The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020 by The Inner Temple

TREASURER

2021

YEAR

2020

BOOK

Guy Fetherstonhaugh QC

From the Editor

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

FROM THE EDITOR Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021 Treasurer: Guy Fetherstonhaugh QC Reader: Her Honour Judge Deborah Taylor Reader Elect: Sir Robert Francis QC 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, MPP Image Creation, Paul Clark, Inner Temple photograph archive Yearbook Design: Jon Ashby | Noun Ltd, 10 Kingshill Court, High Wycombe, Bucks HP13 5FN wearenoun.com Brandworld Design: SomeOne, 67 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4QS someoneinlondon.com

Our cover this year is a nod to the new normal: a gallery view of some of our members game enough to provide us with a picture of their working spaces. At the beginning of this year, I had an editorial planned (honestly, I can show my working), one that would touch on how much Inner Temple is doing to foster social mobility, to better include practitioners on Circuits and to facilitate state-of-the-art education. As you will see all this continues, thanks to the magnificent staff and members who tirelessly drive all such initiatives. It is, however, happening somewhat differently from how anyone planned. These are indeed difficult times, but I am heartened by how much we have achieved; and although nothing truly replaces the conviviality of meeting in person, some may quite like attending lectures in their slippers. No admissions are made thereby.

Above all, this Yearbook reminds me that even though our community must now interact remotely, we are still a community. Our interactions are just as important – if not more so – than they ever were. As usual, my work on this book mostly consisted of wondering out loud if all the hard graft was still being done by Henrietta Amodio, Nadia Ruiz and the team. Happily, it was. I have also valued enormously the input from Master of the Yearbook, Simon O’Toole and from James Batten of the Bar Liaison Committee. Without these people, and everyone you see below, I would still be looking confused with my microphone on mute. 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

Celia Pilkington, Nadia Ruiz, Henrietta Amodio, Daisy Mortimer and Julia Armﬁeld

CONTENTS

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

From the Editor

Contents

Emma Hynes I

From the Treasurer

COVID-19: The Inn’s Hardship Scheme for the Benefit of its Members T

4 6

The Coronavirus Act 2020

Temple Women’s Forum: 10 Planned Breaks and Return to the Bar T

Bar Council Employed Bar Awards 2020: The Legal Team of the Year

Profiles of The Inner Temple Winners in the Bar Council Employed Bar Awards 2020 A

History Society Review

Celebrate the Life: Master Stephen Williamson

Wellbeing at the Inn

Master Rachel Spearing

Social Context of the Law: Is the Presumption of Innocence Alive and Well? T

Master Heather Hallett and Master Tracy Ayling

Celebrate the Life: Master Laws C

Timeline: Extracts from the Archives 16

The Times and Master Mark Hill A

The Archivist C

Making the Rule of Law a Daily Reality

[CONTENT WARNING]

Master Rebecca Dix T

READER’S LECTURE SERIES

Master Anthony Hughes

Simon Regis and Saoirse Cowley

The Master of the Temple RL

Jonathan Waite QC T

Unknown Warrior: Remembrance Sunday 2019: Temple Church TC

The Archivist L

Library Facilities and Services

Education & Training

Master James Goss and David Williamson

Lawyers and Diplomats: Temple Diplomats from the mid-16th to the mid-20th century A

The Sub-Treasurer 25

The Council of The Inns Of Court COIC

Tackling Institutionalised Racism: The Inquiry into The History of Eugenics at UCL T

Master Iyiola Solanke [CONTENT WARNING]

Pegasus Scholars

Social Context of the Law: Britain’s Unwritten Constitution T

76 86

Master Jonathan Sumption and Professor Vernon Bogdanor A

The Trial of Queen Caroline

The Archivist C READER’S LECTURE SERIES RL

Memory As Evidence

Professor David Shanks

Celebrated Lives

The Library’s Commonwealth Law Collection L

92 96

The Deputy Librarian

Printing Press or Coffee House: How Should the State Regulate Social Media? T

James Kane

Contents

Social Context of the Law: Does the Bar Need to Communicate and Market Itself More in the Modern World? T

100

The Inn’s Silver Collection

17th-Century Gifts of Silver: The Princess Royal and Bishop Morley

The Wild and Ridiculous Doctrine of Equality

103

104

The Price of Freedom: A Brief Historical Introduction

News from the Temple Church Choir

125

The Director of Music T

The Inner Temple on Tour

126

In Memoriam

128

Richard Parsons T

122

Dr Andy Hayward

Master of the Silver A

READER’S LECTURE SERIES RL

Master Miles Young, Master Helen Davies and John Shaw A

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

106

Volker G Heinz G

Inner Haven

110

The Head Gardener

Weddings and Baptisms at the Temple Church TC

Project Pegasus

112

The League of Nations

114

The Summer Party from Years Past

130

Bar Liaison Committee

132

New Silks 2020

134

The Archives Assistant

129

136

Masters of the Bench

138

People Finder

142

Committees

144

READER’S LECTURE SERIES RL

Bridging the Knowledge Gap

116

Master Anthony Hughes

The Work of The Bar Liaison Committee: Election Time is Here T

118

Zachary Bredemear

Temple big picnic

120

KEY I T C A L TC E PS RL G E COIC

INNER TEMPLE INFORMATION TREASURY CELEBRATE THE LIFE ARCHIVES LIBRARY TEMPLE CHURCH EDUCATION & TRAINING PEGASUS SCHOLARS READER’S LECTURE SERIES GARDEN ESTATES COIC 3

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

From the Treasurer

FROM THE TREASURER

I Guy Fetherstonhaugh QC © Garlinda Birkbeck

In his Journal of the Plague Year in 1665, the author records: “The Inns-of-Court were all shut up; nor were very many of the Lawyers in the Temple, or Lincolns-Inn, or Greyes-Inn, to be seen there. Every Body was at peace, there was no Occasion for Lawyers.” Thanks once again to a virus, The Inner Temple has had to vacate its premises altogether (with few exceptions) and lock its gates against the largely deserted streets of London. Those remaining throughout – the Sub-Treasurer, the Director of Properties and a maintenance team, the Porters, the Head Gardener, a very few residents and one or two members of the Bar – have found an Inn eerily empty but for the contractors working away on Project Pegasus (whose progress has been steadfastly industrious, if inevitably slowed by the pandemic). We have lived through extraordinary times since the end of March; but as I write, the strictures of lockdown are gradually easing, and we can all begin to look forward cautiously to a time when something approaching normal service may resume. Currently, although other areas of the City are humming, the Temple remains quiet. Outside its boundaries, Fleet Street’s shops are largely closed; Chancery Lane is unpeopled; and the only signs of life outside the Royal Courts of Justice are the photographers waiting to catch a glimpse of the combatants in what seems to be the only case proceeding in its many courtrooms.

At this time of year, Treasurers drafting their Yearbook article are able to draw inspiration from the rich variety of events in the Inn’s calendar, past and to come; to celebrate the Inn’s community of fellowship across the globe, some of which will have been visited during the year; and to remark the many meetings with the great and the good who people the legal world. Next year’s Yearbook will surely celebrate that which we have largely been denied this year. But this year’s article has a different and equally stirring tale to tell.

We have lived through extraordinary times since the end of March; but as I write, the strictures of lockdown are gradually easing, and we can all begin to look forward cautiously to a time when something approaching normal service may resume. It is right to start with those whose livelihoods have been threatened by the pandemic. The Inner Temple has a substantial number of barrister tenants whose work depends either upon public funding, or medical negligence cases, or housing possession claims – areas where court work has more or less ceased. The Inn has responded to calls for leniency as landlord by deferring or waiving rents for those sets who are able to establish financial hardship. Thus far, 12 sets have applied for such relief, all with positive results at the hands of the teams of interviewers led by the Reader and Master Roger Stewart. The Inn has also developed a scheme to assist

From the Treasurer

its members who fail to qualify for the government SelfEmployment Income Support Scheme, either because they are too junior to be able to file accounts or because their earnings just fall outside the government scheme limit. Its Marshall Hall Trustees, Tim Charlton QC and Jonathan Waite QC, deserve special mention for devising and administering the scheme, interviewing every single of the 69 applicants (and still counting), with £400,000 of the Inn’s funds thus far disbursed in loans or grants, with the unflagging assistance of the Inn’s Paul Clark. In addition to this, the Inn has joined with the others in advancing substantial donations to the Barristers’ Benevolent Association. Let nobody say that the Inn has not helped the Bar at this time of hardship. And so to another Charter purpose: the education of barristers. The Inn began the year having outsourced all its educational activities to King’s College and elsewhere in the vicinity; and it was then compelled to adjust yet again to accommodate the closure of all such venues. It has become topical to talk about stress-testing and resilience – and the Inn’s members and staff became the very epitome of those phrases as they arranged a full calendar of qualifying sessions (with more places than in normal times), scholarship interviews (ditto) and advocacy training. Indeed, every single one of the Inn’s committees have continued to plan, to discuss and to formulate policy. Our Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity Sub-Committee in particular have been devising policies to ensure that the Principal Officers’ June email to members concerning the iniquity of discrimination is carried forward to inform every process of the Inn. During all this activity, the availability of video platforms has enabled those members on Circuit to play a much fuller role in the Inn’s affairs. The same is true of Bench Table: before lockdown, we struggled to fill our quorum of 20 Benchers; during the last two virtual meetings, we have exceeded 90. Remote access and video platforms have enabled the Inn’s office based staff to adapt with agility to ensure business continuity. There are lessons here for how we conduct ourselves in the future.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

world of remote workers, nobody will know anybody else other than in two dimensions. That is no way for the Bar to thrive. Being a barrister is not all work, of course: those of us lucky enough to have been able to access the Garden during the lockdown will have seen what a beautiful job Sean Harkin (initially working entirely alone) has made of our green acres. Those not so lucky will have been able to access Sean’s photos and videos on Instagram. The Church, too, has risen to the occasion, with communion broadcasts and latterly virtual Evensong, while the Temple Music Foundation has delighted us with its Temple Music At Home series – surely better than any other classical music company releases. Special mention must be made of the Reverend Mark Hatcher, who used his spare capacity during the lockdown to publish an excellent monograph on his predecessor Readers of the Temple Church.

In my view, remote working does not come close to an adequate substitute for the experience of pupillage, where daily exposure to an experienced supervisor is important, if not essential. It has in the past been customary for Treasurers to end their articles by looking forward to the coming transfer of their roles to their Readers. Not so this year: with the exception of one occasion in the 19th century, when a Treasurer served for two years because of the indisposition of the Reader, for the first time since that of Grimbald Pauncefoot, who served for three years from 1715, it has been decided that I shall continue in office next year. I am grateful for the privilege – and the opportunity it will give me to write about the Inn returning to its home. I wish you all a rewarding part in that journey. Guy Fetherstonhaugh QC Master Treasurer

There are lessons too for how we work and accommodate ourselves. Many of us have set up at home, and have been enjoying the relative peace and quiet, and the lack of commuting. There are some who say that this will be the pattern of work in the future. I very much hope that it is not. In my view, remote working does not come close to an adequate substitute for the experience of pupillage, where daily exposure to an experienced supervisor is important, if not essential. And the learning experience does not stop there: the Bar is a continuous learning community as much as a professional career. By association with others at work, we keep on polishing our skills long after the end of pupillage. Those who think that remote working works overlook the fact that they already know those with whom they are in contact. In a brave new

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

COVID-19: The Inn’s Hardship Scheme for the Benefit of its Members

COVID-19:

THE INN’S HARDSHIP SCHEME FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS MEMBERS By Jonathan Waite QC From the time the lockdown was announced by the Prime Minister on 23 March 2020, it was clear that the hardest hit at the Bar would be likely to be those just starting their careers. Magistrates’ courts in particular were not equipped to accommodate the concept of social distancing and, additionally, in many instances lacked the resources to use technology for the purposes of remote hearings; even with more use of technology available to them, Crown and county courts were not able to conduct any contested hearings and yet still maintain social distancing. Accordingly, the policy of these courts was to adjourn all such hearings. Thus, the sort of work typically done by pupils, and indeed tenants seeking to establish a practice at the Bar, to a large extent disappeared at a stroke.

Shortly after the lockdown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a government scheme to provide grants to assist the self-employed (the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme, known as SEISS). However, crucially one of the criteria to qualify under SEISS was that the applicant must have filed a tax return for the year 2018–19. Since almost all second (and third) six-month pupils and first-year tenants would not have done this, they were not going to be able to fulfil this criterion. Thus, they were stranded without any financial assistance from the government, despite the fact that their means of earning fees had mostly been eradicated. Accordingly, on 31 March 2020, the Inn’s Treasurer wrote to the Chairman of the Marshall Hall Trust to seek the Trust’s involvement in devising and administering a scheme to help this cohort of what was perceived to be the hardest-hit members of the Inn. The Marshall Hall Trust is a small Inner Temple charity, which was established by the will of Sir Edward Marshall Hall QC with broad terms, namely to “assist needy members of the Inner Temple”. In more recent years, the Trust has, for the most part, received applications for financial assistance from younger members of the Inn, including students, who are finding it difficult to fund the beginning of their ambition to become a barrister. Thus, second or third six-month pupils and first-year tenants were what might be said to be a ‘natural constituency’ for the Trust. The Treasurer, with the approval of the Inn’s Executive Committee, offered a substantial sum from the Inn’s funds for distribution to this cohort of working pupils and first-year tenants. Following various meetings as how best to run a scheme, an announcement was made on 9 April on the Inn’s website that, with the collaboration of the Marshall Hall Trust, the scheme was open and thus ready to receive applications from that cohort in respect of ‘lost fees’ for the months of April, May and June. An application form was made available to download. It was perhaps fortunate that two of the Marshall Hall Trust trustees (Master Tim Charlton and the Chairman) are retired from practice at the Bar, and thus were able to devote the necessary time to consider the applications, to ensure that interviews were conducted very shortly after the receipt of an application form, to conduct the interview of the applicants (via Zoom) and determine what money should be awarded to any given applicant. In view of the urgency of the situation, the

aim, mostly fulfilled, was to interview an applicant within 2–3 days of receipt of the application form, with a decision as to the outcome conveyed to the applicant within a maximum of two days thereafter. It was also fortunate that Paul Clark, the Inn’s Technology and Communications Officer and additionally the Secretary to the Marshall Hall Trust, was available to help with the logistics, such as liaising with the applicants about timings of the interview, informing the applicants of the outcome, organising the payment of the monies and the like. It had been decided that the Inn’s scheme should largely mirror the government’s SEISS scheme and, in particular, that the maximum amount to be paid to any one applicant would be £2,500 per month, either by way of a grant or a two-year interest-free loan. It was also decided that initially at least the payments would be made in monthly tranches for April and May respectively, with a further payment in June once it was seen to what extent, if at all, the courts had resumed hearings. The applicants were asked to complete a shorter second application to cover the month of June. The basis of the assessment was to be similar to that of a claim in tort, in other words by applying the test: what would the applicant have earned (billed) but for the lockdown, but with appropriate deductions being made for chambers expenses and travel which would ordinarily have been incurred in order to earn such fees, together with a deduction for notional tax liabilities. Of course, by the very nature of the stage of their careers that the applicants had reached, there was little that could be relied upon to see what the pattern of earnings had been prior to the lockdown, and therefore attempting to forecast what would have been earned but for the lockdown was necessarily a particularly tricky exercise – for both the applicant and the interviewing panel. The scale of the financial difficulties facing second/third six-month pupils and first-year tenants is perhaps best evidenced by the fact that in the first 11 days after the announcement, which included the Easter weekend, 37 applications were received. As emerged from the ensuing interviews, many applicants had had their work diaries destroyed as a result of the lockdown and, moreover, were very concerned as to how they were going to meet their financial obligations, such as rent and utilities payments. By the end of June, a total of 68 applications had been received from members of the Inn who were second or third sixmonth pupils or first-year tenants. All had been interviewed and payments offered and made, in all cases within the timescale set. Despite being informed that they would receive an award, two applicants graciously stated that they would decline it on the basis that they had made alternative financial arrangements and did not want to deprive other applicants. Thus, the total number of applicants who received payments was 66. A majority of the applicants received the maximum of £7,500 for the three months of April, May and June. The total amount paid out from the Inn’s funds for April, May and June to these 66 applicants was £397,660.

Treasury

In view of the fact that the courts were nowhere near returning to any kind of normality by the end of June, the Treasurer and the Executive Committee decided to extend the scheme for the months of July, August and September. This extension was again to be administered by the same two Marshall Hall Trust trustees, adopting a similar approach to the assessment of what sum should be awarded to any given applicant. Once more, this was an attempt to mirror, more or less, the extension to the government’s SEISS assistance. However, there was one adjustment to the Inn’s scheme, namely that the application was to be made ‘in arrears’ or retrospectively, so that, for example, for the month of July an application form could only be completed in August. It was hoped that, with the information as to earnings already received from applicants for earlier months, together with the actual billings in July rather than an estimated figure, the calculation as to what a given applicant had lost as a result of the COVID-19 crisis for that month would therefore involve less forecasting.

This scheme is being administered by the same trustees of the Marshall Hall Trust, although given the possibility of large numbers of applications, two additional members of the Inn (one a recently elected Bencher and one a member of Hall) have been co-opted to assist in the process of assessing what the appropriate amount is to be awarded to any given applicant. Given the fact that applicants to this scheme are expected to provide evidence of their earnings over recent years, it has not been thought necessary to set up an interview process for each applicant – although, should the need arise, this can be arranged.

At the time of going to print, it is not known how many of the 66 who made applications for the April–June period will also make applications under the extension to the Inn’s scheme for July–September, but it can reasonably be anticipated that it will be a sizeable number. Following the receipt of their awards for the April–June period, many of the applicants sent emails thanking the Inn both for its generosity and the speed with which the process had been carried out, pointing out also that the award had been a real lifeline in a very difficult and uncertain time. Some also pointed out that they had previously received substantial assistance from the Inn by way of scholarships, bursaries and the like, and that this additional assistance during the COVID-19 crisis was yet more evidence of the way the Inn was prepared to help its members in achieving their desire to become a fully fledged barrister.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

As with the extension to the pupil and first-year tenant scheme, at the time of going to print it is not known how many applications there will be, although, curiously, to date there have been fewer than one might have anticipated. Notwithstanding the fewer-than-anticipated numbers of applicants to this scheme to date, the Inn has shown, through the two schemes it has established (and with the extension to one of them), a real willingness to come to the aid of those of its members who are in difficulties as a result of what has been a truly extraordinary time for the whole country, but particularly so for those who do not qualify for any direct assistance from the government. Paraphrasing a comment made by the Treasurer during the early stage of lockdown: if the Inn were not to help its struggling members at a critical time such as this, when would it? Fortunately, as a result of the Inn’s generosity, that question does not need to be addressed. Jonathan Waite QC Chairman of the Marshall Hall Trust

The Inn’s Treasurer and the Executive Committee were also concerned that many members of the Bar, of whatever seniority and particularly those who relied on publicly funded work, would be suffering seriously as a result of the effect of the lockdown, but who would not qualify for assistance from SEISS, because they fell just outside the SEISS financial limit of pre-tax trading profits being less than £50,000. Accordingly, the Inn has established a further scheme to assist those whose accounts reveal pre-tax trading profits which fall in the bracket of £50,000–£70,000. The same maximum of £2,500 per month applies to this scheme. Save in exceptional circumstances when a payment by way of a grant would be considered, these payments by the Inn were to be in the form of non-interest bearing loans.

The Inn’s Treasurer and the Executive Committee were also concerned that many members of the Bar, of whatever seniority and particularly those who relied on publicly funded work, would be suffering seriously as a result of the effect of the lockdown. An announcement of this additional scheme was posted on the Inn’s website on 24 June 2020, indicating that support would be considered for, and awards made to, qualifying applicants for the six months of April through to September. A mailshot was also sent out to all members of the Inn, save for obvious non-qualifiers, such as judges and members who were known to be retired from practice at the Bar.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

The Coronavirus Act 2020

THE CORONAVIRUS ACT 2020 By Simon Regis and Saoirse Cowley

Simon Regis

Saoirse Cowley

31 December 2019 and 29 January 2020 were when the first cases of coronavirus were reported to the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the first confirmed cases of coronavirus were reported in the United Kingdom, respectively. It is safe to say that we did not truly appreciate the importance of those dates as a forewarning of what was to come. That said however, by 29 January 2020, steps were already being taken in response to the virus by UK authorities. The Coronavirus Act 2020 should be seen as one tool in a suite of measures as part of the overall response to the pandemic.

I have been a government lawyer for over a decade now, including doing my training with GLD. In that time, I have been involved in lots of different types of legislation, but I have never drafted for the unknown; this is, of course, rarely how law works. When it came to the Coronavirus Bill however, policy officials across government were trying to envisage what all the possible issues might be that needed a legislative fix.

Repatriation flights from Wuhan in China were being organised. On arrival, UK citizens and residents were being transported to government-supported isolation accommodation at Arrowe Park Hospital – all of these actions required legal input and support, and government lawyers were intimately involved from the outset, including me. As the virus progressed, so did the legal response. The first of a number of statutory instruments (SI) under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 were drafted at pace by my colleagues, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) Legal Advisers, and I remain in awe at the skills of our drafting lawyers who produced the first SI in this space. However, it became clear that further legal measures would be needed in the battle against the virus. The decision was taken to draft and introduce a bill that would need to complete the full parliamentary process before Easter recess commencing on 25 March – about seven and a half weeks away. While that might sound like an age, in bill-drafting terms this was like a Friday–Sunday city break rather than a three-month sabbatical. I will state at this stage that what we (government lawyers, policy officials and Parliamentary Counsel, including our colleagues from the devolved administrations) drafted and ministers presented to parliament was nothing short of a feat of legislative engineering. If working on this Bill demonstrated anything, it was that when faced with a crisis, civil servants step up and work collaboratively at the drop of a hat. Legal colleagues from other Government Legal Department (GLD) teams made themselves available to be seconded in to work on delivering the Bill, getting stuck in and using their expertise to get us across the line. My role was to lead and co-ordinate the various different departments’ interests in the Bill and to have strategic oversight of progress, while leaving expert lawyers and policy officials to the detail. Time now to hand over to Saoirse, to talk in more depth about her bill experience.

My policy colleagues knew that we have a large number of highly skilled volunteers in the UK who wanted to assist health and social care services, but were unable to take more than a week or so off work to do so, and we wanted to create that opportunity for them to step up and help out. This was where the policy was when I started to draft instructions to Parliamentary Counsel, who draft primary legislation. We had to work quickly to establish the policy aims, how we could meet them in legislation and who we needed to work with to create a new form of statutory leave. It was very clear that we needed the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) to be our partners in this work as the experts in employment law, but we needed the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) input to understand how this form of leave may impact on benefits, and we also needed to work closely with our colleagues in devolved administrations as these clauses applied to the United Kingdom. This was a huge team effort.

Treasury

It was, of course, an unprecedented time (a phrase that is absolutely apt but also completely overused, as so many things were unprecedented) in terms of what had to be drafted and how long we had to get the Bill ready. Working on the Bill alongside watching the 24-hour news coverage to see if anything was happening elsewhere that might impact on your policy frameworks and also to understand what might be happening for yourself personally was, at times, quite surreal. The way we also had to start working in that period was novel. I spent a lot of time in my makeshift office, working with several colleagues across the UK on various platforms to ensure the clauses we had drafted worked for what we thought the problem was, and then watching matters being debated on my iPad while liaising with the colleagues in the Houses via email. During the period when everything was changing, I was so focused on the Bill that it kept me calm, and I had the great sense you often get in GLD of genuinely being able to help fix a problem. When the Bill became an Act that role was gone, and the change of perspective from public servant and lawyer to mother, wife, daughter and friend trying to juggle the difficulties all of us were facing was quite jarring. Rarely when you have worked so hard on something are you so pleased it wasn’t needed! But actually, as the furlough scheme was announced, and retired people returned to the NHS and neighbours and local communities started to volunteer in numerous different capacities, I am pleased to say the clauses have not yet been needed. Considering what powers were needed immediately and which ones might be needed was an important part of the legal risk advice we gave – everyone was working together to ensure a proportionate and timely response to a situation which, by its very nature, had no finite boundaries.

Working on the Bill alongside watching the 24-hour news coverage to see if anything was happening elsewhere that might impact on your policy frameworks and also to understand what might be happening for yourself personally was, at times, quite surreal.

Back to Simon and life in the centre of the storm.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Simon Regis As Saoirse has outlined, we were drafting at pace to legislate for an unknown and moving target: daily Bill meetings and calls, working on what had been done and what was left to do, liaising with colleagues across the spectrum. Part of my role was just to ensure that the right people were talking to each other. I did get an opportunity to ‘own’ a clause – for a brief period of time: section 52 powers relating to events, gatherings and premises. It became very clear very quickly that I would not be able to devote the time necessary to develop this clause and strategically lead the Bill. While the rest of London and the UK were taking steps into lockdown, we still had a bill to get through the parliamentary process in a new world of social distancing and increased protection measures. Introduced into the House of Commons on 19 March 2020, box duty (where we sit with officials in the box) during debates to support ministers was a heady mix of the digital and the analogue – colleagues had devised and revised systems for getting answers to questions being asked on the floor to us as quickly and efficiently as possible: introduced into the House of Lords on 24 March 2020 and all stages completed and royal assent given on 25 March. Legal colleagues in the Bill team and I breathed a heavy and happy sigh of relief when we were informed that the Bill had received royal assent and was now law. I could now turn my attention and focus to a new role heading up a team of lawyers in the Department for Culture Media and Sport – although, as I was to discover, COVID19-related work was happily waiting for me there too!

Before we sign off, we have to again thank our legal colleagues from GLD, Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and the devolved administrations, our policy colleagues from across government and the devolved administrations for the enormous amount of work, professionalism and care they put into bringing together this piece of emergency legislation in such a short space of time. It was a phenomenal experience and one which we will not soon forget! Saoirse Cowley Government Legal Department Bar Liaison Committee Representative on the Temple Employed Bar Forum

Simon Regis Deputy Director, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Legal Advisers Government Legal Department

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Temple Women’s Forum: Planned Breaks and Return to the Bar

TEMPLE WOMEN’S FORUM: PLANNED BREAKS AND RETURN TO THE BAR Extracts from a panel discussion held on 4 March 2020 between Master Helen Davies (Joint Head of Brick Court Chambers), Master Rebecca Dix (Serious Fraud Office), Elaine Banton (7BR, Bencher of Middle Temple), Charlotte Baker (4 Paper Buildings) and Lucy Barbet (Senior Clerk, 11KBW), introduced and chaired by Co-Convenors HHJ Khatun Sapnara and HHJ Deborah Taylor.

Helen Davies QC

Elaine Banton

I’m going to specifically talk about parental leave because that’s one of the areas where I think chambers can make a big difference. If you are going to take extended periods of absence for any reason, it’s planning and communication that will make that feasible. That starts within chambers, but it also extends to communication with key clients and solicitors.

I’m going to talk from my perspective as a self-employed member of the Bar, trying to navigate those seas and still have a real family life as well. My set is quite interesting because we have managed to combine women who have gone on to take very senior positions at the Bar.

What are the sorts of things that chambers can do to try and assist? First of all, have proper policies in place. When it comes to parental leave, those policies should be as generous as possible because chambers have invested time and effort in training people to become, through the pupillage process, members of chambers. You want to retain good talent. There are the standard things that are now mandated, such as suspension of room rent and periods in which you can be off and periods for which you retain your tenancy, but chambers can think about offering credits against expenses, effectively subsidising parental leave, for example. How long are you going to give people to decide whether or not they’re going to return? A generous period in relation to that also enables people to have the flexibility to deal with their personal situations. These days, it’s possible to do so much by technology, not in chambers. The Bar is an epitome of flexible working. Other things that chambers can do include support networks and having open-door policies, making sure that people who have had experience of extended leave are accessible to people who are considering taking a period of extended leave, sharing their experience. Supportive policies in relation to return to work and having proper communication policies between clerks and members of chambers when they’re returning to work – that’s the key. Then the other thing I think chambers can do is have dialogue with large clients to support people returning to work. Plus, a general policy that, when we’re recommending barristers for inclusion in teams, all members of chambers, whether or not they’ve just returned from practice, are going to be included if they have the necessary experience. These sound like straightforward things, but actually having the dialogue with the solicitors and establishing a protocol increases the opportunities that are available for people on return to practice.

I have had two periods of parental leave. I think it’s key to echo what’s been said: having that communication with your clerks is so important in terms of being able to plan your time away, when it’s going to happen, how long you think it’s going to be. And also, your relationships with your solicitor clients. Who are the key clients that you work with regularly, the ones that you particularly want to nurture and develop? You’ll have to decide when you’re away how much contact you’re going to have with chambers, with clients and with your clerks. I think it’s quite important to build and establish a framework for your return and in terms of managing your parental leave so that expectations can be managed on both sides. In chambers, you should have a parental-leave policy. The minimum is six months. If you have a fixed-rent period, that should be rent-free. Practically speaking, when you return, you do need, potentially, more help. Some chambers have periods of time of lower rent in terms of percentages when you come back, so they’ll reduce that slightly for a period of time. That can be helpful because when you go back, you can find that that period of building up your practice and your income can be quite challenging. I’d like to finish by really emphasising that the communication within chambers, which includes other senior members of chambers that can role-model, mentor and support you – and also the clerks and your key clients – just having that dialogue and planning the nature of your leave, having an idea of how it’s going to take place and the structure of it, is so important. Communication really is the key.

Treasury

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

L–R: Lucy Barbet, Master Helen Davies, HHJ Khatun Sapnara, Elaine Banton, Master Rebecca Dix, Charlotte Baker, Master Reader

Rebecca Dix

Charlotte Baker

I wanted to give you a little bit of a different perspective to the Bar, outside of being at the Self-Employed Bar in chambers; at some point in your life, you may think about going to the Employed Bar. I wanted to share with you the top tips of things to keep in mind if these things happen to you during your career at chambers.

I want to try and tell you five things this evening. The first thing I’m going to try and do is to persuade you that actually using an iPad and working paperlessly is much better than working from a paper bundle. Then I’m going to tell you what you need to buy. Then I’m going to tell you what to download. Then I’m going to try and persuade you that it’s really easy and straightforward. Finally, I’m going to tell you how I think that your chambers can help you.

The first point is just keep an open mind. You never know when an opportunity is going to come your way, and I can guarantee it will come when you really are not expecting it. It’s important to keep an open mind and understand all the opportunities that are out there for you that you don’t really appreciate when you’re in chambers. Your skills are so transferable, and I think they fit so well into different types of industries. That takes me on to my second point, which is to do your research. The first thing I’d start with is to think about an industry that actually interests you, because they all have legal counsel. You don’t have to just go through the law firm route. For me, the research was about doing something that would challenge me and focus on my specialism. Speak to your network. If it’s the law firm, you may be already being instructed by that solicitor, so you could approach them directly if you feel that you can speak to them in confidence at that stage. Then this takes me on to the third point. If you are thinking about going into the Employed Bar, whether it’s a secondment or you want to make that break from chambers, the administrator would be a really good point of contact. If you do decide you want to leave chambers, ask about the door-tenancy arrangements or associates. With this whole process, I would really recommend speaking to someone at your chambers that you trust and confide in. This takes me to my final point, and that’s about knowing that there is a support network out there. The message to you is that there is an Employed Bar network out there. If I’m able to persuade you in any way of thinking about the Employed Bar, then get in touch with these organisations. Start with your Inn. Also, there is an organisation, BACFI – that’s the Bar Association for Commerce, Finance and Industry – and they’re great.

This is my iPad. The app that is like magic is called LiquidText. The reason it’s magic is because of a gigantic workspace where you can do everything. You can prep your cases from start to finish. You can organise all of your documents. You can make notes, and it’s all in one place, on one tiny iPad. Now I’m going to show you what to buy. If you are thinking about becoming paperless, you need an iPad Pro. You will also need the Apple Pencil. This is your bundle. When you buy your iPad, you obviously need to download LiquidText, because it’s the best. Last two things, then. First is how chambers can help you. Number one is to ask for papers to come in electronically. And have lots of backup chargers in chambers. There is an excellent website; it’s called Bundledocs. We have it now as a set of chambers, and you can create fully indexed, hyperlinked bundles just by dragging and dropping the files onto the website. It’s amazing. That’s it, apart from one final thing, which is General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Everybody’s very anxious about GDPR and electronic working. Last August, I had my backpack, which had my MacBook and my iPad in it, nicked. Everything, all of my work, was on my iPad and my MacBook, but I could remotely wipe it. I reported myself to the Information Commissioner, and he was totally happy with everything that I had done.

I am on committees with the Inn and with BACFI; please feel free to contact me directly.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Temple Women’s Forum: Planned Breaks and Return to the Bar

Lucy Barbet:

Back to the parenting policy. Check it to see how much notice of return you have to give. Solicitors – now you can let them know you’re coming back. Resume all your insurances, practising certificates and all that sort of thing, in plenty of time before you return. Before you come back, keep in touch with your clerk so you’ve got an idea what’s going on about things that are happening.

As a barrister, the most important thing to remember in this process of planned breaks and return to the Bar is that your clerk is there to help you. As a clerk, the most important thing to remember is that you want to make things as easy as possible for your member of chambers, before, during and after a planned break. Communication between you is essential. We’re going to start with planning. Before your leave commences, read your chambers’ parental leave and flexible working policy. Notify your clerk and head of chambers. Arrange a practice review. Contacting clients – have a chat with your clerk about who you want to contact personally. Contact with chambers whilst you’re on leave; you can talk with your clerk and say how you’d like to be contacted, whether you’re happy to be contacted. The clearer you are, the easier it is for everybody. You have to move some of your cases to other people. That’s always the hardest part. It will depend on the case and on the clients that you’ve got. In the early days and weeks, if you are on any kind of parental leave, enjoy it. Try and keep to your agreed levels of contact. Once you’re a bit further into your leave, think about when you’re planning to return.

Arrange a time, during the back end of your leave, to talk to your clerk. Start having that conversation before you come back, because you want to start planning with your clerk what’s going to happen when you do come back. Have a think about the sort of work you want to do. Think about what your target for the first six months or first year is. Explain it to your clerk, and then you work together towards it.

Catch up with your solicitors in person. Check in regularly with your clerk about your practice. Check that everything is going okay. Don’t just take any piece of work because you have come back to chambers after extended leave. I just want to close by saying that, of course, the onus in all this is not on counsel. It’s a shared enterprise between clerks and counsel. We want you to be successful. HHJ Deborah Taylor: I’m sure that you have all benefited enormously from that very wide range of experience that you’ve heard. I’d just like to thank all of our panellists. I don’t think anybody is going to go away from here without a fund of good advice.

The video recording of this discussion is available at innertemple.org.uk/twf

Treasury

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

BAR COUNCIL EMPLOYED BAR AWARDS 2020

THE LEGAL TEAM OF THE YEAR By Master Rebecca Dix

As increasing numbers of barristers enter employed practice, The Inner Temple has taken a leading role in supporting barristers who have moved, or are looking to move, away from self-employed practice. The Inner Temple is committed to supporting members of the Inn at the Employed Bar, to celebrating their achievements and to highlighting alternative career opportunities. One of the ways that the Inn has demonstrated this commitment is by sponsoring the Bar Council’s Employed Bar Awards since their inception in 2017. The Awards celebrate the vital contributions that employed barristers make across the legal profession. On 10 June 2020, the Bar Council announced its third year of Employed Bar Awards for Outstanding Employed Barrister in (i) the Public Sector, won by Simon Regis of The Inner Temple; (ii) a Law Firm; (iii) Commerce, Finance or Industry, won by Adrian Berrill-Cox also of this Inn; (iv) an NGO; (v) the Armed Forces; (vi) Sports and (vii) for Legal Team of the Year and (viii) Employed Barrister of the Year, also won by Simon Regis. The Inner Temple sponsored the Award for the Outstanding Employed Barrister in an NGO that was awarded to Alison Pickup of Public Law Project. The Legal Team of Year was awarded to the Airbus SE Team at the Serious Fraud Office in recognition of its work in concluding a global settlement with the French Parquet National Financier (PNF), the US Department of Justice (US DOJ) and the US Department of State, concluded by way of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA). Master Victoria Sharp, President of the Queen’s Bench Division, approved the DPA on 31 January 2020. The DPA resulted in Airbus SE disgorging fines and costs of €991 million in the UK, as part of the €3.6 billion global resolution.

To date, the DPA is the world’s largest fine for corruption offences. Master Sara Lawson (Sara Lawson QC), General Counsel of the SFO: “We are very proud of the Airbus team at the SFO. They worked tirelessly behind the scenes to make it possible. This was an important, record-breaking and multi-national case. “I am pleased that my Inn sponsored this award. After more than 20 years at the self-employed Bar, I never saw myself becoming an employed barrister, but it has offered so many exciting challenges and opened my eyes to the wider opportunities which exist for barristers in addition to the traditional work.”

The Legal Team of Year was awarded to the Airbus SE Team at the Serious Fraud Office in recognition of its work. Inner Temple barristers Rebecca Dix and William Hotham were an integral part of that team, working alongside investigators and lawyers, headed by Camilla de Silva, now an employed barrister partner at Simmons & Simmons. Both Rebecca and Will were awarded scholarships from the Inn and began their careers at the Criminal Bar, before moving on to the Employed Bar at the SFO to work on cutting-edge investigative and prosecution cases. Rebecca Dix Serious Fraud Office

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Profiles of The Inner Temple Winners in the Bar Council Employed Bar Awards 2020

PROFILES OF THE INNER TEMPLE WINNERS IN

THE BAR COUNCIL EMPLOYED BAR AWARDS 2020 Employed Barrister of the Year and Outstanding Employed Barrister in the Public Sector SIMON REGIS Deputy Director, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Legal Advisers (DCMSLA), Government Legal Department (GLD) (Call 1997)

The diversity of experience as a government lawyer was, for me, one of the clear attractions of moving into the Employed Bar. Since joining HM Customs and Excise Solicitor’s Office in January 2000, I have made full use of the opportunity for movement. It has more than exceeded my expectations and is one of the things I enjoy most about working in government and at GLD. I have the opportunity to be stretched, challenged and in different ways, either through working for new client departments or the varied roles I have undertaken within these, which include litigation, advisory, public inquiry, project management and policy. If I were ever to write my memoirs, one position which would stand above many others is my time at Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse. I need not emphasise how important that public inquiry is – not just to victims and survivors of child sexual abuse but to society at large. To have been involved with the inquiry, even during the more turbulent initial stages, was a positive and uplifting experience and is something I will never forget. But why law in the first place? Well, this must be one the cheesiest answers ever given, but it’s so true…as a child, I always wanted to be a doctor, but I didn’t get on with biology, so that subject got dropped midway through secondary school. Around this time (we’re talking mid 1980s), a new US drama was shown in the UK and I thought, “Yes, that’s what I want to do.” It was glamorous, high-powered and many times delved into social issues. Of course, I am talking about LA Law! (I’m waiting for one of the obscure channels to start reruns.) One of the things that you learn early on working at the Employed Bar in government is the necessity and importance of team-working. Even though I made the transition many years ago, I remember it being a little strange, moving from a position where you were expected to be very self-reliant across the board to a situation where you are actively encouraged to be a team player. Moving back to the present, and my current role at DCMSLA, I lead a team with a diverse portfolio of culture, sport and gambling matters. There is understandably a strong COVID-19 response to the work that my team does, which carries forward from my previous role as a senior lawyer at DHSC Legal Advisers. I led on two major projects there, firstly on the continuity of supply of medicines in the context of EU exit and then on public health response to COVID-19, including the delivery of the Coronavirus Act 2020. 14

I believe that both these major projects fed into my nominations for Outstanding Employed Barrister in the Public Sector and Employed Barrister of the Year. I am obviously immensely proud, honoured and humbled to have won in both categories, and I congratulate my fellow nominees. And while this is clearly a recognition of the work that I have done, equally this is recognition of the work undertaken with my colleagues. I worked together with other DHSCLA and GLD colleagues to deliver government objectives – so these are their awards too! Once again, I would like to thank my colleagues for nominating me, and GLD and the Bar Council for recognising the contribution that members of the Employed Bar bring to the profession. Outstanding Barrister in Commerce, Finance and Industry ADRIAN BERRILL-COX Manager, Legal, Enforcement at the Financial Conduct Authority (Call 1986)

I first decided to become a barrister having spent the long holidays home from school watching Rumpole of the Bailey and Crown Court on the television. As I got older and found out more about what would be involved, the idea of becoming a barrister seemed more and more attractive. This being 40 years ago, and I was at a school for disabled children, my teachers were not tremendously encouraging. But I managed to scrape some A levels together and get off to Reading University and thereafter was called by The Inner Temple in 1986. Despite warnings that a court practice was not practical from an electric wheelchair, I decided I had to try, and I’m indebted to Dick Hayden (2 Dr Johnson’s Buildings) and David Mole (4–5 Gray’s Inn Square) for affording me pupillages. It turned out however that the warnings were well founded and that, in retrospect, I was probably 10 years too early in trying to practise at the Self-Employed Bar. Although I was not able to practise from chambers, I do not for one minute regret having tried to do so. It was 1988 (Black Wednesday) and a career in the City was tricky, so I went to the Bank of England as a banking supervisor and followed that function to the Financial Services Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) thereafter. I work in the legal department in the enforcement division at the FCA. I am one of six managers in a department of 50 or so lawyers dealing with contentious financial regulatory law. My particular areas are advocacy in smaller tribunal cases, dealing with refusals of applications for authorisations, and change of control and civil litigation arising from unauthorised activity and scams.

Treasury

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Settling down into a large organisation with a well-defined hierarchy was difficult (it was very painful learning ‘bank style’ from my first boss), but the advantages soon became apparent and have led me to a long and rewarding career. I do sleep easier at night knowing that I am ‘on the side of the angels’ and working with a team of highly competent and professional lawyers who think the same way. The ability both to rely upon others and to help others in my immediate circle is a source of comfort and also reassurance that we are doing the best job we possibly can. In common with most barristers, I suspect I find the most rewarding aspects of my work are facing up to complex problems and finding good solutions and getting good outcomes in difficult cases.

I don’t know who nominated me for this award or why. I am, however, delighted to have been given this award by my peers. I feel that this award not only reflects upon the fact, which was not so clear a few years ago but has now become apparent, that members of the Employed Bar are ‘proper barristers’, just like any others. I’m also pleased that it recognises the value of the work done by employed barristers both generally and, specifically, at the FCA, where I am privileged to work with some of the best and most committed lawyers I could hope to have spent my career with.

Legal Team of the Year WILLIAM HOTHAM

REBECCA DIX

Serious Fraud Office (Call 2009)

Serious Fraud Office (Call 2004)

I chose to go into law because I wanted to emulate the impressive skills that I had seen in members of the profession. I was assisted into the profession by scholarships from the Inner Temple and the Kalisher Trust. I started out at Six Pump Court with a predominantly criminal practice. I joined the SFO in 2015 and have been closely involved in a number of complex and often high-profile fraud, bribery and corruption investigations into major global companies and their employees. One of the main attractions of working with the SFO is the opportunity to work closely with skilled multidisciplinary teams, as well as domestic and international partners to overcome legal challenges and progress cases. I am privileged to have been a member of an excellent set of chambers and I enjoyed working at the Self-Employed Bar. I am fortunate enough to be involved at the sharp end of exceptionally interesting work. Corporate crime is a developing area of practice and inevitably I am continuously learning. It was intense but professionally satisfying to have been closely involved in the largest DPA in this jurisdiction.

The advice for anyone considering on embarking on a career at the Employed Bar is to choose a sector that you are passionate about and committed to as becoming employed renders you part of a team

My career at the Bar began at 2 Bedford Row, Chambers of William Clegg QC, where I spent ten happy years developing my practice in cases of serious fraud and bribery, before moving on to the Employed Bar at a white-collar crime defence firm and then on to the Serious Fraud Office as a seconded principal investigative lawyer and now as the Associate General Counsel (Crime), working closely alongside General Counsel Sara Lawson QC, providing oversight, advice and strategic support to the SFO. During the last six years of my practice at chambers, I was predominately instructed in the British Overseas Territory, for the largest bribery and corruption investigation and prosecution in the Turks and Caicos Islands. I left the case in 2015, but the trial against the former members of Cabinet, their attorneys and foreign investors continues. A change in my personal circumstances meant that I could no longer live overseas, and it was at this point that I moved to the Employed Bar to work for a Tier 1 white-collar crime defence firm, working on trials involving fraud allegations involving many millions of pounds. From there, I applied for a secondment with the SFO and am now employed as AGC (crime). At the SFO, being able to work to the Roskill model has been an invaluable experience and one I thoroughly recommend for anyone contemplating a career in corporate crime. A career path within the civil service is a clear one. There are opportunities to develop and progress as an experienced senior lawyer within the SFO or to transfer to other government departments. The advice for anyone considering on embarking on a career at the Employed Bar is to choose a sector that you are passionate about and committed to as becoming employed renders you part of a team, and so you need to be prepared to deploy your skills to bring the team and other stakeholders with you.

Master Rebecca Dix encourages prospective applicants to connect with the network of Employed Barristers available at the Bar Association of Commerce Finance and Industry (BACFI) and the Inn’s Employed Bar representatives, who are there to help you navigate your way to a career at the Employed Bar.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

History Society Review

HISTORY SOCIETY REVIEW By the Archivist Celia Pilkington, Archivist © MPP

The History Society has been proud to host a number of fascinating well-attended lectures this year in the Temple Church. A more fitting venue there could not be for a series of lectures that has spanned the time period of the Church’s own history, beginning with the early history of the Inn in the 14th century to the Peasants’ Revolt, the Reformation and the Great Fire of London. These events directly affected the Temple Church; the Great Fire of London was after all put out on its doorstep, and our own records reveal the impact of the Reformation and the attempts that were made to alter the religious character of the Inn, as well as the direct involvement of the lawyers in the progress of the Reformation.

Last year’s series concluded with a hugely enjoyable finale from our own Sub-Treasurer Greg Dorey, who used his own diplomatic and ambassadorial experience as former British Ambassador to Hungary and Ethiopia to examine the connections between the diplomatic world and that of The Inner Temple. He regaled the audience with the fascinating biographies of members from the 16th to 20th centuries who went on to become diplomats and ambassadors. Their skills as negotiators and politicians were honed at The Inner Temple, which was once considered the third university and functioned as a ‘finishing school’ for the sons of gentlemen where courtly skills were practised alongside a legal education to enable a successful career at the Bar. A shortened version of the SubTreasurer’s talk appears in this edition of the Yearbook. It was with great pleasure that at the beginning of the year the Inn welcomed Susan Brigden to talk about the Reformation and London, the topic of her extraordinary book published in 1989, which tracks the progress of the Reformation in the metropolis, whose size, wealth and mix of social forces and strength of its religious sectors made it a key factor in the reception of the Reformation. The subject is vast, yet Dr Brigden managed to take us through its progress, beginning with a description of the established Catholic community of London and the heretical Lollard community, and the rise of Protestant beliefs and their eventual impact on every level of society. The lecture was peppered with fascinating details about the lives of ordinary Londoners, gleaned from her deep exploration of archives and manuscripts from the period. She suggested that the youthful population of London was particularly susceptible to its ideas and were attracted to its novelty. Their enjoyment of protest made them the ideal vanguard of protests such as the Evil May Day riot and Wyatt’s Rebellion. Professor Brigden concluded that the united community of faith shared by all people in England was shattered by the Reformation and could never be restored, despite the efforts of successive monarchs to achieve this.

On the eve of lockdown, the Inn and the Temple church were pleased to host a lecture by Professor Caroline Barron, Professor Emerita in the Department of History at Royal Holloway and a medieval historian, whose research relates to late medieval British history, particularly the history of London. She also serves as editor on the British Towns Atlas Group, which was founded in the 1960s with the objective of “the advancement of education and knowledge through the support and promotion of research into the history and topography of cities and towns in Great Britain and by the dissemination of the results of such research, in particular by the publication of Historic Town Atlases and other maps and related works”.

The lecture was peppered with fascinating details about the lives of ordinary Londoners, gleaned from her deep exploration of archives and manuscripts from the period. The publication of their latest map showing London as it was between 1270 and 1300 provided the subject of her talk. The map depicts the city that Thomas Becket knew, with its growing religious foundations and churches dominating London’s topography. The population at this time was large, reaching a peak that was not achieved again until the mid16th century. Around 80,000 people lived and worked in London before the population was halved by the Black Death in 1348. Both royal and City government burgeoned and civic business was thriving. The banks of the Thames were a fitting situation for the houses of the lay and ecclesiastical great Lords, and our neighbours included the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and the Bishop of Salisbury. The Knights Templar were blissfully unaware of the fate that shortly awaited them. Professor Barron described London at the time with reference to the map and the archive sources that were used to create it. She suggested that the later anger directed towards the lawyers during the Peasants’ Revolt was in part fuelled by their attempts to close the important public route to the Thames and Temple Stairs, which provided Londoners with direct access to the River and allowed them to distribute and obtain most of their supplies. It is unfortunate that the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the cancellation for much of this year of the few physical events taking place at the Inn, yet we hope the marvels of technology will allow them to take place via webinar, or we will postpone the lectures and organise them to take place next year. More information regarding this will be available shortly.

Archives

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Master David Keene was due to speak this summer about his own extraordinary and fascinating career in planning law and the Court of Appeal. This has been postponed until next year. Later lectures planned for this year include a fascinating lecture by Professor Tidmarsh of Notre Dame University on the fire courts, which were set up following the Great Fire of London. The Fire of London Disputes Act 1666 was “[a]n Act of erecting a Judicature for Determination of Differences touching Houses burned or demolished by reason of the late Fire which happened in London”. Following the Great Fire of London, Parliament established a court to settle all differences arising between landlords and tenants of burnt buildings, overseen by 22 judges of whom 5 were members of The Inner Temple, and whose portraits will soon hang in the Hall again. The lecture was to be a joint production between all four Inns of Court and the Selden Society. The Selden Society plans on organising a cycle of four lectures, one per annum, which will be held in rotation at each Inn. This lecture will mark the first of the series.

We hope the marvels of technology will allow them to take place via webinar, or we will postpone the lectures and organise them to take place next year. In November of this year, Master Simon Baker, our own Bencher and England’s foremost legal historian, will give a lecture on the early history of the Inn. Map of Medieval London Below: Temple area

We hope that business will be as usual next year when we welcome Dr Rory Naismith of Cambridge University’s Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic, and author of Citadel of the Saxons: the Rise of Early London (London: IB Tauris, 2018) to talk about Anglo-Saxon London. Our history has shown that the Inn has weathered many storms, from fires to wars and pestilence, yet has continued with business as usual throughout, and long may this continue. We look forward to welcoming you to the next History Society event. Celia Pilkington Archivist

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Master Stephen Williamson

MASTER STEPHEN WILLIAMSON (Treasurer of The Inner Temple 2007) A eulogy delivered by Master James Goss to a packed courtroom at Leeds Combined Court Centre on 29 July 2019, attended by more than a dozen judges, former members of the judiciary, many barristers, solicitors, court staff and members of Master Stephen Williamson’s family.

Master Stephen Williamson

Celebrate the life

Mr Wright, it came as a shock and great sadness to many when, on Wednesday of last week, we heard the news that one of the totemic figures of the North Eastern Circuit, Steve Williamson, had passed away peacefully. Some of us knew he had fallen ill, but, to the end, he remained the man he always was. Despite promising Pauline that he would sort something out for her, he told her that when he went, he would be so old that no one would remember him. He could not have been more wrong, as the number of people here and in Sheffield, as well as the many others who have said they would have been here if they could, bear witness. So, we meet this afternoon, Mr Wright, to remember with deep affection the man that so many knew, liked and admired. For, truly, he was one of those people who, once met, was never forgotten. Neither I nor you, Mr Wright, can, in the time available to us, do justice to him or his memory. We can do more than deliver rather inadequate, selective, oral skeleton arguments. But he would have been happy with that and said, “Just do your best, kid.” Steve was a Yorkshireman to his core, born on 18 February 1938 in Scarborough, where he went to Scarborough Boy’s High School. Between 1957 and 1959, he did his national service in the Royal Navy, then went to Sidney Sussex, Cambridge, where he read law. In 1963, he was called to the Bar by the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple. His first Pupil Master was Mr R H T Cumming-Bruce, who, five months into Steve’s pupillage, was appointed to the High Court Bench. Mr Gilbert Hartley at 6 Park Square, Leeds, then became his Pupil Master, and, at its completion, he became a tenant of those chambers and remained one until his retirement on 31 December 2007. During those 43 years, he developed a substantial commonlaw practice and quickly passed the traditional milestones of successful barristers, acquiring both substantial prosecution and defence practices in all parts of the Circuit. He was appointed a Recorder of the Crown Court in 1979, an office that he held until the prevailing compulsory retirement age of 65. Then, in 1981, he was appointed one of Her Majesty’s Counsel learned in the law. He was the second member of No 6 to take silk and remain in chambers. It was a bold, typically fearless decision and greatly appreciated by the juniors in chambers. Some here will remember those times: I mention but one, his great friend and contemporary HH Michael Lightfoot. Unsurprisingly, his practice in silk grew. He was a popular leader – focussed, determined and, of course, wonderful company. I was fortunate to be led by him on a number of occasions. One was a child murder on the allotments in Marske-by-the-Sea, a village near Redcar. It was a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence and defended, as a junior, by G Barry Stewart. Unexpectedly, on the first morning of the trial, Barry asked for the indictment to be put to the defendant again, who promptly pleaded guilty. In consequence, I was deprived of what would have been a wonderful few weeks of forensic duelling. Instead, I enjoyed a splendid and prolonged Chinese meal with Steve in Middlesbrough. In 1990, he was elected a Bencher of the Inner Temple. Peter Taylor, who was to become Lord Chief Justice two years later and had been a Leader of the Circuit before becoming Chairman of the Bar, was a great supporter and encourager of Steve. So it was that, after selflessly steering his chambers through a challenging and upsetting reformation, he followed in Lord Taylor’s footsteps, winning a contested election, and served as Leader of this great Circuit between 1994 and 1997. And he was a great Leader, but not always perfect, Mr Wright. It was under his leadership and, undoubtedly, as it was in those days, by his will, that I and others, including one of his great friends, His Honour Judge Paul Batty QC, who, had he been able to, would have been here to join this tribute, were appointed to silk. As with everything in life, he embraced the activities of his Inn enthusiastically and wholeheartedly. He was a member of the Scholarship Committee and involved with Cumberland Lodge

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

and Highgate House student weekends. He encouraged me and others to attend Highgate House. Master Jeremy Hill-Baker and Pauline will remember the masterful and mesmerising interview he conducted of Louise Woodward, a young nanny who had been convicted of the manslaughter of the child in her charge in New York, on a media and the law weekend. Truly a masterclass in the art of the interview, so different from the bulk of that to which we are treated on national media. So it was, in recognition of his ability to reach out to and encourage all, that he became Reader of the Inner Temple in 2006 and Treasurer in 2007, thus being immersed in all aspects of the Inner Temple. But what he loved most, as Pauline will vouchsafe, was the engagement with the people, students, young barristers, staff, as well as fellow members and benchers. There is no doubt that the profile of this Circuit was thereby significantly further promoted by Steve’s great contribution. Outside the law, he was a member of the Bishop of Wakefield’s Trust and supported and was involved in charitable activities at his local church for many years. After retirement, he became what he described as a critical member of St John’s Book Group and an enthusiastic member of St John’s Wine Group, which was the same organisation. This was no surprise. In bygone days, when Recorders from this Circuit could sit in London in the summer vacation, Steve would often sit in the courts there. So would Jonathan Crabtree. Neither was a good influence on the other. In the Connaught one night at dinner, a particularly condescending waiter asked, “What wines would sir be interested in?” Looking him straight in the eye, Steve responded, “Most of them.” Above all, Steve will be remembered as a friend of so many. Whatever the situation or circumstances, he made friends wherever he went. According to Paul Batty, Alan Glenn, the landlord of the Old Ship Inn in Seahouses, still speaks in reverential terms of Steve and Pauline’s frequent longweekend bank-holiday stays.

Above all, Steve will be remembered as a friend of so many. Whatever the situation or circumstances, he made friends wherever he went. He spurned full-time judicial office, which was his for the taking, preferring to be an advocate with and amongst the troops – communicating, explaining, arguing and, above all, cross-examining in the forensic bear pit. And he was a big bear. I return to where I began. The late, great Henry Scott, also a former leader of this Circuit, said that at the Bar “you will make very many acquaintances and many friends but, as for close friends, you’re lucky if you can count them on the fingers of one hand”. Steve was an exception; he made close friends wherever he went. That legion of friends will miss him greatly. But not, of course, as much as Pauline and his family will miss him. Pauline was his constant companion; I know he was so grateful for all her love, help and support. It is wonderful that Kerry and James; their children, Matthew, Tom and Samuel; as well his sons, Austin and Jamie, are with us today. They all have our sincere condolences. A great man has left us, but he will never be forgotten. Stephen Wright Williamson QC was born on 18 February 1938 and died on 24 July 2019. He was Treasurer of the Inner Temple in 2007. The Hon Mr Justice Goss

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Master Stephen Williamson

CELEBRATE THE LIFE: MASTER STEPHEN WILLIAMSON By David Williamson Stephen was born in Scarborough the year before war started and did not get to know his father until his return from the army in 1945 when Steve was seven years old – followed a year later by a squalling brat brother, David! This was quite a change from life with his mother, and lodger Jane Arkle – a trained teacher who helped ensure Steve could read before he attended local St Martin’s Primary School, where he also learned play-acting and was a member of the sword-dancing team. He passed the 11+ and attended Scarborough Boys’ High School until 1957, where he boxed, played rugby and swam for the school, and ended as Head Boy. The school plays were renowned throughout Yorkshire under the direction of Samuel Rockinghorse, and Steve took the lead role in Hamlet in his last year (helpful for his future as a barrister). He was also an active member of the local Scout group. From 1957 to 1959, he was a coder in the Royal Navy and spent most of his national service at sea. Living below decks in such a confined space was where he learnt how to get on with people.

In 1959, he went to Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, to read law and graduated in 1962. His tutor was John Thorley, and Steve was one of only two people he ever suggested should go to the Bar. In 1963, he passed the Bar final examinations and, in September 1963, commenced a pupillage with Mr RHT Cumming-Bruce at 5 King’s Bench Walk, Inner Temple. In February 1964, Mr Cumming-Bruce was appointed a High Court Judge so, having recently married his first wife, Jennifer, with whom he had three children, Austin, Jamie and Isobel (who sadly died in 2006), he moved to a new pupil master at 6 Park Square Leeds, first under Mr Gilbert Hartley, then as a tenant, and he remained a tenant until his retirement on 31 December 2007.

From 1957 to 1959, he was a coder in the Royal Navy and spent most of his national service at sea. He was appointed a Recorder of the Crown Court in 1979 and remained in office until he retired aged 65 in March 2003. In 1980, he married Pauline and, in 1981, was appointed Queen’s Counsel and thereafter practised almost exclusively in serious crime. He was elected a Bencher of the Inner Temple in 1990. They both very much delighted in having a flat in the Temple for a number of years. Particularly Sundays when following the service at Temple Church, a buffet lunch was enjoyed in the Inn. Steve was involved with the Scholarship committee and weekend seminars for students, which he enjoyed very much. One weekend at Highgate House when the serious study was over, he did his party piece of ‘On Ilkley Moor Baht’at’, and Pauline was left to explain to the first student the Inn had had from Mongolia what “Baht’at” and “t’worms ‘il cum and eat thee oop” really meant. From 1994 to 1997, he was leader of the North Eastern Circuit and ex officio member of the Bar Council. From 1994 to 2007, he was a tenant also in London chambers, mainly at 4 King’s Bench Walk.

He was astonished, as he put it, that, as a provincial hack, in 2006 he was appointed Reader of the Inner Temple and Treasurer in 2007, when he was involved in all aspects of the administration of the Inner Temple. This was a time that he and Pauline really enjoyed, attending functions and meeting interesting people, even travelling to Malaysia on behalf of the Inn. For over 30 years, Steve was a member of Leeds Lions Club and, for a number of years, a member of the Bishop of Wakefield’s Trust. He has supported and been involved with his local church of St John’s at Clifton, also being a member of the deanery synod. Since retirement at the end of 2007, he had been a critical member of St John’s Church Book Group and an enthusiastic member of St John’s Church Wine Group (the same thing – just depends who is talking about it)!! He enjoyed dining out, as well as visits to the theatre and travelling. After a short illness, Steve died at home on 24 July 2019, and on Monday 29 July at Leeds Crown Court, a service was held, with eulogies from Master James Goss and Richard Wright. It was attended by Pauline Williamson; his two sons, Austin and Jamie Williamson; his stepdaughter, Kerry Wimpenny; her husband, James; and their sons, Matthew, Thomas, Samuel Wimpenny and his fiancée, Lyndsey Walters. On 14 August, a cremation was held at Park Wood Crematorium, then a Celebration for the Life of Stephen at St John’s Church, Clifton, Brighouse, followed by a celebration in the Black Horse at Clifton, as per his instructions. During the service of celebration in church, a eulogy was given by his brother, David, and amongst some of the memories he recounted was a birthday present Dave had received, much admired by Steve; it was a presentation set of a very fine brass corkscrew together with two wine-bottle stoppers. He ‘got’ the corkscrew but could not envisage a use for the stoppers. On Dave’s 50th birthday, Steve stood up among family and friends with the announcement, “He would not usually stand to speak in public before he had negotiated the fee.” The next day at niece Holly’s 18th birthday, he was heard to announce to the waiter he’d have “steak and chips with none of that green muck”; the house chef joined Steve for a chat later and was obviously a fellow sympathiser. A very moving eulogy was given by HHJ Sean Morris Resident Judge at York Crown Court and a fellow member of 6 Park Square, Leeds, which included some memories of Bar Mess Nights. Steve always said he wished to be such an old man that no one would remember him. Given that there was standing room only in the church, that was obviously not the case. David Williamson

Archives

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

LAWYERS AND DIPLOMATS

TEMPLE DIPLOMATS FROM THE MID-16TH TO THE MID-20TH CENTURY From a lecture by the Sub-Treasurer to the History Society on 23 October 2019

The Ambassadors by Holbein

In the 16th century, diplomats were expected to be polymaths, with knowledge embracing the law among many other disciplines. It is therefore unsurprising to find several Inns of Court members in their ranks, especially since the Inns then equated with universities. The Third University Master Simon Baker has written that “For 300 years between the 1340s and the 1640s the Inns of Court and Chancery constituted one of the greatest law schools the world has ever known…they may fairly be said to have helped create the Common Law”. In contrast, before the 19th century, Oxford and Cambridge taught merely canon law. Common law degree courses commenced at UCL only in 1828 and the Council for Legal Education established Bar examinations only in 1852. The Inns also provided a finishing school – a ‘third university’ – for the sons of gentry. They practised courtly skills alongside the law and most students never aspired to the legal profession. The skills they learned (including dancing, singing, fencing, attending revels and gaming) spilled over into many other disciplines and they ended up in a wide range of other roles, including diplomacy. The Inner Temple, from the Illustrated London News, 11 August 1860 © Master Baker

During the English Civil War, the Inns of Court declined, legal education slowed down, and the Inns became better known for their plays, entertainment and dissipation than their learning. But recent evidence suggests that there was more legal activity in this period than previously believed and admissions to The Inner Temple continued.

The Database A search of our archives admissions database identifies 24 students between the mid-16th and mid-20th centuries who we know became diplomats. Thereafter, I suspect we would find a substantial increase in the ranks of lawyer-diplomats, as well as the overlapping category of legal advisers in the modern Foreign Office. Four come from the 16th century, eight from the 17th, none from the 18th, six from the 19th and six from the 20th. Some were called, some were not; only one was a Bencher. Why none in the 18th century? I guess because it coincided with another period when legal education took a nosedive, prior to the 19th-century reforms.

London Inns of Court

Unfortunately for my purposes, the most famous lawyerdiplomat of all, Sir Henry Wotton, was a member of Middle Temple, not Inner. He was a founder of modern British diplomacy, active in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. He was typical of his age and class – writer, politician, scientist, intelligence agent, poet and what was later called ‘a diplomatist’. But he is most notorious as the author of the quip that “(a)n ambassador is an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country”. This was taken wholly out of context and his master King James I’s negative reaction led to a long hiatus in an otherwise illustrious career. All the others mentioned below were Inner Templars. 21

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Lawyers and Diplomats

Patrick Colquhoun LLD engraving © Freeman, Anthony Sherley

Military Several lawyer-diplomats gained military experience. They include Shirley, who fought for England but was knighted by France. He served the Shah of Persia, Emperor Rudolf II, Spain and Scotland, sometimes simultaneously. In 1619, the English Ambassador at Madrid reported that Shirley was on the brink of starvation but was “as full of vanity as ever he was, making himself believe that he shall one day be a great prince, when for the present he wants shoes to wear”. He died in obscurity, probably in 1636. Sir Henry Wotton (1568–1639) Studio of Michiel Jansz van Mierevelt

Literature

There is a strong link between literature and the lawyerdiplomats, in line with The Inner Temple’s distinguished literary tradition. Indeed, the Harvard academic Philip Finkelpearl has observed that in the 16th century, “almost all writers of any value were connected with the Inns of Court…they were the literary centre of England”. They included authors, travel writers, translators, poets, journalists and essayists (‘Sir’ Anthony Shirley, Sir Richard Fanshawe, Sir Richard Bulstrode, Peter Wyche, Roger Palmer and William Kennedy).

Bulstrode survived being hit on the head with a poleaxe at the Battle of Powick Bridge. He appears to have lived to 94, though spending his last two decades in dire poverty. Writing to his 43-year-old son, Whitelock, 17 years before his death, he complains “how many children we have to provide for and how little we have to do it with”. The same letter mentions that Lady Bulstrode is pregnant again.

There is a strong link between literature and the lawyerdiplomats, in line with The Inner Temple’s distinguished literary tradition. But perhaps the most interesting and certainly the most lurid of the bunch was the journalist Eustace Clare Grenville Murray. Astonishingly, since he was a strikingly inept diplomat, he was recruited into the foreign service by Lord Palmerston, whose patronage saved him from dismissal on several occasions. An example will give the flavour. Murray spent 13 years as Consul General in Odessa, in constant discord with the British residents. When he left in 1868, the charge sheet against him included forging documents, charging excessive consular fees and “the ill-treatment of Miss Owen” (NFI). Murray is also distinguished for having been horsewhipped by Lord Carrington on the steps of the Conservative Club. Bencher I only found one Bencher among my target group. Sir Patrick Colquhoun was Treasurer in 1888. Earlier, he was English amateur sculls champion and instituted a race at Cambridge University, still named after him. Colquhoun’s roles included Plenipotentiary of the Hanse Towns, Aulic Counsellor to the King of Saxony and Chief Justice of the Ionian Islands. An expert linguist, he supposedly spoke most European languages and many dialects. He became a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and his publications include a history of the Knights Templar. He died in 1891 in his King’s Bench Walk chambers.

Sir Richard Bulstrode Kn, Sir Richard Fanshawe (1608–1666), 1st Bt

Other lawyer-diplomats with military experience were Sir William Beecher, Fanshawe, Palmer, Wyche and William Stanhope. Nicholas Monserrat was a pacifist but served in an ambulance brigade in the Second World War. He then joined the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve and served in several small warships, before ending the war as a frigate commander. Best known in the UK for his sea stories, his international fame came rather from novels based on his colonial service in Africa.

Archives

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Politics The field of politics was full of lawyer-diplomats. Beecher was variously MP for five constituencies. Fanshawe was MP for Cambridge University, having been elected apparently without his knowledge. Sir William Godolphin, John Methuen, Stanhope and William Christie were also MPs, as was Palmer, ridiculed as “Europe’s most famous cuckold”. His father predicted accurately that his wife Barbara Villiers would make him one of the most miserable men in the world. By 1660, she was King Charles II’s favourite mistress. Palmer was created Earl of Castlemaine, but the title was limited to his children by Villiers – which, as Pepys writes, was humiliatingly for services in the bedchamber. He split from his wife and most of her children were later acknowledged by Charles II as his own. After time in the Tower, he died quietly in 1705. Pre-17th-century links between the Inns and the royal court had been more developed than those with parliament – not least because of the mutual taste for masques. Parliament met occasionally, but the court was a constant source of preferment for young gentlemen. By the 18th century, that had largely changed.

John Finch © Fitzwilliam Museum, Rt Hon John Methuen as Lord Chancellor of Ireland © Adrien Carpentiers

Ambassadors Digby, Godolphin and Stanhope were Ambassadors in Spain, Fanshawe in Portugal and Spain, Palmer at the Vatican, Ashby in Scotland and Methuen in Portugal. Sir John Finch was a physician who became Professor of Anatomy at Pisa and fellow of the Royal Society – he was appointed Minister in Tuscany and Ambassador in Constantinople. In death, he was buried beside his lifelong companion Sir Thomas Baines. Wyche was Ambassador to Russia, Poland and then the Hanseatic cities – he proved a capable peacebuilder and observer of the local scene. Christie started as Consul General in the Mosquito Territory and ended as Minister Plenipotentiary to Brazil. There, he had a notorious quarrel over cards with the American Ambassador and argued both with the Brazilians and his masters in Whitehall.

Barbara Villiers, Duchess of Cleveland, Mistress of Charles II

Negotiations It is unsurprising that certain lawyer-diplomats were frequently involved as international negotiators. William Ashby, a former spy, kept James VI from siding with Spain as Ambassador to Scotland and paved the way for him to become James I of England. John Digby, Earl of Bristol, was stubborn, hot-tempered and “voluminous in discourse”, so perhaps not the best person to negotiate the Spanish match for James I. He too spent time in the Tower. Godolphin was “a very pretty and able person, a man of very fine parts” according to Pepys, so perhaps better able to pin down a commercial treaty with Spain in 1667. But then Methuen, said by Jonathan Swift to be “a profligate rogue without religion or morals, cunning enough but without abilities of any kind” and called “the subtlest villain on the face of the earth” by others, was able to negotiate the Methuen Treaty of 1703, a very important development in the War of the Spanish Succession. Later that same year, he also concluded the so-called ‘PortWine Treaty’. Perhaps it is unsurprising he suffered much from gout. Stanhope, later Baron Harrington, was a key player in the Treaty of Seville of 1729 – the experience no doubt influenced his later despatches, which regret the impenetrable, Jesuitical and deceitful nature of diplomacy at the Spanish court!

William Stanhope, 1st Earl of Harrington (1683–1756) Attributed to Godfrey Kneller

Julian (later Baron) Pauncefote was successively Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Attorney General and occasionally acting Chief Justice in Hong Kong, Chief Justice of the Leeward Islands, effectively the first of the cadre of Foreign Office legal advisors, and Permanent Undersecretary of State (PUS) at the Foreign Office. Said to be the only man in England to understand the thorny problem of the Danube, he was the first British delegate to the Suez Canal Conference in Paris. He twice lost fortunes in bank crashes. In 1889, Pauncefote was sent to Washington as Minister Plenipotentiary, later Britain’s first Ambassador to the US. Most importantly, he negotiated the Hay–Pauncefote Treaty, which led to the creation of the Panama Canal. He died in office at the embassy in 1902. President Roosevelt broke precedent by flying the White House flag at half-mast.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Lawyers and Diplomats

financial institutions. Time magazine counted him as one of the most important people of the 20th century.

William Dougal Christie, Julian Pauncefote © Vanity Fair 1883

20th Century In the 20th century, the cult of the gifted amateur gave way to a more professional model of diplomat – though a private income came in useful until after the Second World War. Roger Makins’ time at the Bar before joining the Diplomatic Service was “brief as well as briefless”. He was Minister Plenipotentiary in Washington, then adviser to the much-loved Foreign Secretary Ernie Bevin, then Ambassador to the US. Later, he was Joint Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, Chancellor of Reading University, Chair of the UK Atomic Energy Authority and a fellow of the Royal Society. As Baron Sherfield, he chaired companies from Hill Samuel to Wells Fargo and the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. He was apparently a sensational ballroom dancer and his social skills were reflected by a diplomatic joke about the “Makins of a good party”.

Harold (later Baron) Caccia was a rugby blue who played cricket for Oxfordshire. Joining the Diplomatic Service, he was sent to Peking and Athens before becoming Private Secretary to Anthony Eden, then back to Athens early in the Second World War, attached to Harold Macmillan’s staff, and again during the Greek Civil War. He was Ambassador to Austria and then to the US (The Inner Temple’s third man in Washington). He was PUS, then Provost of Eton, then President of the Marylebone Cricket Club. He had many commercial appointments, including as a Director of National Westminster Bank and the Prudential. Sir Patrick Reilly joined the Diplomatic Service in 1933, having come top in the exams. He became Minister in Paris and afterwards an extraordinarily young British Ambassador to Russia. It is said his calm reporting following nighttime harangues from Khrushchev and Gromyko was due to his first relaxing to Gregorian chants with a large malt whisky. He led the UK delegation to the Icelandic Fisheries Negotiations and to UNCTAD, later becoming Ambassador to France. Then Foreign Secretary George Brown concluded that someone from such a privileged background was the wrong man in Paris. He was moved to “loutish and drunken displays of rudeness” in the face of Reilly’s “natural courtesy” and terminated Reilly’s diplomatic career abruptly. Reilly was later Chairman of the Banque Nationale de Paris and President of the London Chamber of Commerce. Con O’Neill entered Army Intelligence in the Second World War and interrogated Rudolf Hess before joining the Foreign Office. He was later Chargé d’Affaires in China, British Ambassador to Finland and UK representative to the EEC. He had hoped to be Ambassador to Germany but was also vetoed by George Brown, though he was recalled next year to lead the British delegation which negotiated our entry to the EEC. Altogether, Sir Con, as he became, resigned three times from public service, once over Munich, and was brought back. John Maynard Keynes was not a diplomat as such but was at the Versailles Peace Conference in the UK delegation, where he strongly opposed the extraction of huge reparations from Germany. He later led the UK delegation to the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, which designed the international 24

Roger Makins, John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946) British economist about 1935 © Alamy

Conclusions What can we conclude about the Temple diplomats, and what did they have in common? They were a mixed bunch of men, including some outright rogues. They were writers, politicians, negotiators, adventurers, fighters and spies, as well as lawyers and diplomats – often simultaneously. They were all multitaskers, and many were polymaths – becoming more specialised as the centuries passed. Alexis de Tocqueville reckoned “lawyers and missionaries make poor diplomats”. But the combination of diplomacy and legal training can be highly effective, as some of these case histories demonstrate. Both professions live by the written word, but diplomats are more likely to recognise its limitations. The lawyer on a negotiating team must focus on ensuring that agreements conform with international law and texts say what their drafters want them to say, whereas the diplomats must ensure the survivability of the outcome by ensuring it reflects the underlying political balance of competing interests and the wider context. Some countries stack their foreign services with lawyers. Others, like the UK, prefer to blend pure diplomacy with technical legal advice, while employing a significant number of lawyers in mainstream diplomatic roles. In any event, a combination of specialisations is needed these days to achieve positive results on the international stage. Increasingly, it is asking too much to expect the full monty from single individuals. We aim to ensure that the barrister profession is supplied and trained to the highest level possible. But many will choose other careers, including diplomacy. What skills carry across? My list includes the ability to write clearly and concisely, judgment, sound selection of material, advocacy and negotiating in varied contexts, mooting and debating, acting and communication skills, capability to empathise and influence, leadership and knowledge of foreign languages. The early Inns of Court or ‘third university’ supplied this package, though defined it differently, and it is part of today’s offer too. Modern diplomats are also faced more and more with legal issues – negotiations on international contracts, local legal disputes abroad, judicial reviews in the UK and employment law conundrums. Some of this would be unfamiliar turf to the earlier Inner Templars. But an underpinning of the law combined with a wide range of other professional skills and experience would have been vital in enabling all of them to navigate the obstacles of their day. Greg Dorey CVO Sub-Treasurer The full text of this lecture can be found innertemple.org.uk/lawyersanddiplomats

Treasury

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

TACKLING INSTITUTIONALISED RACISM: THE INQUIRY INTO THE HISTORY OF EUGENICS AT UCL By Master Iyiola Solanke

Between 2018 and 2020, I had the privilege to serve as the independent Chair of the Inquiry Into the History of Eugenics at UCL, leading a Commission of UCL students and staff to investigate and reflect upon UCL’s direct historical association with eugenics. Eugenics casts a specific shadow on UCL because money bequeathed by Francis Galton, creator of the term ‘eugenics’, was used to establish at UCL the first Chair and Department of Eugenics in the world. UCL became a centre for the scientific study of race and intelligence. From here, eugenics spread to America as well as Australia and other parts of Europe; around the world, eugenics of one form or another is implicated in imperialism and genocide, compulsory sterilisation, legislation on mental deficiency, immigration law and racist policies, and normalisation of segregation by race, ability and class. The Inquiry was necessary because the naming of chairs, prizes and spaces at UCL after Galton and his disciple Karl Pearson allows these ideas to linger and strongly suggests their ongoing celebration at UCL, creating an unwelcoming environment in which BME students and staff at UCL could be marginalised. As the explicit targets of eugenics, they suffer the unspoken stigma of being labelled as unintelligent, perpetuating shaming in the classroom – such as never being called on in class, despite clearly raising their hand to answer a question. Shaming contributes to the higher dropout rates and lower attainment of students in these groups. As I said in the final report, shaming has no place in higher education. Students attend university for opportunity; they seek opportunity for learning to improve their world and their lives in it. They make an investment in themselves and expect the institution to deliver on that investment. Teaching therefore matters – both at the time that it is received and in the future. Painful and negative experiences at the undergraduate level

Black Lives Matter protests © James Eades / Unsplash

remain with a student throughout their lives. Isolation during studies and disenfranchisement of groups of students can have long-term consequences not only for the student but for higher education in general – a disenfranchised student is less likely to pursue a career in higher education. Negative experiences undermine attempts to diversify university staff – the very low numbers of black women and men in senior academic and nonacademic roles is unlikely to increase if this does not change. If his wealth allowed Galton to institutionalise his deadly and damaging ideas, what could de-institutionalise them? The Inquiry was an attempt to eradicate institutionalised racism at UCL by excavating its historical roots and contemporary consequences. The Commission was asked to look at UCL’s historical role in eugenics, the current status of study and teaching of eugenics at UCL, and the current benefit to UCL from financial instruments linked to eugenics. Having conducted this Inquiry, we were then invited to make recommendations on two specific areas: UCL’s current position on the teaching, dissemination and study of eugenics and its inherent link to modern-day racism, and management of the naming of spaces and buildings after prominent eugenicists. In this brief contribution, I summarise Galton’s eugenics and his ideas on race before briefly explaining how they became entrenched at UCL and conclude with a summary of the impact of the Inquiry.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Tackling Institutionalised Racism: The Inquiry into The History of Eugenics at UCL

Who was Francis Galton?

Francis Galton was born into a wealthy and well-connected family of Quakers based in the Midlands. His discovery of the principle of ‘regression to the mean’ as well as work on weather forecasting and the use of fingerprints in criminal investigations has been recognised, documented and celebrated.

His book Hereditary Genius formally set out his hierarchy of races. Here he compares the “negro race with the Anglo-Saxon” and portrayed the former as inferior to the latter. It is worth presenting in some length how he rationalised this white supremacist hierarchy:

Less well known and, for many, less cause for celebration is his work on eugenics. Galton coined the word ‘eugenics’ to refer to the science of heredity - the idea that abstract human traits such as intelligence are inherited by offspring from their parents. He argued that eugenics dealt with something “more valuable than money or lands, namely the heritage of a high character, capable brains, fine physique, and vigour; in short, with all that is most desirable for a family to possess as a birthright”.

“Let us, then, compare the negro race with the Anglo-Saxon […] First, the negro race has occasionally, but very rarely, produced such men as Toussaint l’Ouverture, who are of our class F; that is to say, its X, or its total classes above G, appear to correspond with our F, showing a difference of not less than two grades between the black and white races, and it may be more.

From his first publication in 1852 to his last in 1907, Galton was developing and promoting eugenics as a means to secure “the evolution and preservation of high races of men”. This was not a vague, abstract idea – his aim was to identify precise means to measure biological attributes and characteristics, in particular intelligence, to prevent racial degeneration. As he wrote, “Eugenics […] endeavours to determine ‘how much’ or ‘how little’ in precise and trustworthy figures.” In 1904, he defined it as “the science which deals with all influences which improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those which develop them to the utmost advantage”. Galton wanted to develop scientific and statistical means as a practice to identify the mechanisms for ‘racial degeneration’. It was his search for a statistical approach to inheritance that launched the science of biometrics. Eugenics was also the basis for his idea of ‘regression to the mean’. The practice of eugenics is inseparable from the idea of race. He saw “race as far more important than nurture”. His ideas on race were published in essays and books from the late 19th century. His essay on Hereditary Talent and Character for example, compared the “typical West African Negro” with the “Red man”: “…Their characters are almost opposite, one to the other. The Red man has great patience, great reticence, great dignity and no passion; the Negro has strong impulsive passions, and neither patience, reticence, nor dignity […] Another difference, which may either be due to natural selection or to original difference of race, is the fact that savages seem incapable of progress after the first few years of their life. The average children of all races are much on a par. Occasionally, those of the lower races are more precocious than the Anglo-Saxons; as a brute beast of a few weeks old is certainly more apt and forward than a child of the same age. But, as the years go by, the higher races continue to progress, while the lower ones gradually stop. They remain children in mind, with the passions of grown men…”

“Secondly […] classes E and F of the negro may roughly be considered as the equivalent of our C and D – a result which again points to the conclusion, that the average intellectual standard of the negro race is some two grades below our own. “Thirdly, we may compare, but with much caution, the relative position of negroes in their native country with that of the travellers who visit them […] It is seldom that we hear of a white traveller meeting with a black chief whom he feels to be the better man. I have often discussed this subject with competent persons, and can only recall a few cases of the inferiority of the white man, – certainly not more than might be ascribed to an average actual difference of three grades, of which one may be due to the relative demerits of native education, and the remaining two to a difference in natural gifts. “Fourthly, the number among the negroes of those whom we should call half-witted men, is very large […] I do not think it any exaggeration to say, that their c is as low as our e, which would be a difference of two grades, as before. I have no information as to actual idiocy among the negroes – I mean, of course, of that class of idiocy which is not due to disease. The Australian type is at least one grade below the African negro.” His ideas on race had consequences for reproductive rights – the majority of persons of a “low race” were to be prevented from procreation. He argued that only the few “best specimens” should “be allowed to become parents, and not many of their descendants can be allowed to live”. Such ideas underpinned laws on compulsory sterilisation: in the USA, this was sanctioned by the Supreme Court in the case of Buck v Bell as necessary for the “protection and health of the state”. This enabled state-sponsored programmes of compulsory sterilisation – in North Carolina, for example, a sterilisation programme, created to serve the ‘public good’, ran from 1929 to 1964 with the explicit aim to ‘breed out’ black citizens. Reflection on this impact of eugenics adds a deeper dimension to the term ‘Black Lives Matter’.

Treasury

Galton, Eugenics and UCL

This demonstrates the limits of silent change. It is not enough for an organisation to silently distance itself from entrenched racist ideologies – this leaves a discursive space within which discredited ideas can continue to be nurtured and disseminated. Dangerous ideas need to be explicitly renounced in order for deep, holistic systemic cleansing and enduring change to be possible.

Bequeathing money to a leading academic institution such as the University of London and UCL was an integral part of Galton’s strategy to popularise eugenics and normalise social engineering according to its principles. Academia was the first of three stages to establishing eugenics as a social practice or, in his vision, “a religious dogma”. In accepting his money, UCL accepted his goals and undertook to pursue them according to his vision. His financial donation established the study of eugenics as a legitimate scientific field – it allowed racism (as well as classism and ableism) to be married to science, and within UCL this link between science and racism was embraced. This relationship with academia began in 1904, when Galton suggested and donated money for creation of a ‘eugenics laboratory’ to the University of London (UoL). In 1907, UCL was incorporated into UoL and Karl Pearson, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics at UCL, took over leadership of the Galton Laboratory of National Eugenics. Galton donated additional funds for a research fellow, a scholar and a computer. At this time, the Laboratory also moved to the South Wing of UCL, where it remained until 1920. Thus, by his death in 1911, eugenics already had an institutional anchoring and intellectual credibility. His final donation of £40,000 to UoL for the creation of the Galton Professorship of Eugenics ensured continuation of the work of the Galton Laboratory. The Francis Galton Chair in National Eugenics was ultimately created at UCL and his disciple Karl Pearson became the first Galton Professor of Eugenics, a post he was to hold for 22 years. In 1912, the first International Eugenics Conference was held at the University of London. In 1913, the UoL Galton Laboratory merged with the UCL Department of Applied Statistics and Biometric Laboratory to create the first Department of Applied Statistics and Eugenics at UCL, fulfilling Galton’s vision of bringing together the study of eugenics and statistics. In 1920, the Department of Applied Statistics and Eugenics moved into a new building at UCL. In 1925, UCL launched its second journal, The Annals of Eugenics, founded by Karl Pearson, who was its first Editor.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

This quiet acquiescence to the ideas of eugenics was the backdrop against which it was possible for an honorary lecturer to organise, over 100 years later, conferences on intelligence at UCL in the 21st century. This demonstrates the limits of silent change. It is not enough for an organisation to silently distance itself from entrenched racist ideologies – this leaves a discursive space within which discredited ideas can continue to be nurtured and disseminated. Dangerous ideas need to be explicitly renounced in order for deep, holistic systemic cleansing and enduring change to be possible.

Upon his retirement in 1934, Pearson shared a chilling reflection on the history of the institutional entrenchment of eugenics: “…The climax culminated in Galton’s preaching of Eugenics, and his foundation of the Eugenics Professorship. Did I say ‘culminate’? No, that lies in the future, perhaps with Reichskanzler Hitler and his proposals to regenerate the German people. In Germany a vast experiment is in hand, and some of you may live to see its results. If it fails it will not be for want of enthusiasm, but rather because the Germans are only just starting the study of mathematical statistics in the modern sense.” The horrors of the Holocaust changed the general public mood towards eugenics. At UCL, discomfort with the reality of the racial agenda of eugenics was reflected in changes to the name of the journal. A gradual distancing from Galton’s original agenda began, without an explicit renouncing of it. The journal’s original subtitle was “a journal for the scientific study of racial problems” but this was subsequently changed to a journal “devoted to the genetic study of human populations” and then “a journal of human genetics”.

Above: Black Lives Matter protests © Pexels / Shane Aldendorff Right: © Adobe Stock

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Tackling Institutionalised Racism: The Inquiry into The History of Eugenics at UCL

The Report and its recommendations Given its direct historical role in the teaching and research of eugenics, UCL had to address this difficult history so as to reconcile its past with its current values and future goals. UCL was already a signatory to the Race Equality Charter, but the Inquiry offered another way to have a structured conversation on racism and white privilege. The dialogue prompted by this process was as valuable as the outcome: through the work of the Commission and its series of Town Hall meetings, members of the UCL community developed a greater understanding of the history of eugenics at UCL. This process is a collective responsibility – it is not just the task of those belonging to the targeted groups. The Report included, amongst others, recommendations that UCL issue an effective apology and engage with this institutional history. In order to disrupt the ‘normativity’ promoted by eugenics, we asked UCL to establish and invest in a ‘Pipeline to Promotion’ scheme to improve BAME and disabled representation in senior levels of academic staff and professional services. To ensure that UCL be a welcoming environment for students and staff belonging to groups targeted by eugenics, we recommended that all UCL spaces and procedures be brought up to the highest standards of rigour, accessibility and wellbeing by, for example, developing accessible promotions criteria and a complaints procedure that students felt safe to use. In relation to scholarship, we recommended that problematic histories like eugenics be taught more, but from critical perspectives. We also asked UCL to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into all names used within the UCL estate. Our final recommendation was that UCL as soon as possible de-name spaces named after Francis Galton and Karl Pearson under its Naming or Renaming Policy.

We recommended that problematic histories like eugenics be taught more, but from critical perspectives. The Report and recommendations were accepted in full. The COVID-19 pandemic caused an unavoidable hiatus in addressing them but, in June, action began in relation to the final recommendation. On 11 June, UCL Provost Michael Arthur made a formal request that the University’s Buildings Naming and Renaming Committee immediately commence a review of buildings named after two prominent eugenicists, Francis Galton and Karl Pearson. By 19 June, UCL announced the de-naming of spaces and buildings bearing these names. Final thoughts UCL still has some way to go to remove the strains of eugenics from its systems. However, it has made an important start on this. Other educational institutions should take note and be alert to similar challenges arising from their own difficult histories. This is of fundamental importance to tackle the exclusion and disempowerment experienced by too many Black and minority ethnic people in higher education and often replicated in society. I therefore saw chairing the Inquiry as an opportunity of service to UCL as well as the education sector, to develop a method for the dialogue on difficult institutional histories required to dislodge outdated notions on the link between intelligence and race that linger in higher education. The degree-awarding gap, the dearth of black professors, and low rates of university attendance and completion may all have roots in the low expectations disseminated via eugenics – there may indeed be a link between discrimination in the 21st century and the ideas of eugenics from the 19th century. Professor Iyiola Solanke Chair in European Union Law at the University of Leeds www.ucl.ac.uk/provost/inquiry-history-eugenics-ucl

Gifts ONLINE

 innertemple.org.uk/store IN PERSON

 Treasury Office

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

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Memory As Evidence

MEMORY AS EVIDENCE From a lecture given by Professor David Shanks on 17 February 2020 Memory has been the subject of scientific investigation since the pioneering research of the German psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus in the late 19th century. More recently, the reliability of eyewitness memory has been explored in great depth through case studies – for example, witnesses’ recall of a robbery for which ‘ground truth’ is provided by a CCTV recording – and laboratory and naturalistic experiments. Mr Justice Leggatt’s statements in Gestmin SGPS v Credit Suisse (2013) that “in everyday life we are not aware of the extent to which our own and other people’s memories are unreliable and believe our memories to be more faithful than they are” and “the strength, vividness and apparent authenticity of memories is not a reliable measure of their truth” encapsulate the widespread view that very little evidential weight should ever be placed on uncorroborated witness recollections. Is this really the message we should take away from contemporary scientific research on memory?

Forensic evidence from DNA and eyewitness memory seem to lie at opposite poles in terms of credibility. We regard DNA profiling as a gold-standard technique in stark contrast to human memory, which is fallible and prone to forgetting and systematic distortion. Indeed, the many cases in which DNA has led to the overturning of convictions originally based on eyewitness testimony simply reinforce the view that these two forms of evidence are as different as chalk and cheese in their reliability. Recent research on eyewitness memory suggests that this intuitive picture is strikingly inappropriate, however. When we place faith in DNA analysis, we assume that a whole set of preconditions are met: that the samples have not been contaminated, that the laboratory procedures follow bestpractice guidelines, and so on. Indeed, cases sometimes scrutinize these procedures minutely, as in the controversial prosecution of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for the murder of Meredith Kercher, which hinged on a tiny amount of DNA identified, just once during many analyses, on a knife in Sollecito’s apartment. Surprisingly, when eyewitness reports are taken under comparable ‘pristine’ conditions, their reliability is also extremely high. The time is ripe for a reassessment of how eyewitness reports are elicited during an investigation and of how juries are guided to treat such reports. Admittedly, examples of memory fallibility and distortion are easy to find. For instance, it is well established that misleading questions can undermine memory accuracy. If post-event interview questions suggest something false about a crime, witnesses are likely to unwittingly incorporate this false information into their memory. This contamination can even extend to major elements of the event – the sort of elements that one might intuitively think must be resistant to major distortion. Falsely suggesting that a thief had a gun can induce confident witness mis-recollections that indeed a gun was present. Research also shows that such distortions occur even when the witness is warned that false information might be presented in the interview.

Jennifer Thompson and Ronald Cotton, PopTech 2010 – Camden, Maine © Kris Krung Williamson

Memory errors more often involve omission (forgetting what occurred) than commission (falsely remembering something that did not). For example, 300 UK authorised firearms officers took part in a realistic staged incident in which two armed criminals robbed a cash office. When later debriefed about the robbery, considerable variation emerged in the details that were recalled. Most of the officers recalled that one of the perpetrators had a shotgun, but only a minority recalled that this perpetrator kicked the security guard or that the second perpetrator shouted a demand at the officers. Very little of the information in the officers’ recollections was flatly incorrect, however. They committed more errors of omission than of commission. Nevertheless, what psychologists studying memory have recently discovered is that when eyewitness memory is uncontaminated and properly tested, it is highly reliable, and this is true of both recall (police interviews) and recognition (eyewitness identifications from police line-ups). In both cases, eyewitness memory is reliable in the sense that, on an initial test, high confidence implies high accuracy, whereas low confidence implies low accuracy. What constitutes ‘pristine’ conditions? There are a range of requirements: it is only the first memory test that counts, the line-up must be a fair one in which the suspect does not stand out, it should be administered by someone who is ‘blind’ to the identity of the suspect, and so on. The assertion that memory is reliable under pristine conditions is supported by a growing body of evidence. John Wixted and his colleagues collected data from more than 300 eyewitness line-ups conducted by police investigators in the Robbery Division of the Houston Police Department. For each lineup, the witness was asked to provide a high, medium or low confidence rating; the person administering the line-up was blind to the identity of the suspect; and the line-up was fair in that mock witnesses couldn’t pick out the suspect from a description. High-confidence identifications were nearly always accurate, a pattern also seen in more tightly controlled (though inevitably less realistic) laboratory studies, as well as in police interviews. For instance, another study assessed the recall accuracy of 14 witnesses of the details of a supermarket robbery after three months. The robbery was recorded by numerous security cameras, so accuracy could be verified. Details recalled with high confidence were highly likely to be correct. Under the Turnbull guidelines, jurors are asked to reflect on the circumstances in which an identification was made, considering how long the witness saw the suspect (was it just a fleeting glance?), from what distance, what the lighting conditions were, whether their view was impeded, how long elapsed between the crime and the subsequent identification, and so on. These seem intuitively reasonable questions, but again intuition can be a poor guide. Research shows that high-confidence line-up identifications are accurate to a degree that is largely unrelated to these conditions. Of course, if a witness only sees the suspect for a few seconds, she will be less likely to express high confidence in her later identification than if she had viewed the suspect for many minutes. But this is not the key issue from a jury’s point of view. What is far more pertinent is that if she expresses high confidence, the likelihood of her identification being correct will be high regardless of the length of view, whether or not there were other distracting events taking place, and so on.

Reader’s Lecture Series

It is striking that some of the most infamous instances of misidentification are wholly consistent with the view that confident recall tends to be accurate. Consider the case of Jennifer Thompson, who as a college student in 1984 was raped in her apartment in Burlington, North Carolina. A few hours later, the police showed her a photo array with six photos. She identified Ronald Cotton and the detective said, “You did great.” She again identified him a week later in a live line-up. At trial, the jury saw Thompson point to Cotton and state she was “absolutely sure that Ronald Junior Cotton is the man”. He served ten years of a life sentence before DNA tests exonerated him and implicated another person, Bobby Poole, who later pleaded guilty. (Remarkably, Thompson and Cotton became reconciled and toured the United States together in support of eyewitness testimony reform.) What is now clear is that the eyewitness identification practices associated with DNA exoneration cases often deviated substantially from what we would today regard as pristine. Thompson’s initial identification of Cotton was characterized by a prolonged period of hesitation and indecision that lasted for nearly five minutes and ended with a low-confidence verbal identification: “I think this is the guy.” Strikingly, archival reassessments of convictions overturned by DNA evidence revealed that in every case in which initial eyewitness confidence could be determined (91/161 cases), the eyewitnesses expressed low confidence.

What is now clear is that the eyewitness identification practices associated with DNA exoneration cases often deviated substantially from what we would today regard as pristine. This is not the only aspect of Thompson’s identification that, in retrospect, should ring alarm bells. Confirmatory feedback from the police (“You did great”) is known to cause inflation of expressed confidence, even for incorrect identifications. Also problematic is the repeated testing of her memory, during which she was exposed to Cotton’s face more than once. Again, this can inflate misidentifications. For example, in one research study, participants watched a video of a street robbery and then were asked to identify the culprit from either a guilty suspect line-up (in which the perpetrator was present) or an innocent suspect one (in which the perpetrator was absent), each line-up including five ‘fillers’ (people known to be innocent). Then, like Thompson, they tried to pick the perpetrator from a second line-up administered two weeks later and again including the guilty/innocent suspect, but with new fillers. The key finding was that the repetition of the innocent suspect in the two line-ups appreciably increased the likelihood of this person being misidentified as the culprit in

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

the second line-up. Stated differently, many witnesses picked out an innocent person from the second line-up even though they had not picked him in the first line-up, and they did so simply because his face was now familiar. These and other factors probably go a long way towards explaining Thompson’s unwavering belief at trial that Cotton was the rapist. A key recommendation emerging from psychological research is that it is appropriate to place a good deal of evidential weight on eyewitness memories when they are accompanied at the time of recall by high expressed confidence. This is not the only important recommendation, however. Another is that formal interview protocols can considerably boost memory accuracy. A substantial body of work shows that interviewing a witness according to a script can enable the witness to recall more information than would otherwise be the case. One such technique is called the cognitive interview and includes several elements, such as asking the witness to report all details regardless of how peripheral they may appear, to adopt different perspectives in recalling the event, to try recalling it in reverse temporal order, and so on. Another technique is put into effect as soon as practical after the crime, when the witness is asked to complete a ‘self-administered interview’ form. This asks the witness a range of questions about the event, including aspects of it that the witness might otherwise not consider (such as the weather conditions). Research has shown that recall accuracy at the time of a later police interview is significantly boosted as a result of the witness having completed this earlier memory assessment. Moreover, memory becomes more resistant to distortion from misleading questions. The major challenge for researchers studying eyewitness memory is to articulate with greater precision what exactly is meant by ‘pristine’ in the context of line-ups and interviews. Some of the key factors, such as only relying on confidence expressed at the time of recall and not at later time points, has already been mentioned, but there are undoubtedly others that have yet to be fully explored. One set of conditions concerns the impact of drugs and alcohol on the accuracy of confident identifications. A recent study staged encounters between an actor and a series of individuals who were approached in pubs and bars and engaged in a conversation lasting a couple of minutes. The encounter was brought to an end by the actor being called away by an emergency phone call. At that point, a research confederate explained the study to the individuals and sought their co-operation in a memory test comprising a mock photo line-up in which they attempted to identify the actor. Consistent with the key point made earlier, high-confidence identifications tended to be very accurate. However, this was only the case for individuals (that is, witnesses) whose blood alcohol level was low. For ones in which it was higher, the confidence-accuracy association completely broke down. Under the influence of alcohol, inaccurate identifications can be made with erroneously high confidence. It seems likely that a range of other drugs might similarly distort the normal association between confidence and accuracy, but this remains to be investigated. In closing, it is worth contrasting the comments of Mr Justice Leggatt with these from John Wixted: “Eyewitness memory has been wrongfully convicted of mistakes that are better construed as having been committed by other actors in the legal system, not by the eyewitnesses themselves. Eyewitnesses typically provide reliable evidence on an initial, uncontaminated memory test, and this is true even for most of the wrongful convictions that were later reversed by DNA evidence.” Professor David Shanks Professor of Psychology and Deputy Dean of the Faculty of Brain Sciences at UCL The full version of this lecture is available at innertemple.org.uk/memoryasevidence 31

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Unknown Warrior

UNKNOWN WARRIOR

REMEMBRANCE SUNDAY 2019: TEMPLE CHURCH By The Master of the Temple

Burial of the British Unknown Warrior, 1920

The Revd William Henry Draper, Rector of Adel near Leeds, in a book of his poems published in 1914, included The Two Banners, 1914: the banner of Hate; and the banner of Love. First for hate: “Can they who their own honour flout, who throw Truth to the winds, who openly defy Justice and mercy, and who serve a lie, – Can such as these, and Love, together grow?” And then, the banner of love: “Rouse! England, rouse thyself! And to the skies Unfurl thy nobler banner, make to sound Freedom’s high trumpet-call that shall confound Those hosts that threaten all men’s liberties. Mark how they strive to silence truth with lies, To trample on a world with iron bound, To crush thyself and France down to the ground, To make all Europe a mere Prussian prize. Therefore forgive them not. But from all lands Call thine allies, and let the Prussian know One Adversary in the pathway stands Of insolence, one unrelenting foe, Who seeing Pride and Tyranny shake hands Marches with all the world to lay them low.” Four years later, the war was won. 888,000 British troops had been killed in the Great War; over a million wounded. Those who returned had been promised a land fit for heroes. They found a land of unemployment, of civilians who could not understand what they had been through and did not want to know, of mothers in mourning and women who would never be wives. There was an incalculable void, of bereavement and of grief. We have, on this Sunday in recent years, brought to mind those who died in the Great War. This morning, for a few minutes, we remember as well those who were left behind.

In August 1920, an army padre, David Railton – who himself won an MC for rescuing three men under heavy fire – wrote to the Dean of Westminster. He had seen, in the war, a cross inscribed “An unknown soldier of the Black Watch”. Might a memorial be raised to all such soldiers, forever unknown? The Dean took the idea to the Prime Minister (who was supportive) and to the King (who felt at first that the move might be belated and lead to “a morbid show”). The King, however, was persuaded. Lutyens’ Cenotaph was due to be unveiled on Armistice Day 1920, in just three months’ time. It was decided to combine this with the burial of the Warrior. His grave would commemorate, as the inscription on the grave records, “the many multitudes who during the Great War of 1914–1918 gave the most that man can give”. In early November, four working parties were sent out to the battlefields of the Somme, Aisne, Arras and Ypres. They were to exhume a body of a British soldier, from the early years of the war, with no identification. The bodies – little more than bones – were sacked up and taken to a hut, a makeshift chapel, at St Pol. The parties arrived and left separately.

We have, on this Sunday in recent years, brought to mind those who died in the Great War. Each body was laid out on a table, covered by a Union Jack. At midnight, 7 November, all lights in the hut were extinguished. Brigadier-General Wyatt, GOC British forces in France and Flanders, entered the hut and put his hand on one body. The Unknown Warrior had been chosen. The body, still sacked, was put in a plain deal coffin. A hundred sandbags were filled with local soil; the soldier would be reburied in the French soil on which he had fallen.

The Temple Church

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

On 9 November, the body was driven to Boulogne. The streets lined with crowds; wreaths the size of grown men were carried before the cortege; in every village, the local band gathered and escorted the coffin. At Boulogne, the deal coffin was placed within an oak coffin, from a tree at Hampton Court, bound with iron and with a crusader’s sword, given by the King, on its top. The inscription: “A British Warrior Who Fell in the Great War, 1914–1918 / For King and Country”. On 10 November, at 10.30, the coffin left for the harbour, followed by a cortege a mile long, largely of French soldiers. The French Last Post was sounded. Marshal Foch came, at his own initiative and unannounced, to salute and to follow the coffin. The ship to carry the soldier home was HMS Verdun, chosen in honour of the battle at which Britain’s French allies had lost 300,000 men. The ship’s motto was the motto of Marshal Pétain at Verdun: “On ne passe pas”. On that same day, 10 November, the bodies of nine French soldiers were taken to Verdun; one was chosen for burial on 11 November as France’s Unknown Warrior, under the Arc de Triomphe. The Verdun left Boulogne accompanied by two French submarines. Midway across the Channel, a British escort was waiting, of six destroyers. As the ships approached, Dover signalled, “Who are you?” The reply: “Verdun and escort and nation’s unknown son”. A 19-gun salute – the salute for a Field-Marshal – was fired from the heights of Dover cliffs. All vessels lowered their colours, as they would for the King. The arrival was not merely melancholic. The band at Dover struck up first with Land of Hope and Glory, then Scipio. This was to be a proud return. The coffin was transferred to a wagon for the train journey to Victoria, the same wagon in which the body of Edith Cavell had been taken home. Its roof was painted white, so that crowds on the sidings and bridges would know which wagon held the coffin as the train passed. The wagon still exists, still with its white roof.

The Unknown Warrior at Westminster Abbey, November 1920

On 11 November, The Times ran an illustrated supplement, for which the paper commissioned Thomas Hardy to write a poem. The Times did not like what it got. From Hardy’s, And There Was a Great Calm, its title taken from the story in Mark’s gospel of Jesus stilling a storm (Mark 4.39): “There had been years of Passion–scorching, cold, And much Despair, and Anger heaving high, Care whitely watching, Sorrows manifold, Among the young, among the weak and old, And the pensive Spirit of Pity whispered, ‘Why?’”

And then at last: “Calm fell. From Heaven distilled a clemency; There was peace on earth, and silence in the sky; Some could, some could not, shake off misery: The Sinister Spirit sneered: ‘It had to be!’ And again the Spirit of Pity whispered, ‘Why?’” The Times: “Plain duty forbad the free peoples of the earth, and forbade us, above all others, to renounce all justice and all right”. But the poem was printed, on a full page. 11 November was a misty but still day. At 9.45, the procession to the Abbey began: from Victoria to Hyde Park Corner, down Constitution Hill, along the Mall to Trafalgar Square and to up Whitehall to the Cenotaph. The Times: “It was as if his watching countrymen relaxed at last their hold upon their tears, as the Warrior was borne away to burial”. Vast crowds gathered, six or more deep all along the route, and all silent. The Times: “Their hearts were speaking, their tongues were still”. A military band played Chopin’s Funeral March. The sound of muffled drums, pipes, then horses on sanded roads. The roads were lined with servicemen; at each stretch of road, as the procession approached, the command was given and arms reversed. From Hyde Park the sound of the cannon, as the Field-Marshal’s salute was fired. “The sense of unity and of Eternity came through eye and ear, when all heads were bared and there were thousands of faces lit by the quiet sunlight, the sense of multitudes none could number set free from time and place”. At Hyde Park Corner, just two flags were flying: on St George’s Hospital and Apsley House. The Times noted one recollection of the military pageant that used to be before the war: a party of Life Guards rode past, clattering and incongruous, into the park. Along each street, the cortege came and went; and no one moved.

Westminster Abbey © Charles Postiaux

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Unknown Warrior

At 11.00, the cortege was in Whitehall. The Times: “Never can so large a crowd have waited in such silence, so that even a cough or the clatter of a restless horse sounded strangely loud. Then out of the silence grew, as if suddenly, far off, the sobbing music of the Funeral March, infinitely sad and faint it sounded at first, rising somewhere out of the mist above which only one thing, the figure of Nelson, stood clear-cut against the sky”.

At the funeral’s end, the congregation sang Kipling’s Recessional, written in 1897 for Queen Victoria’s diamond jubilee and sung to the tune we know from Eternal Father, Strong to Save. It was a poignant choice. Kipling had secured his only son, John, a commission in the Irish Guards soon after his 17th birthday. John was killed at Loos in 1915.

On the last note of 11.00 from Big Ben, the King unveiled the new Cenotaph. Two minutes’ silence began. Just before its end, at Admiralty Arch, came “one loud ululating shriek from a woman which rose and fell again, like nothing so much as the boding cry of Cassandra in the Greek tragedy”. On the Warrior’s coffin, the King laid a wreath of white flowers. Poppies were used in such wreaths from the mid 1920s. The cortege moved off to the Abbey, the King following on foot. Lining the nave at the Abbey were 96 servicemen decorated for their courage; 75 held the Victoria Cross. Among the most-honoured guests were widows who had lost their husband and all their sons in the war. The Dean read parts of the funeral service. That had not been assured. The Prime Minister had wanted a “wholly secular service” but the Archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson, fought furiously to have at least one hymn. He got far more. At ‘Lead, Kindly Light’, the helmet and wreath were removed, and the coffin was lowered onto virgin sand, undisturbed even when the Abbey’s nave had been built 700 years before. The King sprinkled on the coffin earth from the battlefields of Flanders. The grave was filled with the earth brought in the sandbags from France.

“God of our fathers, known of old – Lord of our far-flung battle line – Beneath whose awful hand we hold Dominion over palm and pine – Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet, Lest we forget – lest we forget! “The tumult and the shouting dies – The Captains and the Kings depart – Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice, An humble and a contrite heart. Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet, Lest we forget – lest we forget! “For heathen heart that puts her trust In reeking tube and iron shard – All valiant dust that builds on dust, And guarding calls not Thee to guard. For frantic boast and foolish word, Thy Mercy on Thy People, Lord!” There were queues four-deep from the Abbey to the Cenotaph, of those wishing to visit the grave. Between 11 and 27 November, 1.5 million people passed through the Abbey. Robin Griffith-Jones Master of the Temple

What a long shadow that day would cast. On 26 April 1923, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon married the future King George VI in the Abbey; she laid her bouquet at the grave on her way into the Abbey, in tribute to her brother Fergus who had died, also at Loos in 1915. Queen Elizabeth requested that the wreath from her funeral be placed there too; and so in 2002, 84 years after the great calm fell, the last Queen-Empress paid her last tribute to her brother and to “the many multitudes who had given the most that man can give”.

—†—

In 1920, a new Master of the Temple was appointed: the Rev William Henry Draper, Rector of Adel. Two years later, the War Memorial to our own choristers was ready, and on Sunday 2 December 1922, after the evening service, he led the choir and congregation into the practice room and dedicated the new memorial. There was no man better qualified to do so. Mr Draper himself had had three sons. Roger Draper, Captain in the Yorkshire and Lancashire Regiment – killed in action at Gallipoli, 22 August 1915. Mark Draper, 2nd Lieutenant in the Royal Flying Corps – killed in action, 7 February 1917.

William Draper, Private in the King’s Own, Royal Lancaster Regiment – returned home injured and died of his wounds on 15 May 1918. He was buried in the churchyard at Addle, within sight of the rectory windows.

—†— “They have not grown old, as we that are left grow old, Age has not wearied them, nor the years condemned. At the going down of the sun, and in the morning, Before God and his fathomless mercy – We still remember them.”

—†—

The Temple Church

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

APPENDIX: THE POEMS’ FULL TEXTS And There Was a Great Calm (Mark 4.39), by Thomas Hardy

Recessional, by Rudyard Kipling

I “There had been years of Passion – scorching, cold, And much Despair, and Anger heaving high, Care whitely watching, Sorrows manifold, Among the young, among the weak and old, And the pensive Spirit of Pity whispered, ‘Why?’ II “Men had not paused to answer. Foes distraught Pierced the thinned peoples in a brute-like blindness, Philosophies that sages long had taught, And Selflessness, were as an unknown thought, And ‘Hell!’ and ‘Shell!’ were yapped at Lovingkindness. III “The feeble folk at home had grown full-used To ‘dug-outs’, ‘snipers’, ‘Huns’, from the war-adept In the mornings heard, and at evetides perused; To day – dreamt men in millions, when they mused – To nightmare-men in millions when they slept. IV “Waking to wish existence timeless, null, Sirius they watched above where armies fell; He seemed to check his flapping when, in the lull Of night a boom came thencewise, like the dull Plunge of a stone dropped into some deep well. V “So, when old hopes that earth was bettering slowly Were dead and damned, there sounded ‘War is done!’ One morrow. Said the bereft, and meek, and lowly, ‘Will men some day be given to grace? yea, wholly, And in good sooth, as our dreams used to run?’

“God of our fathers, known of old – Lord of our far-flung battle line – Beneath whose awful hand we hold Dominion over palm and pine – Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet, Lest we forget – lest we forget! “The tumult and the shouting dies – The Captains and the Kings depart – Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice, An humble and a contrite heart. Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet, Lest we forget – lest we forget! “Far-called our navies melt away – On dune and headland sinks the fire – Lo, all our pomp of yesterday Is one with Nineveh and Tyre! Judge of the Nations, spare us yet, Lest we forget – lest we forget! “If, drunk with sight of power, we loose Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe – Such boastings as the Gentiles use, Or lesser breeds without the Law – Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet, Lest we forget – lest we forget! “For heathen heart that puts her trust In reeking tube and iron shard – All valiant dust that builds on dust, And guarding calls not Thee to guard. For frantic boast and foolish word, Thy Mercy on Thy People, Lord!

Amen.”

VI “Breathless they paused. Out there men raised their glance To where had stood those poplars lank and lopped, As they had raised it through the four years’ dance Of Death in the now familiar flats of France; And murmured, ‘Strange, this! How? All firing stopped?’ VII “Aye; all was hushed. The about-to-fire fired not, The aimed-at moved away in trance-lipped song. One checkless regiment slung a clinching shot And turned. The Spirit of Irony smirked out, ‘What? Spoil peradventures woven of Rage and Wrong?’

The war had at huge cost been won. And the peace? Lloyd George warned that Germany would find means of exacting retribution for its terms; he said: “We will have to do the same thing over again in 25 years’ time at three times the cost.” Early on the morning of the Treaty’s signing, Herbert Hoover, General Smuts and Maynard Keynes met each other walking the streets of Paris, each out from agitation that Versailles contained the seeds (as Hoover said) of another war.

VIII “Thenceforth no flying fires inflamed the gray, No hurtlings shook the dewdrop from the thorn, No moan perplexed the mute bird on the spray; Worn horses mused: ‘We are not whipped to-day’; No weft-winged engines blurred the moon’s thin horn. IX “Calm fell. From Heaven distilled a clemency; There was peace on earth, and silence in the sky; Some could, some could not, shake off misery: The Sinister Spirit sneered: ‘It had to be!’ And again the Spirit of Pity whispered, ‘Why?’

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Making the Rule of Law a Daily Reality

MAKING THE RULE OF LAW A DAILY REALITY From a lecture given by Master Anthony Hughes to the Singapore Academy of Law, on 12 September 2019 The rule of law is by international consensus central to what we regard as a democratic state. A great deal of the idea of the rule of law can be reduced to very simple propositions. It boils down to two components. You need law to define relationships and dealings between individuals, personal or corporate, and between individuals and the state. And you need a system for ensuring that when a dispute arises in an area covered by the law, it is that law which governs what is done – whether by individuals or the state. So, unless you have a law of contract which holds individuals to agreements voluntarily made, you have a free-forall in which the powerful do what they want. Unless you have laws which define the powers of those who are in government, there is no restraint on them abusing their power at the expense of those who are powerless.

And then, the other half of the equation: it is of little use having the laws which define all these things unless you can rely on any dispute being resolved according to those laws. So, you need not only laws, but lawyers. You need practitioners who represent those in dispute. You need mediators and arbitrators. And you need judges. And all of these must be independent and observe the highest standards. It is important to note that what the rule of law requires is a law dispassionately and independently applied. This is a central truth. The rule of law is about the method of administering the law, not about the content of any particular law. We were speaking of the need for a law of contract, to hold people to agreements freely entered into. But there is scope for almost endless debate about the extent to which the law of contract ought to allow complete freedom of contract, or, conversely, should at times restrict that freedom to restrain undue dominance of economic power in favour of protecting the weak. Judges will have opinions about what the law ought to be. But, the rule of law is not about what is the right answer. It is about the law as it is being evenly and independently applied. Every judge knows that his duty is to apply a law which he dislikes. If the law is a poor one, then let it be changed. If it is judge-made law, and you are sufficiently senior, you may occasionally have a hand in changing it. Otherwise, it is a matter for the legislature. And the consequence of making the legislature the arbiter of what the law is defined to be is that the decision is, in a democracy, made by those who have been elected as representatives of citizens. As a general rule, law is for judges and courts, but policy is for elected legislatures. When it comes to public law review of public decisions, the difference between legality and merits is fundamental. To my mind this is quite an important feature of the division of functions. The judge has the privilege (and duty) of applying the law. The other side of the coin is that the judge ought generally to keep out of public debate about what the law ought to be. This is sometimes easy, but sometimes not at all. There will always be cases which touch closely on topics of public or political debate or controversy. An obvious example is when there is an argument that a particular law is invalid, for example for inconsistency with the constitution.

It is in these situations that the rule of law requires that judges are acutely careful to make the distinction between legality and merits. The same applies when one is considering the actions of the legislature – only more so, because the actions of democratically elected representatives are entitled to be respected unless they are clearly unlawful. In finely balanced judgments as to policy, the judgment of elected legislators is generally to be accepted. The rule of law is not a rule that the opinion of a judge is superior to that of anyone else, except on strictly legal questions. Nor is it a rule that the courts can impose their own view of what the law ought to be.

To my mind this is quite an important feature of the division of functions. The judge has the privilege (and duty) of applying the law. The other side of the coin is that the judge ought generally to keep out of public debate about what the law ought to be. It is an important aspect of the rule of law that the courts react to high-profile cases by treating them the same as any other case. The argument must proceed along legal lines, concentrating on legality not moral or social merits. It is much easier for this approach to be maintained if the courts are the ordinary courts of law. This is not always the practice everywhere. Some systems have evolved a special Constitutional Court with separate judges from the Court of Final Appeal. I am sure that they make it work and that they are conscious of the essential rule of law that we have been talking about. But I can’t help thinking that it must be much more difficult if you are not also an ‘ordinary’ judge with a general jurisdiction.

Reader’s Lecture Series

It is worth thinking for a moment about the vital distinction between legality and merits in the context of the independence of judges. More or less everybody signs up to the general proposition that judges must be independent. But the more one expects judges to pass judgment on policy questions, the greater is the pressure to make them in some way accountable to the public. It is a fundamental feature of the independence of judges not just that no one can tell me what to decide, nor ever thinks to try, but also that I owed no one anything at all to my appointment. In our systems, the appointment of judges is solely on legal merit. There is no government input into the choice. This is by no means the only model. You only have to step across the Atlantic to find a highly respectable system which operates differently. The American model is historically very interesting. The draftsmen of the US constitution were much influenced by the work of a Frenchman – universally known as Montesquieu. He famously propounded the concept of the separation of powers. He identified what are now the conventional three limbs of a state’s governance – the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. And he proposed that if abuse of power was to be avoided, what was needed was for these three limbs to be rigorously separated, and for them to operate in tension each with the other two. This is the origin of the system often described as one of checks and balances. It is very interesting what the American drafters of the constitution did. First, their system does not hinge on the idea of the supremacy of parliament. Second, they designed their system deliberately so as to give to the judiciary, and particularly to their new Supreme Court, a profoundly political role. They equipped it as a check on and balance against not just the executive (the president) but also the legislature (Congress) for they authorised the court to strike down legislation which it considered to be inconsistent with the constitution. And, at the same time, they separated Congress from the executive, and set up a tension between them which persists to this day. So, that is an apparently segregationist model of the separation of powers, but actually one which firmly interlinks law and politics at an institutional level. It is certainly one way of providing for the rule of law. One complication which flows directly from the political power of the judges is that their appointment was made part of the political process. The justices of the Supreme Court of the US are appointed by the president but have to be confirmed by the advice and consent of the Senate.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

This illustrates a quite different model of the rule of law: judges are deliberately given a direct role in political questions via their interpretation of the constitution, and the quid pro quo is that their appointments are regarded as a political matter. A similar process of reasoning lies behind the fact that in many states of the US judges stand for election and re-election. We ought to pause to ask whether the rule of law requires this kind of transparent, not to say ostentatious, public accountability or whether such a system undermines the rule of law by making judges dependent on supporting factions or public opinion for their jobs – and, if they are, how this affects their decisions. The rule of law has, so far, two vital components. But there is an indispensable third component. It is a legal profession which combines the duty to represent citizens, individual or corporate, or the state, and to advance the interests of its clients, with the overriding duty to the administration of justice. And it is about the daily working relationship between that profession and the judges. Most cases are not the highly political ones which occupy the headlines of the newspapers, like the ones where someone tries to litigate politics. Nor are most cases conducted in the Supreme Court, still less in the Court of Appeal. The great majority of cases are heard at first instance, at whatever level, and go no further. This is where people actually meet the law. No legal system can survive unless it concentrates its efforts on first instance decisions, on getting it right first time.

Most cases are not the highly political ones which occupy the headlines of the newspapers, like the ones where someone tries to litigate politics. The trial of a case at any level depends utterly on the professional co-operation of the advocates and the judge. I often think of it as a triangle of respect. Judge, advocate and advocate, with the lines of respect connecting each point on the triangle. Trials simply do not work unless those lines are there, and especially unless the advocates recognise and apply the rule that their duty is to their clients but their overriding duty is to justice. So, advocates keep their personal views and positions strictly separate from their duty as representatives. That way the judge has the best chance of getting the answer right for the litigants. And this is what I mean by making the rule of law a daily reality. It is the responsibility of all of us. Mediation is increasingly important. One of the advantages of mediation can of course be, along with privacy and finality, the possibility of arriving at an outcome which is not confined to that strictly required by law – of great value when there is a continuing commercial or personal relationship between the parties which it may be possible to preserve. But the principles of the daily rule of law to which I have been referring apply, do they not, equally to mediation? All this depends hugely on the professional relationship between advocate and advocate and between both of them and the judge. The systems which work are those where there is a common culture of professional ethics and mutual respect between these players. And institutions which bring them together professionally contribute an immeasurable amount to the essential relationships. The Inns of Court have been fostering and regulating these relationships for half a millennium or so. All legal systems have their own different experiences; we can and should all be looking at the practices of each other with a view to learning and adapting what we do. And that way, the rule of law can indeed be a daily reality. The Rt Hon Lord Hughes of Ombersley Treasurer 2019 37

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Wellbeing at The Inn

WELLBEING AT THE BAR

STUDENT WELLBEING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMME By Master Rachel Spearing

In 2014, independent research commissioned by the Bar Council, funded by all four Inns to examine the ‘wellbeing and resilience’ of the profession, reported that: • 1 in 3 found it difficult to control/stop worrying; • 2 in 3 feel showing signs of stress equals weakness; • 1 in 6 felt low in spirits most of the time; • 59 per cent demonstrated unhealthy levels of perfectionism;

Psychological well-being within the profession was rarely spoken about. Leadership responded with the initiation of the Wellbeing at the Bar (WATB) Programme designed to: • a) Provide members of the profession with the information and skills they need to stay well; • b) Support members of the profession as they deal with difficulties that arise in so far as they affect a barrister’s professional life; and • c) Provide assistance to those with responsibility (or taking on a supporting role) for those in difficulty or crisis.

In October 2016, the WATB Portal launched wellbeingatthebar. org.uk with a suite of content and resources freely available to assist members. This programme is managed by the Bar Council, overseen by a working group consisting of a representative from the Inns, Specialist Bar Associations, Circuits, the Legal Practice Management Association and the Institute of Barristers’ Clerks. In November 2018, following a successful bid to the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund, a free professional assistance service with Health Assured was established, providing those with a practising certificate at the independent Bar with access to 24/7 professionals, triaging mental, physical, financial and social challenges. Since the launch of the Bar Wellbeing portal, there have been over 200,000 visits to the site. Chambers’ policies, recognition certificates for their wellbeing initiatives, together with Specialist Bar Association education and training has created significant culture change for those working within the profession regarding mental health. We have also seen impact from our work with development in several other countries, including Australia, Singapore and the USA, of similar programmes.

Treasury

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Between May 2019 and April 2020, Health Assured triaged 511 cases, resulting in 94 counselling support provisions, 51 face-toface sessions from 10 cases, 12 telephone counselling sessions from 3 cases and 31 online directions for the Bar. Emerging research data from law schools, professional legal education and the Inns’ own experience highlighted a rising phenomenon of distress within those seeking to access the profession. Recent COVID-19 impact research by the Bar Council suggests that there will be significant challenges to the 2020–21 period for access to the profession, with further disruption for many within the profession due to uncertainty and instability within the Bar. All of the Inns are concerned for the welfare of their members.

Recent COVID-19 impact research by the Bar Council suggests that there will be significant challenges to the 2020–21 period for access to the profession. To address this lacuna, Inner Temple has coordinated the provision of support from the same assistance provider, Health Assured, for all student members of the Inns. From September 2020, those who have completed the Bar Course and intend to practise in the UK, but have not yet obtained pupillage, may access the free and confidential service for up to five years. This confidential service offers a wide range of support from medical, bereavement, career, health and debt guidance, including one-to-one counselling. Information on how to access the service is available on the Inns’ webpages for wellbeing.

From September 2020, those who have completed the Bar Course and intend to practise in the UK, but have not yet obtained pupillage, may access the free and confidential service for up to five years. The Inn has invested widely in programmes to support awareness, skills and activities for wellbeing. Many of our student, new and established practitioners have welcomed these supportive learning and recovery opportunities to manage the challenges experienced in our professional lives. Judicial Officers also now have access to schemes and programmes to support wellbeing, acknowledging that neither age nor wisdom provide immunity to wellbeing issues, which can be experienced by everyone and anyone at some time in their lives. Rachel Spearing Master of Wellbeing

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Is the Presumption of Innocence Alive and Well?

SOCIAL CONTEXT OF THE LAW:

IS THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE ALIVE AND WELL? From a panel discussion held on 4 February 2020 between Master Heather Hallett and Master Tracy Ayling, moderated by Master Geoffrey Nice QC

Sir Geoffrey Nice: Welcome to this Social Context of Law event, which would not be happening but for Sir Roger Scruton, who died a few weeks ago. Appropriately, as we recall Roger’s almost romantic admiration for the genius of the common law, this event deals with the immense changes in our criminal legal system over recent decades and what that may mean for what the public wants of the criminal law and may get. Baroness Hallett:

By the time I was called to the Bar in 1972, the pendulum had swung from the gross injustices inflicted on defendants highlighted by Sir William Garrow to an investigation and trial process seemingly designed to achieve maximum protection for a defendant. The principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ expounded by Garrow had become fully embedded in the criminal justice system. Even the most technical flaw in the indictment could lead to a trial being declared a nullity. There was no obligation to answer questions in interview or at trial and no consequences flowed from a failure to do so. Three members of the jury panel could be challenged without cause. There was no obligation to reveal one’s defence other than by giving notice of an alibi and ambush defences were common. Hearsay evidence was rarely admitted even where eyewitnesses had been intimidated into silence. Bad character evidence could only be admitted in restricted circumstances. Complainants of sexual offences and of domestic abuse struggled to be heard. Cross examination followed the lead set by Garrow and could be aggressive no matter how vulnerable the witness. If a witness in a sexual case was a child complainant or an accomplice, corroboration was required from an independent source. An acquittal was final; once a defendant had been put in jeopardy and a not guilty verdict returned or his conviction quashed, that was the end. We have come a long way since then and my task is to consider whether the pendulum has swung too far the other way, to the extent that the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial have been undermined. A presumption of innocence embodies a number of principles. First, the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt and must do so to a high standard. Second, the defendant is entitled to a fair trial, in which he or she is allowed to test the evidence against them. Third, only evidence properly probative of the elements of the offence may be admitted. Fourth, the defendant has the right to remain silent. There are exceptions to the general rule that the burden remains on the prosecution. What troubles some are the presumptions provided in sections 75 and 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Section 75 provides a rebuttal presumption that the complainant did not consent to a sexual act and the defendant did not believe she consented where violence or the threat of violence is used, the complainant was detained, asleep or unconscious, as a result of a physical disability, the complainant was incapable of communicating consent and/ or the defendant administered a stupefying substance.

By the time I was called to the Bar in 1972, the pendulum had swung from the gross injustices inflicted on defendants highlighted by Sir William Garrow to an investigation and trial process seemingly designed to achieve maximum protection for a defendant. The principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ expounded by Garrow had become fully embedded in the criminal justice system. Section 76 provides a conclusive presumption of lack of consent and lack of belief in consent where the defendant intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the act or induced the complainant to consent by impersonating a person known personally to the complainant. Some have questioned what the rebuttable provisions add to the original elements of the offence, arguing that a properly directed jury should accept that a complainant who is unconscious cannot consent. In relation to the conclusive presumptions, if a jury is satisfied that the defendant deceived the complainant into agreeing to a sexual act they should have no difficulty in finding that the complainant did not truly agree by choice to the sexual act. Most witnesses find the prospect of giving evidence daunting and many find it stressing. If they fall into the category of vulnerable witnesses, special measures – for example, screens, live links, intermediaries and pre-recorded evidence – are available to facilitate their giving evidence. One could argue that by providing a witness with special measures and apparent protection from the defendant, a jury may gain the impression that the witness needs protection and is therefore likely to be telling the truth. However, special measures are accompanied by clear directions from the trial judge that their use should not prejudice the jury against the defendant.

Treasury

Section 101 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 included, in the category of witnesses entitled to special measures, adult complainants in sexual offences. Accepting that many such witnesses may experience real distress, the issue arises as to why an adult witness without a mental disorder should be treated differently from adult witnesses in other trials, many of which can also be extremely distressing.

I had similar concerns about the admissibility of hearsay evidence, questioning whether it would be used too readily to replace best evidence. However, the provisions of sections 114 to 127 of the Criminal Justice Act were carefully drafted and have generally been fairly applied. Although I do understand the concerns about the inability to challenge directly hearsay evidence, the safeguards appear to be working.

Recent judgements have led to a sea change in the way vulnerable witnesses may be treated in court. No more leading questions of children; no more questions that confuse. Judges can impose restrictions on the length, nature and consent of any questioning.

In England and Wales, there is no longer a requirement for corroboration of a child witness, sexual complainants and accomplices. The trial process in this country is designed to ensure that the quality and reliability of evidence of a witness is tested properly and fairly. A jury may still look for supporting evidence, but that is very different from saying you cannot prosecute unless corroboration from an independent source exists.

I was initially unpersuaded that the provisions of sections 101 to 108 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, extending the circumstances in which bad character evidence can be admitted, were either necessary or sensible. I changed my mind because of the way in which the courts have applied the new provisions.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

A fundamental aspect to the presumption of innocence is the right to remain silent, yet the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 makes controversial changes to the right to silence. If a defendant fails to answer questions in police interview or at trial, the trial judge may direct the jury that they can draw adverse inferences from that fact. Further erosions have been made into the right to silence by the burden placed on defendants and their lawyers to provide the prosecutors and the court with sufficient information to ensure that, before trial, proper disclosure is made and the trial itself focuses on the real issues. This may appear to undermine the principle that the prosecution must prove its case and the defendant is not obliged to assist them, but in the real world some inroads may be necessary. We have limited resources and we must focus them on the proper issues.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Is the Presumption of Innocence Alive and Well?

In conclusion, although there are aspects of the current system that have caused me concern over the years, on the whole, the system is working well. I believe that the changes made have met the expectations of the public. One should never underestimate the importance of ensuring that the justice system commands the confidence of the public. The public will lose that confidence if the pendulum tips too far the other way.

If vulnerable witness training is working correctly and the new method for questioning is to be supported, then surely pre-recorded cross-examination becomes redundant. The shape of a trial can change very quickly as a result of a single response or action of a witness. Complainants and witnesses should, therefore, be cross-examined in real time.

Tracy Ayling: I want to look at this from the point of view of the defendant. I want to concentrate on vulnerable witnesses and, particularly, historic sexual cases. I put forward the proposition that the presumption of innocence is not dead, but it is certainly in its death throes in this type of case. I want to start with the ‘assumptions direction’. It includes the words: “It may be said on behalf of one or more of the defendants that the fact that a complainant did not report what she says happened as soon as possible makes it less likely that the complaint that she eventually made is true. Whether that is so is a question for you to consider and resolve. However, it would be wrong to assume that every person who has been the victim of a sexual offence will report it as soon as possible or take every opportunity of doing so. The experience of the courts is that victims of sexual offences can react to what has happened in different ways.” This swings too far in the direction of handing the complainant a complete shield from the suggestion that the delay is evidence that the allegation is untrue and paints the defence as unfair for making the suggestion.

A quick word on abuse hearings. No longer can I complain that the case is ancient. Those of us who defend these cases know that one tiny tangible piece of concrete evidence can be the difference between conviction and acquittal. So, I move to evidence in chief of the complainant, the VRI, the video-recorded interview. In a relaxed and informal setting, the ABE, Achieving Best Evidence, rules go out of the window. ABEs are often badly conducted, but the Court of Appeal has held that the weight of evidence, badly conducted or not, is for the jury. Jurors, for the most part, do not have legal or police training. Can they really be expected to assess the weight of the evidence, based on the manner of questioning from the police officer who conducted an ABE? What is a vulnerable witness? There are many examples of truly vulnerable witnesses: learning disabilities and difficulties, mental conditions, very young age groups. All require ground rules hearings and rulings by judges, but we seem to be expanding the ambit of who is vulnerable. A brief word about section 28. It could be argued that this is unnecessary given all the other special measures and advocacy training which are now in place. If vulnerable witness training is working correctly and the new method for questioning is to be supported, then surely pre-recorded cross-examination becomes redundant. The shape of a trial can change very quickly as a result of a single response or action of a witness. Complainants and witnesses should, therefore, be cross-examined in real time.

In the case of Sandor Jonas in the Court of Appeal, in their conclusions, the court said: “Our starting point must be the fact that the witness, AS, was vulnerable. She was given the benefit of special measures for a reason. She was likely to suffer fear or distress in giving evidence because of her own circumstances and all those relating to the case.” Is every witness giving evidence who is likely to suffer fear or distress now vulnerable? Is this judgement in fact extending the whole concept of ‘vulnerable’ to just about any witness should the Court of Appeal choose? Is my cross-examination going to be restricted accordingly? So, I come to the concept of putting the case. The training film on The Advocate’s Gateway clearly says that with a vulnerable witness it is not necessary to put your case. I have shown that film to judges and recorders who have had no experience of it and, as a result, have not put my case, but as recommended made a short speech to the jury through the judge. Then, came the case of R v RK [2018], involving the not calling of a child. I quote from paragraph 27: “If a child is assessed as competent and the judge agrees the child is competent, we would generally expect the child to be called and cross-examined, with the benefit of the range of special measures we now deploy.” So now I, as defence advocate, am beset on all sides. Thus, with a constrained and half-hearted cross-examination of a complainant, unexplained to the jury and with the judge telling the jury that even if the offence has not been reported, the experience of the courts is that it is probably true, I advise my client whether or not to give evidence. No special measures for him. Even if he is vulnerable, there is unlikely to be an intermediary. Whatever type of defendant, he will be called a liar. The defendant’s previous convictions will be put to him, all of them. Shouldn’t we seek the right to ask the only question that matters and that is: Has he done it this time? The pendulum has indeed swung too far the other way and it needs to steady itself again. The Rt Hon The Baroness Hallett DBE and Tracy Ayling QC, moderated by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC The full version of this discussion is available at innertemple.org.uk/presumptionofinnocence

Celebrate the life

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

MASTER JOHN LAWS (Treasurer of The Inner Temple 2010) Judge who enjoyed intellectual jousts with his nephew Dominic Cummings

Master John Laws with his cat… © Garlinda Birkbeck

When Dominic Cummings came up with the Brexit slogan ‘take back control’ during the EU referendum in 2016, his uncle Sir John Laws might have rejoined that control had never been taken away. It would be “a mistake to assert, though it is very often asserted, that our sovereignty was diminished by membership of the European Union”, Laws said in 2017. “We have not lost the sovereignty of the power to legislate for ourselves.” The view of the Lord Justice of Appeal, one of Britain’s foremost constitutional experts, was exemplified by his 2002 ruling in the High Court against Steve Thoburn, a Sunderland greengrocer who was prosecuted for using imperial measurements instead of the metric ones specified under EU law. Laws ruled that European law had sovereignty because the European Communities Act 1972 incorporated it into Britain’s domestic law. Any recourse to domestic law, such as the Weights and Measures Act of 1985, was an ‘inconsistency’ that should be disregarded. However, the legal foundation of that supremacy rested with parliament, which could take back the power it had delegated to Brussels at any time.

Laws’ nephew would go on to become the chief adviser of Boris Johnson, and when the Prime Minister announced that he was proroguing parliament on 28 August 2019, Laws would not be drawn on the legality of the move but warned that it would draw the Queen into political controversy. “She is obliged to follow the advice of ministers. Boris Johnson as Prime Minister has an agenda that is not expressed necessarily in legislation, but through the route of prorogation. It may be difficult to see where the Queen stands in that.” Prorogation was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court. A gregarious man with a quick wit and a pleasingly fruity voice, Laws responded deftly to questions about Cummings, the son of his younger sister, Morag: “He’s a very bright chap, Dominic. He can be a bit intransigent. But he talks a lot more sense than nonsense.” Uncle and nephew would debate exhaustively at family lunches, the younger man occasionally being called to order if he went too far. “There was huge love and respect between them,” said Laws’ daughter, Margaret Grace.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Master John Laws

John Grant McKenzie Laws was born in Nottingham in 1945 to Frederic Laws and Margaret Ross Laws (née McKenzie), the daughter of the Congregational minister and academic John Grant McKenzie. His parents were both doctors in the Royal Army Medical Corps during the war, serving in Egypt.

Laws married Sophie Marshall in 1973. They had met in their first term at Oxford. The courtship survived one of his earliest wooing tactics, to recite in full the epic poem Horatius at the Bridge. She would go on to become a distinguished theologian. In 1986, the couple answered an advert in The Times and bought a plot of land on the Greek island of Andros. They built a home overlooking the Aegean Sea. Laws would read philosophy by day and drink retsina in the local taverna at night. Locals called him ‘the Judge’. His wife died of cancer in 2017. He is survived by their daughter, who works in PR and recalls being read Greek myths as a child. When Laws decided to teach his grandson some mildly rude words, the child started calling him ‘bum’.

He was educated at Durham Chorister School and was a king’s scholar at Durham School. There, Laws excelled at Latin and Greek and decried all sports. After reading a biography of the great barrister and politician Lord Birkenhead, Laws decided to become a court advocate. “I thought it a very romantic profession with a lot of contest in it.” He studied at Exeter College, Oxford, taking a first in Mods and Greats. He later said that studying moral and political philosophy shaped his approach to law. Laws was called to the Bar at Inner Temple in 1970 under the pupillage of William Macpherson. From 1971, he practised at the Common Law Bar from 39 Essex Chambers and, in 1985, he was appointed as a Bencher and a Recorder. A year earlier, he had taken on the role of First Junior Treasury Counsel (common law), known as ‘Treasury devil’, representing the government in public-law cases. After a court order had been obtained to prevent the publication in the UK of the book Spycatcher by the former M15 officer Peter Wright, Laws failed to prevent its publication in Australia in 1988. He also represented the government at the inquest after the killings of three IRA members in Gibraltar on 6 March 1988, by the SAS. The verdict was lawful killing.

Laws’ presence at such cases was enhanced by the devils embroidered into his socks and by his squint, which unnerved adversaries in court because it gave the impression that he was staring at them while he addressed the judge. Any intimidation would be lessened by Laws using a pencil with a plastic troll on top, a present from his daughter. He became a High Court judge in 1992. One of his most important rulings, in March 1997, was against the Lord Chancellor after he had considerably raised court fees. “It prevented some people from litigating at all in areas where there was no legal aid,” he said. “The order was unlawful because it effectively prevented access to a constitutional right, namely access to the Queen’s court.” A Lord Justice of Appeal from 1999 to 2016, Laws made a landmark judgment which opened the way for equality laws with no exceptions. Gary McFarlane, a relationship counsellor, had been dismissed by his employer, Relate, for refusing to advise a same-sex couple on account of his Christian beliefs. In 2003, Laws rejected evidence by the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey of Clifton, claiming that Christians should be given special protection under equality legislation in accordance with their consciences. “The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds . . . is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective, but it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary,” Laws ruled.

Laws’ presence at such cases was enhanced by the devils embroidered into his socks and by his squint, which unnerved adversaries in court because it gave the impression that he was staring at them while he addressed the judge. Laws wanted a seat on the Supreme Court. Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood called him “one of the finest jurists never to reach the final court of appeal”. Some in the Establishment viewed him as too much of a disrupter, like his nephew. “He was seen as too libertarian as well as being a judicial activist, willing to make bold decisions that some saw as expanding the reach of the judiciary,” a former colleague said. On his retirement from the Court of Appeal in 2016, he expressed his theories on constitutional law from the lectern as Goodhart visiting professor of legal science at the University of Cambridge. Laws made the case for an explicit constitutional theory based on historical statutes and common law that clearly establishes the relationship between the ruler and the ruled. The beauty of having an unwritten constitution, he argued, was that it gave the country the ability to change without revolution. “We haven’t had a revolution since the 17th century but there has been enormous constitutional development, such as the growth of the franchise. It would be a very bad mistake to have a written constitution because it would place all the wisdom of the state in a single moment. As Edmund Burke said, ‘Society is a contract between the living, the dead and those yet to be born.’” Much of Laws’ work was concerned with defending the sovereignty of the constitution over parliament, especially government incursions into the power of the judiciary. One of his proudest achievements was to advance the use of judicial review as a constitutional check on politicians. After the death of his beloved wife, Laws relied on the companionship of their cat Lysistrata, named after a Greek heroine. She was the last of many; the animals embodied the spirit of independence and liberty that he had always stood for. Sir John Laws, Lord Justice of Appeal, was born on 10 May 1945. He died of COVID-19 on 5 April 2020, aged 74. Published by The Times on 24 April 2020

Celebrate the life

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

CELEBRATE THE LIFE: MASTER JOHN LAWS (1945–2020) By Master Mark Hill

It was impossible not to like John Laws. He radiated affability. Thus, his many friends were saddened to learn of his death on Palm Sunday. They took comfort that his daughter, Margaret Grace, on whom John doted, was able to be at his hospital bedside in his final hours, notwithstanding the lockdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic which disrupted all our lives and, ultimately, claimed his. John Grant McKenzie Laws was born on 10 May 1945 into a medical family – both his parents were doctors – and spent his childhood in the mining community of Easington, County Durham. He was educated at Durham Chorister School and as a King’s Scholar at Durham School. He studied at Exeter College, Oxford, obtaining a first-class BA in 1967. He was called to the Bar in 1970 by the Inner Temple, of which he was elected a Bencher in 1985, and served as Treasurer in 2010. John was a popular junior barrister who quickly built up a busy practice. In 1984, he was appointed First Junior Treasury Counsel (or ‘Treasury Devil’), and effectively became standing counsel to Her Majesty’s government. Many of his cases were in the public eye – Spycatcher, Gillick, Death on the Rock – as well as the long-running Factortame litigation, which was to determine the domestic status of European law. The irony was not lost on John years later that it was his own nephew, Dominic Cummings, who put this jurisprudential juggernaut into reverse, as the éminence grise behind Boris Johnson’s hard Brexit. In 1992, as was then the practice for the Treasury Devil, John was appointed directly to the High Court Bench, without taking silk. He was an admirable puisne judge and was swiftly elevated to the Court of Appeal in 1998, becoming a privy counsellor. He was a delight to appear before, unfailingly polite and patient, and always happy to reveal his provisional thinking, thereby allowing counsel to try to persuade him otherwise. A few even succeeded. In McFarlane v Relate Avon Limited (2010), John famously rejected a submission, supported by a witness statement from the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey (also a bencher of the Inn), that the Lord Chief Justice should establish a specialist panel of judges with a proven sensitivity and understanding of religious issues to hear cases engaging religious rights. John noted that judges “administer the law in accordance with the judicial oath, without fear or favour, affection or ill will”, stating that the special procedure as proposed would be “deeply inimical to the public interest”.

A long-serving member of the editorial board of the Ecclesiastical Law Journal, John was a frequent contributor of book reviews, always perceptive and occasionally trenchant. He was a key speaker at Ecclesiastical Law Society conferences in Durham in 2003 and again in Trinity Hall, Cambridge, in 2017, where he delivered an elegant and memorable after-dinner speech. John was devoted to his wife, Sophie, and palpably diminished by her untimely death in the summer of 2017. They remained sweethearts throughout their life together, taking joy in the other’s achievements. They were particularly relaxed on the Greek island of Andros, where they built a home and many friendships. John was known by every bar and taverna owner on the island, whom he engaged in conversation with his stylish Greek – ancient and modern. Whether in Pimlico or in Greece, John would always find time to befriend a cat or two. And his grandchildren, James (six) and Sophie (three), adored him.

They remained sweethearts throughout their life together, taking joy in the other’s achievements. John allowed me to retell, with increasing embellishment, the story of my first case in silk. Summoned home at short notice from overseas, I endured a difficult journey back, arriving with just minutes to spare. After the applicant’s counsel had completed her submissions, I rose to respond, but John gestured me to resume my seat, saying, with a twinkle in his eye, “I needn’t trouble you, Mr Hill.” On his retirement from the Bench, he gave me his short court coat, or ‘bumfreezer’ as he called it, delighted to have found a recipient of similar dimensions. Every time I dress for court, I recall with affection Sir John Laws, the finest advocate of his generation, and the most convivial of companions. Rest eternal grant unto John and Sophie; And let light perpetual shine upon them. Mark Hill QC Chairman, Ecclesiastical Law Society This obituary was first published in the Ecclesiastical Law Journal and is published courtesy of the Ecclesiastical Law Society.

By the time that John retired from the Court of Appeal in 2016, he had become the longest serving Lord Justice of Appeal. He was too gracious to voice any disappointment about not having been further elevated to the Supreme Court, as he undoubtedly deserved, and as many expected. He was appointed Arthur Goodhart Visiting Professor of Legal Science at the University of Cambridge, where students relished his lovingly crafted lectures, drawn from his lifetime of experience at the legal coalface. 45

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Timeline – Extracts from the Archives

TIMELINE

EXTRACTS FROM THE ARCHIVES By the Archivist

1520/21

1620/21

The Christmas celebrations at the Inns of Court lasted from Christmas Eve until 2 January. Elaborate feasts were prepared, and lavish entertainments performed throughout the 12 days of Christmas for the entertainment of the Inn’s members. The last grand Christmas in the medieval manner was that attended by Charles II in Lincoln’s Inn in 1662:

Minutes of the Middle Temple Parliament on 18 May 1620 reveal a controversy concerning the payment of the Master of the Temple Church who received a yearly contribution of 18d from every member of the Middle Temple, which for some time the members had refused to pay:

“The commendable and heroical sports and pastimes performed in this house and the other Inns of Court are held to be both honourable and memorable namely those in the time of Christmas which by an ancient ordinance beginneth yearly upon the eve of All Saints and thence continues until the feast day on the night of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary upon which feast days the Judges and Serjeants-at-Law formerly fellows of those societies personally feast and begin the revels with them in their halls and thence on every Saturday weekly after supper ended.” Brerewood Manuscript, Middle Temple Archives

Common to all the Inns throughout the Christmas period was the popular pastime of gambling and games, such as cards and dice. The Inns were often forced to ban gambling altogether, as the games became notorious as the cause of much disorder and violence. Following the lively Christmas celebrations of 1520, the Inner Temple decided players of ‘shoffeborde’ and ‘slypgrote’ were under a penalty of 6s 8d. In 1532, they forbade ‘shodebord’ dice and cards, with players fined 3s 4d. Yet the legalised gambling that took place during the Inn’s Christmas celebrations contributed considerably to the cost of Christmas at the Inner Temple, with outsiders freely invited to take part, yielding a large daily profit. The penalties listed above were therefore never rigidly enforced.

“The cause of their refusal was found to be due to Mr Masters giving precedence to the Inner Temple in ministering the Communion in the Temple Church by beginning to minister the sacrament first to those of Inner Temple; whereas it hath been always hitherto administered alternis vicibis beginning sometimes with one and sometimes with the other, both Temples being one congregation of gentlemen between whom there was never any precedence in anything. Mr Masters exhibited a petition to Sir Henry Montague, Lord Chief Justice of the King’s Bench who called before him the Lord Chief Baron and Mr Baron Bromley, who have been of the Inner Temple and Mr Justice Dodridge who has been of this house with sundry Benchers of both Temples. His Lordship and Mr Justice Dodridge called to mind that the Master of the Temple did as usually begin to minister the Communion as at the Inner Temple in the times of Mr Alvey, Mr Hooker and Doctor Balgay, and that Mr Masters for some time did the like, which all the Benchers then present remembered. Also his Lordship and the Judges held it not fit to allow any Inn of Court precedence or pre-eminence over another, all the Inns of Court being in all points equal, which the Benchers of the Inner Temple acknowledged saying they claimed no precedence of Houses, only they pretended to have the Dean’s side of the Church. Nevertheless because the Middle Temple had not there such ancient witnesses as they said would prove the ministration of the Communion to have been equally dealt in ancient time, without any precedence to either side, the Judges thought meet to settle some present course for the prevention of any unkindness but without prejudice to the rights of either side. They therefore suggested that until this controversy should be otherwise determined, Mr Masters and his curate or the preacher, at the celebration of the Holy Communion, should take bread together, and the Master to give the bread to the Inner Temple, and the curate or the preacher at the same instant to give bread to the Middle Temple. That done, the Master shall give the wine to the Middle Temple, and the curate or preacher at the same instant to the Inner Temple and course to hold alternis vicibus between the two Houses till other course shall be taken in this behalf.” Minutes of Parliament Middle Temple, 18 May 1620

This sensible decision did not last long. Again in 1736, the Inner and Middle Temple were vying over the order of processions at the creation of Serjeants and once again a dispute raged over the order of precedence, as the Master of the Temple Church was found to be giving preference to the Middle Temple members in administering their communion ahead of those of the Inner Temple.

Archives

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

1720/1

1920/1

The Inn possesses an extraordinary and beautiful silver collection, with pieces given as gifts by both Benchers and Treasurers. The earliest piece is dated 1609.

Admission of Musa al-Alami, who was called to the Bar in 1924.

One of the finest pieces is a silver-gilt tazza (salver with a foot), engraved with the royal arms of William and Mary, and those of Charles Montagu, Earl of Halifax. A number of such finely engraved salvers were made in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. It was the custom for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to retain as a perquisite his silver seal of office on the dissolution of parliament. This was defaced and a salver made from it, with the representation of the seal engraved on it. Halifax ceased to be Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1699 and died in 1715. This salver is dated 1720 and is a replica of one made for the Earl in 1687. 1820/1

A eulogy for Musa al-Alami that appeared in the June 1984 London Spectator recorded the remarks of two mourners at his funeral in Jerusalem’s famous Al-Aqsa Mosque. Said one mourner, “I suppose he was the last of the Palestinians.” Added another mourner, “And the greatest.” He was born in 1897, the same year that Theodor Herzl organised the First Zionist Congress at Basel and which created the state of Israel. It was to be his fate to get caught up in the battle between Jewish and Palestinian nationalism for control of Palestine. Following his Call to the Bar, he returned to Jerusalem, where he worked for the legal department of the government of the British Mandate of Palestine as junior crown counsel, eventually becoming Private Secretary of the High Commissioner, Arthur Grenfell Wauchope. He contributed to the government white paper of 1939, which attempted to limit the number of Jewish immigrants to Palestine and served as the governing policy for Mandatory Palestine from 1939 to 1948. After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, al-Alami lost most of his property in Jerusalem and went to live in Jericho, where he bought 5000 acres and funded the Arab Development Society to help Jericho’s refugees. He founded a farm and school on an initial grant from the King of Jordan. As a result of his tireless fundraising, he was able to build villages and founded an agricultural farm, from which the produce was exported. The community was hugely successful and won international support from Scandinavian countries and the US government, and private organisations such as the Ford Foundation. Yet despite this support, the Israeli Invasion of 1967 laid waste to two-thirds of the land and the farm was destroyed. Musa al-Alami wrote an opinion article published in 1949 of the “great national disaster” suffered by the Arabs of Palestine: “The British were the prime causers of the disaster, and on them lies its responsibility. They were assisted by the Americans and the Russians. So much is clear. At all events, we found ourselves face to face with the Jews, and entered into battle with them to decide the future; and in spite of what the British, the Americans, and the Russians had done, it was still within our power to win the fight.”

Inner Temple Account 1820 © Inner Temple Archives

“There were two phases to the battle of Palestine. … In the first phase the fundamental source of our weakness was that we were unprepared even though not taken by surprise, while the Jews were fully prepared. … These same weaknesses were the source of weakness in our defence in the second phase, that of the Arab armies: disunity, lack of a unified command, improvisation, diversity of plans, and on top of all a slackness and lack of seriousness in winning the war.” Musa al-Alami died in Amman on 8 June 1984. Celia Pilkington Archivist

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Library Facilities and Services

LIBRARY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

LI The temporary Library for the duration of Project Pegasus is housed on the fifth floor at 10 Fetter Lane. It 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 range of print and electronic resources in a comfortable working environment.

The Library offers the following facilities and services: • a quiet environment for study • a comprehensive collection of English legal materials, including the most up-to-date editions of major practitioner texts • an extensive archive of old editions of practitioners’ works • specialist Commonwealth and Scottish collections • a range of commercial legal research databases • PCs for online research, access to email and word processing • free Wi-Fi • photocopying, scanning and printing facilities • a document supply service • an enquiry service (in person, by telephone and by email) • assistance with online searching and legal research • an overnight loans scheme for barristers • legal research training for pupils and students • legal research FAQs on our website • tours for students and pupils • web access to the library catalogues of the four Inns • AccessToLaw, a gateway site providing annotated links to selected UK, Commonwealth and worldwide free legal websites (accesstolaw.com) • Current Awareness blog for legal news, changes in legislation and new case law (innertemplelibrary.com) • quarterly electronic newsletter • a Facebook page with information on Library services, news and events (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 Some of these serives may be suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Please check the Library website before visiting.

EDUCATION & TRAINING # E

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Education for the Bar

EDUCATION FOR THE BAR The past year in education and training has been one defined by change and long-term preparation, as well as by the COVID-19 crisis, which drastically altered the Inn’s training provision for much of the Trinity term. The Education and Training Department and Education and Training Committee (chaired by Master Alison Levitt) have presided over an immensely eventful year, working to balance ongoing projects with the more immediate pressures thrown up by lockdown. This section of the Yearbook aims to provide a small insight into these dual commitments, detailing the continuing work of the department as well as the Inn’s efforts to provide a full and uninterrupted educational programme for the rest of the calendar year. Our annual survey of student members shows us that large numbers of new members are attending our events before deciding which Inn to join. From Insight Evenings on Circuit to our annual Dinner to the Universities, and engaging with us on social media, our new students are definitely doing plenty of research before making that choice.

Before lockdown, the Inn’s outreach events and activities continued to grow and develop with the introduction of our new In Focus events – opportunities for individuals from underrepresented backgrounds in the profession to share their experiences in a safe space. Hundreds of students in years 12 and 13 attended our Discovery Days for Schools, and our PASS programme continues to support talented aspiring barristers who have faced substantial disadvantage. There is, of course, still much more work to be done in this area, and the Inn will continue working with relevant partners to develop our outreach schemes.

COVID-19 By the end of March 2020, it had already become clear that much of the Inn’s summer educational activities would not be able to proceed as planned. As a result, a programme of some 15 brand-new Qualifying Sessions were swiftly devised, ranging from advocacy training to lectures on arbitration, case prep and Wellbeing, and each designed to be held remotely. A full report on these events can be found on page (56). Likewise, the Inn’s outreach work continued to take place online, with events such as our first-ever remote Discovery Day for Schools, a virtual seminar on imposter syndrome and coping with rejection for our PASS participants, and dozens of virtual mock-pupillage interviews. Both volunteers and students were able to adapt quickly and successfully to this new way of working, and we are looking forward to incorporating some of our virtual events and activities into our existing programmes in the future. The Scholarships Team were fortunate to complete their Bar Course scholarship awards before lockdown, interviewing 393 scholars and making 133 awards. On 19 and 20 June, they were able successfully to run scholarship interviews for the GDL awards online, interviewing 120 candidates, our largest number yet for the GDL, and making 36 awards. Interviews for the internship awards and pupillage awards were also conducted online during June and July. Having had to find new ways of working during the COVID-19 pandemic, running online interviews in this way has helped the team to advance our online interview offering for those that are unable to attend in-person interviews. We can’t thank our interviewers enough for their flexibility and dedication – as well as their patience as they attended test calls so that we could make sure everything ran smoothly.

Given the ongoing crisis, the Education and Training Department will shortly need to take a view on whether Qualifying Sessions can reasonably be held in person again from September, but even beyond this, and assuming the Inn’s educational provision eventually returns to normal, there are arguably lessons to be learned from this period of remote learning.

Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity Putting aside the impact of the COVID-19 crisis, the vital significance of the Black Lives Matter movement has been one of the Inn’s key considerations in recent months. The work of Inner Temple’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity (EDI) Sub-Committee has never been more important, with recent events drawing stark attention to the situation of black people as distinct from other minority groups, both within society generally and the legal system in particular. As the Chair of the EDI Committee (Master Ingrid Simler) notes: “We were conscious that deeds are better than words and although Inner Temple prides itself as a progressive Inn with a deep commitment to achieving an inclusive culture and diverse membership that reflects society as a whole, we cannot be complacent.” To this end, the Inn issued a statement asking its membership for help and suggestions as to what more we could be doing to promote equality and combat the undoubted inequality that persists. A full report on this issue can be found on page (72). An update from the Inn’s BAME Student Network can additionally be found on page (60). From an educational perspective, the department was keen to capitalise on the relative freedom afforded by online training and accordingly hosted a panel QS on EDI and Anti-Racism at the Bar, chaired by Master Leslie Thomas. The responses to this session were enthusiastic, prompting the department to put together plans for a full online programme of EDI-related sessions to be implemented over the next academic year.

By the end of March 2020, it had already become clear that much of the Inn’s summer educational activities would not be able to proceed as planned. As a result, a programme of some 15 brand-new Qualifying Sessions were swiftly devised. It is clear that there is much work to be done on this subject across all aspects of the Inn’s working life, from governance and the composition of scholarship interviewing panels to the extent and availability of student support. The Education and Training Department, and the Inn at large, are extremely sensitive to this fact and hope to fold these issues into their decision-making and future planning going forwards.

Education & Training

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Future Bar Training Against the backdrop of a deeply eventful year, the Inn has continued to work towards the goals laid out in the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by the four Inns and BSB in April 2019. Intended to clarify our respective roles and responsibilities, the MoU has pointed us towards a process of great change, heavily affecting our Qualifying Sessions and education provision across the board. 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:

Ethics, Standards and Valuations;

Advocacy Skills;

Legal Knowledge, Justice and the Rule of Law;

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion; and

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. The Education and Training Department are exceptionally grateful to the Qualifying Sessions Sub-Committee (chaired by Master Rory Phillips) for all they have done to ensure these changes are ready to be implemented, as well as to the Education and Training Committee for the vital support they have provided. 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 as soon as possible. As always, the Inn is immensely grateful to all its members who volunteer for our education, scholarships and outreach programmes. With their ongoing support, and the support of new volunteers, the Inn will continue to do everything it can to meet the evolving needs of those training for the Bar through to established practitioners. If you would like to volunteer to assist with any of our programmes, please do get in touch.

THE E&T TEAM FIONA BARTLETT Director of Education

DAISY MORTIMER Interim Outreach Manager

education@innertemple.org.uk

SELLISHA LOCKYER Scholarships and Students Manager

020 7797 8214

slockyer@innertemple.org.uk

020 7797 8262

STRUAN CAMPBELL Interim Director of Education

020 7797 8210

scampbell@innertemple.org.uk

GEORGINA EVERATT Scholarships and Students Co-ordinator

020 7797 8214

geveratt@innertemple.org.uk

dmortimer@innertemple.org.uk

HELEN GASKELL Education Co-ordinator hgaskell@innertemple.org.uk

020 7797 2386

020 7797 8211

EDWINA KOROMA Education Co-ordinator ekoroma@innertemple.org.uk

kupham@innertemple.org.uk

DAVID MILLER Professional Training Manager

020 7797 8189

dmiller@innertemple.org.uk

KERRY UPHAM Education Co-ordinator and Assistant to DoE

JULIA ARMFIELD Education Manager

EDUCATION AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT Treasury Building, Inner Temple, London EC4Y 7HL (office situated at 2 King’s Bench Walk) Tel: 020 7797 8208 innertemple.org.uk twitter.com/TheInnerTemple facebook.com/TheInnerTemple

020 7797 8213

020 7797 8209

jarmfield@innertemple.org.uk

RICHARD LOVERIDGE Education Co-ordinator

020 7797 8207

rloveridge@innertemple.org.uk

020 7797 8212 51

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Inner Temple Outreach

INNER TEMPLE OUTREACH

The Inner Temple’s outreach mission starts with the idea that talented people come from all backgrounds in society, and that our role is to enable everyone with capability and ambition to access a career at the Bar. Our aim is to provide enriching experiences and information, to enable understanding of the profession and to support all those thinking of becoming a barrister, recognising that all journeys to the Bar are different. This year, we have introduced a new series of In Focus events, with the aim of having open and frank discussions with members and prospective barristers about issues faced by under-represented groups in the profession. We have hosted over 400 school students at our regular Discovery Days for Schools, to enable them to learn more about the profession, and our PASS programme for undergraduates, postgraduates and career changers continues to grow. Before lockdown, we travelled across England and Wales to attend law fairs and deliver Insight events, to support the idea that the Bar is not a London-centric profession. We were able to use the challenges presented by lockdown as an opportunity to try out some virtual events, and we were delighted with the success of our remote Discovery Day for Schools, as well as the remote mock pupillage interviews we have been running for PASS participants. We plan on incorporating more remote events into our programme of activities, even after lockdown has been lifted, as we know for some students, they are more accessible than events that take place in person. We are also going to be expanding our

mentoring scheme, and we are working in partnership with the Open University on a new suite of electronic educational resources for 14–16-year-olds and their teachers. Our In Focus series continues apace, with an upcoming event on Being BAME at the Bar, and we will be hosting our very first remote Open Day on 25 September. Of course, we would not be able to run our outreach events and activities if it were not for the support of our members, and we are extremely grateful to everyone who gave up their time to support an outreach event. We recognise that volunteering can be time-consuming and that practitioners face many demands on their time, which can make volunteering difficult to fit in. Volunteering for an outreach event often takes no longer than a couple of hours and is very flexible. We are looking for volunteers from every part of the profession, from Bar Course students to QCs and senior judges. If you want to find out more about volunteering, please get in touch with the Inn’s Outreach Team.

Education & Training

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

PROFILE OF A PASS STUDENT By Adeola Fadipe In 2018, I was awarded an Exhibition Award, the Struben Bequest Award and a Duke of Edinburgh Entrance Award. Thankfully, due to the generosity of the Inn, these covered my full fees for the Bar Professional Training Course. Further, my experience on the Inn’s Pegasus Access and Support Scheme (PASS) helped to increase my confidence, broaden my knowledge of the profession, and provided me with access to practitioners who would later go on to become my mentors and supporters. In September 2020, I commence pupillage at Outer Temple Chambers. The Inn has helped me to realise my aspirations, and I hope I too can assist others by sharing my experience of the PASS scheme and scholarship process. My time on the PASS scheme in June 2017 was a highly rewarding experience, which included practical workshops, networking opportunities and a mock trial. As a black woman from a council estate and the first in my family to go to university, ensuring I was equipped with the knowledge to succeed at the Bar was of paramount importance. The PASS scheme did exactly that. The mini-pupillage I was awarded as part of the scheme took place at 3 Paper Buildings (3PB). It was there that I was first exposed to education law, now a keen interest of mine. I observed client conferences where advocates demonstrated the key soft skills required to instil confidence in clients. All the practitioners I met at 3PB were friendly and only too happy to answer my many questions. Over lunch, they would take special care in using personal anecdotes to encourage me and reinforce the truth – that the Bar is open and welcoming to people like myself from diverse backgrounds. The networking workshop facilitated by Debrett’s was such an eye-opening experience. To this day, I still make use of the skills and techniques I gained at that workshop, which included deciding who in the room to speak to, building rapport with someone you’ve just met without feeling awkward or forced, and how to close a conversation politely. These are things that myself and many of my peers struggled with, but after working on the techniques suggested, my confidence in networking scenarios grew immeasurably. A plethora of barristers and judges volunteer at PASS workshops, so I was able to put the skills I learnt into practice straight away. As a result, my network grew and the quality of my professional relationships improved. I was able to benefit from the guidance and support of my network throughout the pupillage process, including mock interviews, advocacy exercises and much-needed words of affirmation.

The mock trial was a valuable opportunity to practise my oral advocacy and I received detailed feedback in a supportive environment. Most importantly, I enjoyed the learning experience, as it gave me an indication of what I could look forward to as a qualified barrister. At the time, I was beginning to lose hope that my goal would never become a reality, as I had been unsuccessful in obtaining a BPTC scholarship for two successive years. But at that time, sporting a wig and gown and delivering a well-received crossexamination was the impetus I needed to keep going.

As a black woman from a council estate and the first in my family to go to university, ensuring I was equipped with the knowledge to succeed at the Bar was of paramount importance. The PASS scheme did exactly that. Equipped with the knowledge and skills from the PASS scheme, I again readied myself for the BPTC scholarship application process. Thankfully, the Inn interviews all those who apply. But I did not underestimate the importance of a strong written application and I treated it like a piece of written advocacy, as advised by my mentor from the Inn. I had undertaken several mini-pupillages and taken on positions of responsibility at university, but competition for scholarships is high and I needed to go further in distinguishing myself. Paid legal work experience shaped the skills which particularly enhanced my application. I developed clientfacing skills as a constituency caseworker for a prominent MP and I strengthened my legal research and analysis skills as a paralegal. Above all, I enjoyed the journey; all of the experiences on my CV were centred around causes I was genuinely passionate about. It is this enthusiasm and commitment which, when communicated effectively, are essential for a successful scholarship interview. I hope that my experience encourages those from non-traditional backgrounds to apply for PASS and a scholarship with the Inn. I am grateful to the Inn for supporting me in my journey to the Bar and very proud to be part of an association where members and staff consistently demonstrate their commitment to empowering future barristers from diverse backgrounds. Adeola Fadipe

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

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 invited to give lectures, to participate in residential weekends and other Qualifying Sessions, and to attend social events. In turn, we support their research endeavours.

Dr Aoife Daly

Dr Davor Jancic

Dr Aoife Daly is Reader in Law at the School of Law and Social Justice at the University of Liverpool, and Deputy Director of the European Children’s Rights Unit, which seeks to progress children’s rights through research and collaboration. She has worked and researched widely on human rights (specialising in children’s rights) and has held several NGO and academic positions, for example with Amnesty International and with the University of Essex. Aoife researches human rights law issues through the lenses of social justice, gender and psychology. She led a 2018 UK Equality and Human Rights Commission project, examining good-practice examples of how to make UN human rights law a reality. She also published a monograph on children’s freedom of assembly and association in 2016, considering the role of under-18s in the Arab Spring, in labour movements and other contexts. She recently published Children, Autonomy and the Courts: Beyond the Right to Be Heard (Brill/Nijhoff, 2018), arguing that as autonomy is highly prioritised in liberal democracies, children’s autonomy should be a greater priority when courts determine their ‘best interests’. Aoife is, at present, conducting research funded by the Independent Social Research Foundation, working on a project considering children’s ‘competence’ in various areas of the law. In 2020, she will also work with Swedish colleagues on a Soderberg Institute-funded project, comparing children’s rights in Sweden and the UK. Aoife has also worked directly with children and young people, engaging, for example, with youth parliaments and teaching human rights through art.

Dr Davor Jancic is Senior Lecturer at the Department of Law, Queen Mary University of London, and has taught EU law, global law and governance, elements of contract law and public law. Before joining QMUL, he was Senior Researcher in EU law at the TMC Asser Institute in The Hague and a British Academy Newton Fellow at the Law Department of the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). He has also been Assistant Professor at Utrecht University, where he taught courses in constitutional, European and human rights law. Dr Jancic holds a PhD in European Constitutional Law from Utrecht University and his doctorate analysed the role of national parliaments in EU decision-making. He obtained his LLM in International and European Law cum laude from the University of Amsterdam and his LLB summa cum laude from the University of Novi Sad. Dr Jancic has also taught and carried out research as a visiting scholar at Renmin University of China Law School (2018), the School of Leadership at the University of Johannesburg (2016), the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg (2011–2012), Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence of the University of Lisbon (2010), LSE Law Department (2009) and the Centre for European Studies of Sciences Po, Paris (2009). In 2018, Dr Jancic won the Teacher of the Year Award at Queen Mary University of London. In 2011, Dr Jancic won the Europe Award from the Montesquieu Institute, The Hague, for the best article in the area of European studies. His work has appeared in numerous journals in the areas of European and international law. He is also the editor of a book on national parliaments after the Lisbon Treaty and the euro crisis (OUP, 2017) and co-editor of a book on parliamentary diplomacy (Brill, 2017).

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 and activities.

Education & Training

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Dr Russell Buchan

Dr Hannah Quirk

Dr Russell Buchan is a senior lecturer in international law at the University of Sheffield School of Law. Dr Buchan teaches in the field of public international law, and this is where his research interests lie. He has published extensively on the topics of international humanitarian law, cyber law, and international political and legal theory. In particular, Dr Buchan has published two sole-authored monographs. His first monograph is entitled International Law and the Construction of the Liberal Peace (Hart, 2013) and it won the American Society of International Law’s Francis Lieber Prize for an outstanding monograph in the field of armed conflict for 2014. His second monograph is entitled Cyber Espionage and International Law (Hart, 2018). Dr Buchan has presented his research at various institutions, including the universities of Bristol, Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, the Australian National University and the Universidad de Los Andes (Colombia). He has also presented his research to the Council of Europe, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence. Russell is a co-editor in chief of the Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, and he also sits on the editorial board of the Journal of the Use of Force in International Law (Hart Publishing) and the International Community Law Review (Martinus Nijhoff).

Dr Hannah Quirk is Reader in Criminal Law at King’s College London. She read Social and Political Sciences at the University of Cambridge, followed by a M.Phil in Criminology. Her PhD is in Legal Studies from the University of Wolverhampton. She was Senior Researcher at the Legal Services Research Centre (the research unit of the Legal Services Commission). Her research interests develop her previous work as a case review manager at the Criminal Cases Review Commission, investigating claims of wrongful conviction and sentence. In 2005, she spent six months on a research sabbatical at the Innocence Project New Orleans, before joining the Law School at the University of Manchester. She was a visiting scholar at the University of Melbourne, Queen’s University Belfast (both 2009) and Fordham University Law School (2012). Dr Quirk is on the editorial boards of the Criminal Law Review and Legal Studies. She appears regularly in the media, discussing aspects of criminal justice, and is hosting a series of talks with the attorneys from the Netflix documentaries Making a Murderer and The Staircase. She is a trustee of Transform Justice and the Sentencing Academy. Hannah’s research examines the changing culture of the criminal justice system and the increased difficulties that defendants face following the curtailment of the right of silence and with obtaining disclosure of unused material. This feeds into her work on miscarriages of justice (why these cases happen and how the system does and should put them right). Her monograph The Rise and Fall of the Right of Silence was published by Routledge in 2016. She is also interested in sentencing and the criminal law, in particular homicide offences and the partial defence of loss of control.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Online Qualifying Sessions

ONLINE QUALIFYING SESSIONS By the Education Manager As soon as it became clear, in March 2020, that it would be impossible to continue to hold in-person Qualifying Sessions for the foreseeable future, the Education and Training Department set to work planning alternative events. In response to government regulations in the wake of COVID-19, the Directors of Education from the four Inns agreed to cancel all scheduled Qualifying Sessions up to and including July, effectively covering all events for the remainder of the academic year. With large events such as the May Highgate House residential weekend, the Pupillage Advice and Networking Evening and the Rawlinson Cup Final no longer viable, the department had a sizeable task ahead of it to ensure that as many BPTC students as possible were still able to gain the requisite number of QS points.

With invaluable assistance from Benchers and members, the department was able to put together a wide-ranging programme of remote Qualifying Sessions, all of which were hosted via Zoom. The online platform allowed for a varied and frequently interactive range of session formats, from lectures with live question and answer sections to advocacy training in small breakout groups. The process was a steep learning curve for the department but one which came with various unexpected benefits; the openness and accessibility fostered by the online format quickly became clear, with students from all areas of the UK (and many who had returned to homes abroad during the crisis) easily able to attend. All online Qualifying Sessions were offered free of charge, and students who had missed out on sessions worth multiple QS points, such as the May residential weekend, were given booking priority for a number of the online alternatives. The full programme of remote Qualifying Sessions ran as below: Tuesday 12 May: ‘Cross-Examination and Case

Prep’ Lecture with Master Alastair Hodge Tuesday 26 May: Remote Advocacy Qualifying Session (covering civil and crime), including pupillage Q&A Thursday 28 May: Wellbeing Lecture with Master Rachel Spearing Tuesday 2 June: Remote Advocacy Qualifying Session

(covering civil and crime), including pupillage Q&A Thursday 4 June: Wellbeing Lecture

with Master Rachel Spearing Tuesday 9 June: ‘Case Preparation and Analysis’

Lecture with Master Alastair Hodge Thursday 11 June: Library-Led Legal Research Session

Tuesday 16 June: Pupillage Q&A Session, chaired by Master Peter Clark Thursday 18 June: ‘Keeping the Judge on Your Side: the Art of Making a Submission’ Lecture with Master Joanna Korner and David Wood (25 Bedford Row) Tuesday 23 June: ‘Closing Speeches and Submissions’ Lecture with Master Thomas Kark and Master Grahame Aldous Thursday 25 June: Social Context of the Law Lecture: ‘Does the Bar Need to Communicate and Market Itself More in the Modern World?’ (organised by the Treasury Department) Tuesday 7 July: Remote Advocacy Qualifying Session (covering civil and crime)

Thursday 9 July: ‘The Law Applicable to the Arbitration Agreement: Where Are We Now?’ Lecture with Louis Flannery QC (Mishcon de Reya) Tuesday 14 July: Remote Advocacy Qualifying Session (covering civil and crime) Thursday 16 July: ‘EDI and Anti-Racism at the Bar’ Panel Session, chaired by Master Leslie Thomas.

Student response to the online programme was extremely enthusiastic and the majority of scheduled Qualifying Sessions sold out within a few days of going live. One student noted: “As a representative of the Inn at Nottingham Law School, I just wanted to say a huge thank you for such a successful, informative and entertaining Qualifying Session. Thank you for organising it and for all the work the Inn has done to support us in this time.” Another wrote: “The online learning has made me feel very much more connected to the Inn… It has been fascinating and has made me very proud to be part of the Inner Temple.” A prevailing theme in student feedback focused on the remote events’ accessibility and the ways in which online learning widened the scope of the Inn’s existing QS programme. Given the ongoing crisis, the Education & Training Department will shortly need to take a view on whether Qualifying Sessions can reasonably be held in person again from September, but even beyond this, and assuming the Inn’s educational provision eventually returns to normal, there are arguably lessons to be learned from this period of remote learning. One student suggested a level of compromise regarding this issue, stating: “Qualifying Sessions can be held remotely when the Bar exams are near, thus saving time on transport and costs. Otherwise, the Qualifying Sessions are indeed very welcoming at the Inns itself with the unique atmosphere prevailing.” The collegiality and unique setting of the Inn, not to mention the unrivalled effectiveness of in-person training, cannot be denied, but the Education & Training Department is sensible of the fact that remote learning, having proved its merits, should not simply be discarded once lockdown is over. It is possible that, going forwards, the department may consider a blended approach to remote and in-person learning. The Education and Training Department is exceptionally grateful to the following members and departments for all they have done to ensure the online events have proceeded successfully: Master Alastair Hodge, Master Kathryn Arnot Drummond, Master Rachel Spearing, Master Peter Clark, Master Thomas Kark, Master Grahame Aldous, Master Joanna Korner, Master Leslie Thomas, Master Mark George, Master Sarah Clarke, Master Joe Hart, Master Rehana Azib, Master Harini Iyengar, David Wood, Robin Sellers, James Batten, Baldip Singh Aulak, Abimbola Johnson, Dr Oliver Lewis, Angela Patrick, Alex Mills, Duncan Jones, Seb Cox, Cathryn McGahey QC, Jonathan Bremner QC, Louis Flannery QC, Nina Ellin, Hannah Smith, Sefki Bayram, Bibi Badejo, Fallon Alexis, Amit Popat, Rose Malleson, the Inner Temple Treasury staff and the Inner Temple Library staff. Julia Armfield Education Manager

Education & Training

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

INNER TEMPLE SCHOLARSHIPS 2020 BAR COURSE AWARDS PETER TAYLOR SCHOLARSHIP James Kane

STEPHEN CHAPMAN AWARD Anna Stein

PRINCESS ROYAL (5 Awarded) Mia Chaudhuri-Julyan, Kelsey Marron, Joe Robinson, Seema Syeda, Alys Denise Verrall

MAJOR SCHOLARSHIPS (20 Awarded) Edward Abedian, Alexander Aspinwall-Livesey, Alicia Azam, Paris Bradley, Emily Campbell, Emma Clarke, Alicia Doble, Charlotte Elves, Louise Hayes, Nidaa Iqbal, Mukami Kuria, Karen Odidika, Chelsea Peel, Neel Rokad, Jodie Satterley, Jo Schumacher, Jack Scott, Hugh Whelan, Lily Wildman, Savannah Woolgar-Harris

EXHIBITION AWARDS (106 Awarded) Afia Agyemang Prempeh, Dani Alaka, Feras Al-Chalabi, Dunya Amini, Sonia Anwar-Ahmed Martinez, Chloe Arnold, Brandon Ashford, Jasaron Bajwa, Verity Barnes, Gavin Barrass, Lauren Bates-Brownsword, Hayley Belgrave, Catriona Benn, Olivia Bennett, Bertram BeorRoberts, William Birch, Alastair Bloor, Ellen Boyes, Joshua Brindle, Katherine Broger-Bareham, Esme Cairns, Josie Canham-Williams, Emily Chalk, Joe Collins, Natalie Croll, Karolina Cwiertnia, Zahra Dalal, Stephen Davies, Stephanie Davin, Creanna Dodson, Simukai Dzuda, Claire Errington, Grace Etheredge, Conor Flaherty, Jessica Franklin, Georgia Frimpong, Danielle Gleicher-Bates, Alex Granville, Lucas Gregory, Edward Grigg, Eleanor Guildford, Christian Halt, Benedict Harwood, Richard Hine, Natashya Holder, Ferdinand Holley, Maariyah Ismail, Paige Jones, Daniel Jukes, Nancy Kelehar, Alia Kosar, Alexander Kumar, Deborah Kumar-Benjamin, Samuel l’Anson, Christopher Lambert, Matthew Lawrenson, Sam Magee, Lutfullahil Majid Mahdi, Niamh McGinty, Philippa Metcalf, Rhea Mills, Vibha Mohan, Kyasat Nadeem, Claire Nevin, Hannah Nielsen, Ruth Nyimba, Clare Parkhouse, Simon Parra-Choukeir, Imogen Pitts, Michelle Providence, Mark Pummell, Aja Pymble-Ward, Helen ReesJones, Andrew Reynolds, Joel Reynolds, Morgan Richards, James Rowney, Anna Rubbi Rovirosa-Madrazo, Maria Rumbol, Thomas Russell, Rachael Sanders, Clara Sherratt, Harriet Sheves, Hannah Sinclair, Tahwinder Singh, George Skinner, Andrew Small, Imogen Smalley, Adam Smith, Evie Smith, William Alexander Smith-Burnand, James Snadden, Georgina Stein-Hemmings, Joshua Stephens, Neil Sturman, Stefano Theodoli-Braschi, Benjamin Thompson, Natasha Towsey, Olivia Turley, Karl Whitehead, Daniel Wild, Michael Williams, Jack Williams, Rebecca Willoughby, Ella Worsley, Ahmed Yusuf

2020 GDL AWARDS PRINCESS ROYAL (2 Awarded) Drishti Suri & Luke Decker

MAJOR SCHOLARSHIP (4 Awarded) Oscar Tonner Frandsen, Eren Kara, Lois Lane, Christie O’Connell

EXHIBITION AWARDS (30 Awarded) Matthew Berto, Rhys Brown, Andrew Burrell, Stas Butler, Colleen Cumbers, Bethany Currie, Rebecca Ellis, Constantine Fraser, Lauren Gardner, Oliver Goldstein, Benjamin Gray, Marianne Hardy, Eleanor Harris, Jodie Hawkins, Alastair Holder Ross, Ellie Horan, Lucas Jones, Sarah Kinsella, Samuel Larner, Joseph Maggs, Anna Moody, Martha O’Neil, Caitlin Page, Harry Perkin, Joseph Perl, Usman Qureshi, Vita Sinclair, Rosa Thomas, Amy Weir, Reece Williams This year, the Inn received 123 applications for the GDL awards and, after allowing for withdrawals, interviewed 120 candidates via Zoom at the end of June. We have awarded 36 scholarships and exhibitions, to a total of £209,650.

This year, the Inn received 447 applications for the Bar Course awards and, after allowing for withdrawals, interviewed 390 candidates over two Saturdays in March. We have awarded 133 scholarships and exhibitions, to a total of just over £1,748,000.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Notes from Inner Temple Scholars

WHAT MY INNER TEMPLE SCHOLARSHIP MEANT TO ME

James Kane – Peter Taylor Scholar

Neel Rokad – Major Scholar

Deng Xiaoping once compared China’s tentative embrace of capitalism to “crossing a river by feeling for the stones”. Coming to the Bar as a career-changer feels quite similar. You can take it step by step, making sure you can retreat if the stones run out. (In my case, this took the form of staying in my old job while taking the law conversion course part-time.) But, at some point, you find yourself out of your depth and you have to decide whether to turn back or to swim for it. This would be a daunting business at the best of times; with the river made even choppier than usual by the winds of Brexit and COVID-19, it is doubly so. I am therefore profoundly grateful to The Inner Temple for the award of the Peter Taylor Scholarship. The generous financial support is certainly welcome, but what I value most of all is the vote of confidence it represents in my ability to make it to the other bank.

For me, the Major Scholarship is an incredibly special award. Simply interacting with the figures on the interview panel is not an opportunity that exists for people like me. It was an indescribable feeling to understand that barristers at the top of their respective fields felt that I was worthy of investing in.

Seema Syeda – Princess Royal Scholar Without this scholarship, I would not have been able to afford the BPTC fees and would have had to save over many years in order to qualify as a barrister. As the burgeoning Black Lives Matter movement shows us, the justice system often works for a privileged few while enabling the oppression of marginalised groups. I hope to use the skills and knowledge I gain as a barrister to support the wider struggle for equal rights in the legal, social and economic spheres. I am very grateful to The Inner Temple for the support it has given me on this journey. I hope the networks I build as a member and the resources of the Inn can be mobilised to promote a more diverse and representative legal profession. I hope to learn from and contribute to the wealth of experience of the existing membership of the Inn. With climate change, economic recession, the rapidly changing world of data and technology, and growing abuse of the democratic process in many countries, we all need to mobilise our talents and experience in the building of an evolved legal order – one that can adapt and support society to respond effectively and in a principled manner to the many challenges ahead of us.

The scholarship has instilled a sense of confidence in my ability to succeed at the Bar and shows not only how much The Inner Temple invests to support students but also how generous members are with volunteering their time to interview. The experience has also underlined the collegiate nature of the Bar and has helped me see myself as part of this community. In addition to The Inner Temple’s commitment to help disabled barristers, the scholarship has made me so glad I chose this Inn. The Inner Temple’s generosity has enabled me to study for the Bar without financial difficulty. I am forever grateful to the Inn for its support and I am determined to pay this forward. My advice to anyone who is considering applying is to give it a go; it certainly was one of the best decisions I’ve ever made.

Deborah Kumar-Benjamin – Profumo Scholarship After careful consideration of all the Inns of Court, I chose to apply for a scholarship from The Inner Temple, and the interview will remain one of the turning points in my career. The whole experience was extremely beneficial to my understanding and experience of interviews, and I would like to thank all those who took the time to assist. Being so fortunate to be awarded a scholarship means a great deal to me, and I will be grateful for the financial aid. Since my adolescent years, I have worked several jobs throughout my studies and have found it challenging at times to thrive while enjoying the experience of education. To have the support of the Scholarship Committee in my decision to pursue the Bar means I am able to focus more on completing the BPC to the best of my ability, as well as upcoming pupillage applications. I eagerly look forward to engaging with the experiences on offer to enhance my year ahead, and to starting a new chapter.

Education & Training

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Lucas Gregory – Clothier Scholarship

Creanna Dodson – Exhibition Award

I was incredibly thrilled when I received the news that I had been awarded a Clothier Scholarship, an Exhibition Award and a Duke of Edinburgh Entrance Award.

Being awarded a scholarship by The Inner Temple is an absolute honour and I feel extremely privileged to be a recipient this year. Not only will the scholarship allow me to commence the Bar vocational course in September without financial worry; it will allow me to focus solely on my attainment. What matters most is the recognition from my Inn that I have the ability to succeed at the Bar, which is undoubtedly encouraging and acts as a motivating factor.

Living in Northern Ireland, options for postgraduate qualifying law degrees are limited, and I therefore had to undertake my QLD on a full-time basis, whilst working full-time to cover tuition fees and living costs. This made it incredibly difficult to prepare financially for the Bar course. I have spent the past two years working 9–5, and spending my evening and weekend cooped up studying. My progress to the next step was going to be stunted purely because of lack of funds. The Inner Temple removed the financial barrier in my way. With the money I have been awarded, I can focus my attention on getting the most out of the Bar course and gaining as much legal experience as possible, to help secure pupillage. I hope to one day be in a position to contribute to The Inner Temple’s scholarship fund to help others the way it will help me. It is amazing to know that my hard work is not in vain and now I have the means to reach my full potential. Thank you.

Josie Canham-Williams – Exhibition Award I held my breath as I opened the email from The Inner Temple containing my interview results. I opened the attached letter and read that I had received an Inner Temple Exhibition Award. I was over the moon. For me, the scholarship means three things. Firstly, without the scholarship, I would not have been able to start the Bar course this year. Secondly, the scholarship has boosted my self-confidence and self-belief. The faith placed in me by The Inner Temple Scholarship Committee will help me push through challenging times. Finally, I feel that I have joined The Inner Temple community. I received such great support from The Inner Temple on the Pegasus Access and Support Scheme, and I am happy that this relationship will continue now that I have been awarded a scholarship and joined the Inn. Congratulations to all the other scholarship winners. I am excited to start my Bar course and I am looking forward to what lies ahead.

Prior to applying for The Inner Temple Scholarship Awards, I was extremely conscious that I may be faced with a number of obstacles on my journey to become a barrister due to my caring responsibilities, being a mature student, a career change from the social work profession and having a learning disability. I no longer see this as a barrier; instead, I am able to recognise that these aspects enhance my uniqueness, which is something I am embracing in the hope that it will encourage others. I am looking forward to a rewarding career at the Bar and thank The Inner Temple for assisting on my journey.

Simon Parra-Choukeir – Exhibition Award Coming from a non-traditional refugee background, I once felt that the Bar was unattainable for someone like me, not least because I simply could not afford the Bar course and lacked confirmation that I possess the qualities necessary to succeed in the profession. The generosity of The Inner Temple and its donors has made the Bar accessible to me. As an Inner Temple scholar, I can embark upon the Bar course, free from the strain of such an immense financial investment. Because of this, I will be able to fully immerse myself in the course and participate in the vital pro bono and extracurricular activities that will enhance both my skill set and pupillage applications. Moreover, achieving success after such a demanding and selective interview process has vastly boosted my confidence, my self-belief, and has emboldened me to continue down the challenging path that is my dream of becoming a barrister. It is with much gratitude and pride that I can say I have found in The Inner Temple a professional home, whom I shall endeavour to repay by making the most of this opportunity and by committing and contributing to the life-changing work they do.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Inner Temple BAME Student Network

INNER TEMPLE BAME STUDENT NETWORK By Şefki Bayram

When asked to write a piece for the Yearbook, I was grateful for the opportunity, and somewhat daunted by the task. The Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) Student Network’s existence evidences a need for focused attention and support for ethnic minorities aspiring to, and already at, the Bar. As the current Chair and founder of the BAME Student Network, I want to set out in the best possible terms the importance of this addition to Inner Temple. The impetus for the network has been the Bar Standard Board’s (BSB) annually published statistics, which report on the make-up of the profession. Upon review of these figures, I was struck by the stark racial inequality prevalent at the Bar, and throughout the various stages of training.

In 2018/2019, members of the BAME community made up 957 of the 1672 called to the Bar, but in that same year, of the 568 who secured pupillage (first six), only 98 were from BAME backgrounds. Moreover, of those original 568, the BSB reports that 502 secured tenancy, and only 65 of those new tenants identified as BAME. Without wishing to recite the entirety of the BSB’s annual reports, the last and important statistics are those which describe the discrepancies within the BAME category itself. According to the BSB, around 7.2 per cent of the Bar are from an Asian/Asian British ethnic group. Comparatively, only around 3.2 per cent of the Bar are from a black/black British ethnic group. For context, around 85 per cent of the Bar are from a white ethnic group, and this group makes up 91 per cent of QCs. Only 1.1 per cent of QCs are of black ethnic origin and 1.8 per cent of QCs of mixed ethnic heritage.

After its first year, the BAME Student Network has begun to find its footing as an important forum for the BAME student community at Inner Temple.” The uncomfortable truth highlighted by these figures is that if you are BAME, you do and will continue to face unseen challenges and barriers to becoming a barrister, challenges that your non-BAME peers and colleagues will not. Moreover, if you are black or of black heritage, your odds of succeeding in the profession are disproportionately low.

What has the BAME Student Network done thus far? In seeking to find solutions to this obvious inequality, we have engaged with our student peers, members of the Bar and the judiciary. We are engaged with the BSB, through the auspices of its Race Equality Taskforce, on implementing a ‘reverse mentoring scheme’ wherein BAME students mentor senior white members of the Bar on unconscious bias. We have also been in discussions with individual chambers who have expressed interest in establishing mini-pupillage schemes for BAME Bar students, and a Diversity and Community Relations Judge in setting up a mentoring scheme between members of the judiciary and BAME students. At the forefront of our drive to bring the BAME Student Network into good working order are workshops and conferences, intended to provide open platforms for robust and intelligent discussion around equality at the Bar. For example, in June, we held a BAME conference in direct response to the recent protests regarding race inequality in the UK. We were delighted to have had practitioners and Benchers of all Inns in attendance, all of whom contributed to and participated in our round-table discussion. After its first year, the BAME Student Network has begun to find its footing as an important forum for the BAME student community at Inner Temple.

How can a member of the Inn get involved? As part of my brief for this article, I was asked to suggest how members of the Inn could assist. This is a difficult question to answer, and on occasion, one cannot be certain that everyone will want to help. For those that do, my first suggestion would be to do what barristers do best: read! Familiarise yourself with the history of black people in the UK. I would recommend, for example, David Olusuga’s Black and British. My second suggestion is to sign up to all the mentoring, reverse-mentoring, BAME networking events, seminars and workshops that time permits. By giving up your time, you directly contribute to achieving positive change at the Bar. Finally, perhaps the optimum way for members to assist with improving equality at the Bar is to simply review their own respective chambers, tenants and pupils. If you find that there are few BAME members or, more specifically, black members and pupils, challenge yourself. Send an email to your colleagues, include in the subject line, “What are we doing about diversity in our set?” and begin what may be for some an uncomfortable but necessary conversation. Of course, if you find that you need assistance, utilise your membership of the Inn and contact the BAME Student Network; we would be happy to assist. Şefki Bayram BAME Student Network

Education & Training

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

IN FOCUS: BEING LGBT AT THE BAR By Professor Leslie J Moran

Taking on the role of the opening speaker for the November 2019 Inner Temple’s LGBTQ+ In Focus event left me with an interesting challenge. Practitioners from the Inn lined up to speak were much better placed to talk about the challenges of building a career at the Bar. As a law academic with a long-standing research interest in LGBTQ+ issues and several years of experience working on diversity and inclusion initiatives in legal professional settings, it would not be easy or indeed viable to compress a long history and a ‘where we are now’ summary into the ten minutes allotted to me. Too many talking heads, and the passive learning associated with this mode of delivery, did not sound like an exciting or inspiring approach for the event. I decided a short quiz offered a solution to these challenges. Pictures delivered via a PowerPoint presentation accompanied the quiz questions. The first was a picture of Melville Farr, barrister. It was followed by a painting of a courtroom scene that depicted appeal proceedings. A brooding painted portrait from the Inn’s stunning portrait collection followed. It shows a member of the Inn dressed in a bench wig, with scarlet judicial robes surrounded by dark shadows. After that was a photographic portrait of a chap in a suit and tie. Last but by no means least was a picture of a man in barristers’ robes clutching a ‘handbag dog’ close to his chest.

Most of the questions were met with a confused look and a bemused silence. The ‘handbag dog’ picture was the exception. Almost everyone got the right answer: the barrister Robert Rinder, a gay man, widely known for his reality TV work as ‘Judge Rinder’. The recent photograph of the Master of the Rolls, Sir Terence Etherton, probably the best-known gay man holding high judicial office, also generated some correct responses. That seemed to be the limit for most participants. Few had heard of ‘Melville Farr’, a barrister character played by Dirk Bogarde in the path-breaking 1960s film Victim. The film dramatised the Wolfenden Report arguments for decriminalising sex between men in limited circumstances. Farr champions the arguments for reform, even though he will be destroyed in the process. The subject of the courtroom painting by John Lavery is Sir Roger Casement’s appeal against the conviction for treason and the death sentence imposed on him. Revelations about Casement’s many sexual encounters with men were used to secure his conviction and execution. The brooding portrait by the same artist was of Mr Justice Darling, a member of Inner Temple who was the Chair of the Appeal Bench that rejected Casement’s appeal. The questions were tough. But the questions and answers inspired participants to find out more about the history of struggles for social justice for LGBTQ+ and the role the Bar in general and Inner Temple in particular have played in it. Engaging with the past and telling stories of the past, some of which may be difficult to tell and painful to hear, are one way of making a career at the Bar and life in the Inn more open and welcoming. Leslie J Moran Emeritus Professor in the School of Law at Birkbeck College, University of London

The Pride flag flying above the Inn 61

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Where to Draw the Line?

WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE? LIMITING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION TO SHIELD PROTECTED GROUPS Cumberland Lodge Residential Weekend 2019 By Master Kyri Argyropoulos and Rabah Kherbane

On 29 November–1 December 2019, the Inner Temple facilitated a residential weekend at Cumberland Lodge, entitled Hate Speech As Criminal Conduct: Freedom of Expression Vs Freedom of Belief. This included a panel discussion on whether the criminal law should be involved in regulating speech which could be considered hateful against religious minorities. This article provides an overview of the topic discussed, including an outline of some of the arguments presented by the expert panellists, all of whom we were delighted to host. Freedom of speech is often a catch-all phrase for being able to say whatever you like. Properly understood, freedom of speech is about limiting the power of the state to dictate what we, as individuals, can and cannot say. Conceived of in this way, freedom of speech is an important pillar of any free and democratic society.

The freedom to speak our minds is central to upholding any number of other freedoms and to demanding the correct treatment from those who govern us. Yet at the same time, most people would accept that the state should intervene in certain circumstances to regulate speech. For example, most people would agree that it is justified for the police to intervene if an individual has threatened to harm another. In fact, most people would expect this intervention. Therefore, even though we accept that we should – broadly – be able to say what we want to say, we also accept that there should be some limits to what people can and cannot say. One way in which the state regulates what can and cannot be said is through the criminal law. Hate speech is an area where some argue the line should be drawn, whereas others argue such a line infringes free speech too much. So-called hate speech laws, particularly relating to religion or religious belief, have been more ambiguous within English criminal law.

What is hate speech? Hate speech is abusive or demeaning speech which expresses prejudice against a particular group, usually a protected or minority group. Hate speech can have a detrimental impact on members of the targeted groups and on social attitudes towards them. For example, hate speech can cause fear or distress to individual members of the targeted group. In extreme circumstances, such speech, particularly by powerful or influential individuals, can perpetuate negative stereotypes, normalise language that leads to feelings of alienation or ostracization, or lead to the implementation of adverse policies. If one were to consider freedom of belief within this metric, hate speech and the hostility it causes can have a severe impact on individuals and groups. It can affect the ability of members of targeted groups to express their faith or lack thereof, or to freely and openly practise their religion.

Hate speech laws in England and Wales In England and Wales, the criminal law has traditionally addressed conduct motivated by religious hatred but has arguably offered limited protection against religious hate speech.

Racially/religiously aggravated offences The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 created a range of racially and religiously aggravated offences. These consist of different types of assault, criminal damage to property, public order offences, and harassment and stalking. In theory, certain public order offences in this context can criminalise speech.

Education & Training

For example, the offence of causing racially aggravated harassment, alarm or distress through the use of threatening or abusive words or behaviour can target speech. As an aggravated form of an offence under the Public Order Act 1986, however, this offence would always be framed as a public order issue, and the measure of the offence is the tangible harassment, alarm or distress caused, rather than any aim to protect a targeted group as such. An offence is racially or religiously aggravated if the offender is motivated by hostility or demonstrates (immediately before or after) such hostility towards the victim based on the victim’s membership of a racial or religious group. The impact of charging and convicting a defendant based on an offence aggravated in this way is that the base offence attracts an increased maximum sentence, and the offender must receive an uplift in sentence. Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 also permit the court to treat racial or religious hostility as an aggravating factor in sentence for any offence. Importantly, the totality of the above provisions focuses on an uplift in sentence following conviction for the distinct substantive offence rather than criminalisation of speech per se. If the substantive offence is not proven, the racially or religiously aggravated element, however distressing it may be, cannot result in a conviction, even if proven. These provisions thus only provide for add-ons to existing offences (usually involving violence, broadly construed) rather than attempts at criminalisation of speech as such.

‘Stirring-up’ offences Part III of the Public Order Act sought to address this gap in hate speech laws by introducing a prohibition on ‘stirring up’ racial hatred. In effect, the relevant provisions prohibit a range of speech – such as using words, distributing written material, or producing visual or sound material – which is threatening, abusive or insulting, and is either intended or likely to stir up hatred (not violence or the apprehension of it) on the grounds of race. Crucially, there is no requirement to cause harassment, alarm or distress to a potential victim, as this offence is aimed at protection of a group rather than an individual. This was a huge milestone in the protection offered to black and ethnic minority groups, and prohibits speech aimed at stirring up hatred towards them. The target of the offence is thus the impugned speech, and there does not need to be an identifiable victim for a prosecution to be brought. Following this, the Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006 aimed to extend the scope of such ‘stirring up’ offences in order to protect religious groups. Due to a number of interventions and amendments during the legislative process, the offence of stirring up religious hatred was passed with significant caveats. First, in order for an offence of stirring up religious hatred to be made out, the speech must be ‘threatening’. Abusive or insulting speech is insufficient. Secondly, the threatening speech must have been specifically intended to stir up religious hatred. It is insufficient for the offence to have been likely to stir up religious hatred, as with the racial hatred offence. Lastly, section 29(j) of the Public Order Act creates a broad limitation that the offence of religious hatred does not “prohibit or restrict discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult, or abuse of particular religions, or the beliefs or practices of its adherents”.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Separately, applicable CPS Guidance highlights that “hatred” should be interpreted as a “very strong emotion”, and that “stirring up racial [or religious] tension, opposition, even hostility may not necessarily be enough to amount to an offence”. These limitations were all introduced or maintained with the concept of freedom of speech in mind. As a result, offences of stirring up religious hatred are very rarely prosecuted.

Panel discussion In 2017/18, there was a 40 per cent increase in religious hate crime in England and Wales. This has continued an upward trend in recent years, with the number of hate crimes recorded by the police having more than doubled since 2012/13. The Law Commission are currently seeking to reform hate speech laws to make them more effective. The government has also recently issued a white paper on hate speech online. In this context, on 30 November 2019, we were treated to a stimulating panel discussion involving Fiyaz Mughul (Tell MAMA), Jodie Blackstock (Liberty), Miqdaad Versi (Muslim Council of Britain) and Master Robin Griffiths-Jones (Master of the Temple). We were also pleased to welcome a presentation prepared by Professor Chara Bakalis (Oxford Brookes), which, although delivered by proxy in her absence due to illness, provided an excellent overview of the topic. Professor Bakalis’s talk detailed many of the competing arguments on both sides of the post, including what should be the centre of any focus to a discussion of this nature: “Does hate speech cause harm sufficient such as to require a proportionate limitation on free speech through criminalisation?” In particular, Professor Bakalis drew a distinction between two types of hate speech: the first, which incites violence, and the other, which subordinates or undermines the equal status of members of a particular vulnerable group. Regulating the latter has been more controversial. This is because it concerns speech that may “attack the humanity and dignity of certain groups” in society, and can be offensive or abusive, but which does not necessarily advocate violence against said group. Professor Bakalis’s talk highlighted the premium placed on free speech, and its ability to lead to innovation, better ideas and increased tolerance in society. The panel discussion which followed treated both sides of the debate to thorough scrutiny. It was queried whether criminalisation is the correct way to deal with hate speech; in many experiences, prosecution and sentencing does not resolve what may be a more complex issue, with social roots and various motivating factors. It was queried whether criminalisation could result in a slippery slope. Likewise, the sheer scale of hate speech against religious minorities in England and Wales was highlighted through some very stark statistics. It was also pointed out that the ‘debate and discuss’ approach was all well and good if everyone had an equal platform, but more often than not marginalised groups did not have access to like platforms and would not be able to adequately respond in more influential spaces where their dignity was attacked. One phrase that left a lasting memory came from Master Robin Griffiths-Jones, who said that as a white middle-class male “we just don’t get it”. Perhaps this is right. We could all do better to listen to the experiences of others, and certainly at this time when a worldwide movement has taken hold, bringing to the forefront the terrifying experiences of racism and prejudice that our contemporaries experience to this day. Master Kyri Argyropoulos and Rabah Kherbane Co-organisers of December 2019 Residential Weekend

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Transgender Law in Practice

TRANSGENDER LAW IN PRACTICE: Highgate House Residential Weekend 2020 By Allan Briddock

In early 2020, when lockdown and social distancing were as yet unimaginable, The Inner Temple hosted its Transgender Law in Practice weekend.

Professor Alex Sharpe, Keele University and Garden Court Chambers, set the bar high with her keynote address on the Friday evening. Professor Sharpe was also a panelist on the Saturday morning, alongside Jay Stewart, Gendered Intelligence; Robin White, Old Square Chambers; and Leonie Hirst, Hirst Chambers. The panel was expertly chaired by Lord Justice Singh, who opened with a history of discrimination law as it relates to transgender persons. The panel discussion was thought-provoking, with much engagement from students and trainers alike. The main topic of discussion at the weekend, and the subject of Professor Sharpe’s keynote address, was gender recognition reform, in particular ‘self-identification’ (self-ID). In 2017, the Conservative government unexpectedly announced it was looking into reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (the GRA). In combination with transgender persons becoming more visible in society, the proposed reforms ignited an often-toxic debate. One proposed reform is to legislate to allow some form of gender self-ID. It is not proposed that self-ID would mean a person is able to simply say ‘I am a woman/man’, and then be automatically legally recognised in all contexts as that gender. It is instead envisaged that the person would have to make a form of statutory declaration in order to be legally recognised as a woman or man, and making a false declaration would be a criminal offence. Nevertheless, I have no doubt there are many people who hold residual, genuine concerns about this issue and the impact it may have on women-only spaces. I am confident that if people who have genuine concerns look at the evidence on this issue, their concerns would be much lessened. The UK currently provides a mechanism via the GRA for transgender persons to legally change their gender, following the European Court of Human Rights decision in Goodwin v UK [2002]. ‘Gender reassignment’ has been a protected characteristic since the introduction of the Equality Act 2010. Those rights and protections have existed, without controversy, until recently.

Although a breakthrough at the time, the GRA is problematic in ways that lead to a very low uptake in the transgender community. Problems include secret panels, a spousal veto, and the requirement for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, to name but a few. Those problems have led many to argue that a change in law is long overdue, to allow transpersons’ self-identified gender to be legally recognised without the trauma and bureaucracy the current GRA process precipitates. Transgender women have been portrayed by detractors of self-ID as predators from whom cisgender women need to be protected – a chilling echo of the way that gay men were portrayed as a danger to children and young people in not so distant times. The argument inverts the victim/ perpetrator distinction against a tiny vulnerable minority. When the argument against self-ID is put in this way – ‘this change in law will allow men to access women-only spaces – then any right-minded person would be concerned. There is no doubt whatsoever that women-only spaces should be protected. However, transgender women are not a threat to them.

Those problems have led many to argue that a change in law is long overdue, to allow transpersons’ self-identified gender to be legally recognised. In J v B (Ultra-Orthodox Judaism: Transgender) [2017], Mr Justice Peter Jackson noted that “gender dysphoria will doubtless have existed throughout the 120,000 years that Homo sapiens have been on earth”. Transgender women have a long history of accessing women-only spaces with little or no evidence that they have caused harm. Indeed, transgender women, with or without a Gender Recognition Certificate, have been legally able to access women-only spaces since the Equality Act 2010. Gender self-ID would not change that. Although sex-based exceptions exist, and can be used in exceptional cases to exclude transgender women from women-only spaces, the very existence of these exceptions serves to emphasise that the default position is a right for transgender women to be in these spaces.

Education & Training

Professor Sharpe notes in her article, Will Gender SelfDeclaration Undermine Women’s Rights and Lead to an Increase in Harms? (2020) 83(3) MLR 539–557: “A recent report commissioned by Stonewall, which interviewed representatives of 15 of the largest national and regional women’s organisations in the UK (including IDAS, LAWA, Oasis, RISE, Women’s Aid, and Rape Crisis Scotland) found no evidence of problems associated with providing access to and catering for transwomen. The study found that such bodies have been supporting transwomen for a long time and that no real problems on the ground have been experienced.” Despite concerns that self-ID will endanger women in women-only spaces, there is in fact no study suggesting self-ID poses a significant threat. Studies in the USA have consistently found that allowing transwomen to access women-only spaces has not led to harms. Some form of self-ID is now in place in at least 10 countries and the fears expressed in the UK have not materialised in those countries. Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Laws in Public Accommodations: a Review of Evidence Regarding Safety and Privacy in Public Restrooms, Locker Rooms, and Changing Rooms is an American empirical piece that drew on police and other institutional statistics. It concluded: “This is the first study to collect public records and analytically compare the safety of public restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms in localities that have gender identity inclusive non-discrimination laws that apply to public restrooms and matched localities that do not have such laws. The results show that the passage of such nondiscrimination laws is not related to the number or frequency of criminal incidents in such public spaces.” Most people would agree that excluding an entire class of persons due to a perceived risk of harm to another class of persons should be based on evidence and not just fear. The fact is that fear of transgender women is not based on evidence. On the contrary, the evidence that does exist points in the other direction.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

persons not in that class – that is, cisgender men – may have malign intentions. On a basic level, the argument is that a transgender man should be placed on a female hospital ward, or a transgender woman should be exposed to risk in all-male environments, on the basis that someone somewhere might pretend to be transgender to access those single-sex spaces.

Excluding an entire class of persons due to a perceived risk of harm to another class of persons should be based on evidence and not just fear. In any event, the vast majority of transgender women do not have a Gender Recognition Certificate but nevertheless have been accessing women-only spaces from time immemorial and have a legal right to do so under the Equality Act. It is irrational to assume that a man who is prepared to pretend to be a transwoman to sexually assault a person in, say, a public toilet, would simply not commit that crime because the law prevents him from entering that toilet. Allowing an easier form of gender recognition will not change that or create more risk of harm. There is a huge misunderstanding therefore about self-ID and the perceived threat to women. As Mr Justice Peter Jackson noted, transgender people have always been with us. They are part of the rich fabric of life. Transgender people are one of the most marginalised groups in the UK. To be able to change their gender without having to be medicalised and judged by a secret panel would have a massive positive impact on their lives, and would, in reality, change little to nothing for those of us who are not transgender. If we are not careful, further generations might look back at the treatment of transgender persons in the 2020s in the same way that we look back in shame at the way we treated gay men and lesbians in previous decades. Allan Briddock One Pump Court Residential Weekend Organiser

The concern that men will pretend to be transgender women in order to access women-only spaces is equally not based on evidence. The argument is that this would become frequent if self-ID is introduced. Baroness Nicholson is a Conservative peer who had been campaigning to exclude transgender persons from single-sex spaces, including hospital wards and changing rooms. She recently said her concern is “about the risk that a small minority of people with malign intentions may seek to use the trans community as a cover to harm and prey on women and children”. This argument suggests that an already vulnerable class of persons, transgender men and women, should be excluded from the Equality Act protections and in reality everyday public life because of the risk that

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Student Societies

STUDENT SOCIETIES

The Drama Society Panto Cast

THE MOOTING SOCIETY

THE DRAMA SOCIETY

By Akash Gohil

By Madeline Van Oss

The Magna Carta Moot in October was a great start to the year. Members were able to witness the winners of the ESU-Essex Court Moot against the winners of the Inner Temple InterVarsity in an enthralling moot attended by 150 students.

The Drama Society moved to the Bridewell Theatre for the 2019 pantomime. This 130-seat venue is ten minutes from the Inn and comes complete with green room, trapdoor and smoke machines. The new setting allowed us to run a larger cast and crew than in previous years. The weekend before Christmas, an all-singing, all-dancing version of R(ed Riding Hood) V Big Bad Wolf was performed by a troupe of 35 Drama Society members. The student-written script featured line-dancing sheep, a grandma with a yoga studio and a dangerously eloquent wolf. The show was a storming success, and we look forward to our return to the Bridewell.

The Lawson Moot started in November with 60 competitors and finished in March with only four in the final round. Members were able to use feedback from the judges, which ranged from pupils to Benchers, and then progress through the five rounds. The winner was decided by Master Reader and Master Christopher Brougham (Master of the Moots). In January, the Inter-Varsity Moot took place, where universities from across the UK came to battle to the final. 6KBW provided mini-pupillages for the winners. Inspired by the high levels of mooting and advocacy the society had witnessed through the year, particularly at residential weekends, we held an advocacy workshop in February to allow members to further improve their skills and techniques. Master Alastair Hodge kicked off proceedings with a masterclass on examination techniques before students moved between courtrooms of practitioners to give their closing speeches. Our external mooting competitors took place in the LSEFeatherstone Moot. We are also pleased to send a team to the International Criminal Moot Court Competition in the summer. Due to COVID-19, many advocacy sessions will continue to take place remotely and there will still be chances to hone your skills and improve, from the comfort of your own home! Thank you to the members and Benchers who have made this a great year by providing their time, advice and wisdom.

In 2021, the Drama Society will take a show to the Edinburgh Festival Fringe. It will be the first time on record that an Inn of Court has performed at the Fringe. The show centres around trials of notorious villains: Cruella De Vil, Hannibal Lecter and the Wicked Witch of the West. With a runtime of 50 minutes, we plan to give a comic exposition of the cab-rank rule. Sadly, the Summer Shakespeare event with Middle Temple had to be cancelled. At the time of writing, discussions are under way for joint production when restrictions are lifted, taking inspiration from the reopening of the theatres after the plague. After the success of the event in 2019, the Shakespeare Cup will certainly return in 2021.

Education & Training

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

The Debating Society at the Amsterdam Open

THE DEBATING SOCIETY By Taylor Blair

Monique Thomas and Nathan Fuller on the Drama Society Panto poster

INNER TEMPLE STUDENT ASSOCIATION By Sam Yeates ITSA were pleased to host two events this year. Our annual Christmas party at the Fable in Holborn was a successful and most enjoyable evening. With Christmas jumpers aplenty, students and members mingled, enjoying drinks and festive treats. Our ITSA calendar would not have been complete without Burns Night. This year was extra special, due to the closing of the Inn because of Project Pegasus, and the event was consequently held at 116 Pall Mall. The lavish venue, accompanied by a fantastic band and bagpiper, was a hit. The festivities included a spectacular menu, drinks, dancing and self-made photographers. We once again would like to thank Inner Temple for their generosity and assistance in hosting an unforgettable night. Unfortunately, due to the current situation and following government advice, we currently have been unable to host any further events this year. We understand this has been a challenging and stressful time for all students undertaking studies, with unfathomable uncertainty. We hope to be able to celebrate your success and perseverance soon.

This year, the Debating Society ran several key events and sent students to an increased number of national and international tournaments. Overall, this year’s committee had an aim of being as inclusive as possible and to provide debating opportunities to more students. One of the ways we did this was to de-prioritise attendance at the World Debating Championships. We instead opted to send more students to competitions nationally and internationally. In August, five students represented the Inn at the European Debating Championships in Athens. In December, four novice students attended the Amsterdam Open, and we had students scheduled to attend the Maynooth Open in March, which was unfortunately cancelled due to COVID-19. Some examples of national tournaments we attended included SOAS Open, Bristol Pro-Am, LSE Open and Manchester IV. One of highlights of the year was hosting the Inner Temple Open Debating Competition in January 2020, which was skilfully organised by the Society’s Vice-President, Nathan Fuller. The final was adjudicated by a group of experienced debating judges, joined by Master Treasurer, Master Saira Kabir Sheikh, and, from No 5 Chambers, Howard Leithead and Dr Chelvan. Forty-four teams from universities across the UK and Europe competed in six rounds for the esteemed Harrison Plate, named in honour of the late Master Peter Harrison. The competition was a rousing success and was the most well attended since its inception. Another highlight was hosting the (virtual) Public Speaking Competition, which saw three knockout rounds culminate in a final judged by Master Saira Kabir Sheikh, Master Alastair Hodge, Nathan Fuller, Monique Bouffé and Taylor Blair. The winner of the competition was Lily Hayes, with Shannon Knight coming in second place. Unfortunately, the annual Rawlinson Cup Competition had to be cancelled due to COVID-19. We had a successful year and look forward to continuing to improve as debaters and advocates next year.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Call to the Bar

CALL TO THE BAR For the first time since the summer of 1942, the Inn will not be holding a Trinity Call to the Bar ceremony in person. We thought we would take this opportunity to catch up with some of those who were called to the Bar in July 2019, to see how legal life has changed for them since that day.

FRANCES McCORMACK It has been quite a busy year! It was 37 degrees on the day I was called last July, which was interesting when wearing a red lipstick, a full suit, wig and gown.

JUDY FU After being called last July, I began pupillage at 3 Verulam Buildings. I came to the Bar as a transferring solicitor, working in international arbitration.

I was offered a shortened (six-month) pupillage, rotating between three pupil supervisors. Each was very generous with their time and mentorship. They allowed me to take on my own cases while giving me exposure to matters of which I had less experience. I spent my pupillage balancing my pupil supervisors’ work, work from my previous law firm, and travelling around the country to get on my feet in county courts. I was delighted to accept tenancy in March, but London locked down just as I was beginning to organise my own room in chambers, and I found myself isolated alone. Throughout pupillage, I had tried to keep an open mind as to what to expect in my first months as a tenant, but it is safe to say that a global pandemic was not in contemplation. I was greatly assisted during those first weeks by the support of others. A former pupil supervisor reached out to make sure I had access to funds. A senior junior I had only briefly met told me to call his personal mobile with any queries. I have been touched by the collegiality I have seen in these difficult circumstances. I think I will carry with me the ‘can-do’ spirit I have observed across the Bar for the rest of my career. I am now building a new career as a junior commercial barrister, albeit mostly from my kitchen table and occasionally in pyjamas!

Upon finishing the BPTC, I started working as a paralegal for the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). I assisted with three investigations: Residential Schools, Accountability and Reparations, and the investigation into Lambeth Council. The subject matter meant this was exceptionally testing work, but it developed my emotional resilience and prepared me for some of the difficult cases I may get as a criminal barrister. I attended inquiry hearings, which offered a unique insight into how public inquiries work, the difference in advocacy and witness handling, and the function of the inquiry. Having completed the BPTC part-time whilst working as a paralegal, one goal I had once I had qualified was to catch up on holidays. I visited Japan in December and also managed to fit in trips to Sicily, Turkey and Lisbon before starting pupillage this year. Given the current crisis, I consider myself very lucky to have had these opportunities. In February this year, two friends and I set up a Wellbeing event for junior lawyers. The event had two panels: the first focused on junior lawyers’ experiences of suffering from mental health and Wellbeing issues; the second focused on what the profession can do to prevent these issues and help those lawyers experiencing difficulties. The event was a real success, and we hope to put together further events in the future. Whilst in Japan, I had some very unexpected but exceptional news. I was offered pupillage. I started my criminal pupillage in March 2020 – one week before lockdown began. Starting pupillage in such unprecedented times has meant my learning experiences have had to be adapted. I’ve been fortunate to observe Crown Court video hearings as well as online advocacy training. I am looking forward to being on my (remote or real) feet in September and to seeing what the next year brings.

Education & Training

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

BRENDA EFURHIEVWE Inner Temple’s vote of confidence in awarding me the Princess Royal Scholarship allowed me to pursue my dream of becoming a barrister specialising in international human rights. After graduating with an outstanding grade and the highest overall result in my BPTC cohort, I felt reassured that my academic ability would enable me to cope with the demands of the Bar. Following my Call to the Bar in July 2019, I decided to make use of my new status as an unregistered barrister and my expertise in refugee law by supporting the invaluable work of the European Lawyers in Lesvos (ELIL) as a volunteer asylum lawyer. Whilst on Lesvos, I had the opportunity to assist asylum seekers in the refugee camp in Moria by providing them with legal advice and helping them prepare for their asylum interviews. Joining ELIL was the toughest and most rewarding experience of my life. Nothing compares to the feeling of being able to explain someone’s rights to them; to fortify their right to have their story heard; the ‘eureka’ moment when you understand someone’s claim, to the point of being able to advise them on its strength. While I was hoping to return to Lesvos, I am currently supporting ELIL’s clients remotely. Following my return from Greece, I commenced a part-time post as a volunteer caseworker at Bail for Immigration Detainees, while continuing to work as a legal consultant with Axiom. My new post enabled me to gain further practical experience in the field of human rights and immigration, while assisting migrants and failed asylum seekers in securing bail from immigration detention. In early June 2020, I joined the organising committee of Black Protest Legal Support, as one of the founding members of the organisation set up by Ife Thompson to provide legal support to Black Lives Matter protesters in the UK. Due to an accident in 2019, I was forced to defer my LLM at Columbia University to 2020. Depending on the global situation, I am hoping to be able to start my studies in New York in January 2021. I am honoured to have been awarded the Fulbright Postgraduate All Disciplines Award for the purpose of pursuing my further studies. I am very excited about the opportunity to gain further practical experience in human-rights advocacy in a country with such a rich history of community activism.

LIAM KELLY

SHANNON O’CONNOR On paper, life has changed a great deal since July 2019. I was called to the Bar two weeks after receiving my BPTC results, riding high on my good grades and an offer of pupillage. I commenced my criminal pupillage at Cornwall Street Barristers at the end of September 2019. In reality, however, due to lockdown happening one week before the commencement of second six, many features of life are still the same as last year. Whilst I have prosecuted several bail applications and committals for sentence in the Crown Court, these have all been done remotely. I had an unconventional route to the criminal Bar. I did a physics degree and was a teacher in London for three years before commencing the Bar course. Therefore, I felt that I was very much ready to be ‘on my feet’ in April. The vast reduction in the availability of work has been frustrating and, on a personal level, quite difficult at times. However, I appreciate how fortunate I am to have the safety net of my pupillage award and am incredibly grateful to chambers for that. So far, I have defended once in person at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court. Navigating my first client conference in the corridor while maintaining a twometre separation certainly made things more interesting. That said, the necessary social-distancing measures did not detract from how much I enjoyed mitigating my client’s sentence for a drink-driving offence, from a starting point in the guidelines of 12 weeks’ imprisonment (plus relevant previous) to a community order. Ensuring that the unlawful charge against him for purported breach of the new coronavirus legislation was dropped was also highly satisfying. Looking ahead, I would still like to obtain my full practising certificate as scheduled at the end of September. I will possibly be doing my first summary trial in a few weeks’ time and hope that, gradually, my workload will increase. However, these are unprecedented times and the best lesson I have learnt over the past few months is that the only certainty is that nothing is certain!

It is nearly 12 months since I was called to the Bar. I will always remember that day, not just because being called was the culmination of many hard years of study, but because it was 36.9 degrees – the second-hottest July day on record. Not ideal conditions for a three-piece suit and gown. In September, I started pupillage specialising in family law work at Deans Court Chambers in Manchester. Although family law was my area of interest, I had not had the opportunity to study it in any detail before starting pupillage and so jumped straight in at the deep end. Throughout my first six, I had the opportunity to see a wide range of work and have been encouraged to develop my interest areas away from my core work. As a result, I have begun to develop my interest in quasi-family-chancery work and have been exploring contentious trusts and estates work. In January, keen to give back, I joined the Bar Council Education and Training Committee as a lay member. Having recently completed the BPTC, and with reform taking place across legal education at the Bar, I hoped my experiences as a student and pupil would add value. When joining, little did I know that COVID-19 would cause catastrophic disruption to the centralised BSB examinations and the committee would be called upon to play its part to provide insight from across the profession to lobby the BSB on how best to proceed. Working to overcome these challenges has been a rewarding experience. In March, I started on my metaphorical feet – metaphorical in the sense that I now do all of my advocacy via a screen. Whilst the initial shock to the legal system stymied my ability to get going, I am now beginning to build a practice and receive regular instructions. The slower pace has allowed me to gain additional training across a range of skills, including advocacy training delivered online by the ICCA. Away from the Bar, I have got engaged, holidayed in Thailand (just before the outbreak of COVID-19, thankfully), become the owner of an adorable Labrador puppy and become an uncle, twice. All in all, it has been a great year since I was called to the Bar.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Hate Speech

TRAINING NEW PRACTITIONERS IN THE ERA OF REMOTE ADVOCACY By Master Cheryl Thomas

Despite the unprecedented challenges presented by COVID-19, the Inn has ensured that our new practitioners can still complete their advocacy and ethics training in 2020. Through a unique partnership with University College London, The Inner Temple’s new practitioner advocacy and ethics training has been recreated online. This project maintains the Inn’s tried and tested training approaches, draws on the academic study of online communications, and provides an opportunity for The Inner Temple to pioneer barrister training and to understand and excel at remote advocacy.

COVID-19 has been a baptism of fire for the Bar. Within days of the government ordering a national lockdown in late March, some members of the Bar found themselves appearing as ‘remote advocates’ in the civil, criminal and family courts for the first time. While the increasing use of online hearings meant a welcome return to work for many, counsel and judges alike quickly noticed how tiring remote advocacy was. COVID-19 was also a major challenge for universities. Many, including my own (UCL), shifted all teaching online well before the government lockdown came into effect. Unlike the courts, most universities already had in-house online platforms. What we were not used to doing was delivering all our teaching and assessment online. And it was not long before academics as well as lawyers and judges were talking about ‘Zoom fatigue’. What is the science behind ‘Zoom fatigue’? What are the implications for the quality of remote justice and how can we take this into account in Bar trainings? The delivery of advocacy and ethics training for The Inner Temple’s new practitioners this year had given us an opportunity to understand this.

‘Zoom fatigue’ Research has shown for some time now that the reason online communication is so tiring is that these ‘virtual interactions’ are extremely hard on our brains. Humans convey a huge amount of information non-verbally – through facial expressions, the tone and pitch of our voice and body language. Normally, when we meet in person, we pick up these ‘cues’ automatically. But online, our brains need to work much harder to pick up these nonverbal cues, and this is inherently tiring. Maintaining eye contact, something we are used to doing in person (and in court), is impossible online. For you to appear to be looking at the person you are speaking to online, you need to look at your computer camera. But our human impulse is to look this person in the eyes when you speak – and to do this you must look at your screen, not at your camera. In addition, research has also shown that when an individual sees him or herself on-screen when speaking, this is most likely to negatively affect that person’s ability to

convey information. Viewing our own image when speaking increases stress and distraction and hinders our performance. All of this means that our brains are working much harder online. So it is no surprise that what would have been a straightforward hearing when everyone was in court can quickly become a very tiring online hearing – even though the substance of the hearing is exactly the same.

The dangers in remote justice Research about the effect of online communications also raises serious issues about the quality of remote justice. For all the reasons described above, research shows that people participating in interactions online face a ‘higher cognitive load’ than people having in-person interactions. If you are working with a heavy cognitive load, you typically make errors. That’s because it decreases your ability to deliberate and it increases your intuitive and emotional judgments. One consequence of this is that a heavy cognitive load also increases stereotyping. To give one example, a study of medical professionals found that those who participated in a webinar were most influenced by the speaker’s likeability while those who attended the same seminar in person were more influenced by the quality of the speaker’s arguments. Due to the higher cognitive load experienced, they focused more on how charismatic, appealing, interesting and friendly the speaker seemed than on systematic or rigorous cues to judge the information received from that person. Another study found that simple audio delays in online communication were enough to negatively shape views of speakers. These are all serious issues for the quality of online justice, and we have tried where possible to take these on board in recreating the Inn’s new practitioner advocacy and ethics training online for 2020.

CPD for new practitioners as a result of Covid-19 The Bar Standards Board announced in April that they were prepared to be flexible over the time frame for completion of the New Practitioner Programme (NPP). However, if the Inn simply postponed all of the NPP training that was due to be completed in April and June 2020, this would have created a backlog of training that would need to be completed in 2020–21, at a time when the future of any face-to-face training remains uncertain. It would also add to new practitioners’ uncertainty in an already uncertain time at the Bar.

Education & Training

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Inner Temple and UCLeXtend

Residential vs remote advocacy training

To ensure that all the Inn’s new practitioners could complete their NPP, The Inner Temple has created a unique partnership with UCL to deliver its new practitioner advocacy and ethics training online using UCLeXtend. UCLeXtend is the university’s public-facing online learning environment for delivery of CPD and executive education. As Dean, I have been able to work closely with the members of the Inn’s Education and Training Committee, the Advocacy Training Committee, the Ethics Training Working Group, and Education and Training Department Staff to move all of the Inn’s new practitioner advocacy and ethics fully online during summer 2020. The first new practitioner online training session was rolled out on 17 July, and the Inn intends to deliver all the new practitioner advocacy and ethics training scheduled for 2020 by the end of the year. We have also been assisted by UCL’s specialist Digital Education Team with the development and implementation of these new online training programmes.

Online advocacy training must be provided to the same standard the new practitioner would have received during a training weekend, even though online training cannot replicate all the benefits of face-to-face training. But it would not be effective learning practice to simply mimic the training timetable used in a weekend residential course. No one, new practitioners and trainers alike, would want to spend an entire weekend online in intensive advocacy training. To work out how best to deliver the online training, the entirety of the existing advocacy training was broken down into its individual components. Each component is now an individual session, which means that the online training is being delivered over more but significantly shorter sessions (ie in hours not days) than residential training. The crucial thing is that, on UCLeXtend, new practitioners are still able to give a live advocacy performance that is filmed, experienced trainers are able to provide immediate feedback, and then new practitioners have an additional session where they rewatch their performance with another trainer who provides further feedback.

New practitioners’ ethics The Inner Temple has been running its new ethics training since the 2017–18 training year. The content and methods used in this course are now tried and tested with over 150 new practitioners who have completed their ethics training with this new approach. The training is in three parts. Part one is self-directed learning to prepare for part two, which is live interactive decision-making with experienced barristers. Then, a month later, new Practitioners assess their learning through another decision-making session. Parts one and three were already online before COVID-19 struck. We have moved part two online but have been able to retain it as a live interactive session with experienced barristers. Moving it fully online during the pandemic has the added benefit of allowing the Inn to run more sessions to fit in with the experienced barristers and new practitioners’ schedules, and it can give more members the chance to become ethics trainers.

New practitioners’ advocacy The Inner Temple has been running new practitioner advocacy training since before it became an obligation, and Inner alone amongst the Inns offers training in handling expert evidence. The Inner Temple advocacy training is usually delivered in two main face-to-face meetings: (1) an evening session on Case Analysis followed by (2) a residential weekend with sessions on Case Conference, Closing Speeches, Examinationin-Chief and Cross-Examination of Expert Witnesses, and Witness Handling. The Inner Temple’s new online version of the new practitioner advocacy training course moves all these elements online, and all the sessions continue to be conducted live with experienced barristers and advocacy trainers.

Taking research knowledge on board in online training The additional concentration needed online to compensate for the lack of nonverbal cues has to be taken into account. This is why we have more but shorter individual sessions, and why presenters are encouraged to speak for short periods of time before prompting interactions with new practitioners. Those who deliver education and training exclusively online suggest that the maximum time a single individual speaking online is likely to hold a listener’s attention is seven minutes. With online training, the trainers’ view of the new practitioners’ performance will necessarily be limited to the two-dimensional on-screen image. But research has shown that the placement of cameras influences the effectiveness of online communication. Ideally, the camera should be set up so that not just the face but much more of the body with part of the advocate’s surroundings are also visible. This makes it easier for others to pick up nonverbal signals from the remote speaker.

Remote advocacy – a new branch of advocacy and training? It is rapidly becoming clear that training in remote advocacy is now a new aspect of advocacy training. No one is an expert in this yet, but we are working to develop expertise in how best to conduct advocacy online – a new skill for everyone at the Bar no matter how experienced someone might be at in-court advocacy. What is clear is that ‘remote advocacy’ will be used increasingly even after the COVID-19 emergency. By providing online advocacy training that incorporates guidance and advice on how to deliver remote advocacy, The Inner Temple is at the forefront of this new aspect of training. We have tried to incorporate the research on online communications into the new practitioner advocacy and ethics courses, and we will be conducting an empirical assessment of the effectiveness of this new online training. There is no desire to move new practitioner training fully online postCOVID-19, but our experience of online training this year will help the Inn see what might be more usefully done online and what must remain as in-person training in future. This experience may also offer some valuable lessons in how to guard against the dangers inherent in remote justice. Professor Cheryl Thomas QC (Hon) Dean of Education

A preview of the online Advocacy and Ethics course

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

News From the Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity Sub-Committee

NEWS FROM THE EQUALITY, DIVERSITY AND INCLUSIVITY SUB-COMMITTEE By Master Ingrid Simler

The work of The Inner Temple’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity (EDI) Sub-Committee has never been more important. Recent events have drawn particular attention to the situation of black people as distinct from other minority groups, both within society generally and the legal system in particular, in a way that has resonated globally. The range and breadth of responses, and the sense that this is a moment where efforts can be catalysed to achieve enduring change, led to a statement made by the Executive Committee (on the recommendation of the EDI Sub-Committee) reaffirming The Inner Temple’s commitment to supporting and upholding the rule of law and standing against all forms of racial injustice and unlawful discrimination. We were conscious that deeds are better than words and although The Inner Temple prides itself as a progressive Inn with a deep commitment to achieving an inclusive culture and diverse membership that reflects society as a whole, we cannot be complacent and asked for your help and suggestions as to what more we could be doing to promote equality and combat the undoubted inequality that persists. There was an overwhelming response to the statement, with many constructive suggestions made about the governance of the Inn, the composition of interviewing panels for scholarships, the extent and availability of student support, and suggestions for qualifying sessions focused on racial injustice, understanding racism and why being anti-racist is not enough and confronting the social issues at stake. The EDI Sub-Committee had the first of no doubt many meetings to discuss how these suggestions can be implemented and,

in light of that discussion, we have begun the process of refreshing our EDI strategy and equality objectives that must be achieved over the next three years. Our intention is to consult with as wide a group of members of The Inner Temple as possible before finalising those objectives, because we believe that a candid dialogue will enable us to identify the right priorities and have the best hope of achieving them. I have no doubt that one of our principal objectives will be to make the governance of The Inner Temple more diverse in all respects. That means addressing, in particular, the underrepresentation of people of colour as Benchers, as members of sub-committees and on the Executive Committee itself. We will need to draw in students and junior barristers from nontraditional and diverse backgrounds to participate in The Inner Temple activities so that we can do better at creating a more diverse pipeline for governance for the future. That will require even more focus on making the Inn a place where everybody feels valued, comfortable and included. To further promote a culture of respect, with no tolerance for harassment of any kind, we intend to establish a rolling programme of equality and diversity training for anyone involved in the Inn’s governance. That includes scholarship interviewing, advocacy training, student residential weekends and student mentoring. We will also develop an inclusion programme. The Temple Women’s Forum has done much to achieve a more inclusive environment for women members of The Inner Temple and is a template that can be built on and adapted to create other similar networks, providing safe spaces for black barristers and other minority groups to support one another, exchange information, problem-solve and, importantly, provide a network for promoting opportunity.

Education & Training

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

At the same time, we will consider ways in which we can make changes to the Bencher nominations and election process to remove hidden barriers to the recruitment of people of colour and other minority groups. We propose introducing a prospective Bencher mentoring scheme, with wider outreach initiatives to encourage wider participation from all underrepresented groups and to increase understanding of and raise the visibility of The Inner Temple’s governance process.

The work of The Inner Temple’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity (EDI) Sub-Committee has never been more important. Having been active in the equality and diversity arena for decades with every good intent, I recognise the scale of the challenge that we face and that there are no quick or easy solutions. Understanding that racism and unlawful discrimination do not depend on individual, conscious intent is an important first step. Unconscious bias and systems, practices or processes that constitute hidden barriers for people of colour and other minority groups continue to exist, and it is this that must be confronted and addressed. As one member of the EDI Sub-Committee, Master Leslie Thomas, said recently, “This is a moment for the white and majority ethnic group to take action, to become allies and to achieve the necessary change.” The Rt Hon Lady Justice Simler DBE

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

We Need Your Help

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 51).

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 (although this year, it is likely that at least one of these weekends will be held online). 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.

OUTREACH The Outreach Team organises a range of outreach activities for school and university students at the Inn and across England and Wales. If you are interested in helping with these events, please contact Daisy Mortimer. We are particularly keen to hear from members on Circuit.

SCHOLARSHIP INTERVIEWS The Inn offers funds in excess of £1.7 million annually to be distributed as scholarships and exhibitions for Bar training. Interviews are typically held on two consecutive weekends in March for BPTC awards and over a single weekend in June for law conversion awards. If you would like to volunteer to assist with the interviewing process, please contact Georgina Everatt.

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.

MENTORING The Mentoring Scheme aims to provide students with advice, guidance and a point of contact during their initial stages of becoming a barrister. Mentors are usually allocated at the beginning of the academic year and the demand is always very high. Please contact Helen Gaskell if you would like to help.

MOCK INTERVIEWS The Mock Interview Scheme gives students a chance to refine their interview technique with the support of an established barrister before they undertake a ‘real’ pupillage interview. The scheme is highly valued by our student members and consistently receives positive feedback. The time commitment is flexible but typically amounts to around one to three hours per year. Please contact Helen Gaskell.

ADVOCACY TRAINING FACULTY 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.

The Council of the Inns of Court

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

THE COUNCIL OF THE INNS OF COURT Pupillage Matched Funded Scheme

HOW TO APPLY

COIC WELCOMES APPLICATIONS FOR MATCHED FUNDING FOR 2021–22 AND 2022–23 PUPILLAGES The COIC Pupillage Matched Funded Scheme (PMF) helps provide additional pupillages in chambers, and other approved training organisations, predominantly engaged in legally aided work. Encouragingly, a growing number of chambers are applying for COIC matched funded grants. COIC is set to support 34 pupillages in 2020. This is an impressive improvement on the scheme’s first year of operation in 2014, when it supported 14 pupillages.

HOW THE SCHEME WORKS It is a prerequisite of the scheme that chambers understand that matched funded pupillages are in addition to those they would have offered in any event. COIC match pupillage funding already provided by chambers with a total grant of £9450 for 2021–22 London pupillages and £8050 for 2021–22 out-of-London pupillages, and £9550 for 2022–23 London pupillages and £8150 for 2022–23 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. COIC appreciates that the receipt of grants is all the more important to chambers during the global pandemic and are offering flexibility with the opportunity to defer awards where necessary.

Applications to match fund 2021–22 and 2022–23 pupillages are invited between 1 September and 23 October 2020. Decisions will be communicated during the week commencing 2 November 2020. Online applications can be made at coic. org.uk/pupillage-matched-funding. To find out more, please email Hayley Dawes, COIC Secretary: hdawes@coic.org.uk. Mrs Justice Lieven Chair COIC Pupillage Matched Funding Grants Committee

COIC

187 FLEET STREET

ROWCHESTER CHAMBERS

“187 Fleet Street is a well-established London set specialising in criminal law. We have a long tradition of training pupils, many of whom have, on completing their pupillage, been taken on as members of chambers.

“As a small Circuit set, Rowchester Chambers offers legal advice and representation to a wide variety of areas of law. In offering a broad pupillage in civil and criminal law in 2020, Chambers has been able to recruit a pupil whose expertise includes aviation law to complement our large Family Immigration, Commercial and Criminal Law practices amongst others. Chambers has offered pupillages in the past, but this has been infrequent and dependent on chambers’ needs. The matched funding programme allows us to continue to offer pupillages to unique applicants who will bring a varied perspective to both chambers and the Bar. Without this assistance, it would be likely that chambers would continue to offer pupillages on a sporadic basis, which is not beneficial to the Bar or clients. Pupillage is important for diversity and for the future of the Bar. In the current economic climate and the effects of the pandemic, pupils may become particularly more important depending on how many practitioners remain in the profession as well as the individual success of Rowchester Chambers going forward.”

It is a paradox that, despite the well-publicised difficulties faced by chambers like ours whose work is in the main publicly funded, we continue to receive applications for pupillage from talented and committed candidates. Chambers’ capacity to provide such pupillages has been a matter of real concern against a background of financial uncertainty. In this context, the COIC Pupillage Matched Funding Scheme has been of invaluable assistance since we joined it in 2017 and has allowed us to provide an additional pupillage each year since then. The scheme is of vital importance to sets like ours and helps ensure that there is a continuing flow of well-trained, conscientious and able barristers to carry out publicly funded work. We are enormously grateful for its existence in unstable and challenging economic times.” Avi Chaudhuri

Chris Gibbons and Paul Willstead Pupil Supervisor and Pupil

Head of the Pupillage Committee

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Pegasus Scholars

NEW ZEALAND By Libby Anderson

In February 2019, following a lengthy paper application and a rather gruelling interview, I received the news that I had been awarded a Pegasus Scholarship to New Zealand. I have recently returned from 12 weeks at the Crown Law Office in Wellington and have now had time to reflect on my experiences.

The Crown Law Office is something akin to a combination of the Government Legal Department and the Crown Prosecution Service. It provides legal advice and representation to the government in the areas of criminal, public and administrative law. I spent 12 weeks in the criminal law team, although I also did some work for the public law team. As well as observing hearings at the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, I was allocated my own caseload of criminal appeals, requests for mutual legal assistance, extradition requests and claims against the Department of Corrections. Every case is considered by two counsel who provide a first advice and a second advice before providing advice to the client. The requests for mutual legal assistance were both incoming and outgoing, and most frequently related to details of previous convictions for use as bad character evidence at trial. The experience I gained in this area became relevant almost immediately upon my return to the United Kingdom, as one of my ongoing cases involves a substantial amount of material obtained under an International Letter of Request. I also gained experience of liaising with diplomatic staff, foreign law enforcement and agencies such as INTERPOL. Of course, the Pegasus Scholarship is not a one-way street; it is an opportunity to forge reciprocal links and develop mutual understanding. Although many of the basic legal principles of United Kingdom and New Zealand law are similar and may stem from the same historical legal tenets and authorities, the current authorities and procedural terminology may be quite different. Part of my role was conducting legal research to assist counsel with their cases, capitalising on my knowledge of the United Kingdom legal system. I researched and considered the law relating to a range of topics that varied from the admissibility of hearsay evidence to calculating the value of a shoplifted item, and drafted advices setting out the respective positions in New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada and the USA. My colleagues at Crown Law were also keen to seek my opinion on prorogation, justiciability, Brexit and Boris Johnson with alarming frequency. As part of the lunchtime lecture series at Crown Law, I spoke about the Bar, our education and training, my practice and the Pegasus Scholarship.

I had the opportunity to attend a number of continuing professional development events, both at Crown Law and through the wider Wellington legal community. A particular highlight was a seminar about ‘modern-day gangsters’, a joint presentation by the New Zealand Serious Fraud Office and the National Organised Crime Group. New Zealand and the United Kingdom are both island nations facing similar challenges in combating gang crime, in particular transnational crime and the evolution of gangs towards criminal business entities focused on drug dealing and resultant money laundering. I also had the privilege of attending a lecture on appellate advocacy, delivered by the President of the Court of Appeal. The New Zealand legal framework is distinct from that of the United Kingdom but the principles of clear, persuasive advocacy transcend jurisdictional borders, and it was invaluable to hear tips direct from the Bench. My role at Crown Law was Monday to Friday, 9 to 5. A major advantage of being a Pegasus Scholar is the opportunity to travel within the host country. Every weekend, I visited a new part of New Zealand, from the Waitangi Treaty Grounds in the Northlands to Stewart Island off the southern tip. I abseiled into a glow-worm cave, got lost mountain biking, visited Hobbiton, saw fur seals and dolphins, and ate a lot of kaimoana (seafood). I borrowed some outdoor kit and did some ‘tramping’, including a circuit of snow-capped Mount Taranaki in glorious sunshine and the Routeburn Track in torrential rain. I finished my travels in New Zealand with a memorable week in the South Island, in which I unintentionally spent a night on a glacier, did a three-day tramp, enjoyed a winery tour of Central Otago, ran the Queenstown Marathon, and took boat trips on Lake Wakatipu and Milford Sound. This was a truly invaluable experience, professionally speaking. I also made friends for life, including my fellow Scholars and the new friends I made in New Zealand. I am hugely grateful to the Pegasus Trust, the Inns of Court and the Crown Law Office for allowing me this opportunity, and I emphatically recommend the Scholarship to all junior practitioners. Libby Anderson (Gray’s Inn) Charter Chambers

Pegasus Scholars

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

DUBAI By Hazel Hobbs

My trip to the legal oasis that is Dubai was life-changing and not exactly what I was expecting. I was shocked to find a pocket of English legal jurisdiction in the centre of Dubai, as a hub for business and finance. When I initially got the placement in Dubai, I was a little apprehensive. I had never been to the Middle East before and as a feminist I wasn’t too sure what to expect given some of the stories reported in the news. On my way to the airport, I dressed in leggings and a long top; my mum told me I would have to change into something looser fitting but, like many daughters, I ignored her. Thinking back to this comment now makes me erupt with laughter given what I know now about Dubai. My placement didn’t come with accommodation, but I was extremely lucky to find a room advertised on Facebook only walking distance from the Dubai International Finance Centre (DIFC), where I was to spend the first part of my time in the UAE. The apartment was stunning and covered in Arabic artwork. My landlady was a Persian Kiwi who lived with a Persian artist and her two daughters, one an indie film producer and the other an educational consultant and artist. Within a few days, I settled right into the apartment. They took me all around Dubai and introduced me to the surprisingly active nightlife. They also taught me Farsi and to cook the most delicious Persian food. Dubai went far beyond my expectations – everything was shiny and new; there were people from all cultures working and living harmoniously together. In terms of clothing, my mum had nothing to fear – shorts and t-shirts were far from shocking. I embraced Emirati culture, drank Arabic coffee every day and even went with my Emirati friends to the market to buy an abaya, which I occasionally wore to work. On my first day at the DIFC Courts, I was introduced to everyone and set to work on some very interesting cases. The projects I was involved in were mind-blowing. I drafted practice directions and judgments, assisted in redrafting the code of conduct and looked at ways to improve the court for users. Looking at procedural rules from this perspective allowed me to develop a more agile and developmental approach in my work. One of my last tasks was to assist in drafting the new Judicial Authority Law, working with the Deputy Chief Justice in comparing the Arabic and English translations, whilst considering the intentions of the court and looking at the wider implications of the legislation. Never in a million years did I think I would be involved in such projects.

The second part of my placement was with the commercial law firm Al Tamimi & Company, where I jumped feet first into high-value international litigation cases. The largest of these related to a freezing order for tens of millions of pounds and concerned facts not too dissimilar from the plot of a Bond movie. Every day there was a new legal problem, which usually involved several jurisdictions. It was interesting to work on a case as a solicitor. You get to know the case so well and develop your own case theory, which you try to get across to your barrister and the judge. I got to work with some of the most inspirational women and talented lawyers I had ever met: Amna Al Owais, Registrar of the DIFC Courts, who undertook everything she did with such passion and veracity; Nour Hineidi, Deputy Registrar of the DIFC Courts, who was a literal machine in the way she dealt with the sheer volume and complexity of her caseload; and Rita Jabbalah, partner of Al Tamimi and head of the International Litigation Group, whom I would describe as a litigation swan, appearing to glide on top of the water while her amazing brain was resolving 101 complex legal issues at a time. It was such a pleasure to work with and learn from these amazing women, along a number of others. It is safe to say that I took advantage of my position as Pegasus Scholar. I managed to get onto the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators’ Introduction to International Arbitration course as part of my scholarship, with the help of Philip Punwar from Baker Botts. I also got free entry to a number of events as a member of the DIFC Courts, including the Global Arbitration Review Dubai. Working in international litigation allowed me to experience what it was like to truly love your job. Although there were some late nights and stressful situations, it was all worth it. I enjoyed my job before but working with legal issues which covered a number of areas of law and involved different jurisdictions was so interesting and fulfilling. I would also say that working as a female lawyer in Dubai was very different from the UK and in many ways was better. I felt that in all situations both myself and my legal opinions were treated with respect. It was a very teamwork-orientated environment, where everyone was valued. Without hesitation, I would say that my placement was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life and I hope, inshallah, to continue my work in Dubai and develop an international commercial practice. Hazel Hobbs (The Middle Temple) Pallant Chambers

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Pegasus Scholars

MALAWI By Charlotte Mackenzie

Thanks to the Pegasus Trust, I was able to spend seven weeks in Malawi assisting Justice Zione Ntaba, a Judge of the High Court in Zomba, with legal research and drafting. After first travelling to Malawi in 2012 on a Sir Joseph Priestley Scholarship to intern with a local human rights NGO, the Centre for Human Rights Education, Advice and Assistance (CHREAA), I have maintained my involvement with various local organisations involved in access to justice in Malawi. I was excited to return to a country affectionately and aptly referred to as the ‘Warm Heart of Africa’, and observe the justice system from the other side of the bench.

I arrived in Malawi in September 2019, when the country was in the midst of an election scandal. President Mutharika of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) secured his second five-year term in office after narrowly winning the election in May 2019 with 38.6 per cent of the vote. Shortly after the election, the opposition leader, Lazarus Chakwera of the Malawi Congress Party (MCP), and Saulos Chilima of the United Transformation Movement (UTM) filed a petition asking the court to nullify the election results over alleged irregularities in the vote counting that pointed to alleged fraud, including the use of Tipp-Ex to tamper with results sheets. The election controversy resulted in nationwide protests. A panel of five judges at Malawi’s Constitutional Court gave judgment on 3 February 2020, with a landmark decision to annul last year’s election and calling for a new ballot within 150 days. My placement was with Justice Ntaba, a prominent female judge at the High Court in Zomba, with a keen interest in women’s and children’s rights and the youngest judge to be appointed to the High Court in Malawi. The court is set against the beautiful backdrop of Zomba Plateau, where loggers regularly walk by with their bicycles overloaded with pine logs inexplicably balanced between the seat and the handlebars. Red carpet lines the halls and staircase of the court and windows are opened wide to counteract the intense 35⁰C heat. Justice Ntaba’s court is busy, and she hears cases in civil, family and criminal matters. The court serves five districts (Zomba, Machinga, Phalombe, Mangochi and Ntcheu) with a population of over 3 million people. Currently, any custodial sentence of six months or longer handed down by a lower court must be reviewed by the High Court. So, in addition to her regular list, she spends days travelling to magistrate courts across the Southern Region for review hearings. To add to her caseload further, Justice Ntaba was the only judge at the Zomba Registry during my placement, as the second judge who usually sits in Zomba had been chosen as one of the five judges to sit on the election case.

Justice Ntaba had chosen three cases for me to review. The cases highlighted conflicts between domestic legislation and human rights, bad practice in assessing the capacity of a complainant with mental health issues, and sentencing in child trafficking cases that failed to take account of aggravating and mitigating factors. I was asked to research the approaches of other jurisdictions on these issues and draft an analysis for reform. The majority of Justice Ntaba’s cases took place in her chambers, but I also had the opportunity to sit with her in open court as she presided over an application for committal arising out of an alleged breach of an injunction. The courtroom was full of people sitting tightly together on benches and on the floor, babies wrapped in fabric on their mothers’ backs. Justice Ntaba told me after the hearing that all the people in court were villagers from the parties’ community – understandable, given that the case involved a dispute over appointment of the next village Chief. The respondent was found to be in contempt and sentenced to 15 days’ imprisonment. However, as he was only 24 years old, the sentence was suspended provided he paid a fine and stopped breaching the injunction by acting as village Chief. Justice Ntaba was also conscious of the need to avoid further overcrowding in the already congested prisons. A prison sentence of any length is a particularly uncomfortable experience in Malawi. Prisons throughout the country are severely overcrowded. The official capacity of the prison system is 7000 people, but the total number of prisoners currently exceeds 14,000. Overcrowding means the already limited prison budget cannot provide adequate nutrition, sanitation or health care for inmates, which contributes to the spread of infectious disease. This crisis is, in part, due to the large proportion of people imprisoned on remand awaiting trial. As a way of dealing with the case backlog, local organisations like CHREAA will organise ‘camp courts’; these are special court sessions where judges are brought to the prison to consider bail applications. Justice Ntaba is one of a handful of judges who preside over these prison court hearings, considering bail applications for homicide remandees who have been in pretrial detention for many years. The average length of time spent in pretrial detention on a charge of homicide is three years. The Pegasus placement was an incredibly rewarding experience, both professionally and personally. I am immensely grateful to Justice Ntaba for welcoming me into her court and remain in awe of her continued ability to manage an ever-increasing workload, in addition to her responsibilities with the Women Judges Association of Malawi and the time she finds to visit local secondary schools to speak to and encourage young girls to consider a career in law. Charlotte Mackenzie (The Inner Temple) Staple Inn Chambers

Pegasus Scholars

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

PARIS By Shanthi Sivakumaran

The Paris Bar Exchange was an opportunity that I did not want to miss. Having studied French law in Lyon, I was always curious to see the French legal system in action and the exchange was a unique route into the courts of Paris. The exchange lived up to expectations – the Paris Bar is collegiate and welcoming while Paris during a hot, sunny September is magic. During my first week, I met judges, lawyers, an advocate general to the Cour de Cassation and the members of the Maison du Barreau. I was given personal tours of the old Palais de Justice, which was full of history, and of the gleaming, modern, new Tribunal de Paris. It was an impressive introduction, but I had to admit a sense of relief at being a member of the English Bar when a remand judge explained that hearings regularly continue past midnight until the last case is heard! Following an intense introductory week, I joined the cabinet of Aude Rimailho, a dedicated asylum and human rights advocate. She was keen to share the practical reality of maintaining a legal practice in Paris as well as introducing me to the asylum tribunals. As a legal representative for victims of the 13 November 2015 Paris terrorist attacks, she also explained how they were preparing for the trial. I was particularly curious to learn how the legal representatives of more than 2600 victims worked collectively to represent their clients in the criminal proceedings. Although we do not have legal representatives for victims in criminal proceedings in the UK, I had seen through my work with the Grenfell Tower Inquiry the difficulty of representing the interests of hundreds of affected individuals in legal proceedings.

It is hard to avoid comparing legal systems when on an exchange and this proved as introspective an experience as it was exploratory. Halfway through the exchange, I joined the French Bar on a strike against reforms to the legal system. The English Criminal Bar had been on the point of taking collective action overcompensation for publicly funded criminal work in the summer preceding my departure for Paris. Supporting the strike in Paris, I was reminded of how the legal professions in both the UK and France are having to respond collectively to protect the profession. There were also amusing occasions on the exchange: for example, when I observed an expert instructed by the court to carry out an assessment of a classic Aston Martin at the centre of a commercial dispute. After a detailed inspection of the vehicle, the expert astutely challenged both parties on inconsistencies in their evidence uncovered during the examination. The exchange ended on a high note with the mock trial of the now infamous ‘Monsieur Renard’ (Mr Fox). Significant members of the French Bar including the bâtonnier, senior judges and prosecutors attended and took part in the trial. Although intimidated by the seniority of my opposing counsel, I was quickly put at ease by our amusing and eloquent judge, and it was a fun ending to the month. Shanthi Sivakumaran

(The Inner Temple) No 5 Chambers

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Pegasus Scholars

NEW ZEALAND By Rehana Popal

It was a Monday afternoon in January 2019 when I received an email from the Pegasus Trust notifying me of the outcome of my application. I was delighted to read that I had been selected to be an outgoing Pegasus Scholar to New Zealand. The next few months were so exciting: making plans, drafting itineraries and learning about the people I would be working with for three months.

Over the summer, I learned I would be hosted by Stout Street Chambers, widely regarded as one of New Zealand’s top public-law sets. I would be under the wing of Dr James Every-Palmer QC, one of New Zealand’s most renowned silks. James was an exceptionally kind and generous host. He had made arrangements prior to my arrival for transfers and accommodation. James has appeared in numerous notable cases, including New Zealand Steel Ltd v Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, acting for the Minister of Commerce. Under James’ tutelage, I learned all about New Zealand’s legal system. New Zealand is part of the Commonwealth and its legal system is derived from ours in England and Wales. However, the profession is fused, lacking the distinction between counsel and solicitors. The majority of individuals qualify as solicitors and later in their careers transfer to the Bar. There is no Bar course and pupillage as such. Very much to my surprise, I also learned that New Zealand barristers do their own clerking and billing. It was at this point I realised how incredibly grateful I am to my clerks! During my time at Stout Street Chambers, I assisted numerous members of chambers in different areas of law, including employment law, land law, environmental law, public law and regulations on artificial intelligence. Much of this was entirely new to me and it was fascinating to see the way the jurisdiction approached things I was extremely fortunate to assist in New Zealand’s first ever military inquiry, Inquiry into Operation Burnham. Operation Burnham was undertaken in Afghanistan by New Zealand Special Air Service (NZSAS) troops and other nations’ forces, operating as part of the International Security Assistance Force in 2010. In 2017, the book Hit & Run by Jon Stephenson was published, which contained a number of serious allegations against New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) personnel. The Inquiry has sought to establish the facts in connection with the allegations; examine the treatment by NZDF of reports of civilian casualties, including the death of a child following the operation; and assess the conduct of NZDF forces. I was invited by Sir Terence Arnold KNZM QC, Chair of the Inquiry, former Solicitor General and Supreme Court Judge; and Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer KCMG AC QC PC, former Attorney General and New Zealand Prime Minister, to assist with the Inquiry. I was asked to review the Crown submissions and carry out legal research on UK Supreme Court and ECHR determinations on state immunity and the doctrine of foreign act of state doctrine, as well as the

interrelationship with the right to a fair trial. I was asked to draft a document on these authorities and their interplay with New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This was a particularly challenging task but one that I relished. I worked under Sir Terence and Sir Geoffrey and had the honour of reporting to them directly. The Inquiry has recently submitted their final report to the Attorney General on 17 July 2020. The Inquiry has no authority to release the report publicly but is hoped that the government will release it in due course. Outside of work in chambers, I had a wonderful time exploring New Zealand. I spent every weekend travelling to different parts of the country; I abseiled down a glow-worm cave, bungee-jumped down a canyon, went black-water rafting (water rafting in a cave in the dark), saw dolphins in the wild, went parasailing and zip-lining through mountains. Members of chambers were exceptionally generous with their time, providing me with suggestions on where to visit and what to do. Many members of chambers generously hosted me over weekends away in their beach houses and country retreats. From speaking to past scholars, I had heard about the generosity of hosts, but the welcome I received in New Zealand surpassed all expectations. Within my first month, I had been invited to lunch with senior members of chambers, was hosted by the Supreme Court for an afternoon and invited for drinks by senior members of the judiciary. From the moment I arrived, I was made to feel part of the team; the juniors and administrative staff made me feel so welcome and helped with all my queries. Amongst the many things I miss from my time in chambers will be morning tea, Friday wine and cheese, and the stunning view across Wellington Harbour from the office. My time in New Zealand will stay with me forever. I returned a much better lawyer, with sharper research skills and a better understanding of the common law. I am incredibly grateful to the Pegasus Trust for providing me with this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. I would also like to thank my hosts for their generosity and kindness. I would like to thank Dr James Every-Palmer QC and Tim Clarke, to whom I will forever be indebted. I left New Zealand with memories and experiences that I will always hold dear. I would highly recommend the scholarship to all junior practitioners. Rehana Popal (The Inner Temple) 10 King’s Bench Walk

Pegasus Scholars

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

UGANDA By Matthew R Crowe

Most mornings, I wove in and out of traffic on the back of a boda-boda (motorbike taxi) on my way to work at the High Court of Uganda, situated atop an enduringly sunny hill in Kampala. The bodas are not for the faint-hearted; incessant numbers pour through the notorious traffic at speed, like water flowing between stones. This was life in Kampala on the Pegasus Scholarship. I shared a desk at the High Court with the Technical Adviser to the Judiciary, Mr Andrew Khaukha. We spent May through to August working on reform projects, spanning from land evictions to the ‘state brief’ (legal aid) scheme, and from mediations to plea bargaining. Plea bargaining – the process by which a remand prisoner offers pleas or bases of pleas in exchange for the prosecutor recommending to a court a lesser sentence – was a mainstay of my time in Uganda. The process was introduced as a means of combating the sizeable backlog of cases in the court system. I toured throughout Uganda, visiting several prisons: Mbale, Jinja, Masindi, Gulu and others. I was even taken on a journey to the source of the Nile on a police speedboat, sirens blaring as we tore across the river. I was accompanied by senior prosecutors, Ugandan judges and three district attorneys from Los Angeles, all of whom were dedicated to the improvement of the system. We were reviewing, helping and learning from plea bargaining. I conducted cases myself, both as defence and prosecution. I understood the breadth of the problem of sexual violence in Uganda and the success of plea bargaining in clearing the backlog of cases. The journey across Ugandan prisons brought me into contact with witch doctors, cannibals, war survivors and war soldiers. I worked with law students, including Samuel, who was himself a survivor of kidnap by the Lord’s Resistance Army and Joseph Kony. Many in northern Uganda remember the war, and most still bear the psychological and physical scars of the conflict.

Back in Kampala, the work was never done. The Ugandan judiciary – with Andrew Khaukha as a pioneering whirlwind – is reforming anything and everything it can. It is introducing technology into courtrooms, working with sexual violence survivors and grappling with access to justice problems. The judiciary is filled with trailblazing individuals – Justice Abodo, Justice Bamwine (Principal Judge) and the Chief Justice, to name but a few. The judges are presently working on new rules to help disabled and less able-bodied individuals engage properly with court process and give evidence. This was something that the Bar in England and Wales has only recently grappled with. I was able to provide to the justices my practical knowledge of how our system has tackled this issue. I even held a starring role as an appeal judge – in intricately woven red judicial gown – at a judicial conference. A picture of me with a piece on the conference found its way into the next day’s newspaper. Overall, it seems the Ugandan judicial system is an old book, being torn up and rewritten at an astonishing pace. The Pegasus Scholars are helping edit the new chapters. I must thank the Pegasus Trust for enabling me to work with the Ugandan judiciary in what was an electrifying adventure. My Pegasus Scholarship took me to the farthest reaches of rural Uganda, to rainforests with wild mountain gorillas and even on an adventure through the Democratic Republic of the Congo to climb a live volcano. I forged links between the Bar, Africa and America that will endure. I am forever grateful to the Chief Justice of Uganda, the Principal Judge, Justice Abodo and, above all, Andrew Khaukha for working with me and continuing to work with the Pegasus Trust. Matthew Crowe (The Middle Temple) Trinity Chambers

My work in plea bargaining culminated in a review of around 3500 plea-bargained and non-plea-bargained cases. I was tasked with considering the trends, the flaws and the successes. Did you know the most common sentence for murder is around 12 years? The most common sentence for aggravated robbery is around the same at 10 years. My analysis of these cases is now being fed into the reform of Uganda’s sentencing policy and processes.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

INDIA By Jake Richards

I was thrilled to have been given the opportunity by the Pegasus Trust to experience an area of law and regulation in another jurisdiction. I travelled to India to explore the debate and practical effect of the changes in the law of surrogacy, mainly focused in Delhi and Mumbai. Since studying law, I had always been interested in the law of fertility. Despite my practice developing in different areas, I was struck by the challenges the issue of surrogacy posed for lawmakers and the courts. At the intersection of ethics, science and policy, lawmakers have been incredibly wary of the moral hazards of surrogacy. There are common fears about surrogates having a change of heart. Some people are anxious about the potential for the commercialisation of surrogacy, with fears about the consequences of such an approach on vulnerable women. More broadly, there have been calls to respect the ‘sanctity of childbirth’ and to ensure that what government ministers have previously called the ‘magnitude’ of giving birth is recognised.

In 2017, I wrote an essay that won an award from the Bar Council, arguing for reform of our domestic law. Since the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985, the law regarding surrogacy has not developed to any great degree, although there have been some permissive steps to align surrogacy law with other legislation, such as providing for civil partnerships and maternity leave for mothers of surrogate children. The 1985 Act was the product of the Warner Commission, enacted following a media outcry caused by high-profile cases in the UK and the US where surrogacy arrangements had gone wrong (the ‘Baby Cotton’ and ‘Baby M’ cases). There are now calls for the law to be reformed to take into account the new cultural and legal landscape of the 21st century. Intended parents can now browse the Internet to find a potential surrogate from across the world. International surrogacy comes with its own ethical and legal issues. Furthermore, our moral and social outlook towards ‘family’ has changed dramatically since the 1980s with the introduction of, for example, same-sex marriage. In considering the nature of potential reforms in my jurisdiction, I wanted to look at international approaches to the issue. It was from this research that I became aware of the very different journey on regulation and surrogacy occurring in India. India was, only a few years ago, one of the world’s centres of commercial and international surrogacy. In 2012, a study estimated the ‘industry’ was worth more than $2 billion per year, with over 3000 clinics across India. Yet since 2013, there has been a steady flow of restrictive legislation. In 2013, surrogacy for foreign homosexual couples and single parents was banned. Two years later, the government banned all commercial surrogacy and permitted entry of embryos only for research purposes. In 2016, a Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill was introduced by the government but was only passed by the Lok Sabha (lower house) in July 2019. I travelled to India in October 2019 to meet with lawyers and academics to learn about the reasons given for legislative change and assess what challenges may await the passing of the legislation in the upper house. Some of the key provisions of the bill are as follows:

Pegasus Scholars

• Only heterosexual Indian couples married for at least five years with fertility problems are eligible to undertake surrogacy. • The couple require a ‘certificate of essentiality’ and a ‘certificate of eligibility’ to prove that one of them is medically infertile. • There must be insurance coverage for a period of 16 months covering post-partum delivery complications for the surrogate. • The couple must be within a certain age range (23 to 50 years old for the wife and 25 to 55 years old for the husband). • The couple must not have any surviving children, whether biological, adopted or surrogate. • However, this does not include a couple with a child who is ‘mentally or physically challenged’ or who suffers from a life-threatening disorder or fatal illness. • A surrogate must be related to a member of the couple. • A surrogate must be a married woman and have a child of her own already. • A surrogate must be 25 to 35 years old. • A surrogate is only allowed to act as such once in her lifetime. • A surrogate must possess a certificate of medical and psychological fitness for surrogacy. • A surrogate must not provide her own gametes for surrogacy.

In India, I met with various academics and practising lawyers over a five-week period. I also met with women who had acted as surrogates themselves, and I was struck by their concern about sharing information with me. I am continuing my research in the UK and am in the process of pitching articles on the subject. I hope, in time, to write a more substantial paper with my proposals for a regulatory system in the domestic jurisdiction, which will contribute to the debate policymakers are having here. The content of my interviews across India has been incredibly useful for this endeavour. Apart from learning about surrogacy, I spent time learning about the Indian legal system and litigation more broadly, especially from Radhika Bahl, an advocate and advisor at the Fertility Law Care firm. On her advice, I spent time in the courts in Delhi, watching day-to-day litigation. I am incredibly grateful to the Pegasus Trust for providing me with the opportunity to explore this area of law in such a fascinating jurisdiction. I shall continue to keep those links and have, since returning, continued to follow the development of surrogacy law in India. I am planning to continue studying this area of law and hope to contribute to developments in my own jurisdiction. My time in India was an inspirational experience that has furthered my ambition. Jake Richards (Lincoln’s Inn) 9 Gough Square

Pegasus Scholars

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

USA By Jonathan Metzer

“It’s been lovely meeting you. I am only sorry that I don’t have more time to talk,” said Congressman Brendan Boyle. We stepped into the crowded corridor of Longworth House Office Building. The door opposite swung open and for a moment we were looking right into the Ways and Means Committee room. A curlyhaired, middle-aged woman was seated at a table, answering a question put to her by a member of the panel opposite. This was Ambassador Yovanovitch. Against the backdrop of the world’s news media, she was giving evidence at the impeachment inquiry into President Trump’s conduct in Ukraine. The door swung shut. “Wow,” we said. To visit the United States amid the historic events in the autumn of 2019 would be memorable enough. To have the opportunity to do so as a Pegasus Scholar was monumentally the more so. Through a packed programme of meetings and events over six weeks of travel across five states plus the District of Columbia, we were exposed to a full cross section of the US legal system at both federal and state level. We also gained in-depth understanding both of contemporary politics and American history. I return to London inspired by what I have seen, and with a well-stocked mind full of stories. Although it is difficult to generalise about the similarities and differences between the US and the British legal systems, the ramifications of having a codified constitution are an important point of contrast. Since the seminal decision of Marbury v Madison (1803), US judges have had the power to strike down not only government acts but also primary legislation incompatible with constitutional rights, an aspect of the system which conditions the close relationship between law and politics there. Thanks to detailed and candid discussions with a number of fascinating (and very kind) members of the judiciary, I was able to gain much deeper insight into the differing judicial philosophies that can so easily blend into the wider political debate in the United States. These discussions greatly enhanced my ability to grapple with the constellation of absorbing court hearings we attended, including observing oral argument in the US Supreme Court regarding whether the constitutional right to a jury trial in a criminal case is incorporated on the states and, if so, whether it includes a right to a unanimous jury verdict; an appeal in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia regarding the Trump administration’s narrow interpretation of part of the Affordable Care Act (passed under President Obama); a morning of appeals before the Virginia Supreme Court, including an action against the police for wrongful arrest and a claim that a sentence of over 90 years’ imprisonment imposed on a minor was unlawful; and a jury selection voir dire in Virginia, where the prosecution and defence

had the opportunity to strike jurors whom they felt may not be in a position to undertake a fair trial. The historic events unfolding in Washington provided a backdrop for many exciting encounters. The impeachment inquiry and the build-up to the Democratic Party’s primary elections, together with the impasse over Brexit back in the UK, provided food for thought at our fascinating conversations with two Congressmen, the US Solicitor General and the Chief of Staff to a prominent Senator, who took us out to lunch at the exclusive Senate Dining Room, where he talked openly about the challenges facing liberal politics in the present climate. Amid all this, we had the exciting opportunity to observe two politically sensitive court hearings. In Washington, we watched the directions being given to a federal jury at the trial of Roger Stone, a former Republican strategist accused of obstruction, false statements and witness tampering, arising from his testimony to the House of Representatives’ Intelligence Committee about backchannel efforts to push for the release of emails from WikiLeaks that would harm Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign; and in northern Virginia, we attended a hearing in the libel claim brought by Svetlana Lokhova, a Russian academic who alleged that it had been wrongfully implied in newspaper articles that she had compromised General Michael Flynn, the former National Security Advisor who resigned in February 2017. A further highlight of the programme was the blacktie Celebration of Excellence at the US Supreme Court, where it was fascinating to discuss what I had learned with Lady Black and Lord Justice McCombe, both of whom were so engaging and friendly. We also attended a unique dinner at Francis E Warren Air Force Base, where I carried out a launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile (at a training console) and was given in-depth tours of the West Wing of the White House, the US Supreme Court and the US Capitol. As for the hospitality, we received overwhelming kindness and generosity from our hosts in Washington, DC; Sacramento, California; Roanoke, Virginia; Cheyenne, Wyoming; and Annapolis, Maryland, who put immense thought, care, effort and energy into making sure that we got the maximum possible benefit from the programme. The extensive travel also enabled me to gain insight into the great cultural contrasts across the country. It is impossible to put into words how grateful I am to Inner Temple and the Pegasus Trust that I was able to undertake this programme. It has been described as a ‘once-in-a-lifetime experience’. But even this does not do it justice. If you are reading this report and trying to decide whether to apply for the programme, there is only one answer: apply! You will be forever grateful. Jonathan Metzer (Lincoln’s Inn) 1 Crown Office Row 83

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Pegasus Scholars

ECHR By Charlotte Gilmartin

During my Pegasus Scholarship, I was fortunate enough to undertake a placement at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. I spent three months working in the UK division of the Court, alongside a small group of lawyers of different levels of seniority led by the UK permanent judge. I had the opportunity to meet with some of the most senior judges and exchange ideas regarding the implementation of the Convention in domestic systems, and to work with lawyers from diverse countries and professional backgrounds. I found it an extremely enriching experience, which I hope will continue to shape my practice at the Bar foryears to come. I was welcomed into the UK division’s busy specialist team and encouraged to assist them with a wide variety of tasks in their daily routine. I thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to experience working in a very different environment to my chambers, notably in an international setting, and to gain an insight into the workings of such an important and unique institution.

A key aspect of my role entailed assisting the UK division with processing applications to the Court brought by individuals. Applications by individuals against contracting states, alleging that the state has violated their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, can be made by any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals. Once registered with the Court, the case is assigned to a judge rapporteur who makes a final decision on whether or not the case is admissible. A case may be inadmissible when it is incompatible with the requirements of ratione materiae, ratione temporis or ratione personae, or if the case cannot be proceeded with on formal grounds, such as non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, lapse of six months from the last internal decision complained of, anonymity, substantial identity with a matter already submitted to the Court, or with another procedure of international investigation. Where cases are admissible, they may be progressed through the Chamber or Committee hearing process. I was involved in assisting with this process of determining admissibility. The first stage of the sift focuses on procedural defects – namely, checking that the individual has complied with the published requirements for completing the form to make an application to the Court. Secondly, I was tasked with analysing their merits and forming a preliminary view as to the style of decision to which the application should be allocated – whether in chamber, committee or single judge, as well as being alert to the potential need for urgent interim

measures to be put in place. The articles of the Convention invoked in individual applications were wide-ranging, and so this proved an interesting and challenging exercise in requiring an awareness of all the Court’s significant case law. I was also involved in responding to research requests made by judges sitting in cases being heard by the Chamber or Grand Chamber of the Court. These are, by their very nature, cases which raise serious questions of interpretation and application of the European Convention on Human Rights or serious issues of general importance, or which may depart from previous case law. Frequently, questions arise during a hearing as to how each member state deals with a particular legal issue, and these will be disseminated to lawyers in each division for their consideration and response. I therefore had the opportunity to consider how very specific legal problems, spanning a range of issues, were dealt with in the UK jurisdiction, and to consider how best to summarise this for an international audience. This could be challenging given the variation in composition of the legal systems between different member states and the potential breadth of research requests. However, it gave a fascinating insight into the level of detail into which the Court will enquire before publishing a judgment. I was also encouraged to carry out research for the jurisprudential aspect of the Court’s work, namely providing updates and analysis of its more recent case law. Again, I was reassured and impressed by the thorough approach which the Court takes to this task. Overall, my scholarship has allowed me to gain a unique insight into the functioning of the European Court and its position as regards its signatory states. I had the opportunity to meet with some of the most senior judges of the Court, to exchange ideas regarding implementation of the Convention in domestic systems, and I was pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate from the perspective of a UK lawyer. Similarly, working with lawyers from diverse countries and professional backgrounds was an extremely enriching experience. I hope to continue to benefit from new connections made with such a special institution in the future, both from a professional and personal point of view. I am extremely grateful to the Pegasus Trust for their generosity and support in organising my placement, and I would highly recommend it to all new practitioners keen to enrich their professional experience. Charlotte Gilmartin (The Inner Temple) 1 Crown Office Row

Pegasus Scholars

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

INDIA By Frances Stratton

PS Picture the scene: it is circa 35 degrees and the court’s resident peacocks are noisily seducing each other on the roof outside; two witnesses in two different cases are being crossexamined simultaneously on either side of the courtroom as the overburdened judge translates their Hindi answers into English for the stenographers to take down as evidence, while hearing a bail application at the same time. I’m midway through my first week in India and feeling a long way from home. What an introduction to the Indian legal system! In the autumn of 2019, I spent two months in India as a Pegasus Scholar. I was based in Delhi where I divided my time roughly equally between placements at the Delhi Commission for Women (the municipal body which works to improve the lives of Delhi’s women), the High Court and the Supreme Court of India. The work was extremely varied, everything from compiling statistics on the woeful lack of prosecution in domestic violence cases to observing a five-day insolvency trial. (I have to confess that the latter, as a family law specialist, I found quite the voyage of discovery.) Whilst some elements of the Indian legal sphere were remarkably similar to life at the English Bar (I now understand that a dark sense of humour and a propensity to gossip about judges are universal characteristics of advocates the world over), at times the culture shock was profound: I won’t forget helping out at an advocacy training day for university students where I raised an audible laugh when I explained that I had never worried that the independence of an English judge had been compromised, nor the discussion that followed about the acceptable level of official to bribe.

It was a particularly interesting time to be in India, just as the radically right-wing Indian government appeared to be finding new momentum. Many unprecedented things happened during my time in Delhi. This included three lawyers being shot by the police whilst at court, the arrest of prominent human rights lawyers, the alleged hacking of many journalists’ mobile phones and the shutting down of whole sections of Delhi in an apparent attempt by the government to curb protests. On more than one occasion, I wondered what the future held for the country and worried for my left-leaning Indian friends. The political intrigue reached its zenith for me in my final week in Delhi, as the lawyers I was working with geared up to start the litigation which has resulted from recent events in Kashmir. I wish I’d been able to stay longer to see the full hearing. Political worries aside, I enjoyed my time in India from start to finish; the people were incredibly welcoming and the work very interesting. It has been odd returning to London in grey January, although it is true to say that no longer being woken up at night by monkeys fighting stray dogs outside my window is something of a relief. I am incredibly grateful for the wonderful opportunity afforded to me by the Pegasus Trust and the Hingorani Foundation. It was an unforgettable experience, which has allowed me to learn so much more than I am able to express in this short article. I would recommend a Pegasus Scholarship to any young barrister. (And no, I still do not understand how it is possible to hear three different cases at the same time.) Frances Stratton (Gray’s Inn) 1 King’s Bench Walk 85

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Social Context of the Law: Britain’s Unwritten Constitution

SOCIAL CONTEXT OF THE LAW:

BRITAIN’S UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTION From a discussion on 4 November 2019 between Master Jonathan Sumption and Professor Vernon Bogdanor CBE FRSA FBA, moderated by Professor Dawn Oliver.

Professor Dawn Oliver: As we all know, the law and the courts are often required to address very difficult questions on which there are conflicting but equally plausible views. Our topic tonight is Britain’s unwritten constitution. Our discussions are going to focus on how well our constitutional rules are operating, given the politics. Whether any of the rules should be changed or reformed and, if so, how? Professor Vernon Bogdanor: I’d like to begin by thanking Jonathan Sumption, both for delivering the Reith Lectures and for exposing himself to discussion of it. I’d like to concentrate on two points in the lectures. First, the issue of the referendum, whether it has a place in our constitution. Second, the question of whether we should have a constitution at all.

Almost every democracy employs the referendum. There are many Burkean objections to the referendum. Burke, of course, was writing before the era of party whips. For this reason, legislative scrutiny in the Commons does not always result in major alterations to government policy and substantive Lords amendments are not often accepted by the government. Jonathan said that he was opposed to the 2016 referendum because there were too many answers to the question posed other than yes or no. Whether or not we remain in the European Union is a binary decision; we are either in or out. Had the Brexit decision been left to parliament, there would have to be a final vote on whether MPs wished to remain or leave. A vote in parliament follows a debate and scrutiny. A referendum widens the debate and the scrutiny so that it includes the people who become, in effect, a third chamber of parliament. If you oppose the referendum, you suggest that Britain should remain in the European Union even though the majority of voters do not wish to remain. The referendum was held precisely because the democratic system was not working.

A vote in parliament follows a debate and scrutiny. A referendum widens the debate and the scrutiny so that it includes the people who become, in effect, a third chamber of parliament.

Some decisions are so fundamental they cannot be given legitimacy by parliament alone. They also need the consent of the people. This is a principle of liberal political philosophy. It seems surprising that Jonathan is opposed to it because in his fourth Reith Lecture, he says, “The essence of democracy is participation.” The high turnout in the referendum was a striking illustration of democratic commitment on the part of the least fortunate in British society. The greatest threat to democracy is an inert electorate, one that has ceased to think about public issues. It seems to me the arguments against referendums are also in part an argument against democracy.

The high turnout in the referendum was a striking illustration of democratic commitment on the part of the least fortunate in British society. The greatest threat to democracy is an inert electorate, one that has ceased to think about public issues. It seems to me the arguments against referendums are also in part an argument against democracy. I now turn to the question of whether we should have a constitution. The real question is not why we should have one but what is special about Britain, as a democracy, that we shouldn’t? Of course, a constitution cannot prevent a determined dictator. It’s a fallacy from that to assume they cannot secure some protection. This seems particularly important in the light of Brexit, which removes us from the protection of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This enabled judges to disapply statutes or parts of statutes which went against fundamental rights and returns us to the unprotected constitution that we had before 1973. The other 27 member states of the European Union will continue to be bound by the Charter. I conclude with a question. Are our MPs so much more sensitive to human rights than the legislators of the other member states that they should be entrusted with this important power of protecting our rights?

Treasury

Lord Sumption:

The basic objection to a referendum is that it is a device for circumventing the political process. It is potentially a way of finessing divisive issues to produce a result that no one, perhaps, would have chosen as their preferred option but the widest possible range of people can live with. The political process is essentially a mechanism for accommodating divisions of interest and opinion in our society so that we can live together. It is, by far, the most effective way of avoiding so-called majoritarian tyranny. A referendum avoids that kind of accommodation.

I’m going to deal with Vernon’s points in the reverse order. He asks, “Why should we not have a written constitution when every other country in the world, or almost every other country, does?” The short answer to that is that our history is different from that of almost every other country in the world. We have a large accretion of practices and rules which do amount to a constitution. They are not codified but they are intelligible, and they are all emanations of three basic constitutional principles on which the British state has been founded for a very long time. One, parliament is the supreme legislative authority. Two, ministers of the crown are answerable to parliament for their exercise of executive power. Three, an independent judiciary interprets and applies the law, including the law of the constitution.

We have a large accretion of practices and rules which do amount to a constitution. They are not codified but they are intelligible, and they are all emanations of three basic constitutional principles on which the British state has been founded for a very long time. It does not seem to me that experience suggests that a written constitution or a codified constitution is required. Any constitutional rule can be created, amended or abrogated in this country by ordinary parliamentary legislation. The classic defence of our existing constitutional arrangements is as strong today as it ever has been. We have weathered fundamental changes in our national arrangements with substantially the same basic constitutional framework. That has only been possible because it is informal and uncodified. What other state, with the arguable exception of the United States, can say as much? Take an example closer to home. Our one attempt to entrench a constitutional provision is the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which did not cater for the particular crisis that we are now going through. It took a one-line act, passed by a simple majority, to get us out of the parliamentary impasse that it created. Imagine the mess that we would now be in if that act had been written into a codified constitution. Turning to the referendum, the problem has to be looked at in the light of a larger picture of the way that parliamentary parties work. Over the medium to long term, parties tend to adapt their policy offerings to what they believe the public will support. It is true that, until relatively recently, all the major parties in the House of Commons were in favour of membership of the EU. I have no doubt that, in the long term, the parties would have adapted their offering.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

The question, if we do adopt a written constitution, is “Who would be responsible for putting forward formal proposals for constitutional change?” Can we actually envisage a British parliament agreeing to a new constitution which limits their power or increases the power of government as against parliament? What we have seen, over the past three years, is persistent attempts to force government to compromise on EU membership given the large and vocal minority that strongly believes in the advantage of EU membership. It has caused government to reach for imposed solutions, sidelining the principal democratic organ of our state, namely parliament. So, I adhere to the view that an attempt to introduce direct democracy into a fundamentally parliamentary system is a serious mistake. Professor Dawn Oliver: One of the points about the referendum that we are now concerned about is that it is taken to imply a move away from representative democracy towards populist democracy. A lot needs to be thought about what the relationship between those two very different forms of democracy might be, what it is now and what it could be in the future, especially if we should actually take steps to achieve a written constitution. The question, if we do adopt a written constitution, is “Who would be responsible for putting forward formal proposals for constitutional change?” Can we actually envisage a British parliament agreeing to a new constitution which limits their power or increases the power of government as against parliament?

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Social Context of the Law: Britain’s Unwritten Constitution

Professor Vernon Bogdanor:

devolved bodies, some of the powers were being retained at Westminster in order to preserve an internal market in the whole United Kingdom. That came to the Supreme Court. It was decided the Sewel Convention was not justiciable. This does leave open huge questions about the appropriate balance, rights and obligations, both of Westminster and the devolved bodies. I think it’s absolutely urgent that we frame them in a document that has more force than an everyday statute, which can be repealed at will by parliament.

On the question of the referendum, it serves to supplement representative democracy. It does not replace it. I think Jonathan exaggerates the responsiveness of politicians to public opinion. In 1979, three of the four major parties in Wales supported devolution. Only the Conservatives opposed it. It was rejected in a referendum by four to one. Would it have been right to impose it on the Welsh when they didn’t want it? In the early years of the 21st century, Tony Blair wanted Britain to join the euro but had been induced to say that we couldn’t do that until there was a referendum. He never put forward the referendum because there wasn’t a single opinion poll that showed a majority for the euro. In that sense, the referendum is a weapon of entrenchment against changes which the public do not want.

The referendum is a weapon of entrenchment against changes which the public do not want. In 2017, parliament passed the Notification of Withdrawal Act, authorising Theresa May to invoke article 50. Since then, it has failed to implement the outcome. I think we don’t face a constitutional crisis or a democratic crisis but a parliamentary crisis, because parliament has been unwilling to implement the outcome of the referendum. On the question of a constitution, Jonathan gives Burkean arguments as to why we shouldn’t have a constitution. I think Burke is no longer a guide because many of the conventions and the customs have been broken.

We have, since 1973, actually been living under a constitution in practice, because parliament has been a subordinate legislative body to the institutions of the European Community and then the European Union. There is a case for a constitution which protects human rights but, even more urgently, for a constitution which delineates the relationships between Westminster and subordinate legislative and non-legislative devolved bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and in those parts of England which now have directly elected mayors and combined authorities. The problem was shown by the issues that arose when agriculture and fisheries were being returned to Britain or will be returned after Brexit. Instead of being returned to the

Lord Sumption: First, let’s look at referenda. All the issues which Vernon has suggested might have been the subject of referenda, the euro, regional devolution and so on, strike me as classic examples of the sorts of issues which cannot be formulated in yes and no terms, those being the terms that are actually suitable for a referendum. It is difficult to see how we can do that without a legislative decision first, which the electorate would then either say yes or no to. That’s really the only way of doing it. However, if you have to have legislation and then a confirmatory referendum, you’re not solving that problem. Turning to Brexit, there has been no consensus within parliament about what the relations between this country and the EU should be after leaving. The Brexit Party says that the referendum means that we should have no relations with the EU that would involve any binding obligations on our part, itself rather an unrealistic view. Others say that there should be a customs union membership; others say that we should remain part of the European Economic Area. All of these various solutions are equally consistent with the referendum result. This illustrates the enormous practical difficulties of formulating questions, short of a legislative answer requiring confirmation, that are actually capable of being submitted to a referendum. As to Vernon’s argument about the need for a constitution, I do not see that the position between the United Kingdom and its constituent nations, including Scotland, is in any doubt. It is set out in the Scotland Act 1998. That act can be amended. I do not see that a constitution can define our relations with Scotland in any way that is not equally open to being achieved by ordinary legislation. The Rt Hon Lord Sumption OBE and Professor Vernon Bogdanor CBE FRSA FBA Moderated by Professor Dawn Oliver (Emeritus Professor of Constitutional Law, UCL) The full video recording of this talk can be viewed at innertemple.org.uk/unwrittenconstitution

Archives

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

THE TRIAL OF QUEEN CAROLINE By the Archivist

Stephen Lushington By William Holman Hunt

The trial of Queen Caroline in 1820 was the cause célèbre of the 19th century. William Hazlitt, the great essayist and the Inn’s one-time near neighbour on Bouverie Street, commented, “It was the only question I have ever known that excited a thorough popular feeling. It struck roots into the heart of the nation and it took possession of every house or cottage in the Kingdom.” The introduction in the House of Lords of a Bill to deprive the Queen of England of her title and to dissolve her marriage with the King on the grounds of her adultery involved six counsel led by Henry Brougham who were retained on the Queen’s behalf, all strong Whig supporters. Three of these were members of The Inner Temple: Thomas Wilde, later first Baron Truro (1782– 1855), who was called to the Bar in 1817 and became Solicitor General in 1839, Attorney General in 1841 and Lord Chancellor in 1850; Sir John Williams (1777–1846), called to the Bar in 1804, who although less well known to the public had already become renowned among his peers for his great skill at crossexamination; and Stephen Lushington, called to the Bar in 1806 and Treasurer here in 1851, who represented the Queen as her civilian advisor. In 1806, Lushington had been elected the Whig MP for Great Yarmouth and had spoken in support of the Bill to abolish the slave trade in 1807. He arrived fresh from advising Lady Byron during her separation from Lord Byron. He was chosen for his role as a Doctor of Civil Law and his knowledge

of the ecclesiastical courts, which at that time had exclusive jurisdiction over matrimonial disputes. Lushington’s expertise was used to demonstrate the weakness of the King’s claim had it been prosecuted in the ecclesiastical courts. He sought to prove that the King had effectively deserted the Queen. The marriage between Caroline of Brunswick and the Prince of Wales (later George IV) was a disaster from the beginning. The Prince of Wales was already secretly married to the Catholic Maria Fitzherbert in contravention of the Act of Settlement in 1701, which forbade the marriage of a monarch to a Catholic. He agreed to the marriage with Caroline on the provision that parliament paid off his vast debts, totalling nearly £630,000. From their first meeting, their incompatibility was clear – as recorded by Lord Malmesbury, who was responsible for escorting Caroline to England: “According to the established etiquette, introduced…the Princess Caroline to him. She very properly…attempted to kneel to him. He raised her (gracefully enough), and embraced her, said barely one word, turned round, retired to a distant part of the apartment, and calling me to him, said, ‘Harris, I am not well; pray get me a glass of brandy.’” He was so drunk at his wedding that he had to be held up and, according to his wife, he “passed the greatest part of his bridal night under the grate, where he fell, and where I left him”.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

The Trial of Queen Caroline

Within a year, their daughter, Charlotte, had been born and the couple were permanently estranged. Caroline lived first in England and then, in 1814, moved to Italy. Rumours circulated about her adulterous affairs with a number of men. She promoted her courier Bartolomeo Pergami to become head of her household and was rumoured to have had an adulterous relationship with him.

Lushington stated:

In 1820, George III died, and Caroline returned to England to claim recognition of her position as Queen. She had refused the Prince of Wales’s attempts to bribe her to remain on the continent with an offer of £50,000 a year. Her refusal led him to introduce a green bag of evidence to show the Queen had committed adultery whilst abroad. The evidence was examined by a committee of 15 peers who concluded the evidence was of such a serious nature it should be subject to a legislative proceeding. The Pain and Penalties Bill was introduced the next day by the Prime Minister Lord Liverpool “to deprive Her Majesty Queen Caroline Amelia Elizabeth of the Title, Prerogatives, Rights, Privileges, and Exemptions of Queen Consort of this Realm; and to dissolve the Marriage between His Majesty and the said Caroline Amelia Elizabeth”. The Bill charged that Caroline had committed adultery with Bartolomeo Pergami, “a foreigner of low station”, and that consequently she had forfeited her rights to be queen consort. The case “laid the groundwork” for reform of the divorce laws.

The Queen herself attended the trial, where she played backgammon throughout the proceedings. At the outset, the prevailing opinion amongst the peers was that the Queen was guilty, but Brougham was able to discredit several of the witnesses against her through his effective cross-examinations and it was found that there was little satisfactory evidence against her.

90 The Trial of Queen Caroline 18200 © The National Portrait Gallery

“My Lords; there is one other circumstance – the husband of the lady accused has been twenty four years separated from that wife – separated, my Lords, by his own act, by his own choice, by his own free will – separated my Lords, not in consequence of even a breath of suspicion of any misconduct of that wife… but in the wayward indulgence of his own fancy, breaking asunder the solemn bonds in which God had united them.” His argument centred around the lack of substantial evidence against the Queen, and he urged the House: “…Do you ever hold in sacred remembrance that he who seeks to take away the life or character of an individual, is bound by every principal of eternal justice, by every rule recognised by the law to establish that guilt by full, free, unsuspected and unsuspicious testimony.” The principal crown witness, an Italian servant named Theodore Majocchi, had been only able to say that there was “rather a familiarity” between the Princess and Bergami, which Lushington claimed was insufficient evidence of adultery. Moral conviction was not enough, he argued; both opportunity and inclination must be strictly proved. Brougham for his part stressed the political dangers of passing the Bill. The Queen was well loved by the public, and she and her defence team had become a focus of opposition to the unpopular Tory government, with the Queen’s case identified with “the cause of imperilled freedom”. The Peterloo Massacre of 1819 and the Cato Street Conspiracy of 1820 were seen by many to be the beginnings of an English revolution that would be more “bloody than that of France.” The passing of the Bill was perceived to be a potential catalyst for predicted unrest.

Archives

Lushington exploited the weaknesses in the evidence against the Queen with his concluding words, stating, “I leave the honour of my client, not to your mercy but to your justice.” The defence of the Queen was successful. Many peers were unable to establish her guilt and were convinced by Brougham’s advocacy. They also feared the political implications of sending the Bill through the House of Commons and the prospect of civil war, which many predicted would occur as a result. The motion for the third reading was passed by only nine votes, an insufficient majority, and the Bill was abandoned. The Queen may have become an unlikely heroine for English radicals, but her own concerns were purely personal. She was determined to regain the honours which she felt were due to her as Queen. Her priority was the inclusion of her name in the Church of England’s liturgical prayers for members of the royal family. In 1821, she attempted to attend the coronation and enter Westminster Abbey without a ticket. She was refused entry at the door and she drove away, humiliated and weeping. Lushington continued to support the Queen, becoming her principal legal advisor until the end of her life. He introduced petitions to the House of Commons in support of her inclusion in the liturgy, and in support of the Queen’s claim to a service of silver plate that had been given to her by the Prince of Wales in 1806. He was instrumental in ensuring that she received an allowance from the government, and he wrote to Brougham on 5 March 1821, “I will see her as often as I possibly can.” Her sad life ended on the 8 August 1821, with Lushington present even at her death. As executor to her will, he stayed until 3am to secure her possessions and then hurried to his own wedding, which was due to take place that very morning.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Thomas Creevey, a former member of this Inn (admitted 1789) and a diarist with an unerring skill to be at the right place at the right time, commented on events as they unfurled in a letter to his friend: “…The melancholy event took place at 25 minutes past 10 o’clock last night, when our dear Queen breathed her last. Her Majesty has quitted a scene of uninterrupted persecution, and for herself I think her death is not to be regretted… She died in peace with all her enemies. Je ne mourrai sans douleur, mais je mourrai sans regret – was frequently expressed by her Majesty. I never beheld a firmer mind, or any one with less feelings at the thought of dying, which she spoke of without the least agitation, and at different periods of her illness, even to very few hours of her dissolution, arranged her worldly concerns…”

Lushington continued to support the Queen, becoming her principal legal advisor until the end of her life. Thomas Wilde, who was with her for the final two hours, later told Denman that “the name of Pergami never passed her lips”. Many of the public were angered by her death, believing that she had died as a result of her husband’s appalling behaviour. Riots took places as her coffin moved through London on its way to Brunswick via Harwich. The inscription on the coffin read simply “Caroline of Brunswick, the injured Queen of England”. Celia Pilkington Archivist

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Celebrated Lives

CELEBRATED LIVES (In order of seniority)

Master Andrew Leggatt

Master Mark Tennant

8 November 1930–21 February 2020

4 December 1932–18 February 2020

The Rt Hon Sir Andrew Leggatt was called to the Bar by The Inner Temple in 1954. He was Head of Chambers at what has since become 3VB and was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1972. He was Chairman of the Bar from 1981-82 and a judge of the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division from 1982-90. Master Leggatt served as a Lord Justice of Appeal from 199097 and as Chief Surveillance Commissioner from 1998-2006. He was elected a Governing Bencher of the Inn in 1976.

Mark Tennant (Baron Balfluig) was called to the Bar by The Inner Temple in 1958. He was elected a Governing Bencher of the Inn in 1984 and was Master of the Supreme Court, Queen’s Bench Division, from 1988 until his retirement in 2005. A keen musician, he played the flute in the Royal Orchestral Society for over 30 years and became both chairman and president of the society.

Celebrate the life

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Master Robert Armstrong

Master Brian Hutton

30 March 1927–3 April 2020

29 June 1931–14 July 2020

The Rt Hon the Lord Armstrong of Ilminster GCB CVO had a long and distinguished civil service career. He served as Principal Private secretary to the Prime Minister from 1970 to 1975. Knighted in 1978, he served as Cabinet Secretary under Margaret Thatcher from 1979 to 1987. He was created a life peer as Baron Armstrong of Ilminster in 1988 and sat as a crossbencher. He was elected an Honorary Bencher of The Inner Temple in 1986.

The Rt Hon the Lord Hutton was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 1954 where he took silk in 1970, before being called to the Bar of England and Wales by The Inner Temple in 1972. From 1979 to 1989, he was a High Court Judge in Northern Ireland during the height of the Troubles. He was elected as an Honorary Bencher of the Inn in 1988. In 1989, he became Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland before moving to England where he was appointed Lord of Appeal in Ordinary in 1997. He was consequently granted a life peerage as Baron Hutton, of Bresagh in the County of Down. He is perhaps best known for his chairing of the Hutton Inquiry in 2003, a judicial inquiry to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly, a biological warfare expert and former UN weapons inspector in Iraq.

Master David Elfer

Master Leonard Woodley

15 July 1941–31 March 2020

13 September 1927–19 January 2020

His Honour David Elfer QC was called to the Bar of England and Wales in 1964 and joined Chambers at 1 Paper Buildings (now Drystone Chambers). Master David Elfer practised on the Western Circuit, appearing in courts from Winchester to Bristol. Having begun with a traditional common-law general practice, he eventually specialised in Criminal Law in which he had an astonishing career that took him to the very heights of criminal practice. David was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1981 at the age of 39, making him one of the youngest to be appointed to silk, and became a Bencher of The Inner Temple in 1989. He became a Circuit Judge in 1996, sitting at Southwark Crown Court and occasionally at the Old Bailey until his retirement in 2000 due to ill health.

Leonard Woodley QC was called to the Bar by The Inner Temple in 1963. As a criminal barrister he specialised in trials with a political or civil liberties element, including cases arising from the Notting Hill, Brixton, Tottenham and Bristol riots in the 1980s and the famous cases of the Mangrove Nine and the Newnham Eight. The first Afro-Caribbean barrister in Britain to become a Queen’s Counsel, he chaired the Laudat Inquiry into mental health and sat on the Royal Commission on long term care. He became a Recorder in 1989 until 2000. He was elected as a Barrister Governing Bencher of the Inn in 1990. He was dedicated to securing equal opportunities for young Black and Asian lawyers and set up the Leonard Woodley Scholarship.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Celebrated Lives

Master Roderick Denyer

Master Richard Plender

1 March 1948–14 March 2020

9 October 1945–23 May 2020

His Honour Roderick Denyer QC was called to the Bar in 1970. He taught at the University of Bristol before starting practice originally at Guildhall Chambers and then at St John’s, Bristol, where he became Head of Chambers. He was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1990 and elected a Bencher of The Inner Temple in 1996. Master Roderick Denyer was appointed to the Circuit Bench in 2002, sitting in Gloucester and Cardiff then returning to Bristol where he was the Designated Civil Judge until his retirement in 2017.

Richard Plender LLD LLM JSD QC was called to the Bar in 1972 as one of the earliest and foremost EU practitioners. He took silk in 1989, joining what is now 20 Essex in 1990, and was appointed a Recorder in 1998. He combined work at the Bar with a distinguished academic career, including as Director of Research at the Hague Academy (1987–1988) and directing the Centre for European Law at King’s College, London (1988–1991). Credited with coining the phrase ‘European citizenship’, he had a prolific output of scholarly publications in numerous languages, starting with International Migration Law at the age of 27. Master Richard Plender served as Judge of the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division from 2008 until 2011. He was elected a Bencher of The Inner Temple in 1996.

Master Yong Pung How

Master Johnny Veeder

11 April 1926–9 January 2020

14 December 1948–8 March 2020

Chief Justice Yong Pung How was called to the Bar by The Inner Temple in 1951 and returned to practise law in Malaya at his father’s firm Shook Lin & Bok. After setting up their branch in Singapore, he went onto work in business, finance and public administration. Master Yong Pung How returned to law in 1989 as a Judge of the Supreme court and was appointed as Singapore’s second Chief Justice, a position he held from 1990 to 2006. Master Yong Pung How was elected an Honorary Bencher of the Inn in 1997.

Johnny Veeder QC was called to the Bar by The Inner Temple in 1971. He took silk in 1986 and was elected a Governing Bencher of the Inn in 2000. A member of Essex Court Chambers and Visiting Professor at King’s College London, Master Johnny Veeder was “recognised worldwide as one of the most brilliant, visionary and respected counsel, arbitrators, scholars and teachers in the field of international dispute resolution and international law” (Toby Landau QC).

Celebrate the life

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Master Stephen Cretney

Master Mervyn Roberts

25 February 1936–30 August 2019

19 February 1941–2 February 2020

Stephen Cretney DCL FBA QC was a Fellow of Exeter College from 1969-1978 before becoming a Law Commissioner (197883). He then moved to the University of Bristol Law School, where he was Dean, and in 1993 was appointed to a Senior Research Fellowship at All Souls. Stephen’s field was family law. He was elected as an Honorary Bencher of the Inn in 2006.

His Honour Mervyn Roberts was called to the Bar by The Inner Temple in 1963. He was a recorder from 1994 to 1999, and a Circuit Judge form 1999 until his retirement in 2011. Master Mervyn Roberts was a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board 1998-99 and the Parole Board from 2002 onwards. He was elected a Governing Bencher of the Inn in 2007.

News Syndication

Master Roger Scruton 27 February 1944–12 January 2020 Philosopher Professor Sir Roger Scruton FBA FRSL was the author of more than 50 books on philosophy, art, music, politics, literature, culture and religion. From 1971 to 1992, he was a lecturer and professor of aesthetics at Birkbeck College, London, after which he held serval part-time academic positions, including in the United States. He was a founder of and contributor to the Inn’s Social Context of the Law Series. He was elected as an Honorary Bencher of the Inn in 2015 and in 2018 was appointed as chair of the government’s Building, Better, Building Beautiful Commission.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

The Library’s Commonwealth Law Collection

THE LIBRARY’S COMMONWEALTH LAW COLLECTION By the Deputy Librarian

When we were planning the move to our temporary accommodation in Fetter Lane, we decided that as a high priority we should ensure that, in addition to the core collection of English law, as much as possible of our Commonwealth law collection should continue to be readily available. We outline below the contents of the collection, both in terms of printed books and of electronic resources. Printed material Our collection of Commonwealth law in printed form is a highly valued resource for members of all four Inns (its primary usergroup) but it is also frequently resorted to by a much wider constituency, since it contains a good deal of non-current material that is (a) not readily available outside the jurisdictions to which it relates, and (b) unlikely to be made available online. This Library and Lincoln’s Inn Library have specialised in what we now refer to as Commonwealth law since long before the Commonwealth, as such, existed. Until the early 1990s, both libraries aimed to collect legislation and law reports from all Commonwealth countries, but it became clear that this approach was unsustainable, not least from the point of view of the available space. It was decided (in the context of a widerranging, new Inn Libraries specialisation scheme) that the Inner Temple and Lincoln’s Inn would divide the Commonwealth between them along geographical lines, although both libraries would retain, and continue taking, major law report series from Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong. The last of these is, obviously, no longer a member of the Commonwealth, but we treat it as such since it retains its common-law system and is a major centre for commercial litigation. The jurisdictions for which we currently have primary responsibility among the Inn Libraries are Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territories, Canada, Cayman Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Hong Kong, India, Jamaica, Malta, Mauritius, Montserrat, Pakistan, St Christopher and Nevis, St Helena, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the (British) Virgin Islands.

The focus is on law reports and legislation. Clearly the amount of material available for particular jurisdictions varies a great deal: for the smaller jurisdictions especially, there is very little if anything in the way of law reports, for instance; but it is worth noting that these are sometimes covered by general series, among which West Indian Reports deserves a special mention. Our practice regarding legislation is to have the latest consolidation of laws, followed by subsequently published annual volumes and/or loose parts, on the open shelf, while material predating the latest consolidation is housed in the Littleton Building basement. In addition to legislation and law reports, we also have a Commonwealth Textbooks collection, shelved as a separate unit. The same caveat mentioned above in relation to law reports applies equally here: the largest jurisdictions have a vast legal bibliography devoted to them (so we have to be selective), the smallest ones very little indeed. There are however a number of titles covering several small jurisdictions: those in the Commonwealth Caribbean Law series, in particular, should not be overlooked.

The focus is on law reports and legislation. Clearly the amount of material available for particular jurisdictions varies a great deal. Finally, those undertaking research in a field within Australian, Canadian or Indian law that is not covered by a title in Commonwealth Textbooks should note that we have Halsbury’s Laws for each of those jurisdictions.

Library

Electronic resources

Over the last few years, Justis (now vLex Justis) have increased their holdings of Commonwealth materials and the Library has added to the items we subscribe to. On JustisOne, users can now find Bermuda Law Reports, Cayman Islands Law Reports, British Virgin Islands cases, Jamaican cases, and case law from many other Caribbean jurisdictions.

For many years, the main electronic resource the Library had for researching Commonwealth law was Lexis Library. It was particularly useful for case law and legislation. Over the years, some of the Halsbury’s Laws series for other jurisdictions were added and improved the ability to undertake effective research. To search overseas materials on the main Lexis Library site, users either had to use the ‘Find a resource’ option or resort to the rather cumbersome method of browsing sources and selecting a jurisdiction. Major changes occurred in 2019 when overseas materials were taken off the main Lexis Library site and moved to a microsite. The new site did not include all the materials that the Library subscribed to and this meant that for some jurisdictions, users would still have to use the main Lexis Library site. In order to make it easier for Library users to find materials, we created separate access points on the homepage of the Library’s public-access PCs. We now have icons for Lexis Library Commonwealth (covering Australia, Canada, India, Hong Kong, Malaysia, New Zealand and Singapore) and separate icons for Bahamas Law Reports, Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court Reports, Laws of Mauritius and West Indian Reports. Content in the Commonwealth microsite now includes more commentary resources, such as key textbooks and journals.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

A major recent addition to the Library’s electronic resources has been the subscription to Westlaw Canada. This contains case law and legislation as well as court documents, legal memoranda and treatises.

Major changes occurred in 2019 when overseas materials were taken off the main Lexis Library site and moved to a microsite. In addition to the subscription databases the Library has created its own web resource for finding Commonwealth materials. Our AccessToLaw gateway site (accesstolaw.com) has an extensive section covering Commonwealth jurisdictions. Library staff have selected authoritative sites that provide access to case law, legislation and official publications. For many of the jurisdictions covered, a very useful resource that is included on A2L are the GlobaLex research guides. These are tools to find laws of various jurisdictions and provide a starting point for researching an unfamiliar legal system. Tracey Dennis Deputy Librarian

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Printing Press or Coffee House

PRINTING PRESS OR COFFEE HOUSE: HOW SHOULD THE STATE REGULATE SOCIAL MEDIA? By James Kane

“O Printing!” lamented Andrew Marvell in 1672, “how hast thou disturb’d the Peace of Mankind!” Social media is far from the first new technology to create turmoil in the body politic. For two centuries after the arrival of the first printing press in England in 1476, the state struggled to find a way to regulate this new and disruptive invention. With the expiry of the licensing laws in 1695, a compromise was reached that endured into modern times: there would be no censorship before printing, but both author and publisher would be liable if the work turned out to be treasonable, blasphemous or defamatory. Of course, social media companies are not quite like publishing houses. They have no editors watching out for remarks that might land them in hot water. As the law recognises, it would be unfair to hold them liable in the same way as publishers when they exercise little control over the content they transmit. Perhaps, then, social media is more like another novelty that disturbed the peace of the 17thcentury realm: the coffee house. Coffee houses were central to the development of a public sphere in England. But they were also held responsible for many evils. Fake news was rife in the coffee house, “midwife to all false intelligence”. In these “seminaries of sedition”, the authority of state institutions was undermined, while enemy agents spread propaganda to influence the English political process. Even Islamic extremism could flourish; as one poem ran, “When coffee once was vended here/the Al Koran shortly did appear.” About the only online evil not found in the coffee houses of the 1670s was pornography, for which men “eunuched” by consuming that “newfangled, abominable, heathenish liquor” would presumably have little use.

Unsurprisingly, the Crown sought ways to control such horrors. In 1675, Charles II imposed an outright ban. When public outrage forced him to revoke it, he tried a subtler approach. Coffee houses already had to be licensed for tax purposes. Now, a condition was added to their licences, requiring them to forbid their customers from uttering “false or scandalous reports against the government or its ministers”, and to denounce them to the authorities should they do so.

Coffee houses were central to the development of a public sphere in England. But they were also held responsible for many evils. This seems to be the approach being adopted by the government in its recent white paper on online harms. The white paper proposes that tech companies should be subject to a statutory duty of care to their users. An independent regulator would publish guidance on how they could comply with their duty and monitor whether they did. Like the Restoration coffee house, companies would be required “to identify, flag, block or remove illegal or harmful content” and to provide “evidence of cooperation with UK law enforcement”. It could be argued, in fact, that the government is going further than Charles II ever did. The Merry Monarch was only concerned with one type of harm: sedition. The white paper targets any number. The harms in scope stretch from terrorism to “excessive screen time”. They include both crimes and “unacceptable behaviours”. Aside from the fact that they all take place online, it is hard to see what holds them together. It is as though parliament were to decide to consolidate the Protection of Children Act 1978, the Terrorism Act 2006, the Suicide Act 1961 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 into a single piece of legislation, and then add in some advice from the Chief Medical Officer for good measure.

Treasury

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Almost the only consistent theme in the white paper is that online communication – in other words, speech – should be less free than it currently is. This is not an unreasonable view. No society treats free speech as an absolute right. Even in the United States, someone who incites a riot will go to prison and someone who defames another will have to pay damages. Every liberal democracy strikes its own balance between the harm done by allowing speech and the harm done by forbidding it. If we decide that we have gone too far in the direction of free speech, we can reverse course. But it is illogical to confine this reversal merely to online communication. Many of the most egregious abuses of the freedom of speech over the last few years have been committed by traditional media. If tweeters should be stopped from coarsening our public discourse, should not newspapers also be stopped from calling judges “enemies of the people”? Indeed, a few years ago, they could have been: scandalising the court was a crime until 2013. If we want to make speech less free, should we not revive that offence, alongside its friends criminal libel, sedition and blasphemy? At least, unlike the untried regime proposed by the white paper, we know both their merits and their flaws.

This is not an antiquarian argument for treating Facebook like Will’s coffee house and putting a few fake-news tweeters on trial for sedition. It is an argument against confusing the medium and the message. Charles II tried to ban coffee shops when he actually wanted to stop the conversations taking place in them. Similarly, the white paper focuses too much on where harms are taking place – online – and not enough on what kind of harms they are. Where harms are crimes, they should be prosecuted. Where they are torts, public assistance should be available to victims who want to seek compensation through the courts. True, the anonymity associated with the Internet presents a challenge to this, but not an insuperable one. Unlike the Stuarts, who faced a print culture in which two-thirds of publications were anonymous, we have the technology to find out who is responsible for abuses. Make people show their face when they speak online as well as offline and, as the judge Lord Kenyon said two centuries ago, let 12 of their compatriots decide whether it is blameable. James Kane One Essex Court and The Times Essay Competition Winner, 1st Prize

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Social Context of the Law: Does the Bar Need to Communicate and Market Itself More in the Modern World?

SOCIAL CONTEXT OF THE LAW:

DOES THE BAR NEED TO COMMUNICATE AND MARKET ITSELF MORE IN THE MODERN WORLD? From a webinar panel discussion held on 25 June 2020 between Master Helen Davies, Joint Head of Chambers, Brick Court and John Shaw of Superunion, moderated by Master Miles Young, Warden of New College, Oxford. Master Treasurer: It is my enormous pleasure to introduce our first Social Context of the Law webinar. The Social Context of the Law series of symposia were originally devised by the late Master John Laws, Master Geoffrey Nice, Master Konrad Schiemann and the late Master Roger Scruton. This is the first symposium in this series since the death of Sir John Laws, only a few months ago, which was a matter of huge sadness to this Inn, given that he, being a past Treasurer, had played a pivotal role in its running. So, it’s especially significant to us that we mark his death at this symposium.

Master Miles Young: The premise for tonight is that the perceptions and imagery of the Bar and, indeed, maybe the law are things which do define its social context. In the past, I heard an old-fashioned but commonly held view that the Bar just doesn’t need to advertise itself. Of course, the Bar Council does now encourage it. Advertising and the law both have, at their core, the principle of advocacy, whether it be advocacy in pursuit of commercial objectives or advocacy in pursuit of justice. So, my first question is to John: what is the fundamental role of these interconnected disciplines – communication, advertising, marketing? John Shaw: Starting with marketing, one of the interesting things is that it’s about identifying and satisfying customer needs and wants more effectively than competitors. It’s not just about promotion; it’s about identifying what people need or what they might want even if they haven’t expressed it and then finding a way to satisfy that and trying to do that better than other people.

100

Overall, the marketing system wouldn’t be there if it wasn’t to some extent an efficient way of getting people what they want and that leads on to probably the most emotive term – brand. A brand is something that exists in people’s hearts and minds. So, a brand is really the sum of all the associations you have of that particular thing. In the context of the law, the question is: what are the associations that people have about the law, about individuals, about firms, and how do you manage them? Then, communication is really to tell people that those brands or products or institutions are there. Communication builds familiarity and we know that familiarity builds trust. The way we think about communication is that everything a brand does is, to some extent, communication. Finally, advertising, a part of communication, is particularly about paid media. It used to be most of branded communication. Now it’s only a part because there’s some owned media – your own channels; and there’s earned media – what happens in social media and so on. The benefit of advertising is that it’s a bit more controllable than some of those other things.

Treasury

Master Miles Young: I guess that what we’re talking about initially is raising profile or awareness, of a brand or an organization or a service. Helen, does profile matter to a set of chambers?

Master Miles Young: Brands normally express the culture of a company. Is it pushing it too much to say that there are cultural threads or strands which define a set of chambers?

Master Helen Davies: Profile does, or at least it should, matter to most chambers for a number of reasons. First, clients use websites often as the first port of call to find out about the barrister that’s been recommended to them by their professional client. Professional clients will look people up and they will not only look at what we each have on our website pages, but they will look more generally at the chambers as a whole. Increasingly, they will look at what steps chambers are taking in CSR; they will look at policies in relation to equality and diversity. It’s not just websites that clients look at; they also look at individual LinkedIn sites and Twitter accounts. Chambers should also be worrying about their profile when it comes to attracting talent. So, yes, profile does matter but not just as a way of generating work. Master Miles Young: I looked at quite a few websites. The thing that I really noticed about yours was that it had the best use of content. A good website is all about the delivery of content, which has to be frequently updated content – that can really differentiate you from your competitors.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Master Helen Davies: The word I would use is ethos. Different sets of chambers do have different ethoses and that is in part because they are all individual collections of self-employed bosses. Definitely, at one level, we are brands in the sense that we all make a lot of effort in assessing people who are applying to us and determining that they are appropriate people to join us. Master Miles Young: It creates a very interesting tension between the collective and the individual. My next question is: can individual barristers be brands? Is it a dangerous thing in chambers? Master Helen Davies: I would prefer to say that we all have individual profiles. The individual profile is defined by the cases that they’ve done, the experience that they’ve gained, the trials in which they’ve appeared in front of the clients who’ve been prepared to instruct them; I personally wouldn’t describe it as a brand. Master Miles Young: Well, maybe, John, you could talk about where branding can apply to professional services organizations?

Master Helen Davies: We want to be regarded certainly as some of the best advocates in our field and to be sure that that will be conveyed through our website. We want it to be a source of information for professional clients and their clients as well. That required a model to be set up so that we could make sure we’re updating it regularly.

John Shaw: It sounds a bit crass to turn people into brands, but at the same time I suspect that, to some extent, associations about people still carry weight because some of the choices that people make are driven by associations, as well as purely rational factors. There’s evidence that, in most markets, emotional factors play a big part.

Master Miles Young: I’d like to now move back to John and talk about that idea of identity. What role does identity play in profile building?

It sounds a bit crass to turn people into brands, but at the same time I suspect that, to some extent, associations about people still carry weight because some of the choices that people make are driven by associations, as well as purely rational factors. There’s evidence that, in most markets, emotional factors play a big part.

John Shaw: It’s fundamentally about recognition and there’s a lot of evidence that suggests that in the marketing world it’s very valuable to have a degree of distinctiveness – that just being remembered and building up memory structures is important. But identity also generates certain associations, which can be quite subtle. To show the meaning and associations you can generate just from a very simple logo – look at Nike’s logo. It suggests motion, which is good for an athletic brand. It might to some people mean victory because Nike is the Greek goddess of victory. It’s designed to be very visible without the Nike word. So, it builds that distinctiveness. All of that seems to be coming out of a very small thing, and this isn’t to say that every set of chambers should have to think about all of this in such minute detail, but that detail matters and it does build associations.

Professional services and business-to-business brands are not just about selling stuff to clients; they often work indirectly in that they help to motivate employees. They help to attract talent because when people are doing a job search, they tend to make that mental shortlist in an associative way. But having a brand around a real person makes a difference and that sounds like the situation that some chambers find themselves in.

101

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Social Context of the Law: Does the Bar Need to Communicate and Market Itself More in the Modern World?

The brand I wanted to mention is BBC Two because its identity plays a role that isn’t just about attracting people to the channel; there are subtle connotations helping people to feel good about the licence fee. It’s also very important to the BBC that content producers want to make programmes for BBC. Their new look is partly to promote the diversity of the channel and link the branding to the fact that there are different types of shows and experiences on BBC Two, but also to make it feel interesting. It’s very much looking forward and breaking new ground.

Master Helen Davies: We put out relatively early statements on our websites reaffirming our commitment to quality of opportunity. As a set of chambers, we cannot address the broader political issue, but it is an area where, yes, many of us have expressed our views on Twitter or on LinkedIn; but to do so on the chambers’ website is more difficult. We have regulatory obligations to abide by; there are certain rules in the handbook that apply in relation to anything that any barrister puts on a website or social media.

Master Miles Young: Comparing us with other professional membership bodies, it’s interesting to look at the way in which The Inner Temple is branded. The Inn has been through a rebranding exercise and done the sort of BBC job that John described by having the Pegasus reframed. It comes over as a progressive brand with clear colourways and a distinctive graphic identity, giving it a completely different ethos to other professional membership bodies. Is that real brand differentiation or is it accidental? Master Helen Davies: I hope it is real brand differentiation. We spent a lot of time looking at the website, trying to get the right message across, and I’m delighted to hear you describe it in that way because it appears that we have succeeded. Master Miles Young: Now what about public confidence in the law as an aspect of social context? If you go to the Bar Council and look at whether it promotes itself as a brand, the answer is a convincing, resounding ‘no’. Do you think the law itself has to be defined, explained, defended or promoted in some way?

Master Helen Davies: The Bar Council is a representative body supporting barristers and barristers’ chambers in developing their work. Whether or not they need a brand, I’m not sure, because they’re not individually attracting clients’ talent as such. Certainly, it’s important to have regard to subliminal communication rather than direct communication in many fields. For example, getting engaged in direct comment on current affairs is just not going to happen at the Bar because, ultimately, we are collections of individuals who can’t step into the political sphere. We have to do it in a different way, which is to be very aware of the subliminal messages that we might be creating. Master Miles Young: There is a very valid marketing strategy called obliquity. In a sense, this relates to CSR. How does Black Lives Matter fit into the texture of a brand?

Social media is a good tool with which to enhance your profile. Where it is dangerous and where it should be avoided is using it to comment on political matters. The Bar Council and the Bar Standards Board provide guidance about the use of social media.

Social media is a good tool with which to enhance your profile. Where it is dangerous and where it should be avoided is using it to comment on political matters. Master Miles Young: Generally, social media should be used as ‘pull’ rather than ‘push’ to bring people in. And, when using LinkedIn, really good content is key. Social media in itself is only a vehicle for promoting content. John Shaw: LinkedIn is a really interesting tool for barristers, because there is an opportunity to convey a little bit of your personality and aptitudes as long as you’re careful about how you use it and make the content interesting. Master Miles Young: We have talked about ethics and Helen has defined some of the ethical areas in relation to communication. We’ve talked about advocacy and it’s helpful to see advocacy through a different lens and how brands advocate their strengths. We’ve talked about equality and diversity, and inclusion, as being part of the brand. I hope that this expansion of the notion of social context into image perceptions and how you reach people has provided a different perspective. Miles Young Honorary Bencher of The Inner Temple Warden of New College, Oxford Former Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Ogilvy and Mather

Helen Davies QC Joint Head of Brick Court Chambers

John Shaw Chief Strategy and Innovation Officer for Superunion The full version of this talk can be heard at innertemple.org.uk/doesthebarneedtomarket

102

Archives

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

THE INN’S SILVER COLLECTION By the Master of the Silver

Writing something for the Yearbook is one of the few normal things I have had to do this summer, but there is, as a result, a little less to write about. No grand dinners or other occasions and no traditional inspection of the silver in the July heat, except by our stalwart and ever-reliable Richard Parsons. He has also used the time to revalue the collection and in the process researched a number of the pieces. His fascinating article about the silver layette basket and a small silver-gilt porringer by the goldsmith Thomas Smith, both in our collection, and the possible link between them is a happy result of his researches. We have started discussions with Lutz Hartmann of Reier Showcases (by Zoom, of course!), the makers of the display cabinets in Hall, about the design of the storage cabinets in the vault near the kitchens in the basement of the Treasury Building. The current cabinets are awkward to use and do not provide easy access for some of the larger pieces, which we normally use for dinners. That risks causing, and has caused, minor damage, which could easily have been avoided. The new cabinets will also protect the silver better, which will mean less cleaning. We do not anticipate that the vault will be stripped out until next year. Then we will be able to finalise the designs and measurements.

No grand dinners or other occasions and no traditional inspection of the silver in the July heat. I know that it amounts to heresy to even float the idea that we might sell some of our collection. I am not talking of gifts from Treasurers past or historic pieces – the ‘family silver’- but of cutlery and tableware that is never used or seen, and probably never will be, except by those that have to count it. We have salts, mustard pots, sugar tongs, as well as desert and fish knives and forks, all engraved with The Inner Temple Pegasus. I suspect that some members of the Inn might like to purchase such items to remind them of good times they have enjoyed in the Inn. It would be good to know if there is such an interest, as the Executive Committee would have to sanction any such sale. To my mind, silver, like pearls worn against the skin, comes alive when used. Caterers are unlikely to want to handle such items or revert to hand-washing them. How much nicer if such pieces were used and cherished by members of the Inn. His Honour Michael Lawson QC Master of the Silver

103

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

17th-Century Gifts of Silver: The Princess Royal and Bishop Morley

17TH-CENTURY GIFTS OF SILVER:

THE PRINCESS ROYAL AND BISHOP MORLEY By Richard Parsons

A The Three Eldest Children of King Charles I (after Van Dyck) © National Collection Trust

A delightful family painting in the Royal Collection, by Anthony van Dyck, is a scene of three young children, each of whom is to play a leading part in 17th-century British history. On the left, a boy, who became King Charles II; in the centre, a further boy, dressed as a girl, which was common at the time, who became King James II; and on the right, Mary, the Princess Royal – all children of King Charles I and his wife, Henrietta Maria of France. Turning to the Princess Royal and her connection with the exquisite silver layette basket in the Inn’s collection, which was made in The Hague by Hans Coenraet Brechtel in 1645. This exceptional object was loaned to an exhibition in The Hague (Haags goud en zilver, pages 130–31) in 2006, and during the current Inner Temple building works, the basket is on display at the Goldsmiths’ Hall, in a small exhibition of royal plate. It could be a little time before the exhibition is available to view because of the current government lockdown restrictions. This basket was without doubt a gift to the Princess Royal and contains a message in the iconographic chased work in the base. It is believed this message was to have helped in smoothing the relationship of the 11-year-old Princess Royal, who was in exile at the Dutch court, and her 15-year-old husband, William Prince of Orange. The eventual successful result of their union was the birth of a son, William, who later became William III of Great Britain after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 (see previous article, Inner Temple Yearbook, 2005–06, pages 64–67). But what of the two boys in the picture? The church was a powerful political body at the time that influenced their lives and their personal chaplains were at hand in this respect. 104

In the collection, there is a small silver-gilt porringer, much less noticeable than the layette basket, being part of the Schiller bequest to The Inner Temple in 1947. This piece is Londonhallmarked for 1685 and was probably made by the goldsmith Thomas Smith. From the pieces recorded with Smith’s mark, he clearly had a successful goldsmith business. The porringer was also on loan to the 1951 Exhibition of City Plate no 156, held in the Goldsmiths’ Hall. The piece has pleasing proportions, with a plain circular body raised on a rim foot with two scroll handles, surmounted by a detachable cover terminated in a strawberry-leaf finial. It is also in exceptional condition; the fire or mercurial gilding still exhibits the burnishing lines that were made with either a metal- or stone-burnishing tool to finish the surface when the gilding was applied. The base is engraved with the text in a script style, “The Gift of Ye reverend G M late Ld Bishop of Winchester to SC.”

Silver Layette Basket detail

Archives

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Silver-gilt porringer by Thomas Smith

George Morley

Generally, it is quite usual for a piece of early silver to be engraved with a coat of arms or initials; the former can lead to identification of the original owner, but it could possibly be that some other engraving has been erased and the piece then re-engraved. The engraving on this porringer stands up to close inspection and can be confirmed as original. In 1685, the year that the porringer was made, the recently deceased Bishop of Winchester was one George Morley, the GM in the engraving. Much is known about his life: he was born in 1598 and was a great age of 85 at the time of his death. His parents died when he was 12 years old, and from the age of 13, he was educated as a King’s Scholar at Westminster School, moving to become an undergraduate at Christ Church, Oxford, where he eventually became Dean. Further, he was appointed as the Bishop of Worcester and finally the Bishop of Winchester in 1662, a position which he held until his death. He was also to play a considerable part in national politics of the time, both while living in the British Isles and while in exile in The Hague during the Cromwellian period after the Civil War. At this time, he visited other parts of Europe in the years 1649 until 1660 and, for a time, was personal chaplain to the young Charles II. He was also in part responsible, although not alone, for the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, when he returned to England, particularly preparing the Presbyterians for the return of Charles II.

Whether Sarah Constable was a niece or goddaughter has not been possible to establish from George’s family tree. It would seem he had two brothers, Thomas and Francis, and a number of their children are mentioned in the will.

The remainder of the engraving, “The Gift…to SC”, is more difficult to interpret. The porringer was made in the year of Morley’s death and the engraving records it being a gift, leading to the conclusion that it was a bequest in his probated will. This document, written in his own hand in 1685, records: Which reads: “….Mourning item I give to my Nieces and Goddaughters Sarah Constable and Sarah Foster each of them a piece of Plate of Tenne pounds price and to them and to each of their Husbands a…ing of Twenty shillings…” There are many bequests in the will directed to relatives and organisations; particularly, the distribution of his books seems to be of great importance. He clearly left a considerable fortune, but there are no further mentions of SC other than in the illustrated section of text.

A final word about Morley: as chaplain to the exiled Charles II, he was in attendance at the Dutch court and would have most probably met Mary, the Princess Royal, and young James. He was also part of the movement that secured Prince William of Orange to the British throne in 1688, replacing the Catholic King James II, whose disposition ended a continuous period of civil and political strife by confirming the position of parliament over the Crown.

He was in attendance at the Dutch court and would have most probably met Mary, the Princess Royal, and young James. The name Morley has been associated with the Inner and Middle Temple, and this might have been the reason why the porringer joined Master Schiller’s collection. Edward Morley (c1579–1620) was a member of the Inn in 1597 and was called in 1606. He described himself as of The Inner Temple and instructed his executors “to take no interest of any person whatsoever for any money that shall be owing at the time of my decease”. Charles Morley (1653–1697), great-nephew to Bishop Morley, was a member of the Middle Temple in 1669 and appears to have been a favourite of the Bishop, whose palace was his boyhood home. It is mentioned that it was certainly through the Bishop’s influence that Morley made any kind of a figure in the world. George Morley (1664–1711), the fourth but surviving son of Francis Morey of Droxford (Bishop Morley’s family was associated with Droxford for 131 years) in Hampshire, was a member of The Inner Temple in 1688. Amongst other events, in March 1698, he staged an ‘entertainment’ with supper and a ‘masquerade’ in his chambers at the Temple for Peter the Great. Finally, on the last day of April 1724, a Thomas Morley was one of The Inner Temple’s Serjeants, being one of the 12 in number forming the public Call on that day. Richard Parsons Jeweller and Silversmith

105

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

The Price of Freedom: A Brief Historical Introduction

THE PRICE OF FREEDOM: A BRIEF HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION By Volker G Heinz After Nazi Germany’s defeat in World War II, the Soviet Union, the USA, France and Great Britain – the victorious Allied powers – divided the much-reduced German territory into four sectors, each under independent Soviet, American, French and British military command. The same division was imposed upon Berlin. Since the Soviet Union was determined to create a communist German state based upon its own model and to support communist parties around the world, the scene was set for the Cold War. In 1949, the three Western Allies established the initially only semi-sovereign Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), whilst the Soviet Union created the German Democratic Republic (GDR), with the communist party holding all the power behind a façade of pseudo-democracy by manipulating all elections.

Whilst both German states were separated by formidable border fortifications, including automatic shooting mechanisms, West Berlin, the child of the Western Allies, was used by millions of East Germans to cross from East to West Germany. To stop the constant loss of citizens, which created enormous economic and social problems, the GDR, with the consent of the Soviet Union, built the famous Berlin Wall, separating the three Western sectors from the Eastern Soviet sector.

Author at Hohenschonhausen © Courtesy Peter Vorlicek

106

Volker G Heinz now and as a student © The Author

This led to a modest economic recovery in East Germany but did not suppress the East Germans’ longing for a better life in the West. Whilst the East saw West Berlin as a separate political entity, the Federal Republic of Germany introduced and supported its legal and political system, thereby often provoking Soviet airplanes to fly low over West Berlin and breach the sound barrier. Neither this noise terror, nor barbed wire, nor the threat of being arrested or shot and even killed when illegally crossing the German/German borders, could stop the most determined GDR citizens. Their efforts to reach the West were predominantly organised from West Berlin, at the time also known as the capital of spies, by so-called escape-helpers (‘Fluchthelfer’), initially primarily idealistic young men and women, in particular students. As the border became increasingly impenetrable and expensive to cross, escapes became a lucrative business, financed by friends and relatives of the would-be escapees. In spite of the increasing commercialisation of the escape-helpers’ activities in the late Sixties until the fall of the Wall in 1989, they were tolerated by the West Berlin government and the supervising three Western Allies. It was in this period of heightened political tensions and the imminent threat of nuclear warfare, supported by large standing armies and major arsenals of nuclear bombs stationed in both Germanys, that I moved to West Berlin to continue my legal studies.

Treasury

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

T Hohenschonhausen Watchtower © Courtesy Peter Vorlicek

The Smuggling Car © Courtesy of Author

It was in a West Berlin student fraternity that I met escapehelpers who had been digging the famous ‘Tunnel 57’, named after the 57 people who successfully reached the West through it, before it was detected and sealed by East German security forces. Deeply impressed by their courage and determination, I volunteered to help.

My East Berlin lawyer was Wolfgang Vogel (known to a larger audience through the Spielberg film Bridge of Spies), with whom I later developed a friendship. He negotiated the deal with my West Berlin lawyer, Jürgen Stange. Both lawyers were in close contact with their respective German governments.

eeply impressed by their D courage and determination, I volunteered to help. Using a completely new escape method, which I had helped devise and develop, between April and September 1966 I helped nearly 40 people secretly cross Checkpoint Charlie from East to West Berlin, the most heavily fortified and guarded Cold War border crossing. As the combined result of GDR secret service (Stasi) operations, their planting of a mole in our organisation, and the return of one of our escapees back to the GDR (“lovesickness” I was told), I was arrested early in September 1966. I was taken to prison, endlessly interrogated and, in June 1967, sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. Two weeks after my trial, after an unprecedented deal between the two German governments, I was released. This deal involved my exchange for three spies, including, a few years later, Heinz Felfe, who at the time of his arrest was head of the KGB department in Germany’s equivalent to MI6, the ‘Bundesnachrichtendienst’ (BND), and the payment of a large sum of money to the GDR.

Not long after the fall of the Berlin Wall, in an uncanny reversal of roles, I visited Wolfgang Vogel in Berlin’s remand prison, as a temporary member of his team of defence lawyers, defending him against the charge of fraud against former GDR clients, a charge of which he was acquitted. With my father’s chauffeur taking photos, my parents welcomed me back in the presence of both my West and East Berlin lawyers, whilst my Stasi driver returned to East Berlin with two East German spies. With the added experience of East German criminal law, I resumed my legal studies, qualified as a German Rechtsanwalt und Notar and, some 20 years later, as an Inner Temple barrister and scrivener notary. After receiving Germany’s Order of Merit (‘Bundesverdienstkreuz’) in 2012, my children were increasingly impatient for me to finally write a book on my experiences as an escape-helper and GDR prisoner. The book was published in September 2016 in German, and in September 2019 in English.

107

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

The Price of Freedom: A Brief Historical Introduction

Prologue The sky over East Berlin was darkening. It was May 1966. Exhausted, I wiped the sweat from my forehead. It had been a long, hard day. Instead of going to the preparatory course for my law exams, I had driven in the early morning my pale blue Volkswagen from Bonn to Cologne-Wahn airport and had flown from there to Tempelhof airport in West Berlin to receive my instructions. I entered East Berlin through the border checkpoint at Heinrich-Heine-Strasse. From there, I took the rapid transit railway, the S-Bahn, out to Köpenick and walked the rest of the way. I lingered for a moment in front of the Rittersberger family home, gathering myself, then took a deep breath and rang the bell. Dr Max Rittersberger opened the door and let me in. He shook my hand, his face grave. He looked as though he had been expecting me for a long time. A slender man of medium height, whose brown hair betrayed the first hints of grey, he led me into the living room, where his wife looked at me as expectantly as his three adolescent children, Stefan, Maximilian and Katharina. The youngest child, a little girl of about two years of age, was asleep in the living room. I sat down, gratefully accepting a cup of tea. We spoke about the procedure for the escape that was to take place that very evening – the first one, for the three older children. The parents were to follow with their younger daughter in a second operation the next day. Never before had I met would-be escapees at their home. What was happening was an absolute exception. Normally, Wolfgang’s couriers planned the details and then instructed the persons who wanted to escape. But today this was my job. I sat there explaining to the family how they were supposed to cross Berlin’s border between the two Germanys by hiding in the boot of a car.

Never before had I met wouldbe escapees at their home. What was happening was an absolute exception. Normally, Wolfgang’s couriers planned the details and then instructed the persons who wanted to escape. But today this was my job.

“Is there a department store nearby?” I asked, our agreed code to start the conversation. The three nodded and replied as arranged: “On the other side of the tram stop. We’ll show you if you’d like.” I nodded likewise. The four of us set off. We were not heading for the store but the tram. We boarded a tram that I had selected earlier, switched to another line, and continued to one of the last stops east. From there, we walked towards Marzahn-Hellersdorf, a rural area further east of the city. The prefab high-rise settlement that was later to be built here was, at best, still only in the planning stage. We remained silent most of the way. The three young people barely said a word. I tried repeatedly to smile and cheer things up a little, being in need of some cheering up myself. I no longer knew how many people I had brought over the border. It was a strenuous job that had over time lost some of its once electrifying thrill. Each time, I sensed the fear of the others almost physically, having to bear it along with my own while compensating for it and dispelling it at the same time. Often enough, I had experienced how unpredictably and heedlessly the fugitives behaved. From one time to the next, it was becoming harder for me. For I had to act like master of the situation and, above all, I had to come up with the goods: their long-sought freedom. These people were relying on me. And I knew that what I was doing here was meaningful. I was also determined to continue helping, convinced that it was the right thing to do. But it demanded a lot of selfdiscipline. I was not paid for my help, and to me it was very important that it stayed that way. Recently, I had learned that a great deal of money was involved in these escapes. Although I did not like to admit it, my double life was weighing more and more heavily on me. I constantly had to spin a web of lies to deceive my family and friends. No one beyond the close circle of the escape-helpers knew what I was doing, except for one person: Hanns Martin Schleyer, my fraternity brother. I had confided in him a short while ago. It was for him that I was organising this escape. The three young people accompanying me belonged to an East Berlin physician’s family who meant a lot to Schleyer. Their mother was the sister of another fraternity brother. In a fraternity, you help each other out.

A few hours later, I was standing in the middle of Alexanderplatz. Even from a distance, I could see the three siblings huddled anxiously at the foot of the television tower. Hopefully, they had not come to the attention of East Germany’s state security police, the Stasi; this was certainly not my idea of looking inconspicuous. They were supposed to be eating ice cream and mingling with the crowd – that crowd was the reason we had chosen Alexanderplatz to meet.

Cell at Hohenschonhausen © Courtesy Peter Vorlicek

108

Checkpoint Charlie 1961, US Tanks vs Soviet Tanks © USAMHI

Treasury

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Cellar at Hohenschonhausen © Courtesy Peter Vorlicek

Hardly anyone was out and about in this part of Marzahn. The girl and the two boys followed me up a narrow lane. There was no oncoming traffic, and no car passed us. Fields of tall grain soon to be harvested lined both sides of the path, shielding us from prying eyes. My thoughts were revolving around the next step. Hopefully, it would all go well; hopefully, the Syrian would be there. What if he had had a flat tyre or been held up by something else? What would I do with this trio then? I had to be back in the West by midnight at the latest. It would be illegal for me to stay longer than that. I tried to calm down, reminding myself that the family did live here in East Berlin. At a pinch, the three could just go back home as though nothing had happened. Dusk had long since fallen. The darker it grew, the safer I felt. At the next crossing, we turned right. If everything had gone smoothly, that is where Kamal Hamdi would be waiting to drive slowly towards us. A first glance around the corner made me breathe a sigh of relief - the white Mercedes was easily recognisable. When the Syrian saw me, he flashed his lights. I drew a small torch from the pocket of my jacket and signalled the Mercedes that all was well. Then everything went very quickly. I pushed the three teenagers towards the car’s boot and opened it.

Dusk had long since fallen. The darker it grew, the safer I felt. At the next crossing, we turned right. If everything had gone smoothly, that is where Kamal Hamdi would be waiting to drive slowly towards us. “Get in,” I whispered whilst looking around feverishly. Hopefully, no other car was approaching at that moment. I felt fresh beads of sweat forming on my forehead, although the temperature was nowhere near as high as it had been on Alexanderplatz.

They lay down one behind the other like spoons, as though they had practised. I cast a final glance at their pale, fearridden faces. Hopefully, they will get through OK, I thought to myself. “Good luck,” I said and then shut the boot. I took a deep breath. The Syrian started the Mercedes. He would now take his hidden ‘freight’ to the border crossing at Checkpoint Charlie. And tomorrow the whole routine would be repeated. It was a crazy situation.

Back in the tram after a half-hour trek, I looked around discreetly. No one seemed to be watching me. But the plump woman with the huge shopping bag – could she be working for the Stasi? The bag could easily have been hiding a camera. Was I imagining things? The border officer at Heinrich-Heine-Strasse let me pass without a problem and stamped my day visa unhesitatingly. Back in West Berlin, I disappeared into the night. A couple of hours later in a small apartment in Lichterfelde, I lay totally exhausted in Gudrun’s arms. Fortunately, she asked no questions, as though she knew of the secret behind my irregular trips to East Berlin at short notice. I retreated into the seductive fragrance of her hair. But my thoughts were already wandering to the escape planned for tomorrow. If all would go well, the family would be reunited in the evening – in freedom. And I would be back with Gudrun, for another night. What time are you coming tomorrow? She did not ask that question either. Volker G Heinz Born in 1943 in Kassel, Germany, Volker Heinz is a German and English lawyer called to the Bar by The Inner Temple in 1989. From 1965 to 1966, he helped nearly 40 East East German citizens cross the Berlin Wall to freedom. Arrested in September 1966, he was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment but released early as a result of a prisoner swap. In 2001, Heinz initiated the GermanBritish foundation Temple Gift, dedicated to the reconciliation of former foes Britain and Germany. In 2012, he was awarded the Federal Order of Merit in recognition of his courage.

109

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Inner Haven

INNER HAVEN By the Head Gardener

Magnolia x soulangeana with the turrets of Paper Buildings

Coal Tit

There is a grounding and reassurance that comes from the Garden, especially in tumultuous times. Nothing symbolises this more than our three veteran London plane trees (Platanus x hispanica) on the main lawn that have stood proud since the 1770s, watching as history unfolds before them.

Up until this year, the wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) had been my personal favourite. I love their unassuming, small, brown, rounded figures on their matchstick legs with such a loud voice for something so little. I find them very cute and it always brightens my day to have one nearby in the Garden. Though after this spring there may be a new favourite vying for my affections.

The Garden’s role as a haven within the City has been especially palpable throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown. Like many communities across the world, the community of residents at the Inn also came together, with offers to help with shopping for those isolating and the sound of clapping for the NHS heard over an otherwise very quiet Inn. The Garden really came into its own for our residents during this time, with even those who could only enjoy the Garden from their windows mentioning the reassurance and joy of seeing the stripes on the lawn after a mow. The sense of sanctuary was heightened with the absence of noise pollution giving way to the sound of birdsong. Many of the residents noticed this and commented to me on the increase in bird numbers across the Garden during this time. Research carried out by scientists from Aberystwyth University found that great tits (Parus Major) in cities have adapted to sing at a higher pitch than their countryside cousins to get above the urban noise. We have a healthy population of these in the Garden, and it did make me wonder if they sounded so loud during lockdown because they still thought they needed to project their voices to get above the noise of the Embankment that was no longer present.

Garden cat Patsy, like many working from home

This was the first year I have spotted the tiny goldcrest in the Garden. Goldcrests (Regulus regulus) are Britain’s smallest bird, with a similar but smaller shape to a wren and a flash of golden yellow on their crowns. According to Jude from the Treasury team (a keen birdwatcher) they weigh as little as a 20-pence piece. Some are winter migrants, travelling here from northern Europe every winter, but there is also a large population that stay and breed into the summer. They enjoy conifers and mixed woodlands. I have not spotted one since the spring, so I am not sure whether we have a breeding pair in the Garden now, which according to Jude we sometimes do. Either way I will be keeping my eye out for them from now on – they really are enchanting. For those questioning if there is a conflict of interest with me having our beautiful Garden cat, Patsy, alongside a love for birds, fortunately to date Patsy has never harmed a bird (just the occasional mouse), though like me she does like to observe them. Unfortunately, my attempts to photograph the birds over this time have generally failed and so the photos included here are those of others.

It is difficult to know whether the numbers were up or we just had more time to appreciate them. Or perhaps they were just being bolder, taking advantage of there being fewer people in the Garden. I have a soft spot for smaller birds and, alongside the great tits, I enjoyed what seemed to be larger numbers of coal tits, blue tits, robins, blackbirds and wrens.

It does fill me with pride to think of the Garden as not just a haven for people but also for wildlife. I am keen to find the balance to garden in a manner that is in keeping with the Garden’s long history and grandeur, alongside creating muchneeded urban habitat and food for birds, bees, butterflies and countless invertebrates. Thanks to the work of progressive gardeners past and present, gardens are not seen as a place for nature to be tamed but rather to work with plants to

Gold Crest © Cliff Watkinson, flickr.com

Wren © Milo Bostock, flickr.com

110

Narcissus ‘Hawera’ flowering early spring in the meadow

Insta Live weekly videos proved popular during lockdown

Garden

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

create a layered, habitat-rich and importantly beautiful oasis for wildlife, plants and people to enjoy together. It would be difficult here not to mention William Robinson who, in the 1890s, was asked for his thoughts on the Inner Temple Garden and his seminal book The Wild Garden, which called for a move away from the sterile planting favoured in the Victorian era. Our work to develop the spring bulb meadow at the top of the Garden is part of this long movement in gardening and will be developed over the coming years. For example, balancing sharp edges and large areas of fine lawn with more ‘natural’ and carefully managed biodiverse areas. The team and I have also been working to reduce our use of pesticides and herbicides, looking to alternatives such as a flame gun for weeds and different plant selections for those that get hit by pests such as capsid bugs. We are making progress and through our observations the wildlife benefits are being felt alongside the beauty of the Garden. We do not currently have our own beehives, though there are hives very local to the Inn which use our Garden for nectar. I was delighted to hear from a local beekeeper that, during lockdown, our Garden continued to sustain our local beehives with rich nectar due to our abundance of flowers through the period.

Our work to develop the spring bulb meadow at the top of the Garden is part of this long movement in gardening and will be developed over the coming years.

Bumblebee enjoying Echium candicans

Wisteria and tree peonies in the Wisteria Garden

Great Tit

It is a shame that we experienced one of our best springs when, unfortunately, the public or those usually at the Inn were not around to experience the beauty of the Garden over this time. Thankfully, Master Robertson made the wise suggestion of doing Instagram Live videos, which developed into the weekly snapshots from the Garden each Wednesday afternoon at 4pm. These windows into the Garden meant we could share its beauty and diversity to those no longer able to experience it in person. It would have been easy to focus solely on gardening tasks, with only a skeleton team caring for the Garden and keeping it in check, and to forget its main purpose, which is to be shared and enjoyed even if from a distance. Thankfully we managed to do both – just! It is hard to know what the long-term impact of COVID-19 will be on society and on people’s everyday lives and wellbeing. My thought is that one of the possible benefits will be a continuing desire for people to be connected to simpler pleasures. As always, gardens will continue to be much-needed havens for both people and wildlife. My hope is that they will be more highly valued and protected as our wonderful Garden is. I am fortunate that the Inn values our Garden so greatly and to have a team of highly skilled and dedicated gardeners. We look forward to continuing to develop the Garden even further into a beautiful haven, its borders brimming with nectar-rich flowers, birds playing through the trees and people coming to enjoy a quiet moment or to socialise, distanced or not, depending on the situation. Sean Harkin Head Gardner

Above: Resident enjoying a moment in the Garden to read. Background: Poppies (Papaver rhoeas and Papaver somniferum) take over after the spring bulbs in the new meadow area at the top of the Garden

111

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Project Pegasus

PROJECT PEGASUS

Progress on the Inn's redevelopment of the Treasury Building to provide state of the art education facilities gathers apace. Here, at a glance, is a sample of what has been happening over the past months.

Pegasus War damage revealed

Pegasus restoration underway at Cliveden studio

New main loft lobby

Roof truss lift

The extent of temporary propping

112

Grinling Gibbons restoration

New fire escape brickwork and stonework

Restored Pegasus

New fire escape brickwork

The extent of temporary propping

Estates

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Roof stripped

Pegasus after an acrylic wash

Ready for storage

Grinling Gibbons restoration by the Carver and Gilders

Crane extension

4th floor flooring above Hall

3rd floor steelwork taking shape

Restored Pegasus

Roof steelwork over Hall

Screed being laid to new Library store

New wall surfaces to main kitchen

113

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

The League of Nations

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS By the Archives Assistant

This year is the centenary of the foundation of the League of Nations. One of the architects and driving forces of the organisation was Lord Robert Cecil, an Inner Templar from a family with a tradition of public service, whose legal training gave him the knowledge and interests to imagine an international peacekeeping organisation, and whose service with the Red Cross during the First World War gave him the conviction that such an organisation was necessary. Edgar Algernon Robert Cecil, known for most of his life as Lord Robert Cecil, was born in 1864 from a line of Conservative politicians. His father, the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, served as Prime Minister three times, and young Robert was so close to his cousin Arthur Balfour (later PM and Foreign Secretary) that he regarded him almost as an elder brother. His education at Eton and University College, Oxford, furthered his acquaintance with the ruling class: he became good friends with Edward Grey, who served as Foreign Secretary from 1905–16 and after the war became one of the leading British supporters of the League of Nations.

Cecil was admitted to the Inner Temple in 1884 and was called in 1887 after passing Bar exams that he dismissed as “not very formidable – nor very useful”. “Then,” he remembered, “began the real professional education.” Cecil’s first pupillages were with Swinfen Eady and Joseph Walton, both distinguished barristers who went on to become judges. Cecil later remembered Eady for his insistence on thoroughness and accuracy, and Walton for his charm. After that, he spent some time in the chambers of WOAJ Danckwerts, of whom he wrote a striking pen portrait: “He was very fat, with a bright red face and a subtle mind. He was an exceedingly good lawyer; indeed, on some branches of the law he knew all that there was to be known. He despised most people intellectually, whether on the Bench or at the Bar, and did not conceal his opinion. …. In spite of his peculiarities I liked him. He was very generous and kind-hearted and had a kind of elephantine bonhomie which was very attractive.” Once he set up in chambers for himself, Cecil began to take cases at the Parliamentary Bar to augment his common-law practice. He took silk in 1899 and might have risen higher in the legal profession but for his decision in 1906 to stand for election as the Conservative candidate for Marylebone East. He was elected a Bencher of the Inner Temple in 1910 but took no further work at the Bar, concentrating instead on his political career. He had a reputation as a conscientious MP, albeit one frequently ill at ease with his own party’s tendencies. He was an avowed believer in free trade, while most of his Conservative colleagues wanted the British Empire to form a protectionist trading bloc. Cecil was well over military age when the First World War broke out, so instead he joined the Red Cross and travelled to Paris to help organise a Department of Wounded and Missing to gather information for relatives of soldiers whose fates were uncertain. Among his colleagues at the Red Cross was the explorer and archaeologist Gertrude Bell, whose energy, intelligence and warm-heartedness greatly

114

impressed him. He later said that he had inherited from his father a horror of war, and that his experiences in France only caused him to hate it even more bitterly than before. Cecil served with the Red Cross until 1915, when he was offered a job in the newly formed coalition government of HH Asquith. Cecil’s chief role was to organise economic sanctions against Germany and her allies, with the object of depriving them of imported goods and cash from exports, and so damaging their ability to continue the fight. His efforts were at first made more arduous by the need to beg for resources and navigate the competing interests of the Foreign Office, Admiralty, Board of Trade, Treasury and War Office. His old friend Grey, now Foreign Secretary, resolved the situation by convincing Prime Minister Asquith to give Cecil his own Blockade Department and a seat in the Cabinet.

Cecil later remembered Eady for his insistence on thoroughness and accuracy, and Walton for his charm. Even with the free hand that Grey had arranged for him, however, Cecil soon found out that his task was far from straightforward. A simple naval blockade quickly proved ineffective; it was easy for German importers to avoid it by using ships registered in non-combatant nations to bring their cargo to neutral ports in Scandinavia or Holland. Cecil also discovered that the British embargo raised hackles in America, many of whose businessmen traded very profitably with Germany. In his autobiography, he described the anxiety he and Grey felt that their embargo might damage Anglo-American relations so severely as to endanger the success of the British war effort. After the war, Cecil claimed that the work of his Blockade Department had been “far more effective than any previous economic warfare…and undoubtedly played a great part in the final victory”. Cecil was convinced that similar methods could provide an effective non-military means of enforcing international law, and at the end of the war he bent all his efforts to set up a body to enforce it. The idea of a democratic, supranational peacekeeping body had begun to be developed in the late 19th century and seemed ever more essential as the war continued and the material and human cost rose to levels previously unimaginable. In 1914, the political scientist GL Dickinson had drawn up a plan for such an institution, which he called the League of Nations. Cecil was devoted to the idea and argued that a body with authority over the nations of the world had been regarded for hundreds of years as “obviously right and indeed essential”. To support his contention, he gave the examples of the Pax Romana – rather overlooking the fact that it had resulted from the constant threat and frequent application of violence – and later the Holy Roman Empire and the authority of the Catholic Church before the Reformation. Cecil saw European history since then as a constant cycle of terrible wars, each one

Archives

followed by “more or less academic” attempts to establish a system of permanent peace that harked back to older models. He believed that by acknowledging the world as it now was, practical politicians like himself could succeed where the academics and philosophers of previous centuries had failed.

Looking back over the history of the League of Nations, Cecil claimed in his autobiography that “the action of the League outside actual international disputes has been an outstanding success”. Given that the primary purpose of the League had been to prevent war, and his own contention earlier in the book that “the whole activities of the League will stand or fall together”, such a statement seems perhaps disingenuous. There are many scholars, however, who have since supported Cecil’s assessment of the League’s achievements. Through the efforts of the League’s Norwegian delegate Dr Fridtjof Nansen, for example, nearly half a million prisoners of war from 30 different countries were repatriated in two years, at the cost of less than one pound per head. The International Labour Office, independent of but funded by the League, was responsible for the first international treaties on forced and child labour, working hours and conditions, and trades unions, among others. It outlived its parent body and exists today as the International Labour Organisation. Many other international organisations are close descendants of League bodies: the World Health Organisation, UNESCO and the International Court of Justice, to name but three.

He believed, too, that public opinion was overwhelmingly in his favour. In his autobiography, published during the Second World War, he recalled: “No one who remembers the delirious joy with which the news of the Armistice was greeted…can doubt the strength of the hatred of war which swept over the civilized world in 1919.”

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Cecil concluded his assessment of the League of Nations with the reflection that it could not work if misbehaving nations proved impervious to international opprobrium, and if its members would not follow strong words with concrete action. The Japanese occupation of Manchuria and the Italian invasion of Abyssinia had exposed that weakness and fatally undermined the League’s authority. The penultimate chapter of his memoirs, which covers the period from the Manchurian Incident to the Munich Agreement, is simply titled ‘Downhill’. In her authoritative history of the interwar period, Zara Steiner comes to a similar conclusion, that the League “was only a mechanism for conducting multinational diplomacy whose success or failure depended on the willingness of the states, and particularly the most powerful states, to use it”.

Lord Robert Cecil

Cecil got the British government to approve his ideas for the League, “respectfully if not cordially” (p62), and began to lobby for the idea with other governments, in particular the US. But although the League had been mentioned in US President Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points, Cecil could not get a chance to talk to him before the Paris Peace Conference. He developed an excellent relationship with Wilson’s advisor Edward ‘Colonel’ House but was unable to exert any influence on Wilson himself. Cecil praised Wilson’s personal qualities in his memoirs but the United States’ refusal to join the League of Nations was a severe blow to him, which he blamed in part on Wilson’s intransigence with his opponents in Congress and on his falling out with House as the Paris Conference went on. Alongside the absence of the USA, Cecil later wrote of his concern that what he called the “ex-enemy Powers” had been excluded in discussions at Paris; he felt that their treatment made it easier for Hitler later to repudiate both the League and the Versailles Treaty. He conceded, however, that his feelings might have been less magnanimous had Britain suffered the invasion and destruction visited on France and Belgium. It could also have been argued that such insights came cheap by the time his memoir was published in 1941.

However, Steiner went on to argue that this dependency was not necessarily a fatal weakness if one considers the League “not a substitute for great-power politics…but rather an adjunct to it”. Susan Pedersen agreed that although the League was unable to force states to be peaceful, it had a powerful effect in altering international norms, influencing the gradual transition from an age of empires to one of at least formally independent sovereign states.

It had a powerful effect in altering international norms, influencing the gradual transition from an age of empires to one of at least formally independent sovereign states. There is in Lord Robert Cecil’s autobiography one more big idea, although it is added in conclusion and almost in passing. Reflecting in 1941 on why the League’s members had not ultimately felt a sufficient esprit de corps to resist Japan in Manchuria or Italy in Abyssinia, Cecil suggested that the League’s members might feel more solidarity if they set up amongst themselves confederations of geographically related nations. “The most obviously necessary of these bodies,” he wrote, “would be a European Confederation.” He speculated that such a body might one day have a common currency and tariff policy, and perhaps even a flag. Imagine that. Ben Taylor Archives Assistant

115

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Bridging the Knowledge Gap

BRIDGING THE KNOWLEDGE GAP From a lecture delivered by Master Anthony Hughes in Kuala Lumpur at a construction law conference organised by the Malaysia Inner Temple Alumni Association on 17 September 2019

Every legal system is the product of its own culture and social circumstances and adapts to them. But very often the problems faced by different systems are the same, despite the differences in terminology or method. But the study of each other’s systems informs us all, and ought to result in a better-informed choice about the things to borrow and the parts to leave to others.

I am very conscious that the specialist subject which you are discussing today is not mine. However, the skills of advocacy are almost all transferable. The law is the framework within which you operate. You need to know it, or you end up debating the irrelevant, but few cases turn on the law. Most cases depend on the facts – who said what, who did what and when, and what it was reasonable to expect of them in all the circumstances, varied as they will be from case to case. So, I shall dare to say something to your construction law conference. The first thing which occurs to me about your topic for today is common to all areas of law, but especially one as technical as this. Litigation is seriously damaging to the health – of all except the lawyers. It is sadly necessary if people cannot agree and cannot be helped to see that there is a predictable outcome governed by the law. But one of the prime duties of all the professionals involved is to do what can be done to avoid litigation where possible. That starts right at the beginning with the negotiators, it applies to the technical experts and above all it applies to the lawyers. If one gets as far as litigation, then the vital thing is to get the issues in dispute clearly identified. To do that is the main function of judicial case management. If you know what the question is, you are three quarters of the way to the answer.

If one gets as far as litigation, then the vital thing is to get the issues in dispute clearly identified. To do that is the main function of judicial case management. If you know what the question is, you are three quarters of the way to the answer.

116

Within this general principle is the second and more specialised point which I would mention about the area of work you are discussing today. It concerns expert evidence. Over the years I have spent a lot of time examining, crossexamining and listening to experts of every kind from metallurgists to pathologists, from document examiners to endocrinologists or child psychologists. When I was first at the Bar, we had a definite problem in some fields of law with partisan experts. For example, in the 1970s and 1980s we had a heavy load of industrial personal injuries litigation. Many of the cases called for expert engineers to advise on how the machinery worked, on the precautions which were reasonable to take even when the workmen handling it had been doing it all their lives and in the end on whether the accident could have happened as the claimant said it did. The problem was that the engineers were (1) specialist witnesses, no longer in engineering themselves, and (2) habitually instructed either by claimants (usually funded by trades unions) or by defendants (insurers) but rarely for the other side. The first meant that the days when they had actually designed machinery or advised on how it ought to be operated were usually in the past. That is not, of course, what you want in an expert: you want someone who actually does the job himself. But the second was the greater problem: the witnesses tended to become partisan. They saw cases from one side only and saw themselves as part of the team on that side. So they tended to trim their evidence to what they saw as the needs of the party for whom they were appearing. Or they might, and often did, lapse into arguing the case for ‘their’ side, as if they were advocates. Any expert who does that is instantly undermined. Bit by bit this has been tackled. You know the principles now long-established in The Ikarian Reefer, over 25 years ago. Not personal injury, nor construction, but shipping, but the principles are the same. We must insist that the expert be a genuinely independent witness, owing a duty to the court to review all the relevant learning in his area which affects the case, to draw attention to it whether it accords with his conclusion or not and to point up any limits on his area of expertise. The key to an expert witness is that he is putting his personal reputation on the line. In this he is unlike the advocate. The advocate’s duty is to advance any properly arguable case which benefits his client. The advocate does not put his or her personal reputation behind any submission which is advanced. The expert witness is quite different. He is there to think and to give his own personal opinion. If he is doing it right, the answer he gives to any question will be exactly the same whoever asks it.

Reader’s Lecture Series

Expert evidence needs careful managing. The duties of advance report disclosure must be fully enforced so that no one is taken by surprise. The judge must insist that the parties define what the issues are, and the experts and advocates must both be confined to them. It is no good having experts on either side who give lectures which barely address each other but pass like ships in the night. The judge is likely to need to fix a timetable for the exchange of reports, for questions to be asked in advance of the trial and for limiting the number of experts to those really necessary. The judge may also need to limit the budget to be spent on experts. They will usually (nearly always) be directed to meet to identify what is common ground and what is not. There are some other things which can sometimes be done to make it easier to get the result right in a case which depends on highly technical expert evidence. In the UK, we are very lucky to have in London and Edinburgh the Royal Societies of those two cities. They are the principal associations of scientists in all fields, operating at the highest level. With the co-operation of those Societies we have embarked on a project to prepare for judges a simple guide to the principal areas of science which crop up repeatedly in courts. We call them primers. The model is from intellectual property cases. These tend to be at the cutting edge of complex science, such as biochemistry or electronics, because very often the question is whether a particular device or process really is a new invention, new research or is retreading a known pathway. Those tend to be cases where there is an enormous amount of money at stake, because a patent gives you very valuable commercial exploitation rights. And so the money is available to tell the experts on each side to go away well in advance of the trial and agree an explanation of the main scientific principles which are going to be discussed. The experts will be directed to agree a document for the judge, called a primer, ie one which primes him with the basic science so that he can understand the points of departure when he gets to what is not agreed. Now, those are case specific. They are possible because of the sums at stake. In the ordinary civil or criminal case, the sums at stake would not usually justify this kind of exercise. So, we have set about writing a series of general primers, for the use of judges generally rather than in a single case. We are having them written by volunteer scientists under the supervision of the very high-powered fellows of the two Royal Societies, but they are written for lawyers, and specifically for judges. Now these are still experimental and we have so far published only the first two. One is on DNA. The second is on recognition by analysis of the way people walk (‘gait analysis’). We chose those two topics because they lie at opposite ends of the spectrum. DNA was firmly established science in the field of genetics and human development long before it occurred to anyone that it could be used in the investigation of crime scenes, or of disputed paternity. The science is complex and needs to be understood if judges are to follow disputes about the significance of, for example, mixed profiles which contain the DNA of more than one person, or incomplete profiles which haven’t enough material for a full analysis.

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Gait analysis is, on the other hand, an embryonic science. It is used clinically to help diagnose problems which can be helped by treatment from surgery via physiotherapy to shoe raises. As a means of identifying people, eg from CCTV coverage of a crime scene in the street, it might be useful or it might be too imprecise. It is certainly so far very partially developed, and this is the message contained in our primer.

We have embarked on a project to prepare for judges a simple guide to the principal areas of science which crop up repeatedly in courts. We call them primers. Next is collision analysis, ie the physics and material science of what happens when cars crash, or send pedestrians over the bonnet. Another will be ballistics, the comparison between the markings on guns and bullets, and the difficult question of what is meant by gunshot residue and how far can it be useful in attributing to a person contaminated close contact with a firearm. More generally, a third is statistics, which of course underlie a whole range of expert evidence from medical causation and diagnosis to the probabilities of a crime scene trace being linked to a particular source. It is important what these primers are aiming to do and what they are not meant to do. The aim is to give a judge a grounding in the basic and agreed or indisputable science. They are not intended to take the place of expert evidence. You need specific evidence related to the particular case. Still less are they meant to make the judge his own expert witness. So, these are groundings only, and agreed basics only. We are working very hard not to venture into disputed territory, because then we would be running the terrible risk of making a simple first textbook into something which people assumed must be right without being able to address all the complications. A good example of an area we have kept out of is the much disputed area of closed head injuries in babies – the so-called shaken baby syndrome. There is simply not sufficient medical consensus, at least at the moment, to be able to set down agreed basics. I have some doubts that this kind of exercise translates readily to construction disputes, because although I’m sure they often hinge on expert evidence, I do not know how far there is underlying science or technology which needs explaining to judges. But if you have comparatively unfamiliar technology, then an idiot’s guide to what is being done, and where the frontiers of practicality are and where there are risks of things not going to plan, hence disputes – all this might be useful. But even if it does not impinge on today’s topic for discussion, I hope it is useful to think about expert matters generally. Meanwhile, I am delighted that the Inner Templars here have taken the initiative to organise this conference and to apply the combined wisdom of educated advocates and technical experts to it. The Rt Hon Lord Hughes of Ombersley Treasurer 2019

117

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

The Work of The Bar Liaison Committee: Election Time is Here

THE WORK OF THE BAR LIAISON COMMITTEE:

ELECTION TIME IS HERE By Zachary Bredemear November 2020 is an election month. Seasoned observers predict that, once again, the candidates will uphold the best values of their society and that the successful candidates and perhaps even the unsuccessful candidates will soon be working harmoniously together. I write, of course, about this autumn’s triennial Inner Temple Bar Liaison Committee (BLC) elections when 17 vacancies for elected committee members will be filled. Any member of the Inn who has been called to the Bar, in practice at the Self-Employed or Employed Bar but who is not a Master of the Bench, is eligible to be elected if three other members nominate them by email or in writing. In some ways, the members of the BLC are the nerves of The Inner Temple: they can be found in all the other parts of the Inn’s corporate structure as the BLC’s members serve on all the Inn’s committees and sub-committees; they transmit information as they are at the centre of the dialogue between the Inn and its membership about how the Inn operates; and they help stimulate action, for example by getting involved with or encouraging colleagues to support the Inn’s education and outreach work.

The members of the BLC are the nerves of The Inner Temple … they transmit information as they are at the centre of the dialogue between the Inn and its membership about how the Inn operates; and they help stimulate action, for example by getting involved with or encouraging colleagues to support the Inn’s education and outreach work. Let me give two illustrations from the past year of the BLC at work. Firstly, when court work disappeared from the diaries of the Bar as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Inn introduced a hardship financial relief scheme to support pupils and first-year tenants who did not qualify for the

government’s scheme to support the self-employed because they had not been in practice long enough. When the Inn subsequently expanded the scope of its hardship relief scheme to cover members of any year of Call and/or members with earnings above the threshold supported by the government’s scheme, the Inn was assisted by the research, views and anecdotes that members of the BLC were able to provide. Secondly, as the legal profession reflected on how it should respond to racial injustice, the BLC discussed the problem and shared their experiences at their June meeting. Following the invitation of the Treasurer, Reader and Reader-Elect for members to submit suggestions as to how the Inn could do more to combat inequality, the BLC collaborated on a paper with over 20 ideas about how the Inn can promote equality. This paper was submitted to the Inn’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity Sub-Committee for consideration in July. The main reason the BLC was able to make a useful contribution to both these issues was because of the breadth of views and experiences that the BLC, through a diverse membership, was able to offer. The BLC needs members from the Employed Bar, members who practise on Circuit, members who do privately funded work and members who do publicly funded areas of work, and members from all backgrounds and at all stages of their careers.

The main reason the BLC was able to make a useful contribution to both these issues was because of the breadth of views and experiences that the BLC, through a diverse membership, was able to offer. So regardless of your path to the Bar, your location or the stage you have reached in your career, I hope you feel you have something to contribute and will think about offering yourself for candidacy at this November’s election. Nominations for the BLC election open on 1 November 2020 and will close on 23 November 2020. Voting will take place online between 27 November and 4 December 2020. Look out for further details in the coming weeks. Zachary Bredemear Bar Liaison Committee Chair (outgoing)

118

Treasury

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

ELECTION TIMETABLE AT A GLANCE 2 November

Online nominations start

16 November

By 5pm deadline for nomination forms

19 November

Online voting commences

26 November

By 5pm online voting ceases

7 December

BLC meeting with new members

VOTE

For more information about the Bar Liaison Committee, please contact Henrietta Amodio, Director of the Treasury Office and Secretary to the BLC, hamodio@innertemple.org. uk, or innertemple.org.uk/who-we-are/how-we-operate/committees/blc.

BOSWELL ROOM

In the heart of London’s legal quarter, the Inn’s two bedrooms, the Boswell and Chaucer Rooms, are the perfect accommodation choice. They’re available seven nights a week for a reduced rate of £148.75 until January 2021.

CHAUCER ROOM

stringent cleaning procedures in place  020 7797 8230 catering@innertemple.org.uk   innertemple.org.uk/bedrooms

119

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Temple Big Picnic

TEMPLE BIG PICNIC THE BEST OF THE DECADE

120

Treasury

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

121

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

The Wild and Ridiculous Doctrine of Equality

THE WILD AND RIDICULOUS DOCTRINE OF EQUALITY:

MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY AND THE LEGACY OF THE MARRIED WOMEN’S PROPERTY ACT 1882 From a lecture by Dr Andy Hayward delivered on 9 March 2020 The Married Women’s Property Act 1882 gave all married women for the first time the ability to acquire or dispose of all property brought by her to marriage or acquired subsequently thereafter as a single woman without the intervention of a trustee. The effect of this was to entrench a concept of ‘separate property’ in our law and to dismantle many of the disadvantages stemming from the doctrine of unity that conceptualised man and wife as one person. I want to question whether this Act, which forms the basis of property holding today, still has resonance in spite of more recent developments, such as the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. More specifically, I want to explore the concept of equality that is a key feature in the division of assets, and the ways in which it has been weaponised, celebrated and undermined over time.

I’ll begin by exploring the pre-1882 position and the nature of property holding within marriage and focus on the pervasive nature of the doctrine of unity. The second part will analyse the aftermath of the 1882 Act and endeavours by the courts to mitigate the newly created concept of separate property. The final part analyses how equality finds expression in the modern era of division of assets regulated by the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. In the sphere of division of assets, where we see competing claims of moral and legal entitlement, equality finds expression in two ways. On the one hand, we have equality as a driver for reform, as a political aspiration and as a means of fighting discrimination. On the other, equality has become a practical outcome as equal division brought about through the application of a sharing principle.

Sir William Blackstone

122

Part I: Any discussion of the Married Women’s Property Act 1882 must begin with an exploration of the common-law doctrine of unity. Premised on the ecclesiastical notion that marriage involved ‘two souls in one flesh’, the doctrine recognised that, upon marriage, the wife changed from a ‘feme sole’ to a ‘feme covert’. The legal implications of the doctrine of unity were profound. In a general sense, all of the wife’s personal property, whether before or after marriage, was vested in her husband absolutely. The rationale for this doctrine has been widely discussed and rather problematically romanticised by legal historians. William Blackstone remarked that the doctrine involved the suspension or incorporation of the wife’s legal existence into that of the husband. More recent academic discussion has sought to question whether the trenchant criticism of the doctrine was exaggerated. In an article questioning whether modern marriage can still be viewed as patriarchal, Rebecca Probert and Jo Miles have noted that the assertion that the wife became the property of the husband had no basis in law. They also note that freehold property did not become the husband’s but merely was managed by him and only for the duration of their joint lives. Furthermore, they note that Blackstone’s account, in 1765, overlooked the fact that by that point in time, the Courts of Chancery had no problem in recognising the separate estate of the wife in equity.

The Married Women’s Property Act 1882 gave all married women for the first time the ability to acquire or dispose of all property brought by her to marriage or acquired subsequently thereafter as a single woman without the intervention of a trustee. The effect of this was to entrench a concept of ‘separate property’ in our law and to dismantle many of the disadvantages stemming from the doctrine of unity that conceptualised man and wife as one person.

Reader’s Lecture Series

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

‘equality measures’ in the modern sense. Indeed, in Caroline Norton’s A Letter to the Queen on Lord Chancellor Cranworth’s Marriage and Divorce Bill, published in 1855, Norton penned a powerful plea for reform to Queen Victoria but strongly repudiated equality. Norton writes: “The natural position of woman is inferiority to man. Amen! That is a thing of God’s appointing, not of man’s devising. I believe sincerely, as a part of religion: and I accept it as a matter proved to my reason. I never pretended to the wild and ridiculous doctrine of equality.”

The primary impetus for reform was the lack of protection of a wife’s earnings, which under the common law belonged absolutely to the husband. Whilst the term ‘feminist’ was not used at the time, it was apparent that the motivation for reform came from a women’s movement which possessed objectives that could be regarded as feminist today. These developments are still important for a variety of reasons. To my mind, they were campaigns to remove impediments and to enable collective strategizing of women. A bold call for equality would back then be too ambitious, too controversial, and potentially something that some women might themselves not have believed in. In the 1850s, the time for reform was not right. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 had just been enacted with provisions offering some minimal protection.

Lord Selborne LC © LS&PC

Whilst all of this is true, it is indisputable that the doctrine was pernicious and structurally embedded inequality for a variety of reasons. First, the effects of the doctrine were, in reality, felt for life. Marriage was conceptualised as a lifelong union and the divorce laws were hardly liberal. The position improved following the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 that transferred the jurisdiction over divorce to a secular court. But the position was hardly equal. This inequality remained until the Matrimonial Causes Act 1923 that equalised the grounds for divorce. A second reason why the doctrine was pernicious was the fact that, in practice, it operated in an automatic fashion against a significant number of married women. Of course, marriage settlements could be created, but these were clearly the province of the rich. For those without the benefit of a marriage settlement, the common law recognised a claim to dower (a life interest in one-third of the husband’s real property), but this could be easily thwarted by the husband placing property in the names of third parties. In light of the impediments faced by married women, a campaign for reform began in the early Victorian period. The primary impetus for reform was the lack of protection of a wife’s earnings, which under the common law belonged absolutely to the husband. Whilst the term ‘feminist’ was not used at the time, it was apparent that the motivation for reform came from a women’s movement which possessed objectives that could be regarded as feminist today. However, as Rosemary Auchmuty has argued, we need to exercise caution when we retrospectively consider the campaign for married women’s property through the lens of liberalism. These acts were not

It was a Bill introduced by Lord Selbourne that became the Married Women’s Property Act 1882. As a governmentbacked measure, the Bill received support. Nevertheless, and perhaps indicating the extent of feminist agency, there were some who were most definitely not enthusiastic. Part II: There are several reasons why we should be sceptical as to the ‘equality’ created by this Act. First, it has be asked, who actually benefitted? It has been celebrated as a victory for all women but, whilst the Act did reach a larger audience, very few women had any property to retain. Second, the Act was heavily caveated. Section 19 of the Act ensured that marriage settlements remained unaffected and restraints upon anticipation restricting the use of the property by the wife could still be created. Third, the terminology used in the Act is interesting. Section 1(1) tells us that “a married woman shall … be capable of acquiring, holding, and disposing by will or otherwise, of any real or personal property as her separate property, in the same manner as if she were a feme sole”. By perpetuating the language of entitlement to separate property, it opted for a quick fix where men remained the continuing arbiters, controlling and determining whether property could be deemed ‘separate’. This use of separate property as a term of art to police married women’s entitlement created a cruel irony in section 17: “In any question between husband and wife as to the title to or possession of property … the judge … may make such order with respect to the property in dispute, and as to the costs of and consequent on the application as he thinks fit…”

123

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

The Wild and Ridiculous Doctrine of Equality

In the aftermath of the 1882 Act and throughout most of the 20th century, there was no discretion to divide assets between spouses – thus the only matrimonial regime was separation. The wife did not have an entitlement to the matrimonial home purchased in the name of the husband and thus any claim she had needed to be framed in the language of property, contract and trusts. The most common claim to ownership was a resulting trust triggered by a financial contribution made towards the acquisition of the home. The conduit through which most of the litigation commenced was section 17 – this is the true legacy of the 1882 Act because determination under this section forced judges in the early 20th century to confront property holding within marriage.

Part III:

Some early interpretations of section 17 raised a few eyebrows. One case was Hutchinson v Hutchinson, concerning possession of a house that belonged to the husband. Judge Denning (as he then was) refused to grant the husband possession on the basis that section 17 enabled a judge to make such order as he thinks fit and, despite his entitlement, the deserving wife had a strong claim to occupation. This interpretation of section 17 was comprehensively rejected by the House of Lords in National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth and Pettitt v Pettitt. The latter case determined that section 17 was procedural only and it did not create legal rights where none previously existed.

The most common claim to ownership was a resulting trust triggered by a financial contribution made towards the acquisition of the home. The conduit through which most of the litigation commenced was RL section 17 – this is the true legacy of the 1882 Act because determination under this section forced judges in the early 20th century to confront property holding within marriage. Out of Rimmer v Rimmer, decided in 1952, came the idea that if both parties had a beneficial interest in the matrimonial home and it was not possible or right to give effect to precise shares, then the potential arose for equal division. Later cases saw the structuring of the discretion conferred by section 17 and ultimately the creation of a ‘family assets’ doctrine. At its peak, the family assets doctrine enabled a claim to the sharing of property, “irrespective of in whose name it stands: or who pays for what: or who goes out to work and who stays at home”. Just like the expansive use of section 17, the family assets doctrine was rejected by the House of Lords as a term devoid of legal meaning. It was for parliament to reform this area of law, and that is what they did with the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970.

…

124

I’d like to finish on the contribution of the 1882 Act to the modern law. It is apparent that “the system of separate property…remains the only matrimonial property regime applicable in the law of England and Wales”. However, this is tempered by an extensive, structured judicial discretion to divide assets contained in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Within this sphere and through key House of Lords decisions, we see the interplay between equality as an aspiration and equality as a result. White v White shows us this clearly. After their marriage broke down, separate property meant that Pamela White need only have her reasonable requirements satisfied, which is what the judge at first instance did. An award of 17 per cent of the assets was increased to 32 per cent by the Court of Appeal in recognition of her contributions to the marriage. What is more interesting for me in relation to our understanding of equality in this field is the reasoning of the House of Lords. After rejecting the approach of reasonable requirements, Lord Nicholls created a principle of non-discrimination. In seeking to achieve a fair outcome, “there is no place for discrimination between husband and wife and their respective roles”. This was then inextricably linked to a nascent principle of sharing whereby “before reaching a firm conclusion and making an order along these lines, a judge would always be well advised to check his tentative views against the yardstick of equality of division”. Whilst laudable in terms of its aims, it does raise multiple questions as to how such an opentextured principle of equality can truly be realised in practice. Conclusions: Susan Staves provides an interesting perspective, noting that “legal history has most often been celebratory, explaining how the law was more and more beautifully adapted to the needs of society, more and more perfectly reflective of absolute justice”. Celebrations of equality taking place around the globe for International Women’s Day are powerful and certainly help to memorialise achievement and reflect on where we need to go next. But we need to question these celebrations of equality, or measures introduced on the basis of equality, and be critical – as lawyers, we need to look at the footnotes, the explanatory notes, because equality as an aspiration and equality as a tangible outcome are two very different things. Dr Andy Hayward Associate Professor in Family Law, Property Law and Equity at Durham Law School Academic Fellow of The Inner Temple The full version of this lecture is at innertemple.org.uk/lectures

The Temple Church

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

NEWS FROM THE TEMPLE CHURCH CHOIR By the Director of Music

The Inner Temple Church © Abhimanyu Bose 2014

It is well documented that the performing arts are badly affected by the pandemic and, although there have been more encouraging signs recently, the impact on the arts will be felt for quite some time. Here at Temple Church, we are blessed with some of London’s finest singers, all freelancers and many with national and international careers. The 20 choristers who sing to an enviably high standard have not sung together since 16 March. The freelancers’ diaries became empty and they stared bleakly into the future. Tours, concerts, opera contracts – all cancelled. We are proud that the Inns have supported these people as best they can in the circumstances by honouring payment for services and concerts here that were cancelled. The Church Committee has been very supportive and understanding during this period. The music department has been extremely busy keeping things going and keeping the Temple musical team engaged. Every day, we see the choristers either for individual singing lessons, theory lessons, group rehearsals or quizzes – all on Zoom. This is a complex timetable, which changes weekly, and is all organised by the brilliant Elisabeth Munns, our Music Administrator.

During this time, we have set major projects to support the work of the Temple Church and to communicate with members of both Inns through some powerful and moving videos/films. This is a complex and time-consuming task. Firstly, I record the organ part in the Church, followed by recording myself conducting in an empty vestry to an imaginary choir! The audio and visuals are then uploaded onto the Choir Google drive so that the singers can learn the music and get accustomed to the accompaniment and conducting. Individually, they sing to the tracks and send in the files. Despite every effort, the timing of each singer is different as we have avoided using a click track. This is so we can have a more natural and ‘living’ performance. There follow two to three weeks of work piecing this together, creating a homogeneous and cohesive piece, both aurally and visually. This painstaking work has been undertaken by one of our singers, opera director Tom Guthrie, and on the last and biggest project assisted by Ian Glatt, a freelance documentary maker and chorister father. The three major projects were films of Vaughan Williams’ Five Mystical Songs, Bob Chilcott’s Be Simple Little Children and a Lockdown Mass. The latter includes all our choirs, the Youth Choir singing Vierne’s mighty Kyrie and Temple Singers performing a Byrd Gloria. For the Sanctus and Benedictus, we turn to the Choristers, who sing these movements from the Duruflé Requiem and an Agnus Dei performed by the men of the Choir. Finally, our four youngest choristers sing a short communion motet and the whole service concludes with the Halleluia Chorus sung by everyone. Singing in a choir is a team sport, requiring strong muscular involvement. One of our singing teachers created an app of vocal and physical warm exercises for our choristers aged 7–13. We encourage every singer to look after their voice and keep it in good shape. This has been a big challenge, keeping the motivation whilst they are apart from each other and missing the collective energy that is so necessary for a choir. Boys’ voices change, and we are constantly working with and supporting those who naturally would find the transition easier in normal times but, in their own homes without collective confidence boosting, have found it become a major challenge. It is our hope that next term we can take steps, no matter how small, to get back together and once again bring life and energy into the Church.

Every day, we see the choristers either for individual singing lessons, theory lessons, group rehearsals or quizzes – all on Zoom. This is a complex timetable, which changes weekly.

Roger Sayer Director of Music

The Inner Temple Call, July2018 © Boseography

125

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

The Inner Temple on Tour

THE INNER TEMPLE ON TOUR

126

Treasury

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

127

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

In Memoriam

IN MEMORIAM The Inn mourns members of the Inn who have died in the past year:* Dr Stephen Cretney

His Honour Malcolm Ward

01 Mar 2020

Ms Sashakay Fairclough

13 Sep 2019

Johnny Veeder QC

06 Mar 2020

Miss Jessica Holmes

15 Oct 2019

Mark Tennant

18 Mar 2020

David Barker

21 Oct 2019

His Honour Roderick Denyer QC

20 Mar 2020

Jonathan Pemberton

01 Jan 2020

Chief Justice Yong Pung How

09 Jan 2020

His Honour David Elfer QC

01 Apr 2020

12 Jan 2020

The Rt Hon the Lord Armstrong of Ilminster GCB CVO

03 Apr 2020

Professor Sir Roger Scruton FBA FRSL Leonard Woodley QC

19 Jan 2020

The Rt Hon Sir John Laws

05 Apr 2020

His Honour Mervyn Roberts

02 Feb 2020

John FitzGerald

08 Apr 2020

The Rt Hon Sir Andrew Leggatt

21 Feb 2020

Sir Richard Plender

23 May 2020

Miss Susan Belgrave

26 Feb 2020

The Rt Hon the Lord Hutton

*Correct as of 17 August 2020

128

30 Aug 2019

16 Jul 2020

The Temple Church

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

WEDDINGS AND BAPTISMS AT THE TEMPLE CHURCH

lexandrea Tonks and Anthony Thompson A married at the Temple Church 20 July 2019

ary Matthias and Ellis Knight M married at the Temple Church 25 January 2020

melia Beringer and Oliver Hickling A married at the Temple Church 27 July 2019 © Michael Newington Gray

mma Melville and Ryan Taylor E married at the Temple 26 October 2019 © Chris Barber

129

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

THE SUMMER PARTY

FROM YEARS PAST

130

The Summer Party from Years Past

Treasury

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

131

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Bar Liaison Committee

BAR LIAISON COMMITTEE

JAMES BATTEN

JOHN CLIFFORD

SAOIRSE COWLEY

KATHERINE DUNCAN

Student Societies Committee; Yearbook; Drama Society

Scholarships Committee; Car Park; Revels

Employed Bar; Outreach Committee (Co-opted)

Wellbeing

SARAH MARTIN

ANTON VAN DELLEN

THEA WILSON

BRETT WILSON

Executive Committee; Marshall Hall Trust

Junior Bar Auditor; Executive Committee (Ex Officio); Finance Sub-Committee; Estates Committee

Education & Training Committee; ITSA; Student Societies Committee

Northern Circuit; Qualifying Sessions Sub-Committee; Pegasus Scholarship Trust; Marshalling

(Chairman); Education & Training Committee (Co-opted); Executive Committee; Bencher Nomination Committee

132

ZACHARY BREDEMEAR

SARA WYETH

AARIF ABRAHAM

Student Societies Committee; Moots Co-opted

Qualifying Sessions Sub-Committee; Social Context of the Law Steering Group

MICHAEL D’ARCY

RICHARD FOWLER

SAMANTHA GODEC

HARRIET HOLMES

SIMON MURRAY

Library Committee

International Committee

Estates Committee; Garden

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

Library Committee; Information Technology; Communications Sub-Committe; Staff

Bar Liaison Committee

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

KEY Elected

Co-opted

Circuit Representatives

Ex-Officio

REHANA POPAL

SARAH WILLIAMS

RAHUL VARMA

CAN YEGINSU

Bar Council Representative; Scholarships Committee

Employed Bar; Pictures; Students’ Debating Society

Qualifying Sessions (Co-opted); Outreach Committee; Scholarships Committee (Co-opted)

Archives Committee Circuit Representatives

SIMON GURNEY

JASON HADDEN

LAURA JOHN

JULIAN SIDOLI

Northern Circuit; Outreach Committee

Midland Circuit; Cellar

European Circuit

Wales and Chester; Silver

VACANT

RICHARD WHEELER

JONATHAN GODFREY

South Eastern Circuit

Western Circuit; Outreach Committee

North Eastern Circuit Ex-Officio Members

CHRISTOPHER BOND Senior Bar Auditor; Executive Committee (Ex-officio); Finance Sub-Committee; Investment; Sub-Committee (Ex-officio); Estates Committee (Co-opted)

EMMA HYNES

ANNABEL GOUGH

LAURA PAISLEY

Yearbook Editor

Junior Bar Association; Education & Training Committee

Junior Bar Association; Scholarships Committee

GREG DOREY CVO

HENRIETTA AMODIO

Sub-Treasurer

Director of the Treasury Office; Secretary to the BLC

133

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

New Silks 2020

NEW SILKS 2020 (In alphabetical order)

ALEXANDER HALL TAYLOR QC (MASTER OF THE BENCH)

ANDREW ALLEN QC

BARBARA MILLS QC

BLAIR LEAHY QC

CAMERON BROWN QC

COLIN WEST QC

DAVID BLUNDELL QC

DAVID PIEVSKY QC

DR DAVID SCANNELL QC

DESHPAL PANESAR QC

EDWARD LEVEY QC

ELENI MITROPHANOUS QC

FRIDA HUSSAIN QC

GARY COWEN QC

PROFESSOR GERARD MCMEEL QC

HEIDI STONECLIFFE QC

HENRY BYAM-COOK QC

HENRY PITCHERS QC

134

New Masters of the Bench

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

JAMES CARPENTER QC

JAMES SEGAN QC

JOHN MEHRZAD QC

KATHERINE SELWAY QC

KRISTA LEE QC

PETER GOATLEY QC

PETER MITCHELL QC

PHILIP RICHES QC

REBECCA CAREW POLE QC

PAUL RAUDNITZ QC

SIMON WEBSTER QC

SAMANTHA HILLAS QC

SIWARD ATKINS QC

STEPHEN WOOD QC

SELENA PLOWDEN QC

STEPHEN SIMBLET QC

TAMARA OPPENHEIMER QC

135

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

New Master of the Bench 2019–2020

NEW MASTERS OF THE BENCH 2019–2020 Listed in order of Bencher status and by Call

BARRISTER GOVERNING BENCHERS

MARTIN BOWDERY QC

ANDREW OLDLAND QC

TEERTHA GUPTA QC

SIMON KEALEY QC

THOMAS COSGROVE QC

ROBIN SELLERS

KATE BRUNNER QC

NICHOLAS CRAIG QC

RUBY SAYED

JAMES KITCHING

CRAIG HASSALL

PROFESSOR REBECCA BAILEY-HARRIS

JONATHAN REES QC

136

REBECCA DIX

BIBI BADEJO

New Master of the Bench 2019–2020

JONATHAN BREMNER QC

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

LEONIE HIRST

JENNIFER OBORNE

ALDERMAN GREGORY JONES QC

THE HON MR JUSTICE ANDREW HENSHAW

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JACOBS

DISTRICT JUDGE HEPTONSTALL

JUDICIAL GOVERNING BENCHERS

THE HON MRS JUSTICE JENNIFER EADY DBE

OVERSEAS BENCHER

ACADEMIC BENCHERS

JUSTICE VINODH COOMARASWAMY

OTHER GOVERNING BENCHER

DR ADAM SCOTT OBE TD

PROFESSOR JAMES GOUDKAMP

THE HONOURABLE ALEXANDER DOWNER AC

DR NICOLA LACK MRCOG

THE RIGHT REVEREND JAMES JONES KBE

KANNON SHANMUGAM

HONORARY BENCHERS

CHRISTOPHER HAYWARD

137

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Masters of the Bench

MASTERS OF THE BENCH Honourable Society of the Inner Temple Masters of the Bench in Seniority Order (Correct as of 31 July 2020)

TREASURER 2020 Guy Fetherstonhaugh Esq QC (B)

Richard Clegg Esq QC (U)

ROYAL BENCHERS

Michael Lyndon-Stanford Esq QC (U)

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

The Rt Hon Sir Jonathan Parker (S)

HRH The Princess Royal (R) READER 2020 Her Honour Judge Deborah Taylor (J)

John Beveridge Esq QC (U) His Honour Humphrey LLoyd QC (U) Sir Edward Cazalet (S) The Rt Hon Sir Mathew Thorpe (U)

READER ELECT 2020

William Crowther Esq QC (U)

Sir Robert Francis Esq QC (O)

Roger Henderson Esq QC (O)

MASTERS OF THE BENCH, EX-TREASURERS

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

John Deby Esq QC (O) His Honour Anthony Thompson QC (S)

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) Gerard Elias Esq QC (S) The Rt Hon Sir Jack Beatson FBA (O) Anthony Hacking Esq QC (S)

The Rt Hon Sir Stephen Brown GBE (S)

Ian Hunter Esq QC (S)

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

Sir Peter North CBE DCL FBA QC (H)

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

Sir Martin Jacomb (H)

Stanley Brodie Esq QC (S)

Patrick Ground Esq QC (B)

Richard Southwell Esq QC (S)

Professor Sir John Baker QC LLD FBA (H)

The Rt Hon Sir Konrad Schiemann (O)

His Honour James Wadsworth QC (U)

The Rt Hon Sir John Chadwick (O)

Jules Sher Esq QC (U)

The Rt Hon Sir Bernard Rix (O)

Eldred Tabachnik Esq QC (U)

The Rt Hon Sir David Keene (O)

Sir Michael Tugendhat (S)

The Rt Hon Sir Anthony May (O)

John Crowley Esq QC (S)

Vivian Robinson Esq QC (S)

The Rt Hon Sir Stephen Sedley (U)

The Rt Hon The Baroness Hallett DBE (S)

Dame Rosalyn Higgins GBE JSD FBA QC (S)

Simon Thorley Esq QC (O)

Raymond Potter Esq CB (S)

The Rt Hon Sir Stephen Tomlinson (O)

Nigel Hamilton Esq QC (U)

The Rt Hon Sir Martin Moore-Bick (O)

Sir Sydney Lipworth QC (H)

His Honour Donald Cryan (Hon) LLD (O)

The Rt Hon Lord Sumption OBE (S)

David Pittaway Esq QC (B)

Nicholas Wood Esq (O)

The Rt Hon Dame Elizabeth Gloster DBE (O)

Dame Elizabeth Slade DBE (S)

The Rt Hon Lord Hughes of Ombersley (O)

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

MASTER OF THE BENCH

Judge Martin Feldman (H)

Richard Rampton Esq QC (S)

David Widdicombe Esq QC (U)

Sir Ivan Lawrence QC (B)

Sir Robert Owen (S)

John Willmer Esq QC (S)

James Goudie Esq QC (S)

Christopher Purchas Esq QC (U)

The Rt Hon The Lord Woolf CH FBA (S)

Christopher Lockhart-Mummery Esq QC (B)

Miss Pamela Scriven QC (B)

The Rt Hon Sir Roy Beldam (S)

Richard Salter Esq QC (B)

Nicholas Padfield Esq QC (S)

Sir Oliver Popplewell (O)

Sir David Steel (S)

The Rt Hon Sir Patrick Elias (S)

Sir William Macpherson of Cluny TD (U)

Neil Kaplan CBE QC SC (HK) (S)

Michael Shorrock Esq QC (S)

The Hon Sir Charles Morrison QC (U)

The Rt Hon Sir William Gage (S)

Sir Gordon Langley (S)

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

Paul Purnell Esq QC (U)

Sir Christopher Pitchers (S)

His Honour Jonathan Playford QC (S)

Nigel Pascoe Esq QC (S)

Sir Thayne Forbes (S)

Her Honour Judge Korner CMG QC (J)

Sir Brian Jenkins GBE (H)

Oliver Sells Esq QC (B)

Murray Pickering Esq QC (S)

Kenneth Aylett Esq (S)

The Baroness Mallalieu QC (U)

Andrew Tidbury Esq (B)

Anthony Anderson Esq QC (U)

Sir Timothy Walker (U)

Harry Turcan Esq (S)

Nicholas Merriman Esq QC (S)

Gerald Angel Esq (S)

Robin De Wilde Esq QC (S)

The Rt Hon Sir Richard Buxton (U)

Peter Birkett Esq QC (O)

Professor Sir Royston Goode CBE FBA QC (H)

Robin Purchas Esq QC (B)

The Rt Hon the Lord Irvine of Lairg (S)

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

Sir Geoffrey Nice QC (B)

Her Honour Shirley Anwyl QC (S)

John Swift Esq QC (U)

Eben Hamilton Esq QC (S)

His Honour James Stewart QC (U)

His Honour John Previte QC (U)

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

Professor Francis Reynolds DCL FBA QC (H) Sir Michael Morland (O) Nigel Inglis-Jones Esq QC (U) The Rt Hon the Lord Scott of Foscote (S) Sir Thomas Legg KCB QC (S) Sir Richard Curtis QC (U) Sir Allan Green KCB QC (U) Neville Thomas Esq QC (U) Sir Christopher Holland (S) Sir Edward Evans-Lombe (U)

138

Sir Hugh Bennett (O) Dermod O’Brien Esq QC (S) The Rt Hon Sir Anthony Hooper (O) Bruce Mauleverer Esq QC (S) His Honour Neil Butter CBE QC (S) His Honour Duncan Matheson QC (U) Her Honour Christian Bevington (S) Miss Caroline Willbourne (B) Her Honour Judge Hughes QC (J) Michael Sayers Esq QC (U) Sir Richard Henriques (S) Martin Bowley Esq QC (O) The Honourable Justice Stephen Breyer (H) The Honourable Justice Anthony Kennedy (H) Tom Shields Esq QC (O) Sir Mark Havelock-Allan Bt QC (O) His Honour Simon Brown QC (O) Jonathan Acton Davis Esq QC (B) Anthony Temple Esq 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)

Masters of the Bench

His Honour John Weeks QC (U)

His Honour Richard McGregor-Johnson (O)

Mrs Gay Martin (O)

Michael Spencer Esq QC (B)

Dr Pehr Gyllenhammar (H)

Philip Sapsford Esq QC (U)

Victor Temple Esq QC (S)

Sir Alan Wilkie (O)

His Honour Simon Bourne-Arton QC (O)

Sir Robert Akenhead (O)

Peter Joyce Esq QC (B)

The Hon Mr Justice Nugee (J)

Dame Caroline Swift DBE (O)

Christopher Moger Esq QC (S)

Professor Dr Jürgen Schwarze (H)

Justin Fenwick Esq QC (B)

The Hon Philip Havers QC (B)

His Honour David Paget QC (O)

Thomas Baxendale Esq (U)

His Honour Iain Hughes QC (O)

Her Honour Elisabeth Fisher (S)

Kevin de Haan Esq QC (B)

Tim Charlton Esq QC (B)

Sir Peter Openshaw (S)

His Honour Jeffrey Burke QC (U)

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Floyd (J)

His Honour Christopher Critchlow (J)

Ian Glick Esq QC (B)

The Hon Mr Justice Patrick Chan (H)

The Rt Hon the Lord Falconer of Thoroton (O)

The Rt Hon The Lord Sacks (H)

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

The Rt Hon Jack Straw (S)

Professor Sir Alan Dashwood KCMG CBE QC (B)

Judge Richard Posner (H)

Nigel Pleming Esq QC (B)

Professor Andrew Ashworth PhD DCL FBA (LA)

His Honour Owen Davies QC (O)

His Honour John Adams (S)

Charles George Esq QC (O)

Sibghatullah Kadri Esq QC (S)

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

Robert Webb Esq QC FRAeS (B)

M Jean-Paul Costa (H)

Nicholas Davidson Esq QC (B)

M Luzius Wildhaber (H)

Miss Rosamund Horwood-Smart QC (O)

Michael Austin-Smith Esq QC (S)

Stuart Brown Esq QC (B)

His Honour Peter Collier QC (O)

His Honour Judge Everall QC (O)

Michael Redfern Esq QC (B)

His Honour John Milford QC (U)

Robert Smith Esq QC (S)

Stephen Solley Esq QC (O)

Andrew Trollope Esq QC (B)

Dorian Lovell-Pank Esq QC (B)

Iain Milligan Esq QC (U)

The Hon Mr Justice Field (S)

Miss Elizabeth-Anne Gumbel QC (B)

Sir Hayden Phillips GCB DL (H)

John Marrin Esq QC (B)

His Honour Denis Orde (O)

Richard Drabble Esq QC (B)

The Rt Hon Sir John MacDermott (H)

Gavin Kealey Esq QC (B)

Sir Jeffery Bowman FCA (H)

His Honour Judge Burrell QC (J)

Justice Richard Goldstone (H)

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Flaux (J)

His Honour Michael Fysh QC SC (S)

Edward Fitzgerald Esq CBE QC (B)

David Friedman Esq QC (S)

His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman QC (J)

Nicholas Stewart Esq QC (B)

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Nicholas Green (J)

Timothy Raggatt Esq QC (B)

Sir Stuart Lipton (H)

Dame Laura Cox DBE (U)

Anthony Porten Esq QC (U)

The Rt Hon Lady Black DBE (J)

His Honour Nicholas Browne QC (O)

Sir Richard Gibbs (U)

His Honour Judge Pegden QC (J)

The Reverend and Valiant Master of the Temple (H)

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

David Wilby Esq QC (O)

Adrian Brunner Esq QC (S)

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

The Hon Mr Justice Goss (J)

Nicholas Asprey Esq (O)

His Honour Judge Leonard QC (J)

Augustus Ullstein Esq QC (S)

George Staple Esq CB QC (H)

The Hon Mrs Justice Alison Foster DBE (J)

John Ross Esq QC (B)

Michael de Navarro Esq QC (S)

Roger Stewart Esq QC (B)

Professor Michael Lerego QC (O)

Godfrey Carey Esq QC (O)

The Hon Mr Justice Ribeiro (H)

Jeremy Storey Esq QC (B)

Rex Tedd Esq QC (B)

Professor Christopher Forsyth (LA)

James Turner Esq QC (B)

His Honour Toby Hooper QC (O)

Dr Mads Andenas QC (Hon) PhD MA DPhil (LA)

The Hon Mrs Justice Lang DBE (J)

James Guthrie Esq QC (B)

Professor John Spencer CBE QC (LA)

Sir Raymond Jack (U)

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

The Hon Justice Salihu Moddibo Alfa Belgore (V)

His Honour David Hodson (U)

Malcolm Bishop Esq QC (B)

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

The Rt Hon Sir Dennis Byron (V) Terence Coghlan Esq QC (S) Andrew Caldecott Esq QC (B) Jonathan Gaisman Esq QC (B) The Rt Hon Lord Justice Popplewell (J) The Hon Mr Justice Moor (J) Sir Alex Allan KCB (H) Sir Edward Caldwell KCB QC(Hon) (H) Ian Laing Esq CBE DL (H) Sir Ian McKellen CH CBE (H) David Spens Esq QC (B) His Honour Judge Ford QC (O) His Honour Judge Hammerton (J)

His Honour Thomas Crowther QC (U) His Honour Nicholas Coleman (O) Sir Brian Williamson CBE (H) The Rt Hon Lord Hamilton (H) The Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG (H) Philip Mott Esq QC (U) Thomas Seymour Esq (B) Sir Nicholas Stadlen (O) David Streatfeild-James Esq QC (B) The Rt Hon Lord Justice Dingemans (J) The Rt Hon Lady Justice Carr DBE (J) Dr Mary Malecka (O)

His Honour Judge Simon Davis (J) Senior District Judge Arbuthnot (J)

KEY (B) Barrister Governing Bencher

(O) Other Governing Bencher

(H) Honorary Bencher

(S) Senior Bencher

(J) Judicial Governing Bencher

(U) Supernumerary Bencher

(LA) Legal Academic

(V) Overseas Bencher

139

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

His Excellency Judge Kenneth Keith ONZ KBE (H)

His Eminence Cardinal Vincent Nichols MA MEd STL (H)

Sir Wyn Williams (O)

Michael Humphries Esq QC (B)

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Moylan (J)

Ms Alison Levitt QC (B)

Robert Rhodes Esq QC (B)

His Honour Stephen Oliver-Jones QC (O)

His Honour David Tyzack QC (S)

His Honour Charles Wide QC (U)

Patrick Upward Esq QC (S)

Thomas Woodcock Esq CVO DL FSA (O)

His Honour Judge Melville QC (J)

Professor Barry Rider OBE (LA)

Miss Sally Smith QC (O)

The Hon Mrs Justice Juliet May DBE (J)

His Honour Judge Jeremy Richardson QC (J)

Professor Robert Walsh (LA)

Nigel Giffin Esq QC (B)

The Honourable Justice Baragwanath KNZM QC (V)

The Hon Mr Justice Jonathan Swift (J)

The Hon Mrs Justice Finola O’Farrell DBE (J) His Honour Judge Blair QC (J) Alistair Schaff Esq QC (B) His Honour Judge Neil Clark (J) Harry Matovu Esq QC (B) The Hon Mrs Justice Christina Lambert DBE (J) Miss Taryn Lee QC (B) Philip Moser Esq QC (B) His Honour Judge Simon (J) Alexander Hall Taylor Esq QC (B) Professor Cheryl Thomas QC (Hon) (LA)

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)

The Hon Mr Justice Griffiths (J)

Dr Navinchandra Ramgoolam GCSK FRCP (V)

Sir Richard Heaton KCB (U)

The Rt Hon Lady Justice Simler DBE (J)

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

His Honour Judge Hiddleston (J)

Stuart Catchpole Esq QC (B)

His Honour John Wait (S)

Iain Christie Esq QC (O)

His Honour Philip Waller CBE (O)

His Honour Giles Forrester (S)

The Rt Hon The Lord Maude of Horsham (O)

His Honour Alistair McCreath (O)

Michael Pooles Esq QC (B)

His Honour Gregory Stone QC (S)

The Hon Mr Justice Martin Spencer (J)

Patrick O’Connor Esq QC (B)

Her Honour Judge Patricia Lynch QC (J)

James Corbett Esq QC (B)

Miss Susan Jacklin (J)

His Honour Judge Bayliss QC (J)

Aftab Jafferjee Esq QC (B)

Steven Kay Esq QC (B)

Richard Barraclough Esq QC (B)

Sir David Green CB QC (B)

Peter Village Esq QC (B)

Peter Wright Esq QC (B)

Ian Stern Esq QC (B)

His Excellency Sir Elliott Belgrave GCMG KA CHB QC (V)

Miss Deborah Eaton QC (B)

Miss Raquel Agnello QC (B)

The Hon Reginald Rhoda Esq CBE (V)

The Hon Mr Justice Lavender (J)

Professor the Worshipful Mark Hill QC (B)

Datuk Sulong Matjeraie (V)

His Honour Charles Harris QC (O)

Ms Patricia Robertson QC (B)

Dame Alison Saunders DCB (B)

His Honour Judge Mark Brown (O)

Sam Stein Esq QC (B)

Ami Feder Esq (B)

The Rt Hon Dame Victoria Sharp DBE (J)

Professor Nicola Lacey CBE FBA (H)

His Honour David Mitchell (O)

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

The Rt Hon the Baroness Prashar CBE (H)

John Ryder Esq QC (B)

The Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia LVO (H)

Mark Wyeth Esq QC (B)

Professor Timothy Endicott (LA)

Jeremy Hill-Baker Esq (B)

Professor Timothy Macklem (LA)

Crispin Aylett Esq QC (B)

Professor Julian Webb (LA)

Richard Humphreys Esq QC (B)

The Rt Hon Lord Reed (J)

The Hon Mrs Justice Roberts DBE (J)

His Honour Inigo Bing (O)

Miss Máirín Casey (O)

Charles Parsley Esq (B)

Miss Eleanor Laws QC (B)

Miss Julia Dias QC (B)

Martin Goudie Esq QC (B)

Christopher Brougham Esq QC (B) Nicholas Atkinson Esq QC (B) Miss Susanna FitzGerald QC (B) Orlando 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)

Masters of the Bench

Guy Beringer Esq QC (Hon) CBE (H) David Yale Esq QC (LA) His Honour Judge Nigel Lithman QC (J) Her Honour Judge Hildyard QC (J) Andrew Goodman Esq (B) Grahame Aldous Esq QC (B) Matthew Reeve Esq (B) The Hon Mr Justice Russell Coleman (V)

140

Tim Lord Esq QC (B) Daniel Toledano Esq QC (B) Miss Sarah Clarke QC (B) Adam Constable Esq QC (B) Dr Vanessa Davies (O) The Rt Hon Lord Menzies (H) The Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis (H) Lyonpo Sonam Tobgye (H) Philip Punwar Esq (V) Professor the Hon George Hampel QC AM (LA)

Masters of the Bench

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Alastair Hodge Esq (B)

Miss Penelope Reed QC (B)

Kyri Argyropoulos Esq (B)

Graham Chapman Esq QC (B)

His Honour Judge Lucraft QC (J)

Dr Paul Brown QC (B)

Ms Desiree Artesi (B)

Ian Winter Esq QC (B)

Her Honour Judge Clemitson (J)

Miss Fiona Jackson (B)

Adrian Keeling Esq QC (B)

His Honour Judge Bird (J)

Andrew Cayley Esq CMG QC (B)

District Judge Ikram (J)

Upper Tribunal Judge Frances (J)

The Rt Hon The Lord Hunt Of Wirral MBE (H)

Her Honour Judge Evans-Gordon (J)

Oliver Saxby Esq QC (B)

The Hon Philip Remnant CBE ACA (H)

Andrew Warnock Esq QC (B)

Benjamin Myers Esq QC (B)

The Rt Hon the Lord Chancellor (O)

Thomas Mitcheson Esq QC (B)

Jason Sugarman Esq QC (B)

Professor Spyridon Flogaitis (LA)

Ms Harini Iyengar (B)

John Kimbell Esq QC (B)

Paul Infield Esq (B)

Ms Minka Braun (B)

His Honour Judge Petts (J)

Stuart Denney Esq QC (B)

The Hon Mr Justice Butler (V)

Rhys Taylor Esq (B)

Miss Anne Richardson (B)

Professor Iyiola Solanke (LA)

Charles Bagot Esq QC (B)

The Hon Simon Davenport QC (B)

Edward Chandler Esq (H)

Carsten Zatschler Esq (B)

Leslie Thomas Esq QC (B)

Ms Fiona Gilmore (H)

Miss Diya Sen Gupta QC (B)

Miss Sara Lawson QC (B)

Dame Clare Marx DBE DL FRCS (H)

Joseph Hart Esq (B)

Christopher Quinlan Esq QC (B)

His Highness Tunku Besar Seri Menanti Negeri Sembilan (H)

Miss Elizabeth Fitzgerald (B)

Ms Anneliese Day QC (B)

The Rt Hon Sir David Lidington KCB CBE MP (H)

Miss Rehana Azib (B)

Scott Matthewson Esq (B)

The Hon Mr Justice Williams (J)

District Judge Prest QC (J)

Miss Kelyn Bacon QC (B)

The Hon Mr Justice Choudhury (J)

Dr Tunde Okewale Esq MBE (B)

Miss Rachel Spearing (B)

The Hon Mr Justice Julian Knowles (J)

Ms Kathryn Arnot Drummond (B)

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

Patrick Maddams Esq Hon FRIBA (H)

Justice Vinodh Coomaraswamy (V)

The Rev Hugh Mead (H)

Professor Nigel Lowe QC (Hon) (S)

Professor James Goudkamp (LA)

His Honour Jeremy Carey DL (O)

Michael McParland Esq QC (B)

The Hon Alexander Downer AC (LA)

Her Honour Judge Louise Bancroft (J)

His Honour Judge Simon Phillips QC (J)

Christopher Hayward Esq (H)

Her Honour Judge Corbett (J)

Miss Elizabeth McGrath QC (B)

The Rt Rev James Jones KBE (H)

His Honour Judge The Reverend James Patrick (J)

Nicholas Griffin Esq QC (B)

Dr Nicola Lack MRCOG (LA)

Cyrus Larizadeh Esq QC (B)

Kannon Shanmugam Esq (H)

Miss Leigh-Ann Mulcahy QC (B)

The Hon Mrs Justice Jennifer Eady DBE (J)

Dr Annette Prandzioch (O)

The Hon Mr Justice Andrew Henshaw (J)

Patrick Goodall Esq QC (B)

Dr Adam Scott OBE TD (O)

The Hon Mr Justice MacDonald (J)

Simon Baker Esq (B)

Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs (J)

Christopher Sharp Esq QC (B)

Ms Catherine Callaghan QC (B)

Martin Bowdery Esq QC (B)

His Honour Judge Tolson QC (J)

Peter Clark Esq (B)

Andrew Oldland Esq QC (B)

His Honour Judge Sloan QC (J)

Faisel Sadiq Esq (B)

Teertha Gupta Esq QC (B)

His Honour Judge Robinson (J)

Miss Hui Ling McCarthy QC (B)

Simon Kealey Esq QC (B)

Thomas Kark Esq QC (B)

Ms Kay Firth-Butterfield (V)

Thomas Cosgrove Esq QC (B)

Her Honour Judge Munro QC (J)

The Hon Mrs Justice Cutts DBE (J)

Robin Sellers Esq (B)

Her Honour Judge Gillian Matthews QC (J)

The Rt Hon Lady Dorrian (V)

Miss Kate Brunner QC (B)

Miss Ruth Henke QC (B)

Lawrence Teh Esq (V)

Nicholas Craig Esq QC (B)

David Wolfson Esq QC (B)

Professor Thom Brooks (LA)

Ms Ruby Sayed (B)

Paul Greaney Esq QC (B)

Michael Stevenson Esq (H)

James Kitching Esq (B)

Dr Catherine MacKenzie (O)

The Rt Hon the Lord Fowler (H)

Craig Hassall Esq (B)

Kieron Beal Esq QC (B)

Miles Young Esq (H)

District Judge Heptonstall (J)

Miss Saira Kabir Sheikh QC (B)

YA Dato Faizah Jamaludin (V)

Professor Rebecca Bailey-Harris (B)

Justice George Wei (V)

The Rt Hon The Baroness Buscombe (O)

Jonathan Rees Esq QC (B)

Timothy Le Cocq Esq QC (V)

His Honour Judge Townsend (J)

Miss Rebecca Dix (B)

Sir Michael Arthur KCMG (H)

His Honour Judge Oliver (J)

Miss Bibi Badejo (B)

Dr Tom Kinninmont (H)

Ms Alix Beldam (O)

Jonathan Bremner Esq QC (B)

Professor John Wass MA MD FRCP (H)

His Honour Judge Menary QC (J)

Ms Leonie Hirst (B)

His Honour Judge Farrell QC (J)

Her Honour Judge Nicholls (J)

Miss Jennifer Oborne (B)

His Honour Judge Aaronberg QC (J)

Miss Lorna Meyer QC (B)

Alderman Gregory Jones QC (B)

Lloyd Williams Esq QC (B)

District Judge Foster (J)

Miss Camilla Bingham QC (B)

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

Miss Sonia Nolten (B)

KEY (B) Barrister Governing Bencher

(O) Other Governing Bencher

(H) Honorary Bencher

(S) Senior Bencher

(J) Judicial Governing Bencher

(U) Supernumerary Bencher

(LA) Legal Academic

(V) Overseas Bencher 141

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

People Finder

PEOPLE FINDER

TREASURY

020 7797 8250

enquiries@innertemple.org.uk

Sub-Treasurer

Greg Dorey CVO

020 7797 8177

subtreasurer@innertemple.org.uk

Head of the Sub-Treasurer’s Office

Jennie Collis Price

020 7797 8177

jcollisprice@innertemple.org.uk

Personal Assistant to the Sub-Treasurer

Wanda Szwed

020 7797 8179

wszwed@innertemple.org.uk

Director of the Treasury Office

Henrietta Amodio

020 7797 8182

hamodio@innertemple.org.uk

Assistant to the Director of the Treasury Office Nadia Ruiz

020 7797 8182

nruiz@innertemple.org.uk

Membership Registrar and Data Protection Lead Jude Hodgson

020 7797 8206

jhodgson@innertemple.org.uk

Records and Membership Assistant

Jacqueline Fenton

020 7797 8241

jfenton@innertemple.org.uk

Member Events and Administration Manager

Kate Peters

020 7797 8183

kpeters@innertemple.org.uk

Member Events and Administration Assistant

Rosy Humphrey

020 7797 8264

rhumphrey@innertemple.org.uk

Archivist (part time)

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

Director of Education (Interim)

Struan Campbell

0207 797 8214

scampbell@innertemple.org.uk

Education and Student Support 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 Student Experience Manager Sellisha Lockyer

020 7797 8210

slockyer@innertemple.org.uk

Scholarships and Student Experience Co-ordinator

Georgina Everatt

020 7797 8211

geveratt@innertemple.org.uk

Outreach Manager

Daisy Mortimer

020 7797 8262

dmortimer@innertemple.org.uk

Education Co-ordinator

Helen Gaskell

020 7797 2386

hgaskell@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

IT 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

Robert Hodgson

020 7797 8215

rhodgson@innertemple.org.uk

Deputy Librarian

Tracey Dennis

020 7797 8248

tdennis@innertemple.org.uk

Library Administrator

Tina Williams

020 7797 8216

twilliams@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 (enquiries and binding) Simon Hindley

020 7797 8222

shindley@innertemple.org.uk

Senior Library Assistant (enquiries and binding) James Rowles

020 7797 8222

jrowles@innertemple.org.uk

Library Assistant

020 7797 8219

lasnaghi@innertemple.org.uk

Lucia Asnaghi

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 and Anne Mason

020 7797 8173 / 020 7797 8200

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

142

People Finder

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

Estates Officer

Albena Ahjem

020 7797 8202

aahjem@innertemple.org.uk

Mechanical and Electrical Engineer

Darren Readings

020 7797 8198

dreadings@innertemple.org.uk

Works Supervisor

Paul Simmonds

020 7797 8190

psimmonds@innertemple.org.uk

Facilities Foreman

Delbert Brooks (Julius Rutherfoord) 020 7797 8195

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

Adam Bracegirdle

020 7797 8260

nmccarthy@innertemple.org.uk

Sales Manager

Maxine Reynolds

020 7797 8193

mreynolds@innertemple.org.uk

Events Supervisor

Chris Jones

020 7797 8245

cjones@innertemple.org.uk

GARDEN Head Gardener

Sean Harkin

020 7797 8243

sharkin@innertemple.org.uk

Senior Gardener

Sophie Tatzkow

020 7797 8243

statzkow@innertemple.org.uk

Trainee Gardener

Sam Fry

020 7797 8243

sfry@innertemple.org.uk

Part-time Gardener

Emily Blackmore

020 7797 8243

eblackmore@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

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

MUSIC OFFICE 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

TEMPLE MUSIC FOUNDATION (TMF) 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

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

Hayley Dawes

020 7822 0762

hdawes@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 Registrar

James Wakefield

020 7822 0761

jwakefield@coic.org.uk

BTAS Administrator

Margaret Hilson

020 3432 7348

margaret.hilson@tbtas.org.uk

THE INNS OF COURT COLLEGE OF ADVOCACY (ICCA)

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

Head of Programmes

Chris Kessling

020 7822 0767

ckessling@icca.ac.uk

Head of Programmes

Andy Russell

020 3432 7346

andy.russell@tbtas.org.uk

Bar Course Leader

Alexandra Frith

020 7822 0767

afrith@icca.ac.uk

143

The Inner Temple Yearbook 2020–2021

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

EQUALITY, DIVERSITY & INCLUSIVITY SUB-COMMITTEE Master Ingrid Simler ESTATES COMMITTEE Master Roger Stewart FINANCE SUB-COMMITTEE Master Julia Dias (Senior Bench Auditor) INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE Master Julian Flaux INVESTMENT SUB-COMMITTEE Master Roger Henderson LIBRARY COMMITTEE Master Sally Smith OUTREACH COMMITTEE Master Fiona Jackson PEGASUS SCHOLARSHIP TRUST Master Martin Goudie

Inner Temple Committees

STUDENT SOCIETIES COMMITTEE Master Alistair Hodge TEMPLE WOMEN’S FORUM Master Reader (Co-Convenor) TREASURER NOMINATION COMMITTEE Master Anthony Hughes (to end 2020)

BAR COUNCIL Master Robert Rhodes Master Minka Braun Rehana Popal (BLC Rep)

MASTERS OF THE CIRCUITS AND ASSISTANT MASTERS

BARRISTERS’ BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION Master Elisabeth Fisher Master Daniel Toledano

European: Master Nicholas Green Master Kieron Beal

BAR TRIBUNALS & ADJUDICATION SERVICE TRIBUNAL APPOINTMENTS BODY Master Ingrid Simler (Chair) Master Caroline Willbourne Master Ian Stern

Midland: Master Paul Bleasdale Master Richard Benson

COUNCIL OF THE INNS OF COURT Master Helen Davies Sub-Treasurer

Northern Circuit: Master Peter Birkett Master Louise Bancroft Master Nigel Bird Master Joseph Hart

COIC MATCHED FUNDED PUPILLAGE SCHEME Master Pamela Scriven

North Eastern Circuit: Master Neil Clark Master Anne Richardson Master Gillian Matthews South Eastern: Master Nicholas Coleman Master Jeremy Carey Master Fiona Jackson Master Oliver Saxby Wales & Chester: Master Charles Parsley Master Timothey Petts Master Rhys Taylor Western: Master Christopher Quinlan Master James Patrick Master James Townsend

PROJECT PEGASUS STEERING GROUP Master Reader

TEMPLE CHURCH COMMITTEE

QUALIFYING SESSIONS SUB-COMMITTEE Master Rory Phillips

Master Stephen Tomlinson

SCHOLARSHIPS COMMITTEE Master Fiona O’Farrell

MARSHALL HALL TRUST Jonathan Waite QC

144

INNER TEMPLE REPRESENTATIVES ON EXTERNAL BODIES

INNS’ STRATEGIC ADVISORY GROUP Master Treasurer Master Reader Master Helen Davies Sub-Treasurer INCORPORATED COUNCIL OF LAW REPORTING Master Margaret Bowron Master Mary Malecka INNS OF COURT AND BAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST Master Rory Phillips INNS OF COURT COLLEGE OF ADVOCACY Master Adam Constable (Inner Temple Governor) Master Catherine MacKenzie (Academic Governor) INNS OF COURT LIBRARIES LIAISON COMMITTEE Master Sally Smith INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED LEGAL STUDIES (IALS) Master Mark Havelock-Allan SELDEN SOCIETY Master Donald Cryan TEMPLE MUSIC FOUNDATION Master Guy Beringer

FROM THE 29TH JUNE - 22ND JULY 2021 THE INNER TEMPLE GARDEN AND MARQUEE WILL BE OPEN FOR EVENTS AND PARTIES IN ASSOCIATION WITH SMART PARTIES, PROVIDING A BEAUTIFUL AND PRIVATE LOCATION FOR ANY OUTDOOR EVENT. MOVING VENUE WILL PROVIDE EXCLUSIVE CATERING FOR ALL EVENTS, WITH THEIR SPRING / SUMMER MENUS. THE MARQUEE CAPACITY IS 600 STANDING AND 200 SEATED, WITH AMPLE ROOM IN THE BEAUTIFUL GARDENS TO ACCOMMODATE ALL GUESTS.

S M A R T S U M M E R PA R T I E S .C O. U K

Domestic Removals

Commercial Removals

Library Specialists

UK & European Service

International Shipping

Containerised Storage

Antiques and Fine Art

Crate Hire

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

Piano Removals