The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019 by The Inner Temple

2020

YEARBOOK

2019

TREASURER

The Rt Hon Lord Hughes of Ombersley

The Rt Hon Dame Elizabeth Gloster DBE The first woman appointed as judge of the Commercial Court and as Judge in Charge of the Commercial Court; the first female Vice President of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division); and the first woman QC to be appointed as a judge of the Courts of Appeal of Jersey and Guernsey.

Sara Lawson QC The first female general counsel of the Serious Fraud Office.

The Rt Hon Lady Dorrian

The Rt Hon Lady Justice Simler DBE

The first woman to be appointed to Scotlandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s second highest judicial post as Lord Justice Clerk.

The first female President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

The Rt Hon Lady Black DBE

The Rt Hon the Baroness Butler-Sloss GBE

The second female judge of the Supreme Court and the first Inner Temple female judge of the Supreme Court.

The first female Lord Justice of Appeal, first female President of the Family Division and the first female Treasurer of The Inner Temple.

Dame Rosalyn Higgins GBE JSD FBA QC

Elizabeth Lane DBE

The Rt Hon Lady Justice Hallett DBE

The first female judge elected to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the first woman President of the ICJ.

The first woman appointed as a judge in the County Court, and the first female High Court judge in England.

The first woman to be appointed Vice President of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) and the first woman to chair the Bar Council.

The Rt Hon The Baroness Clark of Calton QC The first Advocate General for Scotland.

The Rt Hon Dame Victoria Sharp DBE The first female President of the Queenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Bench Division.

From the Editor’s Desk

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

FROM THE EDITOR’S DESK Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020 Treasurer: The Rt Hon Lord Hughes of Ombersley Reader: Guy Fetherstonhaugh QC Reader Elect: Her Honour Judge Deborah Taylor Sub-Treasurer: Greg Dorey CVO Treasury Office: Inner Temple, London EC4Y 7BS 020 7797 8250 yearbook@innertemple.org.uk innertemple.org.uk Master of the Yearbook: Simon O’Toole Editor: Emma Hynes Assistant Editor (Bar Liaison Committee): James Batten Assistant Editor: Henrietta Amodio Yearbook Manager: Nadia Ruiz Desk Editor: Carolyn Dodds Archivist: Celia Pilkington E&T Editorial Team: Julia Armfield, Daisy Mortimer Photographs: Garlinda Birkbeck, Chris Christodoulou, Paul Clark, MPP Image Creation, Inner Temple photograph archive, Tom Sawyer Effect Yearbook Design: Jon Ashby | Noun Ltd, 10 Kingshill Court, High Wycombe, Bucks HP13 5FN wearenoun.com

When the Director of the Treasury Office, Henrietta Amodio, asked me over lunch in Hall if I would edit the Yearbook, I may have said something crisp. But it is also possible that I was eating Inner Temple’s famous fish and chips and so merely chewed thoughtfully. There is no independent record of the exchange so we may never know. We do know that somehow, Henrietta flattered me into this and here we are. I have been involved with the Yearbook in various capacities from the very beginning of my time at the Bar. There have been some subtle – and some not so subtle – changes in the content, design and format. We even have a new suite of Pegasus logos to represent the Inn’s many branches and capacities. Despite the changes, the Yearbook is still – I hope – a showcase of the year that has been, as well as a worthy reflection of our Inn. Leafing through the pages, I wonder if we might fairly be accused with being obsessed with the theme of change. This year, we celebrate the role of Inner Temple in major milestones: 100 years of women at the Bar, the 70th anniversary of the Joint Amity Dinner for HM King George VI and HM Queen Elizabeth, and the passing of 150 years since Ghandi’s birth. We cannot help comparing the past with the present. However, as much as we reflect on the changes since those times – and it is vital we do so – many of the articles in this Yearbook communicate excitement for that which is to come: we are looking forward to our new premises when Project Pegasus is complete; looking forward to being the pre-eminent centre for advocacy training for students and practitioners alike; and looking forward to building greater access to and inclusivity at the Bar. It’s customary to thank the Inner Temple staff team at this point, but frankly, anything I can say would be inadequate to describe the incredible effort and heart each of them puts in to creating this beautiful book. It is astonishing how they manage it, alongside facilitating the Inn’s many functions. They do this without an iota of service interruption, all the while reminding me (repeatedly) where I am now supposed to go for our meetings and when my deadlines really are. It is a feat that must be experienced to be believed. I also thank James Batten of the Bar Liaison Committee, whose ability to spot major typographical errors just before print is breath-taking, and Simon O’Toole, Master of the Yearbook, whose thoughtful input was invaluable. I am fiercely proud of both this Yearbook and my Inn. I have enjoyed playing a very small part in putting it together. I hope you enjoy reading it.

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

Emma Hynes Hardwicke

Advertising: HTDL Ltd, 6 Ardent Court, William James Way Henley in Arden, Warwickshire, htdl.co.uk Printed by: John Good Limited, Progress House, Butlers Leap, Rugby CV21 3RQ, johngood.com This publication is wrapped in a 100% compostable bag, which can be disposed of both in home composting bins, or where accepted by authorities, in food waste recycling or green bins.

facebook.com/TheInnerTemple @TheInnerTemple

Daisy Mortimer, Nadia Ruiz, Julia Armﬁeld, Henrietta Amodio

CONTENTS

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

From the Editor

Contents

Emma Hynes I

Contents page

From the Treasurer

150th Anniversary of the Birth of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi A

John Williams Courtesy of The Pioneer

The Rt Hon Lord Hughes of Ombersley I

One Year On 6

Sub-Treasurer T

The Big Decant

A Day in the Life of a Bencher

8 10

Master Artesi C

Celebrate the Lives

125 Year Anniversary of the Foundation of the Bar Council T

Celebrate the Life: Master Turner

James M Turner QC T

Master Hallett

100 Years of Women in Law: Dr Ivy Williams T

Valedictory: Master Sumption

Lord Grabiner QC 16

Dr Caroline Morris TC

Hope for Our Prisons

Peter Clarke CVO OBE QPM

The Inner and Middle Temple Joint Amity Dinner, 1949 A

Assistant Archivist

The Bar Liaison Committee and its Circuit Representatives T

Zachary Bredemear TC

Brexit

The Rt Hon The Lord Judge T

A Day in the Life of a Bencher

Master Fiona Jackson

100 Years of Women in Law Theodora Llewelyn Davies T

William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke: “The Greatest Knight In The World”

Master Spearing

A Renaissance Interrupted?

Prosecuting and Defending in International Courts 32

Master Cayley

Dr Vanja Hamzić

Western Circuit Women’s Forum T

Kate Brunner QC and Caighli Taylor

The Council of the Inns of Court

READER’S LECTURE SERIES RL

56 57

READER’S LECTURE SERIES

Brexit and the Irish Bar

Paul McGarry SC I

In Memoriam

Exposing the Self-Evident as Fallacious T

Allan Hennessy 2

Deputy Librarian COIC

Wellbeing at the Inn

“Without Libraries what have we? We have no past and no future” L

Master of the Temple T

The Hon Mr Justice Mostyn

Jane Wynne Wilson TC

Celebrate the Life: Master Singer C

63 64

Contents

Education & Training

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

READER’S LECTURE SERIES RL

The Law of the Land

130

Master Scruton

Library Facilities and Services

Pegasus Scholars

75th Anniversary of the D-Day Landings

108

WW1

Celebrate the Life: Master Glass History Society Review

109

Review of The Role of Circuit Courts in the Formation of United States Law in the Early Republic

The Great Garden Manifesto

134

Weddings and Baptisms at the Temple Church

110

112

Valedictory: Master Birkett

News from the Temple Church Choir Celebrate the Life: Master McGrath

The History and Role of Law Officers

142

Master Buckland A

Timeline

147

Bar Liaison Committee

150

New Benchers

152

Masters of the Bench in Seniority

154

People Finder

158

Committees

160

114

117

Director of Music C

140

Archivist

Richard Pratt QC TC

137

READER’S LECTURE SERIES RL

Master Peter Jackson T

The Pegasus Salts

Master Michael Lawson and Richard Parsons TC

Archivist T

132

David Jefferys QC A

The Summer Party

Head Gardner

Master Stephen Brown C

118

Hugh Rennie QC and New Zealand Law Society T

Temple Big Picnic

120

My Life of Crime

122

Master Lawrence A

The Inns Inside the Wire

126

KEY I

Assistant Archivist

T C A L TC E PS RL G

Master Endicott

E COIC

129

WWI

Celebrate the Life: Master Gardner C

INNER TEMPLE INFORMATION TREASURY CELEBRATE THE LIFE ARCHIVES LIBRARY TEMPLE CHURCH EDUCATION & TRAINING PEGASUS SCHOLARS READER'S LECTURE SERIES GARDEN ESTATES COIC WORLD WAR I

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

From the Treasurer

FROM THE TREASURER By Master Treasurer A Treasurer’s year is quickly come and soon gone. The regular rhythm is a good illustration of both the Inn’s capacity to adjust to constantly changing conditions and its timeless continuity of purpose. Its purposes remain as they ever have been. We are here to provide an association of advocates and former advocates (many of them judges) to ensure a continued supply of properly instructed new entrants to the profession, to keep up the remarkably high standards which make the legal system of England and Wales function as a world leader, to offer accommodation and ancillary support services such as the library to working members, and to foster the collegiality and interdependence which is so striking a hallmark of a profession of mostly self-employed sole practitioners and increasing numbers of employed barristers. As we all know, all those purposes interlock. Collegiality, for example, makes a major contribution to the members of the profession knowing each other and their work, and thus to the maintenance of standards.

“ Collegiality, for example, makes a major contribution to the members of the profession knowing each other and their work”

The Rt Hon Lord Hughes of Ombersley © Birbeck

Securing the future of a high-quality intake of new entrants frequently requires quite large adjustments. At the end of last year, Bench Table revisited the 2015 decision to develop the Treasury Building (Project Pegasus), now significantly redesigned, in part greatly to reduce the loss of library space. It approved it by a large (and larger) majority. By the time voting closed, it was known that the City Planning Committee had refused our application to house the Hall and offices in a temporary pavilion in the garden during the construction work. That was deeply disappointing, but the eventuality had been planned for. By the end of the Hilary term, just four months later, the Inn had, with considerable nimbleness on the part of its very dedicated staff, made alternative arrangements and the work began, as scheduled, after Easter. The library has reopened temporarily at the foot of Fetter Lane in what no longer looks at all like the office block it really is. The larger educational functions have been rehoused in King’s College London, whose support has been most welcome. The offices have been relocated in Mitre Court and King’s Bench Walk. Special arrangements have been made with our catering contractors, Searcys, designed to maximise the opportunities for those for whom we temporarily have no work to obtain alternative positions and to have the option to return. None of the Inn’s major events has been cancelled; all are taking place in a number of high-quality alternative venues. The construction work is scheduled to last for two years. The outcome will be state-of-the-art lecture and teaching facilities to sit alongside the library; these are essential in the 21st century. Our educational work will be co-ordinated by Professor Cheryl Thomas, who we are very gratified to have persuaded to act as our Dean, working alongside the educational staff and the Inn members who give so much time to the Education and Training Committee and the Qualifying Sessions sub-committee.

From the Treasurer

“ Our aim continues to be to make the profession accessible to all suitably talented would-be advocates, whatever their background.” Similar footwork has been displayed by the four Inns in combination through the Inns of Court College of Advocacy in confronting the cost and structural problems of the current Bar Professional Training Course. By next year, an alternative pilot scheme will begin to become available, which will demonstrate that there are other models of course possible. For reasons of competition law, the Inns cannot themselves run the new course, but they can and will house it and make it possible. I very much hope that this initiative will in time do something to reduce the burdens which have come to stand in the path of an aspiring advocate – burdens which those of us who were called many years ago never had to face. Meanwhile, the Inn continues to increase its scholarship awards each year and will this year award no less than £1.8m, the largest of all the Inns. Our aim continues to be to make the profession accessible to all suitably talented would-be advocates, whatever their background. The new ICCA course could only have been put in place with the approval of the Bar Standards Board, which has been given. This is another example of response to changed conditions in delivering our ancient purpose of maintaining the standards of the profession. Regulation is a fact of modern life. We need to recognise that it is put in place with the public interest in mind, and that selfregulation within any profession is not now an option. The Inns need to work closely with the Bar Standards Board to take advantage of the perspective offered by outside eyes, and at the same time to demonstrate that no regulation of a complex profession can ever be effective unless informed by the deep understanding of its workings, which comes only from a lifetime of practical exercise of it.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

These days, an increasing number of members, both practitioners and students, are based outside London. I am keen that the Inn should provide comparable support to them as it does to those in London, without duplicating the vital work of the Circuits. We are making particular efforts to provide qualifying sessions outside London. The Inn has special arrangements for the election of Benchers from the circuits, as it has for those at the Employed Bar. Inner Temple remains an ever-active and ever-stimulating place. It has been a great privilege to watch its members in ever more varied action. From the many social events, for guests, for legal academics from an enormous number of universities and for students, via lectures and discussions of the highest quality organised by the Reader and by others under the elastic but critical title of ‘Social Context of the Law’, to moots, debates and the imaginative but friendly Shakespeare competition in the marquee in July, all have paid tribute to the collegiality of the Inn. Those who were privileged to attend the Amity Dinner with Middle Temple will have been as impressed as I was by the breadth of knowledge and interest shown for our affairs by one of our Royal Benchers, HRH Master The Princess Royal. So, whilst the ancient purposes of the Inn remain the same, the need for constant adjustment is ever with us. The Inn will be very fortunate to have its future in the hands of its incoming Treasurer, Master Guy Fetherstonhaugh, and to know that he will be succeeded in due time by Master Deborah Taylor and Master Robert Francis. The Rt Hon Lord Hughes of Ombersley

Other parts of our core purposes are on the move also. We are confident that we offer as good, indeed better, qualifying sessions as are obtainable anywhere. They are possible only through the unstinting efforts of volunteer members and Benchers who manage to combine their practices with teaching. New topics are brought within the range of such sessions. There is increasing concern now about health and wellbeing in a stressful profession; the Inn has responded by commencing a series of talks and discussions on this subject as part of our Qualifying Sessions programme.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

One Year On

ONE YEAR ON By the Sub-Treasurer

“ ‘When you wake up in the morning, Pooh,’ said Piglet at last, ‘what’s the first thing you say to yourself?’ ‘What’s for breakfast?’ said Pooh. ‘What do you say, Piglet?’ ‘I say, I wonder what’s going to happen exciting today?’ said Piglet. Pooh nodded thoughtfully. ‘It’s the same thing,’ he said.” Winnie-the-Pooh

A.A. Milne

Looking back on my ﬁrst year as Inner Temple’s SubTreasurer, I can confirm that it’s been an enjoyable and even exciting time. Never a dull day, in fact. It has been a great pleasure to feel myself part of the Inn’s vibrant community. I began work here at Easter 2018 and my life at the Inn has so far been sandwiched by Project Pegasus. Since I discover frequently that not all of our members know what this is, forgive me for reminding you that it is the two-year project to refurbish our Treasury building and redevelop part of it into a 21st century, state-of-the-art education and training facility to meet our future needs. On my second day after my handover, I was served with the papers applying for a Judicial Review of the relevant planning permission (the Inn was the Interested Party) – I thought I’d been agreeing to a courtesy call! And, as I write this article, we have just received the go-ahead from the City of London on the discharge of conditions relating to the planning permission. In layman’s terms, we can begin the real construction work. This project has been at least nine years in evolution and not without controversy. (I believe that’s called litotes, for the classicists among you.) The job of the Inn’s staff has been to provide all the necessary information in a form suitable to allow decisions to be taken on the way ahead in a structured, sensible and collegiate way. I believe that we met this remit appropriately, resulting in a clear-cut decision by a very sizeable majority last December that Project Pegasus would be implemented. This democratic outcome, fully in line with the Inn’s governance framework, has been accepted by almost everyone who has taken an interest. The sadness has been that a planning application for temporary structures in the Inner Temple Garden and car park in which we could have carried on almost all our activities at the heart of the Inn was rejected by the City of London. As a result, our excellent and loyal Searcys catering team has been largely dispersed during construction work. We have every hope and intention of reassembling them for our reopening. And our temporary Library is outside the Inn, albeit just a stone’s throw away, instead of on the premises.

Greg Dorey CVO

The existence of Project Pegasus has not in any way diminished the typical workload of the Sub-Treasurer and staff of the Inn. In almost every other way (we are less flexible than usual over last-minute, unplanned initiatives) it has been business as usual. I find to my slight surprise that Inner Temple typically runs 650 events of different shapes and sizes over a two-year period and none of those have been cancelled – though it has involved much hard graft to place them in alternative, suitable venues. Our Education and Training events are mostly being held in King’s College London, with a few in the Law Society, and many of our collegiate events are taking place in prestigious central London venues such as Livery Company Halls – our Grand Day in Exile will take place in the Fishmongers’ Hall. (I will shun the joke about it being a gorgeous plaice.) We have erected the usual summer marquee to ensure a few events are held at the physical heart of the Inn, in our wonderful Garden, and we are also making a little more use of Temple Church. A virtue is being made of a necessity by engaging in more outreach – not just to potential new members from nontraditional backgrounds, where Inner Temple has been leading the way for a decade, but to our existing members on circuit. Many more events – both educational and social/networking – are being planned outside London (and we hope to continue this in the longer term). I started last year to visit the circuits and intend to do much more of this now Project Pegasus is well underway. I like to think too that I have helped inject into the International Committee a more analytical approach to our official overseas visits programme, with a greater focus on objectives and benefit to the Inn. I shall accompany Master Treasurer this year to Mauritius, Singapore and Malaysia – where we have large groups of alumni – and to Washington to engage with the American Inns of Court during their Celebration of Excellence. The latter is becoming something of an annual pilgrimage – I accompanied Master Gloster as my first Treasurer on a very useful visit to the same event last year, together with the Temple Church Choir, when we were able to stay with one Sir Kim Darroch (whose name has since become even more prominent).

One Year On

It has been a revelation in this time learning to understand Inner Temple’s governance structures. I was used to hierarchical pyramids, from my previous civil service career, but an inverted pyramid with a 340-odd strong equivalent of a board of management at the top was a novelty. Somehow it works – as the vote on Project Pegasus demonstrated. Someone has been kind enough to say that my bureaucratic management ability has been a good combination with the skills and experience of barristers, who are for the most part differently wired to civil servants. The diplomacy has certainly come in useful. It pays to be well-prepared prior to a Bench Table or Executive Committee meeting and to expect the unexpected. I have been extremely impressed, though, by the willingness of senior members of the Inn to spend time on the many committees which oversee the vital business of Inner Temple, as well as on the day-to-day business such as Education and Training – all pro bono and with enthusiasm. I could mention many positive examples I have witnessed but coming 24th this year in the entire country in the Social Mobility Index is powerful evidence that we must be getting something right in terms of our outreach to nontraditional educational institutions and sectors of society. The range of work I find myself dealing with is extraordinarily varied – membership services, events planning, property management, finances, gardening, catering, security, IT, archives, library management, education and training, church matters and so on – from the sublime to the occasionally ridiculous. Rereading Rumpole before I took up the reins helped, but I should probably also have refreshed my knowledge of The Barchester Chronicles. Thankfully, I inherited a high-performing team of Inn staff to help me navigate these choppy waters and I have seen some impressive recent appointments during my time so far as SubTreasurer. One long-overdue innovation has been to bring in a dedicated Human Resources Manager – most organisations do this when they reach around 50 employees (and we have 75 directly employed and had – at the end of 2018 – as many indirectly employed staff). This will enable us to meet modern best practice in performance management (such as ensuring all of our staff receive annual appraisals) and ensure that the risks associated with employing staff are mitigated – so that when things go wrong, as they occasionally do even in the best-run organisations, the Inn is seen as a good employer.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

That also fits in with Inner Temple’s unofficial sobriquet of being the ‘Progressive Inn’ – used not only by ourselves, but sometimes by members of other Inns. Outreach and the Social Mobility Index are part of it, and so was achieving a Silver Award in Mind’s Workplace Wellbeing Index 2018–2019 – which means we are making an impact when it comes to addressing mental health in our workplace. It meant flying the Rainbow Flag this year and last, and being the only Inn represented at the 2019 London Pride March. It means having set up an Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity Sub-Committee to ensure these matters are addressed head on, not as added extras. It meant creating and recruiting a Dean of Education (Master Cheryl Thomas) – the only one at an Inn of Court so far. And it means giving a lead on wellness issues, having an active Master of Wellbeing (Master Spearing) in place; having hosted and organised two Wellness in Law conferences in my time; and making good use of the Garden to promote wellness. Things I didn’t anticipate in my first year: • Being murdered luridly on screen so a ‘Who killed the Sub-Treasurer’ competition could be held at the staff Christmas party; • Finding myself singing “I am the very model of a modern British diplomat” at Cumberland Lodge; • Being dragged onstage unexpectedly by a Pharaonic Master Hodge, during A Night at the Musicals in our summer marquee, to represent a bewildered Joseph; • Ten minutes’ warning that I was delivering a partly French reading at the start of D-Day Evensong in Temple Church; • Spending more time than I should have dreamed possible in determining what format of the Pegasus coat of arms, logo and brand is appropriate in different circumstances.

As I started by commenting, never a dull day….

One excitement in my first year has been the arrival of the daily email with the menu for lunch in Hall, currently suspended while Project Pegasus is underway. The quality of the catering at Inner Temple is so good I sometimes think we take it for granted and it is an important element of collegiate life here. By spring 2021, we plan to be back to normal, including the excitement of the daily menu. In the meantime, a side benefit of Project Pegasus is that the ‘Inner Temple stone’ is fast falling off me. (I wish.) Greg Dorey CVO Sub-Treasurer

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

The Big Decant

THE BIG DECANT Packing up the Treasury Building 23 April–23 May 2019

The challenge of

Queen Anne

athan Packing up SirsuJroner 1837 Pollock, Trea Inner Tem pl home at ethSteinway in its ne w e Razumov sky Acadtemporary emy

nne ate A n e e Qu in her cr safely

Dismantling the chandeliers

Touching up damaged gilding 8

Removing Gibbons wthe Grinling oodcarvin g

Treasury

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2020

Fire Jud g the Care Crossing Park

Grinliningg d e k c a P ons carv Gibb Readersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Shields

ked and c a p s g n i Paint for storage ready

Consolida frame damtaing g e

Nadia Ruiz and Delbert Brooks clearing out the rubbish

ooks

P Pegas reparing th us for e Remov al

the b Removing

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

A Day in the Life of a Bencher

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF A BENCHER By Master Artesi

Desiree Artesi

T It is 8.30 am. I am in chambers and my clerk telephones to say that Bridget* has arrived. I had interviewed Bridget for Trinity Call and at the time was struck by her potential, in the same way a teacher can look at a student and know that they will go on to do well. She sadly failed one of her examinations. So, I am meeting Bridget to give her some encouragement in the same way that others had done for me at different times throughout my career. One of the most fulfilling roles of being a Bencher is interacting with the students – the prospective pupils and barristers of tomorrow. It is extremely rewarding and you get far more back than you ever give of your time.

“ Another pleasure of being a Bencher is the work I undertake together with my fellow Benchers to ensure the smooth running of the Inn. The Inner Temple is truly at the forefront of driving equity and change, and it is a pleasure and honour to get to be part of that process.” Tonight is the hugely anticipated Call Night. At the last minute, I am asked, “Master Artesi, would you mind calling two more students on behalf of Master X?” It takes me a while to realise

that I am Master Artesi. I must say it takes some getting used to! I am always delighted to. We, the Benchers, process into the church in order of seniority. I lurk at the back with Master Jackson, my partner in crime, but as the years go by we notice that the number of people behind us keep growing. Why, only yesterday, we were the baby Benchers! When did this happen? For me, one of the highlights of the ceremony is when we meet our callees in pre-arranged places. I am humbled, time and again, by the young prospective barristers who are the first in their family to come to the Bar. I meet their proud parents, siblings and partners who have all helped them on their journey. The pride reflected in their faces is a beauty to behold; a priceless moment. I return from court to chambers and sit down to read the papers for a Bencher Nomination Committee meeting. There are over 400 pages; I sigh but manage to get through it all whilst munching my lunch (yes, at 3.30 pm). The meeting is at 5.30 pm and I leave to arrive in good time. Another pleasure of being a Bencher is the work I undertake together with my fellow Benchers to ensure the smooth running of the Inn. The Inner Temple is truly at the forefront of driving equity and change, and it is a pleasure and honour to be part of that process. Daydreaming over, Call Night begins. As I sit in the church pew waiting for my turn, I hear Bridget’s name being called. She beams with pride at me. Her smile says it all. “I made it, Master Artesi.” Desiree Artesi Thomas More Chambers

*Name anonymised.

Domestic Removals

Commercial Removals

Library Specialists

UK & European Service

International Shipping

Containerised Storage

Antiques and Fine Art

Crate Hire

Piano Removals

Building 345 • Heyford Park • Upper Heyford • Bicester • OX25 5HA Tel: 01869 233 777 • Fax: 01869 233 427 email: sales@jamiebriggs.co.uk • www.jamiebriggs.co.uk

Proud partner of the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple Meticulous and motivated, we are the secure commercial cleaning® experts. For almost 30 years we’ve been passionate about providing professional cleaning services to some of the most prestigious organisations in the London area. Our focus is clear: to support facilities directors and managers in delivering a spotless and secure environment at the beginning of, and throughout, the working day. “Julius Rutherfoord & Co has been our cleaning partner since March 2012 and was reappointed following a re-tender in 2017. They are diligent and responsive and the team is an integral part of our operation” - Director of Properties The Honourable Society of the Inner Temple

www.juliusrutherfoord.co.uk

sales@juliusrutherfoord.co.uk

020 7819 6700

The Tramshed, 12 Ingate Place London SW8 3NS

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Celebrate the Lives

CELEBRATE THE LIVES MASTER WILLIAMSON Stephen Williamson QC sadly died on Wednesday 24 July 2019. The Inn’s flag was flown at half-mast on Friday 26 July in his memory. Master Williamson was called to the Bar in 1964. He was appointed silk in 1981 and a Deputy High Court Judge in 1994. He practised from No 6, Leeds (now Park Square Barristers) and was leader of the North Eastern Circuit. Master Williamson was elected as a Governing Bencher in 1990 and was Treasurer of the Inn in 2007. Master Williamson

MASTER GLOVER William Glover QC sadly died on Monday 11 March 2019. The flag was flown at halfmast on Friday 29 March in his memory. Master Glover served with the Royal African Frontier Force in Wester Africa and Burma from 1944-1947. Called to the Bar in 1950 and becoming a QC in 1969, he was elected as a Bencher in 1977. He served as a Recorder of the Crown Court from 1975-1991.

Master Glover

MASTER DRINKWATER Sir John Drinkwater QC sadly died on Tuesday 13 August 2019. The Inn’s flag was flown at half-mast on Tuesday 20 August in his memory. Master Drinkwater served in the Royal Navy during and after the War, latterly as Flag Lieutenant to the First Sea Lord. He was called to the Bar in 1957. After joining Chambers at 2 Harcourt, he rapidly became one of the leading practitioners at the Planning Bar and in Parliament, taking silk only 15 years after his call. He also had a distinguished record of public service, serving as a Boundary Commissioner, Income Tax Commissioner, director of the British Airports Authority and as a Recorder. He was elected a Bencher of the Inn in 1979 and knighted in 1988. Master Drinkwater

MASTER MADDISON Sir David Maddison sadly died on Saturday 29 June 2019. The Inn’s flag was flown at half-mast on Tuesday 2 July, in his memory. Master Maddison was called to the Bar by Inner Temple in 1970 and elected as a Bencher in 2005. He was appointed a Recorder in 1990 and a Circuit Judge in 1992. He served as a member of the Parole Board from 1996 to 2002. In 2003 he was appointed a Senior Circuit Judge, and as Honorary Recorder of Manchester and Resident Judge for Manchester Crown Court that same year. Master Maddison served in those roles until his appointment to the High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) in 2008. During his time at the High Court, he served as Judicial Member to the Crown Court Rule Committee in 2009 and Director of Criminal Training for the Judicial Studies Board in 2010. On his retirement from the bench in 2013, Master Maddison continued to sit on an ad hoc basis. He made a significant contribution to the Inn by speaking at various education and training events, proposing students for Call and chairing the annual Liverpool John Moores University and Inner Temple debate over a number of years.

Master Maddison

Treasury

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

125th ANNIVERSARY OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF ENGLAND AND WALES A speech delivered by Master Hallett to mark the 125th anniversary of the foundation of the Bar Council of England and Wales on 9 July 2019 at the Guildhall. Master Hallett was the first woman to chair the Bar Council in 1988, and was Lady Justice of Appeal, 2005–2019.

It was one of the proudest moments of my professional life when I became Chairman of the Bar of England and Wales in 1998 and I was therefore delighted to be invited to speak at this celebration of 125 years of the Bar Council’s existence. I understand that 125 years may not seem a lot here in the Guildhall, but they have been important years for the survival of the Bar and the legal system as we know it: a system respected throughout the world (if not at home) for its integrity and excellence. I do not need to remind this audience of the central role that the legal system plays not only in promoting the rule of law and social justice but also in the health of UK plc. The Bar Council has played a prominent role in representing the interests of its members and, most importantly, the public interest to politicians, the media and the public both at home and abroad. It can claim some of the credit for the results of the City UK report of 2018 from which I give three short quotations: “The UK’s legal services sector is one of the country’s great success stories…” “It is an enabling sector that provides a framework of law and certainty that supports all industries throughout the country and the financial services industry in particular…” “Legal services are an integral part of the financial and related professional services ecosystem that makes the UK the world’s leading international financial centre.” I emphasise the words “framework of law and certainty” because it is that framework that makes the UK the premier destination for businesses to resolve international commercial disputes and encourages foreign investors and business men and women to invest and do business here in the UK. Thus, the interests of the UK, the interests of the City and the interests of the Bar go hand in hand. That is one of the reasons that when we were faced with the possibility of the abolition of the QC system in 2003/4, we enlisted the support of the City in persuading the then Lord Chancellor, that the QC system was worth preserving – not just because of its importance to the domestic market but in bringing international legal business to the UK.

T Lady Justice Hallett © Birkbeck

Keeping the QC system is just one of the many battles the Bar Council has faced over the years. I use the word battles advisedly because despite the importance of the justice system to the country and a healthy democracy, the Ministry of Justice is not a protected department. It has been targeted for swingeing cuts in its budget over the years, cuts that some argue threaten the rule of law. The rule of law is oft mentioned but, I suspect, little understood. It is taken for granted here in the UK. When the Bar Council has voiced its concerns about possible threats, many respond with the cry “Oh that’s just the fat cat lawyers trying to protect their own” as opposed to analysing the issues and reaching a considered opinion. I shall name but a few of the battles the Bar Council has fought, and I accept at the outset not always successfully. But at least it has presented a comprehensive and well-argued analysis of the issues and, if their analysis proves correct, it maintains pressure on those in power to make further changes: FIRST: THE FIGHT TO DEFEND THE PRACTICE OF LAW AS A PROFESSION. Providing legal services is not as simple as selling baked beans – as one politician once remarked. It is about providing a service to the consumer (or client as I prefer to call them) but it is also about providing a service to the public. Lawyers owe a duty to the court over and above their duty to their client. The two may not always go hand in hand. If lawyers forget their primary duty to the court, it is the public ultimately who will suffer. 13

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

125th Anniversary of The Bar Council of England and Wales

The Bar Council has done its best to promote the professionalism of the Bar over the years. In 1997, when I was Vice Chairman of the Bar, for example, with others, we tried to persuade the then Government that introducing conditional fees – no win no fee agreements – was unnecessary, unwise, risked undermining the professionalism of the lawyer and would create a compensation culture. Some barristers may have believed we were not acting in their best financial interests, but we felt we were acting in the best interests of the profession and the public as a whole. In my view, lawyers should be independent objective advisers and advocates without a financial interest in the outcome of litigation. That battle was lost but at least the Bar Council expressed its legitimate concerns forcefully and in the right quarters and continues to explore ways in which the system can be improved and make recommendations. It is vital therefore that when issues like this arise, the profession is represented and regulated by a professional body that understands and promotes the ethics of a profession and can warn of the dangers.

THIRD: PROMOTING UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROLE OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM, ITS IMPORTANCE TO A HEALTHY DEMOCRACY AND THE IMPORTANCE OF ITS INDEPENDENCE.

SECOND: THE FIGHT TO PRESERVE ACCESS TO JUSTICE. Access to justice means so much more than providing courts that are open for business and staffed by independent judges. It means ensuring that alleged crimes are prosecuted and defended, and family and civil disputes resolved in an effective, fair and efficient manner. The judges cannot do that alone. They depend on an independent legal profession to present cases. Yet the role of the legal profession has been consistently undermined.

It is not for me as a judge to try to dictate to the Government how it should prioritise spending. But some commentators give as an example of the undermining and underestimating of the role of the lawyer the decision of the Conservative– Lib Dem coalition Government to try to save £350 million by drastically cutting the availability of public funding for litigation and effectively removing lawyers from large swathes of litigation. The Bar Council warned of the impact on access to justice in considerable detail. Yet the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) was enacted. Unfortunately, most of the consequences foreshadowed by the Bar Council have arisen. The impact has been dramatic and there is every reason to question just how much money has been saved and at what cost. In the courts, for example, we have seen a significant increase in litigants in person. These are individuals, often the most vulnerable in society and at their lowest ebb, who may have a legitimate claim but do not know how to advance it in a court of law. Judges do their best to assist litigants in person but there is only so much they can do if the judge is to remain an independent referee and to do justice to both parties. Many agree with Lord Falconer (former Lord Chancellor) that the real victims of the cuts imposed were not so much the lawyers as the vulnerable people they represent.

The Bar Council has supported many initiatives designed to promote the legal system and the public interest. They include: 1. Providing pro bono services in courts and tribunals for those who cannot get legal aid. 2. Working with schools, universities, communities and in particular those from disadvantaged backgrounds in the hope this will encourage people whatever their race, gender or background to consider a career in the law and to understand better the legal system. 3. Working with politicians and legal commentators, alerting them to and briefing them on issues relating to justice. 4. Providing advice, speakers and trainers at events designed to assist other countries in developing their own legal systems. 5. Promoting law reform.

FOURTH: THE LEGAL SERVICES ACT 2007. In 2006, the Government decided to introduce the Legal Services Bill to reform the regulation of the legal profession. The Bill had many critics but many of the concerns voiced by the Bar Council and other professional bodies were reflected in amendments made to it. Since the enactment of the Legal Services Act 2007, the professional bodies have done their best to make it work so that the public interest is best served. For those unfamiliar with the LSA, it established a new system of regulation for the legal profession; the Legal Services Board was appointed to oversee the front-line regulators such as the Bar Council. It was intended to be a light touch system of regulation and may not seem a very significant development to some present today – but any encroachment by government on the regulation of the legal profession is significant, even if well intentioned. If the process is taken too far it may well impact upon the status of the legal profession here and worldwide. FIFTH: HIGHLIGHTING THREATS TO THE INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY AND LEGAL PROFESSIONS HERE AND ABROAD. The Bar Council has frequently highlighted the plight of lawyers and judges abroad who are subjected to improper pressure from their governments and have provided assistance when requested. In this country, it was the Bar Council who were most vocal in the support of the judiciary when, after the judgment in the Brexit appeal was published the headline appeared calling the judges “enemies of the people”. Judges are not delicate flowers who need protecting from legitimate criticism but, when judges simply do their job and apply the law, they should not be subjected to that kind of abuse. If sustained, it will erode public confidence in the legal system and ultimately impact on the independence of the judiciary.

Treasury

I am not sure where, on the scale of abuse, to put the description given of the judiciary by Giles Coren recently in The Times. I quote: “Can’t mock the legal system?… Of course we can. It’s a medieval closed shop of boss-eyed virgins from Oxford and Cambridge without the wit or imagination to make a proper contribution, who go into the law because it is the closest thing they can find to staying at school and doing more exams, and are now twisting themselves into knots, trying to get more black people and women involved because they know if they don’t, they are going to be shut down altogether and have to go and work in Foxtons.” Boss-eyed virgins? There are a number of factual inaccuracies in that statement but that gives you some idea of the battle we face in improving our image and why the judiciary needs the support of bodies such as the Bar Council, which understand the culminative effect of misplaced criticism. I conclude by identifying a few of the challenges for the Bar Council ahead: 1. Ensuring access to justice and a fully functioning justice system. If the Act that dramatically reduced the availability of public funding for litigation (LASPO) is not going to be repealed, we should be exploring new ways to provide representation for the most vulnerable in their civil and family claims and persuading government that the criminal justice system should not be allowed to perish. I have long promoted the advantages of a Contingency Legal Aid Fund as one possible way of providing funding for meritorious civil cases but, so far, the project has stalled – probably for lack of capital to establish it. Having seen that the funding of litigation can be profitable, maybe the City of London could consider what support it could give to the establishment of such a fund? The City has a legitimate interest because one cannot assume that cuts to public funding of litigation will only affect the vulnerable individuals and the lawyers who represent them – ultimately the undermining of any part of the justice system will undermine the whole of the justice system. With it there will be an undermining of the promotion of the UK as a place of stability and where the rule of law flourishes. If you read the Secret Barrister and think “Goodness, the criminal justice system sounds in a parlous state but that won’t affect me or my business…” my advice is think again. 2. Continuing to promote the rule of law here and abroad and improving the image of the legal profession. The Bar Council has always had a major job on its hands to reform its image. In 1998, fed up with the fat cats slur, I offered the editor of a national newspaper the chance to look at my accounts to see what I earned as a publicly funded barrister. He declined. Yet, the image of fat-cat lawyers out to serve their own interests prevails. I have never understood why a British success story comes in for so much criticism and abuse. The privately paid lawyers contribute to the commercial success of the country and the publicly funded lawyers contribute to the maintenance of law and order and the resolution of disputes between individuals of very limited means. Our judges are known for their integrity and quality. I understand that Lord Falconer has admitted that the New Labour Government’s attack on fat-cat lawyers was misplaced.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

“ Ultimately the undermining of any part of the justice system will undermine the whole of the justice system. With it there will be an undermining of the promotion of the UK as a place of stability and where the rule of law flourishes.” A refusal to listen to the justified concerns of the professional bodies on the false basis they are self-interested may lead to further so-called ‘reform’ that in fact undermines the rule of law and/or a failure to enact proposals from the Bar Council for law reform that would support the rule of law. 3. Continuing to promote the legal services market abroad. The Bar Council has always been at the forefront of promoting the British legal services market and is working closely with other interested parties to promote English law as the favoured currency of international contracts. Given our withdrawal from the European Union, that work has become increasingly important. 4. Maintaining professionalism and high standards amongst barristers. As I have indicated, there are those who see the practice of law as a trade and not a profession and do not see the value of having professional bodies to represent and regulate them. They are mistaken. Without a powerful professional body, it is all too easy for standards to slip. The LSB has proposed changes to the internal governance rules of the professional bodies, which may not sound a very sexy topic but the Bar Council believes the implications could be serious. I make no judgment here on whether they are correct. But the Bar Council and the Law Society must fight to ensure that any changes made do not undermine their role as strong professional bodies. 5. Improving diversity. I have a particular interest in promoting diversity as Chair of the Diversity Committee of the Judges’ Council. We will not have a more diverse judiciary if the profession itself from which we select the judges is not diverse. The Bar Council has done a huge amount of work on improving diversity in the hundred years since the enactment of the Sex Disqualification (Removal Act) 1919. It was the first professional body or among the first professional bodies to have an Equality and Diversity Code. But there is still work to be done: 1. In developing a proper work/family life balance throughout society so that we retain those with caring responsibilities in the profession. 2. In eradicating sexual harassment and discrimination 3. In promoting equal opportunity amongst women, BAME lawyers and those from a non-traditional background. We now have a system whereby all but the privileged few qualify as a lawyer with a huge amount of debt. We must find ways of reducing that debt and encouraging the social mobility of my generation.

In summary, therefore, there has never been a more important time to have an overarching professional body such as the Bar Council. A body that fights to maintain standards and integrity both here and abroad and that has a voice that can be heard. In my view, and I hope in yours, not only must we cherish the legal system, but we must cherish the Bar Council too if it is to continue the excellent work of the last 125 years. It needs your support. Occasions such as this show the commitment of the City to the profession of law in this country. Dame Heather Hallett DBE 15

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

100 Years of Women in Law: Dr Ivy Williams

100 YEARS OF WOMEN IN LAW DR IVY WILLIAMS

Ivy Williams was admitted to the Inner Temple on 26 January 1920. By Dr Caroline Morris Dr Ivy Williams occupies a special place in the world of women, firsts and law. On 10 May 1922, she became the first woman to be called to the Bar of England and Wales. Her Call Night at Inner Temple was reported in newspapers all over the world, varying in their focus on her appearance and dress: clothed in black dress under her barrister’s gown, she was said to be “not a giddy young thing”; her brilliance: she held the position of Senior Student and made the address in reply to the Common Serjeant; and her cool and collected demeanour.

Henry Dickens, the Common Serjeant, referred to her as an “apparition” in his address to the newly called barristers. This was an apt description of her life at the Bar, which ended as soon as it began. Dr Williams soon faded from view, while the rest of her cohort, including Helena Normanton QC and Sybil Campbell, the first woman full-time judge, were called in November 1922. While they began the struggle to be accepted and survive as barristers, Dr Williams returned to her position as Tutor in Jurisprudence for the Oxford Society of Home-Students, a position she held from 1920 till her retirement in 1945. Ivy Williams was born in 1877 in the small town of Newton Abbot in Devon. Her parents, George St Swithin Williams and Emma Ewers, both originally from Oxford, were living there after moving from the Isle of Wight where their first child, Winter, was born in 1875. This was possibly to escape familial disapproval of their unusual romance. George was 21 years older than Emma; they met when she was working for his family as their maid. No records can be found determining whether George and Emma ever married. The little family returned to Oxford in 1880 following the death of George’s father, Adin Williams, in 1876.

“ She was able to accelerate her Call to the Bar and become the first woman to be called to the Bar of England and Wales.” Ivy Williams’ Call to the Bar had been the fulfilment of a childhood dream: both her father and her brother were lawyers, her father a solicitor and her brother a barrister, also of Inner Temple. She entered Oxford to study Jurisprudence in 1896, completing her exams for the BA in Jurisprudence in 1900 with a second-class pass and the BCL in 1902. She also obtained an LLB in 1901 and an LLD in 1903 from the University of London, which, unlike Oxford, awarded degrees to women. Although well qualified in law, she could not practise. Entry to both branches of the legal profession was closed to women until the passage of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919.

Dr Ivy Williams © Getty Images

Ivy Williams was admitted to the Inner Temple on 26 January 1920. She took her first Bar exams in the Trinity term of 1920. Her final score for her Bar exams was 475. This was a first-class pass, which placed her second of 123 candidates. The Inns of Court regulations rewarded her with a Certificate of Honour, 105 guineas, and an exemption from two terms of dinners. In this way, she was able to accelerate her Call to the Bar and become the first woman to be called to the Bar of England and Wales. But she had already decided not to forge a career at the Bar, citing her age as the reason why. She took the opportunity of this private but very publicised moment of her Call to speak “of the women who would follow and practise at the Bar, and she asked that every help and encouragement should be given to them in the difficulties they would face”.

Treasury

Returning to Oxford, where she had been the first woman to be appointed to teach law in the UK, Dr Williams’ academic work focused on Swiss private law. Fluent in several languages, she authored two books in quick succession: The Sources of Law in the Swiss Civil Code (1923) and The Swiss Civil Code (1925). For the former, she was awarded the Oxford DCL, the first woman to have been honoured with this degree. These works are still referred to in academic writings today, a testament to their usefulness and quality. Her scholarly career was cut short by a skiing accident that left her “laid up for some years” as she wrote to Sybil Campbell in 1929. Dr Ivy Williams was remembered by her students as someone who “let us go our own ways with splendid objectivity… beneath a shy and remote exterior she concealed a personality that was both kind and courageous…. It was not until many years later that those who had kept in touch with her learnt to delight freely in the range of her keen intelligence…”

Dr Ivy Williams died at the age of 88 at her home in Oxford. In the later years of her life, she had become frail and had lost her sight. In retirement, she remained active in the service of others, teaching herself Braille, writing a Braille primer and creating a Braille-reading course for the Royal National Institute for the Blind.

She also gave of her time and legal knowledge in the service of the public. In 1930, through her work with the British Federation of University Women, she was appointed as a technical delegate to the Conference on the Codification of International Law. Her work there on the question of married women’s nationality law was favourably received, government officials describing her as “possess[ing] a very sound and balanced judgement”. As a result, Dr Williams was appointed to the Aliens Deportation Advisory Committee in 1932. The Committee became a thorn in the side of the Government, advising against deportation in almost half of all cases that came before it; its activities were effectively curtailed in 1936, and it was formally disestablished in 1939. Little is known of Dr Williams’ private life. We do know that she came from a strongly religious background. Her family were Congregationalists, and many served as missionaries in Africa and the Pacific. She was a generous supporter of Oxford University, providing money for two scholarships in her brother’s name as well as for lodgings for women students. She also gave land to the Radcliffe Hospital and the local Congregationalist church in Cowley. She never married or had children. She lived for many years with Nora MacMunn, a lecturer in Geography for the Society of HomeStudents, but the nature of their relationship is unknown.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Dr Ivy Williams’ death was not marked by the fanfare of publicity that accompanied her Call. Apart from a short obituary in The Times, her death passed largely unmarked in the press. Commemorating Dr Ivy Williams in this short remembrance will remind us of and re-establish to her rightful place a woman who, by her achievements in law and her work in legal education and public service, played more than her part “in the slow and difficult advance of women to their present position in the legal profession and in the universities”. Dr Caroline Morris Department of Law, Queen Mary University of London This article will form part of a digital exhibition, Women in Law, due to be published on the Inner Temple website in the autumn 2019.

Sources and further reading: Evan Griffiths, The British Novelty, Pittsburgh PostGazette (24 July 1922) p6. First Woman to be Called to the Bar, (undated) Newspaper Clippings, St Anne’s College Archives. First Englishwoman Barrister, The Guardian (11 May 1922) p6.

S Penley and EO Dodgson, Dr Ivy Williams: An Appreciation, (1966) The Ship 37, 38. David Bonner, Executive Measures: Terrorism and National Security (Ashgate, Aldershot, 2007) 119.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Hope for Our Prisons

HOPE FOR OUR PRISONS An address given by Peter Clarke, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, on 10 October 2018 in the Temple Church.

TC 10 October is a day that has a special significance for me. Forty-one years ago, to this very day, I first walked through the gates of the Hendon Police Training School. With me I took a cardboard suitcase, a pretty average law degree and a total ignorance as to what the next 30 years would hold for me. Nevertheless, I was optimistic and full of hope. And if I have a theme this evening, it is of the need for hope in our prisons. Hope for prisoners that they will at least have the opportunity to turn their lives around. Hope for staff that they can achieve more than simply keeping the lid on a bubbling pot of despair and disorder. Hope that they can achieve what so many joined the prison service to achieve – to make a real and positive difference to the lives of prisoners. As it turned out, having gone through the gates of Hendon I spent much of those 30 years doing my very best to put people into prison. If asked why I thought it was a worthwhile thing to be doing, I suppose I might have said something about protecting the public, or enforcing the law, or something like that. I suppose I might have said something to the effect that at least if criminals were behind bars, they wouldn’t be committing more crimes and creating more victims. However, I’m pretty sure I would never have said that it would be a good idea to hold people in conditions that would almost certainly guarantee they would emerge from prison more angry, more embittered, more violent, better schooled in the ways of crime, and more ravaged by drugs than if they had never been sent to prison in the first place. Nor did I ever imagine that 41 years later I would be inspecting prisons and reporting, publicly and sometimes in very stark

terms but I hope in strict accordance with my statutory remit, that because of the treatment and conditions experienced by prisoners, all too often prisons are failing in one of their primary purposes – that of protecting the public. After so many years working in law enforcement, in the inner city, in international drug dealing, in security and in counter terrorism, I didn’t approach the role of Chief Inspector of Prisons as a dewy-eyed optimist. I was not, and am not labouring under any illusion that some of the most difficult, dangerous and challenging people in our society will emerge at the end of sentences full of remorse, contrite and eager to repay their debt to society. Nevertheless, I have always believed that prison should be a place where those who need to be there should be held safely, they should be held securely, and they should be held in decent conditions. Those who wish to do so should have the opportunity to mend their ways, learn new skills and attitudes, and those who don’t wish to do so should at least have some encouragement or incentive to change. Sadly, my experience over the past three years has been that all too often, our prisons are failing in these basic aspirations. I have seen many prisoners who wish to change, who want to gain new skills, to be better equipped to play a useful role in the community when they are released, but who are currently denied the opportunity to do so. When the state chooses to take away a person’s liberty, it also accepts the incredibly serious responsibility for every part of that person’s life. We all, in our lives, however difficult or challenging, need hope. Prisoners more than most. Allowing them hope should be part of the state’s responsibility.

The Temple Church

But what I have seen is that too often, far from giving hope, prisons are taking it away. Some ask – does this matter? Why should we care, it is sometimes said, as to whether prisoners can have hope for their futures or not? All too often they have removed hope from their victims, so why should they have any? Quite apart from the moral and ethical dimension of how we should treat fellow human beings, there is a very pragmatic reason why we should not extinguish hope in our jails.

“ Quite apart from the moral and ethical dimension of how we should treat fellow human beings, there is a very pragmatic reason why we should not extinguish hope in our jails.” It is because the things that snuff out hope in jails make it far more likely that prisoners will re-offend after their release. I firmly believe there is an overriding public interest in holding prisoners in conditions that make it less likely they will commit more crimes. Throughout my years of trying to gather evidence that would put people into jail, I never did so with the intention that they should be held in squalid conditions, should live in fear of their fellow prisoners, should be locked in their cells for 23 hours or more every day, have little or no access to any purposeful activity, should come out of prison with a drug habit they didn’t have when they went in. At the moment, too often, this is precisely what happens. The extraordinarily high re-offending rates speak for themselves. So, what specifically is it about life in our prisons that has taken away hope? Quite simply, too often we are holding people in conditions that are indecent and degrading. Two or more people being held in tiny cells designed for one. Those cells, usually locked for much if not all day, serve as the bedroom, lavatory and dining room for their occupants. I shall not describe in detail some of the more grotesque things I have seen in jails, but my recent letter to the Secretary of State invoking the so-called Urgent Notification Protocol at Bedford Prison, which described an inmate luring rats into his cell before killing them, actually during the course of an inspection, gives a flavour. I am very aware of the irony that Bedford Prison was where John Howard started out on his journey of Prison reform nearly 250 years ago. I fear he would have been as appalled as I was by what I saw there last month.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

First, prisons above all are about people. Those who are held there and those who work there. In the past few years, the numbers of staff dropped below the level at which they could offer decent, purposeful detention. Staff numbers are now rising again. What I find really encouraging is that enlightened governors see their new staff not as an inexperienced liability but as a huge opportunity. An opportunity to get prisoners out of their cells, an opportunity to develop personal relationships, and to make jails safer. Achieving the right balance between prisoner and staff numbers is vital. As Chief Inspector, I don’t take a position on how many people should be in prison – that is a matter for policymakers – I just say that the balance between staff and prisoner numbers must be such as to allow for decent, purposeful detention. Second, living conditions need to be improved, and the squalor we see all too often done away with. This will take time, but there is a growing realisation that degrading conditions are neither sensible nor inevitable. Third, the large number of prisoners suffering from one form or another of mental illness need to receive proper care – very often not available in a prison. To be blunt, many should not be in prison at all – but the lack of alternatives has often left the courts with little or no choice. Fourth, we need to find a way of providing appropriate security and proper care for the rapidly growing population of older prisoners. Fifth, we must harness the goodwill, dedication and extraordinary generosity of spirit not only of prison staff but of the voluntary sector. The levels of commitment, care, courtesy and compassion that I see in prisons is often truly humbling. It is people who can forge the type of relationships that too many prisoners have never enjoyed. Many have never experienced another human being caring for them. It is people who can bring hope back to so many who thought they had none. So, if 41 years ago today I was optimistic about policing, today I am very, very cautiously optimistic about our prisons. Of course, there is much that is terribly wrong. Not all of our prisons are or have been in crisis. But many are still in a very dark place. I have seen things that I never thought I would see in institutions being run by the Government for the public benefit. But I can just begin to see some shafts of light at the end of what has been a long, dark tunnel. There is hope, I am sure. And I hope I am right. Peter Clarke CVO OBE QPM Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons

Sometimes as a cause of despair and sometimes as an effect of it, drugs are dominating life in many jails. They cause debt, bullying and violence. They are directly linked to dozens of deaths, suicides and cases of selfharm. At the prison I inspected last week, nearly a third of prisoners we surveyed said they had acquired a drug habit since entering the jail. This, sadly, is far from unique. The violence means prisoners and staff alike live in fear. Some prisoners refuse to come out of their cells, and staff shortages mean that very often they can’t be unlocked. They can’t get to education, training or work, and so the chance to reform or rehabilitate is lost. I often see what feels like a vicious circle of despair. Totally unreasonable lengths of time locked in cells give rise to frustration, boredom and anger. In response, prisoners often turn to drugs – sometimes referred to as the ‘bird killer’. The drugs in turn give rise to debt, bullying and violence. Prisoners are then too afraid, or the wings too unsafe to allow them to get to training, education or employment – so they are left locked in their cells and the circle is complete. Breaking into that circle and re-injecting hope is vital. But how is that to be done? What can give hope? 19 19

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

The Inner and Middle Temple Joint Amity Dinner, 1949

THE INNER AND MIDDLE TEMPLE JOINT AMITY DINNER, 1949 By the Assistant Archivist

the Hall as it was in November 1940, open to the sky and halffull of rubble and fallen timber, and a foldout panorama of the ruined Temple site “after the Great Incendiary Raid of May, 1941”.

Menu for 1949 Joint Amity Dinner

This year marks the 70th anniversary of a Joint Bench Dinner held by Benchers of Middle and Inner Temple, held on 20 July 1949. The guests of honour were King George VI and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Consort. In his speech, the King remarked that “this evening’s dinner, a joint dinner of the two Inns, is, I suppose, a unique occasion in their history”. In fact, there appears to have been an ancient tradition of mutual hospitality between the Inner and Middle Temples. In the records of the Inn’s Parliament held on All Souls’ Day 1512, there is an order “that every constable marshal of the company [one of the officers elected annually to superintend the seasonal celebrations such as the Christmas revels] from henceforth shall keep in Christmas time no more than three courts, that is to say, one on the night when the company of the Middle Inn comes to this Inn, another when this Inn goes to the Middle Inn, and a third at his pleasure”. Nonetheless, it was probably the first time that the Inns of the Temple had together hosted a monarch and his consort, and certainly the first year that their royal guests were also the Inns’ respective Treasurers, the King being Treasurer of The Inner Temple and the Queen of The Middle Temple. The royal guest at this year’s joint dinner was HRH Master The Princess Royal, Bencher of The Inner Temple who, like her grandparents, held the role of Royal Treasurer (2012). Now, as in 1949, Inner Temple Hall is out of commission, pending renovation work. While this year’s closure anticipates a longplanned and ambitious renovation, our Benchers of 1949 dined elsewhere through grim necessity: even nine years after the Blitz, Inner Temple Hall remained a charred shell. Middle Temple’s Hall was also badly damaged but had by 1949 been repaired and restored. If the Hall’s fabric had been made good, though, the raw and recent memories of its destruction were reflected in the dinner programme, which was bookended with photos. The front page featured an image of Middle Temple Hall in all its glory, pointedly captioned “Hall of the Middle Temple, 1939 and 1949”. The back pages were printed with a picture of 20

Snuffbox presented to IT by George VI at the Joint Dinner of 1949

The theme of reconstruction was continued after dinner, when the King and Queen formally examined and reaffirmed the Letters Patent of James I, which granted the freehold of the Temple site to the Societies of the Inner and Middle Temples. It was an emphatic restatement of the Crown’s patronage of the Inns and an assurance that, even if much of the Inns’ physical fabric had still to be restored, its legal foundations at least were as sound as ever. As Treasurer of The Middle Temple, the Queen commiserated that night with the guests from Inner Temple, adding: “With them, we look forward to the day when their own hall may rise again to adorn its lovely setting, and to renew the tradition of hospitality for which it has long been famous.” Only the week before, the King had reopened Inner Temple Library in temporary quarters, but it would be another five years before the Inn was able to welcome guests to its Hall again. One of the first of those guests was Queen Elizabeth II, who visited and took tea in December 1955.

Menu for Joint Dinner, 20 July 1949

Archives

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

“ We look forward to the day when their own hall may rise again to adorn its lovely setting, and to renew the tradition of hospitality for which it has long been famous.”

General view of war-damaged Temple, back of 1949 dinner menu

The Queen returned in 1966 to attend a joint dinner of the two Inns, as her parents had done in 1949. By this time it was clearly a regular event: the then-Treasurer of The Inner Temple, Lord Silsoe, referred to it in his speech as “our annual joint dinner”. The custom persists to this day, with Inner and Middle Temple each taking turns to host the other. Ben Taylor Assistant Archivist

A SPEECH GIVEN BY HRH THE PRINCESS ROYAL

A speech given by HRH The Princess Royal at the Joint Amity Dinner held at Middle Temple on 17 July 2019 to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Joint Amity Dinner for HM King George VI and HM Queen Elizabeth held on 20 July 1949. Master Treasurers, fellow Benchers, members of my Inn, and of the Middle Temple, thank you, Master Treasurer, for your very kind words of welcome. It is a real pleasure to be here to help you all, us all, celebrate that extraordinary event in 1949; There is indeed amity between the Inns, which is important to continue, but it is remarkable to consider what an extraordinary occasion that was so soon after the end of WWII, not just to have my grandparents here together but that they were both at the same time Master Treasurers. That’s a truly amazing achievement and how anybody managed to do that, I don’t know. The chances of you being able to repeat that trick are quite low.

And I’m sure it was a dinner that they both thoroughly enjoyed because although they had spent an awful lot of time in each other’s company and supporting each other throughout the wartime period and afterwards, this must have been a very special occasion for them too. I was not even the smallest bark in the eye of my parents, never mind the knowledge of my grandparents, but it is a pleasure to be amongst you to celebrate this anniversary. But there is indeed one person here who I think could keep me straight on exactly what happened: Lady Butler-Sloss has her own memories of that event, and it is really nice to see you here tonight. I hope it was fun then, but maybe more fun now. From the speeches given by each of my grandparents on 20 July 1949, it is obvious that they both understood and relished their roles as Royal Treasurers. I think the King did make the point that had he not felt the support of so many of his counsel, he might have felt a “certain alarm at speaking before his judges”. I think I know what he means by that, but amity was the word of the night and I think it still is here and it radiates, so I am delighted to be part of that. I hesitate to say that the royal family is required to keep the peace between you because actually you don’t really need that – although all of you have a member of the family, they get quite competitive in their own small ways.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

The Inner and Middle Temple Joint Amity Dinner, 1949

It has been a pleasure to be part of the Inner Temple Book Prize, one of the initiatives undertaken by the Inns to reinforce the commitment of Inner and Middle Temple to the Royal Charter responsibility and core purpose of education and training. The building work at Inner Temple, for the benefit of future students of the Inns, is further evidence of that commitment and I wish the building well – I mention that, wearing another hat, the Fishmongers’ Hall is quite a nice place to go – almost on a par with your own expectations in catering, I believe. But it’s been a pleasure tonight also to hear from many of you about the Inns’ work, particularly in education and training and the opportunity to meet recipients of The Princess Royal Scholarships. That, I think, for all of your Royal Benchers, to be able to be involved in the continuation of training of students here is really important and it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to catch up with some of them. Even more so that so many young people are indeed benefitting from the scholarship programmes of both Inns and there’s a lot of work that you all do to make sure that is possible, and that will continue to be a challenge. HRH Master the Princes Royal speaking at the Joint Amity Dinner on 17 July 2019

Much of course has changed since 1949 and I’m not going to go down there because that would be an extraordinary range of change but, as has already been mentioned, the anniversary year of the first woman to be admitted to the Middle Temple is really worth celebrating, and remembering that that too has changed dramatically over what seems like a long period now but actually has taken a long time to achieve. But encouraging and retaining women in higher positions of the Bar and Judiciary remains a challenge and I know that much work is being done, not only in outreach to ensure that the brightest students do indeed have the opportunity of a career at the Bar, and also through those mentoring schemes and support networks such as the Temple Women’s Forum so that they feel confident in the Inns and their careers.

“ I think, for all of your Royal Benchers, to be able to be involved in the continuation of training of students here is really important and it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to catch up with some of them.” I would just like to finish by saying a very warm thank you for this evening, for taking the trouble to remember what I think was a really rather unique evening, which you may not have realised at the time just how unique that was; and to remember that 70 years on and to be part of that is a real pleasure. But I hope too it is something that underlines the value of that Amity Dinner and the celebrations you continue to have. Thank you. HRH The Princess Royal KG KT GCVO QSO Royal Bencher

Amity Dinner, 1949, by Terence Cuneo

Amity Dinner, 2019

Treasury

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

100 YEARS OF WOMEN IN LAW Theodora Llewelyn Davies

Theodora Llewelyn Davies was the first female applicant to be admitted to the Inner Temple in 1920, following the enactment of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, 1919, and one of the earliest women to be called to the Bar on 17 November 1922. By Jane Wynne Willson

Theodora Llewelyn Davies, usually known as Theo, was born on 18 April 1898 in Birkenhead, the daughter of Maurice Llewelyn Davies and May Roberts. They had three children, Roland, Mary and Theo, but tragically May and a fourth baby died in childbirth when Roland was aged ten, Mary seven and Theo four. Their father never remarried and was helped in their upbringing by May’s sister Nellie. Theo was educated at Birkenhead High School and later, after her father’s retirement, at St Paul’s Girls’ School in London, and she then studied law at London University for a year. This was in 1916 when many universities had extra capacity while most of their male students were away fighting in the First World War. In 1917, Theo went up to Girton College, Cambridge, to read for the Law Tripos. Girton was the first college for women at Cambridge and had been founded by Theo’s great aunt, Emily Davies. Emily’s niece, Theo’s aunt, Margaret Llewelyn Davies, had also been a student at Girton, but she left after two years. Margaret was the General Secretary of the Women’s Cooperative Guild for 26 years, during which time the membership grew from about 1,000 to 52,000. Theo’s grandfather, the Rev John Llewelyn Davies, Rector of Christ Church, Marylebone, had been heavily involved in promoting the education of women. So, it came naturally to her to go to university and find an interesting and challenging career. Her sister, Mary, became a GP.

Life at Girton during the war was very hard. The students were short of food and always cold. But, over and above these physical hardships, was the heartbreak as telegrams arrived with dreadful regularity bringing news of the deaths of brothers, fiancés and friends. For Theo, the news of her brother Roland’s death in France came in October 1918, a few short weeks before the end of the war. He had been an adored son, brother and companion. Up until that time, of course, there had been no possibility for women to practise law. However, while Theo was at Girton, the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act started its progress through Parliament. This would make it possible for women to become magistrates and solicitors and to serve on juries. It would also have enabled women to be called to the Bar. However, as she explained in a television interview in 1986: “The question of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act came up, and that was going to open a lot of things…magistrates and solicitors and a lot of things. Not the Bar, because they never had been interfered with by legislation and the thought of having their special personality interfered with was abhorrent to them. They thought that even the presence of women at the Bar was more endurable than having it interfered with by legislation! So, while I was at Cambridge, they opened voluntarily, by coincidence, without any unpleasant interference by the legislature, and it was therefore possible to be admitted.”

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

100 Years of Women in Law: Theodora Llewelyn Davies

Theo applied for admission to the Inner Temple on 9 January 1920, at the age of 21, and was the first woman to do so. “They had to alter all the ‘hims’ to ‘hers’ and redo it. However, the man behind the desk seemed to bear up and got it done.” Shortly after, on 26 January of the same year, Ivy Williams was admitted to the Inner Temple. Because of their years of study at university, both women only had to eat three dinners a term instead of the usual six. In addition to this, Ivy’s exceptional academic record from Oxford enabled her to fast-track, and she was excused two of the four compulsory dining terms before being called to the Bar. So, Ivy was called on 10 May 1922 whereas Theo was not called until 17 November 1922.

She was kindly escorted to a seat at the end of one of the benches, so that her long skirt would not make it difficult for her to climb over. Too nervous to be hungry, when offered a choice of clear or thick soup, she chose the clear. And for all the following dining terms she was invariably served with “your clear soup, Madam”. The Custodian at the hall regarded her as his special charge. According to a newspaper report at the time, he “sternly rebuked a presswoman who asked for some personal description: ‘She was a lady…and when I say she was a lady it is a hint to others to belong to the same class.’”

As Theo put it: “Owing to her brilliance and hard work she passed at a level that enabled her to cut two terms. So, by this I’m not suggesting special generalship on her part! She was, in fact, the first woman to get called to the Bar. Though she never practised but then proceeded to become a teacher of law at, I think, Oxford. I didn’t really know her well, though I’d met her.”

“ She was a lady…and when I say she was a lady it is a hint to others to belong to the same class.”

Theo’s family well remember her account of the first time she took dinner at the Inner Temple. Her elder sister went with her as far as the entrance for moral support, but then she was very much on her own. “There was very little fussification at the Inner Temple; that is the nature of the place. The Middle Temple and, still more, Gray’s Inn, have toasts and all sorts of things. But the Inner Temple is too grand for that, or considers it unnecessary… One just turned up. And I was of course scared stiff, but succeeded in concealing it, I think. I was then taken to the men’s robing room and given an ordinary black gown.”

Theo with her father Maurice Llewelyn Davies and her daughter Mary Calvert, 1931

There were no facilities for women at the Inner Temple in those days, but this problem was solved by allowing Theo a key to the Benchers’ House that was attached to the Hall. There was a women’s cloakroom there, which was used when women guests were invited to social events. “Some thinker among the benchers must have decided it was a good idea.” Theo’s decision to apply to the Inner Temple rather than the Middle Temple, where the larger group of women barristers were, was because her uncle, Arthur Llewelyn Davies, had worked there “and was remembered with great affection”. He and his wife, Sylvia du Maurier, were the parents of the five Llewelyn Davies boys who were adopted by J M Barrie after the early death of their parents. She was taken on as a pupil at the chambers of her second cousin, Sir Malcolm Macnaghten and Theo Mathew, well known as ‘O’, the author of Forensic Fables, whom she particularly liked. These were common law chambers, which was what interested her. “I was very lucky and enjoyed that part extremely. There was work and not really basic responsibility. Lovely. They were fearfully friendly and kind. There were only four of them.” The same chambers also took on Monica Cobb from the Middle Temple.

Treasury

Roy Calvert

Theo with her great grandson

During her seven years at the Bar, Theo attended various assizes and took some dock briefs but was mainly occupied in chambers, doing a considerable amount of written work. On one occasion she went to Guildford, which was an assize town on the South Eastern Circuit, with one of the barristers from chambers, expecting just to watch and take notes. The system at the time was that a defendant could have a dock brief if they were unrepresented, choosing any barrister who was present in court. “I was taking a risk, which I didn’t realise – that I might be picked by some enterprising criminal for a dock brief, which you had to take. I think it was half a guinea that you got for it and you might have to wait quite a time until the case came on. So, the experienced slipped out when the dock briefs were offered. But it never occurred to me that I might get one. But the judge in question was Mr Justice Darling who liked his joke of a morning and was well known as being a humourist, and so encouraged some man to choose me. I was appalled. It hadn’t occurred to me that I might actually be asked to… However, there it was. I had no choice.” This case turned out to be that of a man who had assaulted his wife with a hatchet. Theo had a short interview with him in the cells and then had to chat with the judge, who was highly amused, over lunch and do her best with the case in the afternoon. We have a newspaper report of another occasion when Theo was involved in a dock brief. The case was at Lewes Assizes and concerned the trial of two young women for a series of burglaries over a period of ten years. They were invited by Mr Justice Avery to leave the dock to have a better view of the barristers. “Gordon, after carefully scanning counsel, inquired of Miss Llewelyn Davies, whose wig gives her a pleasing boyish appearance, ‘Are you a lady?’ Blushing at the ordeal, Miss Davies replied softly: ‘Yes, I am a lady barrister.’ ‘Then I will have you,’ remarked Gordon.” Theo practised at the Bar for seven years until her marriage to Roy Calvert in 1929. They were both involved in penal reform and particularly the campaign for the abolition of the death penalty and met as fellow members of the executive committee of the Howard League for Penal Reform. A few weeks after their wedding, they went on a six-week visit to America to report on the penal institutions there for the Howard League. One of the prisons they visited was the notorious Sing Sing, where they were invited to sit in the electric chair – an invitation that Roy accepted but Theo declined. The trip included the 59th Annual Congress of the American Prison Association. Theo’s typically written report on that Congress makes excellent reading. A few extracts give a taste of her, at times, caustic style:

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Theo with her daughters Jane and Mary

“(The speech of welcome was) a monument of prolixity and tactlessness. An uninteresting presidential address followed… A series of speeches were read by more or less eminent persons… Speaking generally, much time was given to the utterance of platitudes and to mutual congratulation. This is not surprising to anyone used to penologists and more especially to American penologists… American penal reform societies are legion and their principal point in common seems to be dislike of each other… Under a superficial air of goodwill, the Congress is divided into two more or less hostile camps – the Wardens (ie Prison Governors) versus the Reformers.” Theo and Roy were the joint authors of The Lawbreaker: a Critical Study of the Modern Treatment of Crime, published in 1933. This was republished in 2016 in the series Routledge Revivals and contains arguments that are still relevant today. They had two daughters, Mary and Jane. In 1933, Roy died of septicaemia following a routine operation. He was 35. After Roy’s death, Theo returned to live with her sister and her father whose encouragement and financial support had enabled her to embark on her career.

“ Her attitude to younger people showed a remarkable adaptability and openness of mind.” Theo continued to work as Chair of the National Council for the Abolition of the Death Penalty and to serve on the committee of the Howard League, of which she was Vice Chair for some time. She also gave legal advice at a Citizens’ Advice Bureau as a ‘Poor Man’s Lawyer’ and was a magistrate for many years. Her father died in 1939 and the two sisters continued to live together until Mary’s death in 1976. They moved a number of times, living in London, Surrey, Cheltenham and finally Birmingham, the last two moves being to be nearer to family. She died in December 1988 at the age of 90. An obituary notice in The Times recorded: “Theodora Calvert was a lifelong agnostic, a pacifist and a passionate Labour supporter. Though her left-wing views did not wane with old age, her attitude to younger people showed a remarkable adaptability and openness of mind. Her many descendants provided an endless source of interest. For them and for many friends she was a fount of knowledge and wisdom whose affection and support, courage, wit and sound judgment have profoundly influenced their lives.” Written by Theo’s daughter Jane Wynne Willson with contributions from other family members. Courtesy of First 100 Years

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke: “The Greatest Knight In The World”

WILLIAM MARSHAL, EARL OF PEMBROKE: “THE GREATEST KNIGHT IN THE WORLD” By the Master of the Temple Robin Griffith-Jones, The Reverend and Valiant Master of the Temple, is the descendant in office of Aymeric de St Maur, Master of the Temple in England at the time of Magna Carta and close friend of William Marshal. Aymeric and William were buried side by side before the rood screen in the Rotunda of the Temple Church, May 1219. William Marshal, born about 1147, was the second son of a minor lord who held the hereditary title of ‘Marshal’, or head of the king’s security. William became the most powerful man in the kingdom, the hero of Magna Carta and a saviour of England. Through 60 years he remained loyal to a series of five kings. At his funeral in the Temple Church, 20 May 1219, he was described by the Archbishop of Canterbury as “the greatest knight in the world”. How did William do it? First, he had presence. William grew up, we are told, to be tall, well-proportioned and handsome, and with a broad stride that suited him perfectly for riding. In a world of personal courts and courtiers and of battles and tournaments between at most a few hundred knights, he was an unmistakable, imposing figure.

Secondly, he was apparently fearless. In 1168, he entered the household of his uncle Patrick Earl of Salisbury. When Henry II married Eleanor of Aquitaine, their Angevin empire stretched almost 1,000 miles from the Scottish borders to the Pyrenees. Henry and Eleanor both went in 1168 to Aquitaine. Henry summoned Patrick Earl of Salisbury to be his secondin-command; and with Patrick went young William. Disaster followed: local nobles ambushed the Queen and her party; Patrick and his troops covered the Queen’s escape; Patrick was killed; the furious William charged, was badly wounded and was captured. But Eleanor surely heard of William’s ferocious courage. She ransomed him and took him into her household. William’s new patron was the most powerful woman in Europe. He was making his way in the world. And so, to tournaments. With his horsemanship and courage, William was made for them. Tournaments were the epitome of chivalric life and a perfect training for battle. Nobles would gather from far and wide with their entourage or mesnie. A large area was marked out by palisades and ditches; it could include whole villages and their fields. The gathered forces were divided into two teams according to their regions of origin or political allegiances. One team charged in serried ranks with lances extended, and the mêlée began: with lances and – when these were broken – with swords and maces. This was ferocious fighting and demanded severe courage and coolness.

Since 1843, one of the medieval effigies in the Temple Church has been identified as William’s. Its face is of an old man; effigies generally show their subject in the prime of life, but William came to his greatest fame when in his 60s and 70s and may therefore have been purposely shown as the elderly Regent. The knight’s sword pierces the head of a dragon; this rare effigial motif matches the sword and dragon on King John’s effigy in Worcester Cathedral.

Knights captured in a tournament had to leave the field and arrange their ransom. Horses and armour were booty for the captor. Even at his first tournament, William won four war horses, a string of palfreys and packhorses and a fine array of equipment. Over time, he became a team captain and manager on the international and professionalised tournament circuit; and he won from it immense prestige, booty and ransom money. Count Philip of Flanders offered him the vast transfer fee and retainer of 500 pounds a year to enter his service.

The Temple Church

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

barons came here to a conference at Epiphany 1215 “fully armed and ready for war”. The King will have had all his regalia on display on the Church’s altar, to present to the greater King to whom at the first Epiphany the Magi had brought their gold. So John will have sought both to confirm his own role as the Lord’s anointed King and to impress the barons. The barons were unimpressed. They gave the King warning: they were pledging themselves, one and all, as a wall of defence for the house of the Lord and would stand firm for the liberty of the Church and the realm. It was William and Archbishop Langton who pledged on the King’s behalf that he would meet the barons again in April. By the end of April, the barons realised that John had no intention of yielding. They applied pressure by besieging Brackley; William and Langton were again sent to appease them. On 5 May, the rebel barons renounced their fealty to the King and the country was on the brink of civil war. The King had the Pope and all apparent right on his side; a fair part of the baronage was neutral or loyal to John; and on 9 May, from the Temple, John sought the vital support of London by granting its free governance. The Round still contains eight 13th-century effigies, of knights in armour. Three of the Marshals – William and two of his sons – are known to have been buried in the Church; and since 1843, one effigy in particular, has been universally accepted to be William’s. But now comes a query. A set of drawings, c1610, has recently been discovered in Washington DC, which show all the medieval effigies in the Temple Church – and a further, long-lost gravestone, which matches the earliest descriptions of William’s tomb. Has the real monument to William been lost, and its appearance only now – after hundreds of years – rediscovered?

Next: William was famously loyal. In 1183, he was in the service of the Young King when the Young King died. The Prince had vowed to go on Crusade, and William discharged his lord’s vow by going on Crusade himself. He spent two years in the Holy Land. While there he entrusted his body, wherever he should die, to the Knights Templar for burial among them. He also acquired two lengths of silk, which he brought back with him from the Holy Land; they were, when he died, to cover his bier.

“ They gave the King warning: they were pledging themselves, one and all, as a wall of defence for the house of the Lord and would stand firm for the liberty of the Church and the realm.” In 1188–9, William campaigned with Henry II against the King of France. Henry’s son Prince Richard sided with the French. In a skirmish, William unhorsed Richard and could have killed him, but instead killed Richard’s horse. Few knights could have done so; even fewer would have dared. Within days, Henry II had died. The new King Richard summoned William, and to save face insisted that he, Richard, had saved his own life in the encounter: “Marshal, the other day you intended to kill me, and you would have if I had not deflected your lance with my arm.” William held his ground: “I never intended to kill you. I am strong enough to aim my lance, and if had had wanted I could have killed you.” It was a make-or-break moment. The new King was impressed. Richard confirmed William’s marriage to Isabel de Clare, daughter of the late Richard Strongbow, Earl of Pembroke, and of the Irish princess Aoife (Eve) of Leinster. She was heiress of vast lands in Ireland, England, France and Wales. William was now a magnate of the realm. From Richard to John. King John distrusted William and conspired against him. William remained loyal; and in the deepening turmoil of 1214–5, William was the one fixed point whose allegiance was in no doubt. Cometh the hour, cometh the man. William was at the centre of negotiations between John and the barons, 1214–5. He was at the Temple when the

“ I have ventured into the wild sea where even the most experienced sailors find no shore nor anchorage. But if all the world had abandoned the King except me, I would put him on my shoulders and carry him without fail from island to island, from land to land.” The King must have thought himself well prepared. But on 17 May, the rebels captured London and the balance of power moved suddenly and irrevocably against John. He sent William to London to tell the rebels that he was ready to negotiate. When agreement was at last reached at Runnymede on 15 June, William was named first among the magnates who had advised the King. The barons’ success was unsustainable; under the guise of fealty they had all but dethroned a King. John soon sought to repudiate the Charter: it had, he said, been sealed under duress from barons who had made themselves the judges in their own cause. (He had a point.) No wonder the King appealed to Rome to have the Charter annulled; and no wonder the Pope granted his request, annulling this “shameful and demeaning agreement, forced upon the King by violence and fear”. The Charter joined the host of other failed charters of the Middle Ages. Civil war was inescapable. The rebels turned to the French King for help, and on 21 May 1216, Prince Louis of France landed with his army at Thanet. With the rebels’ help, the French quickly occupied London and most of eastern England. King John died on 19 October 1216. His son Henry was only nine years old. Half the boy’s supposed kingdom was in the hands of the French; the treasury was empty; the rebels were on the march. The few barons who had remained loyal to John and to his son had good reason to abandon Henry to his fate. But they stayed firm; and chief among them was William. He became Regent of the King and of the Realm. “I have ventured into the wild sea,” said William to his own close advisors, “where even the most experienced sailors find no shore nor anchorage. But if all the world had abandoned the King except me, I would put him on my shoulders and carry him without fail from island to island, from land to land, even if I had to beg for bread!” 27

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke: “The Greatest Knight In The World”

William Marshal unhorses Baldwin de Guisnes in a tournament. William’s retainer leads away two horses that William has already captured. On William’s deathbed, one of his knights warned him that “the clergy insist no man is safe at the Judgement unless he returns everything he has taken from others”. “The clerics,” replied William, “are too hard on us. They shave us too close! I’ve captured 500 knights in tournaments and kept their arms, their war horses and all their gear. I can’t give them back!”

William had to win back the barons’ allegiance. In a brilliant stroke, he and the Papal Legate reissued Magna Carta in November 1216; they sealed and so guaranteed it, since young Henry did not yet have a seal of his own. The demands of the rebels, so fiercely resisted by John, were now being met, at Henry’s own initiative. The Charter’s new version admitted that the old had in it “weighty and doubtful” matters, which must be left in abeyance for now until Henry could take further counsel and then do what was best for “the common utility of all”.

In the spring of 1217, Henry’s fortunes began to improve. The 1216 Charter was working: it remedied the complaints of the rebel barons who saw the danger that Louis would eventually reward his own retainers and not them. But the enemy still occupied most of eastern England. From early March, Lincoln Castle was under siege. Early in May, Prince Louis of France divided his own forces in two: he himself led a siege of Dover and sent the rest of the army north to strengthen the siege of Lincoln. William, now nearly 70 years old, decided to venture everything on a single battle at Lincoln before Louis could reunite his forces. William led the loyalist army, in person, into battle. Impetuous as ever, he set off without a helmet; an esquire pointed this out, William duly put one on and then rushed into the fray. William directed the battle with tactical brilliance and to overwhelming victory. At its end his helmet bore the damage of three blows, each one of which would have been fatal.

“ For I greatly loved his company on earth; may God grant that we be companions in heaven.” The 46 English barons on the rebels’ side and over 300 unnamed knights simply surrendered. The rebellion within England was over. The French still had one further move to make: an attempt to reinforce Prince Louis in his siege of Dover. William rode rapidly south to Sandwich, equipped a fleet and on 24 August watched as the French ships were captured, sunk or put to flight. The war had ended at last; to bring peace quickly, William paid the French to leave; Henry III was safe on his throne; and this article, centuries later, is written in English, not in French.

In November 1217, William issued and sealed Magna Carta yet again, this time as two separate charters. He was concentrating now on the correction of King John’s abuses. A third of England was under the King’s control as royal forest. Successive kings had ‘afforested’ ever larger areas, as much to generate revenue as to use for hunting. In 1217, William removed from the Great Charter all the clauses connected with the royal forests, and No r thof Sethe a Forest. issued them as a separate charter, the Charter Vast tracts of land were to be ‘disaforrested’. The terms of this charter could never be fully met; but they united the country UNITED behind Henry. KINGDOM

IRELAND

Naas Dunamase Wicklow Carlow St Biavels Kilkenny Goodrich Wexford Cardigan Waterford Gloucester Cilgerran Usk Chepstow London Haverford Hamstead Bristol Pembroke Marshall Chichester

Kildare

adjust areas

Longueville

Meulers

Orbec Dinan Léhon Bécherel

N Marshal castles Marshal lands

miles 100 FRANCE 0 km 150 Sécherel Meules Dengueville

Within 18 months, William’s health was fading. On his deathbed Bay o f B isc a y at Caversham he summoned Brother Aymeric, Master of the Temple, to prepare for William’s own admission to the Templars. William’s almoner Geoffrey, a Templar, brought him the Templar cloak which had secretly been made for him a year before. William had arranged to be buried in front of the rood screen SPAIN in the Temple Church; Aymeric predeceased the sick Marshal by just a few days, having asked to be buried next to him: “For I greatly loved his company on earth; may God grant that we be companions in heaven.”

The Temple Church

Diarmait Mac Murchada

Richard = Aoife Strongbow

John Marshal d. 1194

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Walter of Salisbury

John Marshal = (2) Sybil d. 1165

Isabel = William Marshal d. 1220 Earl of Pembroke d. 1219

Patrick Earl of Salisbury d. 1168

Ansel

Henry Bishop of Exeter d. 1206

Margaret (?)

Matilda (?)

William Earl of Salisbury d. 1196

continued >>>

Ela = William William = 1) Alice, Richard Gilbert = Marjorie Walter = Margaret Anselm = Matilda John Countess Longsword Earl of daughter of Earl of Earl of daughter of Earl of de Lacy d. 1245 de Bohun Marshal of Salisbury Earl of Baldwin de Pembroke Pembroke William Pembroke Countess d. 1252 d. 1236 Pembroke Salisbury, d. 1231 Béthune d. 1234 d. 1241 the Lion, of Lincoln d. 1245 half-brother of 2) Eleanor, King of d. 1266 King Richard daughter of Scotland and King John King John, d. 1244 d. 1226 sister of Henry III d. c. 1275-6 >>> continued Matilda = 1) Hugh Bigod (William’s Earl of Norfolk second child) d. 1225 d. 1248 2) William de Warenne Earl of Surrey d. 1240

Roger Hugh Isabel Bigod Bigod Bigod Earl of Justiciar d. 1250 Norfolk of England d. 1270 d. 1266

Joan = Warin de Sibyl = Isabella = 1) Gilbert de Clare d. before Munchensi d. 1240 Earl of Gloucester d. before 1242 and Hertford 1238 d. 1255 d. 1230 2) Richard Earl of Cornwall, brother of Henry III d. 1272

John Joan = William de Munchensi de Valence d. 1247 d. 1296

Richard Earl of Gloucester and Hertford d. 1262

Eva = William d. before de Ferrers 1247 Earl of Derby d. 1254

7 daughters

William son of Reginald de Braose d. 1230

4 daughters

The first mention of Magna Carta. In 1217, William reissued the 1215 Charter, now divided into two separate charters: the second and shorter contained all the elements that pertained to the King’s forests. The larger, general Charter had a new final command: to demolish all unauthorised castles. In February 1218, the government ordered the promulgation of both charters. A scribe copied the order into the chancery close roll, referring to that last additional command in fine appositum… in maiori carta (“placed at the end…in the larger charter”). The scribe then clarified his text with an insertion, marked by a caret: the new clause was to be found in fine magne carte appositum (“placed at the end of the large charter”). I am grateful to Prof David Carpenter for the details and the illustration.

The silks he had brought back from the Holy Land, 30 years before, duly covered the bier at his funeral. His cortège was led to the Temple Church by former rebels, now pacified. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London presided when William was laid to rest here on 20 May 1219. The Archbishop said: “Look, sirs, how it is with this life: when each of us comes to his end his senses are all gone, and he is nothing more than so much earth. You see before you the greatest knight in the world that ever lived in our time, and what is there to say now, by God? This is what we all must come to. We have before us our mirror; it is mine as much as yours. And now let us say the Our Father, praying that God may receive this Christian in his heavenly kingdom, in glory with his elect, believing as we do that he was truly good.”

In the 1840s, the floor of the Church’s rotunda was excavated. A row of medieval coffins was discovered, across the centre of the Round; these burials would have been right in front of the rotunda’s altar and rood screen. At least one of the knights would have stood over six feet tall – in the 13th century, a giant, and all the more imposing on a war horse. Here, almost certainly, were the bones of the tall, handsome William Marshal, “the greatest knight in the world”. On 22 May 2019, we sang Choral Evensong in the Church in William’s memory. At the end of the service we stood over the very place of his burial and sang a Requiem on his behalf. Much has been said about William in the Church; but this may have been the first time in over seven centuries that prayers were said for him and thanks given for his legacy, in the Church which he knew so well and in which he himself had asked to be buried. The Rev’d Robin Griffith-Jones Master of the Temple Robin Griffith-Jones has written a short illustrated book, William Marshal: The Greatest Knight That Ever Lived (Pitkin, 2019). It is on sale in the Church. 29

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2018–2019

Wellbeing at The Inn

WELLBEING AT THE INN By Master Spearing

The Inn has been at the forefront of the wellbeing initiative: from hosting the early talks of ‘The Positive Group’ and Dr Brian Marian; funding the first research commissioned to gather data and evidence in relation to the Bar’s Wellbeing and championing the Wellbeing at the Bar (WATB) working group; to sponsoring the Wellness for Law Forum events. We have also launched policies, events and education for our staff at the Inn. Feedback from our students, staff and members has been overwhelmingly positive and supportive of the culture change towards mental health, and wellbeing practice development. During the last year we have begun to embed our wellbeing work across the Inn’s programmes. Students now have their own section of the Wellbeing at the Bar Portal, created in collaboration with the Charlie Waller Memorial Trust. Our introductory evenings have a section highlighting the resources, and signposting support for their early career development, with skills for resilience to manage this being delivered within the first BPTC qualifying session on Circuit at a combined BPP and MMU event in Manchester.

Master Spearing

T THE WELLNESS FOR LAW FORUM 2019: TRAUMA RISK MANAGEMENT FOR LAW This year’s Forum was held on Friday 21 June. Sponsored by the Inner Temple, and generously hosted at UCL with the assistance of Master Cheryl Thomas, we received presentations from leading experts assisting the Police, Military, Medical Profession, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Crown Prosecution Service on management of trauma risks. Legal professionals frequently face potentially traumatic events, from the content of their work, to the challenging circumstances in which they may operate. Research and evidence suggest that our personal and professional resilience may be impacted with regards to what we manage directly and indirectly, and therefore it is important to provide awareness, safeguards and support for the profession as we build our knowledge and leadership.

Croquet and Cocktails

Amongst the highlights of the day was the keynote speech from Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division. The Family Law Bar Association is now under the leadership of Master Cyrus Larizadeh, who was part of the early work of WATB. Shaping policies for chambers, and support of the FLBA has led to a positive impact upon how the court and judiciary operate with regards to recognising wellbeing. The honest challenges discussed by Sir Andrew McFarlane, make clear that these pressures are existential within our Judiciary, placing the priority of creating appropriate practice directions for practitioners, judges and parties at the heart of his work. His speech can be found republished on the Wellbeing at the Bar portal, www.wellbeingatthebar.org. uk/2019/06/19/wellbeing-and-the-family-justice-systemby-sir-andrew-mcfarlane-president-of-the-family-division.

Treasury

The Forum also received important presentations from Warrant Officer 1 Miles Hall, of the Royal Marines Commando 40, Inspector Amanda Williams, mental health liaison lead at Gwent Police and Gill Lever, Head of Health and Welfare at the FCO. Their organisations deliver training to inculcate preventative programmes, with peer to peer schemes supporting colleagues as part of standard operating procedures. Similar adapted programmes were demonstrated by Andy McCann on behalf of the NHS and Fire Rescue Service.

A small working group has been convened to review the materials shared via the Forum to develop a programme to support the members and wider profession.

The significant increase in the number of serious sexual offences handled by the CPS over the last five years has led to awareness and preventative steps being introduced by the RASSO (Rape and Serious Sexual Offences) and CCU (Complex Casework Units). Planning a methodical approach to how we manage the work, combined with supervision, support and improving general employee engagement and wellbeing, led to case studies of positive outcomes for the CPS. We also learned through the presentations of the WATB certificate holders for 2018-19, of the steps that individual sets of chambers had been taking to action their policies with mental health awareness training, mentoring, CPD talks from professionals, team building and schemes for connectivity amongst colleagues in large multi-centred or remote working. These and more initiatives from the profession demonstrating the steps which can be taken can be found on the WATB Portal www.wellbeingatthebar.org.uk/policy-and-practice.

“ Planning a methodical approach to how we manage the work, combined with supervision, support and improving general employee engagement and wellbeing, led to case studies of positive outcomes for the CPS.” What was overwhelming at the Forum was the presence of leadership, senior clerks and members of the profession and judiciary, who were actively seeking to ensure that there was a removal of stigma, a support for greater awareness and inclusivity of health and wellbeing within our practices and the desire to ensure that we continue to promote and develop this culture. Equally important were the messages received from students and pupils who attended, regarding their challenges, and their perceived fears to voice them in the new and evolving legal landscape that they face, with their burgeoning financial and logistical pressures.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2018–2019

SUMMER WELLBEING EVENTS 22–24 JULY We were delighted to be able to arrange wellbeing events in our wonderful garden at the Inner Temple this summer. Thanks to the ingenuity of Master Robertson, with our events and gardening team the late facilitation of yoga, zumba, gong meditation, cocktails, croquet and live music, ensured that there was something for everyone to relax and restore balance and calm in the Temple. Staff at the Inn have been enjoying similar events, including exercise, nutrition and craft for over a year and recently received awards from Mind in recognition for the positive impact this has had. We hope to plan a series of more events in the future to support our members. If you have any suggestions, please do let us know via the Treasury office. ONGOING EDUCATION AND TRAINING We continue to deliver within the new practitioner and at pupil weekends, education to encourage positive practices for creating awareness, skills for resilience and self-management of practice, to operate in a healthy way and discharge our ethical duties. As part of our redevelopment of the post new practitioner years CPD programme, we will be seeking views as to what education would be of use in the area of health and wellbeing. Please do share your feedback, the survey is anonymous and will enable us to act upon the evidence and information shared to shape our future programmes. Further research is planned by the Wellbeing at the Bar Working Group in early 2020 to update the data regarding the wellbeing issues impacting the profession. Please do be a champion of supporting the research and survey when released. Equipping leadership with the information will define the actions that the Bar Council, Inns and all Specialist Bar Association stakeholders can take to address them. Finally, huge thanks to all of the Inn’s staff, members and colleagues who continue to support and deliver this work. We have come a very long way, the positive impact is now evident and the continued work vital for the health and wellbeing of the profession. Rachel Spearing Master of Well-being

Further information for students can be found at the Wellbeing at the Bar portal www.wellbeingatthebar.org.uk/help-for-students

Yoga and meditation as part of the Summer Wellness

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

A Renaissance Interrupted?

A RENAISSANCE INTERRUPTED?

Personhood, Sodomy and the Public in 12th Century Christian and Islamic Proto-Civil Legality From a lecture given by Dr Vanja Hamzić on 19 November 2018

I would like to propose today that addressing a range of situated yet concomitant phenomena relating to gender and sexuality in the 12th century Muslim and Christian worlds can shed new light on the inherent complexities that befell this period on either side of what was certainly a religio-political if not necessarily an intellectual divide. Moreover, their collision, if such it was, left an indelible mark on the nascent forms of human personhood in both Christian and Islamic law and theology of the time. These paradigmatic forms of personhood, although largely divergent in their effect on their respective societies then and in the centuries to come, share nonetheless what seems to be a defining feature of 12th century intellectual life: that of concordia discors (discordant harmony) or ikhtilāf (permissible scholarly disagreement) at its most vigorous. Although I endeavour to paint a more general picture at the outset, I am concerned primarily with the question of sodomy (Latin: peccatum sodomiticum, Arabic: liwāt· ) in 12th century scholarship. Importantly, the debates I consider coincided with and are intrinsically related to an unlikely rise of neoRoman European civil law and Seljuk proto-civil legality. Sexual crimes in general, both as a concept and matter of public concern, did not accrue a considerable laic or ecclesiastical base for much of the first Christian millennium. Instead, sexuality-related issues were considered primarily private – of one’s own conscience – and the advice, if any, of a decidedly non-legal nature was to be found in the penitentials and other ‘practical’ literature for confessors. The renewed thirst for Roman legal thought, or perhaps any legal thought outside of the explicit canonical tradition, was thus perceived as ungodly – even perverse. Emerging scholars, jurists and lawgivers began developing a distinctly expansionist Romano-Christian corpus iuris, with the increasingly blurry lines between ecclesiastical (sacerdotum) and public (regnum) authority, with a particular attention paid to various aspects of civil law. This instantiated a curious debate concerning the moral and legal standing of sodomy – fascinating not only for its renewed interest in matters that escaped the Church’s overt elaboration for nearly a millennium, but also as an ominous precursor to a much darker age in which sexual crimes would become an intrinsic part of bloodthirsty public spectacles of justice. By the end of the 13th century, much of Western and Southern Europe saw various forms of capital punishment for sodomy swiftly introduced in its neoRomanised municipal laws: for instance, death by burning in Bologna, castration followed (three days later) by hanging by

the legs until death in Portugal, hanging ‘by the virile members’ in Siena and the death penalty of one’s choosing in Tortosa. Although the debate reached its peak in the 12th century, its origins could be traced to Benedictine monk St Peter Damian, who published in 1049 his infamous Liber Gomorrhianus. This treatise reads like a hate-filled pamphlet with a strikingly misogynistic overtone. For, all the while addressing men and their perceived sins, Liber Gomorrhianus makes an explicit claim that the true demonic nature of sodomy is feminine. For some, such as the Benedictine historian William of Malmesbury (c.1095–1143), it seemed more convenient to address sodomy as a sin of the upper class, which saw itself independent from Church authority. He warned of the mortal dangers of corruptible femininity entering the men’s world in both attire and social practice. A few years later, he made an explicit link between such ‘soft living’ and sodomy. What such writings seemed to exemplify was the rising genre of political literature using gender and sexuality as its ultimate weapons. Although his misogyny must have been genuine, there could be little doubt that William of Malmesbury’s fiery writings were primarily intended to reclaim ecclesiastical authority over that represented in King William II’s court. The monarch’s repeated claims that “questions pertaining to sodomy, dress, hairstyles, incestuous marriages and the like were under the purview of the King, not the Church” must have deeply frightened the Benedictine historian – and so he did his best to denounce them as the sin of a bygone era that the future generations should learn from but never repeat. Sodomy was, however, there to stay as an increasingly political offence. The Knights Templar were suppressed in part for being accused of practising this ‘unspeakable vice’ (vitium nefandum) – a charge also levied on the Cathars who were known (and suspicious to others) for their theological rebuttal of marriage. Sodomy became an indispensable weapon in political vendettas spanning all middle to upper echelons of late mediaeval Christianate society, which were further exacerbated by an even more fervent stream of nascent ecclesiastical treatises on the matter.

“ Sodomy became an indispensable weapon in political vendettas spanning all middle to upper echelons of late mediaeval Christianate society.”

Education & Training

Such an unprecedented vigour of anti-sodomy literature contrasted sharply with a surge in widely influential 12th century Benedictine and Cistercian treatises on the value of Christian love and spiritual friendship. Aelred of Rievaulx’s works such as De spiritali amicitia and Speculum caritatis extolled the value of deep amity between fellow Benedictines, Cistercians and other Christian contemplative communities. In De spiritali amicitia, Aelred relied on the idea of John the Apostle as Jesus’s most beloved disciple to convey what for him was an ideal of godly intimacy in contrast to the earthlier strength of Peter the Apostle: not only was same-sex love possible – it was the most perfect type of Christian being-in-the-world. The growing thirst for knowledge coming from Arabic and non-Christian sources did not only contrast the sheer carnage of Crusades but their accompanying violent rhetoric too, which now regularly included a reference to sodomy as a ‘foreign disease’. Cardinal Jacques de Vitry (c.1166–1240), for example, claimed that the Prophet Muh·ammad had personally introduced sodomy to the Arabs as a means to defile the pure souls of Christian men. What may have started as concordia discors spiralled into a full-fledged religious and political battle, whose consequences would be felt for centuries. Both sexual and gender diversity became, in a way, an odious alternative to ‘chivalrous’ (if crusading) masculinity and often cast out as ‘foreign’ and, indeed, ‘Muslim’.

“The growing thirst for knowledge coming from Arabic and non-Christian sources did not only contrast the sheer carnage of Crusades but their accompanying violent rhetoric too” Although an age of continued scientific advances and the flourishing arts, including the studies of law, the Seljuk period was characterised by social and legal insecurity, not least because the non-Arab militarised ruling class often felt compelled to make a show of force towards a largely hostile local population. The Seljuks believed that excessive forms of public punishment helped to preserve the awe (hayba) that the ruler needed in order to maintain peace, and the local ‘ulamā’ eventually gave in to the pressure and confirmed this approach as compatible with the sharī‘a. The major effect of this religio-political alliance was, however, a novel approach to the discretionary offences and punishments (ta‘zīr) in Islamic law – which no longer required a judge (qād·ī). Consequently, the police (shurt·a) or even the market inspector (muh· tasib) could freely resort to ta‘zīr without any consultation with an expert in Islamic criminal law. It is in this sense that a distinct Seljuk proto-civil legality was gradually being forged. Prior to this innovation, ta‘zīr figured as a reserved discretionary domain of the qād·ī within the architecture of classical Islamic criminal law, at the top of which sat the so-called h· udūd (sing. h·add) – a fixed set of crimes and punishments ostensibly found in and mandated by the Qur’ān, which included adultery (zinā). Most classical schools of Islamic law (madhāhib, sing. madhhab) maintained that sodomy (liwāt· ) is a form of zinā and therefore a h·add offence deserving of a Qur’ānically prescribed punishment. But many notable members of the H·anafī madhhab disagreed with that view.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

well, that era ushered in a possibility to even theoretically divest from the concept of liwāt· and, mutatis mutandis, the qād·ī’s ta‘zīr-related involvement in the administration of a growing area of state-sanctioned public justice. This remarkable turn came on the wings of an internal debate on the theological and legal status of liwāt·, led by an array of influential scholars belonging to the H· anafī madhhab – the school that most Seljuk rulers favoured. It therefore carried both theoretical and political purchase. It generally divided the participating H· anafī fuqahā’ into two camps: a minority faction reasoning that liwāt· must be (re)classified as a h·add and the majority group that found the minority’s arguments to be fallacious and arrived, instead, at a truly extraordinary conclusion: that no Qur’ānic injunction, Prophet Muh·ammad’s tradition (h·adīth) or consensual agreement (ijmā‘) whatsoever was available that could serve as basis for a legal rule (h·ukm) against liwāt·. But, if liwāt· was not a h·add, could it still be punishable as a ta‘zīr offence? We have already seen that, in the Seljuk period, ta‘zīr became a reserved domain of the state, rather than the qād·ī, so the H· anafī fuqahā’ made no specific recommendations to that end, nor such pronouncements can be found in the relevant fatāwā collections. What’s more, not a single trial is recorded, nor an execution or other form of punishment for liwāt· mentioned, in meticulously kept Seljuk chronicles. Thus, in the state in which frequent and ruthless public punishments became a defining feature of the ruler’s siyāsa, liwāt· remained – in theory and in practice – an unpunishable act. The eventful 12th century saw both Christian and Islamic fields of legal theory and practice through what must have felt like a seismic change and a deep identity crisis, as exemplified in the internal scholarly disputations on sodomy that I have sought to illuminate. The 12th century’s ‘renaissance’ was interrupted in its heartlands but continued in the territories that were, in many ways, essential for its commencement in the first place (‘the ancients’, after all, ‘spoke again’ in that century, in part, because their Greek speech was preserved not in Latin but the Arabic tongue). This might be a paradox, but it fits quite well the impossible premise of concordia discors – that darling phrase of the 12th century. [An earlier version of this intervention was published as Vanja Hamzić, A Renaissance Interrupted? Debating Personhood Through a Sexual Act in the 12th-Century Christianate and Islamicate Worlds in Sabine Schmidtke (ed.), Studying the Near and Middle East at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, 1935–2018 (Princeton: Gorgias Press, 2018), pp. 308–321.] Dr Vanja Hamzić Senior Lecturer in Legal History and Legal Anthropology at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London, a former Member in the School of Social Science at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton and an Academic Fellow of the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple. The full version of this lecture is available at innertemple.org.uk/lectures

Whether construed as a h·add or a ta‘zīr offence, classical Islamic law maintained, at least theoretically, its sway over the concept and nature of liwāt· . The theoretical interest was, in fact, the key generator of such debates, since an actual liwāt· case would find its way into the qād·ī’s courtroom only on a very exceptional and rare occasion. Whilst this would remain so throughout the Seljuk period as

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Western Circuit Women’s Forum’s Conference

WOMEN IN LAW: SUPPORT, RETENTION, PROGRESSION By Kate Brunner QC and Caighli Taylor

In celebration of International Women’s Day 2019, 8 March 2019 saw over 200 delegates come together for the Western Circuit Women’s Forum’s conference: ‘Women in Law: Support, Retention, Progression.’ Barristers, solicitors, judges and students from across the south-west and beyond gathered at Armada House in Bristol, and listened to a range of inspirational speakers sharing their experiences and insights on how women in law can be supported in their careers. We were delighted that the conference was well attended by men as well as women. The stubborn problem of women leaving the legal profession in droves cannot be solved without the input of the whole Bar and judiciary.

Thangam Debbonaire, Labour MP for Bristol West, shared her experience in politics over the years, and spoke of how there is still a long way to go: women are still hugely under-represented in Parliament. She spoke of how diversity is not a box-ticking exercise but is key to bringing in talent. She told us that true progression comes from listening to those you might not agree with. Both presiding judges of the Western Circuit, Mrs Justice May and Mr Justice Garnham came to give their support. The Hon Mrs Justice May DBE inspired delegates with the story of her journey through a remarkable career. She spoke of the project first100years.org.uk which charts the journey of women in law since the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919. Urging mutual support between women, she spoke of the value of sharing encouragement and praise. She urged women not to be hesitant in promoting themselves: “People will take you at your own estimation of yourself.” To counteract the common reluctance of women to promote their talents, the key message was “help women big themselves up.” She spoke of the importance of women returning from parental leave being offered serious and interesting work. Mrs Justice May ended on a note of optimism, sharing a photograph of Charley Pattison, a barrister at Albion Chambers in Bristol who returned to work despite her baby refusing to co-operate with the plan to move to bottle feeding. With the collaboration of District and Circuit judges Charley undertook trials with breaks to breastfeed her daughter.

Alison Hawes, a consultant at Burges Salmon, spoke with humour and humility about the unconventional path she took towards a career as a successful family law solicitor. She shared experiences of when, like many women, she had been reticent to put herself forward and take due credit, sharing her own ideas with men who took the praise for themselves. She spoke of the need for those who succeed to then pull others up: “when you’ve climbed the ladder, send it back down.” Maggie Semple OBE FCGI spoke of her fascinating and varied career, which sees her as a member of the QCA selection panel as well as a successful fashion entrepreneur. She encouraged delegates through practical advice: do not undersell yourself – use ‘I’ rather than ‘we’ when talking about achievements in job applications; and think about how the language often used to describe women’s skills – ‘soft-skills’ – needs to change. She shared valuable lessons on how to navigate a professional world which is often geared towards the selection of men, especially in socially-gendered roles. The conference organiser Carol Mashembo presented prizes to our Essay Competition winners. Nicole Hilton, a law student at the University of Bristol, won first prize for her fantastic essay on 100 Years on from the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919: What is the Point of Diversity Within the Legal Profession? which has been published by Counsel magazine, and on the WCWF website. Sarah Langford, criminal and family law barrister turned best-selling author, spoke about how inflexible practices and a lack of funding in the system hinder those with caring responsibilities in continuing a career at the Bar. Addressing these systemic issues, and promoting a change in attitudes are essential to ensure the attraction and retention of talented women in law. She endorsed mentoring schemes, support structures and sharing experiences, and spoke of how the accounts she read in WCWF’s survey, Back to the Bar struck a chord with her own experience. Sarah read a moving extract from her best-selling book In Your Defence: Stories of Life and Law, about her experience of making the difficult decision to pause her career as a barrister in order to care for her children. WCWF’s survey Back to the Bar: a survey of obstacles, aids and recommendations for parents returning to the Bar, is published here: https://westerncircuit.co.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2018/11/WCWF-Back-to-the-Bar-Final-version.pdf

Treasury

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

“…better representation and advancement of women barristers on the Western Circuit.”

Kate Brunner QC, chair of WCWF, with the winners of the essay competition

“ I really can’t thank WCWF enough for this conference. I have just come back from maternity leave after my second child, having had a gap off ill between my two children and moved from London to Bristol. So, there are so many reasons not to carry on with trying to (re)build a practice at the Bar, but this conference made me feel that it would be worth it and that I must at least continue to try. It was just the right message at the right time for me, and I am really grateful.”

Mary Jackson, LawCare spoke of the vital service LawCare provides to the legal community through its helpline. She emphasised the importance of reaching out for help in an environment where so many are prone to professional burnout. For more information visit lawcare.org.uk. HHJ Wildblood QC ended the conference with a simple but strong message: happiness and perseverance are key. The message of the conference was described by one young woman delegate in this way: “A message to aspire, celebrate your hard work, and support one another – but above all, of optimism: that as I progress my career, many are cheering me on.” The most heartening feedback came from a young mother, facing the cliff edge where many women who are primary carers leave the Bar and do not return: “I really can’t thank WCWF enough for this conference. I have just come back from maternity leave after my second child, having had a gap off ill between my two children and moved from London to Bristol. So, there are so many reasons not to carry on with trying to (re)build a practice at the Bar, but this conference made me feel that it would be worth it and that I must at least continue to try. It was just the right message at the right time for me, and I am really grateful.” Kate Brunner QC Barrister at Albion Chambers, Bristol, and 36 Group, London, Chair of WCWF and Leader Elect of the Western Circuit and

Caighli Taylor Barrister specialising in crime at Guildhall Chambers, Bristol, and member of WCWF steering committee WCWF would like to thank the speakers, everyone who attended, and our sponsors who helped make this event possible. WCWF is funded by the Inns of Court and the Western Circuit.

Charley Pattison from Queen Square Chambers

www.westerncircuit.co.uk/womens-forum 35

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

150th Anniversary of the Birth of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

150th ANNIVERSARY OF THE BIRTH OF MOHANDAS KARAMCHAND GANDHI

Gandhi plaque unveiling

In this 150th anniversary year of the birth of Mahatma Gandhi, we look back to an earlier view of Gandhi’s life in London written in 1972 for The Pioneer, an English language daily newspaper in India. The Pioneer, Monday 2 October 1972 IN SEARCH OF GANDHI’S LONDON By John Williams About this time of the year, booksellers and librarians notice that more people than usual ask for books on Mahatma Gandhi, and up and down the country commemorative meetings are being planned. It is all part of the build-up to the anniversary of Gandhi’s birthday on 2 October. The planning of celebrations to mark the historic birthday remind one that Gandhi spent several of the most important years of his young life in London and the experiences he had here and the things he learned played a very important part in the moulding of the character that the rest of the world was to revere many years later.

It was in London that Gandhi gained his experience of the world outside India, rounded off his formal education with matriculation and achieved the legal world’s choicest accolade of being called to the Bar. He also took Western dancing lessons and studied the violin and tried to speak without an Indian accent. It was here that he became a convinced vegetarian after reading the printed arguments and meeting the Western world’s pioneer vegetarians. So, apart from following the arrangements made for the celebration meetings, I decided to go out and discover just how many of the places and buildings that Gandhi came to know well actually remain, such as the houses he lived in, and the buildings in which he studied, and so on, in the closing years of the last century. The newest reminder of India’s famous son is the handsome wooden plaque donated by the Calcutta Art Society, which now graces a wall in the Library at the Inner Temple, that seat of legal knowledge where Gandhi was admitted to the ranks of the lawyers.

Archives

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Gandhi left Bombay on 4 September 4 1888, in the steamer Clyde and disembarked in Britain seven weeks later after ‘celebrating’ his 19th birthday at sea. He was so shy on board ship that he spent most of the time in his cabin. He emerged at meal times but ate very little at table because he could not bring himself to ask which dishes did not contain meat. He would sit silently, waiting for the time to pass until he could seek refuge again in his cabin and assuage his hunger with the fruit and sweets he had brought from Bombay. Gandhi was not then a convinced vegetarian and had only refrained from eating meat because of a promise extracted by his mother. This practice caused him acute embarrassment in London until he discovered that a growing number of English people were taking up vegetarianism. At first it was not easy to avoid meat dishes, but Gandhi never succumbed to the mute temptations of English cuisine or the blandishments of less orthodox fellow Indians in London, several of whom were to become very impatient with Gandhi’s strict adherence to the tenets of his creed. A surprising side-effect of his vegetarianism was that it later caused him to take lessons in elocution and ballroom dancing and to learn to play the violin.

“ A surprising side-effect of his vegetarianism was that it later caused him to take lessons in elocution and ballroom dancing and to learn to play the violin.” Once disembarked at Tilbury docks in the River Thames, Gandhi and his cabin companion Tryambakrani Mazumdar went by train to London where they booked into the Victoria Hotel. I found it impossible to trace which of the many ‘Victoria’ hotels he used. Even now, Gandhi could not bring himself to ask for a meal with no meat and he was still subsisting largely on the provisions he had brought from Bombay. To conserve his funds, Gandhi soon moved out of the hotel and after a few weeks found himself living with the family of an Indian widow in the Royal Borough of Kensington. Here Gandhi was served with the right type of food but found it insipid and it did not satisfy him. But even among his own kind, the callow young man was too reticent to ask for more and again he left the meal table hungry. He was driven to writing home for supplies of sweets and other comestibles. An example of how self-effacing the young Gandhi in London could be was afforded one evening when Palpatram Shukla, one of four Indians to whom Gandhi had letters of introduction, decided to give him a night out with dinner and a visit to the theatre. They sat down at a table in the Holborn restaurant, now out of existence, and when the soup was set down by the waiter, Gandhi timorously asked whether it was vegetable soup.

Gandhi in London

Inexplicably, this angered Shukla so much that he snapped at a bewildered Gandhi: “You are too clumsy for society. If you cannot behave yourself you had better go. Feed in some other restaurant and await me outside.” When Shukla had completed his meal, he went out and found a hungry Gandhi waiting for him. A nearby vegetarian restaurant at which he had tried to get a meal was closed for the evening. Recalling the incident later, Gandhi observed: “I accompanied my friend to the theatre but he never said a word about the scene I had created.” Gandhi was later to discover several vegetarian restaurants where he could eat without embarrassment. In those days of Victorian England, vegetarianism was generally considered to be a cranky fad, although a movement of non-meat eaters had emerged. Gandhi had come to London primarily to study law, but before he settled down to the serious work he applied himself diligently to keeping a promise he had made to Shukla. After the restaurant incident, Gandhi had assured his friend that “I would be clumsy no more but try to become polished and make up for my vegetarianism by cultivating other accomplishments which fit one for polite society. And for this purpose I undertook the all too impossible task of becoming an English gentleman.” He decided that the clothes he had brought from Bombay were of the wrong ‘cut’ for London, and so he went along to the Army and Navy Stores in Victoria Street, between Victoria railway station and the Houses of Parliament, to buy new ones. The Stores are still there, little changed from Gandhi’s day, and have recently celebrated their centenary. “I also went in for chimney pot hat costing 19 shillings – an excessive price in those days. Not content with this, I wasted pound 10 on an evening suit in Bond Street, the centre of fashionable London.”

Confirmation of Gandhi's admission to the Inn

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

“ I would be clumsy no more but try to become polished and make up for my vegetarianism by cultivating other accomplishments which fit one for polite society. And for this purpose I undertook the all too impossible task of becoming an English gentleman.” To give himself the correct bearing to go with his new clothes, Gandhi decided to take dancing lessons. That cost him three pounds for a term. He went along for two lessons each week but after three weeks realised that the smooth rhythms of Western ballroom dancing were beyond him. But if he could not dance, Gandhi thought he might be able to make music and so he enrolled for violin lessons. Again the initial fee was three pounds. Elocution lessons were also required, he thought, to suppress his lilting Indian pronunciation of English, and so another guinea was spent. Fortunately, at this juncture, Gandhi regained his sense of proportion and realised that as he was only in England for three years there was no point in adapting his voice to English style, that dancing alone would not automatically transform him into an English gentleman, and that he could learn to play the violin in India.

150th Anniversary of the Birth of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

gloves and a silver-mounted stick.” Sinha concluded that Gandhi was a student “more interested in the frivolities and fashion than in his studies”. But there was another more serious side to Gandhi; he was admitted as a student of the Inner Temple on 6 November 1888. The forms that he completed in his strong, legible, handwriting and the books that he signed are still there. The admission book shows that he paid £140-1s-5d in fees on 6 November 1888. To conserve his limited funds, he decided to give up his place with the widow and her family and to rent his own room. He selected an address that allowed him 30 minutes’ walk to his studies. “It was mainly this habit of long walks that kept me practically free from illness throughout my stay in England and gave me a fairly strong body,” he recalled. The young law student started cooking his own breakfast of porridge and cocoa and at night he dined on bread and cocoa. Anyone seeing him dressed up could never have suspected that he lived so frugally. Actually, he managed to reduce his expenses to only one shilling and three pence a day and rejoiced that he was not being such a drain on his brother in India who was sending him money.

Gandhi's application for membership of The Inner Temple

The ‘infatuation’ had lasted for about three months, until he realised that “I was a student and ought to get on with my studies. I should qualify myself to join the Inns of Court.” But his attention to sartorial correctness persisted, and a perceptive description of the young Gandhi during his London student days was recorded by another Indian, Sachchidanand Sinha. Sinha came across Gandhi walking along through the crowds in Piccadilly Circus – the road junction known as ‘the hub of the Empire’ – in February 1890. “He was wearing a high silk top hat, burnished bright; a Gladestonian collar, stiff and starched; a rather flashy tie displaying almost all the colours of the rainbow, under which was a fine striped silk shirt. He wore a morning coat, a doublebreasted vest [waistcoat], and dark striped trousers and not only patent leatherboots but spats over them. He carried leather

He eventually came across a vegetarian restaurant in Farringdon Street – which is at one end of Fleet Street not far from St Paul’s Cathedral. He was overjoyed at its discovery, and it was here that Gandhi was at last converted to a true belief in vegetarianism.

“ It was mainly this habit of long walks that kept me practically free from illness throughout my stay in England and gave me a fairly strong body.” There is no indication now of where in the street the restaurant was situated because so much rebuilding has

Archives

taken place. As he entered it, Gandhi saw a selection of books for sale in the doorway. Among them was Henry Salt’s treatise A Plea for Vegetarianism, published by the Vegetarian Society, which had been launched in Manchester. Gandhi read it avidly and was to declare: “From the day of reading this book I may claim to have become a vegetarian by choice.”

The new dining Hall and Library were opened by the Queen in 1952.

Gandhi became quite prominent in the Vegetarian Society, being elected to the London committee in September 1890, going along to their meeting in the Memorial Hall, Farringdon Street, and contributing articles to their journal. The Vegetarian Society, now at a different address, allowed me to look through their old minute books and I soon found the relevant entry. Among the record of the Society’s meeting on 19 September 1890 was the ink-written item “It was resolved to invite [and seven names were listed including ‘Mr M K Gandhi’] … to sit on the committee”. The last reference to Gandhi in the minutes was to record his presence at the committee meeting of 5 June 1891, shortly before he returned home. It was Gandhi’s practice to go and live in a different part of London about every six months to familiarise himself with as much of the capital as possible, and while living in Bayswater he formed his own vegetarian club. Unfortunately, it foundered when he moved away, perhaps because he could not be replaced as secretary with a sufficiently zealous organiser. Because Gandhi liked to change his address so often, it is difficult to trace the houses in which he lived in London over 80 years ago, but I did manage to locate two addresses with the help of the secretariat at the Inner Temple. One was 20 Barons Court Road, in West Kensington. This was obviously then a proud middle-class residential road, where the long terraces of substantial houses had imposing porticos. Now most of the houses have been split into self-contained flats whose residents have a cosmopolitan flavour. No one seemed to be aware that one of the world’s greatest men had ever lived there. Another address was 15 St Charles’s Square in the Ladbroke Grove district, also on the west side of London. This seems to have been slightly lower down the social scale than Barons Court Road, but still well-to-do and quite respectable. Now, however, the houses show clear signs of neglect, with crumbling stonework and curtains not all clean. Again, there was no local knowledge of Gandhi’s former occupation. He found that the studies needed to attempt the legal examinations were not too demanding and he had no difficulty in passing. He was called to the Bar – the ceremony was in the dining Hall of the Inn of Court at which successful students are presented with their certificates and are thereafter allowed to practise law – on 10 June 1891 and was enrolled at the High Court on the next day. He sailed for home the day after that.”

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

And so, after three years in London, during which time he met many people involved with the Vegetarian Society, and went along to meetings of Indian university students here, the young Gandhi sailed away. He was to return later, of course, as a very effective spokesman for the Indian people. After his first visit, however, and because he was so inhibitingly shy that on several occasions he had stood up to make a public speech and then had to sit down again without being able to utter more than a jumble of words, Gandhi probably left behind an impression of a nice enough chap, but one unlikely to set the world on fire. The Vegetarian, journal of the society, recorded kindly in its report of a farewell dinner at the Holborn restaurant – now unidentifiable – on 11 June 1891, that its executive committee member, Mr M K Gandhi, made “a very graceful, though somewhat nervous, speech”.

“ After his first visit, however, and because he was so inhibitingly shy that on several occasions he had stood up to make a public speech and then had to sit down again without being able to utter more than a jumble of words, Gandhi probably left behind an impression of a nice enough chap, but one unlikely to set the world on fire” Gandhi’s own recollection of the occasion was more devastating. “My last effort at public speaking in England was on the eve of my departure for home. When my turn for speaking came, I stood up to make a speech. I had with great care thought out one which would consist of a very few sentences. But I could not proceed beyond the first sentence. I had read of Addison that he began his maiden speech in the House of Commons, repeating ‘I conceive’ three times, and when he could proceed no further, a wag stood up and said, ‘The gentleman conceived thrice but brought forth nothing.’ I had thought of making a humorous speech taking this anecdote as the text. I therefore began with it and stuck there. My memory entirely failed me and in attempting a humorous speech I made myself ridiculous. ‘I thank you, gentlemen, for having kindly responded to my invitation’, I said abruptly, and sat down.” Later, of course, both friends and acquaintances have revised their opinion of him, for Gandhi did indeed set the subcontinent on fire – figuratively. John Williams Courtesy of The Pioneer

It is not possible now to go and sit in the ancient Library or the panelled dining Hall in which the young Gandhi embarked on his legal career because they were bombed out of existence in 1940 during World War II. But other buildings comprising the Inner Temple, which has been situated there between Fleet Street and the River Thames for 600 years, still survive as in his day, as does the magnificent wrought iron gate leading into the gardens where he would have gone to relax.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

150th Anniversary of the Birth of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

GANDHI’S READMISSION By the Sub-Treasurer Gandhi’s time in London prepared him for the road ahead and there are those who suggest that his legal and advocacy skills training enabled him to negotiate Indian independence proficiently and without a major war. On 7 November 1922, Gandhi was sentenced at Ahmedabad to six years’ imprisonment (he was in fact released after two years) upon his plea of guilty to three counts of seditiously inciting disaffection towards the Imperial Government. As with any member of the Inn convicted of a criminal offence, following his conviction, he was ordered to be disbarred at a meeting of the Bench Table, on 10 November 1922. He never sought readmission during his lifetime.

In 1969, Lord Mountbatten, the chairman of the committee formed to mark the centenary of Gandhi’s birth, wrote to the Inn to suggest that readmission might be a fitting gesture, and to advise that the Calcutta Arts Society had offered the Inn a commemorative plaque. Bench Table declined readmission, doubting at that time whether it could be done posthumously, but accepted the Gandhi plaque, which was unveiled in May 1971 in the presence of the Indian High Commissioner, Lord Elwyn-Jones and Lord Denning. At a Bench Table on 3 November 1988, the then-Treasurer, Master Monier-Williams, a supporter of Gandhi’s readmission since his student days in 1949, moved with unanimous support that Gandhi be readmitted posthumously to the Inner Temple. Greg Dorey CVO Sub-Treasurer

Bench Table minute of 3 November 1988 approving Gandhi's readmission to the Inn

Gifts ONLINE

 innertemple.org.uk/store IN PERSON

 Treasury Office

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Master Michael Turner

MASTER MICHAEL TURNER By James M Turner QC

Master Michael Turner

Michael John Turner was born into a legal household. His father was Theodore Turner QC (of the other Temple) – for whom family legend claims the distinction of first leading counsel to take a brief in an undefended divorce. His paternal grandfather was (then) Master (later Baron) Claud Schuster QC, the longest-serving Permanent Secretary to the Lord Chancellor in modern times (perhaps ever) and Treasurer of the Inn in 1947. So it was probably inevitable that, when – contrary, one suspects, to the expectations of his schoolmasters – Michael secured a place at Magdalene College, Cambridge, it was to read Land Economy.

First, however, came National Service in the Queen’s Own Hussars. One can only wonder at the skilled leadership and tactical acumen that he brought to his role as a troop commander, for before long he was rewarded with command of the regimental cookhouse. It was in that role that he was asked to defend a cook on a charge of sexual assault. The defence was that when, blind-drunk and depressed, the cook had bumped into something hard and unyielding, he had supposed it was a lamp post and grasped it for support. It wasn’t a lamp post, but the defence succeeded. And so it was that the newly demobbed Michael was moved to swap Land Economy for Law.

Celebrate the life

Academically, he was undistinguished, but his lower second was sufficient in those days for him to find pupillage at 2 Temple Gardens, where he remained throughout his career at the Bar. By all accounts he worked extremely hard. In his Times obituary, his pupil Michael de Navarro QC described a spartan and antisocial daily existence in which the only relief was lunch in the Inn, with a terse “good morning/ evening” to begin and end the day. At home he was always at his desk – unless he was on a horse, cutting down a tree or mucking out some stable or other. Deborah, his second wife, herself a barrister and the daughter, granddaughter and great-granddaughter of QCs, insisted that there be one day a week when the tapes stayed on the bundles. She was largely if not entirely successful in keeping him to that. He took silk in the early 70s, with a party after the ceremony in the room in 2TG that he shared with Murray Stuart-Smith – an occasion made memorable by his youngest son (David – also now a QC) helping himself (aged about five) to every half-empty glass he could find. In silk, Michael notched up some notable cases: McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 (psychiatric injury as personal injury) and Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529 (collateral attack on criminal conviction by civil process) were two of which he was quietly proud. What he enjoyed above all (and excelled at) was cross-examination, particularly of experts who had strayed outside their expertise.

“ At home he was always at his desk – unless he was on a horse, cutting down a tree or mucking out some stable or other.” In November 1981, not long after becoming head of 2TG (when Murray Stuart-Smith went to the Bench), he was badly hurt in a hunting accident. Initially, he feared that he would never ride or work again. He mended quickly enough, though, and was back in court (in a surgical collar) by the following spring, when his other (now) barrister son watched him in court for a week; he remembers him being a testing opponent – needling his opposite number for producing an ancient map of the locus in quo of an RTA (a disused airfield) that pre-dated the invention of both plane and automobile. In 1985, he was elevated to the Bench – to his pleasure and relief. As a judge he loved going on circuit, making and renewing numerous friendships among the shrievalty – and testing his clerks and his many marshals with highspeed, early-morning walks and (for the marshals) finding a grace for the evening meal that was new to the judge. He left behind a range of memories: some remember an oldschool, irascible judge; others a patient and fair if rigorous one. The late, great Gilbert Gray QC used to say that, when asked if he had ever known an innocent man convicted, Michael’s response was “Convicted? I’ve never known an innocent man charged!” Yet in truth he was anything but prosecution-minded. He was more keenly interested, if he could achieve it, in getting to the just result. Three vignettes stand out. The first was the manslaughter trial arising out of the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. The charge of corporate manslaughter against P&O disintegrated before the end of the prosecution case, but the position was less clear-cut in the case of the bosun, who had been asleep when the bow doors should have been closed. Michael’s strong sense of the injustice of the man being hung out to dry as the scapegoat for the unsafe system in which he was left to work undoubtedly underpinned his direction to the jury that he, too, had no case to answer.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

The second was the miners’ lung disease litigation: a vast group action against the Coal Board for exposure to coal dust, in which the trial lasted 119 court-sitting days and the judgment ran to nearly 500 pages. Michael insisted that some of the evidence be taken in the most affected areas of the country, such as Wales and Yorkshire. He took evidence from one seriously disabled miner in the man’s living room – accepting a cup of tea but politely (and correctly) declining the cake. The third was one of his very last criminal cases: an army sergeant, tried and convicted of manslaughter. This was the result of a tragic accident in which a teenager had drowned during a football team training run that the sergeant was supervising. It turned out that the regiment gained muchneeded funds from activities such as training local youth teams. As a result, soldiers were under pressure to carry out activities of this sort, without proper support from the Army. Again, it offended Michael’s sense of propriety that the soldier should take the fall for the Army’s shortcomings. Rather than jail him, as might be expected for such a serious offence, Michael fined him £1,500, telling him in sentencing that he was himself the victim of institutional failings – sentencing remarks that were widely reported in the national press at the time. One can muse that this was the second and final time that Michael defended a soldier – neat bookends to his career. As Sir Edward Cazalet remarked, at Michael’s well-attended memorial service in Winchester College Chapel, one can see in these episodes a perhaps unexpected side to his character, which some might nowadays deprecate as patrician: his concern for the foot soldier, for the man (quite literally) at the coalface – and a strong moral compulsion to ensure his loyalty to the judicial oath “to do right by all men”. He retired as a full-time judge in 2002, sitting on until he turned 75 in successive rounds of the miners’ litigation. After retirement he sat once or twice in Gibraltar and was embroiled briefly in the controversy surrounding the removal of the Chief Justice there. Before and after retirement he was a passionate horseman. He hunted from infancy until 1998, often – especially in the 70s – with friends from the Bar as well as his family. He rode in point-to-points well into his 40s, a fixture of the Pegasus Club Members’ Race for about 20 years – with a last hurrah against Michael Connell and Richard Scott when they were all well into their 50s. After point-topointing he took up eventing, eventually finding himself the owner of a world-class three-day eventer, Chaka.

“ His other great loves were walking – his first clerk had to retire after walks with the judge had worn out his knees – and classical music.” His other great loves were walking – his first clerk had to retire after walks with the judge had worn out his knees – and classical music. This was ideally played at volumes which ruled out conversation, and he always took a powerful music system with him on circuit. From the time the cancer struck in early 2017, he was nursed devotedly by Ingrid, his third wife. His end came peacefully, after many visits from his children, in a Wiltshire hospice. He was survived by Ingrid, his four children, twelve grandchildren and one step-granddaughter. He would have been numbed by the untimely death of his daughter in June 2019, also from cancer. Sir Michael Turner was born on 31 May 1931 and died 7 October 2018. James M Turner QC Quadrant Chambrers 43

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Valedictory: Master Sumption

VALEDICTORY: MASTER SUMPTION Valedictory speech given by Lord Grabiner in the Supreme Court on Master Sumption’s retirement, 12 December 2018.

When thinking about what I might say today, it occurred to me that Your Lordship’s remarkable career has been characterised by one strikingly consistent feature. At every stage of your career, you’ve made a serious impact, and, in each endeavour, you have achieved that impact in double-quick time.

At Oxford, after three years, you inevitably secured a first in History. Upon graduating, you were offered and accepted a fellowship at Magdalen College without the usual prerequisite of a doctorate. You remained in that post for just four years but, by then, had already established yourself as a serious medievalist historian.

Video still from Lord Grabiner's speech at the Supreme Court

You then decided to go to the Bar and, in taking that decision, you very wisely rejected the firm advice from no less a person from Lord Denning, who told you it would be – and I quote – “a big mistake” for you to go to the Bar and that you should “stick to history”.

In January 2012, you were duly appointed as a Justice of this Supreme Court, directly from the Bar, without any senior intervening judicial experience, although you had sat in parttime appointments as a Recorder of the Crown Court, as a Deputy High Court Judge and as a Judge in the Channel Islands.

Your pupillage experiences were varied and were not without their challenges. But, with a little help from the late Lord Mustill, you found your way to Brick Court Chambers, to Bob Alexander, Nick Phillips, Sydney Kentridge and others, including Burley, their formidable Senior Clerk. I still have an image of him in my dreams, late at night.

Within living memory, only Lord Reid, in 1948, and Viscount Radcliffe, in 1949, achieved such distinction. Both were Advocates of great experience and exceptional talent and, for you to be the third in that trio, is a mark of great distinction.

I think we all understand how important to your development the Kentridge connection was. You have said of Sydney – and I’m delighted to see that he is with us this morning – that he served as an inspiration and mentor, a source of encouragement and consolation. A fine tribute to a great man. You took silk just 11 years after being called to the Bar. Given the time limit I’m bound by this morning, I won’t dwell on your advocacy performances. Safe to say that they consisted of a succession of what barristers call ‘great cases’. At least one of those cases produced a bizarre, indeed perverse, judgment. But I must refrain from controversy and leave the whinge stuck in my craw. In relation to another case, I have a fun memory of our conversation at the end of a monumental battle, which went all the way from trial to the House of Lords. My clients had alleged three fraudulent misrepresentations in the course of the morning’s negotiation. The trial judge, who shall remain nameless, rejected the first two in point of time, but was satisfied that, on the third occasion, the misrepresentation had been made, and was indeed made fraudulently. These mixed findings enabled Your Lordship to attack the third finding in the Court of Appeal and in the House of Lords, on the basis that it was inconsistent with the first two findings. Happily, justice was done in the end. But, as we walked away together along the red carpet on the Committee Floor of the Lords, you pithily observed that the trial judge hadn’t appreciated that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Spot on.

And I’ve also been doing a little bit of research, we’ve only crossed on one of the cases, and I hope I may be forgiven for making reference to some of them. In the short passage of seven years as a Justice, you have, once again, made an impact. And I’ve looked up a few examples of your judgments in commercial cases. In Prest v Petrodel, which is where we cross over, you analysed the vexed question of when the corporate veil may be pierced, and you spelt out the important distinction between what you described as “the concealment and evasion principles”. Your powerful dissent in Prudential v Inland Revenue contains a fascinating historical analysis of the origins of and rationale for legal advice privilege. You bring out the point that the privilege depended, not on the status of the advisor, for example as a lawyer or an accountant, but on the nature of the advice and the circumstances in which it is given. In Virgin Atlantic v Premium Aircraft Interiors, your judgment memorably begins, “In this case, Virgin Atlantic wishes to recover damages exceeding £49m for the infringement of a patent, which does not exist in the form said to have been infringed.” There are no prizes for guessing the result of that case. Suffice to say that a long line of authority which, surprisingly, would previously have permitted such a claim was duly overruled. Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria is now the leading authority on the interpretation of the special rules disapplying limitation periods for certain claims against trustees and fiduciaries. And, in your judgment in that case, you make the distinction between the true and the constructive trustee.

Treasury

In Cavendish Square Holding v Makdessi, you combined with Lord Neuberger in producing the definitive analysis of the rule against penalties.

In your extra judicial time, you have lectured and written on a variety of topical issues, including book reviews in The Spectator, lectures on appellate advocacy, diversity on the bench, on legal education, on the historian as a judge and what you call the “disUnited Kingdom”, in which you examined the historical relationships between the nations of the British Isles.

And then, finally, so far as these cases are concerned, your judgment in Playboy Club v Banco Nacional analyses the Hedley Byrne duty, in particular whether it is relevant that the ultimate recipient of the information, the casino in that case, might have been the undisclosed principle of Burlington, which was the immediate recipient. As a Justice of the Supreme Court, you have not had much time but, as always, you have made your impact. The pity is that, just as you are about to reach the age of intellectual maturity – and I speak from personal experience – you are required to retire. Fortunately, the rules permit you to be invited to sit from time to time for another five years. But I think it is time the age provisions were amended. The justice system should not be casting out such talent. Aside from the law, you have sustained a serious commitment to your love of history. Amongst other writings, you have published four brilliant volumes on the Hundred Years’ War, and there is one more to come. Across the centuries, you have managed to bring to life, as one commentator has said, and I quote, “the elaborate complexities of financing war fleets in the 14th century, of papal diplomacy, the deliberations of dithering monarchs, battle formations, the minutiae of social upheavals revealed in ancient parish records, all of which are pepper in Sumption’s mortar. The overall impression is one of relentless violence. Towns are sacked, peasants massacred, whole regions depopulated by decades of marauding bands and plague outbreaks.” There is enough promise there to encourage many of us, actually, to read your books. The serious point is that your background as an historian has informed a good deal of your legal thinking. But, concurrently, for you to have mastered two great disciplines is a special achievement. This could only have been done by sheer hard work and extraordinary single-mindedness over a professional lifetime. In this context, I was hugely amused by the distinguished academic historian reviewing one of your books, who observed, apparently in all seriousness, and I quote, that “it was only by leaving the pressures of academic life for the presumably less pressured environment of the law that you were able to write a work of historical scholarship on the scale of your History of the Hundred Years War”. Some academics never cease to amaze me.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

“ I do have a problem with the distortion of history, to serve an essentially modern political agenda.” You also wrote about the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta. You memorably revealed and, to the dismay of many of your listeners, duly destroyed the mythological proposition that the treaty is the foundation of modern-day democracy. Your best passage, if I may say so – and I’m going to quote it – was this: “I do have a problem with the distortion of history, to serve an essentially modern political agenda. Claims like those which I have just cited are high-minded tosh. They represent the worst kind of ahistorical wigism. They encapsulate the view, mocked a generation ago, in a famous essay by Herbert Butterfield, that the past can be viewed as an accident-prone but, on the whole, persistent march towards the manifest rightness of our own values.” Nobody else I know could have concocted that splendid piece of writing. It has been announced, as the President has indicated, by the BBC that, next year, you will be giving the annual Reith Lectures, entitled Limits of the Law and the Decline of Politics. And I would emphasise the decline of politics particularly at the moment.

It is perhaps interesting that Lord Radcliffe, to whom I have already referred, delivered the 1951 Reith Lectures. His subject was Power and the State. We look forward to hearing your lectures. On behalf of the Bar, and those of us who have had the privilege and pleasure of spending time with you, I wish you a long, happy and peaceful retirement. Teresa and all your family have thus far been possessed of infinite tolerance and I am sure they would like to have more of your company. You will also have more time for your love of opera, for the Royal Academy of Music and for tending your roses in the Dordogne village of Berbigier. I also hope that you will give some time to writing. Given the fact of your advanced years, could I suggest that, this time, you take on a smaller, bite-size. Maybe the Thirty Years’ War, or the Seven Years’ War, or even the Six-Day War. Lord Grabiner QC One Essex Court

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Valedictory: Master Sumption

RESPONSE BY MASTER SUMPTION

“ We have differences of outlook, as one would expect of any group of 12 intelligent, articulate and opinionated people. But we do not shut ourselves into intellectual silos or dig trenches around our positions.”

When the great piano accompanist Gerald Moore wrote his autobiography at the end of his career, he called it Am I Too Loud? I shall not ask a rhetorical question like that. Some people might be tempted to answer it. It is, I suppose, bad form to admit to enjoying a public office. But I have enjoyed participating in the work of this court more than I can say. Many people have contributed to that enjoyment. First of all, there are the loyal and skilful staff who support the work of the court: the good-humoured judicial support staff; the infinitely patient registry officers who replace one’s lost files; the law reporters who point out our oversights and legal howlers as well as our spelling errors; the IT staff; the library; and, not least, those forthright and candid friends the judicial assistants, who tell us where we’ve gone wrong – usually just too late to do something about it. Secondly, there are the advocates who appear here, duty-bound to put forward propositions in which they do not necessarily believe, in the face of barracking from difficult and sceptical judges, who set them tight time limits and then do most of the talking themselves. But I would say, as I suspect most justices leaving this court do, that the largest single contribution has come from my colleagues. I may not be a natural accompanist, but which of them would honestly claim to be that? We have differences of outlook, as one would expect of any group of 12 intelligent, articulate and opinionated people. But we do not shut ourselves into intellectual silos or dig trenches around our positions. There is a real engagement between the members of this court. It may not look that way from the outside, but our judgments are collaborative efforts even when our opinions are divided.

A court of final appeal can decide whatever it wants – except that it can’t. In a court which specialises in hard cases, it can be a struggle to avoid making bad law. There is, as we all know, a continual tension between the instinct to soften law’s hard edges and the search for legal principle, which may be qualified but can never be discretionary.

Of course, none of this appears in those carefully crafted and self-confident judgments in which we express our views as if we had never had any doubts. It is all below the surface. So, as my last service to my successors, I shall offer them some help to recognise the signs, a short judicial lexicon of telltale phrases, followed by the correct English translations. ‘A multifactorial test.’

‘A common-sense approach.’ We can do what we like. ‘Pragmatic.’ ‘Never say never.’

We can do what we like. Next year we can do what we like.

‘Why isn’t this in Dammit! your printed case?’ We can’t do what we like after all.

I have sat here for seven years, but I still leave this place with a sense of work left undone. But then, as a wise friend said to me not long ago, you always feel that way, whenever you leave. And there are other things to do. For my part, I shall go back to being an academic historian, which is how I began. Thank you all for your friendship and support, and for coming here this morning.

Promotional photograph from Master Sumption's Reith Lecture Series © BBC Photo Library

We can do what we like.

The Rt Hon Lord Sumption OBE

Treasury

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

THE BAR LIAISON COMMITTEE

AND ITS CIRCUIT REPRESENTATIVES By Zachary Bredemear

Google Maps does not always get it right: in March 2019 CNN reported that the home of Ms Diaz of Rowlett, Texas was demolished by contractors who had been navigated there when searching for an address one block away; in June 2019 nearly 100 drivers found themselves stuck in a muddy field after taking Google Maps’ directions to avoid congestion near Denver International Airport; and today, if you search for ‘Inner Temple’, Google Maps will show you a location between Fleet Street and the north bank of the River Thames. In fairness to Google this area includes the precincts for which our Sub-Treasurer is the designated “litter authority” under the Litter Act 1983 but Inner Temple is an unincorporated association and our members can be found across the globe training lawyers, working to encourage equality of opportunity and promoting the rule of law. Nevertheless, the identification of the Inn with its buildings is an error that those of us practising in London have sometimes fallen into. The challenges the Inn now faces means that we need to retain our focus on our members. The Inn has a responsibility to provide Qualifying Sessions wherever our students are studying. We cannot do this effectively without members who are willing to forge links with the Bar Professional Training Courses outside London. The Inn has the goal of attracting the best candidates to our profession regardless of their background or location. We cannot do this without help from members living and working throughout the county. The Inn has an ambition to be a leading institution promoting the rule of law and advancing knowledge of the British legal system. To realise this vision, we will need members who are willing to explain why the rule of law is important to the lives of our citizens from Rochdale to Roehampton. Over the past year the Bar Liaison Committee (the Inn’s representative body for its members) has been looking at how we can improve our engagement with our members located outside of London. Each of the Circuits nominates a representative to the BLC and much of this work has been done by our enthusiastic Circuit reps. Over the past year we have asked our Circuit reps to report at every BLC meeting on matters connected to the Circuits and the Inn. We have also asked some of the BLC’s Circuit reps to assume the additional responsibility of joining one of the Inn’s other committees. This year the BLC has placed Circuit representatives on the Qualifying Sessions Committee and the Outreach Committee.

Another of our Circuit members has joined the Established Practitioners Working Group. This working group has been asked to develop proposals to engage established barristers in the Inn’s education and training programme. The BLC’s Circuit representatives have drafted questions about the Inn and the Circuits for the working groups’ forthcoming Established Practitioners Survey. This survey will provide the Inn with vital information about how it can meet the training and other professional needs of its members wherever they are located. The BLC has considered ways to help the Inn’s programme of outreach activities and we have discussed papers prepared by our Circuit representatives on this topic. One of the issues we identified was the need to improve communications between our Circuit reps and the Inns’ other members on each Circuit. We are very grateful for the work that Jude Hodgson, the Inn’s Membership Registrar, is doing to facilitate this. There is a lot more that can be done on each Circuit. To retain our momentum, we would like to have more than one member from each Circuit on the BLC. In the next few months we will be looking to co-opt new members to the BLC to make sure that our committee fully represents the whole spectrum of members on Circuit.

A final point that we are looking at is how the BLC can take its activities outside of London in 2020. We are considering several options, including holding a Bar Guest Night or a BLC meeting out of London. Watch this space; we are trying to get it right. Zachary Bredemear Chair of the Bar Liaison Committee

If you would like to know more about the work of the BLC please contact Henrietta Amodio hamodio@innertemple.org.uk If you are interested in other opportunities for members to participate in activities organised by the Inn, you can download the Guide to Volunteering Opportunities from the website www.innertemple.org.uk/membershipservices-support/volunteering-opportunities.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Brexit

BREXIT An address delivered by The Rt Hon The Lord Judge in the Temple Church on 27 March 2019 in anticipation of the then-expected exit date of 31 March 2019.

In this ancient church we have for centuries addressed the eternal verities. But Brexit is not one of them. Brexit is not an eternal verity. And next September, as we did last September, whatever the outcome, we will mark the end of summer on the last night of the Proms by singing with enormous enthusiasm and fervour ‘Land of Hope and Glory’, notwithstanding some diminution in the glory, and that the hope of which we will sing is over-focused on aspiration and ambition and aggrandisement. Hope deserves rather better.

Of course Brexit matters. It raises serious questions. In whatever form it may take, assuming it happens at all, it matters seriously today, and it will certainly matter seriously for a while yet, but surely, not quite so hyperbolically, if I may invent a new word, not quite so magnificatedly. Moreover, the way in which we have been exposed to a political shambles, a muddle, and any other disparaging epithet you may care to use matters just as much, indeed if not more, than Brexit itself. Taking both together, and taken with 24-hour news, and the perceived obligation to fill every minute of each 24 hours with excitement and stimulation and controversy, and plenty of individuals happy to join in, usually assertively, the news coverage has become intense and confrontational. We are becoming inured to intolerance. We have forgotten the societal need for moderation, and tolerance, not dull, insipid, bland moderation, but tolerance, moderation embraced with passion, Archbishop Fenelon’s ‘white-heat’ moderation. I shall not discuss how I cast my vote on Brexit. However, I like to think that when I voted my position was similar to that of many people who did not take an absolutist view. I acknowledged that there were arguments both ways, for and against remaining and for and against leaving. And voted accordingly, respecting the views of those who would, if they had known how I cast my vote, disagreed with me. During the last few months of debate and discussion, too many on both sides have embraced what I describe as absolutist opinions. Adherence to your beliefs and principles is not absolutist. Principles matter: I am not decrying them. What is absolutist is when you are so preoccupied with your own beliefs that you no longer allow for the possibility that there may be another sensible, even if misguided, view opposite to your own, and simultaneously, while blind to that possibility, you truly believe that you are the only person being reasonable. There has been too much absolutism, and insufficient moderation. The constant use of intolerant language undermines our commitment to free speech. That is bad enough, but, worse, the language here has damaged the body politic. 48

These problems started much earlier than this week or last month or even last year. The referendum was a cardinal error, in constitutional terms, a sort of mortal sin. The politicians messed about with our constitution. Forgive me for repeating what I have been saying for many months. Your democratic constitution can be based on democracy on the basis of a plebiscite or referendum. It can be based, as ours is, on lots of very small plebiscites which produce an elected representative to Parliament or a similar assembly. You can also have a constitution based on a representative assembly in which a referendum has a carefully defined function within the constitution. These include the circumstances in which a referendum may be called, the size of majority necessary to effect a change, and the extent to which and the way in which the results of any referendum bind the assembly. Such an arrangement works perfectly well in, for example, Ireland, and recently produced the public decision on abortion. But what you cannot have is our system of representative government in which a referendum with no defined constitutional function is called to enable the leader of the party of government to escape a political problem. That is what Wilson did in 1975. It is what Cameron did relatively recently. If the Prime Minister is lucky (Wilson was) it works, but not if the result of the referendum is in sharp conflict, as here, with the majority views in the House of Commons. Mess about with the constitution or debase or misuse it as a political manoeuvre or for perceived political advantage or to avoid a problem and it can bite back. And that is what it did. What price now for cabinet responsibility? Does it make constitutional sense for the legislature to take over the business of the executive? If political parties do not regard themselves as bound by their manifestoes, why should anyone else be bound by them? And so on.

“ Even at the circus both horses must travel in the same direction. If the horses are travelling in opposite directions even a skilled rider will fall off.” The referendum was an invitation to a political circus. Two horses called plebiscite democracy and representative democracy can be ridden round the circus ring giving the skilled horseman a relatively easy ride. Even at the circus both horses must travel in the same direction. If the horses are travelling in opposite directions even a skilled rider will fall off. It will be a shambles, a laughing stock. That is what we have here. With everyone looking for someone else to blame.

The Temple Church

And our situation since the referendum was exacerbated by the nature of arguments deployed during the referendum, which beyond the usual misinformation, in my opinion practised by both sides, made the choice seem simple when it is complex. Since the referendum the language has become more shrill and antagonistic. And divisive. And worse, physically intimidating and threatening. In my opinion too many absolutist leavers still overlook that 48 per cent of the voters rejected Brexit. And too many absolutist remainers provide colourable excuses for rejecting the views of the majority in the referendum in the hope of preventing Brexit. That has contributed heavily to the shambles. Even among the many who voted after balancing different considerations, we have become more polarised. When you have given a decision careful thought and worked out where, on balance, you should cast your vote in the referendum it is a normal human reaction increasingly to resent those who treat your decision with contempt. So you defend your decision with increasing vehemence and reducing tolerance for those who disdain it. And much worse, and this is the most alarming feature of it all, has been the deepening of profound disillusionment with our political and constitutional processes. Disillusionment with democratic processes is a parent of authoritarianism.

â&#x20AC;&#x153; What price now for cabinet responsibility? Does it make constitutional sense for the legislature to take over the business of the executive? If political parties do not regard themselves as bound by their manifestoes, why should anyone else be bound by them?

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2020

motherless human beings. How shall we address, and with what institutions, shall we address these immense moral problems, which will indeed engage eternal verities? Third is the accretion of increased executive power, which in our constitutional arrangements is being vested in the executive with virtually every statute that is enacted. There is no time for me to analyse them all, but into this mix of huge problems there remains the continuing damage which the Brexit process has inflicted on public confidence in our own constitutional and political processes. Perhaps, and I certainly hope, we shall relearn something of our former ability to respect views that we do not share. National characteristics do re-emerge. Today outside Parliament I witnessed demonstrations by supporters of the rival positions, and they were peaceful; noisy, but peaceful. Could we also remember that this ancient church has witnessed the consequences of much worse disasters. Onehundred years ago, the bells celebrated the end of the war in which millions, literally millions, of lives were brought painful, hideous, untimely ends, and millions more around the world were about to be eradicated by pandemic flu. Both were cataclysmic national disasters. And remember too that contemporaneously with those catastrophes something positive happened. That was the year our constitution at last acknowledged that at least some members of that half of the human race called women were entitled to participate in the electoral processes. Although we have only slowly appreciated the enormous value to society of the whole of that advance in 1919, it represented a remarkable and wonderful societal convulsion from which we continue to reap the benefits.

As I said at the outset, I do not believe that Brexit is or is concerned with eternal verities. At the risk of an allegation of heresy, I have to express my personal opinion that five or ten years from now we shall be engaged with problems at least as pressing as Brexit. They are already visible, merely obfuscated by Brexit. One is the competitive economic development of the East. Just one small indication is the advance of China in Africa. Another is the advance of technology. Not merely social media. One example only. In the not-too-remote future society will have to address the creation of fatherless and

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

While putting Brexit into its proper perspective we should not overlook two stunning features revealed by the Brexit processes. The Prime Minister wished to proceed with Article 50 without Parliamentary consent. She was taken to court by one individual. Just one individual and a couple of supporters against the entire government of the United Kingdom. The judges ruled against the Prime Minister. Ignore the issue of the way some parts of the media criticised the decision; the Prime Minister obeyed the ruling. Indeed, I am sure it did not cross her mind that she could disobey it. The individual continued to campaign. The judges continued in office. There are no proposals to alter the way in which the judiciary is appointed. In many countries that would be remarkable. In this country we take it for granted when we should remember it with pride.

“ …but into this mix of huge problems there remains the continuing damage which the Brexit process has inflicted on public confidence in our own constitutional TC and political processes.”

Brexit

“ I return to hope. Hope is a bit like moderation, like tolerance. It tends to sound a little bland. Rather dull. Faith attracts passion.” Come with me to a little church in the heart of Leicestershire. The King, the head of the Church of England, has just been executed. Oliver Cromwell had dispensed with Parliament. A Civil War with massive casualties had ended up with a more ruthless, absolute head of state than any since Henry VIII. Anglicanism was in retreat. Yet in 1653 an Anglican church was founded, and this is what you read on the stone inside the church: “In the year 1653 when all things sacred were throughout the nation either demolished or profaned, Sir Robert Shirley, founded this church; whose singular praise it is to have done the best of things in the worst of times and hoped in the most calamitous.” Unlike Brexit, Hope is indeed an eternal verity. This inscription is a message for the ages, and for us today. The Rt Hon The Lord Judge

Similarly, no one can doubt that the Prime Minister wants Brexit to be based on her deal. She cannot achieve a majority in Parliament. Indeed, in Parliament she is personally criticised, occasionally vilified. But in terms of forcible compulsion she can do nothing to put aside her more vociferous opponents. She cannot rid herself of a single one of them. Indeed, she may lose this battle and it will be the Prime Minister who is forced out of office, to take the lonely walk out of No 10. That may underline political weakness in a Prime Minister, but what a limitation on the exercise of power. In this country, again, we take all this for granted. I return to hope. Hope is a bit like moderation, like tolerance. It tends to sound a little bland. Rather dull. Faith attracts passion. People die horrible deaths for their faiths. Charity, love, also involves passion. Properly understood, hope is no less positive and should be embraced with an equal passion. Like toleration we need it at white heat.

Holy Trinity Chapel, Staunton Harold, Leicestershire

Treasury

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF A BENCHER By Master Fiona Jackson

has asked me to move her Call at the ceremony later this year. Overseeing the administration of the Inn’s PASS scheme has been one of the most fulfilling aspects of my Outreach role: the scheme aims to improve access to the profession for students from under-represented backgrounds by providing mini-pupillages alongside a focused advocacy and professional skills development programme to assist them to compete for scholarships and pupillages and thrive at the Bar. In the early evening, after a court hearing in the afternoon, I head to the Inn to speak at the Bar Liaison Committee meeting in order to update representatives of the (nonBencher) Inn membership about the Inn’s Outreach work and seek more volunteers to support the ambitious nationwide programme designed by our amazing Outreach staff team, including insight events about the profession for university students; the project for school students of talks challenging stereotypes about barristers and promoting social mobility; conducting mock interviews and hosting mini-pupillages for PASS students; and assisting with mock trials for schools.

Fiona Jackson

Before a case conference in chambers this morning, I’ve arranged to meet my Inner Temple mentee to give some advice about his draft application for a pupillage. I’ve been a student mentor for the Inn for some 15 years, having found my own second mentor’s advice and support invaluable as a student. Unfortunately, my first mentor’s only advice when we met briefly in 1997 was “as a woman, there’s no point in practising anything other than family law – you’ll never get work in any other field”. Despite my having no family connections with the legal profession and only limited legal work experience, his warning struck me as nonsense even then, having read of the varied practices of the Inn’s leading female QC and Bencher members! Luckily, one of the Inn’s advocacy trainers I met at a Cumberland Lodge weekend offered to step in as a replacement mentor, and he was extremely encouraging with advice about which chambers to apply to for pupillage and doing minipupillages to bolster my CV. I’m always happy to help my mentees for as long as they need my assistance in the early stages of their career, and this morning we discuss this mentee’s application form in detail, moving sections and information around for better impact, highlighting his best points and mitigating a disappointing exam result, and deliberately using words and phrases referable to the skills of a barrister to trigger marks and obtain an interview. At lunchtime, I sign the Call papers of two students, one of whom I met at a Dinner to the Universities and who is a Pegasus Access and Support Scheme (PASS) Scholar. As Master in charge of the Inn’s Outreach work, it’s really rewarding and exciting to meet a broader range of students than ever before at the dinner through our deliberate policy of widening access – this year students from 60 different universities attended. Our PASS Scholar is a very bright, engaging and enthusiastic individual with a real passion for voluntary work with legal charities, and I am delighted to learn of her plans for pupillage and practice, and even more delighted that she

I sprint over quickly to Inner Temple’s beautiful garden for the Temple Women’s Forum Garden Party: a lovely chance to catch up with both female and male friends from across the legal profession and, as with some of the work I do for the Bar Council and the Association of Women Barristers, an opportunity to celebrate initiatives designed to encourage and enable women to flourish in their careers at the Bar and stem the serious rate of mid-career attrition of many female barristers. The sun is shining brightly but I can only stay for one glass because I need to get over to the Honorable Artillery Company: whilst Project Pegasus is underway on the Treasury building, the Inn is holding its evening functions at other locations and the HAC in the City is hosting a dinner for Academic Fellows. Another event I attend as Master of Outreach, this fellowship scheme aims to build stronger ties between the Inn and legal academics by celebrating legal teaching across all universities and providing detailed information on the profession to students and their lecturers. The dinner is always a convivial and highly enjoyable occasion, enabling us to meet existing and aspiring Academic Fellows, learn of and seek solutions to current issues most affecting their students’ ability to come to the Bar, and (for me at least) recalling student days by discovering my dinner companions’ current legal research hot topics and hearing their expert opinions. After more drinks, sadly we are informed by the staff at the end of the evening that it really is time to leave, and I tear myself away to head home to finish prep for court tomorrow. A long day as usual, but one which reminds me continually how fulfilling it is to be part of innovative schemes to ensure that the best and brightest from every background can access and maintain a successful career at the Bar. Fiona Jackson Chambers of A Mitchell QC Chair of the Outreach Committee

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Master Singer

MASTER SINGER A tribute by The Hon Mr Justice Mostyn delivered at the funeral service of Master Singer held at Southwark Cathedral on 23 January 2019.

I have only done one of these panegyrics before. I was able to begin it by saying: “He once scored a hole-in-one at Muirfield!” I am not going to be able to say anything like that about Peter. When I met him in October 1980 on my arrival at 1 Mitre Court to commence my pupillage with him, I soon realised that there were certain things that we definitely did not have in common, and a love of sport, whether as follower or participant, was high on the list. He thought it completely futile and pointless. I am not, in this address, going to detail his numerous achievements in the legal field – these have been touched on in the obituary already published and a much fuller one will shortly appear in Family Law. I am going to give you my personal take on this remarkable man, who was a constant feature in my life for nearly 40 years.

I soon discovered that I was in the presence of a very active brain indeed. His intellectual skills were phenomenal. He was a poly-linguist. Laura (his daughter) has told the story of him as a young child teaching himself Czech and German so that he could eavesdrop on his parents’ private conversations. As she says, he spoke perfect French with a strong Corsican accent, apparently. Jonathan Cohen recalls doing a case in his court. Peter’s mobile phone rang, and he conducted a 15-minute conversation in perfect French from the bench, before resuming his interrogation of the witness. Stephen Cobb’s wonderful valediction given on Peter’s retirement in November 2010 recounts that he once pacified an irate Greek litigant in person by speaking to him in ancient Greek. Stephen also claimed, and this might even be true, that Peter addressed a conference of South African judges and lawyers in both Afrikaans and Xhosa. I know for a fact that he learnt several phrases of Urdu in order to address a meeting of Pakistani judges.

“ He was a poly-linguist. Laura (his daughter) has told the story of him as a young child teaching himself Czech and German so that he could eavesdrop on his parents’ private conversations.”

Master Singer

I discovered that he was highly numerate. He was the only person I had met who could add up a five-digit column of numbers by just passing his hand down the list. Everyone else adds up each column individually of course. He could do long division in his head. When the computer programme Capitalise was conceived by us, he even taught himself the rudiments of computer coding so that he could understand what the algorithms were actually doing. I discovered that he had a very individual literary style. He basically thought that punctuation was unnecessary. I would not go quite so far as to say that some of his written work resembled the last 25 pages of Ulysses, but he definitely eschewed, so far as he could, the use of commas and semi-colons, and no sentence was ever too long for him. He would split infinitives not merely with a single adverb but with swathes of prose. He once told me that he had set himself the challenge of trying to split an infinitive within an already split infinitive.

Celebrate the life

Well known is his love for the excruciating pun, the intricate wordplay and the tortured mixed metaphor. Some of his classic dicta have been cited on the very summits – you all know that his image of the Duxbury wife draining her last glass of champagne and expiring exactly as predicted by the life tables was cited warmly by Lord Nicholls in the earth-shaking case of White. Perhaps you are not so aware that his elaborate mixed metaphor about abducted children finding themselves “in a sort of Hague triangle limbo, marooned in a jurisdiction from which their return has been ordered but becalmed by extended uncertainty whether they will in the event go or stay” seems to have amused Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as she cited it fully in the US Supreme Court case of Chafin. His co-authorship of At a Glance, the first edition of which hit the stands in 1992, gave him the perfect platform to indulge this attribute. Highlights over the last 28 years have included the rancorous divorce between Romeo and Juliet and the dispute over the family business – a Veronese balcony-building company; the creaking nautical theme following the 2000 decision in White v White (“there will be a growing flotilla regrouped under a new White ensign fluttering in Leading Cases”); the strained funerary metaphor following the 2008 financial crash (“Are we nearing the end of days when all that is toxic, all plagues and pestilence, will be consumed with the body politic on the banks’ burning ghats?”); and the fake law report of the toxic divorce proceedings in 2017 between Rob Titchener and Helen Archer. Last November, a dispute arose between the authors of Financial Remedies Practice as to whether the eighth edition should have a preface at all. Peter suggested that it should merely say: “The authors regret that in the current situation the existing timetable has been so derailed that this edition’s Preface has been cancelled. Next year’s departures may be more predictable as and when Brexit has left the station, when there may be light at the end of the Chunnel.” He was always to hand with a joke or prank. In my pupillage, I would sometimes encounter strange documents on my desk entitled “In the matter of The Education of Idle Pupils Act”. Jokes would work their way into his judgments. In one case, the husband had been imprisoned in the USA for failure to pay alimony. Peter was considering questions of reciprocal enforcement. In his judgment, he said: “The hearing on 24 June was abortive, and the husband thereafter left Mayfair and (without so far as I know collecting £200 as he passed Go) went straight to Jail.”

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

He was however an exceptionally poor joke-teller because he had the infuriating habit of collapsing into convulsive laughter shortly before he reached the punchline, leaving his audience almost invariably entirely in the dark. These are the traits that emblemised Peter for us and we loved him for them. He was a truly kind man, and his generosity towards his friends was legendary. From 1992, I had to deal with him if not daily then certainly on a weekly basis in relation to our various publishing projects, and I can sincerely say that I cannot recall one harsh word or argument between us even though some difficult decisions had to be made from time to time. That is not to say that he did not take mischievous pleasure in winding me up. He was a very brave man. I discussed with him at some length the emergence of the lymphatic cancer 10 years ago, and he never complained that fate had dealt him a rubbish hand. 2018 was the year of his personal Calvary – he spent much of it in hospital, the cancer having by then aggressively reawakened and was taking its deadly hold. Again, I never heard him complain about his predicament; rather, he persisted in making intricate jokes about it. Right at the end, he told me that he had gained a place at the hospice at the Hospital of St John and Elizabeth. He knew that I had been trustee there and he wondered if they still had swarms of nuns to look after the residents because, if they did, he intended to do what he could to wind them up.

“ I can sincerely say that I cannot recall one harsh word or argument between us even though some difficult decisions had to be made from time to time. That is not to say that he did not take mischievous pleasure in winding me up.” In his welcome address on Peter’s appointment on 11 January 1993, Nicholas Wall exhorted him, paraphrasing the advice of the second apparition called before Macbeth, to be bold and resolute but, please, not bloody. I think we can all agree that in his personal and professional life in the 25 years since then, he heeded that exhortation, mainly. He was always bold and resolute and only occasionally bloody. Sir Peter Singer, family lawyer and High Court judge, was born on 10 September 1944. He died of cancer on 22 December 2018, aged 74. The Hon Mr Justice Mostyn

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Without Libraries what have we? We have no past and no future

“ WITHOUT LIBRARIES WHAT HAVE WE? WE HAVE NO PAST AND NO FUTURE.” * By the Deputy Librarian

As the Library reopens in its temporary home on the fifth floor of 10 Fetter Lane, I have been considering the relevance of libraries in the digital world. I have previously written articles on the fallacy of the often-quoted expression “It’s all online now” and although I will expand on that slightly in this article, it seems to me that there are many other reasons why our Library is highly relevant and might claim a place at the heart of the Inner Temple community.

We live in an era of fake news and information overload where everything and anything can be published quickly and cheaply. But in this chaotic environment the quality of the Library’s resources can be trusted. The librarians know how to evaluate information for relevance, accuracy and authority. Our Library is stocked with only the best legal resources, which are maintained so that everything is up to date and appropriate for users’ needs. Moreover, the Library’s holdings are stable and long-lasting. Web pages, however, can be ephemeral and may be taken down or just lost without any thought of archiving the content. Our policy is to retain superseded editions, enabling users to find material whatever the original publication date. “Libraries have always existed as places for the ‘just in case’ event, providing the go-to location when you want sustenance of the mind in some way – knowledge, leisure, curiosity, information, entertainment.”** This is not just true of how our members use the Library but why many people continue to visit all kinds of library. The value of serendipity should never be underestimated.

“ Libraries have always existed as places for the ‘just in case’ event, providing the go-to location when you want sustenance of the mind in some way – knowledge, leisure, curiosity, information, entertainment.”

*Ray Bradbury ** Ruth Bird, Slaw Canada blog, July 2015

There is an assumption that everything is online and can be found easily. However, from having observed how users approach the subscription databases, I can see that even when database providers strive to make interfaces as userfriendly as possible, users often struggle to find what they need. By contrast, it is easy and convenient for users to find what they need in the Library. We do not use a classification system and most items are shelved alphabetically by author or title. I am confident that anyone trying to find official publications on the gov.uk website will find it much easier to check our catalogue and get the item off the shelf. As well as offering ease and convenience, the Library provides an environment that is conducive to study and research. The quiet and peaceful surroundings (which are maintained in our temporary location) make the Library a great place to study and undertake research. Our surveys show how important this is to Library users.

Library

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

“A good law library is a Public Benefit. It provides a lawyer – any lawyer – with the same access to the very same legal resources as his or her opponents, however well-resourced or expensive those lawyers are.” [Jack of Kent blog.] This statement is highly pertinent in today’s environment when many chambers are economising, and publicly funded barristers are suffering as a result of cuts to legal aid. We are able to purchase expensive textbooks and provide access to online resources that are beyond the means of many individual barristers. This is a core function and makes it possible for members to access all the materials they might need in the course of their work, and puts everyone on an equal footing. Our Library provides a highly respected enquiry service where users can have face-to-face contact with the Library staff. Most people will have experienced the frustration of trying to explain a problem to an outsourced call centre or just trying to get beyond an automated call system. Faceto-face service will get results quicker and is a more pleasant and relaxing way to get the support you need. A rapport is built up and it is much easier for both parties to understand exactly what is required. The very positive feedback we receive shows how much our users value good customer service.

“ Our Library provides a highly respected enquiry service where users can have face-to-face contact with the Library staff” I would say that the Library embodies the cultural identity of the Inn and connects its different communities. Our collections represent hundreds of years of learning, information and history. Our services are there for all members and staff. We offer services for members from the day they join the Inn, right through their legal careers and into retirement. To conclude, the Library is as relevant today as it ever was and we trust it will continue to thrive in its temporary location and then when we return to the main building in 2021. Tracey Dennis Deputy Librarian

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

The Council of The Inns of Court

THE COUNCIL OF THE INNS OF COURT Pupillage Matched Funded Scheme

The Council of the Inns of Court (COIC) welcomes applications for matched funding for 2020–21 and 2021–22 pupillages. The COIC Pupillage Matched Funded Scheme (PMF) helps provide additional pupillages in Chambers, and other approved training organisations, predominantly engaged in legally aided work. Encouragingly, a growing number of Chambers are applying for COIC matched funded grants. COIC is set to support 36 pupillages in 2019. This is an impressive improvement on the scheme’s first year of operation in 2014, when it supported 14 pupillages.

HOW THE SCHEME WORKS

Applications to match fund 2020–21 and 2021–22 pupillages are invited between 2 September and 21 October 2019. Decisions will be communicated during the week commencing 4 November 2019. Online applications can be made at coic. org.uk/pupillage-matched-funding. To find out more, please email Samantha Anderson, COIC Secretary: sanderson@coic.org.uk. Author: Nathalie Lieven QC, Chair, COIC Pupillage Matched Funding Grants Committee

COIC

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 £9000 for 2020– 21 London pupillages and £7700 for 2020–21 out of London pupillages, and £9450 for 2021–22 London pupillages and £8050 for 2021–22 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

PARK SQUARE BARRISTERS “Pupils are the future of the profession and vital to the survival of the independent Bar. PSQB has received matched funding, which has allowed us to recruit three additional pupils since 2017. As a set dedicated to publicly funded work the scheme has been vital in allowing us to grow our numbers, maintain exceptional standards and secure a bright future for Chambers. This has all been achieved in an era of continued uncertainty and cuts, with no additional budgetary pressures for our set.” Simon Clegg, Director of Pupillage

CHARTLANDS CHAMBERS “We are a small provincial set predominantly with a focus on family law. We have always been dedicated to undertaking publicly funded work. With the cuts in legal aid, we were not in a position to take on two pupils in 2019 without the COIC pupillage matched funded grant. The grant was an invaluable help to us in ensuring we continue to build on our commitment in providing barristers to assist publicly funded clients. The initiative is very commendable and will go a long way in opening up the availability of pupillages to those who deserve the same. We are grateful for this positive initiative during difficult economic times.” Waqas Rashid, Head of Pupillage

CENTRAL CHAMBERS “As a small, mainly publicly funded set, the financial aspects of offering pupillage were an obvious concern when we were considering the ways in which chambers should grow, but the Pupillage Matched Funding Scheme allowed us to take a chance on pupillage and, with the support of the Inns of Court, we have been able to offer this opportunity in a very restricted market. Thanks to the Pupillage Matched Funding Scheme, we can offer a further three pupillages over the next 18 months – opportunities for recent graduates that simply would not have been there without this scheme. At a time when access to the profession is of great concern to chambers, the Scheme helps small, specialist sets like ours to offer pupillage in areas being deserted by those solely searching for financial gain rather than a drive to help the disadvantaged.” Joe Lynch, Head of Pupillage

Treasury

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

PROSECUTING AND DEFENDING BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL COURTS From a talk given by Master Cayley to the Temple Employed Bar Forum on 18 March 2019.

In November of 2011, in Phnom Penh, in Cambodia, I opened for the prosecution before an international hybrid tribunal in a case which had charged three octogenarian Communist leaders with genocide and crimes against humanity. Three elderly, frail, but defiant men appeared in the dock. The principal allegation was that they had murdered – worked or starved to death – two million of their own citizens. As we stood there, with our Cambodian co-prosecutors, we all felt that this was a moment of extraordinary historic significance. Over 30 years had passed since the Khmer Rouge had been toppled from power, and here we were, bringing the remaining leadership to justice. It was a moment which, even ten years before, would have been very hard to contemplate. My journey in this field of law began in 1992. I was a young army lawyer and I’d been sent to attend a course on international humanitarian law at Liverpool University. The course included looking at the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. At that time there were no international courts in which these crimes could be prosecuted, and there were few domestic prosecutions. So then in 1992 it really was law in theory and not in practice. It all felt rather cynical, particularly in the face of an ongoing and very destructive civil war in the former Yugoslavia. By 1993, the war in Yugoslavia had been raging for nearly two years. It was becoming irrefutable that in Croatia and Bosnia there were mass killings of civilians taking place, the systematic detention and torture of men of military age in concentration camps, and the widespread rape of female members of the civilian population. Also, the practice of ethnic cleansing, a euphemistic phrase used to mask the horrors of the forcible displacement of innocent civilians from their homes by acts of murder, rape, serious injury and destruction of civilian property. And these events were not unfolding in some far-off place about which we knew very little. It was right on our doorstep in Europe.

through diplomacy and other international legal measures. On the other hand, if the court worked, if we really could make individuals criminally responsible for their actions, then we might achieve some small measure of justice and act as a deterrent both for this war and future conflicts. I was young and it was a time of great hope and high ideals. As a junior my most powerful memories of the ICTY are of the Colonel General Radislav Krstić case, which would be the first prosecution of a charge of genocide before the Yugoslav tribunal. Krtstic would be also be the first case to reveal to the world events at Srebrenica in north-eastern Bosnia.

“ We had to have individuals to prosecute Some had said the court was a fig leaf to mask these terrible atrocities that the UN was incapable of stopping through diplomacy and other international legal measures.” In 1995, Srebrenica was a small Bosnian Muslim enclave, surrounded by Bosnian Serb forces. In that fateful month, July of 1995, the Bosnian Serb forces would take the enclave. They would murder up to 8,000 captured Bosnian Muslim men and boys, and forcibly displace 25,000 civilians trapped in the enclave. In the context of the war in the former Yugoslavia, these events were, and still are, absolutely notorious in their scale and brutality. In 1999 the late Kofi Annan wrote that the UN had simply failed to recognise the scope of the evil it was confronting in Srebrenica. It seemed a dramatic statement at the time but two years later, at the end of the trial, his words if anything understated what really happened at Srebrenica.

The United Nations seemed absolutely paralysed in its ability to stop the spreading conflict in Yugoslavia. Then, on 25 May 1993, the Security Council resolved to create an international tribunal, which would bring to justice those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia since 1991. Within two years I had been seconded to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. There was much legal research to be done on the elements of the offences that we were dealing with and the modes of criminal liability. Also, the rules of procedure and evidence of the court had to be tested, to see if the court could really function. And most of all, we had to have individuals to prosecute Some had said the court was a fig leaf to mask these terrible atrocities that the UN was incapable of stopping Charles Taylor, former President of Liberia

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Prosecuting and Defending Before The International Courts

The investigation at Srebrenica was wide-ranging and groundbreaking in many respects. Satellite and aerial imagery, provided by a UN member state to the Yugoslav tribunal, led us to mass grave sites. When we excavated many of these sites, we discovered thousands of bodies. The bodies that were recovered often had their hands tied behind their backs. They were blindfolded. Gunshot entry wounds were often to the back of the head. So, classic summary executions.

Sufficiently alarming reports of widespread human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law led the Security Council of the United Nations to conclude that events in Darfur were a threat to international peace and security. So, in September of 2004, the Security Council requested the Secretary General to rapidly establish an International Commission of Inquiry (subsequently known as the Cassese Commission). The Commission was to investigate reports of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur, by all parties, to determine, also, whether acts of genocide had occurred, and to identify the perpetrators of such violations, with a view to ensuring that those responsible were held accountable.

While there’s been much debate, subsequently, about the legal characterisation of events in Srebrenica, the court found that the mass killing of the male population was genocide. In an evidential sense, it was an absolutely overwhelming case. The evidence from a handful of survivors and the relatives of the dead was emotionally charged and often distressing. Living relatives, the mothers and wives, had lost three generations of their menfolk. General Krstić was convicted of genocide for Srebrenica, as were a number of other Bosnian Serb Army officers and civilian officials, including the President of the Bosnian Serb Republic, Radovan Karadžić, and the Commander of the Bosnian Serb Army, Ratko Mladić, respectively, in 2016 and 2017.

“ While there’s been much debate, subsequently, about the legal characterisation of events in Srebrenica, the court found that the mass killing of the male population was genocide.” T

In 2005, I moved on from the Yugoslav Tribunal, to the permanent International Criminal Court in the Hague, where I would work on cases arising out of Uganda and Darfur in Sudan. The causes of the war in Darfur remain extremely complex. Suffice to say, from 2001 and 2002, there had been a protracted armed conflict between the Sudanese Government, and rebel forces in Darfur. The rebel forces were largely recruited from the Fur, Zaghawa and Masalit tribes of Darfur. While strict Arab and African identity can be blurred in Darfur, these three tribes were recognised as African, rather than Arab, and were all of Islamic faith, like the government forces. The Government of Sudan responded to the rebels with armed force, employing both the regular army and local Arab militia, known as the Janjaweed.

The Cassese Commission reported back to the Secretary General in January of 2005. Cassese found that thousands of civilians had been killed. Women and girls had been raped on a colossal scale, and villages had literally been razed to the ground. About 1.8 million people had been forcibly displaced internally and had become refugees. On 31 March 2005, the Security Council referred the situation to the International Criminal Court. I was assigned, as the senior prosecutor, to the case. The immediate difficulty that we faced was that while Sudan was a member of the United Nations, it was not a member of the International Criminal Court; it had not signed up to the Rome Statute, so it claimed that we had no legal jurisdiction. So, we had to be innovative in the way we collected evidence. And we were. The evidence that we gathered clearly demonstrated that crimes had been committed by the Government and its proxy forces, and also by rebel forces, but at a much lower level compared to the crimes of the Government. In April 2007, warrants of arrest were issued against the Deputy Minister of Interior, Ahmad Harun, responsible for security in Darfur, and an Arab militia leader, known as Ali Kushayb. In 2009 and 2010, warrants of arrest were issued against the president of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. And in 2012, the Minister of Defence of Sudan, Abdel Hussein, was the subject of a warrant of arrest for crimes against humanity and war crimes. One rebel leader has also been charged with war crimes. To date, no Sudanese officials have been arrested to answer for these crimes. In 2007, I left the ICC and was instructed by the former president of Liberia, Charles Taylor, to defend him in his case before the Special Court for Sierra Leone. This court was a hybrid tribunal, mixing international staff with local Sierra Leonean judges, prosecutors and court staff. It was the first modern tribunal to sit in the country where the crimes took place. That was a very important development. Charles Taylor was charged with 11 counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes. While Taylor had been the president of neighbouring Liberia, it was alleged that he had supported one of the major rebel groups of the civil war in Sierra Leone, the Revolutionary United Front, the RUF. The rebels had murdered, mutilated and tortured the civilian population of Sierra Leone.

Two areas of disturbed earth indicating the possibility of mass graves, Nova Kasaba, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 27 July 1995. Source: The International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY)

Treasury

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Mass grave, Srebrenica

In April 2012, Taylor was convicted on all 11 counts, predominantly on the basis that he had aided and abetted the crimes. This mode of liability, relied on by the court, reflected the most common difficulty in these kinds of cases, where the alleged perpetrator of the crimes is a high-level leader – a head of state in this case – who is physically remote from the crime scenes, and his or her involvement in the crimes is principally the provision of supplies, like ammunition and food and, here, some advice that he’d given to the physical perpetrators. His conviction was upheld on appeal, and he was sentenced to 50 years’ imprisonment. Returning now to South East Asia and Cambodia. I was the International Co-Prosecutor of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, a court specially established to address the crimes of the Khmer Rouge committed in Cambodia between 1975 and 1979. In 1975, the leader of the Khmer Rouge Pol Pot isolated his people from the rest of the world and set about emptying the cities, abolishing money, private property and religion, and setting up rural collectives. Anyone suspected of being an intellectual or a member of the middle classes was labelled a counter-revolutionary and tortured and executed in special security centres.

“ The permanent International Criminal Court in the Hague faces enormous challenges. Powerful states, like China, Russia and the United States are not members of the court, thus weakening its support and reach.” By the time investigations had commenced, over a quarter of a century had passed since the crimes of the Khmer Rouge had been committed. Many survivors and witnesses had died. Any forensic evidence of mass killings was long gone. But fortunately, significant document collections of the Khmer Rouge existed. The Khmer Rouge, like the Nazis, kept meticulous records of their crimes.

What people find very surprising is that the vast majority of the two million dead for which the Khmer Rouge were responsible were not victims of genocide at all, because for genocide to take place, the killing, or one of the enumerated acts that constitute genocide, must be done with the intention to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. The vast majority of Cambodians lost their lives because they were identified as counter-revolutionaries by the Khmer Rouge. As such, they were a political group. That group was never recognised as a protected group within the Genocide Convention. There was genocide committed in Cambodia against the Muslim Cham and the Vietnamese minorities living in Cambodia. As to the vast majority of Cambodians who were killed, of course they were victims of multiple crimes against humanity, even though they were not victims of genocide. When you examine the records of the Yugoslav Tribunal, the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, they have been remarkably successful organisations. The permanent International Criminal Court in the Hague faces enormous challenges. Powerful states, like China, Russia and the United States are not members of the court, thus weakening its support and reach. Indeed, the US has very vocally condemned the court calling it “illegitimate.” The period from 1994 to 2010 saw the greatest expansion in international courts and trials since Nuremberg and Tokyo. To be part of it was to truly sense a great surge of hope. Today there are limitations, but I sincerely believe that all of the individuals, present here tonight, that have done this kind of work, still care passionately about it being done properly. That we must continue to address and eliminate this cynical inevitability we have, as human beings, of destroying each other from age to age. We really still can stop that. Andrew Cayley CMG QC Director Service Prosecutions (DSP)

A full version of this talk can be viewed at innertemple.org.uk/ your-professional-community/temple-employed-bar-forum/ prosecuting-and-defending-before-the-international-courts

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Brexit and The Irish Bar

THE COMMON LAW, BREXIT, AND THE IRISH BAR From a lecture given by Paul McGarry SC on 11 March 2019.

The Irish Bar is in some respects similar to the Bar in England and Wales. One significant difference is that we don’t operate with chambers. So, if a solicitor wants to instruct an Irish barrister, the contact must be made directly. There are no clerks. This has advantages (direct control over term negotiation) and disadvantages (fee collection issues).

Ireland has recently introduced statutory regulation for all lawyers (the Legal Services Regulation Act). Although passed in 2015, most sections have not yet been commenced. It makes provision for new types of practice models. Barrister partnerships will be permitted, barrister-solicitor partnerships will be permitted and employed barristers will be regulated in a way that’s different to the way that they’re regulated now. The independence of the Bar is recognised in the legislation; this recognises a political reality. Frequently our politicians will resort to the use of the Bar, and particularly silks, whenever there’s a difficult issue or problem that requires some thought, much in the way that enquiries are often farmed out to retired or senior members of the judiciary. Ireland has a written constitution with a Bill of Rights influenced by other systems that have similar legal structures (US, Germany, etc.). As you know, we operate a common law system. Stare decisis reigns. There are five levels of court: the District Court, Circuit Court, High Court, (which has full original jurisdiction in civil matters). Since 2014, we have a Civil and Criminal Court of Appeal, which allows the Supreme Court to pick its own cases, much like the UK. In comparing common and civil law, it is helpful to go back to the start. The comparative theory of legal origins holds that institutions depend on political factors. Hayek said that the ideal of individual liberty seems to have flourished chiefly among people where, for long periods at least, judge-made law predominated.

The following quote represents a good summary of origin: “ Although legal systems are most often acquired involuntarily, they were an object of conscious choice in England and France. English common law developed as it did because landed aristocrats and merchants wanted a system of law that would provide strong protection for property and contract rights and limit the Crown’s ability to interfere in markets. French civil law, by contrast, developed as it did because the revolutionary generation, and Napoleon after it, wished to disable judges from thwarting government economic policies”. Paul Mahoney, Chicago Law School JLS 2001, Vol 30/2

In the wake of the UK referendum in 2016, our Government asked the Bar to take a lead in looking at the way in which the common law operates, with a view to seeing whether there are any opportunities or benefits for Irish law, bearing in mind that, for the last 35, maybe 40, years, English law has become a major source for dispute resolution. We know that global business trusts the common law much more than it trusts the civil law. Stare decisis actually makes it easier for lawyers to predict outcomes.

“ Judicial precedent, is now embedded in European law. So, you have a system of stare decisis, in effect, with regard to principles of European law.” I wanted to look at some issues relevant to common law and civil law. Both systems have benefitted hugely from their co-existence, since Ireland and the UK joined the then EEC. This can be seen in a whole variety of areas. Our common law systems have adapted to incorporate concepts in public law such as proportionality, effective remedies, the obligation to state reasons and legitimate expectation. On the other hand, EU law now recognises common law concepts like audi altarem partem and stare decisis.

Education & Training

From the point of view of practice in the European Courts, there are obvious examples. Civil law judges tend not to engage in dialogue with one another, and certainly not to the extent that it happens in the common law systems. Their unfamiliarity with oral advocacy is well known. The notion of preliminary references and the interaction that often occurs between the courts in Luxembourg and the national courts who have sent the questions, that has been developed incrementally over the years, is something that we believe very important. One of our great fears is that with Brexit we could lose the tradition of oral advocacy that has built up at the CJEU. It tends to be the preserve of lawyers from common law countries, and the quality of oral advocates from England and Wales, and from Ireland, tends to be a lot higher than that of lawyers from civil law states. We worry that the court might decide to downgrade oral hearings in the wake of Brexit, because you have a very large member state with the common law tradition of oral advocacy which is no longer in play and no longer agitating and requesting that these things be done.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

As stated, judicial precedent, is now embedded in European law. So, you have a system of stare decisis, in effect, with regard to principles of European law, unless you can find some real reason, as opposed to a theoretical one, as to why it shouldn’t be applied. Another Brexit downside for us is that we will lose the dialogue between the CJEU and the courts of the UK, particularly England and Wales. We’ve relied over the years, because we’re small and not as well resourced, on the UK Government, which has kept a close eye on what’s happening in European law, particularly where there may be an impact on the common law.

“ We can see civil law encroaching on to the common law via European rules. One key concern relates to the possible europeanisation (if that’s actually a word) of commercial law.” A downside for the court is that it has a large number of personnel that are UK nationals. The majority are lawyers and they bring a common law perspective to European judicial decision making. I think it would be very unfortunate if we were to lose all of that. We think that will result in, ultimately, a diminution in common law influence over time.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Brexit and The Irish Bar

From our perspective, we can see civil law encroaching on to the common law via European rules. One key concern relates to the possible europeanisation (if that’s actually a word) of commercial law. Will this result in the de facto legal isolation of Ireland? We are concerned that we would be the only real, or at least the only exclusive, common law jurisdiction in the European Union.

Plans are afoot, or have been implemented, to establish various types of English language courts in Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Brussels. The French have spent a lot of money marketing what they describe as a common law English language dispute resolution court in Paris. We are naturally sceptical about the capacity of those legal systems to assimilate common law concepts.

Emmanuel Macron in 2017 said, “Unified civil law is inevitable for France and Germany.” What he really meant was that it should be inevitable in the European Union after Brexit.

It’s important to restate that this isn’t about competing with London, this is about competing with those whose clients are telling them, “I can’t do this in London, because the ECB says I can’t”, or, “Brussels II hasn’t been redone”. There are many questions around these issues, and it works both ways. Brussels II started out life as a convention between contracting states, but it has now become embedded in EU law. There may be ways around that. Arbitration might well be a good answer to a lot of enforcement issues, but we know that the financial services sector has traditionally been reluctant to engage with arbitration The International Swaps and Derivates Association is now using draft agreements with French and Irish law options in addition to New York and England.

That is a concern, although just to give you the alternative perspective, the following is a quote from one of our leading constitutional and European scholars, Gerard Hogan:(now our Advocate General at the Court of Justice). He said: “ It’s only a matter of time before common law courts come to recognise the existence of a general duty of good faith. If that were to happen it would precede some development in our law at some later stage. It could not, however, authorise the courts to undermine the substance of the rights and parties, and obligations of the parties to the contract, in reliance on such a general principle of good faith.”

In 2016, after the referendum, a lot of law firms expressed concern in the UK about the absence of passporting into the single market, future operations and head count issues. We, at the Bar changed our rules slightly two years ago, so as to make it easier for practising members of the English Bar to become members of the Irish Bar. We could see how it would benefit them if they had an opportunity to avail of practice in another EU State. We don’t warrant as to whether it will work or not. There will be disputes about this, I suspect, down the line. Whether you can brass plate in one EU State and avail of treaty rights to provide services is something that will ultimately be determined by the Court. As I mentioned earlier, we launched a project in January 2018, with the support of our Government, to promote Irish law. I think it’s important that this is seen in the context of what clients are telling lawyers what they want to see happening, arising from concerns about things like Brussels II, statements made by the ECB regulatory and establishment requirements.

So, you can imagine the things that we’ve been saying about Ireland and the common law: English-speaking, business-friendly, outward, globalised. I think that’s a view of our society and economy generally. We’ve had far too much narrow-minded nationalism in our country to want to suggest that that’s a good way to think in the future.

“ If you’re looking for friends in the aftermath of Brexit, Ireland is the place to go.” If there is one theme I want to emphasise, it is this: if you’re looking for friends in the aftermath of Brexit, Ireland is the place to go. The links between the Irish Bar and the English Bar are very strong, historically. We believe, at Bar leader level, and I think our judiciary feels the same way, that we should maintain very close links with our colleagues here, whether through mutual recognition, joint events, exchanges and so on. I think in spite of Brexit, or maybe even because of it, it’s something that we should be looking at in the future. Paul McGarry SC Senior Counsel, Bar of Ireland Chairman of the Bar of Ireland from 2016 to 2018; Bencher of King’s Inns (2016) and the Middle Temple (2018) The full version of this lecture is available at innertemple.org.uk/lectures

The Inner Temple

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

IN MEMORIAM The Inn mourns members of the Inn who have died over the past year*:

John Smyth Esq QC

11 Aug 2018

His Honour Stephen Waller

16 Aug 2018

Sir Michael Turner

07 Oct 2018

The Honourable Sir John McGrath

19 Oct 2018

Anthony Dicks Esq

08 Nov 2018

Michael Hall Esq

04 Dec 2018

Sir Peter Singer

22 Dec 2018

Miss Alison Graham Wells

03 Jan 2019

William Glover Esq QC

11 Mar 2019

Mrs Beryl Pendley

19 Mar 2019

Philip Walter Esq

01 Apr 2019

Gordon Pollock Esq QC

11 Apr 2019

Miss Jane Lemon QC

24 Apr 2019

Gazi Haque Esq

30 Apr 2019

Miss Simone Burns

01 Jun 2019

His Honour Nicholas Jones

06 Jun 2019

Sir David Maddison

29 Jun 2019

Miss Kirsten Houghton

03 Jul 2019

Anthony Glass Esq QC

11 Jul 2019

Professor John Gardner

11 Jul 2019

Stephen Williamson Esq QC (Treasurer of the Inner Temple 2007)

24 Jul 2019

Sir John Drinkwater QC

13 Aug 2019

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Exposing the Self-Evident as Fallacious

EXPOSING THE SELFEVIDENT AS FALLACIOUS By Allan Hennessy

The leather binder in my hand contains far more than a Masters of Law certificate from Harvard Law School. It contains my history, my context and my perspective. It houses my narrative and my journey – from Baghdad to the Bar, via Cambridge and Harvard. In short, it is the site at which my successes and struggles, my privilege and plight, live under one roof. It is a story of the journey – the sacrifice – my parents made when they left Baghdad for London 24 years ago.

The pictured regalia is sadly the emblem of privilege – I am one of the fortunate few in this world with the opportunity to wear this most hideous outfit (yes, I was not best pleased about the mortar board ruining my hair). It is for this reason that I will spend the rest of my life using law as a tool of social change. The first step on that journey is to start work on my first book, Toward a Jurisprudence of Change, which builds on the work I have done at Harvard. The next is to start life as a barrister, fighting discrimination and human rights violations through the courts. I can only hope that my journey so far vindicates my parents’ decision on that rainy November afternoon in 1995 to abandon everything and everyone they loved to save my life from the tyranny of the local sheiks who demanded that I be killed because my disability brought shame onto the family. But this picture is not just about me or my parents of course. It is about *us*: those who are subject to dominant and exclusionary forces; those who live and fight through racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, religious discrimination and all other forms of erasure. The more we infiltrate these institutions, the more we can dismantle the status quo with our perspective; the more we can expose the self-evident as fallacious; and the more we can use power with responsibility, empathy and compassion.

“ The more we infiltrate these institutions, the more we can dismantle the status quo with our perspective; the more we can expose the self-evident as fallacious; and the more we can use power with responsibility, empathy and compassion.” Law is not a science, though it often masquerades as such; it is a political device, the site at which the state enforces its epistemology and definitions, the forum in which social control is advertised as objective truth. Those who fight both with and against it often do so because they feel the pain that the draftsman did not and could not. They joust for change because they know that continuity is cruel and unkind. We are those lawyers. Doctrine is our weapon, revolution our purpose. Allan Hennessy

EDUCATION & TRAINING # E

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Education for the Bar

EDUCATION FOR THE BAR

The Education and Training section of the Yearbook aims to provide a small insight into the depth and breadth of activities that the Education and Training Department, the Education and Training Committee (chaired by Master Levitt) and all the committees and members dedicated to the Inn’s core function of education and training provide and give up their time to support. This has been a year of immense change for the Inn’s educational and training provision with more radical changes to come.

Crucially, the BSB has agreed that the Inns will continue to play an essential role in the training of barristers and this has been set out in a Memorandum of Understanding, signed by the BSB and the four Inns. The MOU covers:

The Inn’s outreach schemes and activities continue to grow and develop, with more events held on Circuit and more people joining the flagship Pegasus Access and Support Scheme (PASS). It has been heartening to see more specialist bar associations supporting PASS, as this will help the scheme to offer a wider variety of more diverse opportunities to those taking part. Over the last 11 years, the Inn’s outreach work has evolved to include a wide and holistic range of activities that are based on best practice, but there is still much more to be done in widening access to the profession and the Inn will continue to work with relevant partners to develop its schemes.

As part of Future Bar Training, the BSB will now take responsibility for the approval of Pupil Supervisors, although the Inns will continue to provide training. There is still much to be agreed on the training for Pupils, including the ways in which ethics will be assessed during work-based learning (pupillage). Forensic Accountancy and Practice Management during pupillage has been removed as a compulsory element. There will be a new mandatory Negotiation Skills course to be completed during this component of training, retaining the compulsory advocacy course during pupillage or work-based learning.

In the annual survey of new student members, “Education and training opportunities” and “scholarships” were again identified as the two most important factors affecting the decision to join this Inn. Financial assistance is a crucial factor in our attempt to widen access, and Inner Temple continues to offer generous scholarships (most of them means-tested) to the most able students. This year, the Inn received the highest number of applications ever for the BPTC scholarships – 454 applications, with a total of 385 interviewed. The Inn also received its highest number of GDL scholarship applications, with 109 people applying and 104 interviewed. To ensure that those who volunteer come from the widest range of backgrounds, the Scholarships Committee (chaired by Master O’Farrell) approved a recruitment campaign that focused on securing a higher number of women for interview panels. This led to a 50 per cent split of men and women on interview panels this year. Thanks are due to the Scholarships team, Scholarships Committee and particularly to those members who dedicate time to interviewing candidates – a significant task given that the Inn interviews every eligible candidate. Since the start of Project Pegasus, the Inn’s Education and Training activities have been delivered in a range of venues around England and Wales. Many events that would normally be held at the Inn have instead been held at the Law Society or at King’s College London. These events have broadly achieved very positive feedback. This period of dislocation from the main hub of the Inn presents, in itself, a key opportunity to test out new ways of delivering training, allowing us a chance critically to consider ways in which events might be altered and enhanced by the new facilities forthcoming with Project Pegasus. Education and Training for those being called to the Bar is about to go through its biggest change in recent history. With the Bar Standards Board (BSB) Future Bar Training programme now coming to an end, the focus has moved to implementing these reforms.

Admission to an Inn Student conduct Qualifying Sessions Call to the Bar

“ Education and Training for those being called to the Bar is about to go through its biggest change in recent history.” To ensure the Inn can respond to these changes and also help develop the educational offer, Professor Cheryl Thomas QC (Hons) has been appointed Dean of Education at the Inn, the first time in our history that the Inn has had a Dean. Professor Thomas explains more about her appointment in an article further on in this section. The Inner Temple has led the way in developing Qualifying Sessions and pupils’ advocacy training, which provide relevant skills and knowledge, and we will continue to develop new sessions to meet the needs of our student and pupil members. The Inn’s work over the last few years will help to ensure a smooth transition to the new requirements set by the BSB. Thanks are due to our dedicated Qualifying Sessions Committee and Advocacy Training Committee, as well as the members who give up countless evenings and weekends to train our students and pupils. Together with the other Inns and Circuits, the Inn is also committed to delivering vulnerable witness training for barristers wishing to undertake publicly funded serious sexual offences cases. Member volunteers have been trained as specialist facilitators of this intensive training and several training sessions have been delivered. The Inner Temple has so far trained over 200 delegates, with additional sessions planned. As always, the Inn is immensely grateful to all its members who volunteer for our education, scholarships and outreach programmes. With their ongoing support, and the support of new volunteers, the Inn will continue to do everything it can to meet the evolving needs of those training for the Bar through to established practitioners. If you would like to volunteer to assist with any of our programmes, please do get in touch.

Education & Training

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

The Education and Training Team

EDUCATION AND TRAINING TEAM FIONA FULTON Director of Education 020 7797 8207 ffulton@innertemple.org.uk

DAISY MORTIMER Outreach Co-ordinator 020 7797 8262 dmortimer@innertemple.org.uk

DAVID MILLER Professional Training Manager 020 7797 8209 dmiller@innertemple.org.uk

JULIA ARMFIELD Education Manager 020 7797 8207 jarmfield@innertemple.org.uk

SELLISHA LOCKYER Scholarships and Students Manager 020 7797 8210 slockyer@innertemple.org.uk

RICHARD LOVERIDGE Education Co-ordinator 020 7797 8212 rloveridge@innertemple.org.uk

STRUAN CAMPBELL Outreach Manager 020 7797 8214 scampbell@innertemple.org.uk

GEORGINA EVERATT Scholarships and Students Co-ordinator 020 7797 8211 geveratt@innertemple.org.uk

EDWINA KOROMA Events Co-ordinator 020 7797 8213 ekoroma@innertemple.org.uk

KERRY UPHAM Education Co-ordinator and Assistant to DoE 020 7797 8189 kupham@innertemple.org.uk

Education and Training Department Treasury Building, Inner Temple, London EC4Y 7HL (office situated at 2 King’s Bench Walk) Tel: 020 7797 8208

www.innertemple.org.uk www.twitter.com/TheInnerTemple www.facebook.com/TheInnerTemple

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Changes to Education

CHANGES TO EDUCATION Looking back through the archives, it seems there has not been a Yearbook in recent history that has not talked about the changing landscape of barrister education. Over the course of those years, thousands of words have been written in consultation and hundreds of hours have been spent in meetings and discussions as to how barristers and prospective barristers should be educated. This year, however, has seen arguably some of the most significant changes made in recent history. On 1 April 2019, the new Bar Qualification Manuals were published and the four Inns signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the BSB, intended to clarify our respective roles and responsibilities going forwards. This process of change is starting to move towards implementation, though there is still much change to agree.

“ …thousands of words have been written in consultation and hundreds of hours have been spent in meetings and discussions as to how barristers and prospective barristers should be educated.” One major change, as set out in the Memorandum of Understanding, heavily affects Qualifying Sessions. Specifically, students who enrol on a Bar Training Pathway from September 2020 onwards will have to complete ten Qualifying Sessions across five designated themes prior to being called.

The five themes, which cover all aspects of the skills and knowledge students need to learn as part of their training for the Bar, are as below: A. Ethics, Standards and Values; B. Advocacy Skills; C. Legal Knowledge, Justice and the Rule of Law; D. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion; and E. Preparation for Pupillage, Career Development and Wellbeing.

In addition, students will need to attend a certain number of qualifying sessions that are designed to be interactive and will be able to gain up to five qualifying sessions on Circuit. From September 2020, Call Night will no longer count as a Qualifying Session, even for those enrolled on a Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) prior to September 2020. To ensure that the Inn is ready for this change, the Qualifying Sessions Sub-Committee, chaired by Master Rory Philips, has set up a Qualifying Sessions Review Group, including Master Patrick, Master Mitcheson, Master Anne Richardson, Master Arnot Drummond, Nathan Rasiah, Robin Sellers and Annabel Gough. Since March 2019, they have been reviewing all of the Inn’s currently offered Qualifying Sessions, including those not delivered in London, as well as considering their cost. In July, the Executive Committee approved the report produced by the Review Group, which advises that the Inn adjusts its Qualifying Sessions to ensure that they have clear learning outcomes, are linked to the BSB Professional Statement at all points and cover the five themes. The Inn now needs your support. If you are a practitioner on Circuit and feel you can support a Qualifying Session, please get in touch with the Education and Training Department. If you attend a Qualifying Session this coming year, you will notice substantial changes. The Education and Training Department will be piloting the new framework and the recommendations made by the Review Group to ensure the Inn is ready for September 2020.

Education & Training

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

INNER TEMPLE OUTREACH The Inner Temple’s overall outreach mission is to create enriching opportunities, to inspire, connect and enable understanding about the Bar and the Inner Temple as an Inn of Court in the modern world. At the heart of this mission is the idea that talented people come from all backgrounds in society. It also recognises that people need support to gain experiences and find out information, because the pressures faced by people who are thinking of becoming a barrister are varied and each journey is different. That difference is why the Inner Temple has a range of outreach activities and schemes. The Inn was delighted to learn earlier that this year the Chancery Bar Association wanted to support the Pegasus Access and Support Scheme (PASS) by providing five new scholarships and it has been fantastic to see more chambers starting to support this scheme. The Inn has recognised that, while it is based in London, it is not a London-centric organisation, and its members practise across England and Wales as well as internationally. Last year, the Outreach Committee (chaired by Master Fiona Jackson) agreed to increase the number of insight events on becoming a barrister that we run. The Inn is now delivering many events on Circuit. Project Pegasus has been an opportunity for the Outreach Team to deliver Legal Academic Dinners on Circuit, with the most recent dinners being hosted in Manchester and Birmingham. This has already created more active relationships between local academics and members of the Inn, with many members going on to give presentations at universities or to judge moots.

It would not be possible to run the Inn’s Education and Training activities, including its outreach activities, without your support. We want to ensure our volunteers represent our whole membership. It is important that people who attend our events can see the diversity of the profession on our panels, in our mock interviews, at our workshops and at workshops at universities. It helps to inspire confidence, and for many it is the start of their journey into the profession.

“ It is important that people who attend our events can see the diversity of the profession on our panels, in our mock interviews, at our workshops and at workshops at universities. It helps to inspire confidence, and for many it is the start of their journey into the profession.” The Inn does understand that volunteering can take up time and with lots of different demands placed on practitioners, it can be a challenge to fit it in. That is why the volunteering offered as part of the Inn’s outreach schemes is often only for a couple of hours and is flexible. The Inn’s outreach activities are open to volunteers from BPTC students to QCs and senior judges, to every part of the profession, and it can be a good way of becoming more engaged in the Inn’s volunteering activities. Many of our volunteers report that speaking to prospective members reminds them of why they became barristers in the first place. If you want to find out more about volunteering or want to have a conversation about how you get started, please contact the Inn’s Outreach Team.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Pegasus Access and Support Scheme

PEGASUS ACCESS AND SUPPORT SCHEME In 2012, the Inner Temple established the Pegasus Access and Support Scheme (PASS), with the intention of ensuring that all students with the capability and determination to pursue a career at the Bar have the opportunity to undertake mini-pupillages, regardless of their background or personal networks. In the last three years, we have also offered participants a three-

Increasing opportunities

PASS continues to go from strength to strength, with the 2018/19 academic year yielding over 200 applications – the highest number of applications for PASS we’ve ever received. We were delighted to be able to increase the number of places awarded to 67, which allowed for an additional eight extra students to undertake the scheme compared to last year. Upon reflection, over 80 per cent of attendees said the course had changed their perception of the Bar and barristers, and they now found it more approachable and achievable. This figure demonstrates how vital it is to support students’ aspirations and create accessible routes into the profession. Out of our 67 students, 33 have completed a mini-pupillage with one of our PASS partner chambers, and the feedback we have received demonstrates how significant PASS is in helping to build professional skills. Participants indicated they now felt more confident they would be able to pursue a career at the Bar after PASS:

day professional skills course, designed to enhance their application, interview and advocacy skills. The support from you, our partner chambers and volunteers, has been invaluable and we hope the information provided below demonstrates the impact that the scheme has had this year.

“ The opportunity to receive feedback from practising barristers is an invaluable opportunity I cherish from the course.” “ Incredible events. I felt that all of the sessions were meaningful and helpful.” “ I would like to say a massive thank you to everyone who has been part of PASS and has assisted so many people in realising their dream. I hope to be back one day to help support these events!” “ The work you do is so important. I am proud to be a part of this and grateful for your help.”

Education & Training

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Boosting confidence Undeterred by a change in location, as Project Pegasus gets underway, the students were out in force on the first day to attend a range of panel sessions with practising barristers, pupils and current BPTC students. Participants were invited to ask panellists questions about their journeys to the Bar and were offered helpful tips on applications and interviews as well as honest advice about obstacles an aspiring barrister can expect to face. The second day of the course included advice on mock interviews and CV training. After a discussion on application processes and interview techniques, students experienced mock pupillage interviews with members of the Inner Temple, who then provided them with feedback on their interview technique as well as support to help them in real interviews. The mock interviews proved particularly helpful, with participants commenting:

The final day of the skills course proceeded with a talk on ethics at the Bar, followed by a comprehensive session on wellbeing and learning how to ‘survive and thrive’. In the afternoon, participants were divided into small groups so they could have the opportunity to practise advocacy – a first for many of the students. They then received feedback and tips from practitioners as well as expert advice and were encouraged to go through the case again, taking on board the guidance they had received. These advocacy sessions were especially well-received, with the students saying:

“ The mock advocacy exercise was an invaluable experience and a great opportunity.”

“ The mock interviews really boosted my confidence in myself. I learnt lots over the whole programme.”

“ The advocacy practice session enabled us to ‘have a go’ and receive feedback, an opportunity I would not have anywhere else.”

“ The advice from barristers regarding interviews was really helpful and I made a huge improvement when I did my mock interview.”

“ The advocacy exercise was so useful because it was run by experienced professionals.”

“ Being told that your previous skills and experience are relevant to a career in the Bar boosted my confidence.”

To round off the residential skills course and celebrate the students’ achievements over the three days, the scheme ended with a joint reception with Middle Temple and COMBAR. Reviewing feedback from the students, we were thrilled that 100 per cent of attendees said attending the course was helpful and has now definitely made them want to pursue a career at the Bar. PASS has succeeded in providing an insight into the profession and instilling confidence in the students in their own abilities.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Outreach on Circuit

OUTREACH ON CIRCUIT By Richard Wheeler

The Inn’s Outreach activities on Circuit are hugely important in helping students around the country to learn more about the role of a barrister and to make informed decisions about their own futures. Just two such events over the last year are profiled below, but each example serves to illustrate the range of activities the Inn undertakes and the importance of this work on Circuit. On 22 January 2019, around 120 students aged 14 to 18 attended a student law workshop at Sheffield University run by the Inn, in partnership with the charity Young Citizens (formerly the Citizenship Foundation). During the morning, the students attended a number of talks about the University, the law school and careers in law. In the afternoon, three senior members of the Inn gave short talks about advocacy. The students were then split into groups of about 30 to take part in a mock criminal trial. Each group had the benefit of two members of the Inn to assist them to prepare the case and then to role-play the trial. The students were given 45 minutes to construct an opening speech, witness examination and closing speech. For most students, this was their first encounter with the trial process and, of course, they needed lots of help and encouragement. Given the age and inexperience of the students, in our group we chose to focus on ensuring the activity was fun and accessible, rather than to place too much emphasis on procedure or advanced advocacy skills. The students were apprehensive about the role play but, with encouragement, they overcame their initial nerves to deliver short speeches and ask appropriate questions to those playing witnesses. At the end of the trial, all the students assumed the role of the jury and a vote was taken as to whether the defendant was guilty or not.

Overall, the students acquitted themselves brilliantly during the process (save for the one playing the defendant, who was convicted). To run preparation and delivery of a mock trial in under two hours was a demanding but thoroughly rewarding experience. I would encourage circuiteers to consider getting involved with such events. There is no doubt the Inn’s Outreach programme provides students around the country with a valuable early introduction to a career at the Bar. Furthermore, even for those who may ultimately choose a different career, such events are important in helping to develop an understanding of the justice system generally, and the rule of law. Members of the Inn can make an important contribution in this regard, especially to students from backgrounds which are under-represented in the profession.

“ …even for those who may ultimately choose a different career, such events are important in helping to develop an understanding of the justice system generally, and the rule of law.” For those who already volunteer, I would say: please encourage other members you know to do so too. In March, I was very grateful to Colin McDevitt who took my place at short notice at an Insight event in Southampton. What follows is his account of the event.

Education & Training

Colin McDevitt writes: Approximately 80 attendees heard from a panel of four barristers: from the Government Legal Department, an inhouse CPS prosecutor and two in independent practice (family law and civil litigation). All the panel had been educated in state schools and had attended non-Oxbridge universities. The panel ranged in call from three years to 24 years. The attendees were mostly school and college students, but others were undergraduates and a couple were graduates in disciplines other than law. Geographically, attendees were mainly from Hampshire and Dorset. There were also people from Coventry and the Open University.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2020

â&#x20AC;&#x153; The panel spoke for an hour on their routes to the Bar, hurdles that they had overcome on the way, the challenges of gaining pupillage and tenancy, and the support they had received from the Inn.â&#x20AC;?

The panel spoke for an hour on their routes to the Bar, hurdles that they had overcome on the way, the challenges of gaining pupillage and tenancy and the support they had received from the Inn. The floor was then opened for questions for the final half an hour. The panel stayed for a further hour or so to chat informally to the attendees. Questions centred on entry into the profession and the nature of life as a barrister. A further favoured topic was funding and the scholarships that the Inn can provide. The Inn will interview every scholarship applicant and it awards scholarships on merit and need. Scholarships are available for the BPTC and any conversion course (for non-law graduates). The Inn also provides mentoring, interview skills and marshalling schemes. The event was the first I had volunteered to chair and I found it an utterly worthwhile experience. The attendees were engaged, motivated and keen to learn more about the Bar, and the questions the panel received were many and varied. It was a pleasure to give an insight into entering the profession and working as a barrister. Richard Wheeler

Reflections on PASS

Douglas Wotherspoon

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

REFLECTIONS ON PASS By Douglas Wotherspoon I am a third-year Law LLB (hons) student at the University of Manchester. I am the recipient of an Inner Temple Major Scholarship and the Duke of Edinburgh Entrance Scholarship and will be studying the BPTC in September 2019 before commencing pupillage at 9 Bedford Row in 2020. I was recommended the Pegasus Access and Support Scheme (‘PASS’) by a fellow student at the University of Manchester. He had completed the programme the year before and was overwhelmingly positive about PASS and his experience. Notably, he was particularly complimentary towards Inner Temple’s approach to diversity and inclusion. I came to the law from two concurrent unconventional careers, an unconventional background, and later in life than some. What immediately stuck me about Inner Temple was a genuine effort to encourage and support everyone, regardless of background, to achieve their potential. I recognised immediately that Inner Temple would be inclusive and welcoming as a professional home and applied to PASS.

Following my successful application, I was placed on a mini-pupillage at Ely Place Chambers. I was fortunate enough to see a wide range of chambers’ work from sitting with a third six pupil in Shoreditch County Court to shadowing a 27-years call senior junior at Maidstone Combined Court Centre. Notably, I attended the High Court for an injunction hearing, which was reported nationally the following day. The take-away moment for me was a piece of advice imparted outside Watford Employment Tribunal, which helped shape not only my undergraduate module selection but also the type of set I applied to for pupillage, and ultimately my future area of practice. In addition to a mini-pupillage, another opportunity provided by PASS was the residential weekend. The weekend provided valuable tutelage on pupillage and scholarship applications, mock interviews, networking sessions and opportunities to socialise with other scholars, members and Benchers of Inner Temple. Each experience highlighted the collegiate and supportive environment of the Inn. The highpoint of the weekend for me was submitting a plea in mitigation to Her Honour Judge Sarah Munro QC and the feedback which followed. I would not have had any of the above experiences if it was not for Inner Temple and PASS. I applied for a scholarship during my final year at university. The application process involved a written application and an interview. The interview took place at Inner Temple. Upon arrival, the other candidates and I were taken to the library and given time to read and prepare notes on our choice of a civil, family or criminal case, before being separated and taken to our individual interview rooms. The interview itself comprised of a series of questions from four members of Inner Temple. The questions were centred on my application, the case which I had just read and my motivations for becoming a barrister. There also was a short advocacy exercise.

Every applicant for a scholarship at Inner Temple is granted an interview. This affords everyone equal opportunity to show their determination, ability and character regardless of the strength or weakness of their written application. This is an advantage for anyone who has prepared by reading cases, is abreast of current legal issues and knows their written application back to front. Without the support of Inner Temple, it would have been very unlikely that I would have been able to fund the BPTC. The experiences and the insight provided by PASS me helped to secure a Major Scholarship and a Duke of Edinburgh Entrance Scholarship allowing me to undertake the BPTC full-time – immediately after my LLB. I am looking forward to starting a new chapter on my journey and becoming more involved with Inner Temple during my BPTC year.

“ The experiences and the insight provided by PASS me helped to secure a Major Scholarship and a Duke of Edinburgh Entrance Scholarship allowing me to undertake the BPTC full-time.” I applied for pupillage during my final year at university and was similarly successful. Again, I was able to draw upon my experiences during PASS whilst drafting my written applications, at interviews and during advocacy exercises. If you are eligible to apply for PASS, I would encourage you to do so; it has provided me with confidence, insight and experiences which I would not have had otherwise and gave me a link with Inner Temple, which will remain throughout my career. Douglas Wotherspoon

Education & Training

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

INNER TEMPLE SCHOLARSHIPS 2019 BPTC AWARDS PETER TAYLOR SCHOLARSHIP Jake Thorold

STEPHEN CHAPMAN AWARD Edlyn Livesey

PRINCESS ROYAL (5 Awarded) Danielle Carrington, Rory Forsyth, Robert Harris, Finnian Clarke, Oliver Hirsch

MAJOR SCHOLARSHIPS (20 Awarded) Arwa Graf, Sarah Kinsella, Shusmita Deb, George Vare, Shannon Knight, Isobel Kamber, Vistra Greenaway-Harvey, Sefki Bayram, Douglas Wotherspoon, Serena Sekhon, Benjamin Lafferty, Lauren Hitchman, Lilian Lewis, Anya Draycott-Kapp, Charlotte McDonald, John Groom, Edmund Garnett, Catherine Cameron, Felix Keating, Benjamin Slingo

EXHIBITION AWARDS (73 Awarded) Matthew Wyatt, Jusden Halabi, Cian Ó Concubhair, Karma Young, Noemi Levy-Aksu, Ebunlomo Azeez, Shemuel Sheikh, Paige Tugby, Ruby Peacock, Mark Nagy-Miticzky, Rhys Williams, Gemma Gould, Alice Scanlan, Grace Bowland, Holly Hickin, Laura Lazaro Cabrera, Mequissa Baptiste, Isabella Dennis, Shigufa Omarzaiy, Omar Sabbagh, Sarah Whale, Tay Jack Docherty, Edward Hodgson, Sonia Masaun, Queenie Djan, Jordan Coppin, Charmaine Clubb, Joshua Chapman, Sophie Cashell, Jessica Caiazzo, Laura Black, Agatha Barta, Oliver Durnall, Sarah Priddle, Yashna Patel, Diana Maria Panizzon-Pineda, Carl Whittam, Amelia Whyte, Charlotte Steer, Esther Sotubo, Rhys White, Tazkia Rahman, Aymen Ati, Hannah Jetha-Hussein, Samuel Marks, Molly Mcnestry, Nicole E Lyn Shieh, Tamara McCarthy-Baker, Lily Hayes, Bethany Davies, Jennifer Wilson, Jack Stuart, Camellia Basu, Jennifer Matthews, Alfie Evans, Annabelle Wang, Olivia Fraser, Saoirse Horan, Dugald Johnson, Elizabeth Tait, Rachel Nicolson, Demi-Lee Franklin, Daniel Taylor, Rochelle Wild, Maud Foxley, Holly Armstrong, Edward Grigg, Feargus Campbell, Riccardo Pagano, Sophie Hepburn, Dana Bilan, Jaime Ortiz-Patino, Bethan Evans, Clementine Makower, Lewis Scott, Benjamin Phillips, Daniel Dawson, Hannah Forsyth, Ross Hutchinson, Lewis Barber, Hannah Bernstein, Margo Munro Kerr, Conor Turley This year, the Inn received 454 applications for the BPTC Awards and, after allowing for withdrawals, interviewed 385 candidates over two Saturdays in March. We have awarded 110 scholarships and exhibitions, to a total of £1,594,000.

2019 GDL AWARDS PRINCESS ROYAL (2 Awarded) Alexa Thompson, Jodie Satterley

MAJOR SCHOLARSHIP (4 Awarded) Grace Annesley, Ann-Marie Debrah, Jessica Franklin, Seema Syeda

EXHIBITION AWARDS (28 Awarded) Edward Abedian, Hayley Belgrave, Catriona Benn, Dipali Dalia, Stephanie Davin, Rachel du Plessis, Grace Etheredge, Andie Gbedemah, Ella Grodzinski, Benedict Harwood, Richard Hine, Alexander Kumar, Mukami Kuria, Nicholas Linfoot, Rhea Mills, Claire Nevin, Hannah Nielsen, Hina Pattani, Calla Randall, Rachael Sanders, Kritika Sharma, Clara Sherratt, Harriet Sheves, Andrew Small, Imogen Smalley, Stefano Theodoli-Braschi, Alys Verrall, Felix Waldmann

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Notes from Inner Temple Scholars

NOTES FROM INNER TEMPLE SCHOLARS SHUSMITA DEB “Receiving a Major Scholarship and Duke of Edinburgh Entrance Award is a huge honour and a privilege. I am the first person in my family to go to university, and come from a working-class background. The Inner Temple has made studying the BPTC, and pursuing a career at the Bar, possible for me. Therefore, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the Inn.

“The selection process is challenging and competitive, but rewarding. A scholarship symbolises much more than financial help: it is a vote of confidence from the panel. It is really encouraging to know that the panel had faith in my ability to become a barrister. This has motivated me to work even harder to achieve my ambition. “I am looking forward to working closely with the Inner Temple. I will always be thankful to the Inn for assisting me at the beginning of my career.”

EDLYN LIVESEY “Receiving an Inner Temple Exhibition Award for my GDL year was an absolute game-changer for me, since it gave me the confidence to retrain as a barrister. I was already successful in another profession and, whilst I wanted to become a barrister, I knew I would face stiff competition. It was hard to gauge from outside the Bar whether I would have the right skill set. The scholarship interview presented an opportunity to discuss my career change with senior barristers. I am extremely grateful for their endorsement and I have not looked back. “This year, it is a tremendous honour to be awarded the Stephen Chapman Award, which puts me in the privileged position of not needing to worry about money during my BPTC year. While studying for the GDL, I had the opportunity to moot at the Inn and to experience first-hand the sense of community among members. Everyone has been very welcoming and I look forward to contributing to the life of the Inn this year and during my career. Thank you for your support.”

SHIGUFA OMARZAIY “I feel honoured to have been given such a prestigious award. Growing up as a daughter of Afghani refugees and gaining an education as a woman has always been an uphill struggle. Resources were often limited, and I was unable to take part in many opportunities offered to me. There were times when I thought I would not be able to afford higher education. This scholarship means I can afford to progress with my studies without the stresses of being in debt or short of money. This scholarship means a lot to me because it recognises and enables me to pursue my passion and dedication to help refugees in my community, like my parents. I will be using this scholarship to fund my BPTC and further my interests in becoming a barrister to practise in my chosen field. I am forever grateful to Inner Temple for this scholarship and the Inner Temple PASS team who have assisted me on the Pegasus Access and Support Scheme. Thank you so much.”

JAKE THOROLD “Being awarded this year’s Peter Taylor Award is an enormous honour. Becoming a barrister is an undeniably difficult process, but making it through a challenging set of interviews has given me confidence in my ability to succeed. It has made me more determined than ever to pursue a career at the Bar, and to repay the faith that the Scholarships Committee has shown in me. Receiving the Scholarship is of course a great financial help. It will permit me to focus entirely on equipping myself to become a skillful advocate both during pupillage and beyond. Alongside studying for the BPTC, I intend to dedicate myself to pro bono projects close to my heart. Inner Temple’s support permits me to make a degree of commitment to these causes which would otherwise not have been possible. I’m extremely grateful to the Scholarships Committee and to all of the Inner Temple staff who work so hard to support fledgling lawyers as we enter the profession. I look forward to what I hope will be a long career at the Bar, with the Inner Temple at the very heart of it.”

Education & Training

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

STUDENT SCHEMES Each year, the Inner Temple offers its student members the chance to take advantage of schemes designed to enhance their skills and develop legal work experience. MENTORING SCHEME

MOCK INTERVIEW SCHEME

The Mentoring Scheme pairs the Inn’s student members, including those studying the GDL, with barristers practising in a discipline that matches each student’s interest. The Inn’s pool of generous volunteers covers nearly every area and method of practice, from crime to commercial and from self-employed to in-house counsel.

This scheme offers an opportunity for students to practise their interview technique in front of an experienced barrister ahead of pupillage interviews. Participants have found this to be a very beneficial and rewarding experience.

POLICE LIAISON SCHEME The Inner Temple partners with police stations to allow BPTC students to shadow police officers over an eighthour shift. The scheme is reciprocal and, in return for their generosity in welcoming our students to their stations, the Inn facilitates a mock trial for our contacts in the police, demonstrating the workings of a criminal trial, and hosts a thank-you drinks reception each year.

THE MARSHALLING SCHEME The Marshalling Scheme offers BPTC students an opportunity to sit with a judge for a few days and discuss their cases in detail. This scheme is open to applications from all current BPTC students and is a valuable chance to observe court proceedings from the perspective of the judiciary. Student participants have regularly commented that this unique view of court life provides a detailed insight into how the judiciary operates, how judgments are reached and the influence of barristers in this process. There are a variety of placements available each year all around the country. A snapshot of this experience is provided by a participant below:

FOCUS ON THE MARSHALLING SCHEME – ALICE IRVING I was a full-time BPTC student in the last academic year. Originally from New Zealand, I came to England to continue my studies and ultimately with an eye to join the Bar. When the opportunity to marshal was offered to students by the Inn, I jumped at it. I thought it would be a fantastic way to learn about what did, and did not, make advocacy effective.

More than this, I had the opportunity to read into the live case we were due to hear, to discuss with Mr Justice Dingemans the merits, to put my view to him, and to try drafting the judgment. In a friendly atmosphere, I had the chance – in a sense – to advocate to a member of the judiciary. His responses were instructive and encouraging.

The experience of marshalling provided this insight, and more. It was incredibly useful to see advocates in action, from the perspective of a judge. Conversations with Mr Justice Dingemans, who I had the pleasure of marshalling with, helped me to understand what advocates can do to assist a judge and what can undermine an advocate’s own case.

I am now in the process of completing pupillage. It is a constant refrain from those training me that I should think of my audience whenever I draft a piece of oral advocacy. The reality of a judge’s task shapes the work I now produce. The marshalling scheme has given me a privileged insight into a judge’s reality. I cannot recommend the experience highly enough.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Calling All Mentors

CALLING ALL MENTORS By Master Levitt

There is probably not a single barrister who did not have some help at the beginning of their career. Many of us have cause to be truly grateful to senior members of the Bar who gave unselfishly of their time and experience to help us fill in forms, practice for interviews or simply made themselves available to answer questions. Some of us believe that, without this help, we might never have had the confidence to persevere. Some of us received this help because we were lucky enough to have connections at the Bar. We want to make sure that, in the 21st century, every Bar student who wants help and support in their student year should be given it, regardless of background.

“ We want to make sure that, in the 21st century, every Bar student who wants help and support in their student year should be given it, regardless of background.” E

The Inner Temple offers our students the opportunity to have a mentor during their BPTC year. The purpose of this article is to try to persuade those of you who have never been a mentor to give it a try. Every year we receive far more requests by students in need of a mentor than we are able to meet. As an Inn committed to providing our students with the best support possible, we are asking all those who have a bit of time spare – and even those who have no spare time – to offer support and guidance to a student. Being a mentor is hugely rewarding: you watch a fledgling barrister develop and grow throughout the BPTC year. It is a rather wonderful experience to pass on some of the things you learned from others and, by doing so, see how you can make an enormous difference. You feel an enormous sense of pride when they are Called.

Those of us who do advocacy training know that the teachers benefit as well as the students. Mentoring is like that too. It is also a wonderful opportunity for reverse monitoring, an invaluable way to keep in touch with the experiences of those just starting out in this great profession. This year, we are going to enhance our mentoring scheme by offering protected characteristic and social-mobility matching. If you are, for example, from an under-represented group and would like to support someone from the same group, you will be able to select this on the sign-up form. The amount of contact that you have with your assigned student is entirely up to you. Examples of the kind of support you might like to offer include telephone calls, meetings in person, offering advice by email. You can attend Inn events with the student (there is a special dinner for mentors and their mentees), review the student’s application forms, take them to court. The Inner Temple offers mentoring throughout England and Wales and we try to pair mentors and students both by location and area of legal interest. For this reason, we are keen to increase the number of mentors on the Circuits. Mentoring is open to anyone who has been in practice for at least three years, in any area of law. If this is something with which you would like to be involved, please contact Georgina Everatt at geveratt@innertemple.org.uk for further information or to be sent the link to our sign-up form. Alison Levitt QC

Education & Training

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

ADVOCACY AND THE VULNERABLE IN DOMESTIC ABUSE CASES By Master Moor

The Highgate House Residential Student Weekend from 17 to 19 May 2019 dealt with a topic that is undoubtedly a scourge of our modern society: namely domestic abuse. Entitled ‘Advocacy and the Vulnerable in Domestic Abuse Cases’, it was expertly organised by the Vice-chair of the Family Law Bar Association, Master Cyrus Larizadeh QC. Domestic abuse is an extremely important and serious topic. The weekend dealt with a number of issues that regularly arise. At times, this did not make for comfortable listening, but there is no doubt that the students immersed themselves thoroughly in the topic. The topic is, rightly, subject to regular scrutiny in the media and amongst politicians. There are a number of different ways in which the issue comes to the attention of the courts, both criminal and family. Prosecutions for murder of a former partner or a child are tragically common. Local authorities bring care proceedings in relation to children who have been abused. There are applications for injunctions in private law proceedings, followed, too regularly, by prosecutions or committal applications for breach of such injunctions. There is plenty of research as to the appalling effect of all of this on the abused and the children who have witnessed it. The victims find it extremely difficult to end such abusive relationships. Moreover, they have a real tendency to fall into the arms of another abuser once they have finally freed themselves from the first abusive partner.

“ The victims find it extremely difficult to end such abusive relationships. Moreover, they have a real tendency to fall into the arms of another abuser once they have finally freed themselves.”

A regular feature of care proceedings is non-accidental injury to children. In the case of babies, it can lead to life-changing injuries and even death. Who knows why this happens: constant crying at 2 am; a refusal to take a feed; or just extreme tiredness in the perpetrator. The consequences, however, are devastating. The police do their best, but they are stretched by financial constraints and frustrated by being called out over and over again to the same households. After an introduction to the topic on the Friday evening, the Saturday morning saw presentations from a panel of experts in the field. These presentations were followed by lively discussion and interaction with the students. Independent social workers Jane Andrews and Nicci Vella talked about their work with families and children who have experienced domestic abuse. Amy Harrison spoke of her work as an intermediary assisting the vulnerable in what can be very stressful court proceedings. Dan Sheridan of Senate House Chambers explained his role as a barrister representing clients involved in such proceedings. The session was extremely valuable in giving a real insight into the importance of the work but also demonstrated the intensely challenging aspects of much of it. The students then watched an advocacy masterclass, presided over by one of the most experienced judges in the field, HH Isobel Plumstead, before they themselves engaged in a student advocacy exercise on the Sunday that, as usual, provided invaluable experience for conducting such cases in practice. The end result was enthused students, many willing to take up the challenges of the Family Bar. If they do eventually do so, the author is confident they will gain immense satisfaction from assisting vulnerable people who really need their help. Advocates in the field can and do make a real difference to people’s lives. The message was loud and clear that it would be an excellent career choice to take up the reins on their behalf. The Hon Mr Justice Moor

The victims can be men as well as women and abusive relationships cross all class divides. The actions of the abusers are criminal, but they also have tragic consequences. Imagine the child who has lost his or her mother at the hands of the father. The mother is gone for ever. The father is in prison for many years. The child will often have witnessed it happening or, at least, heard what was going on. The damage to the children is immense. Why does it occur? Alcohol misuse is a common feature. Drug abuse is also prevalent. Mental ill health is another recurrent theme. Some cases, however, have none of these features and just seem to involve very unpleasant controlling people or those with a wicked temper.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Driving Innovation at the Bar

DRIVING INNOVATION AT THE BAR Professor Cheryl Thomas QC has been appointed the first Dean of Education at Inner Temple in its 700-year history – a new role established to help drive educational innovation and facilitate knowledge exchange. Professor Thomas is the country’s leading expert on courts, judges and juries, and is based at UCL’s Faculty of Laws. She holds the firstever Chair in Judicial Studies in the UK at UCL and is also Director of the UCL Jury Project and UCL Judicial Institute. With an academic career focused on law in practice, she brings with her extensive experience of the training undergone by judges and lawyers in the UK and abroad.

Within academia, Professor Thomas has conducted groundbreaking research on judges, juries, the role of diversity in the justice system, and the appointment and training of judges. She has pioneered the study of jury decision-making in the criminal courts, tackling sensitive and controversial issues about juries for the first time in this country. She has also led path-breaking research on the professional judiciary, including instituting the UK Judicial Attitude Survey, a longitudinal study of the working lives of judges conducted on behalf of the judiciaries of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Professor Thomas has developed innovative educational tools for use in courts, and her current research examines the impact of the digital courtroom, the impact of special measures in court for vulnerable witnesses, and how to prevent juror misconduct, improve deliberations and provide support for jurors after trial. Her appointment as Dean represents a new level of collaboration between Inner Temple and academia. It also provides an exciting opportunity to exchange knowledge and practice in law between the Bar and academia for the benefit of wider society. Below, we delve into the priorities of the new role and a major new initiative Professor Thomas is leading this year to re-engage established barristers with the Inn.

Role of the Dean Professor Thomas will advise and assist the Inner Temple in developing a programme for its established barristers and increasing the Inn’s engagement with the public and academia. The working relationship with UCL will also see the introduction of some new learning technologies for the Inn’s educational and training activities and will dovetail with the Inn’s implementation of new training and assessment requirements introduced by the Bar Standards Board.

A transformational appointment Welcoming Professor Thomas to the position, Lord Anthony Hughes of Ombersley, Treasurer of the Inner Temple, said: “The Inner Temple must remain relevant to the profession and the community it serves. The appointment of Professor Thomas, one of the country’s leading academics on law and the courts, will ensure that the Inn provides ever more useful training to members throughout their career, helping to ensure that the profession is equipped to meet the demands of the future.” Professor Thomas said: “I’m absolutely delighted and honoured to be appointed Dean of Inner Temple. The decision to appoint a dean for the first time in the Inns of Court’s almost 700-year history reflects Inner Temple’s forward-looking approach to life at the Bar in the 21st century.” Master Levitt, Chair of the Education and Training Committee, said: “The appointment of our first Dean of Education demonstrates Inner Temple’s commitment to putting education and training at the heart of our Inn. We want the Inn to be every barrister’s professional family from the day they qualify for the rest of their lives. We see it as the Inn’s role to offer support and assistance with the things which really matter to our members for the whole of their careers.”

Objectives and priorities Professor Thomas’s work as Dean will focus on four main objectives for the Inn: developing a lifelong learning programme for established barristers; improving public understanding of the role of barristers and the Inn; deepening the Inn’s connections with academic experts; and assisting with the implementation of major changes in the education and training of new barristers. As an Inner Temple Bencher since 2012, Professor Thomas brings a strong understanding of the work of the Inn to this new post, noting that “the Inn already has an outstanding Education and Training programme for students, pupils and new practitioners, run by the Director of E&T and fantastic E&T staff. I’ve been fortunate to have worked closely already with Inner Temple for many years as a member of the Education and Training Committee and, most recently, to have helped with a major redevelopment of Inner Temple’s ethics training for new practitioners.”

Professor Cheryl Thomas

Education & Training

A new programme for established barristers As Dean of Education, one of Professor Thomas’s main projects will be to create a lifelong learning programme for the Inn’s established barristers. According to Professor Thomas: “For most members, the Inn played an important role in their professional development as barristers in the start of their career, and the Inn has an outstanding and extensive programme of education and training for students, pupils and new practitioners in their first three years of practice. But the vast majority of Inn members are established barristers at more advanced stages in their careers, and many of these members perhaps do not necessarily see the Inn as so relevant to their current practice as it was when they were starting out. As Dean, my aim is to help the Inn develop new and innovative programmes to attract more experienced barristers back to the Inn, and thereby create a more modern and progressive role for Inner Temple as a professional body for all its barristers. But to do this we need to better understand what the working lives of established members are like today and how the Inn can better meet their needs.”

First Inner Temple Established Barrister Survey In January 2020, the Inn will take a major step towards achieving this objective when it launches the first-ever Established Barrister Survey under the supervision of Professor Thomas. The aim of the Survey is to help the Inn better understand the needs of those who are now established in practice beyond the new practitioner stage. This will enable the Inn to design a challenging and inspiring programme that every established advocate at the Inn will feel they need and want to experience. Professor Thomas already has extensive experience running such a survey for experienced legal professionals. Since 2014, she has been responsible for the recurring UK Judicial Attitude Survey, conducted on behalf of the judiciaries of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in order to better understand the working lives and needs of judges in the courts and tribunals.

Making the Inn relevant for all members Inner Temple’s Education and Training Committee has convened a Working Group to assist Professor Thomas with the survey, drawing on its members’ expertise across a range of practice areas and issues for the Bar. Professor Thomas is a member of the Working Group along with Master Raquel Agnello QC who chairs the Working Group, Master Martin Griffiths QC, Master Michael Stevenson, Master Rachel Spearing, Zachary Bredemear and Saoirse Cowley. The Established Practitioners Survey will provide the information the Inn needs to develop strategies and plans in order to bring the best out of every barrister and to develop a cadre of high-performing barristers who will raise standards at all levels of the profession.

Could you be one of Inner Temple’s new Champions in 2020? In Michaelmas Term, Professor Thomas and the Working Group will be contacting Inner Temple members to see if they would be willing to act as ‘Inner Temple Champions’. These Champions will be an important link between the Inn and chambers/employers, Circuits and specialist bar associations. Master Agnello explained that “you don’t have to be an Inner Temple Champion to be involved in the Inn’s many activities. But we are aiming to create a network of established members of the Inn who would be willing to help spread the Survey message to other Inn members in their chambers or employers, on their Circuit or in their specialist Bar associations.”

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

The role of the Champions will be to ensure that as many members of the Inn as possible know about the survey, are encouraged to take part and understand how the survey will impact and benefit them over the coming years.

Forging stronger links with the public and academia In addition to the Inner Temple Established Barrister Survey and Champions, the Dean’s role will help the Inn to increase its engagement with the public and academic experts. As noted by Professor Thomas: “I’m looking forward to helping forge stronger links between the Bar and academia and in raising public awareness of the crucial role the Bar plays in ensuring the rule of law.” Professor Thomas has already been asked to carry out a review of the Inn’s existing Academic Fellows programme. This review will be carried out in Michaelmas Term and her aim is to strengthen the Inn’s relationships with research leaders across the UK to the benefit of all members of the Inn, including those on Circuit outside of London. Professor Thomas adds that “the UK research community is home to some of the world’s leading thinkers in many different areas, from the neuroscience of memory to how artificial intelligence may affect the work of lawyers, cutting-edge developments in medicine affecting end-of-life decisions and the intricacies of Article 50. This knowledge can be of great benefit to members of the Bar, who need to stay ahead of the curve and incorporate the latest ideas and thinking from research into their legal work.”

“ The UK research community is home to some of the world’s leading thinkers in many different areas, from the neuroscience of memory to how artificial intelligence may affect the work of lawyers.” The Dean will also be working on a public education project designed to engage the public with what barristers do and what an Inn of Court does and how crucial work at the Bar is to the rule of law.

Inner Temple as a ‘Thought Leader’ The appointment of Professor Thomas as Dean of Education, the launch of the Established Barrister Survey and the creation of Inner Temple Champions throughout the country are all important steps towards fulfilling the Inn’s 2022 Education and Training Strategy. The Strategy aims for the Inn to be a ‘thought leader’ in the legal profession and a centre for promoting values that support the rule of law. To achieve this, it is recommended that education and training at the Inn should be made available in every phase of a barrister’s career, in order to build knowledge, develop advocacy expertise and support the presentation of the profession to the public. As Professor Thomas states: “This year’s new initiatives for established barristers show Inner Temple’s commitment to being a leader in lifelong learning at the Bar.” The Dean’s appointment is for three years in the first instance and, during this time, Professor Thomas will continue in her post at UCL, dividing her time evenly between the two institutions. The Dean can be contacted at deanofeducation@innertemple.org.uk.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Student Societies

STUDENT SOCIETIES

The Mooting IV Finalists

The Debating Society

INNER TEMPLE DRAMA SOCIETY

INNER TEMPLE STUDENT ASSOCIATION

Alexander Bryant

Andre Williams

The Drama Society has had a busy year indeed. We kicked off the year with a barnstorming student-written pantomime. Audience members were treated to dialogue interspersed with ABBA-inspired hits, an innovative set and Master Hodge’s best dance moves. The show was such a hit that the final night was a sell-out.

ITSA has had quite the year, organising a whole host of events for the benefit of the students of the Inn and beyond. We have made it our goal this year to create an environment that’s both socially beneficial and educational in equal measure.

It was not just the performers who took a bow on the final night, as Master Pascoe also stood down as Co-master of Drama. It is barely an exaggeration so say that Master Pascoe has been the Master of Drama since before records began. His dedication and vigour will be sorely missed, as will his generous support of all our performances. The hearty applause he received was well deserved. From all of us, thank you Master Pascoe! The Society also benefited from Master Christie’s annual Improv Night, during which attendees were well prepared for the toughest and strangest pupillage questions. Master Christie had ignited great enthusiasm amongst the membership and we now run a weekly Improv Night, hosted by Adam Smith. The Society was also lucky enough this year to perform Master Pascoe’s ‘Flying Solo’. This selection of monologues provided an opportunity for new members to perform in front of an audience, playing roles from the courtroom and far, far beyond. Far from winding down at the end of the legal year, the Drama Society is cranking up its activities. In June, the Society (in conjunction with the History Society) will be performing The Misfortunes of Arthur in the Temple Church. The Misfortunes of Arthur returns to the Inns after a hiatus of some 400 years – it was first performed at the Gray’s Inn Revels in 1587. We hope to do it justice. In mid-July, we will be hosting the inaugural inter-Inn Shakespeare competition. The best of Inner Temple will be pitted against the best of Middle Temple in a fight for the Shakespeare Cup. The evening promises to be a Shakespearean extravaganza, with each Inn putting on abridged versions of two of the Bard’s greatest works in the Inner Temple Gardens. We anticipate a spirited competition (followed by a massive victory for Inner!). It has been a thoroughly enjoyable and successful year. We very much hope to see readers treading the boards or, failing that, filling seats at our next production. 82

We began by holding a small networking event in the old Mitre Court buildings (which is now the Inner Temple Treasury Office due to the ongoing refurbishments for Project Pegasus), with barristers of varying seniority and pupils attending to offer insights to current BPTC students. We then threw a wellattended Christmas party, with plenty of mulled wine, mince pies, pretty poorly executed karaoke and festive cheer. In January, the real work began. We held a two-evening pupillage application clinic, with barristers and pupils critiquing students’ written applications and offering advice based on their knowledge of the recruitment process inchambers. This event was so heavily subscribed that we had to draft in extra barristers to see more students, all of whom were extremely grateful for the guidance they received. Most importantly of all, we held our Burns Night celebration at the end of January. (This year, our event actually fell on Burns Night, which added to the merriment.) The haggis was served to a rousing toast, the drinks flowed and everybody danced a ceilidh late into the evening. Burns Night was incredibly well attended by students, pupils, barristers and benchers alike and was a wonderful social event for all at the Inn and their guests. Next up, ITSA will be holding a summer party in July in central London to celebrate the end of another academic year. Stay tuned for details.

Education & Training

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

The Inner Temple Debating Open

Burns Night

INNER TEMPLE MOOTING SOCIETY

INNER TEMPLE DEBATING SOCIETY

Kiera Oluwunmi

Anne Hogarth

It has been a privilege for the Mooting Society to encourage and provide opportunities for students to develop into excellent advocates.

The Debating Society has had a successful year. We started the academic year with great success and were quickly able to send individuals to numerous competitions. This built towards our first internal competition, which was won by Naomi Vogel and Nate Fuller; we were thrilled that they were able to excellently represent us at the World University Debating Championship. We finished the first term with a Christmas meal organised by William Lane.

The year kicked off with the annual Magna Carta Moot in October. After being inspired by the advocacy displayed, we held a ‘Guide to Mooting’ workshop in November, run by Jonathan Schaffer-Goddard, for beginners and those who wanted to refresh their skills. The Inter-Varsity Mooting Competition took place in January, with over 20 universities from across the UK competing. The standard of advocates was high and improved from round to round. QEB Hollis Whiteman provided mini-pupillages for the winners. We ran our first Northern Regional Moot in Northumbria University this February and the finalists were awarded mini-pupillages at New Park Court Chambers. The day was a great success and we hope to establish this moot as an ongoing tradition. The Lawson Moot culminated in March, with five rounds over the course of the year reducing 64 competitors to a final of four. This gave members of all levels the chance to moot competitively and to use feedback from earlier rounds to hone their styles. Throughout the year, our external mooting teams have placed third in the LSE LGBT Featherstone Moot and were finalists in the University of Southampton Inns of Court Society Mooting Competition. Our teams are also currently competing on the international stage. After hosting and competing in the national round of the Telders International Law Moot Court Competition, our team is now preparing to fly to The Hague to present their oral arguments alongside teams from 20 other countries across the globe. As ever, all the work of the Mooting Society could not be possible without the support of members and Benchers who give so generously of their time and experience. Thank you!

Just after the New Year, we hosted the Inner Temple Debating Open. Students from universities across the UK and Europe attended the Inn for a two-day competition, finishing with a final judged by Master Treasurer, Master Reader, Master Kabir Sheikh, Master Hodge, Rebecca Livesey and NAME. The competition was organised by Anne Hogarth. The committee wish to express particular thanks to No5, who were kind enough to sponsor the competition; without their support, this competition would not have been the success it was. Our next major competition was the Rawlinson Debating Competition, which was organised by Helen Ball and which finished with the final at King’s College in front of the Inn at the last qualifying session of the year. Many thanks to Master Treasurer and the judges. Thank you to all the finalists: Taylor Blair, Nate Fuller and Anne Hogarth. The standard of speeches was noted by the Rawlinson family as being one of the best they had seen in the competition’s 10-year history. Overall, Joseph Meethan was victorious, and the winner of the 2019 Rawlinson Cup. Joseph Meethan also organised the Inner Temple Public Speaking Competition, which is now in its second year. The competition involves both a speech and a question and answer section. Many thanks to all our judges, but particularly to Master Reader who judged the final. This year, our finalists were Taylor Blair and Persijn De Vries, with Taylor Blair the ultimate winner.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Call to the Bar

CALL TO THE BAR E

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

Education & Training

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2020

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Academic Fellows

ACADEMIC FELLOWS

Established in 2010, the Inner Temple Academic Fellowship Scheme aims to recognise the outstanding contribution of legal teaching and research of early-to-mid-career academics to the Bar of England and Wales. Working closely with universities across England and Wales, the scheme also seeks to demystify the profession for prospective student members by building strong ties between the Bar and legal academia. During their three-

year tenure, Academic Fellows are variously invited to give lectures, to participate in residential weekends and other qualifying sessions, and to attend social events. In turn, we support, as much as we can, their research endeavours.

Dr Carmen Draghici

Dr Andy Hayward

Dr Carmen Draghici is Senior Lecturer in Law at the City Law School, City University of London, which she joined in 2009. She teaches European human rights law and family and child law and her research interests concern the judicial interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights and the responsibility of states and international organisations for breaches of human-rights obligations; her work has focused in particular on the right to respect for private and family life, non-discrimination, freedom of expression, and the protection of civil liberties in the context of counter-terrorism.

Dr Andy Hayward is Assistant Professor and Director of External Relations at Durham Law School. Dr Hayward is currently Early Career Researcher Coordinator for the Law School. He is also Co-director of Gender and Law at Durham (GLAD) (with Anna Jobe), which involves coordinating events and activities relating to law and gender studies.

Dr Draghici’s publications include articles and chapters published in UK, US and European journals and edited collections, as well as a book titled The Legitimacy of Family Rights in Strasbourg Case Law: ‘Living Instrument’ or Extinguished Sovereignty? (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2017). Dr Draghici is also a member of the policy-oriented Centre for Child and Family Law Reform (since 2010); in that capacity, she has contributed to responses to Law Commission consultations.

We were delighted to welcome four new Academic Fellows this year, each of whom we are sure will play a key role in the Inn’s educational and outreach programmes:

Dr Hayward research interests lie in family law, property law, equity and legal history (especially the history of family law). Adopting both historical and modern perspectives, his research critically analyses the legal regulation of formalised and non-formalised adult relationships and, in particular, the property consequences generated by their breakdown. Dr Hayward is currently working on two research projects. The first project focuses on the reform of civil partnerships in England and Wales. He also researches in the field of family property law. He has a particular interest in the ‘familialisation of property law’ alongside the development of both the common intention constructive trust and proprietary estoppel. Dr Hayward has teaching expertise on the modules of family law, land law, equity and trusts, and legal history (especially married women’s property). In 2009, he established the popular Law of Family Relationships module and to acknowledge student success on that course created the Lord Justice McFarlane Prize in Family Law, offering the top three students marshalling opportunities at the Royal Courts of Justice. He has received the University of Durham Excellence in Learning and Teaching Award in 2016 and nominations for Lecturer of the Year by Durham University’s Student Union, LawCareers.Net and the Northern Law Awards.

Education & Training

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Dr Christine Bicknell

Professor Eirik Bjorge

Dr Christine Bicknell is a public international lawyer. She specialises in the prevention and prohibition of torture at both European and UN levels, in which she has direct practical experience working.

Professor Eirik Bjorge’s fields of teaching and research are public international law and public law. His first book was called The Evolutionary Interpretation of Treaties (OUP, 2014) and won the Gold Medal of the King of Norway. His second book was entitled Domestic Application of the ECHR: Courts As Faithful Trustees (OUP, 2015). He has recently published a translation and expanded version of President Bernard Stirn’s Towards a European Public Law (OUP, 2017).

Funded by the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Dr Bicknell has worked previously in a research capacity, directly supporting the UN’s Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture (SPT) through a significant period of growth, and has also been seconded to its Secretariat in Geneva. She has similarly also been involved in collaborative work with the UN’s National Human Rights Institutions Unit. Dr Bicknell was previously a Research Associate with the Human Rights Implementation Centre (HRIC) at the University of Bristol, where she undertook research on a number of human rights themes. Significant contributions include research and drafting support, contributing to an important publication by the UK’s All-Party Parliamentary Group on International Religious Freedom or Belief, as well as a large study on human rights treaty body monitoring, commissioned by the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission.

At the University of Bristol, Professor Bjorge teaches introduction to law, public international law and comparative public law. In the past he has taught constitutional law, administrative law, EU law, human rights law and public international law at the University of Oxford, and he has taught human rights law and EU law at Sciences Po, Paris. He is a fellow of the Academy of Higher Education. Professor Bjorge was previously the Shaw Foundation Junior Research Fellow at Jesus College, Oxford, and has been a pensionnaire étranger at École normale supérieure, a visiting fellow at Sciences Po and at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg. He has clerked at the Conseil d’État and the European Court of Human Rights.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Academic Conferences

ACADEMIC CONFERENCES The Inner Temple Academic Fellows Scheme provides support to academics across England and Wales. One way in which the scheme provides support is through funding conferences that help to further an Academic Fellow’s research and promote dialogue between academics and members of the profession. The scheme supported two conferences this year and these pages are a reflection of what took place.

Contemporary Challenges Facing LGBT+ Asylum Seekers

‘CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES FACING LGBT+ASYLUM SEEKERS: UK AND GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES’ On 1 May 2019, an international conference entitled ‘Contemporary Challenges Facing LGBT+ Asylum Seekers: UK and Global Perspectives’ was geld at the University of Reading, School of Law, under the auspices of the Global Law at Reading (GLAR) research group. The conference convenor, Dr Ruvi Ziegler, serves as co-convenor of the Migration and Asylum section of the Society of Legal Scholars and is an Associate Academic Fellow of the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple – both of which supported the event. The conference consisted of two panels. The first panel, which was focused on UK Perspectives, featured three speakers: S Chelvan of No 5 chambers offered an overview of developments in UK LGBT+ asylum case law over the past three decades. Dr Moira Dustin, co-director of the ‘Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Claims of Asylum’ (SOGICA) project at Sussex, presented research findings based on interviews with LGBT+ asylum seekers. Lastly, Kanouo Siegning Martin Guerin, a seeker of asylum from Cameroon, movingly described his experiences in his country of origin and in the asylum process, which, at the time of writing, has not concluded. The panel was chaired by Dr Ziegler; a podcast is available: reading.ac.uk/GlobalLaw/GLARPodcast33.aspx.

The second panel, which focused on Global Perspectives, featured four speakers: Dr B Camminga of Wits (South Africa) described the predicament of transgender refugees in Greece and Kenya, as reflected in their field research. Prof Nuno Ferreira, also a co-director of SOGICA, highlighted challenges arising from the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights regarding asylum claims of sexual minorities. Dr Vickie Knox of the Refugee Law Initiative at the University of London explored the protection schemes available to LGBT+ people fleeing Central America. Finally, Denise Venturi of UNHCR described the importance of continuous training for decision-makers in assessing asylum claims based on the organisation’s experiences in Italy. The panel was chaired by Dr Ana Beduschi (Exeter); a podcast is available: reading.ac.uk/GlobalLaw/GLARPodcast34.aspx.

“ By bringing together practitioners, seekers of asylum, NGOs, and academics from law, political science and sociology, the conference has sought to enable the sharing of experiences.” By bringing together practitioners, seekers of asylum, NGOs, and academics from law, political science and sociology, the conference has sought to enable the sharing of experiences, identifying good (and bad) practices across jurisdictions and to advance the protection of LGBT+ persons the world over. Dr Ruvi Ziegler

Financial Innovation Conference

Education & Training

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

LJMU CONFERENCE FINTECH, AI AND THE LAW: RIGHT BALANCE OF FINANCIAL INNOVATION AND INCLUSION? Artificial intelligence (AI) is pushing new boundaries. To capitalise on this new technological financial service, providers are investing heavily in developing sophisticated AI platforms. With a plethora of transactional consumer information, financial services providers are well positioned to benefit significantly from AI capabilities. The effective use of AI technology enables financial institutions to put the depth and breadth of their financial data to use, leading to new perspectives and a deeper understanding of customers’ needs. As such, AI has demonstrated potential to make available financial services to everyone. Financial technology (fintech) has brought a new paradigm to the design and implementation strategies for financial inclusion. However, Fintech also poses challenges to the financial system. These include cyber-risk, macro-financial risks, and consumer protection and data privacy issues. Given these risks, effective regulation is necessary in order to provide a solid foundation for safely exploring the benefits of Fintech. In light of the increasing use of AI and fintech to promote financial inclusion, this conference provided a platform for academics and practitioners to analyse relevant principles, recent trends and challenges in Fintech, AI and corporate governance regulatory issues around the world. This was the theme of Liverpool John Moores University’s conference on 20 June 2019, which focused on finding the right balance between financial innovation and inclusion. The objectives of the conference were (i) to foster and promote debates on the latest Fintech developments and research at both the European and international levels, (ii) to examine challenges of financial inclusion in different jurisdictions and (iii) to explore how experts in fintech and AI can work together to resolve these challenges. The conference was unique in that it featured a panel of invited speakers (practitioners and academics) and incorporated a call for papers. This event facilitated engagement with experts from law, IT, philosophy, psychology and business. The event was held at the Liverpool John Moores University’s Redmonds Building located in the centre of bustling Liverpool. The conference was organized by Dr Alison Lui of the Business, Corporate Banking and Financial Law Research Group and included six parallel panel sessions. The conference provided a forum to discuss developments in the use of AI in financial services and covered several key aspects of ethical AI geared towards improving accountability and regulation and addressing bias in AI algorithms. The keynote speech was delivered by the CEO of Cognitive Finance Group. Her keynote focused on ethical AI in the financial services and its increasing usage by companies in making business decisions and its susceptibility to bias.

Dr Alison Lui

E Each panel session focused on key aspects of ethics and regulation of fintech and AI in the financial sector. Panel sessions were on the following themes: AI, fintech and the law; fintech and regulation; selected perspectives on financial inclusion; fintech and corporate governance; selected perspectives on financial innovation; fintech, insuretech and dispute resolution. The conference ended with an interactive session by the Head of Cyber of Cyfor Limited on the increasing use of deep fakes and cybercrime, displaying the ease at which deep fakes can be used to breach hitech security systems and imitate high-profile figures.

“ The conference ended with an interactive session by the Head of Cyber of Cyfor Limited on the increasing use of deep fakes and cybercrime.” This multidisciplinary, one-day conference, sponsored by the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple and the Faculty of Arts, Professional and Social Studies of Liverpool John Moores University, provided a great opportunity to network and discuss innovations and challenges in the area of fintech, AI and the law. Twenty speakers provided fascinating thoughts and insights on fintech and AI. I aim aims to organise similar events in the future as there is a demand for discussions on this topic. Dr Alison Lui

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

The Inns of Court College of Advocacy

THE INNS OF COURT COLLEGE OF ADVOCACY By Derek Wood CBE QC

The Inns of Court College of Advocacy has continued its commitment to raising and maintaining high standards in the practice and ethics of advocacy in courts and tribunals throughout the 2018–2019 academic year. The most public demonstration of this is our application to the Bar Standards Board (BSB), requesting authorisation to deliver a new format for the Bar course. Our innovative course has been designed to equip students to best meet the demands of the profession today. In addition to this extensive work, the ICCA has continued to develop new materials and training programmes for established practitioners; and we continue to expand our international training programme.

THE ICCA BAR COURSE

In April 2019, the ICCA submitted an application to the BSB requesting authorisation to deliver a new two-part Bar course, which will replace the BPTC for students wishing to pursue a career at the Bar. If approved, the course will be delivered from autumn 2020. This new format sets out to lower the cost of training to £13,095 and increase flexibility for students by delivering the knowledge-based elements of the curriculum online during Part One. Part Two will focus on skills teaching and will be undertaken in person within the precincts of the Inns of Court. For up-to-date information on the progress of our application and the content of the course, visit our website at icca.ac.uk/bar-course or contact us at info@iccca.ac.uk.

ADVOCACY TRAINERS’ SYMPOSIUM On Saturday 6 April 2019, the ICCA hosted an Advocacy Trainers’ Symposium, welcoming advocacy trainers of all levels to share visions about the development of advocacy training, contribute to open discussion around common problems encountered during training and to assist in determining how to further develop the programme of training available. We are very grateful to the advocacy trainers from Inner Temple who attended to represent their Inn. The event began with a thought-provoking keynote address from Timothy Dutton CBE QC and Justice Ann Ainslie-Wallace, who spoke about the challenges facing both advocates and advocacy trainers in the 21st century. We were also pleased to welcome Professor Cheryl Thomas and Martin Griffiths QC, who demonstrated the pilot Ethics course being rolled out by Inner Temple. The training utilises new software that allows those in attendance to provide an immediate reaction to the ethical scenarios being proposed. Following breakout sessions where experienced panel members led discussions with the participants on the key areas of advocacy training, feedback was collected from those in attendance to capture their thoughts on what challenges face those running advocacy training and how best these challenges could be overcome. The working group and panel members will be bringing together this feedback and will be issuing a report on the outcomes of the discussions. If you were unable to attend but would like to contribute to the ongoing discussions, please contact info@icca. ac.uk for details on how you can have your say.

ADVOCACY AND THE VULNERABLE

The ICCA Trip to Kenya

The Advocacy and the Vulnerable programme continues to be delivered by the Inns and Circuits to advocates who practise in the criminal courts. The course helps advocates understand the special procedures applicable to cases involving vulnerable witnesses and to employ appropriate language as part of their cross-examination techniques to obtain ‘best evidence’. We are continuing to review and refine the materials for this course as demonstrated by the revision of the 20 principles of questioning published in October 2018. In addition, the ICCA has been working with the Family Law Bar Association (FLBA) in creating and delivering an Advocacy and the Vulnerable programme designed to assist those practising in the family courts. The course is due to be rolled out from autumn 2019.

Education & Training

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

EXPERT EVIDENCE

INTERNATIONAL WORK

In March 2019, the ICCA delivered two further conferences on the handling of expert witnesses in Manchester and Bristol under the guidance of Andrew Hochhauser QC. The conferences comprised practical training based on case studies in two specialist areas: expert accounting and expert psychiatry. We are grateful to Simon Readhead QC for delivering an excellent keynote, dealing with the evolution of expert evidence in court, the challenges that advocates face in obtaining and testing expert witnesses, as well as some top tips on what to look out for when instructing an expert. Further conferences will be delivered in London in autumn 2019; contact info@icca.ac.uk for further details.

Internationally, the ICCA continues to expand its reach, delivering programmes in new jurisdictions, including Kenya, Cyprus and Ukraine, in addition to further developing its established links with organisations, including the American Inns of Court, the Sierra Leone Bar Association and the Advocacy Club in The Hague. In the past 12 months, the ICCA has delivered courses in 10 jurisdictions, delivering a combination of basic advocacy and train the trainer courses.

The conferences supplement the ICCA’s guides, Guidance on the Preparation, Admission and Examination of Expert Evidence and Statistics and Probability for Advocates: Understanding the Use of Statistical Evidence in Courts and Tribunals, which seek to assist advocates preparing to deal with statistical evidence and expert witnesses in trial. Both guides are available to download for free at our website (icca.ac.uk/expert-evidence) or contact info@icca.ac.uk if you would prefer a printed copy.

YOUTH JUSTICE ADVOCACY The ICCA’s reputation for providing guidance in the field of youth justice continues to grow and we are delighted to be continuing to work closely with the Youth Justice Legal Centre (YJLC) and Every Child Protected Against Trafficking (ECPAT). The ICCA is working on producing a short online programme on key areas of concern for practitioners representing children in the youth justice system, which will assist youth justice practitioners in complying with their CPD requirements introduced following the compulsory registration of youth court practices by the BSB.

In late 2018, the ICCA was approached by the EU Advisory Mission in Ukraine to deliver a round of basic advocacy training to prosecutors in Odessa. Following the success of this pilot, in February 2019 the ICCA was invited to run Train the Trainers training for the Academy of Prosecution in Kyiv, with the aim that graduates of the course conduct further training for students of the Academy and practising prosecutors to ensure sustainability of the course. Both training programmes utilised case materials developed by the EUAM team with plenary sessions and breakouts being delivered in English with concurrent translations – a first for the ICCA! As a result of the ICCA’s expertise in dealing with vulnerable witnesses, it has been invited by the FCO to assist in developing and delivering training in Montserrat and Trinidad, jurisdiction which have recently introduced or expect to introduce special measures for dealing with vulnerable witnesses. The ICCA looks forward to developing a bespoke programme for these jurisdictions, led by Sarah Clarke QC. If you are interested in assisting with any of the ICCA projects, please email info@icca.ac.uk for more details and to express your interest. Derek Wood CBE QC

“ The ICCA is working on producing a short online programme on key areas of concern for practitioners representing children in the youth justice system.” In autumn 2019, the ICCA will host a conference entitled Children and Young People in the Justice System. Aimed at youth justice practitioners, the conference will focus on the need for special consideration and focus when dealing with children or young people and will offer insights on the skills, challenges and problems from experts in the various disciplines affecting this niche area of practice. The Advocacy Trainers Symposium 2019

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

We Need Your Help

The Inn relies to a great extent on the willingness of its members to dedicate time and effort to support education and training activities. If you are a member who would like to volunteer to help, please see our Guide to Volunteering Opportunities in the Members’ section of the website or contact the Education and Training Department (contact details on page 67).

SCHOL ARSH

IP INTERVIEW

of £1.7 million funds in excess The Inn offers stributed as scholarships di . Interviews annually to be for Bar training and exhibitions on two consecutive ld are typically he ch for BPTC awards and ar M in s weekend for law eekend in June like to over a single w ld ou w u yo ards. If conversion aw interviewing e th ith w st si volunteer to as ntact Georgina Everatt. co process, please

BARRISTERS TO GIVE MOCK INTER VIEWS Th

e Mock Intervie w Scheme give a chance to re fine their interv s students iew technique with the suppor t before they un of an established barrister dertake a ‘real ’ pu interview. The scheme is high pillage ly valued by our student m em receives positiv bers and consistently e feedback. Th e time commitment is flexible but typically amounts to ar ou year. Please co nd one to three hours a ntact Edwina Koroma.

MARSHALLING The Marshalling Scheme enables pupils and BPTC students to spend a day or days (up to a week) in court with a judge. As a result of the Scheme’s popularity, the Inn is seeking more judges to participate. Please contact Richard Loveridge for details.

E GROUP LEADERS/JUDGES FOR STUDENT CONFERENCE WEEKENDS

The Education and Training Department organises three student conference weekends a year at external venues in Windsor and Northamptonshire. The weekends focus on a particular legal topic and include panel presentations from experts, as well as sentencing exercises and advocacy exercises. Previous weekends have covered a broad range of topics, including hearsay, assisted dying, prisons, terrorism and vulnerable witnesses. Barrister members over seven years’ Call act as group leaders and judicial members judge the student advocacy exercises. If you would like to volunteer to be a group leader or judge at a future weekend, please contact Julia Armfield.

MENTORING

The Mentoring Scheme aims to students with advice, guidan provide ce and a point of cont ac stages of beco t during their initial ming a barriste r. Mentors are usually allo ca of the academ ted at the beginning ic year and the de always very hi gh. Please cont mand is act Georgina Everatt if you would like to he lp.

ADVOCACY TRAINING FACULTY O U T R E AC H

s a range team organise The Outreach ities for school and tiv of outreach ac ts in London and across en university stud es. If you are interested in al W d an d an se contact Engl ese events, plea arly th ith ul helping w ic rt er. We are pa Circuit. Daisy Mortim on rs be m mem keen to hear fro

The Inn’s dedicated Advocacy Trainers provide compulsory advocacy training courses for pupils and new practitioners and they are increasingly being called upon to provide specialist advocacy training for established practitioners. If you are over seven years’ Call and would be interested in undertaking the advocacy teacher-training course to support this core function of the Inn, please contact David Miller.

Library

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

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 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 & Scottish collections collections which are all on-site and easily accessible a range of commercial legal research databases PCs for online research, access to email and word processing free Wi-Fi photocopying, scanning and printing facilities a document supply service an enquiry service (in person, by telephone and by email) assistance with online searching and legal research an overnight loans scheme for barristers legal research training for pupils and students legal research FAQs on our website tours for students and pupils, plus a virtual tour on our website web access to the library catalogues of the four Inns AccessToLaw, a gateway site providing annotated links to selected UK, Commonwealth and worldwide free legal websites (www.accesstolaw.com) Current Awareness blog for legal news, changes in legislation and new case law (www.innertemplelibrary.com) quarterly electronic newsletter a Facebook page with information on Library services, news and events (www.facebook.com/innertemplelibrary) range of guides available in the Library or for downloading from our website equipment and software for users with hearing or visual impairment

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

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Pegasus Scholars

UGANDA By Andrew Venables, 1 Garden Court

It is difficult to write an account of my time spent in Uganda and not sound like a parody of the kind of over-effusive forewords one finds in travel guides. Nevertheless, it would be remiss of me not to start by saying that Ugandans are some of the most genuine and wonderful people I have had the privilege to meet. From senior appellate judges to motorcycle-taxi drivers, from politicians to prisoners, every Ugandan I met was unfailingly kind, courteous, engaged and engaging. The Pegasus placement in Uganda is with the Technical Advisor to the Judiciary, Andrew Khaukha. I quickly learned that the Technical Advisor’s role covers the work that in England would be done by the staff of the Master of the Rolls and Lord Chief Justice, the Civil and Criminal Procedure Rules Committees, the Sentencing Council, and whichever bit of the Ministry of Justice has responsibility for strategic planning of how to deploy HMCTS resources. The extraordinary breadth of Andrew’s brief meant that I had the opportunity to work on a wide range of projects.

Uganda is in the process of developing sentencing guidelines, and draws from the guidelines used in England. Uganda uses a penal code that has its origins in British colonial rule, and statutory maxima are set at a level that seemed appropriate to the colonial administration in the 1950s. In practice, most offences are sentenced a long way from the maxima, but sentencing is not consistent. The first set of guidelines came into force in 2013 and, by all accounts, worked well. The process of expanding the guidelines to cover a wider range of offences had begun, and I spent some time working on those guidelines to develop dedicated offender and offencespecific aggravation and mitigation for a range of offences. I also had the opportunity to work on a project looking at access for justice for refugees. Uganda has a very large refugee population (around 1m to 1.5m) due to instability in South Sudan to the North and the DRC to the West. Refugee settlement areas tend to be in very rural areas and a long way away from the nearest court centres. The local transport infrastructure makes accessing these courts difficult for refugees. The Ugandan Judiciary is developing a mobile court project to take justice to rural areas. I had the opportunity to prepare policy documents, arguing the case for a mobile court by reference to the underlying statistics. One of the big challenges in Uganda arises from a shortage of judges, meaning that cases wait a long time to be brought to trial. This can leave accused persons waiting in pre-trial detention for five or six years before their trials start. The effect of this was brought home in stark terms during my final week in Uganda. I joined a group of American law students from Pepperdine University on a prison-based project. Uganda has developed a plea-bargaining scheme to afford prisoners a reduction on their sentences for a guilty plea. The project took American law students into Ugandan prisons and provided advice to prisoners. In principle, all of this is a positive development. It ought to reduce pre-trial detention, ensure that prisoners have been given basic legal advice at an early stage and free up judicial resources.

There are, however, obvious risks. I saw a significant number of cases that were mis-charged or had little prospect of conviction. In many of those, defendants were willing to plead guilty (notwithstanding the fact they maintained their innocence) in order to get the ordeal of waiting on pre-trial detention over. Ironically, the long pretrial detention often meant that those who knew they were guilty could wait the process out – by the time their cases were heard (often five or six years after the offence), witnesses had been lost and/or were no longer willing to give evidence, leading to acquittals. Notwithstanding my reservations about the implementation of the project, it was a privilege to work on a project that had such a significant impact on the lives of prisoners awaiting trial. In amongst all the work, I found the time to travel in Uganda (and in the region of East Africa). I went on safari, visited the source of the Nile and explored the rural areas to the north and west of Uganda. I also visited Tanzania and Zanzibar. Travel in rural Uganda demands either a large supply of patience or a car (and a disregard for one’s mortality when in it), and/or both. There were a great number of places I wanted to go, and a finite amount of time. There are, of course, a great number of things about Uganda that are challenging. In particular, foreign-run projects are seldom run with sustainability in mind and there are many foreign organisations running projects that seem to impose the values of the organisers. Corruption is endemic and seems to permeate most aspects of public life. Those in poverty face levels of privation that are difficult to imagine. A couple of weeks after I got back to chambers, a colleague asked me about my time in Kampala. I said that it had probably been the most interesting thing I had done in my career so far. It was only after that I realised: it will probably still be the most interesting thing I have done in my career in 20 years’ time. The Pegasus placement in Uganda could not happen without the help of Professors Gash and Dewalt at Pepperdine University, the generosity of the judiciary in Uganda, and (of course) Andrew Khaukha in Kampala. I am grateful to all of them, and the Trust, for giving me the opportunity to spend two months in Kampala. Andrew Venables

Pegasus Scholars

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

NEW ZEALAND By Mary-Rachel McCabe, Doughty Street Chambers I travelled over 11,000 miles to spend my Pegasus Trust placement at YouthLaw, New Zealand’s only dedicated law centre for children and young people. YouthLaw was founded in 1986 by Robert Ludbrook, a ‘Kiwi’ solicitor who had spent some time working in London and was inspired by the CAB and law centre movement there. He brought CABs and law centres to New Zealand in the early 1970s, and eventually set up YouthLaw. While at YouthLaw, not only did I learn a lot about Māori and Pacific island cultures but also, sadly, that their children and young people are overrepresented in the youth justice system – something which the country’s Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, is trying to grapple with. Prior to joining the Bar, I worked as a paralegal at the children’s rights organisation, Just for Kids Law, where I specialised in youth justice and strategic litigation. That experience, together with my exposure to this country’s Youth Court as a pupil barrister practising in crime, has made me all too aware of the shortcomings of our youth justice system. The Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 transformed the youth justice system in New Zealand, such that the regime is focused on dealing with offending by alternative means, where possible. As a result, the majority of children and young people who get into trouble with the law don’t go to court but are instead dealt with by police in the community. What’s more, the 1989 Act supports a restorative approach to youth offending, with the ‘Family Group Conference’ (FGC) at the heart of the youth justice system in New Zealand: the key decisions around a child’s offending are made at the FGC, rather than by the court. The procedure at an FGC is much less formal than that of the court. They are essentially ‘round-table’ discussions amongst the various people entitled to be there, including the young people who have offended and members of their family, the victim(s), police and social workers. The most fascinating (and impressive) aspect of the New Zealand youth justice was, for me, their specialist youth courts: Rangatahi Courts (‘rangatahi’ is the Māori word for ‘youth’) and Pasifika Courts. Rangatahi Courts operate in the same way as the Youth Court but are held on marae (a Māori meeting house) and follow Māori cultural processes. Pasifika Courts also operate in the same way as the Youth Court but are held in Pasifika churches or community centres and follow Pasifika cultural processes.

The idea behind Rangatahi and Pasifika Courts is to re-engage young people with their culture, in order to provide a better platform for the delivery of effective interventions. The New Zealand youth justice system has recognised that the normal court environment can be intimidating for anyone who appears and creating an environment where everyone feels able to participate is essential for the fair delivery of justice. The Rangatahi and Pasifika Courts are for young people who have admitted the charges they are facing. While they are primarily aimed at Māori and Pacific Island young people, they are also open to young people of all ethnicities who consent to the transfer of their matter from the usual Youth Court monitoring process. After the FGC has decided on a plan for rehabilitation of the young person, the young person may be given the opportunity to have this plan monitored by the Rangatahi or Pasifika Court. This means that all court appearances until the plan is completed will be held on the marae or at a Pasifika venue. Normally, the young person will appear at the court every two weeks, and each hearing will usually involve the same judge. During the time that the young person attends the Rangatahi Court, it is expected that they will learn their pepeha (traditional greeting of tribal identity) with the assistance of their lay advocate. At each hearing, the young person will practise delivering their pepeha. The young person may also be encouraged and assisted to learn more about their cultural identity.

I spent time in the Youth Court, Rangatahi and Pasifika Courts during my Pegasus placement and I was astonished by the holistic, restorative and encouraging manner in which they operated. The proof is in the pudding: specialist courts have reduced the reoffending rate of Maori and Pasifika young people compared to the Youth Court. I left New Zealand inspired by a system that puts children’s rights at its heart and I have returned to London filled with a renewed energy to provide a voice for the most vulnerable people in our society. Mary-Rachel McCabe An interview conducted by Mary-Rachel McCabe of Robert Ludbrook can be found at The Justice Gap; read more of his inspiring story at thejusticegap.com/using-the-law-tochange-the-law-is-the-most-important-thing-you-can-do.

The house Tānenuiarangi, at Waipapa marae, the University of Auckland, New Zealand © Wikimedia Commons byKahuroa, public domain

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Pegasus Scholars

USA By Anthony Eskander, Church Court Chambers and barrister in KPMG’s corporate crime team The remarkable itinerary arranged by both the American Inns of Court (AIC), Pegasus Committee and the individual American Inns of Court included: a meeting in San Francisco with the Chief Justice of California, Tani Cantil-Sakauye; a discussion of the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed with Mark Martins, Chief Prosecutor of Military Commissions at Guantanamo Bay; meetings with Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein and Solicitor General, Noel Francisco; conversations with Congressman Jamie Raskin and Senator Kaine’s Chief of Staff, Mike Henry; and exchanging pleasantries with Justice Gorsuch in Justice Thomas' Chambers. Name-dropping aside, the experience was often surreal but truly unforgettable. The first leg of the scholarship was a swift trip to Washington DC. Before we knew it, we were on a tour of George Washington’s former home at Mount Vernon and a tour of the Capitol Building the next morning. That evening, we attended a meeting of the DC-based Bryant Inn of Court, hosted by the former President of the Inn and prominent attorney Cynthia Wright.

We then travelled to Sacramento, California, where we lodged in the home of a distinguished medical malpractice attorney Parker White and were hosted by Justice Arthur Scotland, the retired Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District. We spent the week shadowing judges in various federal and state courts. The most entertaining of the experiences was attending class at the McGeorge School of Law. The one-liners of a witty professor reminded the students of the importance of preparing for class (and the potential embarrassment of failing to do so). During a brief trip back to DC and the states of Maryland and Virginia, we shadowed judges in Alexandria and Annapolis, attended the Alexandria Bar Association drinks reception, met with lawyers at the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Pentagon and dined at the Supreme Court for the AIC Celebration of Excellence. Next destination was Richmond, Virginia, where we were hosted by retired Judge Catherine Hammond of the Henrico Circuit Court. On the first evening, we were welcomed by members of the John Marshall Inn of Court and Justices of the Virginia Supreme Court. In Richmond, we observed proceedings in Henrico District and Circuit Courts and went on a tour of Henrico County Jail. Having previously only attended the bleak meeting rooms of Her Majesty’s Prisons, wandering around the cell blocks of a state jail in a three-piece suit was quite the experience.

We then went to DC and we were sent straight to the United States Supreme Court to witness two riveting cases in a crowded courtroom where each side was limited to 30 minutes of oral submissions. This courtroom was a theatre where the stage and actors did not disappoint: it was a bombardment of visual, auditory and intellectual stimulation. We subsequently flew to Pittsburgh where we were hosted by Beverly Weiss Manne and the Judith K Fitzgerald Western Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Inn of Court. The stint in Pittsburgh comprised of tours of the Bankruptcy Court, United States District Court and the Allegheny County Courts, a meeting with Allegheny County Chief Executive, Rich Fitzgerald, and a visit to the Warhol Museum. The highlight of the trip was attending a mock trial organised by the Inn of Court. After the trial, Jamie and I spoke to the attendees and the panel of judges (United States Court of Appeals Judge Jordan, Superior Court Judge Olson and District Judge Hornak) about the differences between our two legal systems. During the final week of our scholarship, we met the President of the George Washington Inn of Court, Jaunita George, and attended an Inn meeting. We met with Jeff Lamken of MoloLamken and Dan Khan, head of the FCPA unit at the Department of Justice. We had the opportunity to shadow Judge Brodie and of Fairfax Country and the judges of Montgomery County Court. The last Inn of Court visit on the itinerary was the I’Anson Hoffman Inn of Norfolk, Virginia, where we lodged in Judge Hudgins' home and were hosted by Polly Chong. In Norfolk, we met federal and state judges and the members of the Inn during their amusing and informative monthly meeting. During the scholarship, we did have some time to explore. We hiked around Lake Tahoe, caught an NFL Pittsburgh Steelers game, were taught how to crack open a Maryland blue crab and took a ‘Halloween tour’ of Richmond. The Pegasus Scholarship enables scholars to learn about the practical workings of other legal systems. I strongly believe that the scholarships benefit more than just the scholars. Firstly, it should benefit our clients; we have witnessed and learnt new styles of effective advocacy and client care. Secondly, it allows us to form enduring links with attorneys, judges and professors in different jurisdictions, building bridges between legal professionals. Anthony Eskander

Pegasus Scholars

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

NEW YORK By Kerrie Ann Rowan, 25 Bedford Row

Thanks to the Pegasus Trust, I spent three months working as a fellow at the Center for Reproductive Rights [CRR] in New York from August to November 2018. The CRR uses the law to advance reproductive freedom as a fundamental human right. It is the only global legal advocacy organisation dedicated to reproductive rights, with expertise in both US constitutional and international human rights law. It has taken a number of significant cases before national courts, United Nations committees and regional human rights bodies. In doing so, it has succeeded in expanding access to reproductive health care, including birth control, safe abortion, prenatal and obstetric care, and unbiased information. The CRR’s team is made up of lawyers from around the world who are based in offices in New York, Washington, Bogota, Nairobi, Kathmandu and Geneva. As an Irish woman, I have always had a strong interest in reproductive rights, having experienced at first hand Irish women’s struggle for access to reproductive healthcare. As a result, I had been following the work of the CRR for many years. This is an area of law and policy in which I have always wished to contribute and the Pegasus Scholarship finally gave me that opportunity. During my time at the CRR in New York, I worked alongside the Deputy Director of the Global Legal Program, Ms Alejandra Cardenas. My work at the CRR primarily involved comparative international human rights law, policy research and analysis. My primary research project during my time with the CRR focused on the issue of conscientious objection in the field of reproductive health care. This work involved the collection and analysis of existing laws and policies on this issue from around the world. My final research paper was used both to inform internal policy and form the basis of CRR publications on this issue. I also conducted a similar research project on the global legal and policy framework relating to some key issues within the broader abortion debate, such as funding for abortion, gestational limits on abortion, the concept of ‘foetal rights’ and whether abortion access should be ‘grounds-based’ versus ‘on-demand’.

The Global Legal Program Team were a truly inspirational group of people to work alongside. It was refreshing and motivating to come to work every day and be surrounded by a genuine passion to change law and policy in order to protect rights in a country where they are so regularly used as a political battleground. The challenges the CRR faces in its mission in the USA were brought into stark focus during my time in New York, with the election of Justice Kavanagh to the Supreme Court. For the first time in the CRR’s history, it openly campaigned against the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice, given Justice Kavanagh’s anti-choice jurisprudential history. A pin could be heard to drop in the office during the two days of confirmation hearings, as staff members were glued to their computers, watching the live stream from Washington. It was difficult to see the distress on so many staff members’ faces when the Justice was ultimately confirmed to the Court and the genuine fear in the realisation that the rights that the CRR fights daily to protect were now in jeopardy. However, this did not prevent the entire Center coming together the next day, to eat, talk and commiserate together, but most importantly to reassure one another that the work of the Center will continue and now with a renewed importance. Outside of my work at the Center, I had a fantastic time exploring New York City. There was no end to the wonderful theatres, exhibitions, tours, talks, films and food on offer all over the city. The people I met during my time in my temporary home of Brooklyn were interesting and welcoming people who ensured that I had a very memorable time there. The Pegasus Scholarship was an amazing experience both personally and professionally. I forged many strong friendships and connections during my time in New York, which I hope to maintain throughout my career. I am very grateful to the Pegasus Trust and the CRR for the opportunity they provided and for all that I have learned as a result. Kerrie Ann Rowan

While at the CRR, I also had the opportunity to regularly participate in in-house education and training sessions conducted by the Center’s staff. These training sessions were both interesting and valuable, covering a wide range of topics from persuasive appellate drafting and strategic litigation to the medicine of abortion.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Pegasus Scholars

LOS ANGELES By Mavis Amonoo-Acquah, Harcourt Chambers

Before I was called to the Bar, I completed my Masters at Law School on the East Coast of America. This was my first foray into American law, and it was clear to see that a lot of their legal principles were similar to the principles and statutes we have in England and Wales. However, one area in which many American states stand head and shoulders above the UK is in the area of surrogacy law. In 2017, a number of high-profile surrogacy cases came before the UK courts and it became clear that this area of law was in great need of reform. The question was, how? It was this curiosity which spurred my application for a Pegasus Scholarship, in the hope that experiencing surrogacy law in practice in an established system would provide some ideas and context for reform in the UK. Therefore, as I embarked on my journey to America to undertake my Pegasus Scholarship – this time to the (much sunnier!) West Coast – I knew that, unlike before, I would be experiencing a totally new area of law, with which I had almost no legislative comparison – but I was excited for all that I would learn and bring back to my practice in London.

For the 10 weeks of my Pegasus Scholarship, I undertook a placement with Vorzimer Masserman – a family law firm in Los Angeles, California, which specialises in surrogacy and fertility law. I was the second Pegasus Scholar to have taken up residence at the firm, and as the partners were the pioneers in reforming Californian surrogacy legislation, I knew that I would be learning from the best. I recall with some amusement now arriving at the law firm offices in my usual conservative black barrister suit on my first day, only to realise immediately that, compared to my new colleagues, I was far too overdressed for the more relaxed Los Angeles legal bubble! In the first week of my placement, I was tasked with preparing a presentation for a forthcoming conference and co-authoring a paper for publication on current surrogacy law litigation. The aim of the paper was to provide an eagle-eyed examination of how surrogacy and fertility laws in both California and other states are evolving and changing through publicised, litigated disputes. Although I had read up on the law prior to my arrival in Los Angeles, my working knowledge was understandably very limited; therefore drafting a multi-page paper on legislation, precedents and current developments was certainly a challenge. However, it proved to be an excellent and quick way of gaining a thorough insight into the seminal precedents in Californian surrogacy and fertility law, the current cases being litigated and the numerous issues being raised all over the country by both proponents and opponents of surrogacy and fertility law. With this firm grounding in surrogacy law now under my belt, I was able to really delve into the workings of the firm at each stage of a case. I assisted the firm’s attorneys in drafting egg donor contracts, gestational carrier agreements (which govern the entire surrogacy journey for both surrogates and intended parents) and court pleadings to transfer legal parentage from

the surrogate to the intended parents once the child was born. This work gave me a thorough insight and understanding into the working of the legislation, and the principles underpinning Californian surrogacy law as it stands – principles which, when I considered them further, were not present in current UK law. As the resident British lawyer at the firm, I was also given the responsibility of providing guidance to the firm’s British clients. I dealt with matters regarding the legalities of their surrogacy arrangement and, most importantly, the steps they needed to take once they returned to the UK with their child, in order to become the recognised parents in English law. It was this work in particular which really allowed me to exercise my knowledge and understanding of both UK family law and Californian surrogacy law in tandem for the benefit of lay clients. The firm’s emphasis on working hard but also enjoying a good work–life balance meant that I was fortunate enough to have time after each working day and at weekends to explore everything that Los Angeles and neighbouring cities had to offer, away from the beaten tourist track. This included hiking trails of the canyons and Hollywood Hills and road trips along the beautifully scenic Pacific Coast Highway. Since returning to practice, I have written and published articles on surrogacy law – examining in particular what we in the UK can learn and use from the Californian legislature and practice following my experience in Los Angeles. I was also invited to present a paper at a surrogacy law conference in June, during which the Law Commission launched their long-awaited consultation paper on surrogacy law. As a member of the Bar Council Law Reform Committee, I will be part of the team of family barristers responding to that consultation paper over the summer on behalf of the Bar Council – again using my scholarship experience to consider the questions posed by the Law Commission. There is little doubt in my mind that without the generous scholarship granted to me by the Pegasus Trust, I would not have had the opportunity to undertake my period of secondment and, subsequently, incorporate work in surrogacy law and reform into my practice upon my return. I could not have asked for a more stimulating period of secondment and I am ever grateful to those at Vorzimer Masserman for hosting me so warmly – immediately making me feel at home and part of the team, and providing such invaluable insight into Californian surrogacy law. I am also profoundly grateful to the Pegasus Trust and to Inner Temple for all of their support. Mavis Amonoo-Acquah

Pegasus Scholars

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

NEW ZEALAND By Rosamund Baker, Selborne Chambers

Before I left for New Zealand, I was told many stories of those who had ‘temporarily’ moved there and decided to stay. By the end of my three months working at Bell Gully, I certainly understood the temptation. Having returned, I am simply glad that I have the opportunity to put into effect the many lessons I learnt from the generous and impressive lawyers I met. The first of many lessons I gained from Tim Smith, my ‘responsible partner’ at Bell Gully in Wellington, was that “nothing beats Wellington on a good day”. This usually refers to the weather but I feel equally comfortable applying it to Wellington’s legal scene. Within seven weeks, I had seen the inside of the Wellington District Court, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court, the Parliament, several clients’ offices, a barristers’ chambers and the Law School of Victoria University, alongside the time spent on paperwork in the heights of Bell Gully’s offices. Due to the Wellington office’s broad practice and the generosity of other firms, I was able to experience several different areas of law. My work ranged from criminal to oil and gas litigation, with many stops in between. Seeing such a variety of areas enabled me to gain experience across New Zealand’s legal system. Of particular interest was the success that New Zealand has in securing settlement of cases throughout the justice system and the alternative solutions that were found to many of the most litigated issues in the UK. Personal injury for instance was rarely in court due to the generous provisions of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), a national fund that provides no-fault compensation. The courts meanwhile excluded lawyers from claims of low value and placed landlord and tenant claims within the jurisdiction of specialist tribunals. Another notable feature was the regular practice of referring to the law of other jurisdictions, such as the UK and Australia. This meant that not only was much of the case law familiar to me but that, where diversions were made (such as in the ‘leaky buildings’ authorities that frequently appeared), the judgments were often so reasoned and explained as to provide new insight into the UK law as well. Another benefit of my broad experience was to see the different facets of the legal profession. It was interesting to observe the collaborative dynamic between the dual-qualified barristersolicitors practising in firms and the barristers sole practising

in chambers or independently, as well as to see cases operated entirely by a firm or almost entirely by a sole barrister. Styles differed but the fluidity of movement within the profession ensured that many lawyers had an excellent understanding and appreciation of the other members of their litigation team. At the beginning of November, I moved to Auckland for a further six weeks of my placement. The broad practice range continued and the areas of immigration and international trade, among others, were added. I also took the opportunity of attending hearings more similar to those that I attend in my own practice. The subtle differences in the bankruptcy courts in particular were fascinating to observe and I am grateful to the attending lawyers who graciously answered all my questions. Legal life in New Zealand did not stop at the practice of law. Bell Gully, in both Wellington and Auckland, provided me with an astonishing array of activities, social and educational, ranging from an evening with the Supreme Court Justices to weekly lunchtime lessons in te reo Māori (the Māori language). There was even a daytime excursion to see the original copies of three New Zealand constitutional documents: the Declaration of Independence of the United Tribes of New Zealand/He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni in 1835, the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840 and the Women’s Suffrage Petition/Te Petihana Whakamana Pōti Wahine in 1893. My Bell Gully colleagues were also always happy to provide travel tips or company. I spent many happy weekends walking and sightseeing in Taranaki, at Cape Reinga and in Rotorua, to name just a few places, and, remaining in the city, spent enjoyable evenings at pub quizzes, the theatre and even the launch of the second edition of the New Zealand Women’s Law Journal/Te Aho Kawe Kaupapa Ture a ngā Wāhine. I am thankful to all those that enabled me to enjoy this opportunity and in particular to the Pegasus Trust, to Bell Gully and to Tim Smith and (now) Justice Ian Gault, my ‘responsible partners’. I am now seeking to weave my new understanding and perspectives into my own practice and hoping that some of my Bell Gully colleagues will choose to spend their ‘OE’ (overseas experience) in London so that I can renew some of the many friendships I made. Rosamund Baker

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Pegasus Scholars

USA By Jamie Scott, Citadel Chambers

We were sitting with two of Justice Clarence Thomas’ law clerks in his chambers at the US Supreme Court. Just then, a man with white hair and a shirt and tie ambled past. He poked his head in. He had an amiable smile. He looks like Neil Gorsuch, I thought. “This is Justice Gorsuch,” said one of the clerks. That is Neil Gorsuch! Justice Gorsuch stopped and chatted. We had just sat in on two oral arguments in a packed courthouse. I remarked that American appellate advocacy was incredibly brief compared to England: oral argument in the Brexit case had lasted three days; here, an entire case was heard in an hour. US appellate advocacy was a distillation of the ideas, it seemed, whereas English advocacy was a ventilation of them. “We decide issues, not cases,” Gorsuch said. It was a neat line. You could perhaps quibble over it (our Supreme Court is only dealing with matters of general public importance, after all; and the US Supreme Court is not ruling in the abstract – it is deciding cases), but I took the point. It was a pithy summation of one of the major differences in advocacy styles between our two systems on which I had been reflecting during the course of the 2018 Pegasus Scholarship.

It was by then early November. I had flown into the US in late September, the day before Dr Blasey Ford testified before Congress. The white heat of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings was an extraordinary moment at which to inspect the American justice system. I was obviously interested in more than the sensational, however, and over six weeks, my co-scholar Anthony and I were able to observe the many cogs within that great judicial machine: from going on police patrols in Alexandria to incarceration in Henrico County jail. We took in criminal and civil and bankruptcy and family and appellate proceedings. The whole kaleidoscope was on display. The inevitable question for a barrister in America is how US justice differs from England’s – to which the answer is, “It depends”. This is a nation of 50 states and thus 50 judicial systems. Of those 50, we visited four: Maryland, Virginia, California and Pennsylvania, as well as the District of Columbia. Seven American Inns of Court in fact received us: the Anthony Kennedy Inn (Sacramento), the Judith K Fitzgerald Inn (Pittsburgh), the John Marshall Inn (Richmond), the L’Anson Hoffman Inn (Norfolk), the Montgomery County Inn (Maryland) and the Bryant Inn and George Washington Inn (both DC), as well as the Alexandria Bar Association.

The temptation with a scholarship like this is to ask which judicial system is better. That is a trap that ought to be avoided. It is a simplistic question, reducing complex and multi-layered systems to one-word answers. It is also a very difficult question for practitioners – so embedded within their own customs – to answer with any sort of objectivity. The better question is not “which system is better”, but “how do we make our own system better?”. The value of this scholarship lies, in part, in the opportunity for self-reflection. Unfamiliar surroundings are the best circumstances in which to challenge our own assumptions and practices. The political dimension to the appointment or election of judges can cause some anxiety for a British audience. Still, there were obvious illustrations I came across during my six-week scholarship where the process was working well. In San Francisco, as I have said, we met the Chief Justice of the Californian Supreme Court, Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye. Charming and intelligent, she is also Asian-Filipina American. Of the five other sitting justices (one seat remains vacant), two more are women; one is African American; two of the justices are Oriental; one is Hispanic. This is remarkable diversity to find on the state’s highest court. They were all appointed by the governor and must run in ‘retention’ elections. When I think of the hand-wringing in the UK about the lack of diversity within its judiciary, the advancements California has made are admirable. I think too of Judge Alexander Bicket whom we met in Pittsburgh. An able raconteur, he was a great lunch companion. He is South African. He was directly elected some years ago. He stressed how apolitical he was, but said too that he was an outsider; he did not know anyone within the Pennsylvanian Establishment; the prospect of him being appointed to the judiciary had been, he said, remote. If that is right, the Allegheny County Courthouse would have been deprived of a fine judge. Democracy – however unusual it may be for me to find it applied to judicial selection – had delivered here. In Richmond we met both US attorneys and federal defenders. They evidently had a good and cordial relationship with one another. It was plain that prosecutors wield considerable in the US, with plea agreements making a significant different to sentence. I was therefore heartened to hear one of the federal defenders that day tell us how well funded their own office was. The USA, he told us, had “the best defence in the world”. We enjoyed much of American culture during the scholarship. This is not a dry, academic programme – scholars get to live in and experience the USA. I cracked open Dungeness crabs on Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco and Maryland crabs off the Chesapeake Bay. I enjoyed the beauty of the waters of Lake Tahoe, the James and the Potomac. We saw the Pittsburgh Steelers crush the Carolina Panthers in a 70,000-capacity NFL stadium. All of that was not just a sideshow. Lawyers who only read law do not make good lawyers, after all. Experiences like these broaden our horizons, excite and energise the mind. I am forever in debt to those who hosted us with such wit, decency and integrity across the nation. Those six weeks were amongst the most stimulating of my life. Jamie Scott

100

Pegasus Scholars

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

HONG KONG Zara McGlone, 4 Stone Buildings

I arrived in Hong Kong at the beginning of September 2018 to spend 12 weeks there, divided between Temple Chambers, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre and the High Court. My stay began with a stint at Temple Chambers, one of Hong Kong’s pre-eminent sets. The majority of this time was spent with Russell Coleman SC (now Coleman J of the Hong Kong Court of First Instance). Russell’s practice at the Bar covered a range of areas, and one of the many highlights of my time with him was the opportunity to gain exposure to areas of law of which I had no prior experience, such as family and clinical negligence, as well as the chance to assist in more familiar areas. I also spent some time shadowing Victor Joffe QC while at Temple, and I particularly enjoyed the opportunity to experience a slightly different version of my more usual diet of company law work. This was particularly interesting due to the factual interplay in some cases between company and family law, which seemed to reflect the particularly mercantile nature for which Hong Kong is so famed. It was wonderful to be made to feel so welcome at Temple. I reconnected with colleagues I had met in advocacy training and attended events such as a lecture on investment treaty arbitration, and a seminar on crossborder restructuring and insolvency. During September, a delegation from Middle Temple visited Hong Kong on an Amity Visit, and my attendance at some of the associated events and at a dinner to honour new benchers reinforced my sense of the collegial nature of the Hong Kong Bar, a result in part of its comparatively small size. In late October, I moved on to the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, where I joined other lawyers from a wide range of jurisdictions. I carried out research on a variety of topics, including the role of WeChat in dispute resolution in China. I was also there for the launch of the new HKIAC Rules and for Hong Kong Arbitration Week in early November, which provided invaluable insights into the role of arbitration in the Asia-Pacific region and further afield.

My placement ended with some time spent marshalling Harris J, who serves as the Companies Judge in the High Court. It was fascinating to revisit some of the areas I had seen while at Temple Chambers, this time from the other side of the Bench, and to see what is actually helpful to a judge when hearing a company law case. Jonathan also spent a great deal of time discussing these issues with me, and I am extremely grateful to him for doing so. Outside of the formal aspects of the placement, I was keen to make the most of my time in Hong Kong. I took Cantonese classes and joined a hockey club, which trained on the infields of the Happy Valley racecourse, with the lights of Causeway Bay providing a striking backdrop. I also explored some of Hong Kong’s hundreds of islands and hiked a number of its routes, as well as enjoying more urban pursuits by way of sampling as many of the different cuisines on offer as possible and carrying out an extensive survey of which rooftop bars boasted the best view. It would be remiss of me not to mention recent events in Hong Kong, since at the time of writing a row continues over a controversial extradition bill, with millions of protesters filling the streets. During my stay, I attended the Economist’s Open Future Festival, which was addressed by speakers including Joshua Wong and Agnes Chow, and Lord Patten, the last governor of Hong Kong. They all spoke about the difficulties it faces in navigating its relationship with Beijing, and it is clear from recent events that those difficulties will not disappear any time soon. This only serves to reaffirm the importance of strong international support for the rule of law in the territory, and the value of programmes like the Pegasus Scholarship scheme, with its stated aim of building bridges between the legal professions in different common law jurisdictions. I gained a huge amount from my time in Hong Kong, both professionally and personally. I am immensely grateful both to those who selected me for the placement and to those who welcomed me so warmly during my stay. Special thanks are due to Russell Coleman for coordinating my trip, and for being so generous with his time, his advice and his introductions to others. 多謝! Zara McGlone

101

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Pegasus Scholars

NEW ZEALAND By Kate Jones, 4 King’s Bench Walk

When I was offered a Pegasus Scholarship to spend three months in New Zealand, I was delighted though honestly a little apprehensive at stepping away from my busy practice in London for that length of time. What I had failed to appreciate in contemplating my time in New Zealand was just how affirming the experience would be and how much perspective it would give me. Prior to flying to New Zealand, I was informed that I would be working at Bankside Chambers in Auckland. I was to be taken under the wing of Suzanne Robertson QC, one of the formidable barristers making up the array of highly impressive members of chambers. Suzanne, who had generously emailed me numerous times before flying out, had arranged for me to use her office whilst she was unable to be in chambers during my first week.

After a ‘life-admin’ and jet-lag-heavy few days, my first week at Bankside arrived and was entirely representative of what was to come over the following three months. I arrived to the 22nd floor of a very swanky building in central Auckland and was shown to an office with panoramic views of the waterfront; it was truly impressive. I was then invited for coffee with a member of chambers, where we had the opportunity to discuss her move back from the UK having completed her PhD at Cambridge and the general considerations of work–life balance, time away from your practice, women at the Bar and the all-important issue of wellbeing. In fact, I was delighted to discover throughout my time in New Zealand that these types of conversations were not a rarity and I was spoilt with numerous thought-provoking and open conversations about similar issues with a wide range of barristers in chambers. Suzanne deserves a special mention, as she graciously indulged my conversation during long car journeys even after she had been on her feet in court all day. In my first week, I met many of the members of chambers, all of whom had been informed of my arrival and had thoughtfully considered what work they could engage me in. I was also invited by a member of chambers to attend the Auckland Women’s Lawyers Association Moot at the University of Auckland Law School, which was taking place in Court 1 of the Auckland High Court. Excellent timing, so it turned out. I took myself along and in fact met there a host of barristers and solicitors, who I would come to bump into many times over my time in Auckland and accordingly experience the welcoming nature of the profession. During my time in chambers, I had involvement in commercial, construction, general civil, probate, criminal and family work. As well as the interesting work and collegiate environment I experienced in chambers on a day-to-day basis, I enjoyed the

102

interspersed events that I was invited to attend. This included being invited as a guest of a member of chambers to a lunch with the Hon Christopher Finlayson QC, the former Attorney General and, at that time, impending member of Bankside Chambers. The Pegasus Scholars in New Zealand were also invited to attend a drinks reception at the Supreme Court in Wellington. I duly flew from Auckland to the compact and beautiful capital to spend the day sitting in a hearing in the Supreme Court and later meeting the five Supreme Court Justices where, I hasten to add, we were individually invited to say a few words. Without prior warning! Such was the array of practice areas within Chambers that I was able to attend and observe several mediations and arbitrations as well as attend court during my time there. I also had the opportunity to marshall two judges sitting in the district court presiding over family cases. One case in fact was a final contested hearing in the mother’s application to relocate with the parties’ child to the UK, my favourite submission being that the UK was too grey and depressing to expect the child to move there. There was much to learn from and take away from my time in chambers. Not least the opportunities given to members of chambers to host what was called a ‘brown bag lunch’ where the host would discuss a current issue or legal development. I attended a lunch on the history of and progress towards the increasing use of te reo Māori in the courts. As Christmas loomed, I was given a full introduction to summertime Christmas celebrations. Suzanne hosted a lunch at a winery and sculpture gallery just outside Auckland in Matakana, and the chambers’ Christmas party, which started life as an alfresco lunch, morphed into a pool party and ultimately a dodgy rendition of ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ at a K-Road karaoke bar. After my three months were up, I was full of ideas for my own advocacy and practice and also refreshed and motivated to get back to chambers in London and put some of what I’d picked up into effect. Anybody considering applying for a Pegasus Scholarship would, without a doubt, be glad they did. Kate Jones

Pegasus Scholars

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

BERMUDA By Chris de Beneducci, Selborne Chambers

For six weeks across March and April 2019, I was on secondment with Carey Olsen Bermuda, the Pegasus Scholarship scheme allowed me to throw myself into a different kind of working life; a rare opportunity in any profession, let alone the Junior Bar. I am pleased to report that my time in Bermuda was even more rewarding and enjoyable than I had hoped when first drafting my scholarship application. Bermuda is a fish hook-shaped island which spans roughly 21 miles in length as it curls from the historic town of St George’s in the ‘East End’ to the Royal Naval Dockyard in the ‘West End’. Its population hovers around 65,000. The island is not (contrary to a common misconception) part of the Caribbean but in fact lies much further north. The shortest international flights reach the east coast of America in two hours. All this information, and plenty more besides, can be gleaned from simply chatting to Bermudians, who are unfailingly friendly and deservedly proud of their island’s fascinating mid-Atlantic history and geography. Bermuda punches well above its weight in numerous respects. On my Pegasus Scholarship, I had the privilege of experiencing its outstanding legal sector. I was especially lucky to do so with Carey Olsen Bermuda, which, in the 18 months since its formation, has very rapidly built up an enviable body of high-quality work across its practice areas. As testament to Carey Olsen’s growing stature in Bermuda’s legal sector, during my time at the firm we had lunch visits from the Governor, John Rankin, and the Finance Minister, Curtis Dickinson. These visits also fired an interest in Bermudian politics, abetted by The Royal Gazette newspaper; given the size of the population, democracy in Bermuda feels much more immediate and participatory than in Britain. Whilst at Carey Olsen, I worked on numerous large-scale trusts, probate and professional negligence disputes. One case in particular – a high-profile Bermudian cause célèbre – comfortably ranks amongst the most interesting and wide-ranging pieces of work I have ever done. Across the board, I was thrilled not only to be involved in matters of real significance but also to be entrusted by my hosts with making meaningful contributions to the progression of those cases. I was able to hit the ground running as, subject to Bermudian statutory intervention, the common law of England and Wales still provides the framework for Bermuda law. The decisions of our Courts can be deployed as persuasive precedent in Bermudian litigation and, most helpfully of all, Bermuda’s procedural code is based closely on the Rules of the Supreme Court. In Bermuda, the White Book retains its familiar role in civil procedure – but in the form of the RSC 1999.

I would take one example from my work in the field of trusts law to demonstrate why a Pegasus Scholarship is such an interesting exercise in similarities and differences. Much offshore trusts work involves protectors in addition to trustees. An application for the removal of a protector is closely related, but not identical, to an application for the removal of a trustee. I therefore needed to use some well-known principles from my practice in England in relation to trustees but also to adapt them to the emerging jurisprudence of the offshore jurisdictions concerning protectors. As such, my time at Carey Olsen broadened my legal horizons whilst allowing me to reflect on and consolidate aspects of my practice at home. More generally, I had previously considered my skill set as an English barrister to be fairly location-specific, but happily the ability to prepare skeleton arguments, settle witness statements, and draft advices transferred readily to the Bermudian context. Although obvious in hindsight, there was something heartening about the discovery that disputes lawyers across the common law world are engaged in very similar tasks on a daily basis. Certainly, that realisation has encouraged me to develop where possible an international aspect to my practice and to engage with questions of comparative law (not least in procedural fields). There were other insights gained during my stint at Carey Olsen, which I hope to apply as my practice develops: drafting instructions to counsel, for example, was a novel experience, which gave a very useful sense of what solicitors are looking for when engaging barristers on behalf of their hard-won clients. Away from work, I was able to explore the beautiful beaches of Bermuda (the walk from Warwick Long Bay to Horseshoe Bay being a favourite), cycle around a triathlete’s paradise, and pay some much-needed attention to my backhand under the wry tutelage of Coach Terry at Bermuda’s National Tennis Centre. I am extremely grateful to the Pegasus Trust and the Inns of Court for enabling me to spend six weeks in Bermuda. I would strongly recommend that all eligible barristers apply for a Pegasus Scholarship; it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. My chief thanks, though, go to the team at Carey Olsen. Everybody was hugely welcoming and generous with their time, both in and out of the office. Their help and guidance made an immeasurable difference to my time in Bermuda. I envy the next Pegasus Scholar who will benefit from their unstinting hospitality! Chris de Beneducci

103

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Pegasus Scholars

NEW YORK By Natasha Hausdorff, Six Pump Court

I am incredibly grateful to the Pegasus Trust for the opportunity to spend two months researching cyber regulation with Professor Matthew Waxman, Director of the National Security Law Program, at Columbia Law School. Between 13 August and 12 October 2018, I was a fellow in the National Security Law Program and was welcomed into the faculty at the Law School, with the opportunity to attend faculty meetings and workshops, and to work with the academic fellows on their research projects, in addition to the work I undertook with Professor Waxman. I was also fortunate to join several courses taught by Professor Waxman and his colleagues, in particular on cyber and intelligence law, and to engage in discussions comparing UK and US approaches.

During my time at Columbia I focused in detail on cyber warfare, how evolving cyber threats are being addressed by NATO, and the developments in policy and cyber regulation relating to the UK Digital Department. I looked in particular at changes concerning the highly anticipated European Court of Human Rights judgment in Big Brother Watch v UK [2018] and the potential implications for bulk surveillance, as well as the evolution from the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to the subsequent Investigatory Powers Act 2016. I also focused on developments in the field of cyber regulation, including Germany’s Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz, which I believe has particular value to the developing discussion on cyber regulation in the UK. Developing cyber capabilities have generated a fast-changing landscape in which we face more sophisticated threats, whilst attacks become more common and damaging. Certainly, in the armed conflict arena, the use of hybrid warfare including cyber has created an evolving and complex threat environment. NATO and its allies have put cyber warfare high on the agenda and rely on robust cyber defences to fulfil the alliance’s core tasks of collective defence, crisis management and cooperative security. In this environment of growing cyber sophistication, NATO and its member states must be prepared to defend their networks and operations. NATO has been at the forefront of developing cyber policy in the international arena, and yet it has come under criticism for not properly articulating what an ambitious or aggressive cyber agenda would look like. The potential ‘menus’ of responses which have been put forward in relation to future ‘cyber-attacks’ are nebulous, and many commentators have stressed the quick expiry period and secretive nature of cyber capabilities and the difficulty of building an international consensus.

Despite an emerging consensus on the importance of devoting resources to establishing international norms of behaviour for cyberspace, contributing to the establishment of a credible cyber-deterrence regime and intelligence sharing on threats, cooperation on cyber is less straightforward than traditional military cooperation. Especially in the context of cyber, each country will wish to protect its own cyber ‘crown jewels’ in both offensive and defensive areas. Developments in the field of cyber-security require NATO to adopt a more proactive approach and pursue a more dynamic operational framework than that traditionally pursued under collective defence. This ought to include a public doctrine on offensive action to address cyber threats below the traditional armed attack threshold. The Government’s first Director General for Digital and Media, Matthew Gould, has been in post since 2015, having previously been the Government’s Director of Cyber Security at the Cabinet Office. His role is described by the department as being to help turn Britain into a world-leading digital economy and his team has been at the forefront of developing cyber policy in the UK. The Conservative Government issued a policy paper in 2017 concerning the ‘Digital Charter’, intending to ensure that innovative businesses in the tech sector are able to succeed in the UK and to grow public confidence and trust in the development of new technologies. The department describes the Charter as including a rolling programme of work to agree norms and rules for the online world and to put them into practice. It recognises that in some cases, this will be through shifting expectations of behaviour and that in others the Government will need to agree new standards or to update laws and regulations. The Charter is not intended to be merely a government initiative but to convene the tech sector, businesses and civil society to combat the challenges it identifies and grow this approach internationally. In keeping with this ‘connected approach’, the Government launched the National Cyber Security Centre in 2016, in order to foster cyber-security partnerships between Government, industry and the public, offering advice and support on securing networks and systems from cyber threats. My time in New York amounted to far more than the work I engaged in and the research I conducted. The experience broadened my outlook on law and policy and enabled me to meet some inspiring legal professionals. I hope to maintain the contacts I made and aim to work to foster a closer relationship between the legal professions across the Atlantic on this basis throughout my career. I am still in close contact with lawyers from non-profits in New York and I hope to work on a pro bono project jointly with them in the near future. Natasha Hausdorff

104

Pegasus Scholars

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

INDIA By Samuel Coe, KCH Garden Square

In August 2018, I set off for India as the recipient of a Pegasus Scholarship. I had little idea of what to expect but was excited to see how the common law operates in another jurisdiction. The scholarship in India is arranged with the Kapila & Nirmal Hingorani Foundation, a charitable trust named after two leading lawyers, which aims to carry forward their work in public interest law and human rights. My first placement was with Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate (the Indian equivalent of Queen’s Counsel), a lawyer specialising in criminal law in the Delhi High Court. A frequent complaint in England is over-listing of cases, which pales in comparison with the High Court where each judge can have up to a hundred cases in their list on a single day! Consequently, things move quickly, and it was a challenge at first to keep up with the submissions in each case, particularly given the law was unfamiliar. On my first day, I was invited to meet senior lawyers at the Bar Association for lunch. Despite their busy practices, I was given a very warm welcome and fired off as many questions as I could and answered questions about life at the Bar in England. I spent the next three weeks with Mr Pahwa, assisting with legal research and case preparation, attending client meetings and going to court. Vikas Pahwa is one of the bestknown advocates in the High Court and so attracts heavyweight cases, which during my time at the office included offences of obscenity, terrorism and extortion. One of the most important cases I worked on was a public interest litigation (PIL) case against the fire services. The PIL I worked on was filed against the Delhi Fire Services on the basis the service was ill-equipped to deal with emergencies and short-staffed. The PIL was brought by one of the families of a victim of the Uphaar tragedy of 1997, and it was moving to meet with them and understand how PIL is an important tool in India to seek a remedy on behalf of an oppressed group and why they are so passionate about trying to use PIL as an effective instrument for change in society. My second placement was at the Supreme Court of India with Senior Advocate – and the former Additional Solicitor General – K V Viswanathan. It was fascinating spending three weeks at the Supreme Court, which is a beautiful, imposing building, but painfully hot when stood outside in a suit whilst waiting for cases to be called on. The case I worked on which resonated with me the most was in respect of the proposed deportation of a group of Rohingya Muslims to Myanmar. The court ultimately refused to stop the deportation of the seven Rohingya men, a decision which the UN Special Rapporteur on racism, Tendayi Achiume, called “…a flagrant denial of their right to protection”. September was a very exciting time to be in Delhi; within a three-week period, the Supreme Court delivered two landmark equality judgments and decriminalised both homosexuality and adultery, which swept away decades-old colonial legislation. In the leading judgment, Chief Justice Misra said: “Social exclusion, identity seclusion and isolation from the social mainstream are still the stark realities faced by individuals today, and it is only when each and every individual is liberated from the shackles of such bondage…that we can call ourselves a truly free society.”

I spent my final two weeks at the Delhi Commission for Women, a statutory body of the Government of Delhi constituted to investigate and examine all matters relating to the safety and security of women under the constitution and other laws. This placement was the extreme opposite of my first six weeks and, rather than being at court, I spent time visiting the slums in Delhi. India can be a dangerous place to be a woman, with the National Crime Records Bureau recording that a crime against a woman is committed every three minutes. The Commission seeks to ensure that women from all communities have access to justice and its work ranges from supporting victims of domestic abuse to making recommendations for safeguarding women. The Commission also has a 24-hour mobile help desk, which is dispatched to assist in emergencies, I joined them on a number of evenings and saw how the staff supported women who were often reluctant to report matters to the police due to the fear of retaliation and being ostracised by the community. I was impressed by the wide-reaching work of the Commission in finding creative ways to ensure that there is justice for women, often with resolution being outside the court process. I had a fantastic eight weeks in Delhi, but the scholarship should not be seen as a holiday; I worked six days a week until 9 pm most evenings during my time in India. On Sundays, I explored Delhi, a city that has so many contrasting layers to it and is hard to describe without being there India is a country that has it all; it is simply impossible to see it all in one trip and I hope to return in the future. It is very difficult to put into words how wonderful my time in India was and I wholeheartedly recommend the Pegasus Scholarship to all junior barristers. I will always be grateful to the Pegasus Trust and my brilliant host organisations for giving me the opportunity of a lifetime. Samuel Coe

105

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Pegasus Scholars

DUBAI By Sahana Jayakumar, Five Paper

In January 2018, I was awarded a Pegasus Trust Scholarship to spend three months in Dubai to learn about the workings of the Dubai International Finance Centre (the DIFC) from September to December 2018. My time was divided between a six-week placement in the DIFC Litigation department of Al Tamimi and Co and six weeks in the registry of the DIFC Courts. In applying for the scholarship, I was motivated by a strong interest in learning about the operation of a common law, English-language jurisdiction within the heart of the Arabic, civil jurisdiction of the Emirate of Dubai. The DIFC has evolved over the years into a sophisticated jurisdiction, which now forms the blueprint for similar centres around the world, such as the AIFC in Kazakhstan, the ADGM in Abu-Dhabi and the QFC in Qatar. My scholarship provided me with an invaluable opportunity to observe the workings of the DIFC jurisdiction first-hand, make contacts and friends, and change my perspective on the future of international dispute resolution.

In the DIFC litigation team at Al Tamimi, I was able to assist with matters that were on foot in the DIFC Courts. I assisted with the disclosure process in a multimillion-pound insurance dispute and quickly become familiar with the procedural rules of the DIFC (the RDC), which are loosely based on the English Civil Procedure Rules 1998. I was also tasked with carrying out research into questions of UAE law as applied in Dubai concerning company structure and the recoverability of consequential damages, and assisted with an application to set aside an arbitration award on the basis that it was contrary to public policy. While working in the DIFC Courts’ registry during the second half of my scholarship, I was able to sit in on hearings in the Court of First Instance and Court of Appeal, seeing first-hand how hearings were conducted and how the courts were run. A number of the cases before the courts concerned challenges to the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts (where it was argued that cases should be heard in the onshore Dubai courts instead) and applications for recognition and enforcement of judgments from other jurisdictions. By reading judgments and observing hearings, I was able to learn a considerable amount about the mechanism for regulating the remit of the DIFC Courts and the civil Dubai courts and how the balance is struck between the two. It was impressive to see that through their decisions, the DIFC Courts resolved to defend their jurisdiction to the greatest extent possible and, occasionally, push the boundaries

on a case-by-case basis. It was clear that as a consequence of this approach, the DIFC Courts had established themselves as a centre for international dispute resolution, rather than simply a small chamber for niche commercial disputes. One of the most enjoyable aspects of working in the DIFC Courts’ Registry was the opportunity to prepare the Registrar’s draft directions covering novel points of procedure which had not yet been covered in the RDC. For instance, one of my tasks was to prepare a draft direction to address service of documents under the Riyadh convention, since a number of court users had contacted the Registrar to seek clarification on the point. From an academic point of view, it was fascinating to see how the procedural rules developed organically in such a young jurisdiction. Being based in the DIFC also allowed me to attend a number of seminars and networking events, such as the ICCE Conference on Court Excellence and the many sessions during Dubai Arbitration Week. It was also very fortunate that my scholarship fell during the 10-year anniversary of the DIFC Courts. As part of these celebrations, I had the privilege of attending a dinner with the courts’ judges and members of staff, as well as the launch of a book reflecting on the life of the DIFC Courts. In participating in these events, I was able to understand how courts and other centres for international commercial dispute resolution (including the DIFC) thought about the service they offered to their users. One common theme was the need for efficiency in disclosure, to prevent this phase of litigation or arbitration becoming unduly costly to the parties involved. It is notable that elements of the Disclosure Pilot currently in effect in the Business and Property Courts in England and Wales closely resemble the process of Document Production under Part 28 of the RDC. With such a large number of arbitration centres and English-speaking commercial courts around the world, modelled on the DIFC, it is inevitable that the High Court will have to compete to remain the jurisdiction of choice for international commercial work. Overall, my time in the DIFC was incredibly rewarding. It was exciting to see a jurisdiction in its infancy growing and evolving with each case that the DIFC Courts heard, and it opened my eyes to the future of international commercial work. Thanks to my scholarship, I now know that many opportunities for the English Bar lie overseas and if barristers want to stay competitive, it is essential to learn more about these new jurisdictions and how they operate. Sahana Jayakumar

106

Pegasus Scholars

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

NEW ZEALAND By Robert Goodwin, 9 Park Place

In September 2018, I commenced a three-month placement with Crown Law in Wellington, New Zealand. I was primarily placed with the Criminal Law team; however I also assisted other teams within the office. Despite New Zealand forming part of the Commonwealth, their legal system has developed many differences to ours. Crown Law does not have a readily comparable body in our system, despite superficially appearing to be very similar to the Crown Prosecution Service. The Criminal Department mainly handles appeal matters. When an appeal is made by the defence (or the prosecutor believes there may be grounds for an appeal), the case comes to Crown Law who determine whether to oppose it (or if there are grounds to make one), and their lawyers conduct the appeal hearings. This system gave me experience of working on high-level criminal work, as the hearings I attended were mainly Court of Appeal or Supreme Court level. Whilst respecting that many of the cases I assisted in remain ongoing, the following are examples of the work and cases I assisted in: • Immunity request. Whether an individual should obtain immunity from prosecution following information provided; • Requests pursuant to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992. • Researching points of law for forthcoming appeal hearings. In my final week, I acted as junior counsel on a week-long jury trial with a lawyer from the Wellington Crown Solicitor’s Office in the District Court. This was an incredible experience as I worked alongside an experienced practitioner when preparing a trial (something I had not done since pupillage), as well as seeing how such a trial is conducted in a different jurisdiction. Whilst with the criminal team, I noted a number of ostensible differences between the New Zealand and our jurisdiction within this practice area: • New Zealand has jury and ‘judge-alone’ trials, and defendants can often select which to face. A judgealone trial can be for very serious offences and is not comparable to district judge trials in our jurisdiction. This is often a highly thought-out and tactical move as to which a defendant selects; • The defendant is not subject to any adverse inference or comment by a prosecutor for failing to give evidence and/or answer questions at interview. • Grounds of appeal are much wider in New Zealand compared to England and Wales, with a ground of ‘trial counsel competency’.

New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world trying to counterbalance the position of an indigenous population and a Western structured legal system. There has been a long-standing inequality between the ‘Pākehā’ (the European settlers) and the Māori, with much of it stemming from the highly controversial Treaty of Whitangi signed in 1840. In 1975, the Treaty was recognised as a document with true legal force following the Treaty of Whitangi Act and the Whitangi Tribunal was created in order to determine claims by Māori Groups under the Treaty. During my time with Crown Law, His Honour Justice Williams (the first permanent Māori Court of Appeal Judge) presented a seminar to reinforce the concept of Tikanga Māori. This, he described, is essentially the “Māori way of doing things”, and without a basic knowledge of such a concept, one cannot understand Māori perspectives and effectively give recognition to Māori rights. I saw the Tribunal in action for a week when it was sitting in Wellington. Its cases are long-running in nature and generally quite alien to us as a concept (potentially most closely aligned to an inquiry). A panel of six hear evidence relating to Māori rights regarding a certain claim against the Treaty. The Tribunal however is not only conducting a balancing exercise between the Crown and the Māori, but also which Māori groups should have what rights. For instance, in the hearing I attended there were over 20 parties within the proceedings: The Crown, bodies representing Māori interests (such as the Māori Council) and then also specific Māori iwi or groups. I also assisted in various civil law matters, most notably providing research-based assistance in an ongoing employment discrimination case. Whilst I was undertaking my placement, the Court of Appeal also reached a decision in the Kiwi Fruit case. This is a headline case in New Zealand because of the impact it has upon so many people and could also the impact on how government departments operate. I believe the experience of living and working abroad, within a culture different to what I am used to with people who have different perspectives and backgrounds, has helped me develop as a person. This can only be beneficial to my practice upon my return. I thoroughly enjoyed the placement was and would recommend it to any young barrister. Robert Goodwin

107

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

75th Anniversary of the D-Day Landings

75TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE D-DAY LANDINGS By Master Stephen Brown

WWI

In this 75th anniversary year of the D-Day landings, we are very pleased to republish Master Brown’s recollections of the harrowing events of 5–6 June 1944, and the D-Day commemorations of 15 years ago in which he took part during his year as Treasurer. In the early morning of the 6 June 2004, 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 24hour 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 6.30 am, 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. 108

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.

“ There was a rising sense of tension as, with the incessant and deafening noise of aircraft overhead” 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 now 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

Celebrate the life

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

MASTER GLASS By David Jeffreys QC

Master Anthony Glass

Anthony’s early childhood was in Prestwich (north Manchester) but he spent most of his life in London. He always retained the hint of a Mancunian burr. He had no family connections with the law but after Lincoln College, Oxford, he was called to the Bar by Inner Temple in 1965. He was fortunate enough to obtain pupillage with the much-loved Basil Wigoder (another Mancunian) in the prestigious criminal set headed by Edward Cussen, then Senior Treasury Counsel. (Cussen, a major in MI5 during the war, had famously interrogated P G Wodehouse in 1944. Anthony called him “the Bishop”. Cussen was also a Bencher of Inner). Anthony was sufficiently well thought of to be taken on as a tenant and his professional life was spent almost entirely at the Criminal Bar. He cut his forensic teeth as we all did in those days in the magistrates’ courts in and around London and with experience graduated to work at Inner London and Middlesex Sessions (the old courts of Quarter Sessions that were replaced by the Crown Court in 1971) and later the Old Bailey. And as was common practice in criminal sets in those days, he prosecuted and defended. He was a highly competent performer and he began to build a practice with a number of loyal clients who stayed with him for most of his career. Anthony was tall and dark – but later (like so many of us) grey and then white. He had a highly mobile face. Behind the quizzical expression lay a mischievous sense of humour and sense of the ridiculous. He had a commanding presence in court and an attractive baritone voice with just that tinge of Mancunian accent. He was the consummate advocate. He was unhurried but did not waste words or time. And thanks to his ability to judge the mood in court with acute sensitivity, he always seemed to find the right words. His cross-examinations were models of their kind; he didn’t harass or bully witnesses. In prosecuting, his relentless logic convicted the guilty. In defending, he would charm witnesses who appeared hostile on paper into agreeing with what he wanted from them. He was never strident and all the more persuasive for that. His fairness made his case stronger, not weaker. Juries loved him; judges admired him.

“ Above all he has been a barrister’s barrister. Any member of the Bar sitting in court with him would leave feeling privileged to have been present”

He and I became friends through practice at the Bar. Anthony’s artist wife, Deborah (who came from North Carolina but lived in London from the 1960s), became a friend of my wife, Ann, and the four of us often socialised together. I was a few years senior to him and the time came when, in 1979, Anthony thought he was making insufficient progress in his then chambers and sought my advice about joining mine (headed by the charismatic William ‘Bill’ Howard QC). My chambers I should say were something of a rarity in those days, a young set having been founded by Bill in 1960 with just four members. By 1979, we had grown in numbers but at the time he asked me we had lost our senior clerk and I told him I didn’t think it was a good idea. I am glad to say he ignored my advice and joined us. And magically, after a merger in 1982 with the chambers of Dan Hollis QC, the now combined set flourished, a happy situation to which Anthony was a major contributor. His practice deservedly blossomed. He took silk in 1986 (not so easy for criminal practitioners in those days) and was a Recorder from 1985 to 2005, a Bencher of Inner Temple in 1995. He appeared with distinction in many high-profile cases, covering the gamut of criminal fare, from violence to complex fraud. His dedication to his case never wavered, whatever its nature. I can’t improve on what was said by his chambers on his retirement from practice in 2013: “Above all he has been a barrister’s barrister. Any member of the Bar sitting in court with him would leave feeling privileged to have been present, fervently wishing that one day he or she might be as good as Anthony Glass QC.” Anthony loved family holidays in the south of France, later with Deborah in Paris, good food and wine, Mozart operas and the Garrick Club. His beloved Deborah tragically died in 2011. Many of her bright and exhilarating pictures adorn the homes of their friends. Anthony was bereft at her loss but was fortunate to meet Stephanie, who had been widowed, and their friendship matured into marriage in 2013. Anthony is survived by Stephanie and her children; his son, James, in the music business in America where he and his daughter, Alice, live; and by his daughter, Emily, an artist, teacher and curator who is married to Julia, a psychotherapist. Anthony Glass QC died on 10 July 2019 at the age of 79.

David Jeffreys QC

He was extremely popular with his peers. He had very few rows in court because of his even temper. Out of court he was enormous fun to be with. His deep laugh was a familiar feature of the Old Bailey Bar Mess. He wouldn’t want to be regarded as a paragon of virtue but the qualities I have described were just part of the character of a thoroughly nice man. 109

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

History Society Review

HISTORY SOCIETY REVIEW By the Archivist

A The Misfortunes of Arthur

The year began with an inspiring talk from Master Ivan Lawrence on his career as a criminal lawyer. The event was one of the most popular lectures the History Society has ever hosted, with an audience of students and younger members all eager to hear the life experiences of this distinguished criminal barrister. Called to the Bar in 1962, Master Lawrence took silk in 1981. He has acted for the defence in over 85 murder trials, including as part of the defence team for the Kray twins in 1969 over the killing of George Cornell in the Blind Beggar pub, when he was just 29 years old. As a mark of their gratitude, the twins sent him Christmas cards every year. While in Broadmoor, Ronnie Kray created a childlike oil painting showing a house in a field with the signature ‘R KRAY’ daubed in large capitals at the base. He presented this gift to Master Lawrence, who has only recently parted with it. Master Lawrence also defended the serial killer Dennis Nilsen whom he believed was criminally insane. Apart from his legal career, Master Lawrence served as Conservative MP for Burton for 23 years. During his time in Parliament, he helped to set up the National Lottery for which he still buys a ticket every week. His experiences and knowledge provided a fascinating lecture that was enjoyed by all. Professor Michelle O’Callaghan is the director of the Early Modern Research Centre and Professor at Reading University, specialising in Renaissance literature and drama. She gave a talk in March entitled Law Sports: Revelling at the Elizabethan and Jacobean Inns of Court, which focused on the famous Christmas revels performed at the Inns of Court. 110

Christmas at the Inns of Court lasted from All Saints’ Eve 31 October to Candlemas Day 2 May. The celebrations involved many days of feasting, dancing, plays and masques. Misconduct was commonplace and the Inns’ records contain a number of references to admonishments for unruly behaviour. As Peter Goodrich comments on Gerard Legh’s firsthand account of the revels: “The order of dining – of arrival, dress, seating, service, food, speech, argument, exposition, dance, revelry and masques – is the order of a lawful world, a symbolic order in which Justice, Rule and Law are to be understood as being expressed together through culinary measures, victuals and wine.” Pepys also visited the Temple Hall as a child in the 1660s and was shocked at the gambling, swearing and drunkenness of the gentlemen there. The menus included meat pies, baked chickens and rabbits. Apples and raisins were served for dessert. Each feast was washed down with five gallons of wine and two gallons of sweet wine, and the binge was accompanied by music played by professional minstrels. Games of dice and quoits followed the banquets and actors were brought in from outside the Inns to perform plays and masques. The Lord of Misrule at the Inner Temple named the Prince of Sophie, otherwise the Shah of Persia, was also elected and in 1561 was played by the Earl of Leicester, Lord Robert Dudley, although banned in 1518 when his antics clearly got out of hand.

Archives

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Revelling at the Elizabethan and Jacobean Inns of Court

Professor O’Callaghan also touched on the presence of women during the revels. Females were admitted to the audience and they performed in the masques themselves, which gave them an opportunity to mingle with members of the Inn.

“ The order of dining – of arrival, dress, seating, service, food, speech, argument, exposition, dance, revelry and masques – is the order of a lawful world” The History Society teamed up with Dr Romola Nuttall and Julian Neuhauser of King’s College London to stage a production of The Misfortunes of Arthur. This neglected play by Thomas Hughes was first performed in 1587 at Gray’s Inn. The most recent known performance took place before Elizabeth I at Greenwich Palace in 1588. It’s likely that our production was the first performance of the play in over 400 years. The show was interspersed with commentaries from Professor Lucy Monroe, Reader in Early Modern Drama at King’s College, and from James Wallace, Director at the Dolphin’s Back Theatre Company, which specialises in reviving historic plays. The event was a huge success, with wonderful performances from the Drama Society who stole the show in the historic setting of the Temple Church.

FORTHCOMING EVENTS In the Temple Church on 23 October, Greg Dorey CVO, our Sub-Treasurer, and former British Ambassador to Ethiopia and Hungary, will examine the lives of Inner Temple members from the mid 16th century to the mid 20th century who went on to become diplomats. These talented individuals needed to master the arts of negotiation, politics and military strategy as well as modern languages. Their skills were honed at the Inner Temple, which was informally known as ‘the third university’ (after Oxford and Cambridge). In those days, the Inn functioned as a finishing school for the sons of gentlemen where courtly skills were acquired alongside a legal education. Mr Dorey will examine the life-stories of these fascinating polymaths and the changing requirements of both the Bar and the corps diplomatique. On 22 January 2020, Dr Susan Brigden, Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford, will examine the effect of the Reformation on the Inns of Court, and the contribution of our members to that process. In June 2020, Professor Caroline Barron and Dr Vanessa Harding of the Historic Towns Atlas Group will introduce an audience to their most recent map, showing London as it would have looked in 1270 using archaeological and manuscript evidence. This event is to take place in the historically appropriate venue of the Temple Church. And in October 2020, we are lucky enough to welcome back the great legal historian Master Baker who will lecture on the early history of the Inn. It is hoped that the Inn’s History Society will continue to provide a rich source of interest to historians willing to speak to the History Society, with many events planned for future years. Celia Pilkington Archivist

Celia Pilkington

111

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Review of The Role of Circuit Courts in the Formation of United States Law in the Early Republic

MASTER JACKSON REVIEWS

THE ROLE OF CIRCUIT COURTS IN THE FORMATION OF UNITED STATES LAW IN THE EARLY REPUBLIC by David Lynch By Master Peter Jackson

“It will probably take me twelve days to reach home after I set out on the journey. I fear the roads in New England are now very bad, and I shall rest a little on the road if it is practicable.” Letter from US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story to his wife, Sarah, on 12 March 1812 as he prepared to return home from Washington to Salem, Massachusetts Anyone who has ‘ridden circuit’, as advocate or as judge in our age of modern transport, instantaneous communication and internet access, will feel for our forerunners. In the early years of the United States, the obligation on reluctant Supreme Court justices to divide their sitting time between far-off Washington and ‘riding circuit’ across the nation puts our own experiences into perspective. Those judges had to travel thousands of miles a year by coach or on horseback on unmade and dangerous roads (one justice was severely injured in an accident), staying away from their family for months at a time in lodgings of variable quality, trying cases without access to a law library and contending with independent-minded local communities that were often unenthusiastic about their visitor’s presence. And when they made it into court, they were faced with problems that still confront us nowadays. What weight should be given to the value of predictable precedent where its application causes injustice in an individual case? How ready should an appeal judge be to interfere with a jury verdict or a factual finding of a lower court? How much criticism should judges be prepared to take from the executive, and how much support should they expect from the executive when they come under attack from elsewhere? Where should power lie as between the regions and the centre? The constitutional importance of the US Supreme Court makes the identity and attitudes of its members a matter of real political interest, as recent events vividly confirm. The subjects of this excellent book are four early American judges who served on the Marshall court, named after John Marshall, Chief Justice from 1801 to 1835. Between them, the four Justices – Washington, Livingston, Story

112

and Thompson – sat on the Supreme Court for exactly 100 years at a time when the new Republic was consolidating its legal and administrative reach and the court was asserting its authority to strike down unconstitutional federal and state legislation. This book’s distinctive contribution is to assess the work of the four judges on the federal circuit courts to which they were allocated, sharing their time between those courts and their sittings in Washington. The circuit courts, which naturally heard far more cases than the Supreme Court, played a crucial role in encouraging standards and consistency at a local level, and in securing the acceptance of a national dimension by those who were suspicious of the dilution of the power of the states. The working relationships between the judges on their different geographical circuits is fascinatingly described, with extracts from their correspondence showing how they consulted each other about their cases and asked for advice about unfamiliar fields of law from colleagues with more specialist knowledge. Just as today.

“ The Supreme Court, by a majority, held that the tribe had no standing to seek an injunction, but a joint dissent by Justices Thompson and Story was vindicated in the following year.” These judges were often making decisions on elemental disputes that arose in the emerging nation, and the author’s interest in his subject began with earlier research into decisions about the treatment of Native Americans, and in particular the 1831 decision in Cherokee Nation v Georgia. The Cherokee tribe had taken to law in an attempt to prevent land appropriation legislation passed by the state of Georgia. The Supreme Court, by a majority, held that the tribe had no standing to seek an injunction, but a joint dissent by Justices Thompson and Story was vindicated in the following year in Worcester v Georgia. None of this availed the Cherokee, who were driven off their land anyway when President Jackson refused to recognise the court’s ruling.

Treasury

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2020

The book begins with a clear account of the history and structure of a common law system that was finding its feet in a new world, while maintaining a surprisingly high level of loyalty to precedents created in the mother jurisdiction that it had disowned. We then follow the careers of each of the four judges, with close attention to their judicial philosophies and significant decisions, many of which were in the maritime and commercial field at a time when the United States was at war and under a trade embargo. Perhaps most engaging is Joseph Story himself, who joined the court at the age of 32 and sat there for 35 years. A strong opponent of slavery, who in 1841 gave the lead judgment in United States v The Amistad, freeing African victims of the slave trade who had overwhelmed their captors at sea, he wrote a classic textbook on the constitution. He was a moderniser in his writing style, in the relative shortness of his judgments, in his hostility to prolix pleadings and in his commitment to legal education. He was also extremely industrious: his 195 majority opinions for the Marshall Court make him the courtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most productive associate (Justice Duvall, over the same period, wrote 16). He was also a poet of amiable badness.

This is a book about remarkable judges, based on a doctoral thesis by a remarkable judge. His Honour David Lynch sat in Liverpool until his retirement and is known to the inhabitants of the Royal Courts of Justice as the founder and benefactor of the Lynch Library, a rich collection of legal books of all kinds. He is also revered on the Northern Circuit as its archivist and has compiled and updated a unique historical directory of members of the circuit. This book and the directory are impressive publications, providing absorbing context for lives lived in the service of the law, both now and two centuries ago. The Rt Hon Lord Justice Peter Jackson

113

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Valedictory: Master Birkett

VALEDICTORY: MASTER BIRKETT Valedictory by Richard Pratt QC on the retirement of Master Birkett on 29 March 2019. The valedictory took place at the end of a case heard in the Family Division of the High Court in Manchester before Sir Mark Hedley. The circumstances of the case meant that the best interests of Master Birkett’s client were served by his not asking a single question during the entire case, as will be apparent from the opening comments by Richard Pratt QC. My Lord, I’m very conscious that there are many in this room who before this case will not have had the opportunity to see Peter Birkett QC in action. Unhappily, they still have not. Save, of course, for sharing his affable, amusing and inspiring company in the robing room over the last three months. That is something that criminal practitioners on this circuit and throughout the land have come to take for granted and will find very hard to replace. But in court, let it be recorded that he was quiet simply one of the best of his or any generation. He had all of the skills of advocacy at his disposal, a very good lawyer, a great speaker and an incisive cross-examiner. His speed of thought and tactical awareness were outstanding in and out of court. I know all of these things not because he’s told me to say them, but because I was there. And in and out of court, two stories from one case.

I was there in Chester Crown Court in the autumn and winter of 2002 when he led me defending in a case involving a Liverpool team robbing rural post offices all over the north and Midlands, and often terrorising elderly victims in the process. On one such adventure, our client was busily emptying the contents of a safe in a village post office when he felt the urge to sneeze. It may be the pollen count was higher in the countryside than in Kirby, and in so doing he deposited what unfortunately for him was a full DNA profile on the safe handle. It was, to say the least, a forensically challenging case to defend. It was for the first time my good fortune to be led by Peter. Now, faced with an expert opinion that the chances of another person having the same DNA configuration was something in the order of 1 billion to 1, our solicitors instructed a firm of forensic scientists. They were a family firm and the scientist assigned to our case was the junior member of that family firm. We hadn’t quite appreciated just how junior he was until I spotted a boy making his way across the car park in Chester Crown Court. He was having a conference with us and to meet our client. In a shiny new suit, Joe 90 glasses and a brand-new briefcase, he looked like a boy heading for his first day of secondary school rather than an expert coming to the Crown Court. It wasn’t the best of days for him to come. Our client, already of an extremely volatile nature, had had what is conveniently called a moment and a kick-off in court, which in fact caused the proceedings to be adjourned for the day, and he’d been manhandled and taken back down to the cells where he was sulking for the rest of the day. We recognised that bringing in this schoolboy as his expert was not going to be the best way to calm this man’s nerves, and as we knocked on the door, his eyes looked towards this boy, glared. He was about to articulate what is now the acronym WTF, when Peter had one of those speed-of-thought moments of inspiration.

114

The expert, I think his name from recollection was Mr James Perry. Peter turned on our client, Mr X. “Mr X,” he said, “this is Dr Perry,” The defendant didn’t know much about professional statuses but one thing he’d learnt in his life, you have to be something to be a doctor, and immediately the anger went from his face and he listened attentively and respectfully while young Joe 90 explained to him the weaknesses of DNA evidence and how you could exploit it with such marvellous things as secondary and tertiary transfer. He explained, and the defendant warmed to this, that it was possible to shake a stranger’s hand in Bristol and then find your DNA had turned up on a crime scene in Abu Dhabi. He said Abu Dhabi, I’m sure, because he couldn’t remember the name where the safe was actually located. But my client loved the sound of that, and it was quite clearly a flash of inspiration by Peter, which made that moment much easier to pass. The defendant was altogether happy, and he remained happy for at least another two or three weeks until the jury went out and returned the inevitable verdict. Though I say it’s inevitable, it wasn’t, really, because the second part of Peter’s advocacy was a closing speech that will stay in my memory as the best I ever heard. I wasn’t alone in that view. Even Mr Reardon QC, who your Lordship will know if others don’t, said it was “quite good” and that Peter had made most of the relevant points. To those of us who know Steve Reardon, that was praise of the highest possible character. It is a measure of how good that speech was that, given DNA on the safe, the verdict which was ultimately returned, unfavourable as it was, was only of a majority and one that a jury reached after, I think, six days of deliberation. Peter never forgot the lesson that he too learnt while Joe 90 was explaining to us how you can explore weaknesses in DNA cases. The one and only time that he and I were against each other was I think a year or two again in Chester Crown Court. Peter was representing, I emphasise this word, an alleged professional hit man from Bradford who was charged with the attempted murder of a businessman in Cheshire. I was prosecuting it and we could prove his presence in Cheshire, notwithstanding that he lived in Bradford; the search history in his car satnav revealed the postcode of the proposed victim’s home address, and finally the defendant’s DNA was found at the very location which the ballistics expert said must have been the sniper’s perch.

Treasury

Another Peter Birkett closing speech and, of course, he was acquitted. It was one of many triumphs in a career that has been stellar, but that tells only half the story. After a brief flirtation with the South Eastern Circuit, when he had as his pupil masters two unfamiliar names, Anthony Hidden and Anthony Scrivener, he came back to his home, the Northern Circuit, which, as your Lordship has observed, he served with the utmost distinction and most notably as its leader between the years of 1999 and 2001.

Peter’s position as a Bencher has afforded him the personal joy to help students, in particular, and his contribution to advocacy training throughout the world is unparalleled. It is not simply, therefore, that he has achieved much on his own behalf, but he has always been on hand to advise, to foster careers. I have to say on the downside, people may think, he’s one of the reasons I took silk. And above all, to be a great friend and a most amusing companion. His company was always something to seek out and it would never disappoint. And in spite of all temptations, he stayed with us and amongst us on this side of the bench.

He took silk, unbelievably, 30 years ago, the same year he became a Recorder of the Crown Court, and he’s been a Bencher, albeit at one of the lesser Inns of Court, my Lord, since 1996. I’m glad nobody laughed at that. It wasn’t intended to be a joke. He’s been the Head of Chambers at 18 St John Street here in Manchester, and it’s a measure of the affection and respect with which he is held that his senior clerk, John Hammond; his head of criminal clerk, James Hotchin; and the head of the family clerk, I won’t say his family clerk, Camille Scott, have all attended today. I assume that they’re here for the purpose of showing their affection and respect for their old boss. If it was my clerk, he would be here to tell me that there was one more case that needed to be covered on Monday. On this subject also, Julie Yates, who provides administrative support at 18 St John’s, can’t be here today for personal reasons. She would dearly have loved to be here today.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Now whilst, my Lord, you will know I always unhesitatingly have nothing but good wishes to those that abandon ship for the judicial lifeboat; who knows – I may have to do that again some time soon. It is nevertheless good that someone like Peter Birkett has stayed on the deck, weathered the odd storm and, as far as I’m concerned, been our captain. Peter Birkett will enjoy retirement, which he will share with his wife, Jane; their sons and their many friends. Of that, my Lord, you can be 100 per cent sure. So, my Lord, on behalf of us all, the lawyers, the students, the advocates he made better, perhaps even the odd wrongly accused professional assassin, thank you, my friend, and good luck. We will miss you. Richard Pratt QC Harrington Chambers, Liverpool

RESPONSE BY MASTER BIRKETT Well, my Lord, it looks as though I’m going to have to go. Disappointing, seeing I’ve come to really appreciate and enjoy the Family Bar, who have made me so very welcome during the last three months, and for that and for many other thousands of reasons, I do wish that I had joined your speciality a few years ago. It might have meant that I could have retired a little bit earlier. You have, if I may say to all of you, most of whom I have never really met before, thank you for your kindness and welcome during the currency of this case, and I have taken a photograph, and for those of you who have only met me in recent months, I ought to tell you that I do look rather different from how I looked last July on my 70th birthday, because it was the result of my monosyllabic sons, genuinely monosyllabic, reporting to me that they thought it was time I took myself in hand, so that I have been under the auspices of Slimming World since then and my personal consultant, Mandy, is going to receive a photograph of this, and I thank you for this. Retirement Cake

115

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Valedictory: Master Birkett

So, it has been a long time in this job, and I can remember when I started in 1972, when I was called, my mother would say to one or two of her friends, “Well, unfortunately Peter hasn’t got a proper job.”

Stockport County Court, having done all sorts of different things, I was presented with a defended divorce. So, I listened to this, I listened to both sides, I gave cross decrees, I certified that the arrangements were the best that could be devised in all the circumstances. Was it section something, 41? I made orders about the money. I came out thinking this is easy.

I started off in the National Youth Theatre, thinking that was the way I wanted to go, but in my first outing with the National Youth Theatre where, after my audition I was made Third Spearman, and lost out the main part to someone called David Suchet, I realised that there was perhaps something else that I ought to do, and so I applied to the Inner Temple in order to become a barrister, not really wanting to be a barrister at all, but I just wanted to get my parents off my back. I went to an interview and, in those days, you used to have to be interviewed by the Sub-Treasurer, who was to see if you were, in his opinion, a fit and proper person. I came from the Lake District, which so far as the Sub-Treasurer was concerned was an almost overwhelming disadvantage. He said to me, “Birkett,” and they all had those voices, didn’t they, in London in those days, especially when you went to an interview: “Birkett, I see you come from the north of England.” “Yes, sir, I do.” “I’ve seen your CV. It’s not regular, is it?” “No, I’m very sorry.” “Have you thought about being a solicitor up there?” And I said: “Well, I rather want to be a barrister.” And he then said, and this is a question you used to get asked, “Do you have any connections in the law?” Can you imagine if he asked that now? And I said, “Well, not really.”

“Well, what does that mean?” I said, “Well, I had one, but he’s not still alive.”

I got back to chambers. Telephone call. Sir Christopher Rose is on the phone. I thought: “Family Division is where I’m going.” “Did you do a defended divorce?” “Yes, I did, Chris.” He said, “Only High Court judges can do those.” I said, “Well, why did they put it in front of me? Anyway, how do we get around this?” Well, he said, “I’ll speak to you in a week.” Anyway, what happened was I was made a section 9 judge, ex post facto, and that was the nearest I ever got. Anyway, 30 years in silk has been great fun and, do you know, when you start off you think is anyone going to send you a brief? We’ve all felt like that. And then you reach the point when you almost say, well, please don’t send me another brief, and can I ask after 200 murder trials, or whatever it is, can I have a break from joint enterprise? And so, I did have a case, my clerk told me, in April actually, to defend again the man who you (Mr Pratt) prosecuted. And I said to him “I don’t really want to do this.” Typical clerk, came back and said, “Oh, they’ve decided they don’t want you anyway.”

“ Anyway, 30 years in silk has been great fun and, do you know, when you start off you think is anyone going to send you a brief? We’ve all felt like that.”

“Who was he?” he said doubtfully. I said, “He was Treasurer of the Inn and he sentenced Goering at Nuremberg.” And with that I got in. I had wonderful pupil masters; they were inspirational. They made me realise that I enjoyed this job. Then I married the current Mrs Birkett and she wanted to come to the North of England, so I thought, well, that sounded like a good idea, so I ended up on the Northern Circuit. I never regretted it. I have had so many influential people who played a part in my career, as I’m sure all of you have. I’m not going to go through them. Some of them are dead, sadly, but one person I ought to just single out, who will be known to my Lord, was my leader on my last family case. My last family case – I’m going to tell you two family cases that I have done. The most recent of those was in 1981. We were against somebody who I went and bumped into in the robing room and said, “How are you?” and so on, and I said, “If you don’t mind, can I take your name?” And he said: “My name is Joseph Jackson.” “Oh,” I said, “I don’t think we’ve met.” Anyway, I was to find out that he was a man of some significance in this jurisdiction. The second appearance that I made in a family case, I was the judge. Now, my Lord will remember that when we became assistant recorders in the mid-80s, we used to be let loose on every field of judicial endeavour. There weren’t any tickets. You just did what came in front of you, and so it was that at

116

Those three who are in the back, thank you very much for looking after me. Camille, my family clerk, I want you to know that when I actually filled in my insurance document, which you have to do, because I had just the risk of an appeal in the criminal case, so I had to keep my practising certificate and my Professional Liability Insurance, I had to put down the breakdown of my practice, and so for the first time in my life – 80 per cent crime, 20 per cent family. My Lord, it’s been a great pleasure. I’m very grateful to you for organising this, and Richard, my friend, we will meet again many, many times. What was the line we used to have? It was the line that Ingrid Bergman said: “We’ll always have Paris, won’t we?” Anyway, that’s it. I won’t speak in court again. Thank you very much. Peter Birkett QC Formerly at St John Street Chambers, Manchester Leader of the Northern Circuit 1999–2001

The Temple Church

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

NEWS FROM THE TEMPLE CHURCH CHOIR By the Director of Music

A choir year always begins slowly with new boys starting and with senior boys having left. September is a quiet month where we aim to get the choristers back into the ‘zone’ and build the team mojo.

It goes without saying that, week in and week out, the choir provides the finest choral singing in services here at Temple Church and has a worldwide reputation for its quality.

We were more under pressure than normal this year as we had a major tour to Washington, New York and New Hampshire planned for late October. A very successful performance at the Library of Congress was followed the next day by singing the Eucharist at St Thomas’s Church Fifth Avenue. The tour around New Hampshire took in four concerts, including a tour of the capital state building in Concord as well as a concert in the Cathedral in Portland, Maine. Arriving back, we premiered a new commission on Remembrance Sunday by one of our choir men with words by Wilf Hastwell, a former Chorister of Temple Church who was killed in action during the First World War. At the end of July, we said farewell to Liz Clarke who has been Music Administrator for 18 years, and Greg Morris, who has been Assistant Director of Music for 13 years. Liz is retiring, and Greg will go on to be the Director of Music at St Margaret’s Church, Westminster. Polina Sosnina has been our Organ Scholar for the year and she leaves to take up a similar post at Brompton Oratory whilst pursuing a Master’s at the Royal College of Music. We will be welcoming Elizabeth Munns as the new Music Administrator, Charles Andrews as Liturgical Organist and Tom Allery as Assistant Director of Music. More about this next year. Apart from our Temple Church Choir we now have a Youth Choir, which sings on occasion throughout the year.

“ We premiered a new commission on Remembrance Sunday by one of our choir men with words by Wilf Hastwell, a former Chorister of Temple Church who was killed in action during the First World War.” The choristers sang to two packed houses at the Royal Albert Hall in December for John Rutter’s Christmas Celebration and at Birmingham Symphony Hall with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. Two of our choristers sang solo at the Royal Albert Hall for a live screening of The Snowman with the RPO. The choir recently made a CD, which has received five-star reviews. Additionally, Roger Sayer’s two latest organ CDs have attracted five-star reviews and critical acclaim. The spring concert in May featured the Temple Church Choir in a performance of Haydn’s ‘Nelson’ Mass with the up-andcoming young orchestra the Outcry Ensemble. This summer, the choristers will be singing on a film soundtrack for worldwide distribution about the nuclear disaster at Fukushima. A short tour to north Holland will round off the year.

It is made up of young men who were former choristers of Temple Church or choristers at other institutions such as Westminster Abbey and Chapel Royal, as well as those who just love to sing but have had no formal chorister training. A concert of the Youth Choir took place in Temple Church in February 2019 and featured great choral classics, including Mendelssohn’s ‘Hear My Prayer’. The Temple Church organ is a majestic and very fine instrument. It is one of the finest in London and of its kind in the UK. Recitals take place on most Wednesdays 1:15–1:45 pm and attract a good mixture of tourists and members of the Inns.

“ The Temple Church organ is a majestic and very fine instrument. It is one of the finest in London and of its kind in the UK.” In June 2019, a series of evening organ concerts took place featuring our two ‘Home’ organists as well as the world-renowned British organist Thomas Trotter and Olivier Latry from Notre-Dame. These recitals were further enhanced by a large-screen projection of the performer. It is a real privilege to work with musicians of such high calibre and to bring wonderful music to the Inns and beyond. Roger Sayer Director of Music

117

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Celebrate the Life

MASTER McGRATH By Hugh Rennie QC and New Zealand Law Society

Sir John McGrath

Sir John McGrath, who died on 19 October, had a long career in the law, ultimately serving as a judge of the Supreme Court of New Zealand. His eulogy on 24 October was delivered by the Chief Justice, the Rt Hon Dame Sian Elias, who described his life as well-lived and productive, full of love and excitement. John was a former Solicitor General, Chancellor of Victoria University of Wellington, and a student leader at Victoria University of Wellington in his youth.

Born in Wellington on 10 March 1945, he was influenced by his father, Denis, a lawyer in private practice who also served as a Wellington City Councillor, including as Deputy Mayor. Denis was also President of the New Zealand Law Society from 1968 to 1971. His mother, Margaret, was an artist, and, as the oldest of four children, John enjoyed a creative and stimulating childhood. From primary school in Wellington, he went to Huntley School in Marton, and then to Wanganui Collegiate. At Victoria University of Wellington, John threw himself into study but also found time to join the Student Association executive. He was elected Student President in 1966 at a time of wide student concern about issues such as the Vietnam War and apartheid. He was respected for his even-handed style and later became National Student President. In this role he undertook travel to Britain, the USA and the Soviet Union, sparking a wide-ranging interest in politics and international affairs, which continued throughout his life. But he was always a lawyer and not a politician. He graduated LLM in 1968. In 1969, after clerking at Bell Gully, he joined the family firm. That year, he married Christine Swallow of Palmerston North, who had been a childhood acquaintance until they reconnected at a series of 21st birthday parties and fell in love. With his father’s encouragement, John moved to the firm Buddle Anderson Kent & Co (which later became Buddle Findlay), quickly establishing a strong reputation in litigation. John and Chris’s family grew with the arrival of their children, Lucy and Tom. In 1984, John went to the independent Bar as a barrister sole, which proved to be a successful move, and he became a Queen’s Counsel in 1987. He continued his involvement with the VUW Council, ultimately becoming Pro-Chancellor and then Chancellor from 1986–1989. Happily, this coincided with Chris’s graduation and he capped her with a degree in music. In 1992, the university awarded him an honorary doctorate in law. 118

“THE BEST LEGAL JOB IN THE COUNTRY” In 1989, he was appointed Solicitor General and Head of the Crown Law Office, a role he later described as “the best legal job in the country”. Following major changes in the public sector, and the global financial storms of the 1980s, the office was under great pressure in areas as diverse as competition law, taxation, Treaty of Waitangi claims and human rights. John’s personal organisational and legal skills transformed the office into its modern form. He had a reputation for supporting many women lawyers, who went on to make distinguished careers. Dame Lowell Goddard, who was both the first Māori woman to be appointed a Queen’s Counsel and as a justice of the High Court, had huge admiration and respect for Sir John and remembers when he was appointed Solicitor General in 1989 on the elevation of Paul Neazor to the High Court Bench: “He was an acknowledged leading commercial silk at the time. On his appointment to the role, he immediately set about recruiting and building up a team to support him in taking Crown Law forward to become what Julian Miles QC was later to describe as ‘a powerhouse in the law’. During his years of leadership, the Crown Law Office under John was an energetic and vibrant workplace, focused on excellence in the practice of the law. A notable feature of the team of youngish practitioners he recruited in to help him take the Crown Law Office forward was the number of young women practitioners. He was very supportive of the careers and aspirations of all who worked for him and encouraged his team to take on leading roles in difficult litigation and in trial and appellate work. The opportunities that he provided for all who worked with him in the Crown Law Office of the 80s and 90s set a real benchmark.

“ He immediately set about recruiting and building up a team to support him in taking Crown Law forward to become what Julian Miles QC was later to describe as ‘a powerhouse in the law’.”

Celebrate the life

“THE CONSUMMATE SOLICITOR GENERAL” “For me he will always be the consummate Solicitor General, who discharged the various demanding roles with excellence and equanimity – as Second Law Officer, exercising the many responsibilities of that role; as the Government’s chief legal adviser and counsel; as CEO of the Crown Law Office; and as the leader of the legal profession. In all of these roles he always led from the front and was that rare combination of legal acumen, strategic thinking, good sense and articulacy that makes a top advocate. He was a courageous lawyer and one of the kindest and most generous of men,” says Dame Lowell. Mary Scholtens QC also has fond memories of Sir John: “I met John McGrath in 1987 when Watties and Goodman Fielder were challenging the Commerce Commission’s decision to decline to give a clearance or grant an authorisation under the new Commerce Act. The High Court, facing issues of jurisdiction under new legislation and the withdrawal of the Commission, appointed John as amicus, and he asked the then Solicitor General for a junior. I was an Assistant Crown Counsel at Crown Law. I worked with John in his Terrace chambers for the best part of waking hours for a week to prepare the submissions for the High Court (presented at the hearing back then). We then worked solidly for another week for the Court of Appeal. Looking at the report I see the argument took two days before a court of five, and there was only seven days between the judgments. “John was generous in drawing me into the heart of the work. I had the first of many discussions with John about statutory policy and principles, about underlying values, about what approach best served the public interest, about how to present material. These were bedrock themes he pressed as Solicitor General, and in his judgments. We also trod a later familiar path about when decision-makers should enter the fray, when they should provide affidavits, and when cross-examination should be permitted. When it was over, typical of the thoughtful gentleman he was, he wrote a letter to the Solicitor General commending my work. “I was delighted when, in 1989, he was appointed Solicitor General. I was his junior on his first appearance as Solicitor General in the Court of Appeal, echoing issues of ministerial affidavits and cross-examination. And again with (then) Douglas White QC on John’s first appearance before the Privy Council. CULTURE AUDIT “As Chief Executive of the Crown Law Office, John did what today might be called a ‘culture audit’, as part of restructuring it into teams and changing the focus of our practice. He called on a number of women, including me, to step up and take on a leadership role. From there he mentored and sponsored us, firm in the view that despite the fact that it was uncomfortable for some of us (and our clients), women should be participating at the highest levels. He encouraged and, if necessary, facilitated that. He led us to understand our role as counsel to the Government – to ensure Government acted lawfully and wasn’t prevented from implementing its lawful policy. “I worked with him on many cases and pieces of advice. I took comfort from the fact that even he could occasionally be nervous in his delivery in the courtroom and in the Beehive. But then someone would throw out a difficult question or a challenge, and his clarity of thought would dominate and drive his compelling advocacy. My clearest takeaways from working with him was the value-based approach he brought to his legal and managerial work at Crown Law, the commitment and effort that went into his work, and his compassion,” Ms Scholtens says.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Sir John led many of the key cases himself, including Privy Council appearances (particularly in commercial and taxation cases). As chief legal adviser to successive governments, he was respected for his integrity, independence, perception and industry. Particular highlights from this period include advising on the Māori Fisheries Settlement of 1992, representing New Zealand at the International Court of Justice in the French nuclear testing case in 1995, and reporting to the Government on the desirability of removing the right of appeal to the Privy Council and replacing it with a New Zealand-based final court. John’s appearances at the Privy Council had convinced him that, although the British judges were “clever and charming”, they had inadequate knowledge of New Zealand conditions to be developing law fit for our needs. THE COURT OF APPEAL AND SUPREME COURT In July 2000, John was appointed to the Court of Appeal, a rare direct appointment reflecting his seniority and his ability. At his swearing-in, John said that he regarded the judicial oath as his “declaration of independence” from his former loyalties to government. In May 2005, he was appointed to the Supreme Court, serving until his retirement in 2015. He was also an acting judge of that court in 2016–2017. John found his work on the Supreme Court enormously satisfying, involving as it did cases on the Treaty of Waitangi, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, tax avoidance, arbitration, the status of refugees and extradition, as well as commercial cases. At his final sitting on the occasion of his retirement, he expressed his concern at proposals to remove from legislation a reference affirming the rule of law. His comments were cited by Jacinda Ardern, then an opposition MP and Justice spokesperson, who successfully introduced a Supplementary Order Paper to retain the reference. Outside the law, John had a variety of interests, including music and travel, which he shared with Chris, and the study of international affairs and New Zealand public affairs. Over many years, he escaped to a family bach at Waikanae, where he swam, fished, walked the bush hills and enjoyed catching up with friends and his growing family, which by 2009 included four grandchildren.

“ Over many years, he escaped to a family bach at Waikanae, where he swam, fished, walked the bush hills and enjoyed catching up with friends.” John was appointed Distinguished Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in 2007, re-designated Knight Companion in 2009. While he valued this recognition, as the Chief Justice observed, he wore these honours lightly. From the early 2000s he developed prostate cancer, which he faced and overcame privately. Good times continued until the cancer recently returned and, despite the excellent treatment he received at Wellington Hospital and his own determination, he passed away on 19 October 2018. He is survived by his wife, Chris; daughter, Lucy; son, Tom; and their families. The Hon Sir John Joseph McGrath KNZM QC, born 1945, died 2018 Courtesy of Hugh Rennie QC and the New Zealand Law Society

119

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2020

Temple Big Picnic

TEMPLE BIG PICNIC

120

Treasury

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2020

121

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

My Life of Crime

MY LIFE OF CRIME From a lecture to the History Society delivered by Master Lawrence on 4 February 2019.

27th July 1963 – Mandy Rice-Davies (left), who rose to fame for her part in the 'Profumo Affair', sits in a car with Christine Keeler after the first day's hearing at the Old Bailey in the trial of Stephen Ward

Forgive me if you have been misled. This not really a lecture, and there are no CPD points. I cannot put 60 years of law and politics into 55 minutes. So this is just a chatty series of musings about some of my cases and political causes from which, I am afraid, you will learn little of value – but you will not have to concentrate too hard! Looking back over these years you have to consider a world with no internet, no e-mail, no mobile phones, no pregnancy pill, no in-vitro fertilisation, no transplants, no stem-cell treatment for illness, no mapping of the genome, no man on the moon, no space flights, no motorways and no package tours abroad. When I started, the Bar numbered 2,000 not 16,000, there were very few women barristers and no women judges, there was no DNA, no CCTV, no Human Rights Act, no European Court of Justice and no European Court of Human Rights governing English and Welsh law. Archbold was a quarter the size, the pages were thicker, and an edition came out only every few years as the law changed infrequently. In the criminal law, there was no direct instruction of counsel by a lay client, and solicitors, who had no right of audience higher than the magistrates court, always prepared a brief and instructions to barristers. Oral committal proceedings filtered out the very weak cases, jury verdicts had to be unanimous, there was no tape-recorded interviewing of suspects, no prosecution right to appeal inadequate sentences, hearsay and previous conviction were only allowed into evidence in limited circumstances in the judge’s discretion. The defence case (including an alibi) did not have to be disclosed to the prosecution in advance of trial, sex cases and the allegations of children, needed corroboration – which was one reason why many fewer cases were brought or came to trial. The prosecution was under no obligation to disclose to the defence any evidence that might weaken or undermine their case, the right to silence was sacrosanct and no adverse inference could be drawn from the defendant’s refusal to explain himself to the police or to the court.

122

Judges were much the same. They were impatient to get on with the case, and Malcolm Morris QC, the defender of Timothy Evans, the man wrongly hanged for the murder of his wife at 10 Rillington Place, told me that he was obliged to make his final speech without preparation at the end of the day, because the judge wanted to start another case at 10:30 next morning. Some judges were charming, like Mr Justice Cassels, who, when told by a juror that he wanted to be absent because his wife was about to conceive, replied that he probably meant that she was about to give birth, but that whether the judge or the juror was right, the judge agreed that the juror should be there! Some were always very unpleasant, like Mr Justice Melford Stevenson, who tried the Krays with endless impatience and irritation. Some were, like the Recorder of Middlesex (the war hero of Operation Mincement (The Hon Ewen Montagu QC), of whom it was said that although the rule was that justice not only needed to be done but to be seen to be done, justice in that judge’s court had to be seen to be believed! I was lucky to start my career at the Bar as the pupil of James Burge, recognised as the top criminal defence practitioner in 1962. Shortly after I joined him, at Queen Elizabeth Building (the Factory), and had cut my teeth, as we did in those days, with only a few weeks of experience with ‘dock briefs’ for which we were paid two pounds four shillings and six pence by the defendant on the spot, I acted as Burge’s junior in the magistrates’ court committal proceedings in defence of Stephen Ward in the Profumo trial. Mandy Rice Davies, incidentally, did not say the famous words “He would say that wouldn’t he”, when Lord Astor denied having intercourse with her. I have the hand-written note to this day of what she did say. Now that Christine Keeler has died, I am the sole survivor of that trial – as of many others.

Archives

My own career might have started when a solicitor gave me the junior brief for Charlie Wilson in the Great Train Robbery of 1963, but Robert, my all-powerful senior barrister’s clerk, took it away and gave it to someone more experienced in chambers who would not have to pay the daily off-circuit fee. Instead I began a long career of daily court appearances – for we could appear in court the day after we were called to the Bar – making applications for bail, conducting committal proceedings and trials in the magistrates’ court, and defending drink-driving cases before juries. One famous solicitor was impressed when I insisted that my client, caught smuggling watches with a gang in a rowing boat on the beach at Dymchurch, should have his leg-irons removed before I addressed the Bench for bail, and I landed my first Old Bailey trial. Another solicitor, with high quality work, was pleased that I stood up to an anti-Semitic judge in defending a stamp dealer for parking outside his shop in breach of some regulation or other. I was asked to hold the wonderful advocate Robin Simpson’s brief for the publisher in the Fanny Hill pornography case. A police constable, in another case in which I was defending a serious villain for driving whilst disqualified, broke down in the witness box and confessed to the astonished court that he had been lying! A witness next admitted to me that she had lied when she had falsely said that she had been raped, 40 years later.

I took the appeal for both brothers, but it was hopeless. The Court of Appeal was not going to let them out and held that the two murders, although very different, could be tried together because they were a series. Six weeks later the twins were tried again for the murder of Mad Axeman Mitchell, and were acquitted partly on a submission that there was no case against them to answer and partly on a jury verdict. I had drawn some sketches of most people involved in the trials and sent a sycophantic copy to the judge. He thanked me and said that he was pleased that for at least two of us the Kray trials had meant stern application.

“ The defence case (including an alibi) did not have to be disclosed to the prosecution in advance of trial…”

With my leader Rachel Lawrence after the Quinten Hann case

I represented a man who stole Princess Alexandra’s ruby ring, then a man who stole, in a burglary, some sensitive letters of Princess Margaret, and then a beautiful model who, the advertisers claimed, “looks better in a shirt”. One important client was an alleged dog doper called Charlie Mitchell, who, the kennel-maids all swore was not the Charlie Mitchell they had been talking about! Then I was instructed to defend Ronald Kray for Blackmail, as junior counsel to Master Petre Crowder QC and, on the second re-trial, to Master Platts Mills QC. The twins were both acquitted. Three years later, in 1968, they were charged with others of their gang, with murdering Cornell in the Blind Beggar public – house, and Jack (the Hat) McVittie, elsewhere in London. After the longest murder trial to date, they were convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison. The judge, the aforementioned Mr Justice Melford Stevenson, had ordered that the prisoners should have placards with numbers on hung round their necks for readier identification, but my Leader, a very left-wing socialist MP, argued that this would be a grave infringement of industrial practice which might lead to industrial action, and anyway our client said he would kill anyone who tried to identify him in that way. The judge saw sense! After receiving his sentence Ronald Kray, thanked my Leader and me, and said he had his fingers crossed for my election as MP for Peckham, so that I could become Home Secretary and let him out early. I told this to Margaret Thatcher, and she kept making other people Home Secretary!

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

For the next five years I spent hardly a day out of court. I represented a gang-leader called O’Connell, who was acquitted of a Brixton prison breach, because he had climbed onto a flat roof in the middle of the prison yard and nowhere near the perimeter wall. No-one in those days dreamt that a helicopter might have come to whisk him away. Another interesting client was sea captain Farr, who said that he had just come across some unfortunate Africans on the point of drowning in the Channel and he had done the decent thing by rescuing them: he had no idea they might be illegal immigrants. I represented someone claiming to be a bishop of the Old Roman Catholic Church for gross indecency with a soldier. He had been found guilty and given a short suspended sentence. This I appealed, though I had advised against it, because the client had instructed me to do so and I was obliged to carry out his instructions. An Appeal Court judge flew at me for having the impertinence to have done so, but his accusation, being contrary to the rules governing advocates, was probably due to the fact that he was suffering from a brain tumour from which he died shortly afterwards. On another occasion, the Privy Council would not listen to what I thought was an unanswerable point of law in a murder trial because, I feel sure, he had already been hanged in Jamaica where he had been tried. Two old stagers had an alibi for an armed robbery that the jury considered to be too perfect to be true, but the Court of Appeal thought there was “a lurking doubt.” The great QC (and soon to be High Court judge), Sebag Shaw, led me in defence of the waiters at the famous Caprice West End restaurant who were prepared to plead guilty to taxevasion by not declaring their tips for tax. Sebag successfully argued that they had been under no obligation to do so. The law was promptly amended to correct that anomaly. I defended a man called Pthopoulos for brothel-keeping: that case is an authority for the proposition that discourtesy to counsel by the judge, however gross, cannot by itself be a ground of appeal. In another case, a client in Brighton had been convicted of the felony of handling a stolen diamond. I argued in the Court of Appeal that that conviction could not stand because, the second most senior jewellery expert in the town having declared that it was not a diamond but strontium titinate, the crime could not have been a felony but only the misdemeanour of misrepresentation. Lord Chief Justice Parker asked me why, if my point was such a good one, he had never heard it argued in the Court before. I told him that it may have been because I had never had a conviction in that area of the law before that needed to be appealed The distinction between a felony and a misdemeanour was also abolished by Parliament shortly after.

In full flow on Europe in the Commons

123

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

My Life of Crime

Joey Pyle, another well-known villain I was briefed to defend, was framed by the Flying Squad for an armed robbery conspiracy because he had refused to help them find his business partner who had murdered a police-superintendent in Blackpool. At every stage the police case collapsed and Pyle was acquitted with costs awarded against the police. This took place at a time when the Metropolitan Police was riddled with corruption and dishonesty and the inquiry set up to investigate it collapsed because the police would not cooperate. Times have, fortunately, changed. The next time I took part in a case where the police case totally collapsed was in the Brighton Babes in the Wood murder trial where Russell Bishop was acquitted 32 years ago. He has recently been retried, however, since the rules have been changed to allow re-trials in such circumstances, and there was DNA evidence. He has been convicted and sentenced to another life sentence to one he is currently serving for another crime. In 1973, I was in a trial at the Old Bailey when the IRA attempted to blow it up. The great advocate from the Factory, Jeremy Hutchinson QC, who was a strong opponent of capital punishment, and who later became a peer, surveyed the total devastation in the street with me. “What would you do to them now, Jeremy,” I asked. “Hang them”, he said.

Because I was both a legislator and a practising barrister, I think that I am able to claim legislative improvements to which I may have contributed something; I persistently lobbied Ministers to introduce tape-recorded interviews of suspects, for I was always representing defendants who had been charged and acquitted by juries who simply did not believe the incriminating content of police notebooks and the alleged “verbals”. I successfully defended an alleged receiver of gold and its proceeds in the Brinks Matt gold bullion trials, probably because there existed no law requiring notification of suspicious transactions for which I activated. When I was Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, we recommended the creation of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the introduction of racially motivated offences, the limitation of the powers of the Home Secretary in assessing the appropriate length of murder sentences actually to be served, and the abolition of the rule that stopped murder prosecutions where death did not follow an attack within a year and a day. As an experienced adviser on lotteries, I was well placed to introduce a Private Members’ Bill which brought about the massively successful National Lottery, which has produced £35 billion for good causes and contributed to our successes in several Olympic Games. To achieve that, I must confess to having some difficulty in resisting government pressure for me to introduce instead a Bills of Lading and Carriage of Goods (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act to improve shipping documents that had not been modernised since 1855. Oh, yes!

In February 1974, I was elected to Parliament for Burton in the Midlands. In those days, before the House of Commons began sitting in the mornings, before mobile-phones, e-mails, and constituents who were more concerned about moon-lighting than having MPs who knew something of life, professions and business outside politics, it was possible to continue my practice in the criminal courts. In fact I defended Denis Nilsen the serial killer, David Martin the alleged police attacker, two of the defendants in the Brinks Matt gold bullion cases, and all manner of other alleged or convicted murderers, rapists, fraudsters, child molesters and liquor and gaming licence applicants, while I was an MP. I was also a Recorder for over 20 years. When sitting at Middlesex Crown Court, the other side of Parliament Square, and my bleeper told me there was now a vote, I could order the court to rise, dash across to the House of Commons, and hurry back again to resume the sitting after the vote. Now it is well-nigh impossible to be an MP and practise daily in the courts and it is probably illegal to sit as a judge and be a legislator at the same time. The real trouble with that is that with fewer current practitioners to choose from, it is more and more difficult to find law officers and a Lord Chancellor who knows very much about the law and the effect of the laws which Parliament passes, and it is more and more likely that laws that should never have been introduced will find their way onto the statute book.

Denis Nilsen – Seriel Killer

124

“ ‘What would you do to them now, Jeremy,’ I asked. ‘Hang them’, he said.” Since losing my parliamentary seat in 1997, my 60 years as politician and barrister has enabled me to engage in criminal defence of persons charged with the bin-bag – beasts murder, the concrete coffin killing, the false allegation of rape against a champion snooker player, the release from prison of the future President of the Maldives and the introduction of human rights into the trial of 32 dissidents in Egypt. I was also instructed to defend, for corruption, a former prime minister of Bangladesh, but rather than letting me make a nuisance of myself in that country, the authorities preferred to release my client to fight another general election – which she lost – against another former prime minister in prison on corruption charges.

Daniel Morrell – 14 year old victim of the bin beasts murder

Archives

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Russell Bishop – acquitted of Babes in the Wood murders

It is I suppose natural that I should be asked what lessons I may have learnt from my years in politics and the law. I attempt a list of what I think are virtues I have myself too seldom embraced, but which I think might be of use to today’s young lawyers. Develop self-confidence. Develop speaking skills. Make a good first impression. Keep an open mind. Organise your time. Try to be a doer not just a talker. Think the matter through. Be positive. Welcome challenges. Don’t be afraid of pressure. Endeavour always to turn failure into success. Be courageous. Be loyal. Make up your mind to be happy. Develop a sense of humour. Don’t be boring. Be useful. Be grateful for any luck that might come your way. If you have a skill, use it or lose it. Be enthusiastic. Be persistent. Try to develop judgment. Have principles. Guard your reputation. Be fair in your judgment of others. Be loyal. Forgive and forget. Be a friend. Above all, be kind.

“ Have principles. Guard your reputation. Be fair in your judgment of others. Be loyal. Forgive and forget. Be a friend. Above all, be kind.”

The Kray Twins

The other exceedingly surprising thing I have learnt is that, in law and politics, nothing is impossible! Unwinnable cases get won. Unarguable arguments get accepted. Unlikely events happen. Who would have thought that there would ever have been a black government in South Africa without much bloodshed, that loyalists and the IRA could ever have sat down together in Northern Ireland, that Margaret Thatcher could ever have been able to introduce Thatcherism in the face of the enormous trade union opposition, that the ratchet of Socialism could ever be reversed in Britain, or that someone like the present President of the United States would ever be elected. Yet all these things, massively against the odds, have happened. Always be optimistic! Here endeth my recollections and musings. Sir Ivan Lawrence QC My Life of Crime is available from the Treasury Office or innertemple.org.uk/innstore

125

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

The Inns Inside the Wire

THE INNS INSIDE THE WIRE: Legal Education in German POW Camps During the Second World War By the Assistant Archivist

A 'Food for the Mind’ Three prisoners of war studying at a table in the library of Stalag XXA during the Second World War.

Late in 1941, a letter arrived at the offices of the Council for Legal Education (CLE), the body set up by the Inns of Court to conduct the training and examination of new barristers. The letter was a request for help, and it came from Miss Ethel Herdman of the Red Cross. In the two years of fighting, German forces had captured tens of thousands of British soldiers, sailors and airmen – at least 40,000 at Dunkirk alone. As it had done in the Great War, the British Red Cross joined forces with the Order of St John (best known for the St John Ambulance service) to provide medical and food aid to this captive army, who referred to themselves as ‘Kriegies’, from the German ‘Kriegsgefangener’. Almost immediately, though, it became clear that the Kriegies’ mental wellbeing would need as much support as their physical health. In the autumn of 1940, the Red Cross and Order of St John set up a dedicated Indoor Recreations Section. It may have sounded like a committee for organising wet-weather activities at a village fête, but its purpose was serious and vital. In post-war popular culture, escape was most often seen as the only worthwhile activity for an Allied POW; those who could not or chose not to attempt it were ignored or demeaned. But, as one ex-Kriegy later commented: “Rather than undertaking unrealistic and potentially dangerous escapes, it was far more sensible for the prisoner to stay focused on his immediate environment and try to counter its negative effects. Keeping busy was all-important.” This was the job of the Indoor Recreations Section: to support POWs’ morale by offering them escape of an intellectual and spiritual kind. 126

Within this department, Miss Herdman was the director of the Educational Books Section. She was responsible for finding out what prisoners wanted to study, and for setting up camp libraries to ensure they had the materials to do so. Demand for intellectual stimulation was unrelenting, and so Miss Herdman began to investigate the possibility of running exams in the camps. It was in this vein that she wrote to the Council for Legal Education: could they help her conduct Bar exams behind the wire? The Council of Legal Education’s initial response to Miss Herdman’s letter was somewhat tentative: it had no objection in principle, but suggested their correspondent consult the War Office about the idea. This she did, and by May 1942 the scheme had the warm approval of the War Office’s POW Department. The CLE had also discovered – again, most probably through Miss Herdman’s efforts – that there were already five students of the Inns of Court in POW camps, two of whom had asked for help taking exams. The idea of running exams in remote locations was not a completely outlandish one for the CLE: a large number of Bar students came from the colonies and dominions of the British Empire, and as the war made travel more difficult, the Council had found itself in the uncomfortable position of having to innovate. The CLE Annual Report noted in summer 1941 that it had “after most anxious consideration, decided, as a War measure, to hold Examinations at centres overseas”. The first overseas Bar exams were held in Delhi (Indian students outnumbered those from the other colonies by six to one), as well as Melbourne, Johannesburg and Nairobi. By the end of the war, there were examination centres all across the British Empire, from Singapore to Toronto.

Archives

Remote examinations for civilian students were one thing, as British-trained lawyers in the colonies could step in to help organise and invigilate. Conducting exams for personnel on active service was more difficult, but it had been done: in 1942, a naval airman sat a Bar examination at an isolated airbase in northern Scotland, invigilated by a ‘warrant schoolmaster’.

As well as organising exams in the camps, the Educational Books Section also forwarded applications for admission in absentia to the Inns. Fifteen members of Inner Temple were admitted while being held as prisoners of war. At least one of these came via the Educational Books Section; the covering letter from Ethel Herdman is still in the Inn’s archives. Another application came via German Kriegsgefangenenpost from Ronald Clarke, who had been captured in North Africa in 1941 and had spent three and a half years as a POW in Italy and Germany. “I ask you to excuse the informal nature of this application,” Clarke wryly concluded, “as just another unfortunate consequence of war.”

While there may not have been a network of lawyers in the German POW camps, there was a surplus of motivated, wellorganised young men, some of whom had already created a vibrant academic subculture, a “barbed-wire university”, as historian Midge Gillies titled her 2011 book on the subject. At one point, in the infamous Stalag Luft III (site of the Great Escape), there were 220 classes a week for up to 1,500 students.

“ There was a surplus of motivated, well-organised young men, some of whom had already created a vibrant academic subculture.” By the summer of 1943, the first Bar exam for POWs had been held in Oflag VI-B, near Warburg in north-western Germany, and another was being planned in Oflag VII-B in Bavaria, to which it appeared most of the Bar students had been moved. The CLE’s report for that year also mentioned that, thanks to Miss Herdman’s efforts, “a small library of books has been built up in the camp…and it is understood that guidance on reading is available there”. The examination in Oflag VII-B went ahead, along with others at two more camps over the next 12 months, with a total of 29 students sitting Bar exams. Given the circumstances, results were very strong, and the CLE’s Board of Studies voted that a letter of congratulation be sent to the students in Oflag VII-B in recognition of their efforts.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Among the students admitted in absentia to Inner Temple was Anthony Barber, a future Conservative MP and Chancellor of the Exchequer. Shot down on a photo-reconnaissance mission over Germany in 1942, Barber made two failed escape attempts before apparently deciding to devote his attention to academic work instead. He was admitted to the Inn in July 1944 and had gained a first-class law degree by the end of the war. Barber put his success partly down to the atmosphere of the camp, as there were “no women, no drinks and no distractions of any kind”. Nine of the POW admittees to Inner Temple were called to the Bar after the war. The enforced asceticism of camp life may have been conducive to study; nonetheless, to successfully complete a course of legal study while deprived of liberty, and often while overcrowded and undernourished, was a considerable achievement. Even for those who managed to do so, the war outside the wire could sometimes make a tragic mockery of their accomplishments. Such was the case of Philip Denison; already a POW when he was admitted to Inner Temple in 1942, he passed his final Bar exam in Michaelmas 1944. In April 1945, the camp in which Denison was being held was bombed during an Allied air raid, and he was killed.

127

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

The Inns Inside the Wire

A The CLE’s annual report for 1944–45 has a reflective tone. By the time it was produced, the war in Europe was over. So, mostly, was the CLE’s part in it, as no Bar exams were ever run in the Pacific theatre. It could afford to be pleased with its efforts. It had now run examinations in nine POW camps across Germany, with excellent results: “A remarkable feature of these examinations” read the report, “has been the consistently high standard reached by the candidates, the greater number of whom have been placed in the First or Second Class.” The CLE was careful to acknowledge the importance of the Red Cross, without which “the whole scheme would, of course, have failed at the outset”. Equally vital was the tacit co-operation of the German authorities who, the report noted, placed “no obstacles in the way” of the CLE’s education efforts. The same could not be said of the Italians, who had refused to allow examinations in their camps and had imposed “long and vexatious delays” on the supply of law books. The CLE’s efforts on behalf of its incarcerated students was a small but important part of its work to keep legal education alive in the war years. Thanks to the Council’s vocational training for the military and its remote efforts in the colonies, admissions to the four Inns had actually increased throughout the war. In 1944, 492 new students were admitted – a figure which had been exceeded only once before in the Inns’ history.

128

“ Thanks to the Council’s vocational training for the military and its remote efforts in the colonies, admissions to the four Inns had actually increased throughout the war.” What is less easily quantifiable is the impact of the endeavour on the morale of the POWs. Almost every account of life in the camps makes mention of the pervasive boredom suffered by the prisoners, and the value of anything which could help stave it off. As Arthur A Durand wrote in his history of Stalag Luft III: “The effect of serious reading that well-selected camp libraries made possible, though neither obvious nor measurable, cannot otherwise than ultimately be of great benefit to many individual ex-prisoners, and indirectly to the communities in which they live.” Ben Taylor Assistant Archivist

Celebrate the life

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

MASTER GARDNER By Master Endicott

Master John Gardner

Born in 1965 in Glasgow, John Gardner studied at the Glasgow Academy, 1970–1982, and came up to New College in 1983. He took a first in the BA in Jurisprudence in 1986, and on the BCL he was the Vinerian Scholar in 1987. He was an Examination Fellow of All Souls College, 1986–1991, and a Fellow of Brasenose College, 1991–1996. He went to King’s College London in 1996 as a Reader in Legal Philosophy, and in 2000 he was elected Professor of Jurisprudence in the University of Oxford and a Fellow of University College. He was made an Honorary Bencher of The Inner Temple in 2003 and a Fellow of the British Academy in 2013. In 2016, he was made a Senior Research Fellow of All Souls College. These terrific honours seemed to come naturally; that is because it was in John’s nature to work very hard, and to persevere. The splendid accomplishments came from a brilliant, ebullient mind and from an infectious and lively enthusiasm for thinking about how he or you or I might live a life – how we might be able to respond to the opportunities and the necessities it involves, and how we might hold each other responsible in a community. He took a delight in working at these simple, central questions of life in a community, and the delight inspired his famous contributions to the theory of law. John cared nothing for the conventional division between public lawyers and private lawyers. And he was against the partition of philosophical problems into departments with divided expertise. In a recent interview with Carolina Flores, he said: “In fact, there are only good arguments and bad ones, good solutions and bad ones. Of course, one should learn about a puzzle before one writes about it. But ultimately the point is just to tackle it, not to assign it to some area of philosophy. If it comes up in my work, it’s my problem!”

A great range of problems became John’s own problems. In the law of torts and contracts, in criminal law, in constitutional law, and in the public and private law of discrimination, his original thinking and his intelligent provocations have put things in new perspectives. And John found it particularly rewarding when his work generated new questions for him and for others to work on.

“ Ultimately the point is just to tackle it, not to assign it to some area of philosophy. If it comes up in my work, it’s my problem!”

Somehow, John combined a fierce intolerance for sloppy thinking with a quick appreciation of lateral thinking. And he had the most tremendously generous mind, and heart. Those of us who have been his students and his colleagues, and his critics have found ourselves benefiting unexpectedly from John’s capacity to come up with a new and attractive way of looking at a problem – and then to understand it as something that we had somehow contributed to the discussion. He was such a good listener that he sometimes heard something better than we had said. And his generosity towards any student or critic was utterly independent of whether he agreed or disagreed with their opinions. Those traits of his great mind and heart have also been the joy of John’s wife, Jennifer Kotilaine; their children, Henrik, Annika and Audra; his mother, Sylvia Gardner; and his brother, David, and his family. Professor John Gardner FBA, Professor of Law and Philosophy and Fellow of All Souls College, died of oesophageal cancer at 54 on 11 July 2019. Professor Timothy Endicott Professor of Legal Philosophy Dean of Faculty of Law University of Oxford

129

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

The Law of the Land

THE LAW OF THE LAND An address delivered by Master Scruton in the Temple Church on 3 October 2018, for the first Choral Evensong of the Legal Year.

Rolls of Statute Credit © JvL – Flickr

I joined the Inner Temple as a student 44 years ago. Although called to the Bar, I never pursued a legal career. But I look back on my legal studies with profound gratitude. For they implanted in me a vision of the English law that I have never ceased to cherish, and which has profoundly influenced my philosophical outlook. I would like to take this opportunity to share that vision with you, since it touches on matters that are vital to the condition of our country today. The first discovery that I made when reading for the Bar is that Parliament is only one source of our law, and not the most important source. Acts of Parliament become law only because they are inserted into a living legal system and are interpreted according to the pre-existing principles of our courts. Those principles were not laid down by Parliament but inherited from the many attempts made by the people of this country to bring their disputes to judgment. The vast body of English law remains unwritten, except in the form of reports and commentaries. And, taken as a whole, it exhibits a process of problem-solving that entirely refutes, to my way of thinking, the idea that law is a set of edicts, laid down by the sovereign power. In the English understanding, the sovereign enforces the law but does not dictate it. The idea that we can solve our conflicts by bringing them to judgment touches on the real source of law, or rather the source of real law, which is our innate understanding of justice. To bring a case to judgment is to appeal to a third party as judge, and in this appeal certain principles are assumed: the judge must be impartial, both sides must be allowed a fair hearing, the evidence must be openly declared and independently assessed, with a view to discovering the truth. Such, according to St Augustine, were the God-given requirements of natural justice, revealed to us by our very nature as rational beings. And from the repeated application of this natural justice there emerges a system of law, as a body of solutions to particular problems, from which general principles can be deduced.

130

There is another and equally astonishing feature of the English law that struck me as a student, which is that our law is not uttered in the imperative mood, but in the indicative. It tells us how rights and duties have been discovered, assigned and protected, and how harms have been provided with a remedy. Understanding this point seems to me to be essential to understanding the deep legal culture of our country. I don’t need to remind the lawyers here of the ruling principle of the common law, the principle of stare decisis, which tells us that particular decisions should stand unaltered, and precedents followed, unless and until overruled by a higher court. To discover whether a precedent applies, a judge must ascertain its ratio decidendi – the reason for the decision. This may not have been explicitly stated by the original court, but merely implied in the reasoning of the judge. Those brought up on the Roman law find this amazing, since they see law as a deductive system, beginning from first principles, and working downwards to the particular case. Law, they assume, begins in commands, issued by the sovereign power. The courts merely deduce in the particular case what those commands amount to, and then enforce the result. But common law goes the other way. Like morality, it builds upwards from the particular to the general. The important thing in moral life is to do what is right, not to expound the principle that makes it so; and often the principle eludes us, even when the rightness of the act is clear. The abstract rigour of civilian and Napoleonic systems is no guarantee of their justice. For justice is done in the particular case, and until tried in the courts abstract principles have no more authority than the people who declare them.

“ The important thing in moral life is to do what is right, not to expound the principle that makes it so; and often the principle eludes us, even when the rightness of the act is clear.”

Treasury

This is particularly obvious if we attend to civil law – the area in which the English legal system has excelled. When one person has a complaint against another and applies to the court for judgment, he is seeking a remedy. The facts of the case may never have been considered before, and the judge may have no explicit ruling, no precedent and no Act of Parliament as guidance. But still there is a difference, the common law says, between a right and a wrong decision. The common law is not a system for inventing law, but a procedure for discovering it. And when the common law and statute have found no remedy the search for one has often continued, so producing the unique system of judgediscovered law that we know as equity. In this way our jurists discovered the trust, a concept lifted from the soil of moral life and burnished to brightness in the fire of legal argument.

If the English law is not a system of commands, then what exactly is it? In my view it is best seen as a summary of what is assumed, though not necessarily consciously assumed, by all of us in our free dealings with each other. It assigns responsibility for fault and remedies to those who have suffered it; it describes the rights, duties and privileges that will be upheld by the sovereign power at the law’s behest. However, it is not the voice of that sovereign power, so much as the voice of its most important critic.

The exploratory nature of our law has brought it about that, unlike continental courts, our higher courts issue all opinions from the judicial bench, including the dissenting opinions of judges who voted against the decision. Our law, it is implied, is to be discovered through argument, rather than imposed by decree.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Because the English law derives from the particular case, which has to be studied with all its facts, English legal thinking has remained concrete, close to human life and bound up with a given history. No student of this law can fail to absorb a sense of life as it has been lived here, through all the social, religious and political changes that have affected us. This closeness to life as it is lived is one explanation for the adaptability and flexibility of English law. Cases may be decided, like the famous leading case of Rylands v Fletcher in tort law, on facts that have never before been encountered, concerning matters that Parliament has never considered and never could consider in time to solve the immediate problem. And although the sovereign must enforce the law, it is not the sovereign who dictates it. On the contrary, it has been a principle here since the earliest Middle Ages that it is the law that appoints the sovereign, and not the sovereign who makes the law. The oath sworn by our sovereigns is an oath of obedience, an undertaking to honour and uphold the law by which they rule. So whence comes the authority of this law? How can it stand above the sovereign? Who is the one uniquely empowered to enforce it? There is a kind of religious fundamentalism, which holds that true law is a command issued by God, and that jurisprudence is merely the working out of its consequences. And there is a similar political fundamentalism, which argues that secular law is founded in commands issued by a sovereign authority, the Queen in Parliament or the Assemblée Nationale. Both those fundamentalisms are threats to the true rule of law, since both fail to recognise law as an independent force in human affairs, and one that stands in judgment over all of us, the sovereign included.

“ There is a kind of religious fundamentalism, which holds that true law is a command issued by God, and that jurisprudence is merely the working out of its consequences.” The most important principles of our law have arisen from the judgments made by courts guided by the rules of natural justice. As I remarked, these principles are not issued in the imperative mood; they are, rather, the description of a historical bequest. Our law is the voice of a territorial jurisdiction. The countless decisions that animate our legal understanding have originated here, in courts scattered around the country. Our law is not the will of God, nor the command of the sovereign; it is the law of the land. And if St Augustine is right, it is God Himself who implanted this conception in our hearts. Sculpture of St Augustine of Canterbury, the ﬁrst archbishop of Canterbury, on Canterbury Cathedral in England.

Professor Sir Roger Scruton FBA FRSL

131

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2020

Inner Temple Summer Party

INNER TEMPLE SUMMER PARTY IN THE PINK

132

Treasury

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2020

133

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2020

The Great Garden Manifesto

THE GREAT GARDEN MANIFESTO By the Head Gardener

Tree climbing

134

Garden

Acer ‘George Forest’

Prunus incisa 'The Bride'

Hazel supports

I took over as Head Gardener in April 2018 and, though not a huge amount of time has passed, I hope people are starting to get a sense of my horticultural style and the direction the Garden is taking. You really need to experience a garden for a full year, through all the seasons, before you can start to understand the plants, the soil, the seasons, the overall space and how the Garden is used. This has required a lot of observation, photography and note-taking. I have enjoyed this and spent my first autumn/winter experimenting by moving existing plants and adding new ones. Through subtle changes, the Garden has started to evolve. It is now starting to feel like it is ‘my’ Garden. My role as Head Gardener is very much a custodian: preserving and taking the Garden forward as the previous Head Gardeners have. The Inn has records of Gardeners back to 1307, so there is a very long line that I am now part of. The Inn’s Five-Year Planning and Budget process is a significant aspect of this; taking the time to look back and then forward is a great opportunity to assess what works in the Garden and where we need to focus attention to ensure our Garden continues to be the most special in London. Having now found my feet, or muddy boots so to speak, I thought it might be a good opportunity to share the vision or ‘manifesto’ for the Garden for the coming years. This builds on the Garden’s unique character, or as some may term it the ‘spirit of place’. It is a feeling. For me, this feeling is one of ‘escapism’ and of a ‘secret garden’. These are aspects that I wish to accentuate further, alongside a sense of surprise and playfulness. The vision is for those entering the Garden to feel as if they have walked into a dream of an ancient English garden overlooking the Thames and the sights of London.

Sean with hazel stakes

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Prunus serrula

In a practical sense, the team and I have begun by working on the various gates into the Garden. Here we have been adding new planting to accentuate the impact and the sensory shift you feel on entering the Garden. The most impressive additions, which we hope you have noticed, are at the Middle Temple Lane and Kings Bench Walk gates where we have planted groups of tree ferns, Dicksonia antartica, which are native to Tasmania. The dramatic fronds atop the trunks of fibrous roots provide an enchanting presence at these key areas. Scent is also something that we are keen to provide more of throughout the whole Garden and again at key points such as the entrances. This summer, we have added terracotta pans at the accessible entrance onto Crown Office Row, planted amongst other things with a Nemesia, which have the most wonderful dusky vanilla scent to welcome or say ‘goodbye’ as people pass through the Garden. In terms of the planting, the aim is to bring cohesion; to add more structure; whilst also adding more softness. Importantly, we have started work to extend the seasonal interest, so the Garden has the same ‘wow’ factor it has in May and late summer, at other key moments across all the seasons. For this, we have been focusing on winter and early spring. This winter, we planted many small trees for interesting winter bark such as the snake bark maple, Acer (‘George Forrest’), Acer (‘Sango-kaku’) and the popular Prunus serrula (‘the Tibetan Cherry’) for its shiny burgundy bark.

Nemesia and Succulents

135

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

The Great Garden Manifesto

We have also planted a little grove of small multi-stemmed cherry trees called Prunus Incisa (‘the Bride’). Whilst at Wisley, I was lucky enough to gain funding for a study trip to experience cherry blossom season and the ancient gardens of Kyoto. Once I returned, I took a keen intertest in the ornamental cherry collection at Wisley. Prunus Incisa was one of my favourites. For such a small tree, it is absolutely covered in a white and pale pink flush flower and has lovely autumn colour.

I also have great hopes for enhancing some more significant features of the Garden. Whether these ambitions are ever realised will be dependent of gaining the relevant support and finances. Although unquantifiable, I feel the benefit the Garden brings to so many cannot be undervalued. To keep the Howell proverb from 1659 alive (“Gray’s Inn for walks, Lincoln’s Inn for a wall, The Inner Temple for a garden, And the Middle for a hall”), we should not rest on our laurels! Especially as Lincoln’s Inn is coming to the end of a major project relandscaping their Gardens. Thankfully, the Head Gardeners from the Inns are all very supportive of each other, though some friendly rivalry can surely do no great harm. I do feel we need to keep investing and developing the Garden to ensure we keep the jewel in our crown the brightest.

Planting a grouping of these is something I have had in my mind for several years. It was a real delight to do this, for them to flower so profusely in their first year and the joy they brought to many at that quiet time. This is just the start of adding earlier interest to the Garden, which we will build upon in the coming years with new bulbs and winter flowering shrubs, which could include groups of scented witch hazel (Hamamelis) The vision is also to enhance the Garden to feel even more like an historic private garden, and so addressing any elements that make the Garden feel municipal, suburban or out of keeping with its surrounding grandeur.

“ The vision is also to enhance the Garden to feel even more like a historic private garden” These can be small details. For example, we have moved away from using bamboo canes as supports in the borders and are solely using hazel twiggy supports harvested from a managed coppice at West Wickham Commons on the edge of Croydon. The benefits are aesthetic, as it is much less intrusive in the border’s appearance, but also sustainable and local, and helps to keep traditional woodland management methods in practice. Sustainability is also at the forefront of our broader thinking, including reducing the amount of chemicals used and extending the irrigation system further so eventually all of the Garden will be watered via the borehole.

Master Lambert and Sean

136

Lastly, and very importantly, we wish for the Garden to become the heart of the Inn for members and we will continue to think about the manner the Garden is used to ensure people gain the maximum enjoyment. This is undeniably about keeping the feeling of an oasis; the connection to nature in the heart of the City; and how people may use the Garden to socialise. This will be explored over the coming years and so we hope to see more of you in many various guises enjoying the Garden with us. I hope sharing this ‘Garden Manifesto’ acts as an antidote to the various manifestos currently vying for our attention. These ambitions are not something that I can achieve without the ongoing support of the wonderful team of gardeners, volunteers and the Masters of the Garden – for which this year we have had a new recruit, Master Lambert – alongside the many other people who love and care for our great Garden. With so much love for the Garden, I am confident we will continue to preserve and develop the Garden to ensure it remains the most special in London. Sean Harkin Head Gardener

Paper Building

Treasury

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

THE PEGASUS SALTS By Master Michael Lawson and Richard Parsons

Pegasus Salt

The normal rhythm of July has been disturbed this year by the closure of the Treasury Building. Those of us who meet in January and July to check that our silver is both present and in good order, missed our summer gathering in the oppressive heat of the basement vault. We are hoping that when we return sometime in 2021, we will find that our request for more suitable cabinets and some air cooling will have been met!

Our silver collection has been shared between a number of generous institutions who have agreed to house it for the duration of Project Pegasus. The Worshipful Company of Vintners and the Worshipful Company of Pewterers have both agreed to safeguard silver items suitable for the dinners that we will be holding in both Halls, so that we will feel more ‘at home’ when we enjoy evenings in their beautiful surroundings. The Middle Temple has taken a number of valuable items and the Goldsmiths’ Company are looking after one of our most valuable items – the Dutch silver layette basket. They will be putting it on display in an exhibition they are holding in their Hall from March-July 2020.

137

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

The Pegasus Salts

We are very grateful to Richard Parsons, our silver expert for the last 33 years, and currently Master of the Pewterers’ Company, to Henrietta Amodio, Kate Peters, William Gallagher and Kunal Voralia for so carefully packing and distributing our priceless collection.

The first ten were generously given by the ‘invisible’ John Evans who was Treasurer in 1850. More I cannot say about him.

Packing the Exchequer Collar

Two years later Robert Baynes Armstrong followed, donating two salts at the end of his year, although, interestingly, they were made and hallmarked the same year as the first ten. Baynes Armstrong was elected as a member of Parliament to the Lancaster Constituency in 1848 as a Liberal Reformer, his predecessor Samuel Gregson, an East India Merchant, having been unseated due to bribery. Armstrong was re-elected in 1852 as MP for Lancaster, the year he became Treasurer. His win in that election was however declared null and void soon after, in 1853, for corruption and bribery. An entry in the Scotsman for 16 April 1853 reports that “the most corrupt measures have been practised during the Lancaster election, votes having been freely bought at £2 and £3 a head.” And referred to “upwards of 100 voters waiting in various public houses to be purchased” at 3pm on election day! Perhaps such expenditure reduced his ability to run to more than two salts! A petition followed and a further election held when none other than his predecessor, the very same Samuel Gregson was re-elected!

Our Pegasus ‘salts’ have been chosen for this year’s article. At the bi-annual silver counts we check each one and Richard Parsons has a soft spot for them. They are used at most dinners and so need to be checked for minor damage on a regular basis. They were donated by three different Treasurers in 1850, 1852 and 1882.

“ Our silver collection has been shared between a number of generous institutions who have agreed to house it for the duration of Project Pegasus”

19th century silver-gilt nef being taken to Middle Temple

Pegasus Salts at the Vintners’ Hall

As far as my research goes, I have been astonished that I have been unable to discover anything about the legal careers of two of the Treasurers and some rather unfortunate information about one of them. The third seems to have been a paragon of virtue. I shall refer to them as the ‘good, the bad and the invisible’, although I am conscious that that almost certainly does each a disservice. Richard has written separately about the salts themselves opposite.

Sir John Blossett Maule QC, the ‘good’ of our trio, enjoyed an uninterrupted rise in his professional career. His father was the Solicitor to the Treasury and John was called by the Inner Temple at the age of 29 and took silk 19 years later in 1866. By then he had been a Bencher for 11 years. In 1880, he was the first appointment to the newly created office of Director of Public Prosecutions, serving until 1884. He was elected Treasurer of the Inn in 1882 and knighted in the same year. He became a member of both the Council of Legal Education and of the Council of Law Reporting and was the superintendent editor of Burn’s Justice of the Peace for its 30th edition. He died in 1889 with an unblemished character. His Honour Michael Lawson QC

138

Treasury

William Gallagher and Richard Parsons accompanying the Dutch silver layette basket to the Goldsmith's Company

Silver Layette Basket

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

It was indeed a complex job to find homes for the Inn’s plate earlier this year. There are a number of articles that emerged from the vault, having been stored there for many years, including a pair of very early pottery jugs, apparently found during building excavations. There were scraps of paper from the time of William Gallagher’s predecessor, Victory, and polishing materials much older than this author. Delivering the Dutch Layette Basket to the Goldsmiths’ Company caused much interest on arrival, as one might expect for such a fine and interesting object. Being surrounded by tissue paper, bubble wrap and tape, with one or two objects that refused to fit into a packing crate, those involved now know the silver collection intimately. For my part, I would like to thank the Treasury staff for their help and patience and the four repositories of the collection for their generosity.

Made in the mid-19th century and all bearing London assay marks, one for 1849–50, eleven for 1850-51 and four for 1882–83, they were formed by the eminent silversmiths of the age, the Fox brothers George and Charles. The family name was associated with silver manufacturing from circa 1801 in Old Street, in the City of London and then until 1921 in Soho, in the West End; the Pegasus salts being made by the grandchildren of the original founder. It had not always been plain sailing for the company and in the early years a petition for bankruptcy was made against the Fox family business, but the firm eventually flourished in Old Street until 1852, before then moving to Soho. They made work for many of the leading London jewellers including my old firm, Tessiers Ltd. in Bond Street, but principally for Lambert & Co of Coventry Street. The quality of their work was confirmed by the inclusion of articles made by them in the Great Exhibition of 1851.

An organisation is often represented by the graphical representation of a logo, the same can be said of the Inner Temple’s Pegasus coat-of-arms. Blazoned as ‘Azure a Pegasus salient argent’ it is extensively found represented on all Inner Temple property. The origin, although of early times, is uncertain, but was described as being without authority, until formally confirmed by the College of Arms in 1967. As a visitor to the Inn it is impossible not to miss the importance of this symbol and, as Master Lawson has mentioned above, the Pegasus is also found as a group of 16 silver table ornaments, with raised shells to their backs, forming receptacles for salt. There could be no better way of being reminded of this symbol than to sit in front of one while dining. Incorporated in the grant of arms is the motto ‘volat ad aethera virtus’ while not literally having flown to heaven, they have now landed for dinners at Vintner’s Hall, still as a reminder of a home that is now covered in scaffolding.

The salts are made in three parts, the winged body is bolted to the scroll base at two points and the shellshaped salt receptacle fits into a square hole in the back of the Pegasus, by a similarly shaped peg, the salt dishes are also gilded on their inner surfaces as a barrier against salt corrosion. Overall, the condition of the finish is very finely detailed and they show very little wear from their 170 years of regular use. As has already been mentioned, each salt is engraved with a Treasurer’s initial and date, those made in 1849-50 are engraved with the Roman numerals for 1850 and 1852, those made in 1882-83 are engraved 1882. Details of the need for the earlier salts being made is not evident but those made in 1882 might have been in preparation for the Golden Jubilee banquet in 1887, where the need for greater numbers might have been predicted. As a final comment, this fine collection of realistically modelled silver is representative of a golden age of manufacture. Richard Parsons Jeweller and Silversmith

139

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2020

Weddings & Baptisms

WEDDINGS & BAPTISMS aximilian Schlote and Megan Chen M married 1 December 2018

melia Beringer and Oliver Hickling A married on 27 July 2019

arah Prager and Martin Hitchcock S married 8 June 2019

mmeline Chiew and Oliver Lenthall E married on 17 June 2019

140

The Temple Church

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

ntonia Anness and Andrew Wright A who married on 13 October 2018

achary Arthur Logan Martin Z baptised 3 February 2019

amantha Godec and Edward S Granger married 16 March 2019

141

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

The History and Role of The Law Officers

THE HISTORY AND ROLE OF THE LAW OFFICERS From a lecture given on 18 February 2019 by Master Buckland, Solicitor General 2014–2019.

RL Sir Edward Coke (1552–1634) by Paul van Somer; Solicitor General 1592–1594; Attorney General 1594–1606. Inner Temple collection

Her Majesty’s Government has two law officers of England and Wales: the Attorney General and his effective deputy, the Solicitor General. When I talk about the Attorney General, I am also speaking about the Solicitor General, because the two have essentially become one since the Law Officers Act 1997. The Attorney and I provide legal advice to the Government; we superintend several departments, and we act as guardians of the rule of law and the public interest. Since the formal devolution of justice powers to Northern Ireland in 2010, the England and Wales law officers are also the UK Government law officers in Northern Ireland, namely the office of the Advocate General. The third UK Government law officer is the Advocate General for Scotland. He advises the Westminster Government on Scots law, European Human Rights Convention issues and constitutional matters. Due to their medieval origins, the offices of Attorney and Solicitor General are constitutionally peculiar. So peculiar are they that when a prime minister resigns along with their ministers, only the law officers plus some senior whips in both Houses who hold titles within the royal household remain in office. For about an hour in July 2016, about seven of us formed the Government of the country with the Queen as our head.

142

Sir Heneage Finch, later Earl of Nottingham (1623-82) circle of William Wissing; Solicitor General, 1660; Attorney General 1670. Inner Temple collection.

“ Due to their medieval origins, the offices of Attorney and Solicitor General are constitutionally peculiar. So peculiar are they that when a prime minister resigns along with their ministers, only the law officers plus some senior whips in both Houses who hold titles within the royal household remain in office.” Most historians agree that the office of Attorney General was foreshadowed by the appointment of Lawrence del Brok in around 1247 to “sue the King’s affairs of his pleas before him”. He attended the House of Lords to give legal advice and litigated on the King’s behalf. In 1461, the title of attornatus generalis was first used in the letters patent of John Herbert’s appointment. Also in 1461, Richard Fowler was appointed King’s Solicitor, the precursor to the title of Solicitor General, which was first used in 1515.

Reader's Lecture Series

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

RL Court of King's Bench © Inner Temple Library

Lord Thurlow (1731-1806) as Lord Chancellor by George Romney; Solicitor General 1771; Attorney General 1772. Inner Temple collection

In the early days, the Attorney and Solicitor exclusively served the sovereign. Their principal tasks were to advise and act as a go-between the two Houses of Parliament, carrying Bills and messages from the Lords to the Commons, and drafting, framing and amending Bills during their passage through Parliament.

Law officers are, and have always been, required to manage legislation of gravity. For example, Sir Rufus Isaacs guided the Parliament Act 1911, the Official Secrets Act 1911 and the Government of Ireland Act 1914 through Parliament. More recently, you may have noticed a familiar face contributing repeatedly from the front bench when the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill was being scrutinised by the Commons. This is the fourth Bill I have helped through Parliament; the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 was another notable piece of legislation.

As the Commons grew in constitutional importance throughout the 16th century, members remained suspicious of the Attorney, a servant of the Crown and the Lords. Indeed, it was the Solicitor General who first moved from the Lords to the Commons, in 1566. Thereafter, there was constant overlap in the incumbency of the role of Commons Speaker and Solicitor General, one notable exception occurring in 1601 when Mr Solicitor Fleming was considered “too lawyer-like and ungenteel” for the Speaker’s chair. The Attorney and Solicitor General ceased responding to the Lords’ writ at the turn of the 18th century, but continued to act as counsel before the Lords. As legal advisers to the Crown and Government, law officer time has historically been consumed by advising on proposed government policy and legislation. It is not possible to comment on individual pieces of advice because of the Law Officers’ Convention, which protects legal privilege between the law officers and the Government in the same way as between lawyer and client.

The law officers are also ex officio members of the Commons Privileges Committee, and can be called upon to give advice and support in particular cases. However, our historic role as legal advisers to Parliament has been supplanted by clerks and Speaker’s Counsel, largely because of the tension between the law officers’ role as advisers to Parliament and their role in government. When law officers speak in the House, it is chiefly as members of Parliament. The law officers have not historically received a standing invitation to cabinet. Some exceptions to this occurred in the early 20th century. Nowadays, the law officers have a voice in cabinet when there are legal and constitutional issues at stake.

143

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

The History and Role of The Law Officers

Sir William Webb Follett (1798–1845) after Sir Martin Archer Shee, PRA; Solicitor General 1834–1835 and 1841–1844; Attorney General 1844. Inner Temple collection

John Simon, later Viscount Simon GSCI, GCVO, KC (1873–1954) by Sir Oswald Birley; Solicitor General 1910-1913; Attorney General 1913–1915; Inner Temple Collection

Litigation, particularly the conduct of criminal prosecutions, is another duty that historically captured much of a law officer’s energy. Such prosecutions were almost exclusively conducted on the Crown’s behalf, save one notable prosecution led by Oliver Cromwell’s Solicitor General, Sir John Cook, against King Charles I. After the Restoration, Mr Solicitor Cook was rewarded with execution for high treason and regicide, the only law officer known to have been hanged, drawn and quartered.

By 1951, then Attorney General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, defined the principles guiding prosecutions in terms familiar to prosecutors today when he said “There is no greater nonsense… than the suggestion that in all cases the Attorney General ought to decide to prosecute merely because he thinks there is what the lawyers would call ‘a case’”, before saying that “the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions only intervene to direct a prosecution when they consider it in the public interest”.

From the early 17th century, the law officers observed higher standards of professional propriety when presenting cases. Indeed, the appointment of Sir William Garrow as Solicitor General and then Attorney in the early 19th century was a tacit approval of his work in pioneering defence advocacy and the all-important burden of proof in what we now recognise as the criminal trial process. Nowadays, prosecutorial independence is safeguarded as the Crown Prosecution Service conducts the majority of serious criminal cases outwith the ambit of political meddling.

Sir Hartley Shawcross led the United Kingdom’s prosecutorial team at the Nuremberg trials of 22 senior Nazi officials. While condemning as pusillanimous the defence of superior orders, he uttered the powerful adage that “there comes a point when a man must refuse to answer to his leader if he is also to answer to his own conscience”.

One particularly controversial mechanism for commencing criminal prosecutions was the ex officio information. An ex officio information was a criminal information that the Attorney General could file without leave of the court and without the need for presentment or indictment for misdemeanours of a lesser degree than felony. In 1903, Prime Minister Balfour acknowledged that politics and prosecutions ought to be disassociated when he stated that “it was not in the power of government to direct the Attorney General to direct a prosecution” and that the Attorney General, when making such considerations, ought to act “in the interest of all”. Nevertheless, the use of ex officio informations to commence criminal prosecutions persisted until the instrument met its demise with the Criminal Law Act 1967.

144

“ The appointment of Sir William Garrow as Solicitor General and then Attorney in the early 19th century was a tacit approval of his work in pioneering defence advocacy and the all-important burden of proof in what we now recognise as the criminal trial process. With a plethora of political, public interest and professional obligations, a law officer’s lot is to serve many masters and undertake their duties assiduously in a manner that is and is perceived to be just. This can occasionally be treacherous terrain on which to operate. Sir Francis Bacon described the role of Attorney General as “one of the painfulest places in the Kingdom”. Unlike other ministers, the law officers remain subject to the ethical and professional codes of the Bar and the supervision of their professional associations.

Reader's Lecture Series

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

The Rt Hon Lord Rawlinson of Ewell QC by Keith Breedon RP; Solicitor General, 1962–1964; Attorney General 1970–74; Attorney General for NI 1972–74. Inner Temple Collection

The Rt Hon the Lord Falconer of Thoroton (b 1951) by David Newens; Solicitor General 1997–1998. On loan from Lord Falconer

I shall now examine how the law officers’ functions and duties today differ from those of bygone ages. We now play almost no direct role in civil or criminal litigation. Instead, we superintend departments that do this work independently, namely the Crown Prosecution Service, Serious Fraud Office and the Government Legal Department. Superintendence means that we are accountable to Parliament for performance of these departments. We achieve this by presenting annual reports to Parliament, answering written and oral questions, and corresponding with MPs.

The law officers have a function pursuant to section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988, which gives us the power to make or permit an application to the High Court for an inquest or a fresh inquest into a person’s death. Another ancient vestige of the law officers’ public interest functions is their authority to bring proceedings for contempt of court, which is broadly defined as an act or omission calculated to interfere with the administration of justice. Common examples of this branch of the law include breaches of court orders or publishing information potentially prejudicial to a trial.

Each organisation has its own director who is responsible for the department’s day-to-day administration. The law officers may occasionally issue guidance on specific matters and launch inquiries into their work. Following recent disclosure failings in the criminal justice system, the Attorney General ordered a review that published its recommendations in November last year. Our role as guardian of the public interest encompasses numerous discrete functions. We retain some very rarely used functions related to ecclesiastical and royal matters, as well as some more frequently used functions regarding charities and the appointment of neutral advocates to advise courts impartially on niche points of law. Law officers must consent to the prosecution of certain criminal offences. First, it ensures consistency in prosecutions where the offence cannot be precisely defined and where the law may consequently go wider than the mischief aimed at. Second, it prohibits vexatious private prosecutions. Third, it allows greater account to be taken of mitigating factors. Fourth, it provides central control over the criminal law when it intrudes into areas that are particularly sensitive. And finally, it enables prosecution decisions to take account of public policy or international issues.

“ Sir Hartley Shawcross, defined the principles guiding prosecutions in terms familiar to prosecutors today when he said ‘There is no greater nonsense… than the suggestion that in all cases the Attorney General ought to decide to prosecute merely because he thinks there is what the lawyers would call ‘a case’.’ ” One of the busiest public interest functions of a law officer is the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme. The law officers have the power to refer a criminal sentence to the Court of Appeal if they consider it so low that no judge could reasonably consider it appropriate.

145

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

The History and Role of The Law Officers

Like law officers before us, our primary duty is to advise the Government on potential legal issues arising from proposed policy and legislation. The main medium through which we perform this duty is our membership of Cabinet’s Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee. The law officers must agree that legislation meets the requirements of legal certainty before it is ready to be introduced. When legal issues are identified, the committee looks to us for advice on the implications of those issues and how best to mitigate them. The law officers have a further role in relation to proposed legislation. When a Bill is introduced, the minister in charge of the Bill in each House is required by section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to state that the Bill’s provisions are compatible with Convention rights. The law officers consider the legal analysis that departments are required to produce for the cabinet committee. This includes an analysis of the ECHR rights that are engaged by a Bill and an assessment of any interferences and justifications for them.

“ Sir Francis Bacon described the role of Attorney General as ‘one of the painfulest places in the Kingdom’.” The Law Officers’ Convention recently came under attack as a result of a Humble Address motion passed by the Commons that required disclosure of the Attorney’s advice relating to Brexit, and in particular the legal effect of the Northern Irish Protocol in the Withdrawal Agreement, the so-called backstop. Both the Attorney and I thought that the convention was something worth defending, and I did just that in the debate on the Humble Address before Christmas. Sir Edward Garnier once described the law officers to me as the submarines of Government, who only surface when something is up. At the moment, such is the turn of events that you may think we have no need of a periscope!

The Cabinet Manual enumerates many scenarios that may require law officer advice, but, in short, we are asked to advise on any issue concerning the legality, domestically or internationally, or constitutional propriety of proposed legislation and executive action.

The Rt Hon Robert Buckland QC MP Solicitor General 2014–2019. Appointed Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, July 2019 The full version of this lecture is available at innertemple.org.uk/lectures

Wildy & Sons Ltd (Incorporating Hammicks Legal Information Services) Serving the Legal Profession since 1830 With our knowledgeable and professional staff, we have been supplying new and secondhand books to lawyers and students for many generations, both within the Inns of Court and throughout the world. e-mail: enquiries@wildy.com website: www.wildy.com Lincoln’s Inn Archway, London WC2A 2JD tel: 020 7242 5778 16 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1AU tel: 020 7353 4395 The only specialist law bookshop in England & Wales and proud sponsor of the Inner Temple Book Prize

146

Archives

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

TIMELINE

EXTRACTS FROM THE ARCHIVES By the Archivist

A An extract from the Map of Tudor London, published in 2018 by the Historic Towns Trust ISBN 978-0-9934698-3-1

Description of the Inn in 1520 In 1501, the poet William Dunbar was inspired to write this poem of London, “the flower of cities all”.

From To the City of London “ Above all rivers they river hath renown, Whose beryl streames, pleasant and preclare, Under thy lusty walles runneth down; Where many a swan doth swim with winges fair, Where many a barge doth sail, and row with oar, Where many a ship doth rest with top-royal. O town of townes, patron and not compare, London, thou art the flower of cities all.” William Dunbar (1465–1530)

A map of London in 1520 has recently been created by British Historic Towns Atlas using documents and archaeological evidence to portray London as it looked in 1520, recreating the medieval London as described above by Dunbar. The city portrayed by the map has now almost completely disappeared. The monasteries were dissolved in the 16th century and the Great Fire destroyed two thirds of the city. The Blitz then destroyed much that had survived. All these events also affected large sections of the Temple, yet buildings were replaced, and the Temple still stands in a form that would be fairly recognisable to any member who returned from the 16th century, making it one of the oldest institutions in our country. The Temple at this period was a suburb outside the city walls. The Church, the Hall and the Tower of the Inner Temple are clearly indicated with a large gate to Fleet Street and a pier denoted as a bridge to the Thames. The lawyers leased the buildings of the Inner Temple from the Knights Hospitaller and probably settled here in 1339 when the Court returned to Westminster from York, although the exact date is not known. At some point in the mid-14th century, they had formed themselves into two societies – the Middle and Inner Temple. At their hearts were two halls, perhaps originally the Priests’ and Knights’ Halls of the Knights Templar.

147

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Timeline

The Church had a cloister leading from it to the Hall, passing near the chapels of St Anne and St Thomas. There is nothing left of the chapel of St Thomas, though there are some remains of the chapel of St Anne.

A number of inns including the Falcon, the Queen’s Head and the Dolphin provided entertainment for the members of the Inns of Court, which resulted in a number of drunken altercations and disciplinary proceedings.

The Hall of the Inner Temple was rebuilt in the later 14th century, possibly after the sacking of the Temple by Wat Tyler and his rebels. Until its replacement in 1870, it was the oldest of the secular buildings of all the Inns of Court. It had an archbraced timber roof with buttressed walls and Gothic windows, with bay windows at the high table end and a louvre to take smoke out from the central hearth. As the Inns functioned as academic communities, the hall was essential for the lectures and disputations necessary for qualification as a barrister. They also provided a central venue for feasting and entertainment, especially during the important festive periods of the year such as All Hallows’ Eve, Candlemas and Ascension Day, which were celebrated with music, dancing and stage plays.

The Inn was surrounded by the palatial town houses of the Bishops of Salisbury and Exeter, also denoted on the map as inns or temporary accommodation for the Bishops, and the Carmelite Friary of Whitefriars. Also marked is Henry VIII’s Palace of Bridewell, which had begun construction near the Fleet, and which would later be used as a prison.

“ It had an arch-braced timber roof with buttressed walls and Gothic windows, with bay windows at the high table end and a louvre to take smoke out from the central hearth.” At the east of the Hall there was a library. The Inner Temple was the first of the Inns to establish its own library. It is first mentioned in 1505 in the Parliament Records when Mr Audley, Speaker of the House of Commons and later Lord Chancellor, was permitted to have a door from his chamber in to the Library, provided it be not hereafter to the nuisance of other members of the house.

The Parliament Chamber attached to the Hall and the Library was surmounted by a turret built of chalk, rubble and ragstone and carried a bell under a wooden cupola. In it were chambers assigned to members of the Inn. It was still standing in 1741 but was found to be so dangerous that it was pulled down in 1866. As the Inn grew in numbers, new chambers were built by Benchers or members who retained a life interest in the buildings, which were often named after them. They had names such as Le Olyvaunt, the Elephant or Le Talbott, the Talbot (a white bloodhound which appeared on of the crest of the Talbot family), or Le Barentyne. They were built of brick and contained sets of rooms functioning like modern barristers’ chambers. Although much later, Sir Julius Caesar’s new building was described in 1596 as having two sets of chambers on the first floor with chimneys and each containing a bedroom, study and a room for clients to attend, a house of office and a “place thereto adjoining to lay things in”. On the second floor there were two sets: one for a Bencher with a bedroom, study, gallery or inner chamber with a house or office and another with a heated bedroom or study. There were two two-room chambers on the third floor and above them was a gallery with a chimney. All these buildings have since disappeared, but the style can be seen in Prince Henry’s Room above Inner Temple Gate. The river formed the southern boundary of the Inn where there was a pier as early as 1331. There was no wall or embankment to protect the garden or buildings from the tide. It is thought that the garden was filled with fragrant shrubs and roses. The garden was very small at this time with the river reaching the lower end of what is now Paper Buildings. Members of the Inn would reach the Court at Westminster by river using wherries.

148

1619 In May 1619, a complaint came from the Bench and the principals and governors of the Inns of Chancery in which they stated that they had so few students that it was now impossible to institute the ordinary learning exercises. A committee was appointed to consider the case of the lack of students. The Inner Temple attempted to resolve this problem by appointing popular and interesting readers, hence John Selden was appointed, but we find later that he did not read but instead submitted to paying a fine for his absence.

1720 Birth date of one of the most flamboyant residents of the Inner Temple. Samuel Foote 1720–1777, a one-legged Georgian transvestite, comedian, playwright, dilettante and gambler, nicknamed ‘the English Aristophanes’, and at one time more famous than his friend David Garrick. His biographer states that he studied law although he never officially enrolled as a member. Whilst ostensibly studying law he managed to dissipate most of his not inconsiderable fortune and much of his time in the Grecian Coffee House in Devereux Court. Although certainly homosexual, in 1740 he married a Cornish neighbour with a large dowry, which he rapidly spent, committing both of them to the Fleet Prison where he and his wife parted company forever. A contemporary of Boswell, Johnson, Garrick and Fielding, he decided to turn his hand to acting, appearing as Othello with mixed reviews. He travelled to Dublin to continue his acting career and, in 1747, he created a series of farces he called the Diversions of the Morning ridiculing fellow actors and celebrities. In order to avoid the Licensing Act, which required all plays to be submitted to a government censor, he styled his entertainments as ‘teas’. In 1766, whilst showing off his riding skills to the Duke of York, he fell off, fracturing his leg, which necessitated its amputation. Despite this catastrophe, he still appeared on the stage. In addition, he managed to persuade the guiltridden Duke of York to give the Haymarket Theatre a royal patent to play legitimate drama (meaning spoken drama, as opposed to opera, concerts or plays with music) in the summer months. He spent some time writing plays with one-legged roles and his disability became part of his acts. Foote’s name was forgotten after his death partly because of the scandal that engulfed the last year of his life when he was arraigned for ‘sodomitical assault’ of his footman, a media storm which tainted his achievements for many years after his death. He was buried in the West Cloister of Westminster Abbey close to Poets’ Corner.

Archives

1820 Birth date of anti-slavery campaigner and member of this Inn Sir Stephen Cave (1820–1880), Called to the Bar in 1845 and member of the Western Circuit. He served as MP for Shoreham, Paymaster General and Vice President of the Board of Trade. He published many pamphlets criticising the slave trade. He illuminated the effects of the 1846 Sugar Bill, which freed up the trade in sugar and ended the tariffs that protected sugar from the West Indies. This led to cheaper imported sugar from the slave-owning societies of Cuba and Haiti. William Wilberforce calculated that every tonne of sugar harvested required one new slave. Sir Stephen Cave published a pamphlet protesting the Sugar Bill entitled A Few Words on the Encouragement Given to Slavery and the Slave Trade by Recent Measures, and Chiefly by the Sugar Bill of 1846 (1849). In it he asked: “What has become of that horror of slavery, which induced at one point 300,000 persons in England to renounce the use of sugar in order to keep themselves pure from the guilt of that system of which they had so long and so earnestly sought termination. Where is that ardour in the cause of freedom, which in one session in 1831 poured into Parliament no less than 4584 petitions on its behalf. “Let them all unite to wipe away the stain from their common country. Let them once again rouse the deep and solemn feeling, the absolute and irresistible determination which once before declared itself in a voice to which no minister can be deaf, and which no man who watches the sign of the times can be misunderstood.”

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

1919 This year marks the centenary of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919, which abolished the barriers preventing women from joining the legal profession. The Inns of Court were allowed to admit female members for the first time. The first woman to join Inner Temple was Theodora Llewelyn Davies who was admitted to the Inn on 9 January 1920, shortly followed by Ivy Williams who was admitted on 26 January 1920. Ivy Williams became the first woman to be called to the Bar at any Inn and the first woman to teach law at the Society of Oxford House Students, a forerunner to St Anne’s College. As soon as women were admitted to the Bar, a preoccupation with their dress became apparent. The press paid great attention to Ivy Williams’s appearance and demeanour: “Miss Williams – a tall, slender woman with dark hair – wore a black evening dress under her gown and ‘bands’. … She spoke slowly and very clearly, and created a good impression by her quiet manner… “Clothed in a simple black evening dress, and gowned as a barrister, she listened with sober triumph to the speech of the Common Sergeant which preceded the ‘Call’. … ‘Tonight, I have realised the dream of my life,’ she said, speaking with almost painful deliberation in an attempt to control her emotion.” Immediately after the removal of the Act, a Temple wig-maker wrote an article for the Daily Mail of his concerns that special wigs would need to be created for women. A cartoon below illustrates some suggested prototypes for wigs. Letters were written to The Times with further suggestions for women’s dress at the Bar. Herbert Stephen wrote on 31 March 1922: “It must be apparent to everyone, except the committee, that women barristers ought to wear a distinctive, and probably dark-coloured head-dress in approximately the form of a biretta, a turban or a toque. I use each of these terms with great diffidence.” Lieutenant Colonel C P Hawkes suggested that “the soft fawn jabot should be allowed as giving the same effect as, though more conveniently adjustable than the stiff white collar… and that the masculine wig should be replaced by the graceful coif… a small white hood of lawn or silk completely covering the head”. The Times, April 1922 Eventually, a committee comprising the Judges and Benchers of the Inns of Court carefully considered what would be appropriate robes for women to wear in Court after their Call to the Bar and “expressed a wish” that the dress of women barristers in court shall conform to the following rules: 1. Ordinary barrister’s wigs should be worn and should completely cover and conceal the hair; 2. Ordinary barrister’s gowns should be worn; 3. Dresses should be plain, black or very dark, high to the neck, with long sleeves, and not shorter than the gown, with high, plain white collar and barrister’s bands; or plain coats and skirts may be worn, black or very dark, not shorter than the gown, with plain white shirts and high collars and barrister’s bands.

Celia Pilkington Archivist Fashion Hints For The Coming Lady Barrister. A Daily Mirror Cartoon by William Kerridge Haselden. © Mirrorpix. Published in the Daily Mirror Newspaper Thursday 2nd June 1921.

149

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Bar Liaison Committee

BAR LIAISON COMMITTEE

BIBI BADEJO

JAMES BATTEN

EDWARD BENNETT

JOHN CLIFFORD

Equality, Diversity & Inclusivity Committee; Advocacy Training Committee

Student Societies Committee; Yearbook; Drama Society

Estates; Pictures

Scholarships Committee; Car Park; Revels

SAOIRSE COWLEY

NICHOLAS CRAIG QC

KATHERINE DUNCAN

SARAH MARTIN

Employed Bar; Outreach

Insurances; Estates Committee

Wellbeing

Executive Committee; Marshall Hall Trust

AUSTIN STOTON

ANTON VAN DELLEN

THEA WILSON

RETT WILSON

Advocacy Training Committee; Statutes

Library Committee; Staff

Education and Training Committee; ITSA; Health and Safety; Student Societies Committee

Northern Circuit; Qualifying Sessions SubCommittee; Pegasus Scholarship Trust

150

SARA WYETH

ZACHARY BREDEMEAR

WILLIAM CHOLERTON

MICHAEL D’ARCY

Student Societies Committee; Moots

(Chairman) Executive Committee; Silver

Marshalling

Library Committee; Information Technology

REBECCA DIX

ANDREW FITCH-HOLLAND

SAMANTHA GRANGER

MELANIE HALL QC

Education & Training; Employed Bar

Cellar; Students’ Debating Society

International Committee

Scholarships Committee; Trusts; Mentoring

Bar Liaison Committee

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2020

KEY Elected

Co-opted

Circuit Representatives

Ex-Officio

HARRIET HOLMES

JAMES KITCHING

SIMON MURRAY

REHANA POPAL

Estates Committee; Garden

Employed Bar/BACFI representative; Pupil- Supervisors

(Vice-Chairman) Executive Committee; Library Committee; House

Bar Council Representative; Scholarships

SARAH WILLIAMS

RAHUL VARMA

CAN YEGINSU

SIMON GURNEY

Employed Bar

Qualifying Sessions (Co-opted); Outreach Committee

Archives Committee; Archives

Northern Circuit

JASON HADDEN

LAURA JOHN

JULIAN SIDOLI

TBC

Midland Circuit

European Circuit

Wales

South Eastern Circuit;

RICHARD WHEELER

TBC North Eastern Circuit

Bar Auditor; Executive Committee (ex-officio); Finance Sub-Committee; Estates Committee (Co-opted)

GREG DOREY CVO

Western Circuit

ANNABEL GOUGH

EMMA HYNES

LAURA PAISLEY

HENRIETTA AMODIO

Junior Bar Association; Education and Training Committee

Yearbook Editor

Junior Bar Association; Scholarships

Director of Treasury Office & Secretary to the BLC

CHRISTOPHER BOND

Sub-Treasurer

151

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2020

New Masters of the Bench

NEW MASTERS OF THE BENCH 2019 BARRISTER GOVERNING BENCHERS

MISS LORNA MEYER QC

KYRI ARGYROPOULOS

JASON SUGARMAN QC

CARSTEN ZATSCHLER

152

PAUL BROWN QC

JOHN KIMBELL QC

OLIVER SAXBY QC

RHYS TAYLOR

BENJAMIN MYERS QC

CHARLES BAGOT QC

DIYA SEN GUPTA QC

JOSEPH HART

ELIZABETH FITZGERALD

REHANA AZIB

DR TUNDE OKEWALE MBE

MISS KATHRYN ARNOT DRUMMOND

SONIA NOLTEN

New Masters of the Bench

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

JUDICIAL GOVERNING BENCHERS

THE HON MRS JUSTICE CUTTS DBE

HIS HONOUR JUDGE TOWNSEND

HER HONOUR JUDGE CLEMITSON

OTHER GOVERNING BENCHERS

HIS HONOUR JUDGE OLIVER

HIS HONOUR JUDGE BIRD

HIS HONOUR JUDGE MENARY QC

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE FRANCES

ACADEMIC BENCHERS

HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETTS

HER HONOUR JUDGE NICHOLLS

DISTRICT JUDGE FOSTER

DISTRICT JUDGE PREST QC

HONORARY BENCHERS

THE RT HON THE BARONESS BUSCOMBE OF GORING

ALEXANDRA BELDAM

PROFESSOR THOM BROOKS

MICHAEL STEVENSON

THE RT HON THE LORD FOWLER

THE RT HON LADY DORRIAN

LAWRENCE TEH

YA DATO’ FAIZAH JAMALUDIN

MILES YOUNG

OVERSEAS BENCHERS

KAY FIRTHBUTTERFIELD

153

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Masters of the Bench

MASTERS OF THE BENCH Honourable Society of the Inner Temple Masters of the Bench in Seniority Order (correct as of 15 August 2019)

TREASURER 2019

His Honour John Previte QC (U)

The Rt Hon Lord Hughes of Ombersley (O)

The Rt Hon the Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover KG (H)

ROYAL BENCHERS

Richard Clegg Esq QC (U)

His Honour James Stewart QC (U)

HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh KG KT OM GBE (R)

Michael Lyndon-Stanford Esq QC (U)

The Rt Hon the Lord Howard of Lympne CH QC (U)

HRH The Princess Royal (R) READER 2019 Guy Fetherstonhaugh Esq QC (B)

John Beveridge Esq QC (U) His Honour Humphrey LLoyd QC (U) Sir Edward Cazalet (S)

READER ELECT 2019

The Rt Hon Sir Mathew Thorpe (U)

Her Honour Judge Deborah Taylor (J)

William Crowther Esq QC (U)

MASTERS OF THE BENCH, EX-TREASURERS

Roger Henderson Esq QC (O) John Deby Esq QC (O)

The Rt Hon Sir Stephen Brown GBE (S)

His Honour Anthony Thompson QC (S)

The Rt Hon the Baroness Butler-Sloss GBE (S)

The Rt Hon the Lord Armstrong of Ilminster GCB CVO (H)

The Rt Hon the Lord Lloyd of Berwick DL (S)

John Swift Esq QC (U)

His Honour Jeremy Roberts QC (O) Sir David Clarke (U) Sir Neil Butterfield (S) His Honour Michael Lawson QC (O) The Reverend Roger ter Haar QC (B) Stephen Bickford-Smith Esq (B) Mrs Margaret Bickford-Smith QC (B) The Rt Hon Sir Jeremy Sullivan (U) The Rt Hon the Lord Wilson of Culworth (U) Giles Wingate-Saul Esq QC (S)

Ian Hunter Esq QC (B)

Gerard Elias Esq QC (S)

Sir Peter North CBE DCL FBA QC (H)

The Rt Hon Sir Jack Beatson FBA (O)

Sir Martin Jacomb (H)

Anthony Hacking Esq QC (S)

Patrick Ground Esq QC (B)

Sir Hugh Bennett (O)

Professor Sir John Baker QC LLD FBA (H)

Dermod O’Brien Esq QC (S)

The Rt Hon the Lord Hutton (H)

The Rt Hon Sir Anthony Hooper (O)

His Honour James Wadsworth QC (U)

Bruce Mauleverer Esq QC (S)

Jules Sher Esq QC (U)

His Honour Neil Butter CBE QC (S)

Eldred Tabachnik Esq QC (U)

His Honour Duncan Matheson QC (U)

Sir Michael Tugendhat (O)

Her Honour Christian Bevington (O)

John Crowley Esq QC (S)

Miss Caroline Willbourne (B)

The Rt Hon Sir Stephen Sedley (U)

Her Honour Judge Hughes QC (J)

Dame Rosalyn Higgins GBE JSD FBA QC (S)

Michael Sayers Esq QC (U)

His Honour David Elfer QC (S)

Sir Richard Henriques (S)

Raymond Potter Esq CB (S)

Martin Bowley Esq QC (O)

Nigel Hamilton Esq QC (U)

The Honourable Justice Stephen Breyer (H)

Sir Sydney Lipworth QC (H)

The Honourable Justice Anthony Kennedy (H)

MASTERS OF THE BENCH

The Rt Hon Lord Sumption OBE (S)

Tom Shields Esq QC (O)

David Widdicombe Esq QC (U)

Leonard Woodley Esq QC (U)

Sir Mark Havelock-Allan Bt QC (O)

John Willmer Esq QC (S)

Nicholas Wood Esq (O)

His Honour Simon Brown QC (O)

The Rt Hon The Lord Woolf CH FBA (S)

Dame Elizabeth Slade DBE (O)

Jonathan Acton Davis Esq QC (B)

The Rt Hon Sir Andrew Leggatt (S)

Anthony Temple Esq QC (O)

The Rt Hon Sir Roy Beldam (S)

The Rt Rev and Rt Hon Lord Carey of Clifton (H)

Sir Oliver Popplewell (O)

Judge Martin Feldman (H)

Sir William Macpherson of Cluny TD (U)

Sir Ivan Lawrence QC (B)

The Hon Sir Charles Morrison QC (U)

James Goudie Esq QC (S)

The Rt Hon the Lord Mackay of Clashfern KT (H)

Christopher Lockhart-Mummery Esq QC (B)

Professor Francis Reynolds DCL FBA QC (H)

Sir David Steel (S)

Sir Michael Morland (O)

Neil Kaplan CBE QC SC (HK) (S)

Nigel Inglis-Jones Esq QC (U)

The Rt Hon Sir William Gage (S)

The Rt Hon the Lord Scott of Foscote (S)

Paul Purnell Esq QC (U)

Sir Thomas Legg KCB QC (S)

His Honour Jonathan Playford QC (S)

Mark Tennant Esq (O)

Sir Thayne Forbes (S)

Sir Richard Curtis QC (U)

Sir Brian Jenkins GBE (H)

Sir Allan Green KCB QC (U)

Murray Pickering Esq QC (O)

Neville Thomas Esq QC (U)

The Baroness Mallalieu QC (U)

Sir Christopher Holland (S)

Anthony Anderson Esq QC (U)

Sir Edward Evans-Lombe (U)

Harry Turcan Esq (S)

The Rt Hon the Lord Irvine of Lairg (S)

Gerald Angel Esq (S)

Her Honour Shirley Anwyl QC (S)

The Rt Hon Sir Richard Buxton (U)

Eben Hamilton Esq QC (S)

Professor Sir Royston Goode CBE FBA QC (H)

Stanley Brodie Esq QC (S) Richard Southwell Esq QC (S) The Rt Hon Sir Konrad Schiemann (O) The Rt Hon Sir John Chadwick (O) The Rt Hon Sir Bernard Rix (O) The Rt Hon Sir David Keene (O) The Rt Hon Sir Anthony May (O)

The Rt Hon Sir Jonathan Parker (S)

The Rt Hon Viscount Runciman of Doxford CBE FBA (H)

Vivian Robinson Esq QC (B) The Rt Hon Sir John Laws (O) The Rt Hon Lady Justice Hallett DBE (J) Simon Thorley Esq QC (O) The Rt Hon Sir Stephen Tomlinson (O) The Rt Hon Sir Martin Moore-Bick (O) His Honour Donald Cryan (Hon) LLD (O) David Pittaway Esq QC (B) The Rt Hon Dame Elizabeth Gloster DBE (O)

154

Richard Salter Esq QC (B)

Richard Rampton Esq QC (S) Sir Robert Owen (S) Christopher Purchas Esq QC (U) Miss Pamela Scriven QC (B) Nicholas Padfield Esq QC (S) The Rt Hon Sir Patrick Elias (S) Michael Shorrock Esq QC (S) Sir Gordon Langley (S) Sir Christopher Pitchers (S) Nigel Pascoe Esq QC (S) Her Honour Judge Korner CMG QC (J) Oliver Sells Esq QC (B) Kenneth Aylett Esq (S) Andrew Tidbury Esq (B) Sir Timothy Walker (S) Nicholas Merriman Esq QC (S) Robin De Wilde Esq QC (S) Peter Birkett Esq QC (B) Robin Purchas Esq QC (B)

Masters of the Bench

Sir Geoffrey Nice QC (B)

The Rt Hon The Baroness Clark of Calton QC (O)

Sir Frederick Crawford DL FR Eng (H) The Baroness Deech DBE QC (Hon) (S) Professor Sir Ian Kennedy QC FBA (H) Sir Brian Keith (S) His Honour John Weeks QC (U) Michael Spencer Esq QC (B) His Honour Roderick Denyer QC (S) Victor Temple Esq QC (S) Sir Richard Plender (U) Sir Robert Akenhead (O)

George Staple Esq CB QC (H) Michael de Navarro Esq QC (S) Godfrey Carey Esq QC (O) Rex Tedd Esq QC (B) Johnny Veeder Esq QC (S) His Honour Toby Hooper QC (O) James Guthrie Esq QC (B) Sir Raymond Jack (U) His Honour David Hodson (U)

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

His Honour Judge Pegden QC (J) David Wilby Esq QC (O) The Hon Mr Justice Goss (J) His Honour Judge Leonard QC (J) Miss Alison Foster QC (B) Roger Stewart Esq QC (B) The Hon Mr Justice Ribeiro (H) Professor Christopher Forsyth (A) Dr Mads Andenas QC (Hon) PhD MA DPhil (A) Professor John Spencer CBE QC (A)

His Honour Richard McGregor-Johnson (O)

The Rt Rev and Rt Hon Dr the Lord Williams of Oystermouth (H)

Dr Pehr Gyllenhammar (H)

Malcolm Bishop Esq QC (B)

Sir Alan Wilkie (O)

Mrs Gay Martin (O)

Peter Joyce Esq QC (B)

Philip Sapsford Esq QC (U)

Christopher Moger Esq QC (B)

His Honour Judge Bourne-Arton QC (J)

The Hon Philip Havers QC (B)

The Hon Mr Justice Nugee (J)

His Honour Judge Iain Hughes QC (J)

Professor Dr Jürgen Schwarze (H)

Tim Charlton Esq QC (B)

His Honour David Paget QC (O)

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Floyd (J)

Her Honour Elisabeth Fisher (O)

The Hon Mr Justice Patrick Chan (H)

Sir Peter Openshaw (O)

The Rt Hon The Lord Sacks (H)

His Honour Christopher Critchlow (J)

His Honour John Adams (S)

Professor Sir Alan Dashwood KCMG CBE QC (B)

The Rt Hon the Lord Macdonald of River Glaven QC (O)

Sibghatullah Kadri Esq QC (S)

Nigel Pleming Esq QC (B)

The Rt Hon Sir Dennis Byron (V)

Robert Webb Esq QC FRAeS (B)

His Honour Judge Owen Davies QC (J)

Terence Coghlan Esq QC (S)

Nicholas Davidson Esq QC (B)

Charles George Esq QC (O)

Andrew Caldecott Esq QC (B)

Miss Rosamund Horwood-Smart QC (O)

The Rt Hon the Lord Cullen of Whitekirk KT (H)

Jonathan Gaisman Esq QC (B)

Stuart Brown Esq QC (B)

M Jean-Paul Costa (H)

The Hon Mr Justice Popplewell (J)

His Honour Judge Everall QC (J)

M Luzius Wildhaber (H)

The Hon Mr Justice Moor (J)

His Honour John Milford QC (S)

Michael Austin-Smith Esq QC (S)

Sir Alex Allan KCB (H)

Stephen Solley Esq QC (O)

His Honour Peter Collier QC (O)

Sir Edward Caldwell KCB QC(Hon) (H)

Dorian Lovell-Pank Esq QC (B)

Michael Redfern Esq QC (B)

Ian Laing Esq CBE DL (H)

The Hon Mr Justice Field (S)

Robert Smith Esq QC (S)

Sir Ian McKellen CH CBE (H)

Sir Hayden Phillips GCB DL (H)

Andrew Trollope Esq QC (B)

David Spens Esq QC (B)

His Honour Denis Orde (O)

Iain Milligan Esq QC (U)

His Honour Judge Ford QC (O)

The Rt Hon Sir John MacDermott (H)

Sir Robert Francis Esq QC (B)

His Honour Judge Hammerton (J)

Sir Jeffery Bowman FCA (H)

Miss Elizabeth-Anne Gumbel QC (B)

His Honour Thomas Crowther QC (U)

Justice Richard Goldstone (H)

John Marrin Esq QC (B)

His Honour Nicholas Coleman (O)

His Honour Michael Fysh QC SC (S)

Richard Drabble Esq QC (B)

Sir Brian Williamson CBE (H)

David Friedman Esq QC (S)

Gavin Kealey Esq QC (B)

Dr Stephen Cretney (A)

Nicholas Stewart Esq QC (B)

His Honour Judge Burrell QC (J)

The Rt Hon Lord Hamilton (H)

Timothy Raggatt Esq QC (B)

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Flaux (J)

The Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG (H)

Dame Laura Cox DBE (U)

Edward Fitzgerald Esq CBE QC (B)

Philip Mott Esq QC (S)

The Rt Hon Lady Black DBE (J)

His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman QC (J)

Thomas Seymour Esq (B)

The Rt Rev and Rt Hon Lord Habgood (H)

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Nicholas Green (J)

Sir Nicholas Stadlen (O)

Sir Richard Gibbs (U)

Sir Stuart Lipton (H)

David Streatfeild-James Esq QC (B)

The Rt Hon The Lord Collins of Mapesbury LLD FBA (O)

Anthony Porten Esq QC (U)

The Hon Mr Justice Dingemans (J)

His Honour Nicholas Browne QC (O)

The Hon Mrs Justice Carr DBE (J)

Dame Caroline Swift DBE (O) Justin Fenwick Esq QC (B) Thomas Baxendale Esq (U) Kevin de Haan Esq QC (B) His Honour Jeffrey Burke QC (U) Ian Glick Esq QC (B) The Rt Hon the Lord Falconer of Thoroton (O) The Rt Hon Jack Straw (S) Chief Justice Yong Pung How (H) Judge Richard Posner (H) Professor Andrew Ashworth PhD DCL FBA (A)

KEY B – Barrister Governing Bencher

O – Other Governing Bencher

J – Judicial Governing Bencher

H – Honorary Bencher

S – Senior Bencher

L – Legal Academic Bencher

U – sUpernumerary Bencher

V – oVerseas Bencher 155

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Dr Mary Malecka (O)

Peter Wright Esq QC (B)

Peter Village Esq QC (B)

The Reverend and Valiant Master of the Temple (H)

Miss Deborah Eaton QC (B)

Ian Stern Esq QC (B)

The Hon Mr Justice Lavender (J)

Miss Raquel Agnello QC (B)

His Honour Charles Harris QC (O)

Professor the Worshipful Mark Hill QC (B)

His Honour Judge Mark Brown (J)

Ms Patricia Robertson QC (B)

John Ross Esq QC (B)

The Rt Hon Dame Victoria Sharp DBE, President of the Queen’s Bench Division (J)

Sam Stein Esq QC (B)

Professor Michael Lerego QC (O)

The Honourable Tan Sri Dato’ James Foong Cheng Yuen (V)

The Rt Hon the Baroness Prashar CBE (H)

Adrian Brunner Esq QC (S) Nicholas Asprey Esq (O) Augustus Ullstein Esq QC (S)

Jeremy Storey Esq QC (B) James Turner Esq QC (B) The Hon Mrs Justice Lang DBE (J) The Hon Justice Salihu Moddibo Alfa Belgore (V)

Professor Nicola Lacey CBE FBA (H)

Guy Beringer Esq QC CBE (H)

The Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia LVO (H)

David Yale Esq QC (A)

Professor Timothy Endicott (A)

His Honour Judge Nigel Lithman QC (J)

Professor Timothy Macklem (A)

Her Honour Judge Hildyard QC (J)

Professor Julian Webb (A)

His Honour Judge Simon Davis (J)

Andrew Goodman Esq (B)

The Rt Hon Lord Reed (J)

Senior District Judge Arbuthnot (J)

Grahame Aldous Esq QC (B)

His Honour Inigo Bing (O)

His Excellency Judge Kenneth Keith ONZ KBE (H)

Matthew Reeve Esq (B)

Charles Parsley Esq (B)

The Hon Mr Justice Russell Coleman (V)

Miss Julia Dias QC (B)

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Moylan (J)

His Eminence Cardinal Vincent Nichols MA MEd STL (H)

The Hon Mrs Justice Finola O’Farrell DBE (J)

His Honour Mervyn Roberts (O)

Michael Humphries Esq QC (B)

Robert Rhodes Esq QC (B)

Ms Alison Levitt QC (B)

His Honour David Tyzack QC (S)

His Honour Stephen Oliver-Jones QC (O)

Patrick Upward Esq QC (B)

His Honour Charles Wide QC (U)

His Honour Judge Melville QC (J)

Thomas Woodcock Esq CVO DL FSA (O)

Miss Sally Smith QC (B)

Professor Barry Rider OBE (A)

His Honour Judge Jeremy Richardson QC (J)

The Hon Mrs Justice Juliet May DBE (J)

Nigel Giffin Esq QC (B)

Professor Robert Walsh (A)

The Hon Mr Justice Jonathan Swift (J)

The Honourable Justice Baragwanath KNZM QC (V)

Professor Cheryl Thomas QC (A)

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Peter Jackson (J)

John Griffith-Jones Esq (H)

Miss Tracy Ayling QC (B)

Michael Payton Esq QC (H)

The Hon Mr Justice Dove (J)

Ms Libby Purves OBE (H)

The Honourable Justice Iain Morley (V)

Judge Paul Mahoney (V)

Dr Colin Ong QC (V)

Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon (H)

Miss Helen Davies QC (B)

Nigel Aiken Esq QC SC (V)

The Rt Hon Lord Bonomy LLD (H)

The Most Revd and Rt Hon Justin Welby (H)

Judge Koen Lenaerts (H)

Richard Benson Esq QC (B)

His Honour Simon Tonking DL (O)

Mark George Esq QC (B)

Paul Bleasdale Esq QC (B)

His Honour Judge Roger Thomas QC (J)

Andrew Tait Esq QC (B)

Michael Burrows Esq QC (B)

Simon O’Toole Esq (B)

Jonathan Laidlaw Esq QC (B)

The Hon Mr Justice Cobb (J)

Rory Phillips Esq QC (B)

The Hon Sir Peter Caruana KCMG QC (V)

Martin Griffiths Esq QC (B)

Dr Navinchandra Ramgoolam GCSK FRCP (V)

Sir Richard Heaton KCB (U)

Stuart Catchpole Esq QC (B)

His Majesty King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck of Bhutan (H)

His Honour Judge Hiddleston (J)

Iain Christie Esq (O)

His Honour John Wait (O)

His Honour Giles Forrester (O)

Daniel Toledano Esq QC (B)

His Honour Judge Philip Waller CBE (J)

His Honour Alistair McCreath (O)

Miss Sarah Clarke QC (B)

The Rt Hon The Lord Maude of Horsham (O)

His Honour Gregory Stone QC (S)

Adam Constable Esq QC (B)

Michael Pooles Esq QC (B)

Patrick O’Connor Esq QC (B)

Dr Vanessa Davies (O)

The Hon Mr Justice Martin Spencer (J)

James Corbett Esq QC (B)

The Rt Hon Lord Menzies (H)

Her Honour Judge Patricia Lynch QC (J)

His Honour Judge Bayliss QC (J)

The Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis (H)

Miss Susan Jacklin (J)

Steven Kay Esq QC (B)

Lyonpo Sonam Tobgye (H)

Aftab Jafferjee QC (B)

Sir David Green CB QC (B)

Philip Punwar Esq (V)

Richard Barraclough Esq QC (B)

Professor the Hon George Hampel QC AM (A)

Sir Wyn Williams (O)

Masters of the Bench

Christopher Brougham Esq QC (B) Nicholas Atkinson Esq QC (B) Miss Susanna FitzGerald QC (B) (Stephen) Pownall Esq QC (B) Sir Bernard Eder (U) The Hon Mr Justice Davis (J) Richard Lissack Esq QC (B) Abbas Lakha Esq QC (B) Her Honour Frances Kirkham CBE (H) The Rt Hon Lady Justice King DBE (J) The Hon Mr Justice Michael Soole (J) His Honour Ian Grainger (O) Miss Margaret Bowron QC (B) His Honour Judge Seed QC (J) Charles Gibson Esq QC (B) The Rt Hon Lady Justice Simler DBE (J)

156

His Honour Judge Blair QC (J) Alistair Schaff Esq QC (B) His Honour Judge Neil Clark (J) H N Matovu (B) The Hon Mrs Justice Christina Lambert (J) Miss Taryn Lee QC (B) Philip Moser Esq QC (B) His Honour Judge Simon (J) Alexander Hall Taylor Esq (B)

Tim Lord Esq QC (B)

Masters of the Bench

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

The Hon Mr Justice MacDonald (J)

Cyrus Larizadeh Esq QC (B)

Christopher Sharp Esq QC (B)

Miss Leigh-Ann Mulcahy QC (B)

His Honour Judge Tolson QC (J)

Dr Annette Prandzioch (O)

His Honour Judge Sloan QC (J)

Patrick Goodall Esq QC (B)

His Honour Judge Robinson (J)

Simon Baker Esq (B)

Thomas Kark Esq QC (B)

Ms Catherine Callaghan QC (B)

Her Honour Judge Munro QC (J)

Peter Clark Esq (B)

Her Honour Judge Gillian Matthews QC (J)

Faisel Sadiq Esq (B)

Miss Ruth Henke QC (B)

Miss Hui Ling McCarthy QC (B)

David Wolfson Esq QC (B)

Ms Kay Firth-Butterfield (V)

Paul Greaney Esq QC (B)

The Hon Mrs Justice Cutts DBE (J)

Dr Catherine MacKenzie (O)

The Rt Hon Lady Dorrian (V)

Kieron Beal Esq QC (B)

Lawrence Teh Esq (V)

Miss Saira Kabir Sheikh QC (B)

Professor Thom Brooks (A)

Justice George Wei (V)

Michael Stevenson Esq (H)

Timothy Le Cocq QC (V)

The Rt Hon the Lord Fowler (H)

Sir Michael Arthur KCMG (H)

Miles Young Esq (H)

Dr Tom Kinninmont (H)

YA Dato’ Faizah Jamaludin (V)

Professor John Wass MA MD FRCP (H)

The Rt Hon The Baroness Buscombe (O)

His Honour Judge Farrell QC (J)

His Honour Judge Townsend (J)

His Honour Judge Aaronberg QC (J)

His Honour Judge Oliver (J)

Lloyd Williams Esq QC (B)

Ms Alexandra Beldam (O)

Miss Penelope Reed QC (B)

His Honour Judge Menary QC (J)

His Honour Judge Lucraft QC (J)

Her Honour Judge Nicholls (J)

Ian Winter Esq QC (B)

Miss Lorna Meyer QC (B)

Adrian Keeling Esq QC (B)

District Judge Foster (J)

District Judge Ikram (J)

Kyri Argyropoulos Esq (B)

Her Honour Judge Evans-Gordon (J)

Dr Paul Brown QC (B)

Andrew Warnock Esq QC (B)

Her Honour Judge Clemitson (J)

Thomas Mitcheson Esq QC (B)

His Honour Judge Bird (J)

Ms Harini Iyengar (B)

Upper Tribunal Judge Frances (J)

Ms Minka Braun (B)

Oliver Saxby Esq QC (B)

The Hon Mr Justice Butler (V)

Benjamin Myers Esq QC (B)

Professor Iyiola Solanke (A)

Jason Sugarman Esq QC (B)

Edward Chandler Esq (H)

John Kimbell Esq QC (B)

Ms Fiona Gilmore (H)

His Honour Judge Petts (J)

Dame Clare Marx DBE DL FRCS (H)

Rhys Taylor Esq (B)

The Hon Mr Justice Nasir-Ul-Mulk (V)

His Highness Tunku Besar Seri Menanti Negeri Sembilan (H)

Charles Bagot Esq QC (B)

The Rev Hugh Mead (H)

The Rt Hon David Lidington CBE MP (H)

His Honour Jeremy Carey DL (O)

The Hon Mr Justice Williams (J)

Her Honour Judge Bancroft (J)

The Hon Mr Justice Choudhury (J)

Her Honour Judge Corbett (J)

The Hon Mr Justice Julian Knowles (J)

His Honour Judge The Reverend James Patrick (J)

Patrick Maddams Esq Hon FRIBA (H)

His Excellency Sir Elliott Belgrave GCMG KA CHB QC (V) The Hon Reginald Rhoda Esq CBE (V) Datuk Sulong Matjeraie (V) Mrs Alison Saunders CB (B) Ami Feder Esq (B) His Honour David Mitchell (O) John Ryder Esq QC (B) Mark Wyeth Esq QC (B) Jeremy Hill-Baker Esq (B) Crispin Aylett Esq QC (B) Richard Humphreys Esq QC (B) The Hon Mrs Justice Roberts DBE (J) Miss Máirín Casey (O) Miss Eleanor Laws QC (B) Martin Goudie Esq QC (B) Alastair Hodge Esq (B) Graham Chapman Esq QC (B) Ms Desiree Artesi (B) Miss Fiona Jackson (B) Andrew Cayley Esq CMG QC (O) The Rt Hon The Lord Hunt Of Wirral MBE (H) The Hon Philip Remnant CBE ACA (H) The Rt Hon Robert Buckland QC MP (O) Professor Sir Roger Scruton FBA FRSL (H) Professor Spyridon Flogaitis (A) Paul Infield Esq (B) Stuart Denney Esq QC (B) Miss Anne Richardson (B) The Hon Simon Davenport QC (B) Leslie Thomas Esq QC (B) Miss Sara Lawson QC (B) Christopher Quinlan Esq QC (B) Miss Camilla Bingham QC (B) Ms Anneliese Day QC (B) Scott Matthewson Esq (B) Miss Kelyn Bacon QC (B) Miss Rachel Spearing (B)

Dr Anselmo Reyes (V) The Rt Hon Michael Gove MP (H) The Honourable Justice Ann Ainslie-Wallace (A)

Professor Nigel Lowe QC (Hon) (S) Michael McParland Esq QC (B) His Honour Judge Simon Phillips QC (J) Miss Elizabeth McGrath QC (B)

Carsten Zatschler Esq (B) Miss Diya Sen Gupta QC (B) Joseph Hart Esq (B) Miss Elizabeth Fitzgerald (B) Miss Sonia Nolten (B) Miss Rehana Azib (B) District Judge Prest QC (J) Dr Tunde Okewale Esq MBE (B) Miss Kathryn Arnot Drummond (B)

Nicholas Griffin Esq QC (B)

KEY B – Barrister Governing Bencher

O – Other Governing Bencher

J – Judicial Governing Bencher

H – Honorary Bencher

S – Senior Bencher

L – Legal Academic Bencher

U – sUpernumerary Bencher

V – oVerseas Bencher 157

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

People Finder

PEOPLE FINDER

TREASURY

020 7797 8250

enquiries@innertemple.org.uk

Sub-Treasurer

Greg Dorey CVO

020 7797 8177

subtreasurer@innertemple.org.uk

Executive Assistant to the Sub-Treasurer

Jennie Collis Price

020 7797 8177

jcollisprice@innertemple.org.uk

Personal Assistant to the Sub-Treasurer

Wanda Szwed

020 7797 8179

wszwed@innertemple.org.uk

Director of Treasury Office

Henrietta Amodio

020 7797 8182

hamodio@innertemple.org.uk

Assistant to the Director of Treasury Office

Nadia Ruiz

020 7797 8182

nruiz@innertemple.org.uk

Member Events and Administration Manager

Kate Peters

020 7797 8183

kpeters@innertemple.org.uk

Member Events and Administration Assistant

Rosy Humphrey

020 7797 8264

rhumphrey@innertemple.org.uk

Membership Registrar

Jude Hodgson

020 7797 8206

jhodgson@innertemple.org.uk

Records and Membership Assistant

Jacqueline Fenton

020 7797 8241

jfenton@innertemple.org.uk

Archivist (Wednesday–Friday)

Celia Pilkington

020 7797 8251

cpilkington@innertemple.org.uk

Assistant Archivist

Ben Taylor

21 7797 8251

btaylor@innertemple.org.uk

EDUCATION and TRAINING

020 7797 8208

education@innertemple.org.uk

Dean of Education

Professor Cheryl Thomas

020 7797 8259

Director of Education

Fiona Fulton

020 7797 8189

ffulton@innertemple.org.uk

Outreach Manager

Struan Campbell

0207 797 8214

scampbell@innertemple.org.uk

Education Manager

Julia Armfield

020 7797 8207

jarmfield@innertemple.org.uk

Education Co-ordinator and Assistant to the Director of Education

Kerry Upham

020 7797 8189

kupham@innertemple.org.uk

Professional Training Manager

David Miller

020 7797 8209

dmiller@innertemple.org.uk

Education Co-ordinator

Richard Loveridge

020 7797 8212

rloveridge@innertemple.org.uk

Scholarships and Students Manager

Sellisha Lockyer

020 7797 8210

slockyer@innertemple.org.uk

Scholarships and Students Co-ordinator

Georgina Everatt

020 7797 8211

geveratt@innertemple.org.uk

Outreach Co-ordinator

Daisy Mortimer

020 7797 8262

dmortimer@innertemple.org.uk

Education Co-ordinator

Edwina Koroma

020 7797 8213

ekoroma@innertemple.org.uk

COLLECTOR’S DEPARTMENT

020 7797 8187

collectors@innertemple.org.uk

Collector

David Bartlett

020 7797 8185

dbartlett@innertemple.org.uk

Human Resources Manager

Zakiyah Kihl

020 7797 8225

zkihl@innertemple.org.uk

Financial Controller

Ania Johnson

020 7797 8242

ajohnson@innertemple.org.uk

Assistant Collector

Emma Prayer

020 7797 8186

eprayer@innertemple.org.uk

Accounts and Payroll Clerk

Joanna Zawada

020 7797 8187

jzawada@innertemple.org.uk

Head of IT / Systems Librarian

Peter Higgins

020 7797 8220

phiggins@innertemple.org.uk

Senior Network Administrator

Jonathan Delaney

020 7797 8188

jdelaney@innertemple.org.uk

Technology and Communications Officer

Paul Clark

020 7797 8229

pclark@innertemple.org.uk

LIBRARY

020 7797 8217

library@innertemple.org.uk

Librarian and Keeper of Manuscripts

Margaret Clay

020 7797 8215

mclay@innertemple.org.uk

Deputy Librarian

Tracey Dennis

020 7797 8248

tdennis@innertemple.org.uk

Assistant Librarian (enquiries and cataloguing) Michael Frost

020 7797 8292

mfrost@innertemple.org.uk

Assistant Librarian (enquiries and acquisitions) Sally McLaren

020 7797 8221

smclaren@innertemple.org.uk

Senior Library Assistant

Simon Hindley

020 7797 8222

shindley@innertemple.org.uk

Library Assistant

Lucia Asnaghi

020 7797 8219

lasnaghi@innertemple.org.uk

Library Administrator

Tina Williams

020 7797 8216

twilliams@innertemple.org.uk

Enquiry Desk

020 7797 8217/8218

SURVEYOR’S DEPARTMENT

020 7797 8200

surveyors@innertemple.org.uk

Director of Properties and Surveyor

Richard Snowdon

020 7797 8203

rsnowdon@innertemple.org.uk

Capital Programme Manager

Nicholas Waring

020 7797 8192

nwaring@innertemple.org.uk

Estates Support Officer

Lukas Jelinek

020 7797 8199

ljelinek@innertemple.org.uk

Office Manager (Job Share)

Rene Hicks 020 7797 8173/8200 and Anne Mason

rhicks@innertemple.org.uk or amason@innertemple.org.uk

Estates Officer

Albena Ahjem

020 7797 8202

aahjem@innertemple.org.uk

Mechanical and Electrical Engineer

Darren Readings

020 7797 8198

dreadings@innertemple.org.uk

158

People Finder

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

Works Supervisor

Paul Simmonds

Facilities Foreman

Delbert Brooks (Julius Rutherfoord) 020 7797 8195

020 7797 8190

psimmonds@innertemple.org.uk dbrooks@innertemple.org.uk

Electrical Supervisor

Ian Ward

020 7797 8197

iward@innertemple.org.uk

Plumbing and Mechanical Supervisor

Tony Baca

020 7797 8196

tbaca@innertemple.org.uk

Carpentry Supervisor

Steve Hanks

020 7797 8239

shanks@innertemple.org.uk

CATERING

020 7797 8230

catering@innertemple.org.uk

Head of Catering

Vicky Portinari

020 7797 8231

vportinari@innertemple.org.uk

Deputy Head of Catering

Priya Patel

020 7797 8233

ppatel@innertemple.org.uk

Senior Sales and Events Manager

Niamh McCarthy

020 7797 8193

nmccarthy@innertemple.org.uk

Events Supervisor

Chris Jones

020 7797 8245

cjones@innertemple.org.uk

Head Gardener

Sean Harkin

020 7797 8243

sharkin@innertemple.org.uk

Senior Gardener

Sophie Tatzkow

020 7797 8243

statzkow@innertemple.org.uk

Trainee Gardener

Paul Jabs

020 7797 8243

pjabs@innertemple.org.uk

Part-time Gardener

Emily Blackmore

020 7797 8243

eblackmore@innertemple.org.uk

Seasonal Gardener

Charlotte Schwendinger

020 7797 8243

cschwendinger@innertemple.org.uk

PORTERS (including weekends and silent hours)

020 7797 8255

porters@innertemple.org.uk

Head Porter

Robert Ellis

020 7797 8255

rellis@innertemple.org.uk

Under Porter 1

Robert Grier

020 7797 8255

rgrier@innertemple.org.uk

Under Porter 2

Andy Dickson

020 7797 8255

adickson@innertemple.org.uk

020 7583 1034

tudorlodge@innertemple.org.uk

GARDEN

Tudor Street Gate and Night Security TEMPLE CHURCH Master of the Temple

The Rev Robin Griffith-Jones

020 7353 8559

master@templechurch.com

Reader

The Rev Mark Hatcher

020 7353 8559

reader@templechurch.com

Verger

Matthew Power

020 7353 3470

verger@templechurch.com

Administrator

Catherine de Satgé

020 7353 8559

catherine@templechurch.com

Director of Music

Roger Sayer

020 7427 5650

roger@templechurch.com

Assistant Director of Music

Thomas Allery

020 7427 5650

thomas@templechurch.com

Liturgical Organist

Charles Andrews

020 7427 5650

charles@templechurch.com

Music Administrator

Elisabeth Munns

020 7427 5650

elisabeth@templechurch.com

Executive Producer

Carol Butler

020 7427 5641

carol@templechurch.com

Marketing Manager

Claire Hargrove

020 7427 5641

claire@templechurch.com

Events Assistant

Poppy Damazer

020 7427 5641

poppy@templechurch.com

MUSIC OFFICE

TEMPLE MUSIC FOUNDATION (TMF)

COUNCIL OF THE INNS OF COURT (COIC) (at Gray’s Inn)

020 7822 0760 info@coic.org.uk

Director of COIC

James Wakefield

020 7822 0761

jwakefield@coic.org.uk

PA to Director of COIC

Samantha Anderson

020 7822 0762

sanderson@coic.org.uk

Head of Quality & Standards

Joanna Robinson

jrobinson@coic.org.uk

Digital Manager

Adrian Clarke

aclarke@coic.org.uk

020 7822 0769

BAR TRIBUNALS & ADJUDICATION SERVICE (BTAS) (at Gray’s Inn)

020 3432 7350 info@tbtas.org.uk

COIC Director of Operations

Andy Russell

020 3432 7346

andy.russell@tbtas.org.uk

BTAS Administrator

Margaret Hilson

020 3432 7348

margaret.hilson@tbtas.org.uk

THE INNS OF COURT COLLEGE OF ADVOCACY (ICCA) (at Gray’s Inn)

020 7822 0763 info@icca.ac.uk

Dean

Lynda Gibbs

020 7822 0768

lgibbs@icca.ac.uk

Operations Manager

Beth Phillips

020 7822 0764

bphillips@icca.ac.uk

Events Officer

Cara Fitzgerald

020 7822 0766

cfitzgerald@icca.ac.uk

Marketing and Communications Co-ordinator Charlotte Blanchard

020 7822 0765

cblanchard@icca.ac.uk

Head of Recruitment and Outreach

020 7822 0767

ckessling@icca.ac.uk

Chris Kessling

159

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2019–2020

CHAIRS OF BENCH COMMITTEES & SUB-COMMITTEES EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Master Treasurer ADVOCACY TRAINING COMMITTEE Master Griffiths ARCHIVES COMMITTEE Master Cryan BENCHER NOMINATION COMMITTEE Master Reader COMMUNICATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE Master Agnello EDUCATION & TRAINING COMMITTEE Master Levitt EMPLOYED BAR FORUM Master Corbett

EQUALITY, DIVERSITY & INCLUSIVITY SUB-COMMITTEE Master Simler ESTATES COMMITTEE Master Roger Stewart FINANCE SUB-COMMITTEE Master Dias (Senior Bench Auditor) INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE Master Flaux INVESTMENT SUB-COMMITTEE Master Henderson LIBRARY COMMITTEE Master Sally Smith OUTREACH COMMITTEE Master Fiona Jackson PEGASUS SCHOLARSHIP TRUST Master Guthrie PROJECT PEGASUS STEERING GROUP Master Reader

Inner Temple Committees

STUDENT SOCIETIES COMMITTEE Master Hodge TEMPLE MUSIC FOUNDATION Master Beringer TEMPLE WOMEN’S FORUM Master Taylor (Co-Convenor) TREASURER NOMINATION COMMITTEE Master Gloster (to end 2019)

MASTERS OF THE CIRCUITS AND ASSISTANT MASTERS European: Master Nicholas Green Master Beal Midland: Master Bleasdale Master Benson

SCHOLARSHIPS COMMITTEE Master O’Farrell

160

BAR COUNCIL Master Fetherstonhaugh Master Rhodes Rehana Popal (BLC Rep) BARRISTERS’ BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION Master Fisher Master Toledano COUNCIL OF THE INNS OF COURT Master Helen Davies Sub-Treasurer COIC MATCHED FUNDED PUPILLAGE SCHEME Master Scriven INNS’ STRATEGIC ADVISORY GROUP Master Treasurer Master Reader Master Helen Davies Sub-Treasurer

Northern Circuit: Master Birkett Master Louise Bancroft

INCORPORATED COUNCIL OF LAW REPORTING Master Bowron Master Malecka

North Eastern Circuit: Master Neil Clark Master Anne Richardson

INNS OF COURT AND BAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST Master Rory Phillips

South Eastern: Master Coleman Master Jeremy Carey Master Fiona Jackson

INNS OF COURT COLLEGE OF ADVOCACY Master Constable (Inner Temple Governor) Master MacKenzie (Academic Governor)

Wales & Chester: Master Parsley Western: Master Hiddleston Master Munro Master Quinlan

INNS OF COURT LIBRARIES LIAISON COMMITTEE Master Sally Smith INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED LEGAL STUDIES (IALS) Master Havelock-Allan SELDEN SOCIETY Master Cryan

THE TEMPLE CHURCH COMMITTEE Master Tomlinson

PUPIL SUPERVISORS SUBCOMMITTEE Master Toledano QUALIFYING SESSIONS SUBCOMMITTEE Master Rory Phillips

INNER TEMPLE REPRESENTATIVES ON EXTERNAL BODIES

MARSHALL HALL TRUST Jonathan Waite QC

TRAINING FOR THE BAR COMMITTEE Master Fetherstonhaugh TRIBUNAL APPOINTMENTS BOARD Master Simler (Chair) Master Willbourne Master Stern

“The Steinway is not only an instrument, it is a work of art of the first rank.”

CHRISTOPH ESCHENBACH S T E I N W AY A R T I S T

Steinw a y H a l l 4 4 M ary l eb o n e L an e L o nd o n W1U 2D B For m o re i n f o rm ati o n o r t o a r ran g e a p riva t e ap p o in tmen t at ou r Lo n do n s ho w ro o m s , p le ase c all:

0 2 07 487 339 1

o r em a il in f o @s t ei nwa y. co .u k

The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales

Practice Note (Relevance of Law Reporting) [2019] ICLR 1 Catchwords — Indexing of case law — Structured taxonomy of subject matter — Identification of legal issues raised in particular cases — Legal and factual context — “Words and phrases” construed — Relevant legislation — European and International instruments The common law, whose origins were said to date from the reign of King Henry II, was based on the notion of a single set of laws consistently applied across the whole of England and Wales. A key element in its consistency was the principle of stare decisis, according to which decisions of the senior courts created binding precedents to be followed by courts of equal or lower status in later cases. In order to follow a precedent, the courts first needed to be aware of its existence, which in turn meant that it had to be recorded and published in some way. Reporting of cases began in the form of the Year Books, which in the 16th century gave way to the publication of cases by individual reporters, known collectively as the Nominate Reports. However, by the middle of the 19th century, the variety of reports and the variability of their quality were such as to provoke increasing criticism from senior practitioners and the judiciary. The solution proposed was the establishment of a body, backed by the Inns of Court and the Law Society, which would be responsible for the publication of accurate coverage of the decisions of senior courts in England and Wales. The criteria for the selection of reportable cases were set down in a paper by a senior practitioner. On that basis, the Council of Law Reporting was established in 1865 and incorporated two years later as a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee. Since then it had published The Law Reports, the Weekly Law Reports, the Industrial Cases Reports, the Business Law Reports and the Public and Third Sector Reports, as well as a Consolidated Index to its own and other leading series of law reports. With the advent of computers and the establishment of the internet, all the law reports and the index data were converted into a format suitable for online publication and made available on the ICLR’s own legal research platform (iclr.co.uk) as well as being licensed to certain third party legal databases. On the question whether ICLR was still relevant and useful — Held, (1) that the administration of justice in a common law jurisdiction in accordance with the principle of stare decisis depended upon the availability of accurate reports of binding precedents; that there was a need for a consistent and comprehensive approach to the reporting of legal decisions, supplied at a cost and speed of publication consistent with the maintenance of the highest editorial standards of accuracy and reliability; and that, accordingly, ICLR continued to perform an essential role in supporting legal education and the administration of justice. Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales v Attorney-General [1972] Ch 73, CA considered. (2) That the digitisation of the reports facilitated not only the rapid and efficient location of relevant cases by way of electronic research, but also permitted the enrichment of the underlying data and the provision of links and associations with other cases and content in ways that would not be possible in the two-dimensional print universe; that continued research into the possibilities of such enrichment and interlinking was therefore an essential component of the future development of legal information; and that, accordingly, both ICLR’s legal database at iclr.co.uk and ICLR&D as its research and development arm served a useful and valuable function and deserved the support of all legal professionals and educators.