar on 21 June 1939, Singh returned to India to work for the Lahore High Court for eight years. He joined the Indian Foreign Service following Indian independence in 1947. In 1951, he shifted his focus to journalism, working for the All India Star radio. He later became a writer, and, in 1956, he wrote the famous A Train to Pakistan exploring community relationships in the aftermath of the partition. His selfproclaimed agnosticism did not stop him from speaking up for the Sikh community in modern day India.
He was elected the Member of Parliament in Rajya Sabha 1980–86.
In 2007, he was awarded the Padma Vibhushan, the second highest civilian award in India.
EDWIN ALOYSIUS
PERERA WIJEYERATNE
Sri Lanka (1889–1968)
Admitted: 29 October 1938
Wijeyeratne, a Sri Lankan lawyer, politician and diplomat, was one of the founding fathers of the Ceylon National Congress and the United National Party and was Minister of Home Affairs and Rural Development between 1948 and 1951. He became the High Commissioner for Ceylon to the United Kingdom between 1951 and 1954. He was knighted in 1953.
Many of our South Asian members led interesting and diverse lives, using the skills and ideas they learned at the Inn to further progress, not only within the legal world, but also in the fields of education, literature, and religious thought.
Umut Kav Assistant Archivist
IN MEMORIAM
Remembering members who have died in the past year: *
The
Mr
Mr
Sir
Mr
Mr
Mr
THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF THE LAW: AI: RISKS AND BENEFITS
Taken from a panel discussion held on 19 February 2024 between Master Kay Firth-Butterfield (lawyer, professor, author and CEO of Good Tech Advisory) and Master Robert Buckland (Senior Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School [AI and Justice], Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary 2019–21, Solicitor General 2014–19), moderated by Master Anneliese Day, Fountain Court Chambers.
Anneliese Day KC: We are incredibly fortunate tonight to have two really esteemed speakers. First is Kay FirthButterfield, CEO of Good Tech Advisory, one of just four 2024 Time Magazine Impact awardees for her work on responsible Artificial Intelligence (AI) since 2011. That is how ahead of the curve she is. Kay is the former inaugural head of AI at the World Economic Forum, and she really is one of the foremost experts in the world on the governance of AI.
Secondly, we have Sir Robert Buckland who was called to the Bar by The Inner Temple in 1991, and spent nearly 20 years in practice, specialising in criminal litigation. He was a member of the Attorney General’s list of prosecuting counsel from 1999 to 2010 and he was appointed a part-time Crown Court Circuit Judge in 2009. He started his political career in 1987 as a constituency campaign manager, and in 2010 he was elected as an MP for South Swindon. And, especially relevant tonight, since 2023, Sir Robert is the Senior Fellow at the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government at the Harvard Kennedy School.
Kay Firth-Butterfield: AI will transform our lives, as we know, both individually and societally, in ways that we know now and in ways that we cannot imagine. But will it be for the good? I will posit the concept that actually in many countries, it will be the lawyers and judges and regulators in whose hands this decision lies. It will also be in the hands of company lawyers and ethics officers – responsible AI ethics officers. There are pivotal decisions to be made now which will shape our future and that of our children and beyond. So, put simply, we need to work out now if we humans want to fly the plane, as they do in Star Trek and Star Wars, or do we want to hand it all over to AI?
Is AI our helper augmenting our work? Or does it take over? And how much of our work does it take over? Different societies will have different answers. For example, a society with a coffin-shaped population, which is the UK – the shoulders being the number of old people compared to the number of young people down at the foot end – may want more AI carers for old people. Or maybe they will choose to have more people immigrate into the country to provide that work. These are urgent choices which need policy decisions.
We need to work out now if we humans want to fly the plane, as they do in Star Trek and Star Wars, or do we want to hand it all over to AI?
The absence of regulation specific to AI in the UK means that it will be, regulators, your advocacy and the courts which will shape our relationship with AI. Despite efforts of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and many others, there is no global governance of AI in sight. However, there are existing treaties that can inform our work: various international human rights documents and the Geneva Convention can be used when we think about lethal autonomous weapons and whether to use them, and whether we need humans IN the loop, or ON the loop.
Various national governments and states have introduced their own legislation, causing what looks like a patchwork of legislation. The EU is about to have major legislation. Brazil is going to have legislation about AI. Many states in the United States have their own legislation about AI, but the federal government does not. The UK has the Online Harms Act, and some countries have introduced non-binding directives, yet others have mandated their existing regulators to deal with new issues.
We then have the courts, which at the moment are most notably dealing with copyright cases and the major societal impact of whether AI should be trained on data, regardless of copyright, or whether some of the richest companies in the world should pay for such a resource. Here, I think it is important to note that, for example, Spotify and Netflix pay for their copyrighted content.
The societal and legal discussion is essentially, “Should we put responsible innovation ahead of innovation without any protections?” Many are afraid of losing out economically, and that is a real societal problem when a country’s economy is growing very slowly. This brings me to the hype versus the reality of AI. I was in Davos in January at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting, and everything was about AI, everything. There is so much hype, so many people are trying to sell you AI, but, in my experience with many companies around the world, we are generally at the ‘proof of concept stage’.
Although there are companies, notably the tech providers, social media and financial services which are well beyond that in their use. So, let us look at some of the protections that I think the existing law already affords. I think we can deal with some of the things like accountability and fairness by good procurement. Discrimination in AI – we call it bias, but as lawyers, you know discrimination when you see it. You know it in employment law. You know it in gender and race contexts. Jobs and hiring. You can use that existing law against discrimination by algorithm.
Online harms and deepfakes: in Australia, the eSafety Commissioner has done a lot of work thinking about deepfakes in pornography and has actually successfully brought some prosecutions in that area. In the UK you have good legislation in this context, but it is never enough.
Criminal law: punishing people who steal – we understand that as lawyers. There was a recent case with a poor employee in a bank in Hong Kong who was asked to cut a cheque for $25 million and he said, “No, I can’t do that.” So, the CFO said, “Well, let’s have a video conference.” They had a video conference. Everyone, but the employee who had to cut the cheque, was a deepfake in that video conference. What we are seeing is different ways that we repeat the same crime that we faced before.
Children and other vulnerable adults: I do think this is an area where we have good law, but we need better law. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in America has been thinking about deepfakes as well. There was a deepfake of President Biden phoning up everybody in New Hampshire to say, “Don’t bother voting in the primaries. It’s all right, don’t bother voting.” The FCC has used the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which dates back to 1991, to ban that behaviour. Does any legislation in the UK protect children in the context of AI? This is particularly relevant for parents buying so-called educational AI enabled toys. The labels do not say how data from the child will be used nor the possible social impact of the toy on the child. It cannot do the latter because we do not know so essentially parents are beta testing these devises on their children.
And then we get to text-to-video, and SORA, the new textto-video of Open AI, which has not been released yet, but we need to continue being vigilant about how we use these tools. My favourite story at the moment on that is the ant video, which you may have seen. The ant has only got four legs. I do not think ants only have four legs. Fortunately, there is an alliance which is led by Adobe, called the Content Authenticity Initiative, which focuses on systems to provide context and history to digital media. Knowing that something has been faked, that pictures have been faked, is absolutely crucial as we move forward.
Having talked about today, I just want to take us back to 1817, when Jane Austen’s protagonist, Anne Elliot, in Persuasion said to the man she was arguing with that she would not call into aid books when she defended women’s emotions because they are all written by men. Well, we had a data problem then, and I would argue that we still have the same data problem. For example, our daughter is a pilot in the US Air Force. Only about 6.5 per cent of pilots are women, and only about 3 per cent are fighter pilots. The bulk of data on heart attacks is from white American men over 55. In fact, just the same as when Anne Elliot was talking, the majority of data is from white men based in the Global North. I do not say that pejoratively, it is just that white men have had the pen longer than the rest of us, and so, of course, there is more data that has been created by them.
I hear you saying, “Well, that’s just how the world works, isn’t it?” But I feel that the potential, and peril, of AI is that it can take us to a new way of thinking about our world, a new way of including everyone. We really need to start now. Indeed, next year, it is estimated that we will produce more data every 15 minutes than has ever been created before. We really need to address this problem now. It will be part human created and part AI created; what we call AI cannibalism, where AI creates the data which then falls back into the data lake of generative AI and then it is used by AI again. If we are not careful, it will further marginalise women and minorities, and that is not the society we want. So, what place does the law have to play? Well, again, the FCC in America is trying to prevent companies changing their terms and conditions to harvest yet more data. We have far to go. I truly hope that we can all come together and make AI a safe and equitable tool for everyone, to advance humanity as well as our economy. Maybe, we can do that. But you as lawyers, judges and regulators, as lawyers in companies, are going to be at the forefront.
Sir Robert Buckland: When Kay was talking about SORA, I kept on thinking about Aldous Huxley – the drug in Brave New World was, of course, called Soma. I am sure that is an unintentional slip by the manufacturers of this new product, but still, for those of us who are literary-minded, it does perhaps start this lecture on a somewhat sinister tone – which I do not intend it to be at all, because my basic thesis is that machine learning will be an incredible tool to us. However, it has to be a partner of our labours, a co-pilot, if you like, ultimately helping the human decision-maker, the human advisor, to come to a conclusion in an efficient, safe, ethical and just way; and to actually advance access to justice to corners of our society and corners of our human activity.
My basic thesis is that machine learning will be an incredible tool to us. However, it has to be a partner of our labours, a co-pilot, if you like, ultimately helping the human decisionmaker, the human advisor, to come to a conclusion in an efficient, safe, ethical and just way; and to actually advance access to justice to corners of our society and corners of our human activity.
It is that question of trust, that human assumption that everything is going to be all right, which frankly is not going to be good enough when it comes to how we maintain, regulate and, yes, monitor the use of artificial intelligence. It is all very well to set rules and principles in year one, but unless those data sets are regularly checked and audited to deal with the sort of biases that Kay has been talking about – and believe me, they exist – the evidence is there that use of large language models in particular will entrench bias, in particular racial bias, in the criminal justice system.
But here is some good news: I think in some activities in law and justice, we do not actually need database models. I am thinking in particular of the sort of judgements that judges and tribunal chairs will have to come to in every day of their working lives, particularly with the proliferation of sentencing guidelines here in England and Wales and the increasing focus, particularly in crime but also in other areas of law, in the sort of decision-tree approach to legal judgements. Decision trees do not need populating by data sets because what they should be is entirely free of that and focused upon the task in hand, but maybe all the input from the recent sentencing guidelines that takes the judge through the steps that they have to remember, in many, many cases, right through the criminal calendar.
So, I think we can perhaps eliminate some of the genuine, legitimate concerns we have about the dangers of unsupervised and unaudited data sets. What I am saying is that the decision tree, the process, can be sped up. This means more cases can be dealt with in a quicker way, but at the same time it still leaves that essential element of human discretion, which is the essence of human judgement.
I think judgement falls into two main categories: the sort of practical judgement that I have just taken you through (applying sentencing guidelines, perhaps using a decisiontree model), where a judge is using a fixed framework within which they come to a defined conclusion; then the other type of judgement, which is reflective judgement (when you are listening to a witness, assessing their credibility and working out whether you can rely upon their version of events as opposed to another conflicting witness).
It is in that area of reflective judgement that I think we need to start with first principles, which is to hold on to that essential and indefinable human element that I think any form of ‘assistive’ technology will not be able to fully replicate. I think the first question is, of course, the explicability of judgements, and why it is that judges or juries come to their view. Of course, juries never give their reasons.
I think judgement falls into two main categories: the sort of practical judgement that I have just taken you through (applying sentencing guidelines, perhaps using a decision-tree model), where a judge is using a fixed framework within which they come to a defined conclusion; then the other type of judgement, which is reflective judgement.
But then the machine is, of course, inscrutable as well, is it not?
I am told that the technology is there that can allow machines to explain why it is they come to conclusions, and that may well be an answer to that conundrum. But I think, fundamentally, there still remains a question of public confidence and trust.
In other words, whilst we, as members of the public, might be more than happy for PayPal to resolve our eBay disputes (which is happening in millions of transactions every year, and all being done by algorithm, by machine learning), are we going to be so happy if a machine tells us we are losing residence of our children, or contact with our children, or we are going to lose our liberty, because of a finding of guilt?
Justice is the product of the evidence, the material, that we all consider, whether we are giving advice as lawyers or making findings of fact or law as judges, from the outside world. When I started at the Bar 30 years ago, an assault case would perhaps be not much more than an inch or two of paper. Now, one is expected to be able to analyse the contents of a smartphone, which we know is the paper equivalent of the Eiffel Tower, to put it conservatively. The sheer proliferation of extrinsic factors generated in very large part by machine means that we as lawyers cannot put our heads in the sand and say,
“Everything’s fine as it is, thank you very much, the world in 2024 does not affect the way that we do business in the courts.”
I am glad that the Judicial College has issued guidance to judges and tribunal chairs about the risks and benefits of various types of AI, and indeed has done a good job in defining the different types of artificial intelligence. Judges are already, with some good sense and a little style, dealing with this problem. For example, the Tax Tribunal judge who dealt very efficiently at the end of last year with Mrs Harbour and her capital gains tax case, where she was contending that she was not liable for capital gains tax: she was a litigant in person, and she – and the court accepted this – unknowingly generated a number of authorities that did not exist. They were figments of the imagination of a large language model. There were cases that approximated to the names that Mrs Harbour was submitting, but the outcomes of all those cases were entirely opposite to the ones that she had submitted to the court. The tribunal judge dealt with it dispassionately and calmly, but it took a long time to deal with the fact that hallucination had been the order of the day.
The Judicial College has issued guidance to judges and tribunal chairs about the risks and benefits of various types of AI, and indeed has done a good job in defining the different types of artificial intelligence. Judges are already, with some good sense and a little style, dealing with this problem.
Now, it would be tempting for all of us to fold our arms and say, “Hallucinations mean that we should never use large language models.” But we know that that problem will be cured, and that we will not be worrying about that issue in two years’ time. Instead, we should be lifting our eyes above the technological limitations, above this worry about whether your job is going to exist in five years’ time, and instead focus upon what makes us lawyers and judges – the ethical code that binds us together and sets us apart from just a person giving advice – and the role that we are going to continue to have, not just in deepening the quality of justice, but remembering that these tools give us an invaluable opportunity to broaden access to justice for many, many more people.
And that is why I think we should be excited about the opportunities that we have. But in that excitement, we must remain very open-eyed about the dangers of bias and the dangers of deepfakes, which are probably wafting around some of our courts now already. That is why Kay’s message about content authentication and preventative work is going to be key for all of us in the legal profession and beyond.
My final message is that all of us – judges, lawyers – have a responsibility to learn more about this area, not to be fazed by the technology, but to focus upon our ethics. What it is that we do and why, and then with that confidence, engage with the issues that these various types of machine learning now pose to us. If we take AI in that way, then we will find that it will provide us with more opportunities than risks. At the same time, using our good judgement as lawyers, we should remember that the human element and that partnership concept should lie at the heart of the way it comes in and is used, both intrinsically in our system and extrinsically, as it inevitably influences the material that we as lawyers deal with in our work daily.
Kay Firth-Butterfield
Sir Robert Buckland KBE KC
Anneliese Day KC
For the full video recording: innertemple.org.uk/airisks
All of us – judges, lawyers – have a responsibility to learn more about this area, not to be fazed by the technology, but to focus upon our ethics. What it is that we do and why, and then with that confidence, engage with the issues that these various types of machine learning now pose to us.
TIMELINE
By The Archivist
1524
Five centuries after his death in 1524, we are proud to commemorate the life of Sir Richard Sutton, co-founder of Brasenose College, Reader of this Inn and Treasurer 1519–20. Sutton was admitted to the Inn in 1490. In 1505, he is mentioned as Reader “of the Inner Tempull”; between 1508–22 he is referred to as a Governor (Bencher) of the Inn. From 1497, he was a judge in the Court of Requests and in 1498, he was appointed Legal Assessor to the Privy Council. He was knighted at some point between 1519–23.
As Assessor to the Privy Council, he made the acquaintance of William Smith, the Bishop of Lincoln, who was also a Councillor. Together they decided to form a college at Oxford for which Sutton took on the task of funding and providing the property and site for, whilst Smith devised its constitution. In 1508, Sutton acquired the lease of Brasenose Hall in School Street, Oxford. A charter of foundation was acquired from Henry VIII in 1512.
The college reflected Sir Richard’s piety and his endowment stipulated that there should be daily church services performed by the Fellows and the Principal, with a stipendiary of priests and choristers. He was appointed Steward of Syon Abbey where he resided for the remainder of his life. His will provided for a priest to teach girls intending on entering the nunnery. He funded the publication of the Orcherd of Syon, a devotional text based on the revelations of Catherine of Siena, which he claimed to have discovered.
His will also stipulated that his burial should take place in Temple Church with a tomb inscribed as following: ‘Sub tuam protectionem confidimus’. It is considered likely that he was actually buried in Syon Abbey as no record exists of his burial in Temple Church.
Here he is depicted wearing a literal coat of arms.
1625
This year, we commemorate the quatercentenary of King James I who died on 27 March 1625. It is thanks to his generous gift in 1608 that The Inner Temple possesses its unique independence and status.
In 1608, he conveyed the Temple in fee simple to the named Benchers of the two Societies ‘the Inns and capital messuages known as the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple or the New Temple’ by Letters Patent. This document serves as the basis for the Inn’s constitution and includes conditions such as the requirement to maintain and repair the Temple Church and the guarantee that the Inns “serve for all time to come for the accommodation and education of the students and practitioners of the laws of the realm”
By 1608, the Inns had already existed for 250 years, leasing the Temple site from the Knights Hospitaller who became the successors of the Knights Templar. Following the Dissolution, their lands were seized by the Crown from whom the Inns then leased the site and buildings.
The Letters Patent granted the Benchers and their successors the freehold of the land and ownership of Temple Church which retains the status of a Royal Peculiar. The appointment of the Master of the Church is decided by the monarch and the Inn remains its own local authority thanks to the generous gift of James I.
As a mark of their gratitude, the Inns presented the King with a large gold cup costing £666 13s 4d (approximately £90,000 in today’s value) shared equally by the Middle and Inner Temple.
In 2008, the Patent of 1608 was confirmed by Letters Patent of Queen Elizabeth II, with an English translation of the original Latin annexed. All four Inns of Court remain, to this day, unincorporated voluntary associations with the constitutions founded on their ancient customs.
Richard Sutton (d.1524), Knight, Founder, The Principal and Fellows of Brasenose College
King James I of England
Temple Charter, 1608, showing seal
1725
“It was in a room in Paper Buildings – a row of goodly tenements, shaded in front by ancient trees, and looking, at the back, upon the Temple Gardens – that this, our idler [Sir John Chester] lounged” (Chester lives here in some style, he has a golden toothpick), and is seen sitting in “the broad old-fashioned window-seat of a roomy chamber” watching the people in the Temple Gardens and passers-by strolling along the Thames.
— Barnaby Rudge, Charles Dickens
This painting from the Paul Mellon Centre by an unknown artist shows Paper Buildings and The Inner Temple in 1725. The building was first constructed in 1609 and named Heyward’s Building but became known as Paper Buildings because then it was built from timber, lath and plaster, a construction method known as ‘paperwork’. A fire in 1838 destroyed much of the building, and 1–3 were rebuilt by Robert Smirke as numbers 1–3 Paper Buildings and 4–5 were built in 1847–49 by his brother Sydney Smirke in the Tudor Gothic Style. As can be seen from this painting, the Garden was much smaller. Land was reclaimed from the river during the building of Blackfriars Bridge in 1769 and the Victoria Embankment in 1870. In 1725, the river would have reached the edge of where 5 Paper Buildings now stands.
Paper Buildings briefly hosted MI5 from 21 February 1911.
1825
The Library was restored in 1820. In 1825, the question of its management and upkeep was considered in some detail by Bench Table. A formal system of arrangement and organisation was created that is recognisable to us now.
A Master of the Library was elected annually for the first time. A Librarian was employed, and comfortable working conditions were created both for the Librarian and Library users with appropriate equipment such as pens, ink, paper, and chairs. A cleaner was employed to clean the Library daily and regularly dust all the books twice a year. Matting was fitted to protect the floor from ink stains and a stove was installed to provide warmth for the Librarian, who had previously been unable to remain in the northern section of the Library during the winter.
The duties of the first Librarian would be familiar to many a modern library user today. These included classifying and arranging the books, keeping them safe, creating and providing a catalogue of the library, safeguarding valuable books by limiting access to the Benchers, ensuring books be returned to their proper place, for borrowed books to be returned within two weeks, unless a good reason could be provided, and ensuring the Master of the Library was made aware of how the Library could be improved or of anything that might be detrimental. The Librarian was also to ensure the Library was well stocked with ink and paper. Only members of the Inn were allowed to use the Library unless they had written permission from a Bencher. The SubTreasurer was to make sure the Librarian had an up-to-date list of members.
1925
On 19 June 1925, one of the most famous barristers of our Inn, Sir Edward Marshall Hall, purchased and donated the beautiful Dutch silver Layette basket by silversmith Hans Conrad Brechtel that can be seen in the cabinet in Hall.
The custom of giving silver objects to celebrate key life cycle moments started in Holland in the 16th century where it was a tradition to offer a silver gift for births, marriages, and deaths. Layette baskets were usually made from willow rod but for a short period they were created from silver for the nobility. This basket celebrates the marriage of William II of Orange to Mary Stuart, the daughter of Charles I, merging the lion of Holland and the unicorn of England. It is surrounded by vines and peacocks to symbolise fertility and fidelity with monkeys and weasels symbolising chastity and virginity.
William and Mary were married in May 1641 in Mary’s bedchamber at St James’s palace when Mary was nine years old and William 15. It is thought that the basket was given to Mary by her godmother Elizabeth ‘The Winter Queen’. There are only seven of these baskets in existence.
Paper Buildings
The New Library and Parliament Chambers, Temple’, drawn by Thomas H Shepherd, engraved by J Hinchliff, published by Jones & Co, 1829
Silver Layette Basket
Celia Pilkington Archivist
LGBTQ+ SOCIETY
On 20 June 2024, the LGBTQ+ Society held its biennial dinner hosted by the Treasurer for members of the Bar LGBTQ+ community and allies in celebration of Pride Month. Master Craig Hassall, President of the LGBTQ+ Society provided a warm welcome to the keynote speaker, The Rt Hon The Lord Smith of Finsbury.
Thank you very much indeed, Craig, the gavel banging here was rather better than at one big dinner I attended in the City of London when the Toastmaster, dressed up like a playing card, banged a gavel. He was supposed to say, “Pray silence for the Right Honourable the Lord Smith of Finsbury” but what he actually said was, “Pray for the silence of the Right Honourable…”
Craig, your introduction was much too generous, but it was rather better than an introduction I had when I was Secretary of State at a big dinner for the television industry. After dinner, when quite a large quantity of wine had been consumed, the chair when introducing me said that my first opening remark had to be that I was the very last member of the Cabinet who could be described as the Secretary of Straight!
But I want to take you back to the days of prehistory in 1984, before virtually everyone in this room was born. I was first elected to Parliament in 1983. I had a wafer thin majority of 363 votes, and I had never made any particular secret of the fact that I was gay. Everyone in my constituency party knew, but the issue had never, ever emerged in public, and I remember my agent during the course of the 1983 election was really worried about what would happen if at a public meeting –these were the days we used to do public meetings – someone leapt up and said, “We don’t want to hear from him, he’s gay”. And she was all for having a working class member of the party ready to leap up and say, “We’re not interested in that. We want to hear what he has to say about unemployment.”
But I said to her, “No, no. There’s only one possible response, if this emerges in the election campaign, I have to say, ‘Yes, I am. So what? Next question?’” It never arose during the election campaign. I was elected with my majority of 363, and I just decided at some point I needed to say something in public about myself.
The only question was, when would be the right moment to do it.
Now the city of Rugby had just changed political control, and the incoming leader of Rugby City Council had said he did not want LGBT people coming to work for Rugby Council. He was going to remove ‘sexual orientation’ from the list of things the council would not discriminate against in its employment policy.
There was a lot of antagonism at this, and a lot of protest, and a big rally and march was called on a Saturday lunchtime in Rugby to protest. Because I had said supportive things about LGBT rights at that point, they invited me to come up and speak at the rally.
And I can remember sitting on the train, going up to Rugby, and writing a very, very boring speech. And I got off the train, and I went to the meeting – it had already started, a hall full of 1000 people.
As I walked up through the crowd to take my seat on the platform, I just suddenly decided that this was the place to do it. Because the issue here is about the ability of anyone, no matter what their sexual orientation happens to be, to do an equally good job as anyone else working for Rugby Council. Exactly the same applies to MPs.
The next ten minutes before I got up to speak were amongst the scariest minutes of my life, because no one had ever done this before. But they called on me to speak, and I stood up, and I began my speech by saying, “My name is Chris. I’m the Labour MP for Islington South and Finsbury, and I’m gay.”
At which point the entire audience got to their feet and gave me a standing ovation – it is the only time I’ve ever had one, and only 20 seconds into a speech! I have to say, I have not regretted that moment for a single instant ever since.
The Rt Hon The Lord Smith of Finsbury
Master Craig Hassall
Over the course of the succeeding week – you have to remember that this was 1984; no social media, no mobile phones, we were in a prehistoric age – I got letters from people all around the country. And some of the letters said, “Congratulations, well done. Good on you.”
But the letters that probably meant the most were the ones that said, “Thank you for saying what you’ve done. It has made it easier for me.” And if by doing that, and then everything subsequently, helped just one or two people to be proud about themselves and who they are, then it will have been worthwhile.
Roll on a few years, we have furious debates in the House of Commons about what is then called Section 28. Some of you who are old enough will remember Section 28; it labelled gay relationships as ‘pretended family relationships’.
It was a viciously homophobic bit of legislation. We were in the midst of a debate about this in the Commons, and there was a particularly Neanderthal Tory called Nicholas Winterton, who was on his feet making a speech.
And I stood up to intervene. And I made a point. Sat down, and he looked across at me and gestured towards me, and he said: “The House has learned to listen to the Honourable Gentleman”, pointing at me, “With respect when he talks about these matters”. The fact that he felt he had to insert that bit about respect first, showed, I think, that we had made a little bit of progress. Because he was no longer able to talk in windy generalisations about lesbians and gay men because there, sitting in front of him, was one of the people he was talking about.
I think we made quite a lot of social progress over the course of the late 80s, the 90s, into the 2000s, not because public figures came out – I like to think we helped a little bit – but because lots of ordinary people in their family, in their workplace, in their neighbourhood, just found it easier to say, “Yes, I’m one of those” when this issue arose. And people began to realise that we were perfectly normal, ordinary, decent, valuable people that made a huge difference.
Now, come 1997, we were elected into government. I think I’m right in saying, that I was the first openly gay Cabinet Minister anywhere in the world. And the wonderful thing was, no-one noticed! In all the commentaries about the people who were in the new cabinet, who was getting which job, and so on. It wasn’t mentioned. And that was a real sign of progress.
Then of course we were able to equalise the age of consent, and get rid of Section 28, and have equal access to goods and services, and reform the military and the diplomatic service and the civil service, and then bring in civil partnerships.
There was a whole raft of legislation that we were able to put through in that period of government. I think it’s fair to say Tony Blair as Prime Minister was a little bit nervous when he was starting this. But when it became very obvious that the public were actually rejoicing at all of this rather than antagonistic to it, it became infinitely easier, and it is now one of the signature things that he talks about that his government achieved.
There is still of course a lot of progress to be made. Even with the T and Q and plus bits of LGBTQ+ we are still some way off achieving real equality and rights. There is still homophobic bullying in schools. There is still discrimination in quite a number of faith schools. We still have not managed to reform the Church of England.
And there is far too long a delay on banning conversion therapy. But we need to recognise, I think, we have made enormous progress over the course of the 20 or 30 years, here in the UK. I never thought I would have heard that when equal marriage came through, and I give full credit to David Cameron for having forced a reluctant Conservative Party to do it, that the House of Lords voted for equal marriage by a bigger majority than the House of Commons.
But there is a big agenda around the rest of the world to be done. One of the things we do need to remember is, progress is not in the bag. We can never be complacent about what has been achieved, we constantly have to renew the battle to ensure that we sustain the gains that we have made.
I am always thinking things like this: we move along a spectrum. We start with fear of difference, and the prejudice and sometimes hatred that that gives rise to. Then we move to something we might call ‘tolerance’. And then we move to something we might call ‘acceptance’. And then we move to something we might call ‘celebration’.
We are not at ‘celebration’ yet, even here in the UK. I think we are probably, in most places, somewhere around the ‘acceptance’ mark. But getting to a place where we can celebrate difference and the richness it gives to society, and the fulfilment it gives to every single one of us within society, that is the aim we need to try and get to.
I’m sure, one of these days, we will. But we must never, ever stop striving to get there. Thank you very much.
The Rt Hon The Lord Smith of Finsbury Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, 2 May 1997–8 June 2001, MP for Islington South and Finsbury, 9 June 1983–11 April 2005
We move along a spectrum. We start with fear of difference, and the prejudice and sometimes hatred that that gives rise to.
Then we move to something we might call ‘tolerance’. And then we move to something we might call ‘acceptance’. And then we move to something we might call ‘celebration’.
THE INNER TEMPLE SUMMER PARTY MIDSUMMER MAGIC
DINNER IN HONOUR OF THE LADY CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES
31 January 2024
Master Carr – Lady Chief Justice, Mr Birch, Benchers, members and guests.
102 years after this Inn called Ivy Williams to the Bar, we gather in our Hall to mark and salute the appointment of Master Carr as the first Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales.
I was tempted to say, “Just 102 years after ”, but tonight is not the occasion for expressions of irony or social commentary – at least not from this white male Treasurer of the Inn. Rather, it is an evening to combine congratulation – warm and heartfelt – on the personal achievement of our new Chief, with celebration – joyous and historic – of the striking significance of her appointment as leader of our judiciary.
Master Carr, your Inn of course wishes to bathe in a suitable measure of reflected glory. As we recall Ivy Williams; as we remember all those ‘female firsts’ who are celebrated in portraits, photographs and impressions about this building; as we look across to the conversation piece at the far end of this Hall, with its embodiment of high achievement and judicial excellence; as we delight in the recent appointments to the Supreme Court and the International Criminal Court; and as we look to the range of our activities in education and training and outreach across the country – this Inn is, with due modesty and a proper sense of the advances which still have to be made, entitled to take pride in that reflection.
Master Carr, throughout your career at the Bar and on the Bench, you have been at the heart of the Inn’s work and mission – not least in your service as Chair of the Education and Training Committee and as a member of the Executive Committee. Your Inn takes delight at your appointment and your achievement. You surely know that this Inn will always be here as your home and as a place of warm support.
Not least since the reforms of 2005, the position of Lady (or Lord) Chief Justice imposes the most enormous demands on its occupant: constitutionally; administratively; as a judge in many of the most important criminal and civil cases; and as a figure in the public eye.
All who have had the privilege and good fortune to observe and work with you over the years, know how well suited you are to these various roles and to all the daily pressures which they bring. To the necessary professional skills which you possess in such abundance are added your quite astonishing energy; your humanity; and your caring eye for all those with whom you work, at every level.
In meeting all these tasks, I know that you would be the first to acknowledge and avow the matchless support which you receive from your husband, Alex. Through all the pressures of his hugely demanding work and career, he, we know, has been your rock and your stay. It is a very particular pleasure for the Inn to welcome him here this evening.
With all the sure confidence that we have in your great fitness for the work to come, we know that fortune will inevitably play its part. So, in saluting you tonight, we all in your Inn offer our affectionate and warmest best wishes for every success and happiness – yes, and good luck – throughout your term of office.
May we stand. The toast is “Master Carr, Lady Chief Justice”.
The Hon Mr Justice Michael Soole
Treasurer
Reply by the Lady Chief Justice, The Rt Hon The Baroness Sue Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill
Thank you, Master Treasurer, Master Reader, my Ladies, Lords and Gentlemen.
Keep it short said Master Andrew Popplewell. And I will, although I am not sure – in the light of this sumptuous dinner – that Master Popplewell was thinking of the words of Sir Matthew Hale: in the administration of justice, one should be “short and sparing at meals” that we could be “fitter for business”. We were reminded of those words in the beautiful Evensong service in the Temple Church just now.
But I must express my thanks for your generosity towards Alex and me this evening – and of course for more than that.
Reflecting on my early years as a student and young barrister, the Inn was more than just a backdrop; it was a central character in my narrative. And how appropriate. James I granted a charter to use the land at Inner Temple on the condition that the lands be used for the education and accommodation of students.
I remember the happy weekends acting and singing in Cumberland Lodge – with Master Reader at the piano.
I remember acting in what was then the Littleton Theatre and pretending to hold really important meetings as President of The Inner Temple Students Association. I remember standing almost on this very spot and doing an appallingly bad piece of debating. I remember three glorious months working in Sydney as a Pegasus Scholar under Lord Goff’s careful stewardship.
More than anything else I remember the extraordinary kindness of the Benchers. One person sadly missing from this evening is Master Jonathan Hirst, who nominated me to be a Governing Bencher. Just as I wonder about what Tony Weir would be saying, I wonder what Jonathan would have made of all this.
I have to say a few words about Education and Training, a subject of passion for me. I loved my time on, and latterly as chair of, the Education and Training Committee. During that time, we weathered the stormy waters of getting Project Pegasus off the ground. It was always crystal clear to me that we had no option but to press ahead and that we would get through it. After all, when I arrived in the Inn, it was a building site. Gerard Noel, in his book, Portrait of Inner Temple, paints a picture of the Inn during its late 1980’s redevelopment. He notes “on some occasions, an unsuspecting visitor would mistake this bastion of legal learning for a chaotic building site, obscured by polythene sheets, and a maze of scaffolding tubes and planks.”
This chaos, however, was a sign of progress, a testament to our enduring commitment to growth and excellence.
It was this pursuit of advance – and modernity – that was always the allure of The Inner Temple for me.
So, it is no coincidence that I am following in a long line of female firsts by Inner Temple women, to whom I would like also to pay tribute this evening. To identify but a few:
First woman to be called to the Bar
First woman to practise as a barrister in Burma
First woman to serve as speaker in an African Parliament
First woman to chair the Bar Council
First female President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal
First female High Court Judge
First female Bencher
First female President of the King’s Bench Division
First female member of the Court of Appeal
First female Permanent Secretary
First female Advocate General for Scotland
First female President of the International Court of Justice
First female General Counsel of the Serious Fraud Office
So here is to all the amazing women of The Inner Temple.
And here, again, is to your support. Speaking of props, I have become alarmingly fond of Mrs Malaprop as I tour the jurisdictions of England and Wales. In Sheridan’s 18th century comedy, The Rivals she is in hot pursuit of Sir Lucius O’Trigger – she believes herself to be intelligent, but her verbal blunders prove otherwise. So, she speaks of the “geometry” of contagious countries; she hopes that her daughter might “reprehend” the true meaning of what she is saying, regretting that her “affluence” over her niece is very small. My favourite: he is the very “pineapple of politeness”.
Do you remember Mike Tyson’s “I might just fade into Bolivian”? Do you remember Mistress Quickly saying that Falstaff was “indited to dinner”…and the TV character Archie Bunker saying, “What do I look like, an inferior decorator?”
So, I think that there may be similarities between Mrs Malaprop and me – for I do love a malaprop. May I remind you of some of my best so far: the woman who spoke of her husband’s “erotic driving”, of her mother’s “double inconvenience” and her own desire to build a “conservative” onto the back of her house. Or to the mediators in the house: “you tried to negotiate but the parties remained intransitive”.
Anyway, from a student in 1986 to the front cover of the most recent newsletter as the first Lady Chief Justice has been a real journey. It is one through which I have been buoyed at every step of the way by the Inn. Thank you, and I will continue to try to do you proud.
Many have said what a splendid evening this is –my sediments exactly.
The Rt Hon The Baroness Sue Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales
IN CELEBRATION OF 100 YEARS: MASTER STEPHEN BROWN
In this 80th anniversary year of the D-Day landings, and in advance of his 100th birthday, we are delighted to republish former Treasurer Master Stephen Brown’s recollections of the harrowing events of 5–6 June 1944 in which he took part as a 20 year-old British Navy Lieutenant serving with the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. In 1994, whilst Treasurer, he and members of his family attended the 60th anniversary commemorations. In 2015, he received France’s highest military honour the Chevalier de la Legion d’honneur for his role in the D-Day Landings.
We were right in the vanguard, ahead of everyone else. At 6:30 we opened up and the landing started an hour and a bit later. The bombardment is something I will never forget.
In the early morning of the 6 June, memories of 60 years ago flooded back as the P&O Caen Express left Spithead astern bound for Ouistreham and the mouth of the River Orne. On the afternoon of the 5 June 1944 (D minus one), destroyers of the 23rd Flotilla had left Spithead leading a mighty invasion force towards Sword Beach. As HMS Scourge (my ship) and the other S’s weighed anchor, Winston Churchill passed down the line in a motor launch giving his famous V-sign and each member of the ship’s company was handed a printed message of encouragement for the great enterprise (upon which we were embarking) from General Eisenhower. We were unaware that there had been a 24-hour delay due to bad weather, but there was now no doubt that the long-awaited invasion of Europe was underway.
The evening and the night passed slowly. There was a rising sense of tension as, with the incessant and deafening noise of aircraft overhead, we followed in the wake of a minesweeper marking a channel to the Normandy shore. We were alert to look out for two midget submarines returning from the beaches where they had been observing the underwater defences. In the misty dawn and with our battle ensign flying, we ‘closed the beach’. Just ahead, the Norwegian destroyer Svenner, a member of our 23rd Destroyer Flotilla, was hit by torpedoes fired by German warships emerging from Le Havre. As she sank at 6:30am, the order came to open fire. The sight and sound of the ensuing bombardment defies description. The main fleet of battleships and cruisers lying astern of us further out from the shore unleashed a deafening barrage of fire. Landing ships equipped with rocket launchers discharged an astonishing barrage of rockets, which seemed to engulf the whole shore. Then the landings commenced. Through a nasty, uncomfortable swell, the small landing craft headed for the beach. Events moved quickly. Targets identified in advance and later by our own Forward Observation Officer ashore were engaged as we passed to and fro along the beaches. We observed the sinking of old merchant ships to act as blockships to protect the open shore and subsequently the arrival of the components to make the Mulberry Harbour.
The sight and sound of the ensuing bombardment defies description. The main fleet of battleships and cruisers lying astern of us further out from the shore unleashed a deafening barrage of fire.
In the evening (of D-Day), with the sun shining, there was a spectacular parachute drop of men and supplies. Then we were straddled by six bombs, which happily fell either side of the ship, making the open bridge very wet. Memories return of speedy visits back to Portsmouth to re-ammunition and of escorting Winston Churchill in the destroyer HMS Kelvin to Arromanches and later the King and Field Marshall Smuts in the cruiser Arethusa. Then HMS Swift, whilst preparing to come alongside us to receive ammunition, struck a mine and sank.
These and other memories of a tumultuous D-Day and of subsequent days and nights off the beaches of Normandy filled my mind as with five colleagues of the 23rd Destroyer Flotilla and some family members I went to attend a memorial service at the Naval Memorial, which the 23rd Destroyer Flotilla had been instrumental in having erected at Hermanville-surMer overlooking Sword Beach. We mourned members of the crews of two of our flotilla of eight destroyers – HMS Swift and His Norwegian Majesty’s ship Svenner, both sunk off Sword. A Royal Marine band, specially flown in, played for us. National anthems were sung, the ‘Last Post’ and ‘Reveille’ were sounded and wreathes laid. The Mayor made a warm speech of welcome and Captain John Gower DSC, formerly Captain of HMS Swift and at 93 years of age, gave an address. French people made us especially welcome and thanked us. It was all very moving looking out over the sunny calm channel and a magnificent sandy beach, remembering the fighting of 60 years before. How fortunate we were to be able to return.
The Rt Hon Sir Stephen Brown GBE Lord Justice of Appeal, 1983–88; President of the Family Division, 1988–99 Treasurer, 2004 Chevalier, Légion d’honneur (France), 2015
CRIMINAL LAW AND MENTAL HEALTH
By Master Robert Francis
From a lecture delivered to the Caribbean Court of Justice Academy of Law 7th Biennial Conference on “Criminal Justice Reform in the Caribbean: Achieving a Modern Criminal Justice System” on Thursday 19 October 2023, during his visit to the Caribbean as Treasurer.
INTRODUCTION
It is a great privilege to be able to address you at this important conference on an issue which underlies so many of the problems facing criminal justice, but in my view receives too little attention. Throughout my career I have specialised in medical law. In that capacity, I have experience of the wider issues of mental health and their interaction with the criminal justice system. I have chaired inquiries and reviews into the failure of mental health services contributing to the death of innocent people at the hands of the mentally unwell. A speaker yesterday mentioned the importance of prevention if we are to tackle the increasing demands on criminal justice, and consideration of mental health is surely a factor in that.
In England and Wales, the law concerning the treatment of serious mental health issues is governed by 40 year-old mental health legislation which deals with compulsory treatment in both the criminal and non-criminal settings. There is room for improvement: the Mental Health Bill has been before Parliament but I have it on good authority that it has been shelved until after the general election.* What follows is my personal view and not those of The Inner Temple and of our members.
Before describing the system as it is today, let me share a story which highlights what can go wrong when serious mental health issues are not dealt with holistically and with a view to reducing risks for the patient and the public before the intervention of criminal justice is needed.
Mr Butler was a 48 year-old single man living on his own in a council provided apartment in Birmingham. He was a paranoid schizophrenic, but had no history of violence. He had been treated intermittently in hospital, both voluntarily and compulsorily, the last time in 2001. When he was discharged he was given the flat to live in and received medical and social service support – or at least should have been. After the events I am about the describe, over 430 doses of his prescribed medication were found it the flat – making it clear he had not been taking this and that no one had noticed. He began to get into financial trouble and was not claiming benefits to which he was entitled, falling into arrears with his rent, and being threatened with eviction by the housing authority. His behaviour was noticed to be odd by a neighbour. He was visited by a social worker and a psychiatrist who observed a large knife on the sofa and damage to a door – his explanation that he was practising martial arts, something he had not shown any previous interest in, was accepted. The housing authority did not know he was under psychiatric treatment, and neither social services nor the psychiatric team knew he was in financial difficulty or had trouble with the neighbours. On 21 May 2004, two things happened, one after the other: a man from the housing authority served a notice of eviction on him; and an employee turned up to mend the garden gate on the path which led to his front door. On seeing this, Mr Butler issued from his front door brandishing the knife, and understandably and wisely the handyman fled, reporting the incident to his employer who, in turn, reported this to the police. Equally wisely, the police asked the medical services whether there was any psychiatric history, to which a negative answer was given (wrongly) owing to the records not being available to the person called. So the police turned up in numbers to arrest Mr Butler. Tragically he saw them before they could arrest him and he fled, upon which a chase occurred involving dogs, police, sirens, and a helicopter – doubtless terrifying Mr Butler and reinforcing his paranoia. He was eventually confronted by an unarmed plain clothes officer, DC Swindells, who bravely (but in ignorance of any of the background I have described) attempted on his own to detain and disarm Mr Butler, who with one stab killed him. Mr Butler was convicted of manslaughter through diminished responsibility and sent to hospital, and the officer’s family and police force lost a much-loved husband, father and respected officer. All of which, I thought, could at least possibly have been avoided if the various agencies responsible for care and oversight had coordinated their information and strategies. I chaired a panel which reviewed the case and our report is in the public domain.
I tell this story to demonstrate an obvious fact, which is that serious crime committed by the mentally unwell can only be prevented by co-ordinated action of many agencies who are trained to see issues, where relevant, as having a mental health element.
Master Robert Francis presents at CCJ Conference
I ask you to hold that story in mind while I offer you a little of the context in which mental health care in England and Wales is available to those in need of it, and how our criminal justice system takes into account the mental health of accused and convicted offenders.
CONTEXT
Unfortunately, the current system is neither effective nor capable of addressing the issues for society arising from mental illness. There are a number of points of concern.
Demand: there was a 40 per cent increase in detentions under the existing mental health legislation between 2007 and 2016. It is increasingly open to question whether there is the capacity to address either the needs of the detainees or those of society generally to protect them or the community from the risk they represent.
Discrimination: a disproportionate number of people from ethnic minority groups are detained under the mental health legislation.
Not up to date: the processes required under the legislation are inconsistent with modern learning about mental health treatment and care.
The tip of the iceberg: those subject to treatment orders under the Mental Health Act are only a small proportion of those with such issues who have been given some form of custodial sentence.
C apacity: our prison estate is currently full, to the extent that judges are reportedly being advised to defer passing sentences of imprisonment where possible. On 12 October 2023, it was reported that there were 88,016 people in prison against a capacity of 88,667, and the government is reported to be taking emergency action to increase the number of places. It is likely that a large number of inmates have mental health problems. A report to Parliament by its Public Accounts Committee stated that in 2016–17, up to 90 per cent of prisoners had mental health issues, although the data kept might not have been reliable or up to date. There were 120 self-inflicted deaths and 40,161 incidents of self-harm reported. 70 per cent of the suicides involved prisoners known to have a mental health condition. The same report stated that it was a “disgrace” that too many prisoners waited “far too long” to be transferred to hospital or secure units for acute mental health problems. In 2016–17 two-thirds of prisoners eligible for transfer to hospital waited longer than the legal limit, with some waiting for over a year. A later report by the House of Commons Justice Committee, unsurprisingly, found that the provision of mental healthcare was inadequate. It is highly unlikely that the situation has improved since then.
Prisoners do not lose their human right to receive proper care and treatment. The WHO has stated that:
“The state has a special duty of care for those in places of detention which should cover safety, basic needs and recognition of human rights, including the right to health.”
“Enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health is a fundamental human right. Prisoners should therefore have the same standard of medical care as people living in the community.”
The United Nations has long agreed standard minimum rules for the medical and mental health treatment of prisoners. The Nelson Mandela Rules approved by the General Assembly provide that:
“The provision of health care for prisoners is a State responsibility. Prisoners should enjoy the same standards of health care that are available in the community … without discrimination on the grounds of their legal status.”
THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT
The Mental Health Act 1983 (“the 1983 Act”) contains the statutory provisions for the compulsory mental health treatment, whether through a sentence of the court or simply for patients needing treatment. The principle is that regardless of the route by which a person comes to treatment, this is not a punishment but treatment of a diagnosed condition, dealing first with resources available in the criminal justice system.
PRELIMINARY MEDICAL REPORTS
In any case where an offender is to be sentenced and appears to be suffering from a mental disorder, the court must generally obtain a medical report. Further, where a sentence of imprisonment is made, all medical reports and information possessed by the court should be passed to the prison authorities.
CULPABILITY
In considering the appropriate sentence, the court first has to consider the extent to which culpability is affected by a mental disorder. Whether or not the disorder influences culpability is relevant to the type of sentence the court may pass and the degree of danger presented by the offender.
CHOICE OF TYPE OF SENTENCE
The court can hand down the following sentences:
Fine/discharge (where no therapeutic intervention is required and/or the offence is minor)
Community Order (where the offence is imprisonable)
– if treatment/support is required, the following requirements/conditions can be made:
• Mental Health Requirement (this may be made by magistrates or judges sitting in the Crown Court)
• Rehabilitation Requirement
• Alcohol Treatment Requirement
• Drug Rehabilitation Requirement
Prison – even if custody is inevitable, a mental disorder may make a custodial sentence disproportionate or indicate a shorter term than might otherwise be the case.
Mental health disposals: With all forms of mental health disposal, the court must be satisfied that the relevant treatment is available. This can be outside the NHS or a local authority, but particular care is needed to ensure availability, suitability, and sustainability. This can be a considerable challenge and can delay disposal of cases. The following disposal orders are available:
• Hospital order – detention in hospital for treatment (The 1983 Act, section 37).
This may be made by a magistrates or Crown Court on evidence of two doctors regarding mental disorder and availability of treatment, and satisfied that place and treatment is available.
· Note that only ‘mental disorders’ as defined give the courts power to make an order. Thus, paranoid schizophrenia is a mental disorder but believing in ordinary conspiracy theories, for example, is not. Detention is initially for six months but may be extended; discharge can be made by a hospital manager, responsible clinician or nearest relative. Cases are referred to a Mental Health Tribunal either by application or by the manager after six months, and also after three years since last considered.
• Restriction order – indefinite detention in hospital where necessary for protection of the public from serious harm. Release can be made by the Secretary or State or, sometimes, a Mental Health Tribunal (The 1983 Act, section 41). When deciding whether to add section 41 restrictions, the Crown Court must consider:
· the seriousness of the offence committed; any previous offences the accused may have committed; and the risk of committing more offences in the future.
• Guardianship order – the offender is placed under the guardianship of a local authority or approved person usually in the community (The 1983 Act, section 37). This may be made by magistrates or judges sitting in the Crown Court.
• Prison sentence with hospital and limitation direc tion – detention in hospital for treatment, followed by a transfer to prison to complete their sentence when well enough to do so. This may only be made in the Crown Court and when the defendant is 21 or over. The court must consider whether criteria are met for a hospital order alone (The 1983 Act, section 45A).
CARE OF CHARGED PERSONS PENDING TRIAL
Similar steps can be taken to protect charged persons and the public pending trial:
Remand to hospital for treatment pending trial –this can be imposed for up to 28 days (extendable by the court) (The 1983 Act, section 36).
Remand to hospital for reports on the accused’s medical condition (The 1983 Act, section 35).
CARE OF MENTALLY ILL PATIENTS OTHER THAN UNDER THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM (BRIEFLY)
While most mentally ill patients receive treatment on a voluntary basis either in the community or in hospital provided by the NHS, some care can also be provided by private providers, which can be very expensive. Where treatment is or may be necessary on a compulsory basis, the 1983 Act provides two types of order enabling it: a section 2 order for assessment, and a section 3 order for admission for treatment. With the exception of the provisions for restricting the discharge of a convicted offender under section 41, the rules regarding treatment and discharge are much the same under the criminal and the civil regimes.
THE ROLE OF THE MENTAL HEALTH TRIBUNAL
The role of the Mental Health Tribunal is to review the detention of patients who are subject to orders made under the 1983 Act, and, where required, it maydischarge or alter the terms of the original order. Most patients reviewed are detained in hospital outside the criminal justice system, but the tribunal also hears cases where patients are living in the community under restrictions placed on them under the 1983 Act – for example, patients subject to Community Treatment Orders.
The Tribunal panel comprises a Judge, a medical member (a Consultant Psychiatrist) and a specialist member who has experience around mental health in relation to social needs. They receive reports from qualified experts and the responsible clinician and a member of the nursing team.
OTHER SAFEGUARDS
All detention is open to abuse. There are a number of safeguards:
A code of practice to be followed by hospitals, doctors et cetera;
A complaints process is available for patients and relatives;
A regulator – the Care Quality Commission (previously the Mental Health Commission) – oversees the system through inspections and monitoring of certain types of treatment and publishes reports of inspections and a rating. Bad ratings can result in special measures.
THE FUTURE
The Government has published a draft Bill amending the 1983 Act, but it does not seem that it will be presented during this Parliament, much to the annoyance of the author of the report on which the proposed amendments are based, Sir Simon Wessely. He proposed, and in its response the Government accepted, that four fundamental principles should underpin the law in this area:
Choice and autonomy – ensuring service users’ views and choices are respected.
Least restric tion – ensuring the 1983 Act’s powers are used in the least restrictive way.
Therapeutic benefit – ensuring patients are supported to get better, so they can be discharged from orders made under the 1983 Act.
The person as an individual – ensuring patients are viewed and treated as rounded individuals.
With regard to the mentally ill offenders, the report recommended:
Police cells should no longer be used as a place of safety, but purpose-built healthbased facilities should be provided;
All criminal courts, including magistrates, should have the power to send people immediately to hospital for assessment and treatment subject to bed availability, and should no longer have the power to remand a defendant to prison for their own protection and welfare on mental health grounds;
The excessive remand of the mentally ill to prison rather than hospital needs to be addressed urgently; There should be shorter time limits for transferring mentally ill prisoners to hospital. It should be possible for a clinician to grant leave or transfer of restricted patients where they do not pose a serious risk to themselves or others;
The Mental Health Tribunal should be given power to order the transfer of a restricted patient from one hospital to another and to grant leave or discharge, including discharge with conditions; and
There should be one recognised method of assessing a defendant’s level of risk shared by all required to do so, including the psychiatrist reporting to the court, the judge, the Tribunal and the Ministry of Justice.
In conclusion, the law is far from perfect. Should autistic people or people with learning difficulties be included? There is controversy because there should be (so say some in this world) a system of reviewing the lawfulness of detention periodically.
Another matter giving great concern is that ethnic minority citizens are over-represented, and this should be addressed.
However, there is at least a system which seeks to offer the same mental health facilities to those convicted of crime as to those who are not. Particularly if the recommendations are followed and properly resourced, it does offer some hope of reducing the amount of criminality and harm to the community as opposed to through deterrent type punishment.
*In the King’s Speech delivered on 17 July 2024, the Labour government committed to modernising the Mental Health Act by passing a Mental Health Bill.
Sir Robert Francis KC Treasurer 2023 Serjeants’ Inn Chambers (Associate Member)
INTERNATIONAL ADVOCACY TRAINING: HAMPEL ABROAD
By Master Faisel Sadiq
The Inner Temple’s Charter commits the Inn to the education of future barristers. One of the ways it meets this objective is through its renowned advocacy training programme. Whilst the enormous contribution by members of the Inn to this programme is well known, less well known is the contribution of Inner Templars to the international advocacy training programmes of the Inns of Court College of Advocacy (ICCA). In this article, I hope to better inform members of the Inn about our contribution to international advocacy training and (hopefully) encourage more members of the Inn to qualify as advocacy trainers themselves.
The Inns of Court College of Advocacy is a non-profit organisation established by the four Inns. Whilst it is perhaps better known these days as a Bar course provider, part of its mission statement requires it both to promote the highest standards of advocacy and professional ethics, and to provide high quality training, nationally and internationally. The latter function is discharged by the ICCA’s International Committee (of which I am a member).
Whilst it is perhaps better known these days as a Bar course provider, part of its mission statement requires it both to promote the highest standards of advocacy and professional ethics, and to provide high quality training, nationally and internationally.
An example of a successful international advocacy training programme run by the ICCA has been the advocacy training programme provided to the Cyprus Bar Association. The course convenor was Master Grahame Aldous who produced the training materials that were used throughout the programme. The other trainers from The Inner Temple included myself, Master Thomas Kark, Master Minka Braun, and Master Simon Mallett.
Training was aimed at junior practitioners and was delivered over four days with a two-day course delivered in Limassol and then Nicosia. We understood that there was some resistance within the local Bar to the very idea of advocacy training and part of what we hoped to achieve was to demonstrate to the Cypriot Bar the value of advocacy training but also of the Hampel method of advocacy training.
Advocacy trainers from L-R, Master Faisel Sadiq, Master Minka Braun, Master Thomas Kark, HHJ Neil Chawla (Bencher, Lincoln’s Inn), Master Simon Mallett, Master Grahame Aldous, Laura O’Malley (Barrister, Lincoln’s Inn)
Master Faisel Sadiq with advocacy students
Providing the training proved quite challenging. The Cypriot Bar did not have its own advocacy training programme and there was no formal advocacy training given to local advocates as part of their qualification. Junior advocates learned what worked from watching others in court and through trial and error. Accordingly, there was a great deal of unfamiliarity with the Hampel method compared to those attending the Inn’s equivalent programme – the New Practitioners Programme. Another challenge was the fact that instruction was in English, but this was not the first language of all of the advocates, and some were more proficient in English than others.
The four days were richly rewarding. The Cypriot advocates were generally of a good standard. Watching their advocacy come on in leaps and bounds over each two-day programme was a testament both to their enthusiasm and the effectiveness of the Hampel method. Senior members of the Cypriot Bar attended various sessions and became enthusiastic converts both to advocacy training in general, and to the Hampel method more particularly.
Watching their advocacy come on in leaps and bounds over each two-day programme was a testament both to their enthusiasm and the effectiveness of the Hampel
method.
It was very interesting to learn about the Cypriot legal system. Cyprus still uses civil procedural rules modelled on the Supreme Court Rules of the 1950s. Witness statements are not routine. Trials do not get listed for a fixed period. Whilst the landscape of civil litigation there was alien to this post-Woolf lawyer, it was comfortably familiar to Master Aldous. The programme was funded with assistance from the EU, which is keen to support the rule of law in a common law country. As a thank you for our efforts, the Cypriot Bar Association kindly wined and dined the trainers every evening. As a result of these lovely evenings, my suit fitted considerably more snuggly at the end of the week!
What was particularly heartening was seeing how the young female advocates engaged with Master Minka Braun. With few senior women advocates at the Cypriot Bar, they were eager to hear from a successful female advocate about her journey to the Bar, the challenges she faced, and to get advice on career development.
As someone who does not like to leave London save for his summer holidays, I had always been somewhat resistant to travelling beyond the M25. My experiences of teaching advocacy internationally for the ICCA has made me re-evaluate this. Teaching internationally has been richly rewarding and has helped me further hone my skills as an advocacy trainer. This work has also given me a real sense of pride in seeing our Inn at the forefront of this valuable outreach work – helping buttress the rule of law in a sister common law jurisdiction.
Faisel Sadiq Master of the Bench Gatehouse Chambers
To find out more about becoming an advocacy trainer: education@innertemple.org.uk icca.ac.uk/post-qualification-training/cpd/ advocacy-training/the-hampel-method
THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF THE LAW: DO MAGNITSKY TYPE SANCTIONS DEVELOP THE RULE OF LAW?
Taken from the recording of The Inner Temple Social Context of the Law discussion with Bill Browder (CEO and Co-Founder of Hermitage Capital Management, Head of Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign) and Bronwen Maddox (Director and CEO of Chatham House). Moderated by Master Geoffrey Nice (Gresham Professor of Law 2012–16, Co-Founder of Geoffrey Nice Foundation, 2014).
Bill Browder: When the Magnitsky Act went to a vote, it passed the Senate 92 to 4. It passed the House of Representatives with 89 per cent, becoming a federal law on 14 December 2012, and Vladimir Putin went out of his mind. He went completely crazy. He is a guy who commits human rights abuses, he keeps his money in the West and he values money more than human life, so he understood very clearly that his own fortune was potentially at risk.
His first retaliation was to ban the adoption of Russian orphans by American families, his second was to make it his single largest foreign policy priority to repeal the Magnitsky Act, and the third thing he wanted to do was to come after me. Since then, I have been threatened with death, with kidnapping, and I have been on the Interpol Red Notice list eight times which applied for my extradition from the UK on multiple occasions. They have sued me all over the world for defamation and for all sorts of things. They make movies about me et cetera.
But neither the US nor I were intimidated and, after the Magnitsky Act was passed, the senators who were my partners in this exercise said, “If Putin is so upset by this – and there are probably a lot of other dictators that should be upset as well … we should make this the Global Magnitsky Act.” In 2016, the Global Magnitsky Act passed. I got the Canadians to pass the Canadian Magnitsky Act unanimously in 2017, and then [it was passed] here in the UK in 2018, in the European Union in 2020, and in Australia in 2021. In between all this, Norway, Iceland, Kosovo, Montenegro, the Channel Islands, all have Magnitsky Acts, and a lot of people have been sanctioned all over the world in Russia and various other places. When Putin invaded Ukraine, there was no debate about at least one of the major policy responses, which is we use the template of freezing the individual’s assets and banning their visas. And as you all know, thousands of people have been added to the sanctions list for invading Ukraine.
The Magnitsky Act has been applied to the Chinese officials involved in crimes against the Uyghurs. It has been applied to Iranian officials involved in all the atrocities there, to Nicaraguans, to Venezuelans, to all sorts of bad actors. And it is a quite remarkable tool, because it is like the modern cancer drug – the old cancer drugs nearly killed the patient to kill the cancer cells, and the new cancer drugs go after the cancer cells directly. That’s what the Magnitsky Act is. I know how powerful it is, because I know how angry anybody who gets put on the Magnitsky List is. Their financial lives effectively screech to a halt. No bank will do business with them, no company wants to do business with them. Their credit cards get cancelled. It becomes a total disaster for them.
It is a quite remarkable tool, because it is like the modern cancer drug – the old cancer drugs nearly killed the patient to kill the cancer cells, and the new cancer drugs go after the cancer cells directly. That’s what the Magnitsky Act is.
So, to address the question of the evening: does it advance the rule of law? I think the Magnitsky Act is a tremendous advancement of the rule of law, because there is no law that deals with atrocities, murders, torture et cetera that are committed in a country that has no rule of law, where we do not have jurisdiction outside the country to prosecute those crimes. In the Magnitsky case, there was no ability to prosecute anyone for what they did to Sergei Magnitsky, and with the Magnitsky Act, now there is. I will never be able to recover from the guilt or the responsibility of Sergei Magnitsky effectively being killed in my service, but as Sir Geoffrey said, it is very rare to have a name on a law and since they are not going to build any monuments for Sergei Magnitsky in Russia, we now have a legal monument for Sergei Magnitsky in the Magnitsky Act.
It is very rare to have a name on a law and since they are not going to build any monuments for Sergei Magnitsky in Russia, we now have a legal monument for Sergei Magnitsky in the Magnitsky Act.
Bronwen Maddox: Apparently, questioners are not allowed to pay tribute to those of us speaking, but I want to start by paying tribute to what Bill has done. He has not given up on trying to bring some kind of accountability in a country that does not respect the rule of law. He deserves every award for bravery on that. All the same, I am uneasy on several points about what he said, and about this being the new model – the new and improved cancer drug, if you like. I’ll give you three reasons why. Let me just say first, that you can spend your life writing about whether sanctions work or not. There are many things to be said for them, they are an alternative to doing nothing and going immediately to war. But my starting point is that sanctions are a really useful tool. I start, as well, with context – using that word from our title –by saying that we are in a time when the rule of law really does need defending. It is up for grabs. You have some countries, and Russia is in a sense a rogue, saying, “Doesn’t suit us to recognise it.” You have others – I would put China top of this list – saying, “Well, we see the world really, very, very differently. We interpret these rules differently. We are out to promote a really very different way of organising relations between people and between countries.” And all kinds of other countries are saying, “Well, make it worth our while to be interested in something as abstract as international law.” All these rules, they might say, were written by the West, principally by the US. We were not round the table. They were written to suit those countries, and if you really want us to care about them then give us a seat at that table, and by the by, do other things that we care about as well. So we might care more about Ukraine, if you do something about climate, finance, and so on. That is a really powerful, loud argument at the moment, which is itself a challenge to the layers – sedimentary layers, such as they are – of international law. So these are the reasons why I am uneasy that these very targeted sanctions on people, on individuals, are the brave new way ahead.
The first is that it gives more currency to the charge that the Global North (if I can use that term) is out to write the rules to suit itself, and principally the US within that, because these sanctions do not work unless you have some economic heft behind them. And yes, other countries have come in behind the US, as well as the EU – so there are a lot of countries – but it is because of the US’s economic heft that these have some bite – that Putin cannot do what he might want with his money. This does give more charge to the sense that you are doing it because you do not like Putin and those on the list.
That brings me on to my second point, which is: once you start down that road, it does not take very long for you to get a bit queasy about what this does to the rule of law. You have to show that [the rule of law] is there, that it applies to all people equally, that there is a degree of transparency, that there is some kind of accountability and some kind of judging of whether it is fair. It is very hard to do that with what is really a list of people that has come out of an agreement between some senators and Bill Browder, or some people in the European Commission. It is really very, very hard to show that there is process, that there is fairness, that this is not a political motivation – and very hard to use the sanctions in a way that does not accentuate the division we are all feeling between the West, China and Russia, and many other countries.
I think it is very hard to give that kind of assurance without some sense of oversight of the sanctions through all kinds of mechanisms that are very much improvised and targeted.
My third point is that it is very hard to know if the sanctions are effective or not. It is very hard to know how the people who they are targeted against experience them. They are easier to evade than if they were global. They are showy –but do they actually work? We have not yet seen many big changes of behaviour. It is just that it is obviously inconvenient for these people, and it feels very good to those launching the sanctions against them. But do they actually work?
So, my reservation about all this is starting from the point that sanctions are often a very good thing and a way of bringing about accountability, but for all that it sounds like a form of accountability, it isn’t. It is an improvised and partial remedy for what is, in fact, a lack of accountability. But that is a bigger problem than this particular measure can answer.
My reservation about all this is starting from the point that sanctions are often a very good thing and a way of bringing about accountability, my reservation about this is that for all that it sounds like a form of accountability, it is not.
Sir Geoffrey: Well that generates, in many of us, an obvious question for each side. For Bill, how do you meet this allegation of unfairness and satisfaction on the part of the doer and lack of accountability? But to Bronwen, if sanctions are an alternative to the gun, however unfair or inefficient, do you have a better alternative?
Bill Bowder: I want to address the question you put to Bronwen as well. There is a famous chess player, chess champion, chess grandmaster, Gary Kasparov, and he had a great quote when he was also working on the Magnitsky campaign, and he said, “Let’s fight them in the banks instead of with tanks.”
Let’s fight them in the banks instead of with tanks.”
If you can fight and go to war with financial tools, it is a lot less bloody and a lot less awful than with guns. But the real problem with the Magnitsky Act, and with sanctions generally, is that we passed this law, and it was used in the Magnitsky case and it was used in other cases, but it was used really sparingly. It was almost impossible to get someone sanctioned, and still is. Sanctions have two possible functions: they can either be a deterrent or they can be a punishment. And if you use them properly, they could be a very powerful deterrent. I actually believe that if we had used sanctions after Putin invaded Georgia, if we had sanctioned the top 50 oligarchs after he invaded Georgia, or the top people in his regime, he might have thought, “Well, these people in the West are serious. This costs us a lot, and it is very painful.” And he might not have invaded Crimea. Or if we had sanctioned after Crimea, he might not have done the full-scale invasion in February 2022. But we did not. There was so much wanting to be seen doing something, and not actually doing something, that we did these tiny little sanctions here and there, but we never did them properly and so it was not a deterrent. Now that he has launched this full-scale invasion, we have gone from a very limited sanctioning situation to probably a hundred times greater sanction situation as a punishment. But the problem with the punishment is that when Putin decides to go forward, when he decides to invade, he cannot now back down.
So, the only way that we can win the war, and stop the war with sanctions, is to completely starve them of financial resources. And the sanctions have been very extreme. In addition to tens of hundreds of billions of dollars of oligarch money being frozen, there are $300 billion of Russian Central Bank reserves frozen. Russian banks and companies have been cut off from the international capital markets. Companies have left Russia. All very powerful and painful sanctions for the Russian economy, but Russia continues to be able to sell oil to the tune of half a billion to a billion dollars a day. As long as they can do that, they are going to continue to have money – they can continue to buy weapons and they could continue to kill Ukrainians. So we’re in this terrible world where, because we did not use sanctions properly, we now have to use them much more, and we still have not got the stomach to use them completely.
And just one last point I wanted to make in response to what Bronwen said, the rule of law as it applies to sanctions was one of the big issues. I must have gone to 25 different parliaments around the world to testify in favour of Magnitsky sanctions. The obvious question was exactly this: this is an administrative punishment, what rights do the recipients have if they believe that they have been sanctioned improperly? And I said, I think you should build a mechanism into the sanctions programme that every person who’s put on a sanctions list has an opportunity to appeal their sanctions. In every country that has Magnitsky sanctions, there is a procedure where you can go to a court, you can challenge the sanctions. I view sanctions in the same way as you would an ex parte freezing order, which is that somebody can go in and freeze someone’s assets, and then the assets stay frozen until somebody appeals. I think that that’s the same legal remedy that people who have been sanctioned can use.
Bronwen Maddox: I will accept anecdotes about deterrence as some evidence that it works, but it does not reassure me at all. And your final point that people around the world think that you are somehow responsible for this list – I am thinking of the Mikado, “I have a little list”, if that is not too retro a reference for everyone – that itself is worrying: that people do not know the process. They think that you go to Congress, get one of these lists started and then it snowballs.
So I think that concern still hangs there. You asked, Geoffrey, what could be better? And I think we have two questions there. Putting sanctions against a state, compared to sanctions against an individual. Here, we are talking about sanctions against an individual, and it seems to me that sanctions against a state do not raise the problems that I have been suggesting to you. There were sanctions against South Africa, as well as a civil society boycott. You can more clearly point to the state as an organisation that had done something and not have, I think, the same real worry about partisan targeted action that taking cases against an individual gives. I am aware that there are exactly the same arguments at the moment about whether cases in Gaza should be brought to the ICJ or ICC, and the latter giving people some of the same queasiness, sometimes about why you pick some individuals and not others. I think that is one big problem. I found much of what you said very interesting – I was scribbling all kinds of things – but I think it really comes back to that point of whether we can be comfortable, in a sense of fairness, even if we can produce lots of anecdotes that people really, really do not like being sanctioned and so will to some extent get away from it. It does not really demonstrate that overall, they work as well as sanctions against a state in getting that state to change direction. And I am still bothered by the questions of fairness.
Sir Geoffrey Nice: Our audience could hardly have had a better elucidation and clarification of the issues. It is not possible to sum up what has been said, save perhaps to observe that in the truly desperate times in which we live, were it not for sanctions, we would be turning even more to such legal systems as exist, such as the International Criminal Court, hoping that those activities which are rule of law systems might save us from where we are going. On the other hand, thousands, millions of people get fed into war machines because of political failure, and we do not want it to happen too much longer, because it is foolish to say, “Never again.”
For the full video recording: innertemple.org.uk/sanctions
Sir Bill Browder
Bronwen Maddox
Sir Geoffrey Nice KC
WASTE PAPER, BOOKBINDING, AND THE LITERARY IMAGINATION
IN EARLY MODERN ENGLAND
By the Graduate Trainee Librarian
First (might I chuse) I would be bound to wipe, Where he discharged last his Glister-pipe.
Figure 1: Printers working at a printing press and setting type. Woodcut by J Amman
Source: Wellcome Collection
The poet and student of Lincoln’s Inn, Henry Fitzgeffrey, concludes his Satyres and Satyricall Epigrams (1617) with a jesting consideration of the cultural and literary value attached to his printed book. “I woo’d have thee put / Mee in the Folio: or the Quarto cut’”. Fitzgeffrey initially informs his ‘Stationer’, but if this is not possible, suggests that they ‘Rather contrive mee to the Smallest size’,
“Least I bee eaten under Pippin-pyes
Or in th’ Apothicaryes shop bee seene
To wrap Drugg’s: or to dry Tobacco in.
First (might I chuse) I would be bound to wipe,
Where he discharged last his Glister-pipe.”
These rhyming couplets signify the familiarity of the lifecycle of waste paper to every individual in early modern England, including those within the four Inns of Court.
WHAT IS WASTE PAPER?
From papyri shopping lists used to line sarcophagi in ancient Egypt to classical Roman poets wrapping fish in mediocre verses, the practice of repurposing and recycling handwritten or printed texts in new forms was prolific, dating back thousands of years.
Although the term ‘waste paper’ was first recorded in the mid-late 16th century, the process of (re)assessing, cutting up, remodelling, and then reusing inscribed (and sometimes blank) superfluous paper or parchment was commonplace in both England and the Continent during the Early Modern period. Candidates for recycling included unpopular or excess books, copies containing typos or proof sheets used on the printing press (Figure 1).
Contrary to popular modern thought, the creation and distribution of waste paper during this time was relatively cheap, operating within a developed and distinct paper trade that was well known to the public and bookmakers alike. The waste paper trade benefitted from ad hoc donations (for example, a deceased individual’s library) and organised contributions from titles seized or purchased by the Stationers’ Company. The Company would sell loose fragments of waste to bookbinders, decorators (to make damasked or marbled wallpaper), merchants, and shopkeepers. Although the cost would vary, sale records suggest that a quire (25 sheets) of waste paper typically sold for one quarter of the price of ordinary writing paper, with the Stationers’ Company receiving just over one penny for one in both 1602 and 1621 (around 75 pence in today’s money).
Contrary to popular modern thought, the creation and distribution of waste paper during this time was relatively cheap, operating within a developed and distinct paper trade.
PAPERY POETICS
From female ‘ragpickers’ who collected used linens from houses and tailors to sell to paper makers, to shopkeepers and merchants who sold their superseded accounts to bookbinders to pulp into pasteboards, early modern people were acutely aware of, and directly involved in maintaining, the lifecycle of paper.
Many authors imaginatively seized upon the different ages of a sheet of paper’s life and the way it could be literally manipulated to make funny, poignant, and didactic arguments. Similarly to Fitzgeffrey’s mocking lamentation on the non-textual uses of his poetry, many authors used waste paper as a literary trope to explore issues of physical and figurative mortality, moral and religious corruption, and the endurance of authorial and political fame and influence. The most prolific author to do this was the poet and playwright Thomas Nashe (1567–1601), who frequently depicted books existing on the threshold of breaking and regeneration. In the introductory address to the readers in his novel The Unfortunate Traveller: or, the Life of Jack Wilton (1594), Nashe informs the reader that Wilton: “hath bequeathed for waste-paper here amongst you certain pages of his misfortunes. In any case keep them preciously as a privy token of his good will towards you. If there be some better than other, he craves you would honour them in their death so much as to dry and kindle tobacco with them. For a need he permits you to wrap velvet pantofles in them also, so they benot woe-begone at the heels, or weather-beaten, like a black head with grey hairs, or mangy at the toes, like an ape about the mouth. But as you love goodfellowship and ames-ace [a game of dice], rather turn them to stop mustard-pots than the grocers should have one patch of them to wrap mace in: a strong, hot, costly spice it is, which above all things he hates. To any use about meat and drink put them to and spare not, for they cannot do their country better service. Printers are mad whoresons; allow them some of them for napkins.”
Here, Nashe utilises the trope to playfully entreat readers to ‘honour’ the deaths of ‘better’ authors by breaking apart, repurposing their work, and breathing new life into their work in the form protective waterproof “wrap[pers] for velvet pantofles” (slippers), “napkins”, and (with a pun) “privy tokens” or toilet paper.
Despite Nashe’s literary utilisation of the non-textual function of waste paper, a highly symbolic, hopeful use can be found in John Taylor’s encomium to paper, The Praise of the Hemp-seed (1620). In this poem, Taylor applauds the power of printed paper, regardless of whether it remains bound in a book or as a loose waste sheet, to immortalise the words, ideas, and identities of authors, where:
“In paper, many a Poet now survives
Of else their lines had perish’d with their lives, Old Chaucer, Gower, and Sir Thomas More, Sir Philip Sidney, who the Lawrell wore, Spencer, and Shakespeare did in Art xcel, Sir Edward Dywer, Greene, Nash, Daniell Siluester, Beumont, Sir John Harrington, Forgetfulness their works would overrun, But that in paper they immortally Do live in spite of death, and cannot die.”
In this verse, Taylor optimistically imagines that the ‘immortality’ of medieval and early modern writers such as Geoffrey Chaucer, Philip Sidney, and William Shakespeare is permanently woven into the natural material fibres of the paper into which they are inkily pressed, where the original sources of the rags collected (such as from the dresses of “some Countess, or some Queene”) causes them to transform into “tatters allegorical”.
While Nashe and Taylor imagine different outcomes for the survival (or death) of published authorial legacies, both demonstrate a strong, and highly imaginative, familiarity with a material and literary (waste) paper landscape.
WASTE PAPER IN THE INNER TEMPLE LIBRARY
In addition to these uses, the majority of waste paper and parchment was used by bookbinders to assemble and support the main structure of a wide range of book sizes, genres, and types, such as through the use of spine supports, guards (Figure 2), flyleaves (Figure 3), pastedowns (Figure 4), and as limp (flexible) binding covers. Fortunately, there is a wealth of material in the Library’s rare books and manuscripts collection that demonstrates this.
One example of waste in the Inn’s collection is found in the binding of a large, 14th century manuscript copy of English jurist and cleric, Henry de Bracton’s detailed treatise on English jurisprudence, De Legibus Angliae (‘On the Customs and Laws of England’) (Figure 5). This volume, which has had its original spine and boards replaced, contains 39 parchment scraps and sheets from medieval manuscripts of varying types, genres, periods, qualities and sizes, including sheet music (Figure 6), 12th/13th century monastic poetry, and uninscribed vellum (Figure 8), which have been remodelled to support and protect the physical integrity of both the binding and Bracton’s manuscript. The high volume of torn-apart medieval manuscripts in this palimpsest, which feature often in other volumes in the Inn’s collection, is likely the result of the violent seizure, breakage, and dispersal of manuscripts from monastic libraries after the Dissolution of the Monasteries in the early-mid 16th century. Significantly, there are a number of annotations present from both the Early Modern and Victorian periods, evidencing readers’ interactions with the snippets.
The high volume of torn-apart medieval manuscripts in this palimpsest, which feature often in other volumes in the Inn’s collection, is likely the result of the violent seizure, breakage, and dispersal of manuscripts from monastic libraries after the Dissolution of the Monasteries.
Figure 2: Scraps of a theological printed book used as a guard to protect the endleaves in Michael Dalton’s The country justice, containing the practice, duty and power of the justices of the peace, as well in as out of their sessions (1635) Source: The Inner Temple Library
Figure 3: Folio from a medieval theological manuscript repurposed into a flyleaf in a composite volume of historical manuscripts Source: Petyt MS. 511.19 f.149, The Inner Temple Library
Figure 5: Layers of waste sheets of manuscript parchment at the front of Bracton’s De Legibus Angliae Source: Miscellaneous MS. 67, Inner Temple Library
Another exciting instance of waste in our collection is in our copy of the anonymously penned A brief discovery of Doctor Allens seditious drifts, printed by John Wolfe in Distaff Lane near St Paul’s Cathedral in 1588 in its original vellum binding. At the front and back of this small book – the only printed rebuttal of Cardinal William Allen’s (1532–94) published treatise supporting the Spanish Armada’s invasion of England and his case for the assassination of Queen Elizabeth I – are two flyleaves taken from the title page and an extract of the first edition of Raphael Holinshed’s influential Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland (1577). Printed in London by John Hunne, it was a sweeping narrative of the history, language, and people of England, Scotland, and Ireland from antiquity to the reign of Elizabeth I. The second (larger) edition of 1587 is famously one of the main sources of many of Shakespeare’s histories and tragedies, such as Richard II and Macbeth, and of John Milton’s historical knowledge and political philosophy.
It was a sweeping narrative of the history, language, and people of England, Scotland, and Ireland from antiquity to the reign of Elizabeth I.
While the rotated title page was primarily sewn in to protect and strengthen book’s front pages and spine (Figures 9 and 10), its stark inclusion alongside this specific text highlights not only that extra copies of the first edition were becoming redundant with the publication of the second, censored version, but may also, unintentionally, produce some symbolic significance for an attentive reader examining it. More specifically, enclosing a commentary that simultaneously supports monarchical power and rejects papal influence over religio-political affairs (A brief discovery), with clear portions of text from a popular historical work likely known by readers to be positively biased towards the Tudor dynasty (Chronicles), potentially generates a conversation between the two sources on historical and contemporary realpolitik in Britain, particularly about the influence of the English monarchy (and Elizabeth I) in national and global affairs at a time of great uncertainty. A brief discovery closes with a rallying cry, directly asking its readers to follow both God’s and Elizabeth I’s truth and knowledge to ensure that the “strength of [the] Realme” continues to remain “far greater” than it was in “any Princes age” (p.127) that had come before, periods of time which readers may, through viewing the encapsulating printed waste, remember that the Chronicles traverses and explores in thrilling detail.
Figure 4. Manuscript scrap used as a pastedown on the front board of Juan Luis Vives’s A very fruitful and pleasant book called the instruction of a Christian Woman (1541) Source: The Inner Temple Library
Figure 7: Pages cut from a 12th/13th century manuscript of Book 1 of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, sewn into Bracton’s De Legibus Angliae Source: Miscellaneous MS. 67, Inner Temple Library
Figure 6: A sheet of music torn from another manuscript in Bracton’s De Legibus Angliae Source: Miscellaneous MS. 67, Inner Temple Library
AFTERLIVES OF EARLY MODERN WASTE PAPER
So how do we know so much about the material origins and literary reception of waste? Between the late 17th and early 20th centuries, the practice of locating and salvaging waste paper from bookbindings was popular amongst collectors, librarians and antiquarians, often as part of personal projects. Amongst this group of gatherers, which also included the diarist Samuel Pepys (1633–1703) and Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Tenison (1636–1715), was bibliophile (or, some would argue, biblioclast) John Bagford (1650/51–1671) and Dorothy Schullian (1906–89), Curator of Rare Books at the Armed Forces Medical Library (now the National Library of Medicine) in Maryland. Armed with a bookseller supplying him with “waste books … [and the] liberty to take out of them what [he] thought fit”, Bagford set about deconstructing books and giving a second life to waste manuscript fragments and other printed material – such as title pages, frontispieces, and woodcut borders – in the creation of an 800 page record of typographical developments. Unfortunately, Bagford did not complete this bibliographic chronicle. Schullian, on the other hand (and like many other collectors in Oxford and Cambridge college libraries during the 19th and 20th century)
“entered a bibliographer’s paradise” in 1953 by soaking and loosening layers of book bindings in water to recover dispersed manuscript and printed waste fragments and restore them back into their original volumes. Schullian’s project, named the Bathtub Collection, reconstituted printed fragments from both well-known classical authors and unfamiliar texts, one of which was used to create uncut sheets of playing cards.
Compared with manuscript waste, such as the title page and text from Holinshed’s Chronicles, printed waste has only relatively recently received scholarly attention from book historians, bibliographers, and literary scholars, especially if it remains in situ within early modern bindings. However, the last decade has seen a shift in attention to and reception of waste, with researchers like Anna Reynolds, Adam Smyth, and Tara Lyons approaching it as something not merely as a forgettable, superficial non-textual material but as pieces of literature that can and should be read to reveal both the lives and imaginative workings of their individual authors and the book tradespeople involved in their creation (and destruction). How many more lives and stories is the waste paper in The Inner Temple Library’s early printed books and manuscripts waiting to tell to a reader that wants to listen?
Lily Rowe Graduate Trainee Librarian
The last decade has seen a shift in attention to and reception of waste, with researchers like Anna Reynolds, Adam Smyth, and Tara Lyons approaching it as something not merely as a forgettable, superficial non-textual material but as pieces of literature that can and should be read to reveal both the lives and imaginative workings of their individual authors and the book tradespeople involved in their creation (and destruction).
Figure 10: Title page of Holinshed’s first edition of his book Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland (1577) Source: A brief discovery of Doctor Allens seditious drifts (1588), Inner Temple Library
Figure 8: A guard made from uninscribed parchment in Bracton’s De Legibus Angliae Source: Miscellaneous MS. 67, Inner Temple Library
Figure 9: Holinshed’s coat of arms printed onto the recto of the title page from the first edition of his book Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland (1577) Source: A brief discovery of Doctor Allens seditious drifts (1588), Inner Temple Library
THE BEAUTY OF WILDFLOWERS
By The Head Gardener
Teasel, Dipsacus fullonum
Beauty of Wildflowers
Back in the spring, I travelled to County Kerry, the southernmost tip of Ireland, to visit relatives and to hike Carrantuohill, Ireland’s highest peak. My mum grew up on a farm on the Ring of Kerry, an area of outstanding natural beauty with stunning mountains, lakes and coastline. The combination of the gulf stream and a range of landscapes and soils creates an environment that hosts an extraordinary range of flora and fauna.
Childhood summers were spent on the family farm with our cousins, playing on the ditch or swimming in the river when the weather was kind. I did not realise at the time how influential being surrounded by such beauty was, though when I return I am overwhelmed by the landscape, wildflowers, forests, mosses and lichens. For me, such natural beauty awakens a real sense of calm and awe.
Back in the City, much of the work that has taken place in the Garden over recent years has been to soften and develop a greater sense of nature and an element of wildness as a juxtaposition to the buildings and location. The benefit this brings in terms of biodiversity has further expanded my sense of ‘beauty’. Rather than old fashioned notions of sterile formality, there is more beauty in thinking of the Garden as a living entity, nourishing all the senses and providing a home for birds, pollinators and invertebrates. A garden full of life bringing with it a sense of awe and joy.
I am encouraged by the growing appreciation for plants that have traditionally been thought of as weeds and wildflowers. The simple beauty and the many benefits they bring to the Garden are now being acknowledged. Like all gardening it is about balance, and careful decision making.
My favourite moments in the Garden are the spontaneous wildflowers dancing in the borders, connecting with the meadow and long grass areas. In the borders, this requires identifying the young self-sown seedlings and rather than weeding them out or spraying toxic weedkiller, allowing the seedlings to come through, moving into new positions or adding seeds into specific locations to look as though they have found themselves there. A favourite plant ident for our trainee and the team is always the seedling ident, and the discussions of which seedlings we will encourage and where. I am proud to say the Garden and Estate teams at The Inner Temple do not use glyphosate weedkiller which is detrimental to pollinators and blanket kills all seedlings regardless of what they are.
There is more beauty in thinking of the Garden as a living entity, nourishing all the senses and providing a home for birds, pollinators and invertebrates. A garden full of life bringing with it a sense of awe and
joy.
The Garden felt rather static before the Valarian, Valariana officinalis popping through the borders, with its tall, pinktinged white flowers smelling of jasmine, which in turn form the most beautiful coral formed seedhead. Native to Britain, across Europe to Northwest Iran, Valariana officinalis is happy in sun or part shade, and often cited as enjoying a moist soil. It does, though we find it equally happy once germinated in dry soils also. It makes the most wonderful link plant across the Garden as it works in our differing conditions, from the heat of the High Border to the shade of the Broadwalk. Often covered in aphid without affecting the plant and so offering a food source to ladybirds, the flowers are also beneficial for a range of pollinators including butterflies, bee species and hoverflies.
Red Campion, Silene diocia
Greater Plantain, Plantago major
Valerian seedling
Valerian, Valeriana officinalis
Bee Orchid, Ophrys apifera
The Garden is also much richer for the delicate grace that Cow Parsley, Anthriscus sylvestris brings with its cream frothy umbels defining the shift from spring into summer. The swaying umbels in the borders help blur the boundary between the more cultivated and the natural. The native distribution is remarkable, across the whole of Europe, northern Asia and the mountains of East Africa. It supports a range of bees and hoverflies, in addition to the orange tip butterfly and the common brindled brown moth. We find it gently self-seeds and we encourage new colonies by scattering seed in areas.
Another favourite, which previously has been considered a weed is Ribwort Plantain, Plantago lanceolata. This is not the larger relative known as Greater Plantain, Plantago major, which has wide flat leaves. We continue to weed this out of the lawn where it colonises if left unchecked. Plantago lanceolota, in contrast, has thin leaves and long stems with a pale cone flower on top, which I find very elegant. In addition, it is beneficial to moths, hoverflies and a food source for the caterpillars of the Heath Fritillary and Granville Fritillary butterflies.
It was with great excitement in June that we spotted for the first time in the meadow something rather more special, Bee Orchids, Ophrys apifera. Though small, this stunning native orchid mimics a female bee in marking and scent to encourage pollination. Terrestrial orchids require certain mycorrhiza fungi in the soil and so this is promising. I hope there will be swathes of native orchids in our meadow areas in years to come. I could go on all day about my favourite wildflowers and how much the Garden is richer for the presence of the striking mauve thistle flowers and seedheads of Teasel, Dipsacus fullonum; the sunshine yellow of the Meadow Buttercup, Ranunculus acris; and the flirty pink of the Red Campion, Silene diocia. I have been inspired this year by the huge difference across the Capital in how our green spaces are managed, with many more areas cultivated for wildflowers, long grass and a rejection of spraying toxic weedkiller. It is so nice for the Garden to be part of a growing ecological gardening community across the Capital and beyond. For those interested, they should follow the work of John Little in Essex, Richard Scott in Liverpool, and of
Back to my recent trip to Ireland, where I was introduced to the work of the Irish writer and philosopher John Moriarty (1938–2007), who was born and lived in Kerry. He wrote extensively throughout his life on nature and spirituality. In an interview he talks about the importance of wildness, he clarifies that this isn’t law breaking or anarchy, but the importance of keeping an element of unshapen wildness inside as part of who we are.
I hope that the beauty of the wildflowers in the Garden helps keep this connection to positive wildness for those who use it. I love seeing members take off their shoes for a walk across the lawn, or others using the Garden for morning tai chi or to sit and take a moment. It feels as if the Garden is helping those visitors to connect to the special wildness within.
This article also marks our Garden rainee, Stefano Ciabo, leaving the Inn on completing his two-year traineeship for a coveted place on the Kew Diploma. Stefano has been involved in many of the projects to develop the wildflowers in the Garden over this time and also leaves his mark across the Inn with his amiable personality and infectious passion for gardening. We wish him all the best for what will be a bright future. As one
Sean Harkin
Meadow buttercup, Ranunculus acris
County Kerry, Ireland
Garden Team from left Sean, Polly, Imogen, Stefano, Sophie
Ribworth Plantain, Plantago lanceolata
JBA ROUND-UP
By Nancy Kelehar
At the start of this year, The Inner Temple’s Junior Bar Association introduced its new committee and started to plan an exciting schedule of events for more junior members of the Bar to help them grow their networks and support them in the first seven years of their careers.
In March, the new committee held its first event: ‘Surviving on your feet’. This was a panel event aimed at first and second sixers to provide them with essential tips for their first few weeks in court. The event was well-attended, both in-person and online, and the panellists gave invaluable advice spanning several different practice areas.
In June, the JBA hosted its ‘Summer Soirée’ on the beautiful terrace at The Inner Temple. This event was a sellout and brought together lots of junior barristers who bonded over drinks and nibbles in the sunshine. It was great to see such a strong turnout and we hope to host many more successful social events in the future.
In July, we held the ‘Pathways after Pupillage’ event to showcase both the alternative options to tenancy post-pupillage and other opportunities to complement one’s practice. The panel demonstrated a number of different success stories at the Bar, from completing third sixes, to pursuing careers at the employed Bar, to doing a secondment or placement abroad. Through events such as these, the JBA hopes to help junior barristers find their feet in this challenging and exciting career and support them along their journey.
The panel demonstrated a number of different success stories at the Bar, from completing third sixes, to pursuing careers at the employed Bar, to doing a secondment or placement abroad.
So, what’s next? On Tuesday 8 October 2024, we will be hosting our first networking event aimed at creating a sustainable career at the Bar. This will give junior barristers the chance to speak to other members of the Bar and other relevant professions on topics such as financial planning, taking a career break, maternity leave, advice on moving chambers, building relationships with clerks, and maintaining wellbeing.
On Friday 25 October, the beloved JBA Halloween Quiz returns! It is always an enjoyable night and I invite you all to curate your best brainy (and scary) team for the evening. Individual and group tickets are available for what promises to be a fun-filled evening on Friday 25 October.
Last but not least, we are delighted to present the inaugural JBA Annual Dinner which will be held on Friday 8 November 2024. The event is open to pupils and barristers of up to seven years’ practice and their guests. It will be the perfect opportunity to mix and mingle with other junior barristers over a delicious three-course meal and drinks.
Tickets for all three of our upcoming events are available now on The Inner Temple website through the Members Area.
If you would like to get involved with the JBA or have any ideas for future events, please let us know. You can email us at jba@innertemplesocieties.org and you can follow us across all social media platforms by searching Inner Temple Junior Bar Association.
Nancy Kelehar President of the Junior Bar Association
The Junior Bar Association Christmas party
The Junior Bar Association Halloween Quiz
The Junior Bar Association Halloween Quiz
THE INNER TEMPLE BIG PICNIC
A CASE OF MICE AND MURDER
Master Sally Smith talks to her publishers about her recently published crime novel, A Case of Mice and Murder (Raven Books), the first instalment in a brand new series, introducing a wonderfully eccentric sleuth, Sir Gabriel Ward.
Tell us about A Case of Mice and Murder
A Case of Mice and Murder is an historical detective story. It tells the story of two mysteries in 1901 in the Temple, the heart of legal London. The first is the dramatic murder of the Lord Chief Justice and the quest to find his killer. The second a sensational legal battle over the rights to a book written by an anonymous author. There is one man linking them; Sir Gabriel Ward KC, Eton and Oxford educated, brilliant, solitary, reclusive, bound by compulsive rituals; reluctant sleuth in the first story, legendary advocate in the second. What inspired you to write this novel after decades of a successful legal career?
The answer to this is COVID lockdown and enforced solitude at my desk at home. At the risk of sounding pretentious, I did find in some odd way that the lack of all the usual freedoms helped liberate my ways of thinking. What made you choose the start of the Edwardian era as the period setting for your mystery? Did anything in particular draw you to this time?
I had previously written a biography of Sir Edward Marshall Hall, the great advocate of the Edwardian era, so I had already steeped myself in the period for that book. The years between 1900–1930 have been called the golden age of advocacy. Barristers were household names and the newspapers dominated by reports of their doings, both social and professional. KCs were automatically knighted, murderers hanged when cases were lost, the law courts imbued with an extraordinary sense of theatre.
What research did you do to help build the world of The Inner Temple (and beyond) in 1901?
I did huge amounts of research for my earlier biography; the Temple has archives going back for hundreds of years. I also did some detective work of my own, and found two families who had kept in their attics (truly in their attics, though that sounds like a bit of romantic overlay!) all the professional and social records of two Edwardian KCs who had been close friends. They revealed an entire, absolutely authentic world; it was the strangest feeling untying the pink tape on briefs that had not been opened since they were tied up at the end of the case. There were dozens and dozens of boxes. By the end, I felt I could live the life of my Edwardian characters. And of course, there were the British and London Libraries to fill in any gaps left.
What were the challenges and benefits of writing a murder mystery set over a hundred years ago?
I think it is almost entirely benefit; but then I suppose that is why I felt an early Edwardian background was the best for me. Not so far back it is hard to relate to, but just premotor-car, just post-telephones and some electricity and of course no other modern technology of any kind. Also, an interesting period for forensics; newly scientific but not too technical! I think maybe the downside is that however much we analyse it, we can never quite be sure we can write authentically about a different mind-set. The world I am writing about was governed by rigid class divides, rigid gender divides, rigid moral standards, which if not adhered to were transgressed in secrecy. My protagonist detective is a liberal kind man, but I wanted him to be liberal and kind by the standards of his time, not ours, if that makes sense.
The novel balances a murder investigation with a fascinating intellectual property case. How did you approach plotting A Case of Mice and Murder?
I enjoyed this bit most. Although the content may not always be enlivening to the general reader, drafting legal documents is a very good discipline for learning structure. I wrote the two stories almost entirely separately and only converged them in the last few chapters.
Gabriel Ward is already a firm favourite with early readers. How did he come to you as a character?
Gabriel Ward is just himself. He introduced himself to me as a complete person and I never even thought about what he would or would not do in any given circumstance, he just takes over. Sometimes I am quite surprised at his reactions, but they always feel as though they could not be any different and he gets very irritable if I try and direct his behaviour. His background was intentionally that of the archetypal Edwardian barrister, but his personal characteristics are just him. I am very fond of him, now I have got to know him. In the evenings, I can see his lighted window in King’s Bench Walk from my own window!
A Case of Mice and Murder features an extensive cast of lawyers, policemen, and household staff, which makes the novel really come to life. Was it important to you for the world of your novel to feel populated and busy?
Absolutely yes. The Temple is to this day a self-contained world and as busy as a beehive. Now of course we have professional staff, not servants, to run the various departments but their interactions with the barristers who live and work with them are close and co-operative, and the world is gossipy and close and friendly like all tight little communities. The archives make it clear that in Edwardian times, that general set-up was much the same. The Temple by today’s standards was very patriarchal and some may say patronising, but nonetheless it was close and protective and there was a strong loyalty to it as an institution at all the social levels.
It tells the story of two mysteries in 1901 in the Temple, the heart of legal London. The first is the dramatic murder of the Lord Chief Justice and the quest to find his killer. The second a sensational legal battle over the rights to a book written by an anonymous author.
How did your own legal background help inform your writing? Did your own approach to legal work come out in Gabriel’s methods at all?
The Inner Temple Law Library together with those of the other three Inns of Court (Middle Temple, Gray’s and Lincoln’s) are amongst the best law libraries in the world. There is nothing they do not have, including all previous versions of all law books produced over the centuries. I approached the legal bits by expunging any knowledge I may have and saying to the Inner Temple librarians; ‘Please may I have the textbooks and statutes I would have looked this up in in 1901 and nothing post that date.’ That way I could be sure that I was not approaching it with a modern eye. Yes, I am afraid Gabriel and I do share some working methods; a shade obsessive, a tendency to pedantry and bad delegators; unfortunately, I certainly do not share his reputation for ‘being the ultimate opinion on those most intractable legal problems despaired of by his colleagues at the Bar.’
Who are some of your favourite crime writers? Did any of them influence A Case of Mice and Murder?
I think Dorothy L Sayers’ The Nine Tailors is about the best ever! I read period stuff very extensively and I am sure my style is influenced by that, whether consciously or not. That is not to say I do not read lots of modern stuff; recently I really enjoyed Janice Hallett’s The Appeal But my heart lies in the first half of the 1900s!
Sally Smith KC
Reproduced by kind permission of Bloomsbury Publishing
A Case of Mice and Murder: ‘A delight from start to finish’ Sunday Times: The Trials of Gabriel Ward Sally Smith, Raven Books (bloomsbury.com)
IS THE CAB RANK RULE NOW REDUNDANT AT THE SELF-EMPLOYED BAR?
INNER TEMPLE STUDENT ASSOCIATION ESSAY PRIZE
By Richard Matheson
INTRODUCTION
The declaration made earlier this year by several barristers, as well as other legal professionals and academics, that they would refuse to act in certain cases concerning climate change reinvigorated the debate at the Bar about the continued value of the cab rank rule. The rule provides that, much like a taxi driver at a rank, barristers are not allowed to turn away clients (provided they fall within their area of practice and can pay an adequate fee). This essay will attempt to defend the cab rank rule and argue that, despite the very real issues that it faces, it is worth retaining.
This essay proceeds in two parts. The first section will set out why there is a strong case, which needs to be answered, for seeing the cab rank rule as redundant. However, the following section will argue that the cab rank rule remains a cornerstone of the self-employed Bar and is far from obsolete.
PART I: THE CASE AGAINST THE CAB RANK RULE
In a recent article for Counsel Magazine, Patrick O’Connor KC questioned the continuing value of the cab rank rule beyond cases confined to those involving “personal liberty”. Whilst conceding that the rule still plays a role in ensuring representation for those accused of the gravest criminal offences, he contends that it otherwise plays little role in promoting access to justice. Citing a “disconnect between symbol and substance”, he argues that multiple issues mean that it is now virtually obsolete, at least in its current state. To this end, he identifies limitations to the scope of the rule itself. An important one being that solicitors can and do refuse clients. He gives the example of the Law Society’s advice that ‘climate-related’ issues may be relevant when choosing clients, and the well-known example of city firms publicly distancing themselves from Russian clients following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If the cab rank rule prevents barristers from refusing clients but the very solicitors who instruct them are able to do so, this is a significant limit (both in theory and practice) on the impact the rule has.
If the cab rank rule prevents barristers from refusing clients but the very solicitors who instruct them are able to do so, this is a significant limit (both in theory and practice) on the impact the
rule has.
Another limitation O’Connor observes is that the rule cannot effectively cover the types of cases typically brought by poorer clients. He specifically uses the example of cases brought by direct access as these clients cannot rely on legal aid – and so, are more likely to be affected/deterred by the financial pressures of litigation. Prospective litigants who find themselves in this situation often rely on conditional fee arrangements which BSB guidance states that barristers are free to reject (gC91).
The point can be made even more strongly given general difficulties in obtaining legal aid. The BSB handbook’s rules and guidance on the cab rank rule do provide for cases brought through legal aid, but widespread cuts to the accessibility of legal aid mean that there are swathes of prospective litigants that are still left essentially unable to access representation. Whilst the question of whether the carve-out for conditional fee arrangements is defensible falls outside the scope of this essay, the fact remains that this is another substantial exception to the rule which acutely affects those in particular need.
Other limits to the scope of the cab rank rule that he notes include its inapplicability to foreign work and how easily its concerns are evaded in practice by simply being nominally “too busy” to take on the case. All of these limits identified by O’Connor undoubtedly demonstrate how the effectiveness (and therefore importance) of the rule is mitigated. However, this is not enough to prove that the rule is now redundant. Successfully making the case that the cab rank rule is obsolete requires showing that the cab rank rule accomplishes nothing that is not already achieved through other means or that it has become actively detrimental.
This is what makes O’Connor’s wider critique so powerful, as he not only contends that the cab rank rule is impotent in face of wider challenges of access to justice, often brought about by governmental policy, but that it can actually be harmful by entrenching and perpetuating “distortions of the market”. He argues that the cab rank rule essentially functions as a rule of ‘first come, first served’ which unfairly benefits those with the resources and familiarity with the legal system by guaranteeing them access to the best representation possible. Meanwhile those who lack these advantages, and are most acutely in need of representation, are immediately put on the back foot.
Giving the example of Grenfell, he recollects how the public authorities and corporations that were potentially at fault were completely “lawyered up” within weeks of the disaster, whilst victims, with little knowledge of the legal system, were left in the lurch. The reason that this is particularly damaging to the value of the cab rank rule is because the rule is not simply meant to guarantee representation but your representation of choice. If this is not the case, it is not clear what unique purpose the cab rank rule serves given that, as O’Connor remarks, “the existing rule against ‘discrimination’ [already] protects against most improper rejections of clients: [Rule rC12]”.
If an unintended consequence of the cab rank rule is exacerbating pre-existing power dynamics, it is not clear that it remains useful today at the self-employed Bar, given the practical limitations on its ability to meaningfully promote access to justice. To take O’Connor’s line of argument one step further, if the cab rank rule not only struggles to improve access to justice but risks perpetuating inequalities between parties, is there any reason that barristers should not take a more critical approach to who they represent? Richard Moorhead makes this very point:
“Lawyers should take some responsibility for who they act for and what they do for them, not least because the potential for lawyers to be complicit in wrongdoing can be substantial (look at tobacco as an example) and is masked by the superficial gleam of the cab rank’s neutrality and non-accountability.”
If an unintended consequence of the cab rank rule is exacerbating pre-existing power dynamics, it is
not clear that it remains useful today at the self-employed Bar, given the practical limitations on its ability to meaningfully promote access to justice.
Where some barristers hypothetically refuse to act for the most powerful individuals and corporations, who will undoubtedly still get representation, any infringement on accessing justice seems minimal. With the exception that O’Connor makes for those accused of serious criminal cases, it seems arguable that the cab rank rule is too inflexible and conscientious objection might be entirely justified in cases like the Lawyers Are Responsible group’s Declaration of Conscience, which includes a commitment to withholding services in respect of supporting new fossil fuel projects and prosecuting peaceful climate change protestors. The strength of Moorhead’s position is in recasting the debate in terms of the moral responsibility of barristers rather than their freedom to choose. In doing so, refusing to act shifts from a decision which they feel they can make to one that they feel that they must – making refusals to act appear more principled and, therefore, palatable.
In light of substantial normative reasons to allow barristers to choose who they represent and the previously identified practical concerns about the value of the cab rank rule, there does appear to be a strong case for seeing the rule as redundant. Having fully laid out this case, it is now possible to argue why the cab rank rule is nevertheless far from redundant and should be retained.
PART II: IN DEFENCE OF THE CAB RANK RULE
The major issue with the case against the cab rank rule, as presented above, is that scrapping it is unlikely to rectify any of these problems. Conversely, to do so would not only likely exacerbate several of them, but it would also fundamentally alter the nature of the self-employed Bar for the worse. It is undeniable, to a certain extent, that all the issues identified by commentators like O’Connor and Moorhead do exist in the current system. However, it is unclear that alternatives like allowing barristers to choose whether to take on a case would reduce any of them.
The most serious flaw of the cab rank rule discussed above is O’Connor’s argument that it actively hinders the promotion of (equal) access to justice because it perpetuates pre-existing inequalities between litigants. It is likely true that rich and powerful clients are better placed to take advantage of a rule which guarantees them representation of their choosing. However, in the alternative where this rule does not exist, the disparity in bargaining power becomes even more stark. The purchasing power of these clients will still be able to guarantee them the barrister of their choice, but now there is not even a guarantee that the disadvantaged litigant on the other side will be able to find adequate representation at all. In the worst case, the absence of the cab rank rule in certain specialist areas “would create a real risk that major players (eg banks) could demand exclusivity, depriving potential opponents of much of the talent available at the Bar”, as argued by McLaren KC, Ulyatt and Knowles in their report for the BSB.
This same line of argument applies a fortiori to the practical limits on the scope of the rule, such as solicitors’ discretion to choose clients, or that it was easy to evade in practice by claiming unavailability. The force of these objections was to show that the effectiveness of the rule is limited but as argued above, this does not show that the rule no longer serves any purpose. If anything, it implies that a renewed commitment and bolstering of the rule would be desirable, again noted in the BSB report. O’Connor’s critique, and other attacks on the rule, rely on not just showing how the rule struggles to be effective but its actual harms. If the major harms of the cab rank rule which its detractors identify are worse in a system without the rule, there does seem to be some value in retaining it.
Having overcome the problems identified with the cab rank rule as it stands, we can turn to the positive case for allowing barristers to choose who they represent on the grounds of their moral responsibility. There are two interrelated responses to this line of criticism. Firstly, as the Chair of the Bar Council’s Ethics Committee stated, this is already allowed in the current system. Relying on the provisions of the BSB handbook, he argues that where a barrister is “genuinely afflicted by conscience, such that [they] cannot properly do [their] job as an advocate” they are able to refuse instructions based on their inability to “maintain [their] independence”. This interpretation of the rules sidesteps Moorhead’s criticism that barristers are essentially unable to act according to their conscience.
This same line of argument applies a fortiori to the practical limits on the scope of the rule, such as solicitors’ discretion to choose clients, or that it was easy to evade in practice by claiming unavailability.
It is possible to object that this is a high threshold for a barrister to meet to be able to turn down a case, which does not allow them a great deal of discretion, but that is precisely the point. It is a high threshold because it otherwise risks completely undermining the purpose of the cab rank rule by allowing barristers wide discretion to refuse cases with which they disagree. Ensuring that rC21(10) is confined to the most extreme cases of conscientious objection balances the virtues of the cab rank rule alongside the need to allow barristers, in certain cases, the right to refuse to act. This brings us to the second response. To go any further in allowing flexibility and discretion to barristers in which cases they choose to take on would be to undercut the independence of the self-employed Bar. One unique strength of the Bar, and the cab rank rule, is that it prevents identification of barristers with clients and their causes. Much has been said about how this protects barristers from unfair criticism outside the profession, but its true importance runs somewhat deeper. As Lord Hendy KC notes, the notion that barristers are independent and separate from their cases goes to the core of the professional ethos at the Bar. Dissolving that thin divide between a barrister and their client (which scrapping the cab rank rule risks doing) not only invites criticism and stigma from outside but also, crucially, within the legal profession. Both of which would negatively impact the ability of barristers to represent their clients as well as the general character and solidarity of the self-employed Bar.
CONCLUSION
The cab rank rule is not perfect. Many of the issues identified with it highlight how it has fallen short. However, given almost all of these harms would be exaggerated by scrapping it, it is clear that the rule remains important. It allows, in exceptional circumstances, for barristers to refuse to take on a case on grounds of conscience, whilst still maintaining enough of a divide to prevent barristers being identified with their clients. Whatever issues the cab rank rule has, it is unclear that, in its absence, the invisible hand of the market would sketch a more level playing field; accordingly, it should be seen as far from redundant.
Richard Matheson Winner of the 2023 ITSA Essay Competition
SUPPORTING NEURODIVERSITY IN THE LEGAL SECTOR
By Kevin Athow
Is the UK legal profession effectively recognising neurodiversity? And what more can be done to support neurodiverse lawyers?
WHAT IS NEURODIVERSITY?
Neurodivergent is a nonmedical term that describes people who have an atypical mental or neurological function – in other words, whose brains have developed or work differently for some reason. It encompasses how people perceive and process information, learn, and interact with others.
That does not mean, however, that a neurodivergent person is any less capable than their non-neurodivergent counterparts; they just have different strengths and weaknesses. Indeed, certain characteristics of neurodivergent people are essential qualities for the legal profession. For example, they are often highly skilled in problem-solving, communications, strategy creation, troubleshooting improving processes, and lateral and creative thinking. People often associate neurodiversity with conditions such as autism spectrum disorder, which includes what was once known as ‘Asperger’s syndrome’. Neurodiversity also includes attention deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”), dyslexia, dyscalculia obsessivecompulsive disorder, dyspraxia and Tourette’s syndrome.
Under the Equality Act 2010, several neurodivergent conditions are protected characteristics due to their impact on day-to-day activities. For example, differences in social communication, behaviour and sensory processing within the autism spectrum disorder, and the effect of dyslexia on reading, writing and spelling. However, individual conditions are assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the effect on the individual. The Equality Act 2010 applies not only to those in employment but also to other areas, such as potential job applicants.
Recent research from the University of Birmingham has provided a more detailed picture of what neurodiversity looks like among adults in the UK, and identified, inter alia, the following common characteristics in those who presented with each condition:
High scores for characteristics associated with autism were linked with experiences of challenges with social and imaginative skills, higher preference for routines and attention to details, numbers and patterns;
High scores for characteristics associated with ADHD were linked with tendencies for inattentiveness, hyperactivity and impulsiveness;
High scores in cortical hyperexcitability related to visual sensitivity and unusual visual experiences; and
High scores for characteristics associated with dyslexia were linked with lower fluency with reading and word-finding.
The volunteer-run group Neurodiversikey has also created ‘Neurotype cards’ which set out the characteristics of the most common conditions (the ‘divergence’), the strengths, and the challenges often faced by individuals diagnosed with each condition.
According to Autistica, one in seven in the UK are autistic, equating to one million people, or approximately 14 per cent of the population. Around 680,000 people of working age represent themselves as having some form of autism.
Recent figures from Statistica show that there are approximately 333,800 legal professionals working in the UK, 212,500 solicitors and 34,600 barristers and judges, which suggests that the UK has approximately 30,000 solicitors and 5,000 barristers and judges with a form of neurodiversity.
The true number may not be known, due to undiagnosed neurodiverse individuals, misconceptions, and stereotyping of people with neurodivergent conditions, in addition to a lack of comprehensive empirical data collection within the legal profession.
It seems that collection of data, particularly in relation to neurodiversity, is still at its infancy stage. However, organisations such as the Law Society and the Bar Council incorporate questions about disability in their diversity and inclusion surveys and Neurodiversikey has also recently undertaken a survey in an attempt to understand the experiences of neurodiverse lawyers. Of the 257 who responded to their survey, 75 per cent said they have not disclosed their condition to employers to avoid discrimination and there was a widespread belief that the legal sector is not inclusive.
Another potential barrier to data collection is a reluctance on the part of some neurodiverse people to represent themselves as such to potential or actual employers, perhaps out of concern of stereotyping or fear of adverse consequences.
Indeed, a 2023 Birkbeck, University of London study identified stark barriers to neurodivergent employees disclosing their conditions to employers: 65 per cent of employees feared discrimination from management; 55 per cent feared discrimination from colleagues, and 40 per cent said that knowledgeable staff are not available to help.
There is a perception that there has been a recent rise in discrimination against those who are neurodivergent. Almost half of those surveyed by Neurodiversikey reported experiencing discrimination in relation to their neurotype in legal education and training.
Admittedly, there seems to have been an increase in Employment Tribunal claims citing neurodiversity discrimination; from 70 cases in 2020 to over 100 cases in 2023, with significant damages awarded to neurodiverse claimants gaining media attention.
However, while this is disheartening, I am not sure that the increase in Tribunal claims is purely because such discrimination is increasing. It is preferable to think – and hope – that the increase is in fact an indication that there is a greater awareness of neurodiversity generally, with individuals being willing to discuss neurodiversity openly. The increased media attention will hopefully raise awareness and have a deterrent effect.
RECOGNISING AND SUPPORTING NEURODIVERSITY
Neurodivergent individuals might face barriers in the workplace that can have a negative impact on the individual. These barriers could be anything from lack of understanding to adhering to inflexible rules.
Recognising and supporting this diversity is important to the entire legal sector. If these barriers are not addressed, the legal profession and employers are potentially missing out on neurodiverse talent.
Around 40 per cent of respondents to the Neurodiversikey survey reported a lack of reasonable adjustments, both in training and in the workplace. So, what can employers and chambers do to ensure that neurodiverse lawyers can participate fully in all aspects of their careers?
CONSCIOUS EVENT AND INTERVIEW PLANNING
Some neurodivergent people find social events, particularly formal occasions such as networking events and interviews, difficult at times and anxiety-inducing.
For example, when invited for an interview, a neurodiverse interviewee might find it difficult to navigate the right balance between informality and professionalism.
However, this might be something that the neurodiverse can recognise, or be helped to recognise, in order to develop coping mechanisms. Employers and chambers should also be aware of these difficulties and take steps to minimise or remove obstacles to ensure that neurodiverse individuals feel able to pursue a career in law.
For example, ‘neuro-inclusive’ events might include: designated quiet spaces; advanced circulation of information such as interview questions, venue maps, accessibility information or guest lists; clear and varied communications using accessible fonts; the incorporation of alternative participation methods (such as private messaging during Q+A sessions or pre-submission of questions); awareness and reduction of sensory stimuli (such as loud background music or bright colours); and specifically asking for feedback from the perspective of neurodiverse attendees.
Chambers and employers should further develop awareness and understanding of neurodiversity and how they can offer support throughout the careers of neurodiverse individuals.
OBTAINING A DIAGNOSIS
Neurodivergent individuals do not need a formal diagnosis or to have disclosed any formal diagnosis to be protected against discrimination. However, an assessment can be a means to understand what, if any, support a person might need to access. Unfortunately, however, this is not necessarily an easy, quick or inexpensive process, with high demand on the NHS and diagnoses from the private healthcare sector often costly.
In a positive move from which the Bar could draw inspiration, The Telegraph recently reported that law firm Norton Rose Fulbright is partnering with external consultants to provide assessments, support and advice to their lawyers who may have neurological conditions, highlighting that law firms are increasingly recognising neurodiversity within their organisation.
This also acknowledges the demands on the NHS in providing assessments and diagnoses to people who believe that they may have neurological conditions.
OPEN DISCUSSION
There are many neurodiverse individuals at the top of the legal profession. In my view, senior lawyers play a key role in opening up the discussion on neurodiversity within the profession, which can only bring about a positive result.
The more open and candid lawyers are about their own neurodiversity, the more likely that existing or aspiring lawyers will perceive the legal profession as inclusive.
Chambers and employers should also encourage open dialogue with their own members or employees. An open discussion between junior lawyers, employers and peers would increase awareness, knowledge and understanding. Neurodivergent lawyers might understandably feel apprehensive about speaking candidly about their diagnosis or seeking help. However, there are a number of support networks available to them at the Bar, such as ‘Neurodiversity in Law’, which exists to champion neurodiverse talent and support neurodiverse barristers at all stages of their careers.
DEVELOPING AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING
There is an increasing volume of information and practical resources available from organisations such as the Law Society, the Bar Council, individual law firms and sets of barristers’ chambers. Neurodiverse lawyers could also be asked to provide feedback to chambers and employers about how they can feel more supported.
STRIKING A MORE POSITIVE NOTE
The legal profession – from those with neurodiverse characteristics, to those that want to understand more about neurodiversity and tap into the talent pool –needs to continue to be open to, talk about, advocate for, and support neurodiversity in all its forms.
The legal profession has, in keeping with society in general, made great strides in the last few years in its celebration of neurodivergence, achieving wider and more meaningful diversity and inclusion. Organisations such as the Law Society, the Bar Council, Neurodiversikey, Neurodiversity in Law, the established legal press, conference providers, and lawyers on social media, are increasingly vocal in promoting neurodiversity and inclusion within the legal profession.
At the same time, whether or not they perceive themselves as having a ‘disability’, neurodivergent individuals who desire a legal career are putting themselves forward and seeking support. It is sometimes hard for a neurodivergent person to step out of their comfort zone in this way, so this should be applauded and supported.
Although there is some work left to do, firms and chambers are beginning to tap into neurodiverse potential and are increasingly mindful of the adjustments that they should make to ensure that neurodiverse lawyers can thrive. I am optimistic that neurodiverse lawyers will feel more able than ever to enter the legal profession and achieve success. The profession will be all the richer for it.
For further information about Neurodiversity:
Autistica – Autism research and campaigning autistica.org.uk
The Buckland Review of Autism Employment: Report and recommendations gov.uk/government/publications/the-bucklandreview-of-autism-employment-report-andrecommendations/the-buckland-review-of-autismemployment-report-and-recommendations
Neurodiversity: How To Improve Your Events & Conferences For Neurodiverse Participants accliverpool.com/resources/ neurodiversity-how-to-improve-your-eventsconferences-for-neurodiverse-participants
65% of neurodivergent employees fear discrimination despite UK businesses promoting neurodiverse workplaces — Birkbeck, University of London bbk.ac.uk/news/neurodivergent-employeesfear-discrimination-despite-uk-businessespromoting-neurodiverse-workplaces
Law Gazette lawgazette.co.uk/news/neurodivergent-lawyers-letdown-across-legal-sector-finds-survey/5119543.article
Kevin Athow General Counsel BSH Home Appliances Ltd
A PAIR OF ROYAL DISHES INTRODUCTION
By Master Michael Lawson
Over the years the Yearbook has featured articles relating to individual items in the Inn’s silver collection. This year our expert, Richard Parsons, writes about a pair of beautiful silver-gilt dishes hallmarked 1813, engraved in the centre with the Royal cipher of Queen Charlotte and the Garter badge of the Prince of Wales, later George IV, with whom she acted as Regent during her husband George III’s illness. I was curious to know why they came into our possession. The catalogue entry reads simply “Presented by Mrs Hansell 1926”. Bench Table records indicate that the entry is accurate. The then-Treasurer reported that the Inn had received a gift of plate from the wife of a Bencher and would write to her “expressing the thanks of the Bench for her gift” Why might the wife of a Bencher make a gift of what was almost certainly her own property? That question started me on a fascinating trail which sadly provided no definite answers. I am most grateful to Celia Pilkington, the Inn’s archivist, for her help and suggestions.
First, her husband: (Edward) William Hansell, born 1857, the eldest son of an Anglican priest, was called to the Bar by The Inner Temple in 1880. He was described in an obituary as a “versatile and distinguished lawyer”, which seems justified. He specialised in both bankruptcy and ecclesiastical law. He worked alongside Vaughan Williams on the latter’s textbook Bankruptcy Practice, later becoming the principal editor. From 1905–27 he acted as standing counsel in bankruptcy matters to the Board of Trade before his appointment as an official Referee in 1927, the same year that he took silk. He served in that capacity until his retirement in 1931.
On the ecclesiastical side, he was first appointed Chancellor of the Diocese of Oxford in 1912, thereafter serving in that capacity in other Dioceses, including in 1920–21 that of Gloucester and Birmingham. He was knighted in the New Year’s Honours list of 1930 and, having been elected a Bencher of the Inn in 1912, became Treasurer in 1933. He died in 1937. His wife’s gift to the Inn does not coincide with any event in her husband’s career.
Why might the wife of a Bencher make a gift of what was almost certainly her own property? That question started me on a fascinating trail which sadly provided no definite answers.
Interestingly, two further elements of his life came to light in my research – first, he contributed a story to Lord Halifax’s Ghost Book, a collection of stories of haunted houses, published in 1936 but now only available in second-hand editions. The story was called The Butler in the Corridor. It appears to have been given to the author some years earlier.
The second was that he had some considerable correspondence with the third Bishop of Birmingham, a mathematician and scientist called Ernest William Barnes whose first career was as a mathematics lecturer and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. In 1903, he was also ordained and soon built himself a reputation for outspoken and provocative teaching. He left Trinity in 1915 and was installed that year as the Master of the Temple but resigned in 1919. He was then a Canon of Westminster before being consecrated as Bishop of Birmingham in 1924, where his Episcopy was marked by continuous controversy. He was an ardent pacifist and argued in favour of voluntary sterilisation as a means of overcoming the prevalence of ‘mental deficiency’ in society. His scientific approach to Christian dogma also brought him into open conflict with Bishops and Archbishops alike. One wonders what discussions Sir William Hansell KC had in his correspondence with the former Master of the Temple.
William Hansell married Edith Mary Maude Ommanney in 1886 and had a son, Miles, who followed his father into law and was called by The Inner Temple in 1910 but died eight years later. He is not recorded in the Inn’s list of those Inner Templars who served and died in the Great War and there is no other evidence that he had signed up. Celia Pilkington reminded me that there was a pandemic of Spanish Flu which came to England in April that year, and he died in July. No records exist which explain why she made such a generous gift, but one can imagine that it may have been, simply, in memory of their son.
How did the dishes come into Edith Mary Maude Hensall’s possession? Again, I have no definitive answer despite many riveting hours spent studying her family – the Ommanneys. Her branch was a family steeped in British naval history over several generations. Her great grandfather Cornthwaite was a Rear Admiral; her grandfather Sir Francis was a navy agent and MP who had seven sons and three daughters. Two of those sons became Admirals – Sir John Acworth and Sir Henry Manaton; her father Sir Erasmus Ommanney (the seventh of eight sons) also became an Admiral and was recognised as an explorer and scientist by the Royal, the Royal Geographical and the Royal Astronomical Societies, to all of which he was elected a Fellow.
His career was, by any standards, extraordinary. He joined the navy aged 12, serving under his uncle, the then-Captain John Ackworth Ommanney. By the time he was 13 he had been involved in the Battle of Navarino during the Greek War of Independence in 1827. He passed his naval examination in 1833 and was commissioned. Thereafter he was involved in rescuing several whaling ships trapped in the ice in Baffin Bay, receiving an Admiralty commendation; protecting British subjects in Morocco during French hostilities against Tangiers; providing relief measures during the Irish Famine; and, in 1850, he was chosen as second-in-command to search for a missing naval explorer, Sir John Franklin. In the course of that expedition, they were able to survey the coast of Prince of Wales Island and Beechey Island and were able to confirm that Franklin had overwintered in that area of the Northwest Passage. During the Crimean War he commanded a small squadron in the White Sea, blockading Archangel and carrying out aggressive operations against Russian gun boats and shore positions.
He had somehow managed to find time to marry in February 1844, but his wife died 13 years later. They had one son, who also joined the Royal Navy before taking holy orders. In 1862 he married again, and Edith Mary was a product of that union (born 1863 in Gibraltar, the daughter of Samuel Smith of HM Dockyard, Malta).
He retired from the navy in 1875 with the rank of Vice Admiral but was promoted to Admiral two years later. He had been appointed a Knight of the Order of the Bath in 1867 and, in 1902, he was appointed Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath by the new King, Edward VII, aboard the royal yacht off Cowes during the Coronation Celebrations. He died in 1904.
What an insight into Victorian naval life his career provides, but it is through Edith Mary’s uncles that we get closest to anything connected to the name ‘Queen Charlotte’. Both John Ackworth and Henry Manaton Ommaney served in the naval vessel HMS Queen Charlotte, a 100 gun first rate ship of the line launched at Chatham in April 1790 in the early days of their careers; Henry in 1794 when it was Admiral of the Fleet Lord Howe’s Flagship, and John a year later, when it was involved in the ‘Battle of the Glorious First of June’ against the French ship Montagne.
Were the dishes, crafted in 1813, given to Mrs Hansell’s father, Sir Erasmus, in recognition of his illustrious career, or did he buy them later when he saw them for sale, as a sentimental reminder of his uncles’ naval service under Queen Charlotte and service in the ship named after her?
Were the dishes, crafted in 1813, given to Mrs Hansell’s father, Sir Erasmus, in recognition of his illustrious career, or did he buy them later when he saw them for sale, as a sentimental reminder of his uncles’ naval service under Queen.
Why was she prepared to give away a part of her family’s history, when she had two surviving children? Neither Richard Parsons nor I have been able to answer the questions that arise from such a generous gift from a Bencher’s wife, itself an unusual event. We will never know. We must simply enjoy them and be grateful.
The pair of silver gilt dishes to be considered in this article (Figure 1) were used for many years as rosewater dishes in Hall, being passed around between diner to diner at the end of formal meals for a symbolic washing of hands. It could well have been the intention of the donor, Mrs Hansell, that they should be used for this purpose, when she gave the dishes to the Inn in 1926.
As with many pieces of antique silver found in The Inner Temple collection, the dishes reveal factual information from which some conclusions can be drawn. The heavy silver gilt pair bear the maker’s mark of William Pitts (WP in an oval) and the London hallmarks (Figure 2) with the date letter S for 1813–14 stamped under the bases. Unlike today, when the date letter changes at the start of the year, at the time that the dishes were made the date letter changed in May near St Dunstan’s Day, so they could have been made in either 1813 or 1814 (in fact, to be totally accurate, originally it was St Dunstan’s Day [19 May] that the Court of the Goldsmiths’ Company met to make the mark changes until the Restoration [1660], when it became the 29 May; this continued until 1975 when the date of changes conformed to the annual calendar on 1 January).
Unlike today, when the date letter changes at the start of the year, at the time that the dishes were made the date letter changed in May near St Dunstan’s Day, so they could have been made in either 1813 or 1814.
William Pitts was a member of the very talented family of silversmiths, chasers and model makers who worked both independently and in conjunction with Royal Goldsmiths and Jewellers, Rundell, Bridge and Rundell, and the renowned silversmith Paul Storr. Chasing work is evident in the dishes described as having scalloped edges that are decorated with spiral fluting alternating with various kinds of shells in relief, their diameter is 10.3/4 inches and the pair weigh 66.6 troy ounces.
Figure 1: The Pair of Silver Gilt Dishes
It is the engraving of two badges on the dish fronts in their wells that reveals the royal association (Figure 3). On the left is the monogrammed initials “CR” beneath a crown and on the right is a ducal garter badge. At the time the dishes were made, the royal family’s affairs were conducted under a joint Regency of George III’s wife, Queen Charlotte, and their eldest son, who became George IV – therefore, we have the initials for the Queen, Charlotte Regina, and the badge of the Prince of Wales.
As part of the research into this article I have consulted my copy of E Alfred Jones’s very fine catalogue of The Gold and Silver of Windsor Castle, published in 1911. Page 217 has an entry, Twelve Circular Fruit Dishes, Silver Gilt, where eight of the dishes are described as for the above dishes with the London date letter for 1812–13 and the maker’s mark of WP in an oval shield for William Pitts, their diameter also being 10.1/2 inches. These dishes are recorded as being engraved only with the badge of George IV as the Prince of Wales but would seem to be en suite with the pair of Inner Temple dishes. There are other examples in the catalogue of silver gilt being engraved with joint badges of Queen Charlotte and the Prince of Wales.
So, what might have happened to the dishes and why were they not catalogued at Windsor in 1911? They might well have been in the household property of the Queen when she died on 17 November 1818, having been the longest female Consort to a king of 57 years and having given birth to 15 children, 13 of whom survived to adulthood. She died at Kew Palace and, on the day before her death, she dictated her will where the furnishings and fixtures at the royal residence at Frogmore, along with “live and dead stock … on the estates”, were bequeathed to her daughter Augusta Sophia along with the Frogmore property. The remainder of her assets, including her books, linen, art objects and china, were to be evenly divided among her surviving daughters. Finally, the residual property was sold at auction from May to August 1819, where her clothes, furniture, and even her snuff were sold by Christie’s.
From this wide distribution it seems impossible to say how the dishes came to be in the possession of Mrs Hansell. There are no dealer’s stock numbers scratched on the bases, so it is unlikely that they were retailed and were more likely to have been either acquired at auction or by inheritance, again HMS Queen Charlotte comes to mind as perhaps having a part to play in this story.
There are no dealer’s stock numbers scratched on the bases, so it is unlikely that they were retailed and were more likely to have been either acquired at auction or by inheritance.
Whatever the reasons, these dishes are most attractive, they exhibit fine craftsmanship, have a delightful colour of lemon gilding, have a good weight and a most interesting royal association. They also sit well in any display of fine silver having been publicly displayed in the exhibition of Historic Plate in the City of London in 1951.
Nicholas Holford baptised on 3 December 2023 with parents Thea and Robert Holford, and brothers Alexander and Maximilian
Florence Williams and Edward Smith married on 2 March 2024
Cecilia Emma Jane Prandzioch baptised on 1 October 2023
MARKING TIME: MY FAMILY AND I
A book review by Master Rebecca Bailey-Harris
Sir Mathew Thorpe’s latest book is divided into two parts, at first glance seemingly distinct. The first is a record of his ancestors, the families of his four grandparents. The second part is Mathew’s autobiography – a long and colourful life of considerable distinction. A close reading of this book reveals the subtle connections between its component parts. The legacy of his ancestors has coloured aspects of Mathew’s own interests and achievements.
The first part is the history of four families. Mathew presents the reader with an extensive dramatis personae which paints a vivid picture of life and society in England and far beyond from the early 18th century onwards.
Of the Thorpe family, Mathew’s grandfather Captain John Somerled Thorpe fought in the Boer and First World wars and was killed in 1916. Mathew was particularly fond of his great uncle Gervase, a colourful character who spent many years in India and whose book recording the shooting of game there is as vivid as it is shocking to the modern reader.
The Meade family hailed originally from Ireland and then Ulster. John Meade, the First Earl, married one of the greatest Irish heiresses, but the fortune was squandered. Richard, the Second Earl, died at the age of 39, but his short life was significant for the time he spent in Vienna, where he married Countess Maria Carolina Thun. She died in childbirth in 1800. Her mother was a patroness of Mozart, who often performed music in her house. The Third Earl, another Richard, was described by Chateaubriand as “at the head of the London dandies”. In the diplomatic service he attended the Congress of Vienna and was described by a contemporary as being “as handsome at 70 as when Lawrence painted him 40 years before”.
Members of the Lambert family sought their fortunes in India and were successful in business enterprises there and in London. William (1836–1907) was engaged in the suppression of the Indian mutiny and in the Kaffir and Zulu wars in South Africa. Mathew’s grandfather, Colonel Arthur Lambert, served in the Dardanelles, writing letters in which he described one of the most dramatic theatres of the Great War. He was killed by a Turkish bullet and lies in the Gaza war cemetery, a particular poignancy in current times.
Of the Donaldson family, Mathew characterises Sir George as “a prodigy”. “Good looking, vain, self-important”, he nevertheless had “great flair” as a cultured man fluent in French and Italian. Sir George made his mark as a renowned collector and dealer, his special fields of interest being musical instruments, paintings, and furniture and decoration. His public spirit led to honours in Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, France, and England. Sir George’s collection of musical instruments was unequalled in Europe. The collection was gifted to the Royal College of Music and the State Opening of the Museum took place on 2 May 1894. Sir George gifted to the College the manuscript of Mozart’s Piano Concerto No 24 K 491 – “arguably the most important music manuscript in the UK”. As to art, he gifted Goya’s outstanding portrait of Doctor Peral to the National Gallery, and sold them Titian’s portrait of the poet Ariosto, at cost.
What themes can be traced from this rich ancestry into Mathew’s own life? I discerned the following: a love of shooting, an attachment to Vienna and Austria, interest in India, and more generally a marked internationalism. The reader may find other themes after perusing the second part of the book.
Mathew was born in 1938, when the “state of the nation was febrile as the threat of war with Hitler overhung”: the bombing of Petworth in September 1942 was a well-publicised disaster. Mathew gives a vivid account of stays in his childhood with Granny Thorpe at the beautiful Coombelands Estate. Mathew went as a boarder to Stowe in 1952: the house was dilapidated, and the magnificent grounds were in varying states of decay. Mathew was drawn to the study of history but “Classics was the only proper study for clever boys”. He sat the entrance examination for Balliol College, Oxford and was offered a place. The admissions tutor was as impressed by Mathew’s history paper as by his Latin. However, “for practical reasons” he chose to read law, “a subject in which Balliol excelled”.
Mathew’s account of his legal education at Oxford from 1957 is sparse because he was not attracted to the study of law as an academic discipline. The chapter on Oxford focuses instead on outings to Ascot and Goodwood, dinners at the Bell at Aston Clinton, parties given by “all the faster young ones”, shooting and poaching “under the wide Otmoor skies” and the decadence of the Annandale dining club. Mathew’s ‘Waterloo’ was the Honours School of Jurisprudence in 1960, receiving a third class degree. Following Oxford, Mathew and his friend Robert Douglas-Miller spent an interlude in India, using their connections with the “princely class” (including maharajas) to embark on game hunting and hopefully to bring back antique European weapons. They found “a sporting tradition on the point of extinction”, but Mathew was left with an affection for India and Indians. A less fortunate legacy was tuberculosis, which slowly incubated for four years and required Mathew’s hospitalisation for nine months.
Colonel Arthur Lambert, 1915 Cecilia Meade, Granny Thorpe, by Sir John Lavery
Sir George Donaldson by Anthony Frederick Augustus Sandys, 1878
Mathew’s self-awareness is telling: “Only when I moved from the study of law to the practice of advocacy did I become engaged and inspired.” After pupillage at 1 Mitre Court, he was taken on in 1962, initially earning paltry fees. This chamber ‘married’ Joseph Jackson’s set from Paper Buildings in 1969, a development of significance. In 1967, Mathew married Vina and in due course, Gervase, Al, and Marcus were born (to whom this book is dedicated). Life at Seend Green House was rich and varied; a major achievement was the restoration of the walled garden. Mathew continued his passion for horse racing and betting in partnership with David Oldrey and they owned racehorses from 1963 onwards. Breeding followed: the Seend Stud operated for 16 golden years until a long and painful process of liquidation set in.
Family law practice changed greatly with the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Mathew recounts that “a rejuvenated Family Division burgeoned on what was labelled ancillary relief litigation and I was perfectly placed to feature in the front rank”. He took silk in 1980, and thereafter was “at the zenith as an advocate”. The following eight years were “the exciting years of my prime, one high profile case following another”. These included Jagger, Guinness, Lady Radnor and the Contesse de Dampierre. Particularly engaging is Mathew’s account of a case in Hong Kong in which his client dispensed with his services and acted in person, it having been discovered that she had a Chinese cohabitant whom she subsequently murdered, dismembered, and buried in the garden. Mathew’s greatest public responsibility in silk was as counsel to the Cleveland Enquiry into Child Sexual Abuse from 1987.
Mathew’s appointment to the Family Division in 1988 marked a great change, not only in profession but in personal life. His marriage with Vina ended, Beech House was purchased and he married Carola. “Suddenly, I took on responsibility to the State.” Perceptively, Mathew observes that as a judge “I needed profounder understanding of human behaviour and psychology”. But he did not confine himself to the judicial function. Judicial activism, in striving to improve the quality of justice, was a radical departure from tradition. Mathew’s significant contributions of longstanding significance were to the Dartington conferences, the Ancillary Relief Working Party, and above all, to international family justice. The Court of Appeal followed from 1995 to 2013. In due course, as presider “my court became the principal vehicle for the carriage of family business”. But wider horizons beckoned. Mathew became the first Head of International Family Justice in 2005. He rightly regards his rich and varied experience “in creating a new field of judicial practice and in advancing British interests and standards across the world”. The final chapter of Mathew’s autobiography is tinged with sadness: disappointment at not been given, after retirement from the bench, the work in ADR which his talent merited. But the final page of his autobiography is joyful. Mathew announces his engagement to Aleksandra, whom readers of A Divided Heart will know. We readers wish them every happiness for the future.
Rebecca Bailey-Harris 1 Hare Court
Available from the author at thorpe@1hc.com at £25 p&p included or at £20 collected from 1 Hare Court
Sir Mathew Thorpe’s latest book is divided into two parts, at first glance seemingly distinct. The first is a record of his ancestors, the families of his four grandparents. The second part is Mathew’s autobiography – a long and colourful life of considerable distinction.
Elizabethan with foal
Master Thorpe taking silk, 1980
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL JOURNEY THROUGH TIME: THE LANDSCAPE OF INNER TEMPLE
By the Archives Researcher
In the heart of London, beneath the bustling streets and modern buildings, lies a rich tapestry of history waiting to be discovered. The archaeological searches between 1997 and 2023 at The Inner Temple were prompted by necessary planning approvals for new construction. They offer a fascinating glimpse into the city’s historical evolution, revealing treasures from every period of our country’s history.
British architect Ptolemy Dean, who designed our Millennium column in Church Court, aptly describes the searches as a “privileged glimpse” of what lies quietly beneath our feet in modern-day London.
ANCIENT LAND
Exploring the deeper sedimentary levels of The Inner Temple is crucial for understanding its archaeological timeline. Originally, the topography featured a natural incline descending from Fleet Street in the north towards the Thames in the south. Over the centuries, this area has been terraced significantly, resulting in a pronounced slope that ends at the Victoria Embankment. Historically, the medieval waterfront lay approximately 40 metres south of the Treasury Building, and it is believed that the waterfront during the Middle Saxon period was situated just behind this medieval boundary.
A map of the Inn shows the original line of the Thames in the Saxon period. This was extended three times from the 16th century until the 19th century, pushing the Thames further away and providing the Temple with more land and garden.
Present-day structures are partially integrated into this slope, with the ground level in Church Court notably elevated. Soil composition studies have revealed remarkable signs of early human habitation. The earliest layer, dating back circa 56 million years, to the Paleogene period, was discovered in the Treasury Building’s lift pit, consisting of coarse natural gravel. This gravel is part of the site’s drift geology, the transportation of sediment which over time forms landscape, overlaying the bedrock of the London Clay Formation. This gravel layer was covered by ‘clayey silt’ (formed of silt and clay) from the Late Pleistocene to Early Holocene periods, circa 11,700 years ago, indicating the site was dry land suitable for habitation during that time.
PREHISTORIC OCCUPATION: MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC PERIODS
Archaeological evidence suggests intermittent human activity in central London during the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods (12,000–4,000 BC). Flint materials discovered at The Inner Temple, particularly those from the Thames, point to this era of prehistoric occupation. A modest collection of residual flint blades and narrow flakes from these periods was unearthed at Church Court and 2–3 Hare Court, and a Mesolithic flint axe was recovered from the River Fleet. While prehistoric artefacts are infrequently found in the immediate area, these discoveries provide valuable insights into early human activity in the region.
IRON AGE BURIAL: A GLIMPSE INTO PAGAN PRACTICES
A significant discovery at the site includes a skeleton, possibly dating back to the Iron Age (1,200–600 BC). The exact date remains uncertain, but the grave’s alignment and the presence of an iron object, likely a sword or spear, along with a copper alloy item, suggest a potential pagan burial.
ROMAN LEGACY: LONDINIUM’S WESTERN FRINGE
During the Roman era (AD 43–410) the Inner Temple site lay outside the Roman city of Londinium, and the Strand is believed to have replaced a Roman road that extended westward from Ludgate along the approximate route of Fleet Street. Remains from three Roman burials were discovered behind 4 King’s Bench Walk and human remains dating back to the Roman period were also found in Church Court (1999) and Hare Court (1999). Evidence of Roman burials has been found at nearby locations, including Shoe Lane and St Bride’s Church. At St Bride’s, a building with a tessellated pavement was initially interpreted as a mausoleum but later reinterpreted as part of a Roman cellared building.
Elizabethan Map
Serjeant’s Inn, Fleet Street
SAXON ERA: FROM CEMETERIES TO SETTLEMENTS
The Temple area lies outside the Saxon settlement of Lundenwic, which was centred on the Covent Garden and Strand area. Excavations at Church Court and Hare Court have revealed significant discoveries from the Middle Saxon era (AD 650–850) to the post-medieval period (AD 1500). These sites yielded stone traces from the prehistoric to the Roman eras, suggesting continuous activity.
Various Saxon discoveries have been made within the Inn’s estate. A sequence of medieval domestic Rubbish Pits dating from the early 11th century were discovered at 5 King’s Bench Walk and a Saxon burial was discovered in Hare Court. Additionally, a Saxon well was found, containing a variety of objects, including bone pins, copper alloy pins and pottery. Notably, the discovery of Saxon burials, including an inhumation with grave goods, provides valuable insights into Middle Saxon funerary practices in Lundenwic. The finds suggest a high-status occupation site, possibly indicating an important settlement area between Lundenwic and the speculated religious enclave at St Paul’s.
VIKING RAID: A HOARD OF SAXON COINS
One of the most intriguing finds at Hare Court was a hoard of over 250 Saxon coins dating to AD 841–842. These coins, now housed in the British Museum, were likely buried in response to a Viking raid. The coins came from various moneyers in the Midlands, Kent, Canterbury, East Anglia, and Wessex. This hoard provides a tangible connection to the Viking raids that plagued the region, including a documented raid on London in AD 842.
MEDIEVAL DISCOVERIES: THE KNIGHTS TEMPLAR AND BEYOND
In 1161, the land between Fleet Street and the Thames was acquired by the Knights Templar. They had previously built a round church in the first half of the 12th century in what is now Southampton Buildings off High Holborn. The church at the ‘New Temple’ was consecrated in 1185. In 1307, members of the Knights Templar were accused and charged with heresy. The order of the Knights Templar was suppressed by Pope Clement V in 1308 and the crown ordered an inventory of the Knights possessions in the New Temple. During the reign of Edward III, the Knights Hospitallers, or the Order of Knights of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem, were eventually granted the land of the Temple. They leased this land to students of the common laws of England, who have continued occupying the site to this very day.
Medieval archaeological remains have been found at a number of sites at the Temple. At 4 King’s Bench Walk, a tile kiln estimated to have out gone out of use between AD 1210–80 was unearthed. In 1878, building work at Child’s Place and 1–2 Fleet Street uncovered the remains of an undercroft with a large central pier, four arches made of greensand (a type of sandstone) and a floor lined with green and yellow glazed tiles. It is suggested that this was a building contemporary with the church, destroyed by Wat Tyler’s rebels during the Peasant’s Revolt in 1381. Several skeletons in five regular rows were found under the last house on the west side of the Middle Temple Lane, again dating back to the period of the Knights Templar.
Excavations in Hare Court have revealed a 12th century quarry pit and garden soil, suggesting that it was used as a garden until the 16th century.
POST-MEDIEVAL
In 1540, Henry VIII suppressed the Hospitallers in England during the dissolution of the monasteries, under the 1534 Act of Supremacy. The monarch disbanded Catholic monasteries in England. The Temple site was seized, church assets were disposed, and the policy sought to materially benefit the Crown. However, it continued to be leased to lawyers. Puritan lawyers removed all traces of Catholicism from the church by whitewashing the ceilings and columns. They also covered the tessellated pavement with manure before laying gravestones over the top to create a new floor, two feet above the original. In 1608, James I granted the freehold of the site to the Benchers of The Inner and Middle Temple. In 1666, the Great Fire of London destroyed much of the eastern part of the Inner Temple but stopped at the Temple Church and Church Court. Completely unprepared in battling with a fire of such magnitude, it was down to the people of the Inn to save its remains. The Duke of York offered his assistance alongside soldiers, sailors and four engineers, personally directing the operations. Middle Temple was left largely unscathed, save for the loss of the Lamb Building. However, large parts of Middle Temple would be affected by the Temple Fire of 1679 which broke out in Pump Court and spread to New Court.
Excavations around Church Court, Hare Court and the south side of the Temple Church have uncovered a large quantity of green-glazed Border ware pottery vessels and several 17th century skeletons of young people. Examination of their teeth revealed an unusually high incidence of decay, demonstrating a rich diet with large quantities of alcohol. Clothes and personal items were also discovered, indicating the wealth and high status of the Inn’s inhabitants.
WARTIME IMPACT: THE 20TH CENTURY
The Treasury Building suffered severe damage during the bombings of World War II and was reconstructed in the 1950s.
The Lamb Building’s basement, home to fire debris from the Blitz, highlights the site’s enduring archaeological significance. For example, remnants of the Temple Church’s former splendour were evidenced by decorated floor tiles and Purbeck marble fragments, which were discarded during the 1950s restoration efforts.
remnants of the Temple Church’s former splendour were evidenced by decorated floor tiles and Purbeck marble fragments.
A RICH HISTORICAL LWWEGACY
The archaeological search of The Inner Temple has uncovered a wealth of historical artefacts and structures, shedding light on London’s rich and diverse past. From prehistoric flint tools and Iron Age burials to Roman remains, Saxon cemeteries, and Viking treasures, each discovery adds a layer to the complex history of this iconic site. The Inner Temple stands as a testament to the enduring legacy of London’s historical evolution, offering a fascinating journey through time beneath the modern cityscape.
Maryam Khan Archives Researcher
Excavation of the lightwells at Hare Court
Temple Church after air raids, looking north from Church Court Burial of a juvenile, Skeleton, at Church Court The north aisle of the chancel from the nave taken after the bombing
Finds from the Well at Hare Court – Cristallo glass beaker base
The archaeological search of The Inner Temple has uncovered a wealth of historical artefacts and structures, shedding light on London’s rich and diverse past. From prehistoric flint tools and Iron Age burials to Roman remains, Saxon cemeteries, and Viking treasures, each discovery adds a layer to the complex history of this iconic site.
Medallion from Olympia dairy show 1938 showing the cow jumping over the moon
Finds from the Well at Hare Court
Nine Saxon coins from the hoard
The Inner Temple in the present day
BAR LIAISON COMMITTEE
NEW SILKS 2024
NEW MASTERS OF THE BENCH 2024–2025
MASTERS OF THE BENCH
The Honourable Society of the Inner Temple Masters of the Bench in Seniority Order Correct as of 1 August 2024
TREASURER 2024
The Hon Mr Justice Michael Soole (J)
ROYAL BENCHER
HRH The Princess Royal KG KT GCVO QSO (R)
READER 2024
Richard Salter KC (B)
READER ELECT 2024
Helen Davies KC (B)
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 KC (S)
The Rt Hon The Baroness Hallett DBE (U)
Simon Thorley 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 KC (B)
The Rt Hon Dame Elizabeth Gloster DBE (O)
The Rt Hon Lord Hughes of Ombersley (O)
Guy Fetherstonhaugh KC (B)
Her Honour Deborah Taylor (O)
Sir Robert Francis KC (O)
MASTERS OF THE BENCH
John Willmer KC (S)
The Rt Hon The Lord Woolf CH FBA (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 KC (U)
The Rt Hon the Lord Scott of Foscote (S)
Sir Allan Green KCB KC (U)
Sir Christopher Holland (U)
The Rt Hon the Lord Irvine of Lairg (S)
Her Honour Shirley Anwyl KC (S)
His Honour John Previte KC (U)
Richard Clegg KC (U)
Michael Lyndon-Stanford KC (U)
The Rt Hon Sir Jonathan Parker (S)
John Beveridge KC (U)
His Honour Humphrey LLoyd KC (U)
Sir Edward Cazalet (S)
The Rt Hon Sir Mathew Thorpe (U)
William Crowther KC (U)
Roger Henderson KC (U)
His Honour Anthony Thompson KC (S)
Ian Hunter KC (S)
Sir Peter North CBE DCL FBA KC (H)
Patrick Ground KC (B)
Professor Sir John Baker KC LLD FBA (H)
His Honour James Wadsworth KC (U)
Jules Sher KC (U)
Sir Michael Tugendhat (U)
John Crowley KC (S)
The Rt Hon Sir Stephen Sedley (U)
Her Excellency Dame Rosalyn
Higgins GBE KC JSD FBA (S)
Raymond Potter CB (S)
Sir Sydney Lipworth KC (H)
The Rt Hon Lord Sumption OBE (S)
Dame Elizabeth Slade DBE (S)
The Rt Rev and Rt Hon Lord Carey of Clifton (H)
Sir Ivan Lawrence KC (B)
James Goudie KC (S)
Christopher Lockhart-Mummery KC (S)
Sir David Steel (U)
Neil Kaplan CBE KC SC (HK) (S)
Paul Purnell KC (U)
His Honour Jonathan Playford KC (S)
Sir Thayne Forbes (S)
Sir Brian Jenkins GBE (H)
The Baroness Mallalieu KC (U)
Anthony Anderson KC (U)
Harry Turcan (S)
Gerald Angel (U)
The Rt Hon Sir Richard Buxton (U)
Professor Sir Royston Goode CBE KC FBA (H)
John Swift KC (U)
His Honour James Stewart KC (U)
The Rt Hon The Lord Howard CH KC (U)
His Honour Jeremy Roberts KC (S)
Sir David Clarke (U)
Sir Neil Butterfield (S)
His Honour Michael Lawson (O)
The Reverend Roger ter Haar KC (S)
Stephen Bickford-Smith (O)
Margaret Bickford-Smith KC (B)
The Rt Hon Sir Jeremy Sullivan (U)
The Rt Hon the Lord Wilson of Culworth (U)
Gerard Elias CBE KC (S)
The Rt Hon Sir Jack Beatson FBA (O)
Anthony Hacking KC (S)
Sir Hugh Bennett (S)
Dermod O’Brien KC (S)
The Rt Hon Sir Anthony Hooper (U)
Bruce Mauleverer KC (S)
His Honour Neil Butter CBE KC (S)
His Honour Duncan Matheson KC (U)
Her Honour Christian Bevington (S)
Caroline Willbourne (B)
Her Honour Judge Hughes KC (J)
Michael Sayers KC (U)
Sir Richard Henriques KC (S)
Martin Bowley KC (O)
The Honourable Justice Stephen Breyer (H)
The Honourable Justice Anthony Kennedy (H)
Thomas Shields KC (S)
Sir Mark Havelock-Allan Bt KC (O)
His Honour Simon Brown KC (U)
Jonathan Acton Davis KC (B)
Anthony Temple KC (O)
Sir Robert Owen KC (S)
Christopher Purchas KC (U)
Pamela Scriven KC (B)
Nicholas Padfield KC (S)
The Rt Hon Sir Patrick Elias (S)
Michael Shorrock KC (S)
Sir Gordon Langley (S)
Sir Christopher Pitchers (S)
Nigel Pascoe KC (S)
Her Excellency Judge Korner CMG KC (J)
Oliver Sells KC (B)
Kenneth Aylett (S)
Andrew Tidbury (S)
Sir Timothy Walker (U)
Nicholas Merriman KC (U)
Robin De Wilde KC (U)
Peter Birkett KC (O)
Robin Purchas KC (S)
Sir Geoffrey Nice KC (B)
Sir Frederick Crawford DL FR Eng (H)
Rt Hon The Baroness Deech DBE KC (Hon) (S)
Professor Sir Ian Kennedy KC FBA (H)
Sir Brian Keith KC (S)
Michael Spencer KC (B)
Victor Temple KC (S)
Sir Robert Akenhead (O)
Dame Caroline Swift DBE (S)
Justin Fenwick KC (B)
Kevin de Haan KC (S)
His Honour Jeffrey Burke KC (U)
Ian Glick 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 KC FRAeS (B)
Nicholas Davidson KC (B)
Rosamund Horwood-Smart KC (O)
Stuart Brown KC (S)
His Honour Judge Everall KC (O)
His Honour John Milford KC (U)
Stephen Solley KC (O)
The Hon Mr Justice Field (S)
Sir Hayden Phillips GCB DL (H)
His Honour Denis Orde (O)
Sir Jeffery Bowman FCA (H)
Justice Richard Goldstone (H)
His Honour Michael Fysh KC SC (S)
David Friedman KC (S)
Nicholas Stewart KC (S)
Timothy Raggatt KC (S)
Dame Laura Cox DBE (U)
The Rt Hon Lady Black DBE (J)
Sir Richard Gibbs KC (U)
The Rt Hon The Lord Collins of Mapesbury LLD FBA (S)
The Rt Hon The Baroness Clark of Calton KC (S)
George Staple CB KC (Hon) (H)
Michael de Navarro KC (S)
Godfrey Carey KC (S)
Rex Tedd KC (B)
His Honour Toby Hooper KC (O)
Sir Raymond Jack (U)
His Honour David Hodson (U)
His Honour Richard McGregor-Johnson (S)
Dr Pehr Gyllenhammar (H)
Sir Alan Wilkie (S)
Peter Joyce KC (S)
Christopher Moger KC (S)
The Hon Philip Havers KC (B)
His Honour Iain Hughes KC (U)
Tim Charlton 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 KC (B)
His Honour Owen Davies KC (O)
Charles George KC (U)
The Rt Hon the Lord Cullen of Whitekirk KT (H)
M Jean-Paul Costa (H)
His Honour Peter Collier KC (O)
Michael Redfern KC (S)
Robert Smith KC (S)
Andrew Trollope KC (B)
Iain Milligan KC (U)
Elizabeth-Anne Gumbel KC (B)
John Marrin KC (S)
Richard Drabble KC (S)
Gavin Kealey KC (S)
His Honour Gary Burrell KC (S)
The Rt Hon Sir Julian Flaux , Chancellor of the High Court (J)
Edward Fitzgerald CBE KC (S)
His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC (J)
The Rt Hon Lord Justice Green (J)
Sir Stuart Lipton (H)
Anthony Porten KC (U)
His Honour Nicholas Browne KC (S)
His Honour Jeffrey Pegden KC (O)
David Wilby KC (O)
The Hon Mr Justice Goss (S)
His Honour Judge Leonard KC (J)
The Hon Mrs Justice Alison Foster DBE (J)
Roger Stewart KC (B)
The Hon Mr Justice Ribeiro (H)
Professor Christopher Forsyth KC (Hon) (A)
Dr Mads Andenas KC (Hon) PhD MA DPhil (A)
Professor John Spencer CBE KC (A)
The Rt Rev and Rt Hon Dr the Lord Williams of Oystermouth (H)
Malcolm Bishop KC (B)
Gay Martin (O)
Philip Sapsford 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 (S)
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 KC (S)
Andrew Caldecott KC (B)
Jonathan Gaisman 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 CBE DL (H)
Sir Ian McKellen CH CBE (H)
David Spens 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 of Epsom (H)
The Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG (H)
Philip Mott KC (U)
Thomas Seymour (U)
David Streatfeild-James KC (B)
The Rt Hon Lord Justice Dingemans (J)
The Rt Hon The Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill DBE (J)
Dr Mary Malecka (S)
The Reverend and Valiant Master of the Temple (H)
Adrian Brunner KC (S)
Nicholas Asprey (S)
Augustus Ullstein KC (S)
John Ross KC (B)
Professor Michael Lerego KC (O)
Jeremy Storey KC (B)
James Turner KC (B)
The Hon Mrs Justice Lang DBE (J)
The Hon Justice Salihu Moddibo
Alfa Belgore (V)
His Honour Simon Davis (O)
The Hon Mrs Justice Arbuthnot (J)
His Excellency Kenneth Keith KBE KC (H)
Sir Wyn Williams (S)
The Rt Hon Lord Justice Moylan (J)
Robert Rhodes KC (B)
His Honour David Tyzack KC (S)
Patrick Upward KC (S)
His Honour Judge Melville KC (S)
Sally Smith KC (O)
His Honour Judge Jeremy Richardson KC (J)
Nigel Giffin KC (B)
The Hon Mr Justice Jonathan Swift (J)
Christopher Brougham KC (S)
Nicholas Atkinson KC (S)
Susanna FitzGerald KC (B)
Orlando Pownall KC (S)
The Rt Hon Lord Justice William Davis (J)
Richard Lissack KC (B)
Abbas Lakha KC (B)
Her Honour Frances Kirkham CBE (H)
The Rt Hon Lady Justice King DBE (J)
His Honour Ian Grainger (O)
Margaret Bowron KC (B)
His Honour Nigel Seed KC (J)
Charles Gibson KC (B)
The Rt Hon Lady Simler DBE (J)
Stuart Catchpole KC (B)
Iain Christie KC (O)
His Honour Giles Forrester (S)
His Honour Gregory Stone KC (S)
Patrick O’Connor KC (B)
James Corbett KC (B)
His Honour Judge Bayliss KC (J)
Steven Kay KC (B)
Sir David Green CB KC (B)
Peter Wright KC (B)
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 King’s Bench Division (J)
The Honourable Tan Sri Dato’
James Foong Cheng Yuen (V)
Guy Beringer KC CBE (H)
His Honour Nigel Lithman KC (J)
Her Honour Judge Hildyard KC (J)
Andrew Goodman (B)
Grahame Aldous KC (B)
Matthew Reeve KC (B)
The Hon Mr Justice Russell Coleman (V)
His Eminence Cardinal Vincent Nichols MA MEd STL (H)
Michael Humphries KC (B)
Her Honour Judge Levitt KC (J)
His Honour Stephen Oliver-Jones KC (S)
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)
Judge David Baragwanath KNZM KC (V)
The Rt Hon Lord Justice Peter Jackson (J)
Tracy Ayling KC (B)
The Hon Mr Justice Dove (J)
The Honourable Justice Iain Morley (V)
Dr Colin Ong KC (V)
The Rt Hon Lord Bonomy LLD (H)
Judge Koen Lenaerts (H)
His Honour Simon Tonking (O)
Paul Bleasdale KC (B)
Andrew Tait KC (B)
Simon O’Toole (B)
The Rt Hon Lord Justice Cobb (J)
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 (S)
The Rt Hon The Lord Maude of Horsham (O)
Michael Pooles KC (B)
The Hon Mr Justice Martin Spencer (J)
Her Honour Patricia Lynch KC (S)
Susan Jacklin (J)
Aftab Jafferjee KC (B)
Richard Barraclough KC (B)
Peter Village KC (B)
Ian Stern KC (B)
Raquel Agnello KC (B)
Professor the Worshipful Mark Hill KC (B)
Patricia Robertson KC (B)
Sam Stein 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 (B)
The Hon Mrs Justice Julia Dias (J)
The Hon Mrs Justice Finola O’Farrell DBE (J)
His Honour Judge Blair KC (J)
Alistair Schaff KC (B)
His Honour Judge Neil Clark (J)
Harry Matovu KC (B)
The Hon Mrs Justice Christina Lambert DBE (J)
Taryn Lee KC (B)
Philip Moser KC (B)
His Honour Judge Simon (J)
Alexander Hall Taylor KC (B)
Professor Cheryl Thomas KC (Hon) (A)
John Griffith-Jones (H)
Michael Payton KC (Hon) (H)
Libby Purves OBE (H)
Judge Paul Mahoney (V)
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon (H)
Nigel Aiken KC SC (V)
The Most Revd and Rt Hon Justin Welby (H)
His Honour Roger Thomas KC DL (O)
Michael Burrows KC (B)
Jonathan Laidlaw KC (B)
Rory Phillips KC (B)
The Hon Mr Justice M Griffiths (J)
Sir Richard Heaton KCB (U)
His Honour Judge Hiddleston (J)
Tim Lord KC (B)
Daniel Toledano KC (B)
Sarah Clarke KC (B)
The Hon Mr Justice Constable (J)
Dr Vanessa Davies (O)
The Rt Hon Lord Menzies (H)
The Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis (H)
Lyonpo Sonam Tobgye (H)
Philip Punwar (V)
Professor the Honourable
George Hampel AM KC (A)
His Excellency Elliott Belgrave
GCMG KA CHB KC (V)
The Hon Reginald Rhoda CBE (V)
Datuk Sulong Matjeraie (V)
Dame Alison Saunders DCB (B)
Ami Feder (B)
John Ryder KC (B)
Mark Wyeth KC (B)
Jeremy Hill-Baker (B)
Crispin Aylett KC (B)
Richard Humphreys KC (B)
Máirín Casey (O)
Eleanor Laws KC (B)
Martin Goudie KC (B)
Alastair Hodge (B)
Graham Chapman KC (B)
Desiree Artesi (B)
Fiona Jackson (B)
Andrew Cayley 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 (O)
Professor Spyridon Flogaitis (A)
Paul Infield (B)
Anne Richardson (B)
The Hon Simon Davenport KC (B)
Professor Leslie Thomas KC (B)
Sara Lawson KC (B)
Christopher Quinlan KC (B)
Camilla Bingham KC (B)
Anneliese Day KC (B)
Mr Scott Matthewson (B)
The Hon Mrs Justice Kelyn Bacon DBE (J)
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 (H)
The Honourable Justice Ann Ainslie-Wallace (A)
The Hon Mr Justice MacDonald (J)
Christopher Sharp KC (B)
His Honour Judge Tolson KC (J)
His Honour Judge Sloan KC (J)
His Honour Graham Robinson (J)
Thomas Kark KC (B)
Her Honour Judge Munro KC (J)
Her Honour Judge Gillian Matthews KC (J)
The Hon Ms Justice Ruth Henke (J)
The Rt Hon The Lord Wolfson Tredegar KC (B)
Paul Greaney KC (B)
Dr Catherine MacKenzie (O)
Kieron Beal KC (B)
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 KC (B)
Penelope Reed KC (B)
His Honour Judge Lucraft KC (J)
Ian Winter KC (B)
Adrian Keeling KC (B)
Deputy Senior District Judge Ikram CBE (J)
Her Honour Judge Evans-Gordon (J)
Andrew Warnock KC (B)
Thomas Mitcheson KC (B)
Harini Iyengar (B)
Minka Braun (B)
The Hon Mr Justice Butler (V)
Professor Iyiola Solanke (A)
Edward Chandler (H)
Fiona Gilmore (H)
His Highness Tunku Besar Seri
Menanti Negeri Sembilan (H)
The Rt Hon Sir David Lidington KCB CBE (H)
The Hon Mr Justice Williams (J)
The Hon Mr Justice Choudhury (J)
The Hon Mr Justice Julian Knowles (J)
Professor Nigel Lowe KC (Hon) (S)
His Honour Judge Simon Phillips KC (J)
Elizabeth McGrath KC (B)
Nicholas Griffin KC (B)
Cyrus Larizadeh KC (B)
Leigh-Ann Mulcahy KC (B)
Dr Annette Prandzioch (O)
Patrick Goodall KC (B)
Simon Baker KC (B)
Catherine Callaghan KC (B)
Peter Clark (B)
Faisel Sadiq (B)
Hui Ling McCarthy KC (B)
Kay Firth-Butterfield (V)
The Hon Mrs Justice Cutts DBE (J)
The Rt Hon Lady Dorrian (V)
Lawrence Teh (V)
Professor Thom Brooks (A)
Michael Stevenson (H)
The Rt Hon the Lord Fowler (H)
Miles Young (H)
The Hon Justice Faizah Jamaludin (V)
The Rt Hon The Baroness Buscombe (O)
His Honour Judge Townsend (J)
His Honour Judge Oliver (J)
Alix Beldam KC (Hon) (O)
His Honour Judge Menary KC (J)
Her Honour Judge Nicholls (J)
Lorna Meyer KC (B)
District Judge Foster (J)
Kyri Argyropoulos (B)
Dr Paul Brown KC (B)
Her Honour Judge Clemitson (J)
His Honour Judge Bird (J)
Upper Tribunal Judge Frances (J)
His Honour Judge Saxby KC (J)
Benjamin Myers KC (B)
Jason Sugarman KC (B)
John Kimbell KC (B)
His Honour Judge Petts (J)
Rhys Taylor (B)
Charles Bagot KC (B)
Carsten Zatschler (B)
Diya Sen Gupta KC (B)
Joseph Hart (B)
Elizabeth Fitzgerald (B)
Sonia Nolten KC (B)
Rehana Azib KC (B)
District Judge Prest KC (J)
Dr Tunde Okewale OBE (B)
Kathryn Arnot Drummond (B)
Justice Vinodh Coomaraswamy (V)
Professor James Goudkamp (A)
The Hon Alexander Downer AC (A)
Christopher Hayward (H)
The Rt Rev James Jones KBE (H)
Dr Nikki Lack (A)
Kannon Shanmugam (H)
The Hon Mrs Justice Eady DBE (J)
The Hon Mr Justice Andrew Henshaw (J)
Dr Adam Scott OBE TD (O)
Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs (J)
Martin Bowdery KC (B)
Andrew Oldland KC (B)
Teertha Gupta KC (B)
Simon Kealey KC (B)
Thomas Cosgrove KC (B)
His Honour Judge Sellers (J)
Kate Brunner KC (B)
Nicholas Craig KC (B)
Ruby Sayed (B)
James Kitching (B)
Craig Hassall KC (B)
District Judge Heptonstall (J)
Professor Rebecca Bailey-Harris (B)
Jonathan Rees KC (B)
Rebecca Dix (B)
Bibi Badejo (B)
Jonathan Bremner KC (B)
Upper Tribunal Judge Hirst (B)
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 AM SC (A)
The Reverend Mark Hatcher (H)
Elizabeth Howe OBE (H)
Thomas Leighton (H)
Her Honour Anne Molyneux MBE (H)
His Honour Thomas Teague KC (J)
Jonathan Waite KC (O)
The Hon Mr Justice Eyre (J)
Her Honour Judge Wigin (J)
Simon Mallett (B)
Karon Monaghan KC (B)
Barbara Mills KC (B)
Her Honour Judge Anupama Thompson (J)
Tom Weisselberg KC (B)
Her Honour Judge Leigh (J)
Zachary Bredemear (B)
David Temkin KC (B)
Richard Honey KC (B)
Joanne Cecil KC (B)
David Wood (B)
Christopher Bond (B)
Thea Wilson (B)
Saoirse Cowley (B)
The Honourable Justice Glenna
Thompson JSC (V)
Johanna Higgins (V)
Professor Judith Bourne Ph.D. (A)
Dr Augustus Casely-Hayford OBE (H)
Professor Norman Doe KC (Hon) (A)
Paul Manduca MoM (H)
Sir Kenneth Olisa OBE FRSA FBCS, HM Lord-Lieutenant of Greater London (H)
