The Inner Temple Yearbook 2016-2017

THE INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK ���6 –���� Treasurer: His Honour Judge Cr yan (Hon) ���

apexhotels.co.uk

SINCE 1996

20 YEARS OF A WARMER WELCOME

IN THE HEART OF THE CITY Since 1996, Apex Hotels has been providing a warmer welcome to discerning guests.

Contemporary design and innovative technology are combined to reflect Apex’s independent, unique style.

For more info or to book: apexhotels.co.uk T: 0800 049 8000 LONDON | EDINBURGH | DUNDEE | GLASGOW | BATH

INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

From the Editor’s Desk Inner Temple Yearbook 2016–2017 Treasurer: His Honour Judge Cryan (Hon) ��� Reader: David Pittaway �� Sub-Treasurer: Patrick Maddams Hon ����� Treasury Office: Inner Temple London EC4Y 7HL 020 7797 8250 Yearbook@innertemple.org.uk www.innertemple.org.uk Master of the Yearbook: Sally Smith �� Editor: Alex Wright Assistant Editor: Henrietta Amodio Yearbook Manager: Helena Vaughan Desk Editor: Emma Hynes Archivist: Celia Pilkington Education & Training Editorial Team: Fiona Fulton Lacara Barnes-Rowe Julia Armfield Photographs: Garlinda Birkbeck Abhimanyu Bose Paul Clark Paul Clarke Photography MPP Image Creation Inner Temple’s photograph archive Design: Jon Ashby, Ben Jackaman and Atul Lad at Cantate Communications Advertising: John Good Ltd, Court Farm Barns Medcroft Road, Tackley, Oxford OX5 3AL

F

or many years, until this Yearbook’s physical size was slightly reduced, each autumn I would receive a card through the door telling me that I had to collect a parcel from the post office because it was too big for the letterbox. My wife would get excited thinking it was a birthday present for her, and then be rather less impressed when I returned with the Inner Temple Yearbook. On the other hand, I was always delighted to have some very enjoyable reading to keep me going for a couple of weeks.

What never occurred to me until I took on the role of editor this year, was the amount of work, care and effort that went into this book. I would like to pay an enormous tribute to the whole team who work on the Yearbook, headed

by Henrietta Amodio, for the work they put in with such professionalism, and endless good cheer. Could I also mention my predecessor, Minka Braun: it makes taking on a new role all the more daunting when hearing how respected and admired she is for the work she did. My thanks go to all of those who have taken the time to contribute fascinating and thoughtful articles which appear in this Yearbook.

This year will go down as one of huge constitutional significance to this country, with the full ramifications of the referendum on membership of the European Union still to be seen.

Legal challenges are likely to test our judiciary and public law barristers in ways we have never seen before.

The night before writing this piece, I may have seen a sign of things to come when I read an exchange on Twitter. An MP was attacking “our appalling activist judges” and described a High Court judge as “rather foolish”. A number of members of the Bar politely challenged the MP by explaining the facts of the case, and the underlying legal basis for the judge’s perfectly proper decision.

The MP’s reasoned and logical response was to tell them to “grow up”.

It is against this fevered political climate, that it is more important, and difficult, than ever, for the legal profession to show courage in upholding the rule of law. It is reassuring to read many of the articles which feature in this Yearbook and remember how members of this Inn have played such a proud role in the development of the common law, and upholding the freedoms it protects.

We must all hope history will not look back too unkindly on whatever the events of the next few years may hold.

Some of the most important articles in this edition are those from the Education and Training Department.

In those pages details are given of the excellent work of the Inn in reaching out to those with the ability to come to the Bar from less privileged backgrounds, to show them they can succeed in this profession and to help them along the way. In these difficult days, with the uncertainties which face both the country, and particularly the publicly funded Bar, it is vital that our profession is seen as one which can attract the very best candidates from all walks of life, and that any perception of an old boys’ club, or closed shop, is consigned to history.

I hope you all enjoy this Yearbook and that in its current form it has fitted through your letterboxes.

Alex Wright, Goldsmith Chambers

Printed by: John Good Ltd, Progress House Butlers Leap, Rugby CV21 3RQ Front Cover: John Oliver’s Map of London, circa 1680 (photograph: The London Map Fair), overlaid with a modern map. Only three copies of Oliver’s map are recorded in library collections. Oliver was one of three city surveyors appointed after the fire. Photo by Guildhall Library & Art Gallery/Heritage Images/Getty Images

© The Honourable Society of the Inner Temple

From left to right, back row: Julia Armfield, Lacara Barnes-Rowe, Fiona Fulton Front row: Helena Vaughan, Celia Pilkington, Henrietta Amodio

1

INNER TEMPLE

Contents:

God vs Caesar Professor David Little

INNER TEMPLE SPEECH

1

From the Treasurer

4

His Honour Judge Cryan (Hon) ���

Temple Women’s Forum

46

Western Circuit Women’s Forum

48

Peninah Thomson ���

From the Editor’s Desk

Alex Wright, Goldsmith Chambers

43

Kate Brunner ��

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

Education and Training

49

Why are those Boys wearing Dresses?

78

INNER TEMPLE MAGNA CARTA

Magna Carta and The Templars 1215–1628

8

Master Baker

From London to Dresden, 1940–45 The Master of the Temple

11

Master Thorley

INNER TEMPLE PEGASUS SCHOLARSHIP

Pegasus Scholars

80

INNER TEMPLE SPEECH

INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE

Master Worsley

14

INNER TEMPLE FIRST WORLD WAR

Sir Basil Thomson: the WWI Spy-catcher who Grilled Mata Hari

16

Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Decides…?

20

History Society 2015–2016

24

Bijan Omrani

Temple Employed Bar Forum – Advocacy at the Employed Bar

88

Project Pegasus

90

The Hall Parke Legacy and the Inn’s New Steinway

92

Master Corbett

Richard Snowdon �����

Master Salter

Samantha Knights

Celia Pilkington

INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE

Master Alliott Brexit

Gordon Nardell ��

26 28

INNER TEMPLE LECTURE SERIES

INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE

Clement Attlee

31

Master Hidden

And London Burned

35

The Queen’s ��th Birthday

Master Straw

Master Salter

Are Medical Ethics Bad for Our Health? 38 Professor Christopher Newdick

Inner Temple Library “ The only thing that you absolutely have to know, is the location of the library.”

2

Tracey Dennis

INNER TEMPLE EVENT

The Master of the Temple

INNER TEMPLE LECTURE SERIES

41 42

94 96

INNER TEMPLE EVENT

Street Party to celebrate Her Majesty The Queen’s ��th Birthday

98

10th Anniversary of The Malaysian Inner Temple Alumni Association

100

International Outreach

101

Sub-Treasurer Sub-Treasurer

CONTENTS INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Timeline

Celia Pilkington

102

INNER TEMPLE MAGNA CARTA

Magna Carta: Did She Die in Vain?

The Rt Hon The Baroness Hale of Richmond ��� ���

126

INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE

Master Penry-Davey In Praise of Inner Temple Golf – and its Society

128 129

Master Hodge

INNER TEMPLE FIRST WORLD WAR

Report from the North Eastern Circuit 105 Master Neil Clark

Digitalisation of the Courts Master McCreath

Divine Interventions and the Planting Holy Grail

The Master of the Temple

INNER TEMPLE LECTURE SERIES

INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE

Master Scalia

‘Help Me to Die, O Lord’ – 132 the First Day of the Somme, 1 July 1916

108 110

Privacy and the Media

134

Erskine Childers

136

Dr Paul Wragg

Celia Pilkington

112

Andrea Brunsendorf and Amanda Dennis INNER TEMPLE LECTURE SERIES

The Legal Glass Ceiling – Broken or Merely Cracked?

114

Master Butler-Sloss

INNER TEMPLE EVENT

Highland Fling The Inner Temple Summer Party

116

A Day in the Life of the Sub-Treasurer 138 Caroline Daly

INNER TEMPLE LECTURE SERIES

Contributory Negligence in Practice

141

A Cup of Gold for the King

146

The Statues of Geoffrey de Mandeville and Saer de Quincy

146

Sir John Baker c.1489–1558

148

Dr James Goudkamp and Professor Donal Nolan Richard Parsons

The Master of the Temple

INNER TEMPLE LECTURE SERIES

The Essential Requirements of Good Advocacy

118

Who Shot Judge Garlick?

120

Weddings and Baptisms at the Temple Church

150

The Hon O. D. Schreiner �� ��� �1890–1980�

122

Bar Liaison Committee

152 154 155 158 160

James Lloyd

Master Ainslie-Wallace Dr Dudley Moore ���

Master Paget

Temple Church Choir ‘Parish Notices’ 125 Roger Sayer

KEY

New Benchers List of Benchers in Seniority People Finder Committees FIRST WORLD WAR

LECTURE SERIES

EVENT

CELEBRATE THE LIFE

EDUCATION & TRAINING

PEGASUS SCHOLARSHIP

MAGNA CARTA

3

4

INNER TEMPLE

From the Treasurer A

ny organisation that has evolved over 600 years changes slowly, but the capacity to adapt is that which ensures its survival. In my time involved with the governance of the Inn both on the Bar Liaison Committee and as a Bencher, roughly the last thirty years, a raft of changes in the education and regulation of the Bar have been addressed and the role of the Inner Temple and other Inns of Court has been redefined. The process is continuing and I thought I might use this foreword to say something about what is being done to ensure that the Inner Temple remains at the heart of education and training of the Bar and how it is continuing to adapt and develop to play a vital part in supporting the modern profession.

It is well over a century now since the teaching of the law in general was done within the Inns, although they remained responsible jointly for teaching through the Council of Legal Education. By the late 1990s still further change meant that the Inns ceased to have direct involvement in the education and training which lead to the passing of the professional examinations. At that time there were also other major changes in the regulation of the conduct of the Bar of England and Wales.

The Inns remain responsible for the admission to the Inns and conduct of students for the Bar and by statute the Inns are still the only bodies which can Call someone to the Bar of England and Wales. That gives them a unique status and responsibility.

A prerequisite for Call to the Bar remains participation in a dozen qualifying sessions which complement students’ academic and vocational education and form a bridge to pupillage. Those sessions focus on topics vital to the competence of barristers and the standing of the profession and include professional integrity, ethics and advocacy.

Since the changes in the late 1990s, pupils must successfully complete a compulsory advocacy course and a New Practitioners’ Programme has applied to all barristers who commence independent practice or enter employed practice.

These too are provided by the Inns.

These various sessions are provided through the Inns’ Education and Training departments and are delivered by the Bar and Bench at all levels. All advocacy trainers are themselves fully trained and at the highest level are members of our Advocacy Training Faculty, a group recognised with that title this year. That work is done pro bono and is a remarkable example of the unique collegiate spirit of the Inns of Court. The commercial value of the time thus provided has been conservatively costed at £7,000,000.

About twice as much again is spent by the Inns on scholarships and maintaining our Libraries and Education and Training departments.

This year has seen the Inns come together again with the formation of the Inns of Court College of Advocacy, which leads on from the Advocacy Training Council. The vision and drive behind the project belongs essentially to a few individuals to whom we are all greatly indebted, but it should

be recognised that the Inns in general, through the Council of the Inns of Court, have taken this course which will ensure their relevance to the safeguarding of the Bar’s renowned standards. The structures and funding are fully in place and all the necessary appointments made. It is clear that the College will become the engine behind the teaching of advocacy within the Inns and beyond and will help to ensure that the standing of the profession remains unmatched both nationally and internationally. I am therefore pleased to note its launch in this year’s Yearbook. The Inns’ previous joint venture in legal education was with us for 150 years and I see no reason why the College should not have a similar future.

As the first circuit judge to be elected Treasurer since the late Bill Monier-Williams in 1988, I think it apt that I should pay tribute to the contribution of my colleagues on the Circuit Bench who do so much for the Inn. Without them our outreach to the circuits would be very limited and in some places virtually non-existent. Their contribution to the Inn’s life is vital and to its core activity of education and training it is of irreplaceable value.

The education and training of the the Bar takes place across the country, not just in London and, at the start of this year, with the support of the Reader and the Executive Committee, I thought it time to restructure the Inn’s relations with its members on the circuits. Very many of our members practise out of London and find it difficult to get to the Inn, save rarely. Without their active involvement we would not be able to maintain our vital links with the universities and Bar course providers away from the South East. Our members on circuit also help to provide qualifying sessions and advocacy training for the new entrants. Now on each circuit a Master of the Bench has agreed to take the lead on that circuit and deputies as well as Bar Liaison Committee representatives, are also in place. In February this year, a Circuit Conference was held at the Inn for the Masters of each circuit and their teams at which the heads of the administrative staff for the relevant departments gave presentations. The Masters of the Circuits are now working towards setting up Inner Temple groups on circuit. There is more to be done to encourage the Inn’s work on each circuit, but I know the Reader is keen to carry this forward next year.

There are two other ‘modernising’ steps I have been keen to promote. The Inner Temple has had strong links with many countries around the world, and the growth in the IT driven global village has led to ever more global commerce, global finance, and global education. But every ‘village’ needs a courthouse and lawyers. The members of the Inner Temple practising across the world are well placed to capitalise on that and also to provide strong links for our members

FROM THE TREASURER INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

“ Pegasus still has a job; blue will still distinguish us from the Middle Temple; the Society will still be “honourable”.

But as each generation has redrawn Pegasus in the style of its times, so should we.” practising in England and Wales. International work will become progressively more important in the coming years.

That which was primarily the preserve of the Commercial and Shipping Bars, now much more frequently affects every area of the Bar’s work including Family and Criminal work. For the first time the Inn has set up an International Committee whose remit is to coordinate and focus the Inn’s international work, with the aim of maintaining and improving the Inn’s international links, particularly with countries where we already have strong alumni associations.

The final, but possibly the most important ‘modernising’ step which the Inn will be taking this year is to enable it to engage fully with the world of internet technology. The Executive Committee has just resolved to invest very heavily in a new and highly interactive website. An extensive scoping study has identified not only what we all knew, that the Inn’s website needs to be drastically updated, but that in order to present itself to the outside world the Inn needs to rebrand itself and review all its communications to its myriad audiences.

Before this causes ‘Disgusted of King’s Bench Walk’ to reach for their keyboard, I would emphasise that this commercial terminology does not properly reflect the exercise which is being undertaken. Pegasus still has a job; blue will still distinguish us from the Middle Temple; the Society will still be ‘honourable’. But as each generation has redrawn Pegasus in the style of its times, so should we. It will be in a style, entirely recognisable to us, but more sharply presented to the internet generation. The benefits and improvements start rather than end there and the entire presentation of the Inner Temple will reflect an organisation embracing and effectively using new technology rather than doing that which is just adequate.

The Inn’s role in education and training means that, for the most part, we are dealing with younger members and for most of them their first encounter with the Inn will have been by our website. What the Inn says about itself online and how it says it will be fundamental to their perception of the Inn. That is equally true of any outside agency or individual who is seeking to engage with the Inn for any of its activities from outreach to schools, enquiries from government and other professional bodies, to couples wishing to hold weddings in Hall. Whilst I am uncomfortable with the cliché that “you don’t get a second chance to make a first impression”, it is truly particularly apposite to many of those using the website for important initial enquiries of all kinds.

Of equal importance is the capacity of the Inn’s website to speak effectively to existing members about the activities of the Inn and the services it has to offer. For those on circuit and abroad the new website will enable them to communicate better with the Inn’s world class Library and the research

facility it supports. For those wishing to use our education and training materials, either for themselves or for the delivery of training on circuit or within their practice, they will be much better accessed on the new site.

Absent a crisis, the process of modernisation at the Inn can be slow. But to quote Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, “There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.” The weeks of Michaelmas Term last year were such weeks. Having reconstructed the shattered fabric of its Hall and Library after the air raids of the Second World War, for the next sixty years the Inner Temple had worked with buildings which have become slowly less and less suited to its role as one of the leading providers of advocacy training and support for the Bar. Then in the Michaelmas Term last year my predecessor, Lord Justice Moore-Bick, presided over the largest ever meeting of the Inn’s governing body, the Bench Table, in its 650 year history. It was resolved that the Inn should redevelop its administrative building and Library to provide state of the art facilities for education and training, particularly advocacy training.

After the resolution of Bench Table, the Treasurer set up a steering group to carry into effect the resolution of Bench Table, but its work was delayed to some extent by an application to have the Library listed as being of special historic or architectural interest. Charming and much loved though the Library is, it is hardly surprising that Historic England and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport did not consider that it met the necessary criteria for listing and the path was cleared for the Inn’s scheme, which involves reconfiguration of the library. Then came Brexit and a considerable degree of uncertainty emerged as to the wisdom of embarking on a development project of the scale planned.

The Executive Committee and the Steering Group have nevertheless resolved that the Inn must not lose confidence and the project, known as Project Pegasus, should proceed at a cautious pace which would allow for reconsideration if that became necessary.

Because of the delay already encountered, the likely timing of the project is such that it is unlikely to start until the spring of 2019. The steering group, under the chairmanship of successive Readers will continue to monitor the project, its cost, its utility and the availability of other resources. Our students and young members deserve and expect the best possible modern facilities for advocacy training and the Inner Temple is determined to ensure that it meets their expectations. The likelihood is that the Inn will carry the project into effect as anticipated, but the steering group will keep under review any changes of circumstance or alternative solutions in the evolving landscape of Bar education and training.

5

6

INNER TEMPLE FROM THE TREASURER FROM THE TREASURER

About thirty years ago when I was only the second editor of the fledgling Inner Temple Yearbook, little did I think that I would ever be writing the Treasurer’s foreword. I have taken a keen interest in the Yearbook over the years. It is unique to this Inn. Its contents are eclectic – from essential information about education and training to the obituaries of Masters of the Bench who have died in the last year, through articles based on lectures given in the Inn or on our history, to weddings in the Temple Church – the Yearbook reflects the complex, interwoven, collegiate life of the Inn. It is a hard task putting it all together (I know) and I am always gratified to see that it has gone from strength to strength each year.

It is now available online and thus reaches an even wider audience, but for the time being, at least, I am sure there is still a role for it in hard copy. Those who have produced this year’s edition with so many pressures on their time deserve the Inn’s especial thanks.

His Honour Judge Cryan (Hon) ���

HISTORICAL AND LEGAL BOOKS, ACCESSORIES, JEWELLERY, CHRISTMAS CARDS AND MUCH MORE...

For more details and to order visit the Inn Store at www.innertemple.org.uk or contact the Treasury Office on 020 7797 8250

THE INNER TEMPLE

STORE

StoreAd_01.indd 1

26/08/2016 16:33

Me r g i n g p r e c i s i o n & p a s s i o n . E x p e r i e n c e & e x p r e s s i o n . A r t i s t & a u d i e n c e . O n e n a m e h a s been hand-crafting pianos to perfection for perfectionists, by artisans for ar tists for over 1 6 0 y e a r s . A n d m a k i n g i t p o s s i b l e f o r y o u t o c l o s e y o u r e y e s & s o a r.

Inv ite the g reatest ar t ists to perfor m at your next gather ing. Spir io is the first h i g h - r e s o l u t i o n p l a y e r p i a n o c a p a b l e o f d e l i v e r i n g t h e n u a n c e a n d p a s s i o n o f m u s i c ’s l e g e n d a r y a r t i s t s’ l i ve p e r f o r m a n ce s . I t’s a m a s t e r p i e ce o f a r t i s t r y a n d c r a f t s m a n s h i p w o r t hy o f t h e S t e i nw a y & S o n s n a m e a n d a p l a c e i n y o u r h o m e . T h e p e r f e c t p l a c e t o p l a y i t , l i s t e n t o i t a n d s a v o u r i t . S T E I N W AY. C O . U K / S T E I N W AY- S P I R I O

STEINWAY HALL

L O N D O N Q Q = ã ~ êó ä É Ä ç å É = ä ~ å É I= ä ç å Ç ç å = ï N ì O Ç Ä

Ñ ç ê = ã ç ê É = á å Ñ ç ê ã ~í á ç å = ç ê = í ç = ~ ê ê ~ å Ö É = ~ = é ê á î~í É = ~ é é ç á å í ã É å í = í ç = É ñ é É ê á É å Å É = í Ü É = ë í É á å ï~ó = ë é á ê á ç = ~í = ç ì ê = ä ç å Ç ç å = ë Ü ç ï ê ç ç ã ë I = é ä É ~ ë É = Å ~ ä ä W

0 2 0 7 4 8 7 3 3 9 1 ç ê = É ã ~ á ä = á å Ñ ç ] ë í É á å ï~óK Å ç K ì â

8

INNER TEMPLE MAGNA CARTA

Magna Carta and The Templars 1215–1628 From a lecture given by Master Baker on 23 November 2015

T

he year 2015 witnessed one of the most remarkable historical anniversaries ever celebrated, stretching across continents and civilisations. The enduring spiritual force of Magna Carta was nowhere more clearly demonstrated than by the decision of the Chinese authorities to ban the general public display of the 1217 charter sent on loan from Hereford Cathedral. Its physical presence alone was enough to alarm an authoritarian regime on the other side of the world. The symbolic power of this ancient document, which transcends language and culture, can hardly be explained merely by the turbulent events of 1215.

Were it not for its reinvention in the early-modern period, it would be known today only to a few medieval specialists.

Yet the details of the later story have become lost in a haze.

The story very nearly did end in 1215. King John repudiated his concessions after three months, having helpfully secured the pope’s threat of eternal anathema should he honour them. The 1215 charter was not called Great, it never became law, and it failed even as a temporary peace treaty. Fortunately, John died the next year, and it was the abridged version granted by King Henry III in 1225 which remained in place for over six centuries as the first entry in the statute book. But it was less important in practice than the other great statutes of Henry III and Edward I. There are few significant cases in the law reports, and our best guides to legal thinking about Magna Carta between 1300 and 1550 are the lectures given in the Inns of Court. They reveal no awareness that it had any constitutional significance.

By the 1340s, when legal communities are first mentioned in the Temple, lectures were already being given on the statutes, beginning with Magna Carta. Much of the commentary was deliberately academic. A unique performance in the Inner Temple in 1484, by Morgan Kidwelly (about to become Attorney General to Richard III), is a good example of the abstract approach. He read on chapter 11 (“Common pleas shall not follow our court”), and spent four weeks discussing the two words “our court”. The result was the first coherent account of the English legal system, from the High Court of Parliament down to the manorial court – extremely useful, but nothing to do with Magna Carta. Other readers delighted in showing how several chapters were ‘void’, inconsistent or unworkable.

This page and overleaf, details from original medieval copies of the Magna Carta from the Inner Temple Library.

(Petyt MS 508, Petyt MS 511.9)

The treatment of the great chapter 29 was no different.

Take the prohibition on selling or delaying right or justice. Our learned predecessors concluded – presumably by mere word association – that ‘right’ could only mean writs of right, and that ‘justice’ could only mean writs of justicies, a thoroughly perverse interpretation which meant that this noble guarantee of justice applied only to proceedings in inferior courts. Not that it mattered much, they said, because there were no remedies anyway. For three centuries after 1215, the protection of liberties developed without reference to chapter 29. No one could forfeit life or property without some kind of jury verdict, but this was not yet linked to ‘peers’. Unfree status was eroded, not through chapter 29, which actually protected the lord’s rights over the villein, but by legal fictions developed in the 15th Century. Habeas corpus was developed in the Tudor period, especially by Chief Justice Dyer (formerly a Bencher of the Middle Temple). Not even Dyer, however, suggested an association with Magna Carta.

The association was not unthinkable. In 1532, Serjeant Browne (formerly a Bencher of the Middle Temple) was committed to the Tower by Henry VIII and later released without charge. He complained, and the judges advised the Council that, although the King’s discretion could not be questioned, the cause of imprisonment could be examined to see whether it was lawful: “It appeared from chapter 29 of Magna Carta that the King could not treat his subjects against the law.” This was the first known case in which chapter 29 was cited judicially against the government of the day, though it was not published until 1977. Lawyers knew about chapter 29, but it was not yet associated with practical remedies.

William Fleetwood, later a Serjeant and Recorder of London, wrote a treatise on Magna Carta in around 1558 as a young barrister of the Middle Temple. His exposition of chapter 29 followed the same line as the medieval readings.

He recognised as its purpose that “all should be adjudged by the law of the land”, including women and villeins, but said there was no remedy for loss of liberty other than the action of false imprisonment. The charter was still, as it were, written in ever-fading sepia ink, not radiant in gold. Sir Benjamin Rudyerd MP (barrister of the Inner Temple) was to speak of it as “’good old decrepit law…so long kept in, and lain (as it were) bed-rid’”. By the time he said it, however, in

MAGNA CARTA AND THE TEMPLARS 1215–1628 INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

1628, it was wide awake. Exactly how the transformation occurred between 1558 and 1628 has never been explained.

The facts ought now to be revealed.

In 1581, a reading was given on chapter 29 in the Middle Temple, by Robert Snagge. Only one of the lectures survives, on the law of the land and the Chancery, which Snagge worked up in 1587 for presentation to Sir Christopher Hatton (of the Inner Temple) when he became Lord Chancellor. He lavished praise on the charter, saying it had been “sacredly observed to this day…[and] is in full use, to the great comfort of all good subjects and immortal fame of her most excellent majesty”. Such hyperbole was new. Chapter 29 had never before been the subject of a full course of lectures, and had rarely even been mentioned in court. Some kind of explanation is needed.

A principal clue is the character of the reader himself.

Snagge was a stroppy ‘left-wing’ Member of Parliament, a supporter of Puritan ministers and a keen campaigner for the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots. The touchiness of his personality is evident from the fact that he was put out of commons by the Middle Temple in 1570 for being rude to Master Fleetwood, again in 1573, and yet again in 1578 for insolence towards Master Smith; when he was readmitted in 1581, it was on condition of behaving “quietly and moderately”. The Benchers were minded to pass him over for reader in 1581, and only gave way under orders from the Privy Council. But the reading was evidently a tour de force, attended by Chief Justice Dyer. Snagge said he chose

his liberties unless warranted by the laws of the realm. The statute authorising the High Commission did not confer such a power, except for heresy and schism, and yet ministers were being called up from afar to answer for wearing black gowns instead of surplices, or using bread instead of wafers for communion. Did not ‘liberties’ include religious liberty?

Moreover, depriving ministers of their livings for minor offences was surely a “disseisin of their freehold”, contrary to chapter 29. And the oath ex officio, whereby suspects could be forced to incriminate themselves on oath, was illegal because it was not due process: “The law of England requires an exterior fact or action contrary to law, as all human laws do or ought to do; it establisheth not an interior jurisdiction of men’s hearts and thoughts.”

Magna Carta immediately became part of the common law ethos. Richard Crompton (Bencher of the Middle Temple) described chapter 29 in 1587 as “that most honorable, most reasonable, most indifferent law that any nation in the world hath, or that can be devised”. Around the same time, Fleetwood wrote an opinion that the commission under which the London Bridewell punished prostitutes without due process was contrary to Magna Carta. The commission was amended. In 1588, Lord Burghley, in a Star Chamber case concerning Bridewell, said that “this freedom no country but ours (no, not France) can challenge by the laws of their realm, and that the procuring of this statute of Magna Charta cost many a nobleman’s life and was the cause of the Barons’ War; and therefore – being so hardly got – we ought not so easily

“ The symbolic power of this ancient document, which transcends language and culture, can hardly be explained merely by the turbulent events of 1215.” chapter 29 because it contained “the whole mark that was shot at to revive the ancient laws and restore the ancient liberty and liberties to the subjects”. But why this sudden interest in ancient liberties? One of Snagge’s cases concerned a hypothetical Duke of Norfolk and a Queen of Scots, and it is possible that he chose chapter 29 merely for the opportunity of arguing that it did not stand in the way of her trial and execution. But more likely it was something bigger.

Chapter 29 had already been identified by the Puritan lawyers in Snagge’s circle as a means of challenging what they saw as abuses of the royal prerogative by the Court of High Commission. That theme had been explored in a Middle Temple reading of 1578 by James Morice, though it was not on Magna Carta. It was put before the House of Commons in 1585, in a speech by Robert Beale, who was serving with Morice on a committee considering the grievances of Nonconformist ministers. The great charter, he argued, was “one of the principal pillars of the kingdom”. It was against chapter 29 for any power to restrain a man of

to suffer it to be lost”. The gold leaf was finally being applied.

After virtual absence from the law reports for 300 years, there were at least eight reported cases in 1587–8 in which chapter 29 was cited. Quick to latch on to the new possibilities was the rising star Edward Coke, uniquely described by a reporter in 1588 as “the famous utter barrister of the Inner Temple”. Snagge cited chapter 29 against Coke in 1587, and in 1588 Coke cited it himself in attacking an alleged custom for the mayor of Salisbury to send people to prison. Coke noted two more cases in his manuscript reports.

In Arundel’s Case, the King’s Bench declared that the court could never in justice deny a writ of habeas corpus, and that the return had to be sufficiently specific for the court to assess the validity of the reasons for the imprisonment.

Chapter 29 was cited, besides numerous precedents which Coke was to find useful later. And in Sir John Perrot’s Case – a praemunire against Oxford University for exercising a jurisdiction in equity – it was held that, although the common law allowed the Court of Chancery its equitable jurisdiction,

9

10

INNER TEMPLE MAGNA CARTA AND THE TEMPLARS 1215–1628

it would be against chapter 29 to erect a new inferior court of equity because a subject was entitled to have his affairs determined by the law of the land. The law could be changed

by Parliament, but not by royal charter.

I

n the same year, the King’s Bench rejected a writ of protection putting someone beyond the reach of his creditors on grounds of personal misfortune, “by our prerogative, which we will not have argued”. Chief Justice Wray observed that the judges were sworn to maintain the law of the land, and they would reject any alleged prerogative which prejudiced the subject. The clause forbidding argument in court was simply illegal, and would be ignored. That same term, the Common Pleas considered the case of Richard Cavendish, who had been granted a patent of monopoly for making writs of supersedeas. This prejudiced the chief prothonotary of the Common Pleas, but the judges were sent letters under the royal sign manual ordering them not to question the grant. Chief Justice Anderson, who had now succeeded Dyer, held the patent void. It was a disseisin of part of the profits of the prothonotary’s office, contrary to chapter 29.

Snagge remembered both Coke and Anderson in his will among the “friends that I ever found kind and constant”.

Neither were Puritans, but the new learning on chapter 29 was not sectarian. It was indeed Sir Edward Coke who consolidated it, long before he became a Member of the Commons in the 1620s. As Attorney General in 1603, Coke was scared stiff by the accession of a Scots king who had initially shown signs of caring little or nothing for constitutional monarchy or the English Rule of Law. As King of Scotland, James had written a book on the absolute power of monarchs, an alarming new creed derived from the Old Testament and from Roman law. Coke was now this King’s chief law officer. He was horrified by James’s idea of a united kingdom, which would have amounted to the first real conquest of England and threatened the very survival of the common law. Magna Carta offered an antidote, if only the new King could be persuaded of its sacredness in England, and in 1604 Coke was working on it with his accustomed thoroughness. The little tract he wrote on chapter 29 has just been published for the first time. It made some very broad claims: “ Everything that anyone has in this world, or that concerns the freedom and liberty of his body or his freehold, or the benefit of the law to which he is inheritable, or his native country in which he was born, or the preservation of his reputation or goods, or his life, blood and posterity, to all these things this Act extends.”

He dismissed the late medieval doctrine that there was no means of enforcement. True, no express remedies were mentioned, but every statute made against an injury, mischief

or grievance implied a remedy. The remedies included habeas corpus – and soon afterwards Coke would also link Magna Carta with the new remedy of mandamus and the ancient writ of prohibition, brought into frequent play against the High Commission and other prerogative jurisdictions. Though designed to challenge misuse of power by the executive, these ‘prerogative writs’ were cleverly presented as exercises of the prerogative. Since the King could do no wrong, it was his prerogative to ensure that power was not abused in his name.

Chapter 29 of Magna Carta reached its apotheosis while Coke was Lord Chief Justice, and was nurtured in many of his judgments. When Francis Ashley gave a reading on chapter 29, in the Middle Temple, in August 1616, he taught that it was fundamental law: “If it be the common law, it is the law of laws…But if it be a mere statute, it is the statute of statutes.” The reason for its importance he proclaimed in terms even more extravagant than Coke’s: “ By virtue of this statute we have property in our goods, title to our lands, liberty for our persons, and safety for our lives…by force of this statute every free subject may have remedy for every wrong done to his person, lands or goods. And not only so, for that would but give recompense for a wrong done; but this statute also prevents wrongs, for by virtue thereof no man shall be punished before he be condemned, and no man shall be condemned before he be heard, and none shall be heard but his just defence shall be allowed…By this statute are condemned and prohibited all judgments without hearing the party and without trial, and all unlawful trials, and all judgments by judges not lawfully authorised, and all manner of unlawful proceedings to judgment, and all unlawful executions.”

N

one of this, of course, was in chapter 29 itself.

But it was Ashley’s understanding of Magna Carta which has remained in the legal and popular consciousness ever since. And it was Coke who had built this understanding firmly into the law. Coke’s judicial boldness had nevertheless caused so much friction with James I, his archbishops and ministers, that Francis Bacon (the Attorney General) seized the opportunity to engineer Coke’s dismissal in November 1616, only months after Ashley’s reading. The summary removal of a Lord Chief Justice was a constitutional outrage, but no mandamus could be brought to restore him.

Thus was the scene set for 1628 and the Petition of Right, moved and perhaps partly written by Coke. The principal speakers in the debates of that year were Inner Templars – not only Coke and Rudyerd, but also Master Selden and Sir Thomas Wentworth. Even the King was represented by a Bencher of the Inner Temple, Sir Robert Heath, who was rewarded for his pains with a grant of the entire Province of Carolina in fee simple. 1628 was the high point in the story of Magna Carta in England. Thereafter, it became more a matter of history than of law, as historians began unhelpfully to explode the myths of the lawyers. But the legal and spiritual power of the great charter lives on, not only in the country of its birth but in distant continents across the globe. For that, the world must be eternally beholden to Sir Edward Coke, and also to James Morice, Robert Snagge, John Selden and all the other sometime Benchers of the Inner and Middle Temple (and occasionally of the other Inns too) who brought the charter back to life when it was most needed.

Professor Sir John Baker �� ��� ��� The full story will be related in Master Baker’s book The Reinvention of Magna Carta 1216–1616, to be published by Cambridge University Press. Fleetwood’s treatise on Magna Carta, and Coke’s memorandum on chapter 29, were published last year by the Selden Society (vol 132).

INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

From London to Dresden, 1940–45

The Master of the Temple details the events of 10 May 1941 to mark the 75th anniversary of the Blitz.

T

he night of 10 May 1941 was fine and moonlit.

The river was at low ebb; water pressure was weak. The air-raid sirens sounded at 11.00 pm; the raid lasted all night. By morning, five Livery Company Halls had been destroyed; the Mint, Mansion House, Tower and British Museum had all been damaged; the House of Commons Chamber had been burnt out, Westminster Hall and the Abbey scarred.

An early bomb landed in Middle Temple Gardens and destroyed the water mains. Around midnight fire-watchers saw an incendiary land on the roof of the Church, at the south-east angle of the chancel. The fire caught hold on the chancel roof; it spread to the vestries, to the organ so to the wooden furnishings inside the Church itself. The heat split the Chancel’s columns, but the vault held up; the wooden roof of the Round caved in on the knights’ effigies below. The fire was still burning in the Round at noon on the next day. In the Chancel, the pews and choir-stalls had been reduced to lines of ash. Father Smith’s great organ of 1687 was destroyed beyond recognition.

The fire spread to Lamb Building (in the centre of the present Church Court) and burnt it out. “At two o’clock in the morning,” wrote the senior warden, “it was as light as day. Charred papers and embers were flying through the air, bombs and shrapnel all around. It was an awe-inspiring sight.” On the same night the Hall, Parliament Chamber and Library of the Inner Temple, the Cloisters and large parts of Pump Court were destroyed.

“I began to realise”, wrote an American journalist, “to what deep depths of their being the 10 May raid had shocked and shaken the people of London. It was just one raid too much.” The government too was asking how many nights of such ferocity could London sustain before it was ablaze day and night and all normal life came to an end. The question was never answered. Hitler had already informed his High Command that Germany would launch its attack on the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941, exactly one year after the fall of France. Attention and resources were turned to the East.

The London Blitz was over.

It was not only London that suffered from the Blitz; Birkenhead and Liverpool had already been attacked in August 1940, at little cost to the Luftwaffe. By midNovember, it was clear that the attacks on London were causing no collapse in Britain’s will to fight. German strategy was changed: to attacks on industrial centres throughout the country. On the night of 14 November 1940, Coventry Cathedral and a large part of the city were destroyed. The German crews had been ordered to cripple the aircraft industry and ancillary services. But German radio took advantage of the raid’s more general results. A new word was coined: to Coventrise – to reduce a city to rubble.

Other cities, warned German broadcasts, would suffer the same fate. It was said that Hitler had wanted to erase, auszuradieren, the city from the map of England. That was more than one night’s raid could do. But if such an attack had

been repeated, night after night? Whitehall addressed the question then, and would face it again in the years to come: when Bomber Command and the USA’s Eighth Air Force had the planes and the power to bomb German cities at will.

The first bombs fell on London on 25 August 1940.

The very next night, there were British bombers over Berlin.

Churchill was adamant: Germany should taste its own medicine. There were scruples within his own staff. Churchill insisted again, after the first naval mines were parachuted onto London in September: “The dropping of large mines by parachute proclaims the enemy’s entire abandonment of all pretence of aiming at military objectives. At 5,000 feet he cannot have the slightest idea what he is going to hit.” This proved that the intention was an “act of terror” against the civilian population; and Churchill sought retaliation for such attacks, one for one.

On Monday 12 May, The Times reported in two columns the damage inflicted on London by the raid of 10 May. The next column reported the same night’s attack on Hamburg by Bomber Command. A bomb-aimer described the view from his plane: “The flash of the burst was like a great flame-red ball half-a-mile across. …Everything under the ball seemed to be burning and crumbling, and the docks all around, as well as the sky, were lit up. A large block of buildings was caught in the flames, and a few minutes later there was a shattering explosion.” The Times quoted a German announcement of the raid: “Numerous fires and much damage were caused, almost exclusively to residential quarters.” What London was suffering, German cities were suffering too: docks in London, docks in Hamburg; residential areas in London – and in Hamburg too. The value for British morale was enormous: something was being done.

“ The dropping of large mines by parachute proclaims the enemy’s entire abandonment of all pretence of aiming at military objectives. At 5,000 feet he cannot have the slightest idea what he is going to hit.”

11

12

INNER TEMPLE

Such sorties were subject to operational restraints.

From the outset, three strategies had been considered for the use of limited and vulnerable bombers: to attack the Germans’ oil supplies, their communications or their cities.

The first two required a full knowledge of sites and accurate bombing. Bomber Command doubted the information could be secured; and by 1941, it was clear that night bombing was not accurate. “In Bomber Command,” wrote Sir Arthur Harris in 1944, “we have always worked on the principle that bombing anything in Germany is better than bombing nothing.” Better, in turn, the industrial centres surrounded by houses than tiny targets surrounded by fields.

Residential areas might suffer collateral damage in raids on a military centre. But were such areas being chosen by the government and Bomber Command as targets in themselves?

Church leaders suspected so, and with good reason. The Chief of the Air Staff clarified a new bombing directive to Bomber Command in February 1942: “The aiming points are to be the built-up areas, not, for instance, the dockyards or aircraft factories…” Could such means be justified, however important the end? Air Staff knew how delicate a topic this was. In public, the Secretary for Air invariably suggested that Bomber Command was aiming only at military or industrial installations; if he mentioned the severe damage done to residential areas, he implied or said that it was incidental or even regrettable. Only so, he explained privately in 1943, could he satisfy the enquiries of Archbishop Temple and of the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, whose objections might otherwise disturb the morale of crews.

Such careful publicity did not lay unease to rest. In February 1944, Bishop Bell of Chichester asked in the House of Lords for a clear statement of the government’s policy on the bombing of towns. The government had in 1939–40 accepted the distinction between military and non-military objectives. But policy had, claimed Bell, clearly changed. Cities were now being “plastered”, area by area, night after night: most clearly, Berlin – “’until the heart of Nazi Germany”, in the words of Sir Arthur Harris, “ceases to beat”. Culturally, insisted Bell, this was a tragedy: Berlin and Hamburg were treasuries of art and books. Strategically, it was inept: morale in Germany was high. And morally it was indefensible: “Hitler is a barbarian. There is no decent person on the Allied side who is likely to suggest that we should make him our pattern or attempt to be competitors in that market.” For the government, Lord Cranborne replied, confirming that the government’s policy was “not merely to sprinkle bombs broadcast with the object of damaging ancient monuments and spreading terror among the civilian population.” Berlin, Magdeburg, Essen, Hamburg: these were the centres of Germany’s industry, communications, politics and secret police. Krupp’s production of heavy guns had been reduced by 75 per cent after the raids on Essen; in Hamburg, 400 million man-hours had been distracted from industrial output.

The Nazis themselves ascribed Germany’s defeat in

1918 to the collapse of civilian morale; Sir Arthur Harris, from 1942 the Commander-in-Chief, Bomber Command, agreed. Was area bombing the most effective means of undermining it once more? The government heard in 1940 that German ‘cocksure’ confidence had been dented by the raids; Londoners had already been put on the defensive; now Berliners could be too. German commitment to the Nazis was believed to be weaker than British commitment to opposing them. It was all the more questionable, perhaps, to bomb civilians believed to distrust their regime; but all the more likely to promote civil unrest or a putsch.

Whitehall’s doubts, nonetheless, endured. A report of August 1944 suggested that civilian morale in Germany was, despite heavy bombing, “negative rather than good or bad”.

Might the Allies’ raids be made more effective in a single blow of ‘catastrophic force’ when victory was imminent? The blow’s effects on morale would be short-term but acute: enough to force capitulation. Timing was crucial: a central government in Germany must still be in place, to offer and oversee the surrender. Over Berlin itself, Allied casualties were high; was there an alternative target? “Immense devastation could be produced if the entire attack was concentrated on a single big town other than Berlin, and the effect would be especially great if the town was one hitherto relatively undamaged.”

Sir Arthur Harris had established a close relationship with the prime minister. Harris believed that Germany had missed victory in 1940 “by a hair’s breadth”. Britain must not make the same mistake. In particular, Britain must avoid a land war in Europe: to confront Germany’s “vast and efficient army” on the ground would lead at best to the slaughter of Britain’s youth “in the mud of Flanders and France”; at worst, to a second Dunkirk. “The certain, the obvious, the quickest and the easiest way to overwhelming victory” was the “utter destruction” of German cities. In November 1944, Harris drew up a list of 12 such targets: it included Chemnitz, Dresden and Leipzig. By January 1945, the Russians were advancing on Germany’s eastern border. Churchill, in preparation for Yalta, asked his Air Staff what cities might be “especially attractive targets”. He clearly wanted action.

His wishes were relayed to Harris. Churchill himself was told that “severe bombing” of Berlin, Dresden, Chemnitz and Leipzig “would not only destroy communications vital to the evacuation from the East but would also hamper the movement of troops from the West.” On the night of 13 February, Harris dispatched over 800 aircraft to Dresden.

‘Catastrophic force’ was applied: 35,000 people died in the city’s fires. Dresden was Coventrised.

On 14 November 1940, the provost of Coventry, R T Howard, had spent the first part of the night on the Cathedral’s roof, smothering incendiaries with sand and dousing the first fires with water. When the fires in and on the building were finally out of control, Howard turned to saving the Cathedral’s most precious furnishings. Almost all his efforts were in vain. He later wrote:

Photo: National Archives and Records Administration

FROM LONDON TO DRESDEN, 1940–45 INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Photo: National Archives and Records Administration

“ On the night of its destruction, in an amazing and miraculous way, Coventry Cathedral became the living embodiment of the tremendous truth that, through the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, all crucifixions in human experience can issue in resurrection. As I watched the Cathedral burning, it seemed to me as though I were watching the crucifixion of Jesus upon His Cross.

“ Through the ruined Cathedral we became aware as never before that God is Love, and that His Love is indestructible. However real and dreadful Evil may be, God is infinitely greater. He can make Good to triumph over Evil. He is ruling in Love to that End.” “ O ye fire and heat,” quoted the provost, bless ye the Lord: Praise him and magnify Him for ever.”

“ As I went with this thought in my mind into the ruined Cathedral on the morning after the destruction, there flashed into my mind the deep certainty that as the Cathedral had been crucified with Christ, so it would rise again with Him. How or when, we could not tell; nor did it matter. The Cathedral would rise again.

The Rev’d Robin Griffith-Jones

Do more with

ebooks

books cd-roms

looseleafs

subscriptions

forms

newsletters

online services

Hammicks

law reports

+44 (0)1784 423 321 customerservices@hammicks.com

hammickslegal.com 13

14

INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE

Master Worsley

Distinguished �� known for his scrupulous attention to detail and his lack of airs and graces.

M

ichael Worsley, who died aged 89, was one of Britain’s most experienced and distinguished criminal lawyers and a powerful, if eccentric, advocate.

During his 55 year career at the Criminal Bar, he appeared for the Crown in some of the country’s most harrowing murder trials and dealt with offences, ranging from child abuse to torture, which plumbed the depths of human depravity. His more recent cases included the prosecution of the three men behind the killing of police Special Constable Nisha Patel in 2006 and the ‘honour killing’ of Surjit Athwal by her husband and his 70-year-old mother in 2007.

In the 1980s, during the Security Express trial – the country’s largest ever cash robbery, in which a gang stole more than £6 million – he cross-examined the actress Barbara (now Dame Barbara) Windsor about her fugitive ex-husband, Ronnie Knight, who later admitted to having received more than £300,000 from the perpetrators.

Michael Dominic Laurence Worsley was born on 9 February 1926. At the outbreak of war in 1939, he was 13 and living with his family in France. They spent the war years in Britain and from 1944 to 1945 he served in the Royal Navy. He was briefly at school in Bedford but he was a highly intelligent boy and was largely self-educated, teaching himself Latin. After the war ended, the family moved to South Africa for his health (he had suffered from recurrent and serious chest infections). In Cape Town, he set himself up as an importer and distributor of furs, silver and French ceramics.

While visiting Britain at the beginning of the 1950s, he wandered into the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand and was mesmerised by the art of advocacy. Convinced he could master it, on his return to Africa he wound up his affairs and in 1952, back in Britain, he enrolled as a student at the Inns of Court School of Law. He next turned his attention to finding a home.

Equipped with books from the Teach Yourself series, and with only the occasional assistance of a bricklayer, he designed

“ One story runs that, appearing in the House of Lords, his submissions were interrupted by Lord Diplock citing precedent: “Mr Worsley, this is nonsense. The case of Brown is against you.” “Has your lordship read the case?”

“Yes,” snapped Diplock. “Recently?” asked Worsley.”

Worsley earned the respect and admiration of the profession for his scrupulous fairness, relentless attention to detail, unswerving determination to secure straight answers to his questions, as well as his unrivalled mastery of criminal law, procedure and evidence.

He had no ‘airs and graces’, brushing aside convention when it suited him. In warm weather, and fresh from his daily commute from Eastbourne, he would arrive at the Old Bailey dressed for the beach in white slacks and green Aertex shirt, open at the neck.

On 12 February 2010, in a packed Court One at the Old Bailey, Bench and Bar assembled to bid him farewell and to pay tribute to his extraordinary career at the Bailey and in all the appellate courts, during which, as he often used to say, he had dedicated himself to “getting at the truth”.

then built a bungalow on land he purchased in Eastbourne.

He was called to the Bar by the Inner Temple in 1955 and became a pupil in civil (Chancery) chambers. Eventually, he moved to the chambers of John Buzzard, an eminent criminal lawyer, and by the mid-1960s the Criminal Appeal Reports were already littered with Worsley’s cases in the Divisional Court and the Court of Criminal Appeal, in which he took (usually successfully) technical and often obscure points of law on behalf of convicted appellants.

The prosecuting authorities soon became aware of his impressive legal expertise and he became heavily engaged in prosecution work. His workload was huge, but he loved it and took it all in his stride.

Worsley served as Prosecuting Counsel to the Inland Revenue from 1968 to 1969; Treasury Counsel (Inner London

MASTER WORSLEY INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

“ …as he often used to say, he had dedicated himself to ‘getting at the truth.’ ”

Sessions) from 1969 to 1971; Junior Treasury Counsel from 1971 to 1974 and Senior Treasury Counsel at the Central Criminal Court from 1974 to 1985. He was elected a Bencher of the Inner Temple in 1980 and was head of chambers at 6 King’s Bench Walk for 22 years.

In 1984, the decision by the Attorney General Sir Michael Havers to sack four Treasury Counsel (including Worsley) was regarded as inexplicable in the legal world and created an uproar. The four ‘victims’ later issued successful writs for libel, targeting the manner in which the sackings had been reported in the press. Three of the four continued to enjoy flourishing careers and in 1985 were successful in their applications for ‘silk’. As Queen’s Counsel, Worsley remained much in demand for heavy prosecution work.

His style of advocacy was idiosyncratic. He might, for example, interrupt his own aggressive cross-examination of a defendant to offer reassurance that it was “nothing personal”. Some of his trials became legal tutorials for judges who appeared to have only a passing familiarity with certain rules of evidence.

There were many tales (some no doubt apocryphal) of Worsley’s exchanges with the Bench. One story runs that, appearing in the House of Lords, his submissions were interrupted by Lord Diplock citing precedent: “Mr Worsley, this is nonsense. The case of Brown is against you.” “Has your lordship read the case?” “Yes,” snapped Diplock.

“Recently?” asked Worsley.

In the 1960s, Worsley liked to lunch at the Rex Cafe, a sandwich bar opposite the Old Bailey, typically returning for a working ‘high tea’ (two or three rounds of eggs and bacon, a plate of bread and butter, numerous cups of tea and, in warmer weather, a helping of strawberry ice cream) at about 4.30 pm with the police officers in his case.

One day, returning to the Old Bailey from lunch at the Rex, he was served with a writ for negligence issued by a man he had defended six years earlier. The case (Rondel v Worsley) raised the question as to whether a barrister could ever be liable in negligence in respect of his conduct of a case in court and became a cause célèbre. It was eventually resolved in Worsley’s favour by the House of Lords. As for the merits of the allegation, professional negligence on Worsley’s part was universally regarded as inconceivable.

Worsley was an enthusiastic member of the Garrick, loved the music of all the Bach family, Chopin and Liszt, and owned some very fast cars over the years.

In 1962, he married Pamela Philpot, whom he had first met at the Grand Hotel, Eastbourne, while pursuing a common interest in ballroom dancing. Tragedy struck with the death in 1966 of their first son at the age of three months, and in 1980 when Pamela died of cancer aged 48.

In 1986, he married his second wife, Jane, who survives him with a son by his first marriage, and a stepson and stepdaughter.

A devout Roman Catholic, Worsley derived strength and solace from his faith throughout his life and, most particularly, when beset by the two family tragedies.

Michael Worsley ��, born 9 February 1926, died 22 December 2015.

Courtesy of The Telegraph

15

16

INNER TEMPLE FIRST WORLD WAR

Sir Basil Thomson: the WWI Spy-Catcher who Grilled Mata Hari

Bijan Omrani profiles the life of Inner Templar, Sir Basil Thomson, Britain’s chief spy-catcher during the First World War

I

n this year, the centennial anniversary of the Battle of the Somme, much attention will justly be focused on the sacrifices made by members of the Inner Temple on the Western Front. Nevertheless, the contribution made by Inner Templars to the war effort was not by any means confined to the trenches. A number were involved throughout the war on the home front, conducting work which was just as vital to Allied success as frontline combat. One of these Inner Templars was Sir Basil Thomson, the head of the CID and later Special Branch, who acted as Britain’s chief spy-catcher during the war.

Thomson’s early life was privileged and conventional, but his early career was a little less usual. Born in Oxford in 1861, he was the son of William Thomson, then the head of Queen’s College, Oxford, and later Archbishop of York. He attended Eton and New College, Oxford, but suffering from severe depression he gave up his studies at the University after just two terms. Leaving England, he went to Iowa in 1881 to work as a farmer. However, just before he left, he became attached to a girl named Grace Webber, the daughter of a Dorset naval officer. In 1883, hearing that she might marry another, he was hit by a further bout of depression but hurried back to England to plead for her hand. Her family agreed to their marriage, but only if he could support himself financially. This commitment led him to join the Colonial Service. For several years, he worked in Fiji, New Guinea and Tonga, his roles including that of stipendiary magistrate.

He returned to London in 1893 with Grace, whom he was eventually permitted to marry in 1890, and two children.

The health of his young family had been affected by malaria, and he was released from colonial service. It was at this point that he read for the Bar through the Inner Temple, being called in 1896. His legal studies were accompanied by the publication of a number of books on his experiences in the South Sea Islands. However, his career took another unexpected turn, and instead of entering legal practice he accepted employment as deputy governor of Liverpool Prison.

Until 1908, he was governor of a succession of prisons, including Dartmoor and Wormwood Scrubs, responsible amongst other duties for personally supervising executions; he remained, throughout his life, a fervent supporter of the death penalty. A short stint from 1908 to 1913 as secretary of the Prisons Commission was followed by another change in career path when, in 1913, he was appointed head of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) at New Scotland Yard, and in 1914 as head of Special Branch.

With the advent of war, Special Branch was responsible for working with the nascent intelligence services to arrest, detain and interrogate suspects who were thought to threaten national security. Many of those detained were interrogated by Thomson personally. Such interrogations

took place not in the cells, but in Thomson’s office at New Scotland Yard. His legal experience no doubt informed his techniques of questioning, but so too did an understanding of psychology based on observations of how native chiefs interrogated others in the South Sea Islands. Like the chiefs making suspects squat for interrogations, Thomson made all suspects sit in a low black leather armchair to answer questions so that he himself could look down at them. “The fact is”, he observed, “that if you want to get the truth out of a witness the worst way is to put him in a box above the level of the cross-examining counsel; if our law courts were intelligently constructed the cross-examiner should take his stand in a kind of lift and be suddenly elevated to the proper position just before his cross-examination begins.”

Many of the cases Thomson worked on involved more conventional low-key espionage. In the earlier part of the war, the German intelligence services were particularly interested in discovering troop and shipping movements, and the positioning and capacity of anti-aircraft guns around cities.

Initially, they depended on finding German expatriates with a knowledge of English, American passport holders who could travel freely as neutrals, or else disguising German nationals as Dutch commercial travellers who had the liberty of visiting the UK to sell their wares. Information was passed to agents back on the continent by means of letters written in code, cypher or invisible ink. Special Branch and the intelligence services had the job of monitoring the movement of suspects around the country, tracing them through seedy hotels in Bloomsbury or Newcastle boarding houses and intercepting their correspondence.

“ He never flinched, he never cringed, but he died as one would wish all Englishmen to die – quietly and undramatically, supported in his courage by the proud consciousness of having done his duty.”

SIR BASIL THOMSON INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

© Reproduced with the kind permission of The Conan Doyle Estate Ltd

Such material would be the fodder for Thomson’s interrogations. He describes with relish how glib denials of any connection to Germany would turn to astonishment, fear, or even be met with a click of the heels and an immediate confession. The cover used was often wonderfully inept: a merchant sending orders for sardines to be canned out of season, or else – a favourite device – purported cigar salesmen sending telegrams for tens of thousands of Cabanas, Coronas or Havanas to be sent to various naval ports far beyond the capacity of the population to smoke them. Such were the codes used to indicate the disposition of various ships lying in port or naval movements. For all these efforts, according to Thomson, the information gathered by such spies was often of little value, yet despite its relatively harmless nature many of those convicted on the work of Thomson faced the firing squad.

Thomson’s attitudes towards the spies he interrogated varied. He divided them into two broad categories: those who spied out of conviction, and those for money. The premier example of the ‘patriotic spy’ was Carl Hans Lody, an aristocratic German naval reservist who had lived in the US and had volunteered himself for service. Sentenced to be executed in the Tower of London, Thomson remarked that, “in the quiet heroism with which he faced his trial and his death there was no suspicion of histrionic effect. He never flinched, he never cringed, but he died as one would wish all Englishmen to die – quietly and undramatically, supported in his courage by the proud consciousness of having done his duty.”

As for the mercenary ‘neutral spies’ who were “ready to offer their services to either belligerent”, they were “scum”.

One of the worst, according to Thomson, was Albert Meyer.

Meyer was a continental Jew, and Thomson’s account almost certainly is influenced by a conventional anti-Semitism, but the suggestion that his actions were dictated by money rather than affection for country seems to weigh even greater on Thomson’s mind: “He was one of those young scoundrels who live upon women, defraud their landladies, and cheat their employers…He was living the kind of life which spies affect, dining one day in an expensive restaurant and the next, when the money was exhausted, begging a meal from an acquaintance.” The quality of his espionage was even open to question: “He could not even keep faith with his employers, for his communications contained a mass of fictitious information.” Such spies met a ‘characteristic’ end: “As soon as he knew his fate and was taken from his cell to the place of execution he struck up the tune of ‘Tipperary’.

On reaching the miniature rifle-range he burst into a torrent of blasphemy, and he had to be placed forcibly in the chair

Basil Thomson © National Portrait Gallery, London

and strapped in. He tore the bandage from his eyes, and was still struggling when he died.”

Thomson made his name at the time with the arrest of Lody, but he is most memorable today for two particular cases both of which find their centenary this year: Sir Roger Casement and Mata Hari.

History has not looked kindly on Thomson’s role in the Casement case. Casement himself was originally a British diplomat, born in Ireland. He is renowned as an early campaigner for human rights, compiling reports in the early part of the 20th Century into abuses by Belgian colonialists in the Congo, and later the effective slavery and inhuman treatment of the Putumayo Indians by a rubbertrading multinational registered in London, the Peruvian Amazon Company. For this work, Casement was awarded a knighthood. However, having left the diplomatic service in 1913, he gave his energies to supporting the Irish Nationalist cause, in particular the formation of the Irish Volunteers, a forerunner of the IRA. In 1914, Casement sailed in disguise for Germany, and attempted unsuccessfully to raise a brigade of nationalist volunteers from the POW camps. He also spent time negotiating an arms shipment to be sent to Ireland from the German government. Casement, after the capture of the shipment he had helped to organise, was himself arrested in Ireland; he had been returned there by a German submarine three days before the Easter 1916 Rising.

Following his interrogation of Casement, Thomson’s published musings on Casement’s character today make unpleasant reading: “He was greedy for approbation…a strong histrionic instinct…full of high ideals that ring quite true, and his sympathy with the down-trodden and his indignation against injustice were instinctive; but, like a woman, he was guided by instinct and not by reason…”

Yet in his behaviour, Thomson was even more unkind to Casement. Casement’s diaries were discovered amongst his personal effects. Relating to his periods of diplomatic service, they revealed that he was gay and had led a promiscuous sex life when in South America. Thomson assisted in the dissemination of this material at the time of Casement’s trial.

The public revulsion at the revelations scuppered attempts for Casement’s death sentence to be commuted to life imprisonment.

“It is no disparagement of the sex to say that women do not make good spies,” wrote Thomson in his 1922 war memoirs, Queer People. His statement is perhaps belied by his own impressions of his most famous female interviewee, Mata Hari. Before the war, an internationally renowned exotic dancer and courtesan with access to many in high authority, her Dutch nationality allowed her to pass freely between

17

18

INNER TEMPLE SIR BASIL THOMSON

the warring nations. In 1915, she was in Madrid from where intelligence was received in London that she was in contact with German agents. Early in 1916, she set sail for Holland, but when her ship put in at Falmouth she was arrested and taken before Thomson. “There walked into the room”, he recalled, “a severely practical person who was prepared to answer any question with a kind of reserved courtesy, who felt so sure of herself and of her innocence that all that remained in her was a desire to help her interrogators.” She told Thomson that she was indeed a spy but working for the French. Thomson claimed in his memoirs that he did not believe her, but nevertheless let her go on the grounds that none of her acts took place on British soil (not a problem when it came to Casement). She was later arrested in 1917 in Paris, convicted of espionage by French authorities, and executed by firing squad.

It was not only with real spies that Thomson had to deal.

The atmosphere in London throughout the war was febrile, and accusations of espionage and suspicious behaviour circulated freely. Complaints to his office led in remarkable directions. His investigations unmasked a number of people masquerading as exiled minor members of continental royal dynasties. Another suspicious character, presenting himself as a Polish nobleman, the ‘Count de Borch’ (his real name was Anton Baumberg), was brought to Thomson’s notice as a potential spy. Thomson absolved him of any involvement in espionage, but the case was swiftly brought back to his notice when it was found that he was conducting an affair with the wife of a British officer, Captain Douglas Malcolm, who was then serving at the front. On leave, Malcolm

Sir Roger Casement © Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division

discovered the affair, went to horsewhip Baumberg and ended up shooting him dead. The case became a cause célèbre: Malcolm was acquitted in court on the grounds that it was a crime of passion, although there was no legal precedent for this; yet a considerable public backlash against the outdated notion that women needed such protection for their ‘honour’ followed the verdict.

It was an irony that Thomson himself suffered a similar fall from grace. Following the war, he was promoted to become head of the Directorate of Intelligence. However, following a turf war between the various overlapping British intelligence agencies, he was sacked in 1921. In 1925, he was arrested in Hyde Park in the company of a young woman whose name was given as ‘Miss Thelma de Lava’, and fined £5 for outraging public decency. He argued that he was researching for a forthcoming book on vice, and a number of his supporters complained that he had been framed by his rivals in the intelligence services, or even by members of the Labour Party. Despite this, he continued to write, publishing his autobiography, The Scene Changes, shortly before his death in 1939.

Bijan Omrani Bijan Omrani is an author and member of Lincoln’s Inn. He co-curated The Winter of the World exhibition in Temple Church. @bijanomrani

A vibrant Negroni bar and stunning Italian restaurant in the heart of the Barbican centre.

INSPIRED BY EXECUTIVE CHEF, ANTHONY DEMETRE THE MENU CELEBRATES ITALIAN PRODUCE AND SEASONALITY.

ENJOY A COMPLIMENTARY NEGRONI COCKTAIL OR GLASS OF HOUSE ITALIAN WINE WHEN YOU JOIN US FOR DINNER*

*Please write ‘Yearbook17’ in ‘Special Requests’ box when making your reservation online or quote ‘Yearbook 17’ when booking over the phone www.osterialondon.co.uk | 020 7588 3008 |

@osterialondon

20

INNER TEMPLE

Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Decides…?

Samantha Knights of Matrix Chambers, who interned through Amicus with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund for four months in 2000, recounts the extraordinary story of self-educated artist Kenneth Reams, a lifer on death row, whose work reflects racial bias, discrimination and poverty.

George Stinney

“ …the art is absolutely and resolutely the product of someone who has lived and breathed this system since 1993, when he stood trial, and the product of someone who has spent over 20 years inside self‑educating.”

K

WHO LIVES, WHO DIES, WHO DECIDES…? INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

End of the Road

enneth Reams sits in a tiny room working on an installation in readiness for the opening of his art exhibition in Little Rock, Arkansas.

He has had a difficult time getting materials, wholly reliant as he is on donations in kind of paper, pens, brushes, and at the mercy of institutional regulations as to whether he is permitted access to them.

At times paper has been withheld from him for being the wrong size, pencils for containing the wrong amount of lead, and brushes for being the wrong length. For Reams is no ordinary artist but an inmate on death row in the state of Arkansas, US and in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day in a cell 6 x 9 ft. He has been incarcerated in a maximum security facility since 1993 for a crime committed when he was 18. Against the odds, Reams has managed to produce over 50 works of art – pencil drawings and acrylic paintings and over five installations, including a model of gallows made from matchsticks, and a ball and chain.

His exhibition opened to critical acclaim in Little Rock, Arkansas in November 2014. In the autumn this year it will come to Bridport Arts Centre in Dorset and then to the Temple Church, London.

The images are striking and raw. There is an American flag where the red stripes are nooses, from one of which hangs a black man. There is a geometric painting with 11 large white circles and one black circle depicting the issue of racial discrimination in the selection of jurors in the US. There is a stylised colour painting of an electric chair with the words “Martha” and date of 1899, a reference to the first woman to die in the electric chair at Sing Sing Correctional Facility in New York State.

Reams is emphatic that the art is not about himself or even his personal experience but about broader themes such as the history of death row in the US, about failings in the American criminal justice system, about racial bias and discrimination, and about poverty. However, the art is absolutely and resolutely the product of someone who has lived and breathed this system since 1993, when he stood trial, and the product of someone who has spent over 20 years inside self-educating. And it is no coincidence that Reams is a black man from a broken and poor family in a troubled town in the US: Pine Bluff, Arkansas. Pine Bluff was described in an article in 2013 as America’s most dangerous little town.

Reams’ story is a compelling one and has been written about at length in the press. His life story has recently been made the subject of a political cartoon strip in The New York Times. His mother was 15 when she gave birth to Reams and she suffered mental health problems. His father refused to acknowledge Reams was his and he had no contact with him whatsoever. His young mother struggled to bring up a child.

John A Copeland

Gallows

She met another man and had two other children. There was alcohol and substance abuse in the house.

Reams has had a talent for drawing all his life but unfortunately it could not keep him from a descent into bad company. He left home when he was 13. He fell into a group of older children who were offending on the streets of Pine Bluff. He had no parental control over him.

In 1993, aged 18, he was arrested with a friend in connection with a hold-up at gun point at an ATM in which the victim was shot dead by a single bullet. Reams did not have the gun and did not pull the trigger. Both Reams and his co-defendant were offered a plea bargain: a life sentence without parole in exchange for a plea of guilty. Reams has never denied his involvement but the fact that he did not pull the trigger was irrelevant to him being charged with felony murder. He stood trial, not considering that his role justified a life sentence let alone one of death, while his co-defendant accepted the deal. Reams was sentenced to death by a jury with 11 white jurors and one black (three other black jurors having been struck off the jury without any reason given, as is in principle permissible under the US system of jury selection), represented by an attorney who called no ballistic expert witness and made no investigation to present favorable mitigating evidence at sentencing. Despite a diagnosis of Intellectual Disability, which would have precluded him from being sentenced to death in most states, he was given the ultimate penalty.

His case neatly illustrates the fundamental problem of not having adequate representation at the time of trial. By contrast, Reams has now had the fortune to have his case picked up by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense Fund and to have been represented on appeal by experienced death penalty advocates.

Whilst his legal team considers the prospects of success on appeal are very good, it has taken over 15 years to have his appeal heard. Key issues in his appeal are the constitutionality of a death sentence for someone who was an accomplice; for someone with an IQ level that would qualify as too low for execution in most states; ineffective assistance of counsel; and racial bias in the selection of the jurors. If he succeeds, at best he is likely to be required to face a re-trial and will again enter the roulette wheel that is the jury system in a heavily charged and racially tense atmosphere of southern justice. It is also a salutary reminder, if one was ever needed, of the difficulties presented by an underfunded criminal justice system and the limitations of the not-for-profit sector to pick up the pieces ex post facto.

I first met Reams in 2000. I was not long out of pupillage and was working as an Amicus intern for one of Reams’ long-serving counsel, George Kendall, then counsel at the

21

22

INNER TEMPLE WHO LIVES, WHO DIES, WHO DECIDES…?

Legal Defense Fund in New York on a four month placement funded by a Pegasus Scholarship from Inner Temple. The work was extraordinary. It was probably one of the most intense experiences I have had at the Bar. I worked on a small number of death penalty cases, mainly doing detailed legal research in the vast landscape of US case law – with federal and state court precedents at three levels. Even in the small sample I had, there was a striking pattern of black inmates, all white (or nearly so) juries, allegations of racial bias in jury selection, mental health issues, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

However, Reams’ case stood out as I was asked to go down to Pine Bluff at short notice and assist the private investigator hired on Reams’ behalf to interview potential witnesses, including a ballistics expert, for the purposes of his appeal. We worked solidly for 12 hours a day tracking down family members, his previous junior counsel who had been given Reams’ case fresh from law school, a ballistics expert and others, culminating in a visit to speak with Reams in person at the Varner Unit where he was then incarcerated.

We visited some of the most rural and poorest parts of Pine Bluff surrounds.

Varner was a behemoth of a prison (called somewhat inaccurately correctional facilities) and part of America’s mega-prison complex. These are places where many prisoners

First American Execution

another occasion I sent a book via Amazon that was not permitted: nothing to do with the content which related to culture and diversity, rather that it was considered too large.

The world moved on: Reams’ appeal did not. It was beset by problems including a lost file which was never recovered, and four judges who were lined up to hear his appeal who had to be recused. The delay even to this day appears incomprehensible although the appeal is now scheduled to be heard later this year, shortly before the UK exhibition opens.

“ I began to send him art materials. Sometimes he was allowed them, sometimes and often for no apparently good reason they were simply returned to the supplier in Washington DC by the prison officials.” will never see the light of a free day again. The outside space was in direct contrast to Reams’ cell. A vast open prairie-like space surrounded the facility, a reflection of the dry shrub land of the countryside with literally acres of vast nothingness all around. The buildings looked clean and modern and the prison officials were polite and efficient. But inside was dark, unassisted by grey walls. The visitor area was bleak with little more than a vending machine to purchase, amongst other items, a lurid looking wrapped pastry, the only food I was permitted to hand over to Reams. I spent an entire hour with Reams speaking to him through a thick glass wall. He had all sorts of questions for me quite aside from his case. Who was I? Where did I come from? What was the UK like? He showed an awareness and interest in the wider world that seemed at odds with his early years.

That was 2000. In September that year I returned to the UK and to the Bar. But contact with Reams continued.

He would write simple but beautifully scripted handwritten letters to my chambers. Very occasionally he would call. If I was there I took the call; if not I could not call him back. The telephone calls were in one direction only and were then, and still are, the most expensive calls to make in the US, such is the monopoly of the telephone company in prisons. Reams would sometimes send pencil drawings. He never asked but I would send him books. As is not uncommon for prison inmates, he turned to religion. He also met a French artist, Isabelle Watson, via an organisation which found pen pals for death row inmates. They started corresponding and later became engaged. In 2012, with the knowledge that he had acquired about the death penalty and criminal justice viewed through the prism of his own complex appeal, he started creating art sculptures, paintings and drawings. He hopes his work will make people think about capital punishment and solitary confinement.

I began to send him art materials. Sometimes he was allowed them, sometimes and often for no apparently good reason they were simply returned to the supplier in Washington DC by the prison officials. Reams would later report back that the size or specification was wrong. On

Kenny then met a pastor who was pro-abolition of the death penalty, David Rickard. With Rickard’s assistance, the idea of the exhibition developed into a reality. Reams also set up a charity Who Decides, Inc., which aims to educate the public about the practice and history of death row in the US through the medium of art. Its ultimate goal is to establish a national museum dedicated to the history of capital punishment in the US. In the summer of 2014, I was working at home in Devon. It was a bright sunny day. Reams was on the line telling me that he had an exhibition of his and Watson’s art opening in Little Rock in the autumn that year. It was an extraordinary achievement. We spoke and I thought we should bring this exhibition to the UK. A sponsor and two excellent venues were found and, with the assistance of Amicus, all arrangements made. Reams inevitably will not be at his opening but a podcast with a message from him will be played at the openings and throughout the duration of the exhibitions.

Samantha Knights Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Decides? will run at the Bridport Arts Centre, Dorset from 22 October to 26 November 2016 and at the Temple Church, London from 30 November 2016 until 22 February 2017.

Amicus, a UK-based fair trials charity established in 1992, trains and sends lawyers to work directly in US capital defence offices; cases like Reams’ are unfortunately not unique. Amicus runs capital casework projects that are supported by UK-based lawyers. This year, Art for Amicus was launched. This series of art-based events and exhibitions aims to illustrate the importance of art to those in confinement, as well as to highlight the obstacles to justice in the capital system. On 29 November 2016, Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Decides will open with a charity auction and champagne reception in the splendid setting of the Temple Church, London. Visit www.amicus-alj.org or email admin@amicusalj.org to find out more about Amicus’ work and events, to buy tickets for the Temple Church opening, and for sponsorship packages.

INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Thoughtfully Different Located in the heart of the city, we offer boys an outward-looking, forward-thinking education that prepares them for life.

Academic, Music and Sport Scholarships are available to boys joining the School. Full information is available on our website, where you can also book to visit us during one of our regular Open Events, or register your son for our Entrance Examinations.

www.clsb.org.uk www.cityoflondonschool.org.uk

8759 CLA The Inner Yearbook Advert v3.indd 1

07/07/2016 15:39

KIRKER HOLIDAYS F O R D I S C E R N I N G T R AV E L L E R S

Kirker Holidays provides carefully crafted tailor-made holidays to over 140 destinations in 40 countries - including 70 classic cities and 250 relaxing rural locations throughout Europe and beyond. We also organise a series of escorted Cultural Tours & Music Holidays, including our own exclusive Music Festivals on land and at sea.

BC_0085/1015_Spain_2015to2016:Spain

F O R

D I S C E R N I N G

EUROPE

AND

BEYOND

•

T R A V E L L E R S

DECEMBER

2015

–

DECEMBER

FR ANCE

I T A L Y

S HORT B R E A K S

F O R

2016

D I S C E R N I N G

N O V E M B E R

2 0 1 5

–

F O R

T R A V E L L E R S

D E C E M B E R

D I S C E R N I N G

N O V E M B E R

2 0 1 6

2 0 1 5

–

27/10/15

11:48

F O R

D I S C E R N I N G

BC_0083/0915_India_2015to2017:India

L

01

CE

RNING

G

L A N K A ,

RATIN CELEB YEARS 30

F O R

1986–2

N O V E M B E R

01

s hort b r e a k s & ta i l or – m a de hol i d ay s

CITIES: VENICE • FLORENCE • ROME • MILAN • genoa • ASSISI • PERUGIA • PISA • SIENA • turin • BOLOGNA • VERONA • padua • mantua

PARIS • LILLE • CHAMPAGNE • NORMANDY • BRITTANY • BIARRITZ • ÎLE DE RÉ • ST. JEAN-DE-LUZ • BORDEAUX • ST. EMILION

parma • lucca • NAPLEs • ravenna • MODENA • FERRARA • vicenza • trieste • LAKES: COMO • GARDA • MAGGIORE • iseo • ORTA • LUGANO

CHARENTES • DORDOGNE • LOIRE VALLEY • BURGUNDY • LYON • STRASBOURG • ÉVIAN-LES-BAINS • CARCASSONNE • MONTPELLIER

D

IS

CE

RNING

COUNTRYSIDE: PUGLIA • TUSCANY • UMBRIA • veneto • basilicata • south tyrol • COAST: AMALFI COAST • LIGURIAN RIVIERA

NIMES • AIX-EN-PROVENCE • ARLES • AVIGNON • THE LUBERON • MARSEILLE • ORANGE • NICE • CANNES • EZE • menton

ISLANDS: CAPRi • elba • ISCHIA • SICILY • SARDINIA

villefranche-sur-mer • haut-du-caGnes • mougins • JUAN-LES-PINS • ST. JEAN-CAP-FERRAT • VENCE • MONACO • CORSICA

Page 1

M A L D I V E S

2 0 1 5

–

IS

CE

RNING

&

N e p a l

T

T R A V E L L E R S G RATIN

CELEB YEARS M A R C H 30 2 0 1 7 1986–2

01

s hort b r e a k s & ta i l or – m a de hol i d ay s Barcelona • costa brava • Girona • Valencia • Denia • El Saler • Jávea • seville • AndaluciaN Countryside Granada • Málaga • Córdoba • Baeza • jerez • cÁdiz • rotA • La CoruÑa • Santiago de Compostela Vitoria–gasteiz • Bilbao • San Sebastian • Santander • La Rioja • Pamplona • Madrid • Toledo • Avila Salamanca • Segovia • LEÓN • Mallorca • Tenerife • La Gomera

T

D

AY S F OR

L

ID

•

JAPAN

•

morocco

•

•

POland

ARCHAEOLOGY

•

PORTUGAL

•

•

HISTORY

•

MUSIC

2016

LA SCALA, MILAN

• •

•

LEIPZIG

•

TA I L O R - M A D E H O L I D AY S i n o u t s ta n d i n g l o c at i o n s

RNING

T

RATIN CELEB YEARS 30 1986–2

01

P R I VAT E TA I L OR - M A DE I T I N E R A R I E S

Russia • Spain • TURKEY

ESCORTED Holidays TO LEADING MUSIC FESTIVALS & events: BADEN–BaDEN • BONN • BUDAPEST • dresden • GRAFENEGG

puccini festival

6

6

HO

italy

EXCLUSIVE KIRKER MUSIC FESTIVALS: ischia • MALLORCA • music cruises • SALAMANCA • suffolk • cornwall • TENERIFE

La FENICE, VENICE

CE

G

L

GARDENS

•

CULTURAL TOURS: ALBANIA • BELGIUM • BULGARIA • cUBa • CZECH REPUBLIC • ENGLAND • FRANCE •holland

HO

01

ARCHITECTURE

ELLERS

ID

IS

AV

1986–2

R

G RATIN CELEB YEARS 30

ELLERS

AY S F OR

AV

•

2 0 1 6

R

ART

11:15

T H E

D I S C E R N I N G

LATVIA • LITHUANIA • IRELAND • TURKEY • GREECE • CYPRUS • CROATIA • SLOVENIA • MALTA • MOROCCO EGYPT • ISRAEL • JORDAN • OMAN • USA • CUBA • UNITED KINGDOM

9/10/15

I N D I A

S R I

T D

IS

AY S F OR

L

POLAND • AUSTRIA • NORWAY • DENMARK • SWEDEN • ICELAND • FINLAND • RUSSIA • ESTONIA

2 0 1 6

ID

1986–2

s hort b r e a k s & ta i l or – m a de hol i d ay s

ITALY • FRANCE • SPAIN • HOLLAND • BELGIUM • PORTUGAL • GERMANY • CZECH REPUBLIC • HUNGARY • SWITZERLAND

T R A V E L L E R S D

J U N E

ID

HO

ID

–

D E C E M B E R

ELLERS

RATIN CELEB YEARS 30

2 0 1 5

AY S F OR

J U N E

6

D

D I S C E R N I N G

–

AV

6

G

2 0 1 5

R

AY S F OR

D

F O R

T

ELLERS

1

RNING

AV

0

S HORT B R E A K S & TA I LOR – M A DE HOL I D AY S

CE

R

IS

ELLERS

2

SOUTHERN AFRICA

T R A V E L L E R S

6

D I S C E R N I N G

AV

ID

F O R

R

ELLERS

AY S F OR

AV 6

CULTURAL TOURS & MUSIC HOLIDAYS HO

R 01

L

T

G

1986–2

HO

RNING

c u lt u r a l t o u r s & m u s i c h o l i d ay s

CE

RATIN CELEB YEARS 30

T R A V E L L E R S

2 0 1 6 N O V E M B E R

IS

Page 1

S P A I N

T R A V E L L E R S

D E C E M B E R

6

Added Value

We have a range of special offers to include complimentary nights and hotel upgrades and in many destinations we also offer complimentary entrance tickets to museums.

Extensive Brochure Range

Our collection of brochures includes Italy, France and Spain, as well as Southern Africa and the India Subcontinent. For those who prefer to travel with a small group of like-minded companions and an expert lecturer, we also offer escorted Cultural Tours & Music Holidays.

L

Unique Concierge Service

Kirker’s Concierge will arrange opera and ballet tickets, pre-book entrance for museums and galleries, book private guided tours, and recommend and book restaurants to ensure that you can sit back and relax whilst Kirker ensures the smooth running of your holiday.

Expert Advice

Our knowledgeable team has many years of experience and regularly visit the hotels and destinations that we feature so that we can give you first hand advice.

HO

Special Occasions

If you are celebrating a special birthday or anniversary, Kirker can tailor make an itinerary to help you to celebrate in style. For the ultimate experience why not travel on theVenice Simplon-Orient-Express?

malta baroque

•

new york

•

north Norfolk

Schubertiade • S IBELIUS • THREE CHOIRS, gloucester • VERONA • vienna

SOUTH AFRICA: CAPE TOWN THE GARDEN ROUTE

THE WINELANDS

• •

•

HERMANUS AND THE OVERBERG COAST

EASTERN CAPE GAME RESERVES

THE ZULU AND BOER WAR BATTLEFIELDS

•

•

KRUGER NATIONAL PARK

BOTSWANA: THE OKAVANGO DELTA

•

zAMBIA: VICTORIA FALLS

KWAZULU–NATAL •

CHOBE & SAVUTE •

MADIKWE •

•

luxury trains

Mauritius

INDIA: DELHI • RAJASTHAN • KERALA • TAMIL NADU • HIMALAYAS • GOA • MUMBAI • karnataka SPECIAL INTEREST: WILDLIFE • HERITAGE HOTELS • COLONIAL HISTORY • luxury TRAIN JOURNEYS • WALKING TOURS THE MALDIVES: LUXURY RESORTS • SRI LANKA: BUDDHIST CITIES • COLONIAL TOWNS • NATIONAL PARKS TEA PLANTATIONS • BOUTIQUE HOTELS • NEPAL: KATHMANDU • WILDLIFE • WALKING

NATIONAL PARKS

Speak to an expert or request a brochure:

020 7593 2293 quote code XIT www.kirkerholidays.com

23

24

INNER TEMPLE

History Society 2015–2016 The Inner Temple Archivist, Celia Pilkington, reflects on the Society’s events held this past year and looks ahead to upcoming lectures.

T

he newly created History Society continues to thrive here at the Inn, and we are delighted to find it so popular with older and younger Inn members alike. Highlights from this year included Master De Wilde discussing the travails of James Boswell and Master Brown examining the life of the Georgian virtuoso Daines Barrington (1728–1800), who was at one time the Treasurer of this Inn, and who also served as Vice President to the Royal Society of Antiquarians. Barrington investigated subjects as diverse as the extinction of the Cornish language and Caesar’s invasion of Britain. He was also a Fellow of the Royal Society, which enjoyed a close association with the Middle and Inner Temples, using the Middle Temple Hall for meetings. Among Barrington’s many achievements at the Royal Society was his attempt to persuade Lord Sandwich to invest in the ‘northwest passage’ project to search for a route to Asia through North America. He also presented to the Royal Society his investigations into a wide range of subjects, including the

Three plane trees still thriving in the middle of the garden were planted whilst Barrington was in charge.

Master de Wilde’s lecture was no less fascinating, exploring as it did the life of our most distinguished literary member, James Boswell (1740–1795), and his relationship with Samuel Johnson, which resulted in the publication in 1791 of one of the greatest works in literature, The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL D. Much of our knowledge of Boswell comes from the relatively recent discovery of many of his papers at Malahide Castle in Scotland by Professor Chauncey Tinker of Yale University. It was in 1925 that Professor Tinker learned that this invaluable cache of diaries and letters were languishing in croquet boxes and cabinets throughout the castle. Such was the indifference of the owners, Lord and Lady Talbot, that they declined the sum of £50,000 (equivalent to £1 million today) for the literary treasure. It wasn’t until 1947 that one Colonel Isham from New York secured the backing

“ The newly created History Society continues to thrive here at the Inn, and we are delighted to find it so popular with older and younger Inn members alike.” mysterious whereabouts of the swallow when it disappears in winter, to the worrying decay of trees in St James’s Park. He also published a fascinating eyewitness account of the young Mozart, whom he met in London in 1770.

The variety of Barrington’s interests and passions knew no bounds and these were brilliantly described by Master Brown. Elaborating on his great interest in the Inner Temple Garden, Master Brown described how Barrington presided over its transformation into a space that would fulfil the then-fashionable aesthetic of wild and untrammelled natural growth known as the ‘picturesque’. Under his stewardship, the garden was thrown open to the public for the first time.

of Yale University and succeeded in taking possession of the papers and making them available to the public. Master de Wilde analysed the personality of Boswell, as revealed by these papers, and suggested there was strong evidence that Boswell suffered from some form of bipolar disorder.

In November 2015, we commemorated the 70th anniversary of the commencement of the Nuremburg trials.

Professor William Schabas QC, known to many as “the world expert on the law of genocide and international law”, gave a lecture and a guided walk around many of the sites that will forever be associated with international justice.

Professor Schabas discussed the contributions made by two

HISTORY SOCIETY INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

key jurists who were also members of this Inn - the President of the International Military Tribunal, Sir Geoffrey Lawrence (Treasurer in 1954), and Lord Wright of Durley (Treasurer in 1946). Lord Wright also had the great responsibility of overseeing the early stages of the rebuilding of the Inn following the Blitz. He served as the Chairman of the UN War Crimes Commission. And it was here, in the very rubble of this Inn, at Temple House, that the historic Nuremburg Charter was agreed, which led to the inauguration of the International Military Tribunal. This was signed by Robert Jackson, the leading US prosecutor, and by Iona Nikitchenko, the judge representing the USSR. Dr Dan Plesch, Director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at SOAS, provided a fascinating introduction to this lecture.

We are looking forward to Master Baker’s lecture on Sir Edward Coke, which will focus on Coke’s dismissal as Lord Chief Justice and his continued assertion of the superiority of the common law over the powers of the King and his advisors. The lecture is scheduled for 22 November 2016 – November 1616: the Dismissal of Lord Chief Justice Coke.

This will be followed by a lecture on 20 January 2017 on The Criminalization of American Politics: From Nixon to Today. This will coincide with the inauguration of the new President of the United States. The lecturer Geoff Shepard is a former White House Fellow, who was later employed by the White House as Associate Director for General Government.

He served as principal deputy to President Nixon’s defence counsel during the Watergate Inquiry.

On 6 March 2017, Master Sally Smith will regale us with tales of the personal journey that led to the publication of her biography of the great Edwardian advocate and Inner

Templar, Sir Edward Marshall Hall.

Finally, we return to the heart of the Inn, the garden, with Dr Jan Woudstra, who will discuss the great contribution made by the outstanding 19th Century horticulturalist, Robert Marnock, to the layout of the Inn’s garden following the building of the Embankment in 1869.

The lecture is to take place on 7 June 2017 and will be entitled The Thames Embankment, London Boulevards and the Gardens of the Inner Temple: Robert Marnock’s (1800– 1889) Visions for the Greening of London.

We hope that the History Society will continue to thrive and to provide fascinating talks for the enjoyment of all members of the Inn. Celia Pilkington

View of judges panel during testimony Nuremberg Trials 1945

Wildy & Sons Ltd 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

25

26

INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE

Master Alliott

By Martin Forde ��

“ LONDON — Seven British servicemen who went on trial for spying betrayed some of the nation’s ‘most precious military secrets’ in exchange for sex, drugs and money, a London court was told. “ Prosecutor Michael Wright said the foreign power behind the spy ring was not known, but he said some of the defendants have said they thought it was the Soviet Union, ‘and maybe they know best.’ The damage caused by the spying was ‘quite incalculable,’ he said. “ The servicemen were all stationed at a British base on Cyprus that is believed to be used for intelligencegathering purposes. They are charged with channeling to foreign agents hundreds of highly classified and top-secret documents between February 1982 and February 1984.

J

ohn Downes Alliott was my first Head of Chambers when I commenced my pupillage at 1 Crown Office Row, on 3 October 1983.

On that morning, I met my pupil master David, later to become Lord Justice, Latham who explained to me the standards of behaviour expected of chambers; how I was expected to assist him; my likely working hours; and the importance of making and attending chambers tea.

At that time, all members of chambers including the clerks were accommodated on the basement, ground and first floors. John, who had been Head of Chambers since 1981, occupied a palatial room on the first floor overlooking the Inner Temple Garden, as befitted a man of his stature.

I think I heard John’s stentorian tones before I saw him but when he came into view I saw a barrel chested, imposing if not slightly intimidating looking gentleman, immaculately turned out with a straight back, piercing eyes and highly polished cavalry boots. In those days, senior members of the Bar wore pinstriped trousers, black jackets and waistcoats (bowler hats had only recently been abandoned) and often a watch and watch chain.

In those first few months, whenever John called my name I found myself fearful I had committed some gross misdemeanour, but he was always gently inquiring about my progress and welfare and that of my parents, who also lived in Langley.

As a pupil I accompanied John to Court on many occasions, usually to the Old Bailey. I marvelled at his skill and eloquence. He commanded the attention of all in the court room and controlled witnesses impeccably. He was unfailingly polite – all witnesses were Mr, Miss or Mrs and police officers were addressed by their rank. Questions were precise and economical and cross examination devastating. He once put to a young man that he wasn’t “man enough to admit when he had done something wrong” and got the answer “Yes!” In 1985, John was instructed to represent a young RAF serviceman in what became the longest spy trial ever tried. It lasted from 11 June to 29 October 1985. It was reported thus:

“ They face 28 charges in a trial expected to last into the autumn. Five are in the Royal Air Force and two are soldiers. “’ They, as servicemen, acted as spies,’ Wright told the court. ‘And, as spies, they betrayed to the agents of a foreign power some of this country’s most precious military secrets.’”

John would set off to the Old Bailey walking at such a pace that I felt like a toddler trying to keep up. Although by now I was a tenant and had received my first iron grip Alliott handshake by way of congratulation, whenever I had a spare moment I would take time off to watch the great man in action.

John always told me there was only one good point in any case and saw his task as rubbishing the idea that his Welsh heterosexual client could be part of a Russian backed homosexual spy ring. All had confessed and the leading authority on oppression R v Sang was the only authority he took to court, as far as I could tell, for the whole trial.

“My case makes R v Sang look like a picnic” – he told me.

He called a number of WAF’s to attest to his client’s red blooded interest in the fairer sex – although one explained that his enthusiasm was not matched by his performance (hence his nickname Biffo) and that his client had no knowledge of or connection with Russia.

John also believed that no jury could concentrate on a closing speech for more than 45 minutes. He was unimpressed by one of his co-defending counsel who addressed the jury for two days.

John was true to his word. After about 19 weeks of evidence, his closing speech was 45 minutes – it ended thus:

MASTER ALLIOTT INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

“ Members of the jury, my client is accused of being part of a Russian sponsored homosexual spy ring.

He doesn’t speak Russian, he’s Welsh. He’s never been to Russia. He’s certainly not homosexual as many of his lady colleagues testified. Members of the jury I give you… Biffo, the master spy.”

memorial service I saw hundreds of pictures of John with his extended family, including his grandchildren, and his love and affection for them was plain to see.

He loved life away from chambers; being something of the gentleman farmer, it was not uncommon for him to have been up in the early hours yet still be in court every day after lambing. His energy was boundless. He was a generous host, entertaining my parents with warmth and generosity at Park Stile after I was made a tenant.

John Gimlette, who marshalled for John, recalls.

Then he sat down. His client, first on the indictment, was the last to be acquitted – a job well done.

It was whilst watching that trial that I accompanied John to the robing room, which also contained the gentleman’s facilities. John stopped by the door and entered. Shortly thereafter he bellowed “Martin”. What have I done wrong, I thought and entered with some trepidation to find John relieving himself. He half turned and said: “I’m not in the business of giving advice, but when you are at the Bar pee at every opportunity!”

As well as being an economical oral advocate, John had a similarly punchy written style. When he was first called to the Bar, advices, particularly on quantum, might consist of a couple of lines and a figure. I recall that when we had a chambers celebratory dinner to congratulate John on being made a High Court judge, our new Head of Chambers, Scott, later Lord Justice, Baker commented that, following John leaving chambers, he had come across a rare piece of Alliott memorabilia: an advice that extended to a second page!

John was scrupulous about ethical behaviour and could not tolerate sharp practice. He was not afraid to make that plain to opponents. He embraced the cab rank view often acting for clients whose political views he disagreed with.

He was so professional they would never have known. How many Masters of Beagles would have represented Hunt Saboteurs!

John was a man with forthright views who spoke as he found. In my early days I would often knock on his door (which was open to young and established practitioners alike), and ask for his views not just on the law but opponents and judges. I recall “pompous arse but fair” being one of his more complimentary comments about a judge.

John got the infamous tap on the shoulder in 1986 and served with distinction as a High Court Judge from 1986 to 2001. Unfailingly courteous to litigants and juries, he liked those appearing in front of him to get to the point. A marvellous judge of character and the reliability of witnesses, he brought to bear all his real world experience of life in the Guards. Even those who lost left feeling they had received a fair trial or hearing.

His judgments were lucid and accessible and he never got judgitis! In fact he loathed much of the pomp and ceremony surrounding the judiciary. When trying a murder at Reading Crown Court, he bemoaned the fact that he had to stay in the lodgings rather than get back to his beloved Patsy at Park Stile in Langley, less than 20 miles away.

He always said his task as a judge was to be quick, courteous and wrong – “that’s what the Court of Appeal are for!” John also served with distinction as Presiding Judge of the South Eastern Circuit.

John was incredibly proud of his wife Patsy and his children. I first met Patsy when she swept into chambers in boots and legwarmers and thought who is this breath-taking beauty? I then discovered it was my Head of Chambers’ wife who, like John, was warm, funny and incredibly down to earth. After he became a judge, John would update me at every Christmas party on the progress of George, Kate and Julian and spoke of them all with obvious pride. At the

“ I only joined 1 Crown Office Row a few months after John had left for the bench. However, there was always a lingering vapour trail, as if some powerful presence had just throttled off into the yonder. I did however catch up with him a few months later, in Nottingham, where I was sent as a judge’s marshall. At first, I was rather alarmed by Judge Alliott, who was always up first and last to bed. He was like the châtelain of some great fortress, except that the lodgings were dingy and chintzy and had plum-coloured doors. By day, I’d sit with him at the bench, and, because it was hot, he’d hoik his robes up, and I’d notice that he was wearing huge black boots, better suited to the Sussex Downs than for negotiating the nuances of the Sexual Offences Act. But, by night, he was ready for a party and he’d gather with the local bigwigs and subject them to a pithy Latin grace, which I began to suspect meant something rude. John was always the life and soul of these evenings, and would unnerve the magistrates with his sense of fun. One night, we were all invited to dinner at a real castle at the end of a very long drive, and six of us turned up, in an enormous chauffeur-driven Daimler. As we drove away, John noticed a pair of toads sitting in the drive, and he made us all get out (in our heels and tails) and shoo them away. It was an intriguing moment of tenderness after the jollity of dinner. “ John thought it was a great joke that – under some obscure Victorian statute – I was being paid 27p a day, and, for the next 30 years, whenever we met he’d refer to me as ‘Marshall’. In fact, he didn’t just say it, he’d bellow it, as if I were his ensign flagging under a hail of arrows. And then, of course, he’d laugh and say something kind, and – if I was lucky – I might get one of his stories. He had a great eye for the absurd, and was little impressed by flummery and status. It always struck me that, in his court, it didn’t matter whether you were a Nottingham coal miner or its High Sheriff, you were still treated with that strange mixture of curiosity and steel. Somewhere, some poor unfortunate will be grateful that John was his judge, just as we are grateful that he was one of ours. He’ll be much missed”.

Personally, I can only echo those sentiments: a great man, barrister, judge, father, grandfather and husband.

Sir John (Downes) Alliott was born on 9 January 1932 and died on 19 March 2016 Courtesy of Martin Forde ��

27

28

INNER TEMPLE

Brexit

Gordon Nardell ��, 20 Essex Street, Bar Council EU Law Committee Chair and Bar Liaison Committee member, explains how the Bar Council met the challenge of intervening in the EU Referendum debate while preserving the Bar’s reputation for independence and objectivity; and how the Bar is responding in the wake of the result.

T

his is not the first time Britain has been forced to engage with tricky questions of international relations in Europe. Lord Palmerston reportedly commented that only three people really understood that quintessence of 19th Century diplomatic complexity, the Schleswig-Holstein question; but alas one was dead, the second had gone mad, and the third, Palmerston himself, had forgotten all about it. History loosely repeated itself in the run-up to the EU Referendum when former senior Foreign & Commonwealth Office official Sir Simon Fraser told Radio 4 that there were no longer more than a handful of current UK civil servants who really understood international trade negotiations – an area of exclusive EU competence for so long that nearly all experienced officials are now in Brussels.

Whitehall’s predicament is a neat metaphor for both the challenges and the opportunities the referendum result offers the legal profession. On the one hand, we are asked to advise clients about legal relationships the future shape of which even our own government has barely begun to grasp.

On the other, the very fact that government and other players have acquired a sudden and pressing need for specialist advice, across the diverse range of topics touched by EU law, means the Bar now has an undoubted contribution to make in answering the many novel and important questions the prospect of Brexit poses.

BREXIT INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Council on 18-19 February. The settlement did not itself entail amendments to the EU’s governing Treaties. Rather it proposed four “baskets” of reforms, involving changes to EU secondary legislation and decision-making processes in four areas. They were (1) financial governance (such as the balance of decision-making power between Eurozone and non-Eurozone States); (2) competitiveness (dealing with regulation and international trade in the context of the EU’s overall economic performance); (3) sovereignty, including the UK’s relationship with the aspiration of “ever closer union” cited in the Treaties; and (4) free movement of persons - or, more precisely, changes to rules about social benefits said to influence numbers of EU nationals choosing to live and work in the UK. We carefully examined the implications of the New Settlement, assessing – in sometimes rather critical terms how successfully it might further its underlying political goals, particularly in the absence of amendments to the Treaties.

The result of a ‘Leave’ vote would be UK withdrawal from the EU – as everyone now knows, via the 2-year process laid down by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. We explained how that process was likely to operate, and its interaction with the much larger and more difficult question of negotiating – and implementing - a future UK/EU relationship. It was (and even now still is) impossible to predict precisely what that relationship will eventually look like. There

“ The Bar has already, pre-referendum, staked its claim as a leading source of objective analysis of the issues surrounding the UK’s relationship with the EU.” The Bar has already, pre-referendum, staked its claim as a leading source of objective analysis of the issues surrounding the UK’s relationship with the EU. On 30 March 2016, as the ‘Leave’ and ‘Remain’- camps were beginning their battle in earnest ahead of the June poll, the House of Lords EU Committee in its 9threport set out its hopes for the standard of public debate. The referendum was “arguably the most important single decision that the people of the UK have been asked to take in a generation. The debate leading up to the referendum should be of a quality and breadth proportionate to the importance of the decision. It should be wide-ranging and inclusive, based on accurate information.”

Hope is one thing; expectation, sadly, another. Much of the subsequent political debate involved less an exchange of “accurate information” than a storm of hyperbolae and speculation. The Bar Council is not a political body, and opinion among members of the Bar on the essentially political question put to electors was divided. It would have been mistaken, and impossible in practice, to attempt to advocate an overall opinion in the name of the profession.

Rather, in a set of detailed papers published in May – when much of the political debate had come to be defined by a feverish battle of scare and counter-scare – the Bar Council offered a dispassionate analysis of the legal implications of a decision either way. The project was led by the Bar Council’s EU Law Committee, working closely with the Chairman and key officers and drawing on the expertise of specialist practitioners.

A ‘Remain’ vote would have resulted in implementation of the New Settlement: the agreement negotiated between the UK Government and its EU partners, recorded in the Conclusions adopted at the special session of the European

are plenty of existing ‘models’ for relationships between the EU and non-Member States, ranging from the ‘EU-lite’ status of European Economic Area (EEA) membership, preserving the free movement of persons, goods and services more or less intact, to a pure third State status with few, or no, bespoke reciprocal trade or other arrangements but rather falling back on multilateral agreements such as the World Trade Organisation. We made the working assumption that a vote for withdrawal, because of the prominence of issues of free movement in the public debate, would create intense political pressure against a minimal change option such as EEA membership. So the process of negotiation would tend to gravitate towards a looser arrangement involving some sort of partial reciprocal access to the EEA single market, and therefore acceptance of certain key elements of EU rules, even if not the totality.

We examined how that assumed relationship might be expected to translate into changes in the content of the UK legal systems and in the legal services market. We looked, first, at areas of law corresponding to the New Settlement’s four “baskets”, and then at other areas in which the Bar has a policy interest – topics largely relating to the administration of justice and to cross-border professional activities. In each area we considered the potential shape and content of the rules at UK/EU level, and the way those rules might apply within the UK legal system.

To take an example, under the “administration of justice” rubric we discussed the EU aquis on jurisdiction and choice of law in civil and commercial matters. We examined the implications of the UK no longer being bound by the Brussels I (Recast) and Rome I Regulations. These instruments lay down comprehensive rules, operational throughout the EU,

29

30

INNER TEMPLE BREXIT

on key aspects of civil litigation with a cross-border element: the question which State’s courts should determine a dispute, and applying which law; and the mutual recognition and enforcement of the resulting judgment. These instruments are widely viewed by practitioners as the gold standard in international rules for the conduct of disputes. As regards civil jurisdiction, the UK outside the EU might well have to fall back on the parallel Lugano Convention, effectively winding back to an earlier version of Brussels I lacking the improvements (in relation to arbitration proceedings, for example) made by the 2015 Recast version. In relation to choice of law, the risk was that a comprehensive set of rules would give way to the previous piecemeal domestic rules on conflict of laws, in turn differing from the rules applied in the remaining EU member States.

“ ...arguably the most important single decision that the people of the UK have been asked to take in a generation.”

In some other areas, our analysis revealed the opposite conundrum: not that change would be major and problematic but rather that it could prove deceptively modest.

For example, withdrawal would remove the restrictions that EU membership imposes on the ability of government to offer State aid to rescue threatened industries, such as steelmaking in south Wales. But any new relationship involving worthwhile access to the single market would very likely involve accepting key elements of the present State aid rules.

Translated into a political message, that of course cuts both ways: for the Remain camp, any change would be illusory, so why take the risk of leaving? For the Leave camp, Brexit was a safe option precisely because so few of the rules governing economic activity would change. The State aid example thus emphasises an important aspect of the Bar’s approach to the referendum. The purpose of producing a legal analysis of outcomes was not to supplant the political debate, but rather to help frame it. At the same time the Bar Council took positive steps to ensure that the political arguments were brought directly to the profession. The Bar Council jointly with Lincoln’s Inn organised a well-attended debate between the two camps in the second week before the referendum, with Bar Chairman Chantal-Aimee Dorries QC presiding, and prominent lawyers speaking on each side: former Conservative leader Michael Howard QC MP and barrister Martin Howe for Leave, and former Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC and SNP MP Joanna Cherry QC for Remain.

The Bar Referendum Papers were well received within the legal profession and among opinion-formers in business and civil society organisations. Their rigorously objective approach will have cemented the Bar’s reputation in the public mind for authoritative, independent analysis of legal and law-related issues. In the wake of the referendum, the Bar’s Brexit-related work is now shared with a Working Group Chaired by Hugh Mercer QC and with the Specialist Bar Associations.

The Working Group is examining the implications of withdrawal for the Bar’s cross-border work within the EU, including the fate of rights of audience before the General Court and Court of Justice. The Group is co-ordinating work with the UK Government, and with our sister professions elsewhere in Europe, to devise a solution as favourable as possible to the Bar’s continued provision of its services across the continent’s frontiers. The Group is exploring ways of maximising the opportunities for the Bar as a whole to contribute its expertise to the process of mapping out and creating a post-Brexit legal regime. The various SBAs’ practice areas are affected by Brexit to differing degrees: for some, such as the Bar European Group (BEG) and the Commercial Bar (COMBAR), the changes will be far-reaching. COMBAR is already establishing its own working groups to examine the implications for specific areas of law and practice. Many of the areas of change are cross-cutting. The potential loss of the civil jurisdiction and choice of law acquis, for example, affects a large segment of the Civil and Commercial Bar. So the Bar Working Group itself is taking a keen interest in that area, assembling a case for government negotiators on the importance of retaining or replicating the current rules.

Leading the Bar’s intervention in the Brexit debate was the largest single project the EU Law Committee has ever undertaken. Our work would not have been possible without the support and expertise of Evanna Fruithof, Consultant Director of the Bar Council’s Brussels Office (and a Bencher of Middle Temple); and above all, we owe particular thanks to the individual practitioners, on and off the Committee, who volunteered their time and expertise to contribute to the project. Our attention now turns outward to those in government, business and elsewhere who call on the Bar’s services at this time of change and opportunity.

Gordon Nardell �� The Bar Council Referendum Papers can be found here: http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/media-centre/news-and-pressreleases/2016/june/barristers-publish-non-partisan,-fact-basedreport-on-european-union-membership/

INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Clement Attlee

From a lecture given by Master Straw on 5 October 2015

The Right Honourable Earl Attlee, by Sir Lawrence Gowing, RA

I

t was a time when the Labour Party was led by a pacifist.

A huge row had been brewing for months over the party’s defence and foreign policy – and was coming to a head at its Party Conference. Should it, or should it not, support military intervention by the international community to stop naked aggression in North Africa by a dictator?

From vacillation by the leader came rebellion in the ranks. A trade union General Secretary, powerful, irascible, barged his way to the rostrum. The party’s leader, he charged, was “taking the Labour movement in an absolutely wrong position to be hawking your conscience round from body to body asking to be told what to do with it”.

This, however, was not 2015, but 1935. The party leader was George Lansbury. Worshipped by many of the party faithful, a ‘man of principle’, Lansbury was riding a popular anti-war sentiment.

By 1935, however, the mood had changed. Adolf Hitler was consolidating his power, and widening his ambitions.

Benito Mussolini had invaded Ethiopia (then Abyssinia) whilst the Labour Party’s conference was in session. Lansbury was opposed to any military intervention. The trade unions were appalled.

The trade union leader who delivered the coup against Lansbury was Ernest Bevin, founder of what is now the

Unite union. Bevin had contempt for what he saw as effete middle class intellectuals for whom politics was ultimately a self-indulgent hobby. But Bevin recognised that if the party was to rebuild itself, it needed serious people of talent from every background.

One of those was Douglas Jay, who told me that he asked Bevin who could replace Lansbury.

“You see that little fella’ in the corner? The bald one, with specs and a pipe? ‘Im.” One week later, Lansbury resigned. “The little fella’ with the pipe”, Clement Richard Attlee, of Haileybury and University College, Oxford, was duly elected interim Party Leader.

The 1935 general election took place on 14 November.

Under Attlee’s leadership, Labour increased its share of the vote to 38 per cent and obtained 154 seats. Attlee was now the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.

Clement Attlee had been born into a stable middle class family. With no burning ambition when he came down from Oxford, Attlee joined the Bar, becoming a member of Inner Temple that year. Attlee was pupilled to Theobald Mathew, in the chambers of Lord Robert Cecil KC. After pupillage, Attlee joined the chambers of Henry Dickens, son of Charles.

“ …there is something particularly admirable about those who have come from different backgrounds, and who therefore have had to make a conscious moral and intellectual journey to their adopted political philosophy.”

31

32

INNER TEMPLE LECTURE SERIES

“ You see that little fella’ in the corner? The bald one, with specs and a pipe? ” Despite all his connections, Attlee apparently received only a handful of briefs. Demoralised by this experience, and lacking a determination to make a career at the Bar, he began applying for other jobs.

Attlee began working as a volunteer at Haileybury House, which provided a range of activities for young people in profoundly deprived Limehouse. In 1907, he took over as residential manager. In 1909, on the death of his father, he ended his connection with his chambers.

Some politicians have been born into their party – including me. I came from an active Labour family, and from a background where almost everyone voted Labour too. I have long thought that there is something particularly admirable about those who have come from different backgrounds, and who therefore have had to make a conscious moral and intellectual journey to their adopted political philosophy.

Attlee quintessentially was one such individual. His conversion was born of his experience in the East End, and of his belief that there was nothing God-ordained which required that there should be a settled social hierarchy.

After a happy period running Haileybury House, and a brief and unhappy period running the similar Toynbee Hall, Attlee was appointed in 1912 to be a lecturer and tutor at the London School of Economics. With that, and continued involvement in local politics in Limehouse, Attlee built a solid, if uninspiring, reputation of his own within the movement.

When the First World War broke out, Attlee joined the South Lancashire Regiment and, by March 1915, had been promoted to Captain.

Attlee had a ‘good’ war – and a lucky one. He got dysentery in Gallipoli, was wounded in Mesopotamia, and injured by falling timber in France. On each occasion, he avoided – though not through any choice of his own – the subsequent intense fighting which caused high casualties in his battalion. At each stage he sought to get back to the front line. By the time of his demobilization he was ‘Major Attlee’.

His courageous war record meant that no one could ever suggest that he would duck difficult military decisions.

Attlee returned to local politics, becoming mayor of the London Borough of Stepney in 1919. He became MP for Limehouse in 1922, which he held continuously until 1950, and then following boundary changes was MP for Walthamstow until he stood down as Party Leader in December 1955.

Attlee served as a junior Minister for War in the first Labour Government of1924, which lasted all of nine months.

In the second Labour Government, which lasted from 1929 to 1931, Attlee served first as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and then as Postmaster General.

That second Labour Government collapsed in 1931. In the general election which followed, Labour was reduced to a rump of 46 seats. Most of the better-placed candidates for leadership lost their Commons seats. Attlee hung on.

After the 1935 election, Herbert Morrison and Arthur Greenwood competed with Attlee for the leadership. Attlee got 43 per cent of the first preferences and won the run-off.

But Herbert Morrison was to remain convinced that he, not Attlee, would be the better Leader.

Shortly after the Party Conference in late May 1939, Morrison tried again to replace Attlee, using an ally, Ellen Wilkinson, as a stalking horse. The attempt failed. Had there been a general election in the following months, Morrison, and maybe others, would have tried again to unseat Attlee, and could have succeeded.

But war was declared. Attlee – Major Attlee – was by far best qualified to lead the party. When in May 1940 Churchill formed his coalition government, Attlee effectively became his deputy, a title which was formally bestowed on him in early 1942.

Attlee was a member of the three Cabinet committees which ran the war. The War Cabinet and the Defence Committee were chaired, and dominated, by Churchill.

But Churchill was not even a member of the third; the Lord President’s Committee. That was responsible for virtually all domestic policy which was not directly related to military strategy. Attlee controlled this from the start, becoming its Chairman in 1943. This gave Attlee a crucial power base, which he used with great skill. He showed his unrivalled administrative abilities by streamlining the government’s processes.

Moreover, Churchill, now remembered as one of the Commons’ greatest orators, rarely attended the House, finding it uncongenial in the early months of his premiership, so Attlee stood in for him, answering questions on Churchill’s behalf, and introducing much of the coalition’s early legislation.

Attlee knew that Churchill was critical to winning the war. In turn, Attlee put himself at the centre of the campaign to win the peace. From the conventional view of today, which places Churchill on a pedestal as the greatest Briton of the 20th Century, it may seem to some almost inexplicable that when Britain did finally win the war, Churchill was unceremoniously turfed out of office, and Attlee and the Labour Party won a stumping landslide victory in his stead. It was far less a surprise at the time.

From the start of the war, Attlee relentlessly positioned Labour as the party which could work in the national interest

Clement Attlee, Harry Truman, and Joseph Stalin, seated outdoors at the Potsdam Conference, 1945 Photo: Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division

CLEMENT ATTLEE INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Photo: Trinity Mirror / Mirrorpix / Alamy Stock Photo

The Labour administration between 1945 and 1951 changed the shape of Britain. The National Health Service is its most enduring achievement, but so is the wider welfare state, which through all its iterations has ensured that there is a floor through which no one is allowed to fall.

Britain in the immediate aftermath of the war was beset by challenges, any one of which would have defeated a lesser man than Attlee. The country was almost bankrupt; in some respects, rationing was tougher than in the war; the United States was determined to establish itself as the sole western superpower; and Britain faced continuing strategic and military obligations in Europe, in the Middle East, and Asia.

He was instrumental in persuading the US that its interests would continue to lie in Europe, through NATO; and he led the decision for the United Kingdom to develop its own atomic bomb.

Labour’s majority of 180 was reduced to five in the 1950 election. Eighteen months later, Labour lost power altogether, though it increased its vote. It was the end of the Attlee Government.

Clement Attlee after Labour’s election victory of July 1945 seen here with his wife and his advisors

“ Where I am less certain is whether someone of Attlee’s personality type – the careful introvert, the man of few words – would be able to succeed today, would be able to tolerate the intense pressure of television and 24-hour rolling news.” with its opponents to secure victory, and the only party which could abolish unemployment and poverty and promote social justice and equality.

Attlee ensured that the government machine would be utilised to prepare the most detailed plans for that peace. The Beveridge Plan published in December 1942, which still shapes our idea of the state’s responsibility to sustain the welfare of its people, was groundbreaking. Social insurance would ensure a national minimum income, with a national health service, family allowances and economic policies to achieve full employment.

Peace in Europe was secured in early May 1945. The general election was held on 5 July, but counting was delayed for three weeks to allow for the votes of those serving overseas to be flown back to the UK. By the afternoon of 26 July, the results from around the country indicated that Labour was about to win a famous victory. It was obvious that Clement Attlee would become the first Prime Minister of a majority Labour Government. Obvious, but not certain; for even as Churchill went to the Palace to advise the King to invite Attlee to form an administration, Herbert Morrison was leading a cabal to prevent him from doing so. On learning about this, Bevin instructed Attlee to “get in the car, Clem”. Vi, his wife, drove him to the Palace.

He was Prime Minister before Morrison and the other plotters had finished their scheming.

With his intense sense of public duty, Attlee soldiered on as Leader of the Opposition until after the 1955 election, trying his best to manage a disappointed party riven not just by personal rivalries but by an ideological schism, which did not start to fade until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Attlee was created an earl when he stepped down as Leader. He had been made a Bencher of Inner Temple in 1946. Following the death of his wife, Vi, he moved into a four-roomed flat at 1 King’s Bench Walk. He died in his sleep in 1967. His funeral was held in the Temple Church on 11 October, and his ashes buried in Westminster Abbey a month later.

That Attlee was one of the 20th Century’s great Prime Ministers is in my view beyond question.

Where I am less certain is whether someone of Attlee’s personality type – the careful introvert, the man of few words – would be able to succeed today, would be able to tolerate the intense pressure of television and 24-hour rolling news.

But I may be wrong about this. Perhaps the hardest thing for a latter-day Attlee to do would have been to win a leadership ballot within the Labour Party. If he had, then maybe the British public would have warmed to him, a walking embodiment of substance over style. If they had, government, and governance, would be the better for it.

The Rt Hon Jack Straw The full version of this lecture is available at www.innertemple.org.uk/education/lecture-series-2015

33

34

INNER TEMPLE 

THE HONOURABLE SOCIETY OF THE INNER TEMPLE

An iconic hub of hospitality for generations, the prestigious Inner Temple blends a historic atmosphere with modern purpose. Housed within the cloistered environs of the Temple Church and surrounded by 3-acres of award winning gardens, our experienced team is on hand to take care of every event detail.

Contact us today on: 0207 797 8230 or catering@innertemple.org.uk

HallAd_02.indd 1

26/08/2016 17:31

The Inner Temple Member’s Bar is a wonderful space with a beautiful south facing terrace. Available to hire for breakfast, evening and weekend events, it is the perfect intimate spot for a christening or a smaller private party.

020 7797 8234 | pbar@innertemple.org.uk

PegasusAd_01.indd 1

26/08/2016 17:28

AND LONDON BURNED INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

And London Burned Master Salter sets the scene for a new opera to mark the 350th anniversary of the Great Fire of London which devastated the City in 1666.

James II as Duke of York by kind permission of the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple

“ …the opera highlights the efforts of Inner Temple’s first Royal Bencher, James, Duke of York, to put out the flames and contain the impending devastation in the Temple.”

The Great Fire of London by Philippe-Jacques de Loutherbourg Reproduced courtesy of the Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection

35

36

INNER TEMPLE

A

s part of its contribution to the City-wide commemorations of the 350th anniversary of the Great Fire of London, the Temple Music Foundation, at the suggestion of Inner Temple, has commissioned a new chamber opera And London Burned to commemorate the momentous and terrifying conflagration that swept through the City between 2 and 5 September 1666.

Composed by Matt Rogers to a libretto by Sally O’Reilly, and scored for a combination of wind, strings and organ, the opera highlights the efforts of Inner Temple’s first Royal Bencher, James, Duke of York, to put out the flames and contain the impending devastation in the Temple.

The Great Fire of London started shortly after midnight on Sunday 2 September 1666 at the bakery of Thomas Farynor in Pudding Lane, in the east of the City of London, near London Bridge.

To quell the growing panic in the streets caused by the spreading fire, on Monday, 4 September 1666, King Charles II put his younger brother, James, Duke of York (who succeeded him to the throne in 1685 as King James II and VII), in charge of firefighting and rescue operations in the City, tasks which he performed with much credit over the succeeding days. A contemporary letter records that “The Duke of York hath won the hearts of the people with his continual and indefatigable pains day and night in helping to quench the Fire”, James probably did more than anyone to help stop the spread of the fire, and to save the City and its neighbours (including the Temple) from further destruction. One of his staff said that “more of judgement is at hand in him in the middle of desperate service than at any other time.”

History has not been kind to James. The fact that, as the last Roman Catholic monarch to reign over the Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland, he was rapidly deposed in favour of William of Orange (James’ Protestant nephew and the husband of James’ elder daughter, Mary) in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, has tended to overshadow the reputation that he had earned 22 years earlier, in September 1666.

The Great Fire devastated more than 370 acres of the City of London. It consumed about 13,500 houses, 87 parish churches, 44 Livery Company Halls, the Bridewell Palace, Newgate Prison, Ludgate Prison, old St Paul’s Cathedral, most of the buildings of the City authorities, and the three western city gates, Ludgate, Newgate, and Aldersgate. It is estimated to have destroyed the homes of 70,000 of the City’s 80,000 inhabitants. However, only a few deaths from the fire are officially recorded, and human casualties from the fire are traditionally believed to have been few.

The Inner Temple has three particular connections to the Great Fire. First, the fire destroyed the buildings that then stood on the site of King’s Bench Walk on the western boundary of the Inn, and (as Master Cryan graphically described in his article in last year’s Yearbook) was only finally put out on the roof of the Inn’s then Hall. Secondly, the man responsible for containing and finally extinguishing the fire was the Inn’s first Royal Bencher, the Duke of York.

Thirdly, members of the Inn played a vital part in the rebuilding of London following the devastation caused by

Two of the Fire Judges portraits at Inner Temple.

Sir Heneage Finch, later Earl of Nottingham by John Michael Wright

“ …members of the Inn played a vital part in the rebuilding of London following the devastation caused by the Great Fire. A court consisting of 22 of the chief judges of England was established by the Fire of London Disputes Act 1666 for the purpose of resolving the numerous boundary and tenancy disputes which had arisen.”

AND LONDON BURNED INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Portrait of Sir John Vaughan by John Michael Wright Schreiner

the Great Fire. A court consisting of 22 of the chief judges of England was established by the Fire of London Disputes Act 1666 for the purpose of resolving the numerous boundary and tenancy disputes which had arisen. The Court was in session from February 1667 to September 1672. Cases were heard and a verdict usually given within a day. Without the Fire Court, lengthy legal wrangles would have seriously delayed the rebuilding which was so necessary if London was to recover.

The portraits of four of these ‘Fire Judges’ – Sir John Vaughan; Sir Orlando Bridgman; Sir Thomas Tyrrell and Sir Heneage Finch – hang in the Gallery of Inner Temple Hall.

Out of gratitude for their work, the Court of Aldermen of the City commissioned Joseph Michael Wright to paint the individual portraits of the judges of the Fire Court for £60 apiece. These portraits had a peripatetic existence within the Guildhall, until in 1952 the Court decided to present them to interested bodies or individuals – hence their presence in the Inn’s collection.

For all of these reasons, it is particularly appropriate that the Inner Temple should play a special part in commemorating these historic events.

And London Burned will be premiered on Thursday 27 October in the Temple Church, and will be followed by a Gala Dinner in the Inner Temple Hall. Further performances will be held on Friday 28 and Saturday 29 October.

Matt Rogers and Sally O’Reilly made their Royal Opera debut last year, with the premiere of The Virtues of Things, a witty dissection of how objects carry meaning and operas unfold their fictions, at the Linbury Studio Theatre. And London Burned combines history, poetry, and drama with atmospheric and evocative musical effects. Set in 14 short

scenes, it follows the journey of a young student of the Inner Temple (to be sung by Alessandro Fisher, joint winner of the first prize at this year’s Kathleen Ferrier awards) through London at the time of the Great Fire. Drawn by the sight of smoke over London Bridge, our young student ventures out from the Inn into the city: and the music evokes the chaos of the fire, as Londoners (Aoife O’Sullivan and Gwilym Bowen) frantically try to save themselves and their possessions, squabble, loot, and generally cause mayhem.

The young student is then forced to retreat by the westward-moving fire, and becomes involved as Londoners argue over the causes of the fire, for which they (unjustly) blame foreign agents, and a preacher blames God’s wrath.

As the young student finally arrives back at the Inn, we see the decisive intervention of the Duke of York (Andrew Rupp).

The young student tries to bar the gates, but the Duke forces his way in, and orders the Paper House to be blown up to save the Temple Church and the rest of the Temple. Through it all, the spirit of London (Raphaela Papadakis) watches and provides a commentary. In the concluding scenes, the Duke of York decrees that the city shall be rebuilt and greatly improved, the student is sent home in disgrace, and London looks forward to the future.

The production will be directed by Sinéad O’Neill who works regularly as an Assistant Director at Glyndebourne.

Christopher Stark, who will conduct, is co-Artistic Director of the RPS Award Winning Multi-Story Orchestra, and made his BBC Proms debut with them this summer. The production will be designed by Kitty Callister, who last season designed the set and costumes for Glyndebourne’s new chamber opera, Macbeth. The Organist and Director of Music of the Temple Church, Roger Sayer, fresh from his performance of the Oscar nominated score for Interstellar, will be among the musicians.

This exciting new commission was the idea of this year’s Treasurer, Master Cryan. It has been made possible by generous sponsorship from JM Finn & Co, and from a number of Benchers of Inner Temple and supporters of the Temple Music Foundation. The Inn is very grateful indeed to them all. We are also very grateful to James Conway and Jane-Eve Straughton of English Touring Opera for their invaluable advice; to Sir Richard Aikens, Carol Butler and the TMF staff; to the Reverend and Valiant Master of the Temple, Robin Griffith-Jones, and his staff; to Henrietta Amodio and the other staff of the Inn; and to everyone else who has encouraged and assisted with this venture.

Thanks to the generosity of the Treasurer and Benchers of Middle Temple, their portrait of James II, as Duke of York, will be on display in Inner Temple Hall until the end of 2016: it will hang between the Inn’s portraits of William and Mary.

Richard Salter �� Tickets for And London Burned are available from www.templemusic.org/main-events or by calling 020 7427 5641

37

38

INNER TEMPLE LECTURE SERIES

Are Medical Ethics Bad for Our Health?

– Autonomy and Public Health

From a lecture given by Christopher Newdick, Professor of Law at the University of Reading, on 15 February 2016

L

awyers have become so accustomed to the medical ethics of ‘autonomy’ that it has become second-nature.

It forms the bedrock of leading texts on medical law and ethics and is central to our modern law. There is much to be said in its favour. It marks a decisive shift away from a paternalistic approach to the doctor-patient relationship in which doctors assumed undue authority over personal decisions and transfers to patients responsibility for their own lives. I do not suggest it is all bad. However, I draw attention to the difficulty autonomy presents to public health medicine, especially as to non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease and stroke caused in part by our ‘obesogenic’ environment. The problem in not limited to the UK; it has a global dimension. The following, therefore, suggests that principles of autonomy must be modified in the public interest.

A. The Nature of the Problem Let us commence by considering a series of statistics.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) estimated that: “In England, almost a quarter of adults and almost a sixth of children under the age of 11 are obese. It is predicted that by 2050, 60 per cent of adult men, 50 per cent of adult women and 25 per cent of children may be obese… Around 58 per cent of the incidences of type 2 diabetes, 21 per cent of cases of heart disease and between 8 per cent and 42 per cent of cancers are attributable to excess body fat.” This presents a financial threat to the NHS.

ARE MEDICAL ETHICS BAD FOR OUR HEALTH? INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

“ The rapid increase in the number of obese people in the UK is a major challenge… over half of the UK adult population could be obese by 2050. The economic implications are substantial. The NHS costs attributable to overweight and obesity are projected to double to £10 billion per year by 2050. The wider costs to society and business are estimated to reach £49.9 billion per year (at today’s prices).”

Foresight: Tackling Obesity (Government Office for Science, 2013, 2nd edition) The problem is compounded by the funding projections for the NHS. As NHS England has said, during a period of welfare austerity: “ In England, continuing with the current model of care will result in the NHS facing a funding gap between projected spending requirements and resources

B. Bioethics and Individualism Bioethics is implicated in this problem because of its emphasis on individualism and its tendency to dilute the role of the state in responding to decisions described (often wrongly) as ‘lifestyle.’ Isaiah Berlin expresses the classical view of autonomy, albeit in the context of political theory rather than medical ethics, when he says: “ I wish my life and decision to depend on myself, not external forces of whatever kind. I wish to be the instrument of my own, not of other men’s acts of will.

I wish to be subject, not object; to be moved by reasons, by conscious purposes, which are my own, not by causes which affect me, as it were, from outside…”

In medical ethics, this has been endorsed by Ronald Dworkin’s approach to personal responsibility for the illnesses and diseases we suffer. He distinguishes between “brute bad luck” and “option luck.” If we are afflicted by misfortunes

“I wish to be subject, not object; to be moved by reasons” available of around £30bn between 2013/14 and 2020/21 (approximately 22 per cent of projected costs in 2020/21). This estimate is before taking into account any productivity improvements and assumes that the health budget will remain protected in real terms.”

NHS England’s Chief Executive, Simon Stevens has added to this: “If as a nation we keep on piling on the pounds around the waistline, we’ll be piling on the pounds in terms of future taxes needed just to keep the NHS afloat… It’s not just the wellbeing of people and our children, but it’s also the sustainability of the NHS itself.”

One solution to the challenge of non-communicable diseases is to invest more in preventive medicine and to develop policies to encourage healthier diets and for people to take more exercise. Yet, from a total budget of over £100bn, the sums devoted to keeping fit and strong are small. “ Public health spending has doubled over the last seven years as a share of total health spending. It has increased to £4.7 billion (including pharmaceuticals but excluding secondary prevention) and £3.4 billion (excluding pharmaceuticals and secondary prevention), and the share of total health expenditure spent on public health and prevention in England had doubled over seven years to 3.6 per cent for 2006–07.”

Government’s Response to the Health Committee Report on Health Inequalities (2009, Cm 7621)

which are not of our own making, but the result of simple bad luck, then a more generous response is deserved when compared to conditions which are caused by decisions of our own. As he says “ … the difference between [brute bad luck and option luck] can be represented as a matter of degree… If someone develops cancer in the course of a normal life, and there is no particular decision to which we can point as a gamble risking the disease, then we will say that he has suffered brute bad luck. But if he smoked cigarettes heavily then we may prefer to say that he took an unsuccessful gamble.”

His distinction is based on a strong sense of autonomy, that sentient individuals are best placed to decide matters like this for themselves and should bear the consequences of doing so.

But there are a number of difficulties with this classical view of autonomy. First, it overstates the extent to which our actions are routinely motivated by a strong sense of autonomy. Take Winnipeg Child and Family Services v G (DF) [1997] 3 SCR 925 in which a mother of three children was addicted to glue-vapour. She was unable to care for her children who were placed in care. Two had suffered braindamage in utero by her addiction. She became pregnant for a fourth time and the question arose whether her unborn child should be taken into care by requiring her to remain in an environment which would not harm her baby. By a bare majority, the Supreme Court of Canada held that such an intrusion on her liberty would be unlawful.

Now compare the very different view of autonomy of Gerald Dworkin who distinguishes between our immediate desires here and now and our longer-term wishes about the sort of life we would like to live in future. Autonomy is, he says, mistaken if it considers only our “first-order” desires: “ To consider only the promotion or hindrance of firstorder desires… is to ignore a crucial feature of persons, their ability to reflect upon and adopt attitudes toward their first order intentions… One may not just desire to smoke, but also desire that one may not have that

39

40

INNER TEMPLE ARE MEDICAL ETHICS BAD FOR OUR HEALTH?

desire… [Autonomy] is a feature that evaluates a whole way of living one’s life and can only be assessed over extended portions of a person’s life… By exercising such a capacity, persons define their nature, give meaning and coherence to their lives, and take responsibility for the kind of person they are.”

Thus, even if we leave aside the interests of the unborn child in Winnipeg (a significant step in itself), could we reasonably presume that the mother would naturally wish to fulfil her parental duties to her children and that this should also be reflected in our understanding of her autonomy?

Many would agree that our immediate wishes today do not necessarily reflect our future intentions. By contrast to the law in Canada, Norway accepts the need to intervene in these cases and to detain expectant mothers if necessary, and the measure has not caused particular alarm.

Behavioural psychology takes a similar approach. It too holds that much of our behaviour has little to do with an expression of a strong sense of autonomy. Instead, it reflects habits and heuristics and the environment in which we live – especially the influence of close friends and relatives. “ Behavioural approaches embody a line of thinking that moves from the idea of an autonomous individual making rational decisions to a ‘situated’ decisionmaker, much of whose behaviour is automatic and influenced by their ‘choice environment’… What we eat, where we go, what we do – most of us are creatures of habit and, in a very general sense, the environment that we live in.”

MINDSPACE – Influencing Behaviour Through Public Policy (Cabinet Office, Institute for Government, 2010) If these are accurate reflections of our behaviour and motivations, then the central position occupied by individual autonomy in medical ethics deserves to be reconsidered.

A second problem with autonomy concerns its focus on the doctor-patient relationship, but largely to ignore the variety of other factors which cause illness and disease. “ Bioethics has been quick to focus on exotic new medical technologies and how they might affect our lives. It has paid considerable attention to the doctor-patient relationship and how changes in the health system affect it. With some significant exceptions, it has not looked ‘upstream’- from the point of view of the delivery of medical services to the role of the health care system in delivering improved population health. It has even more rarely looked further upstream to social arrangements that determine the health achievement of societies.

N. Daniels, B. Kennedy and I. Kawachi, “Health Inequality or, Why Justice is Good for Our Health,” in (eds) S. Anand, F. Peter and A. Sen, Public Health, Ethics and Policy (Oxford University Press, 2006), 64.

If we accept that non-communicable diseases are caused by an environment which is often outside our control, autonomy is wrong to focus on one end of the chain of causal events, but to neglect the causes which brought doctor and patient together. Were it to take a broader view, it would need to include a range of issues – especially to do with social and economic inequality. As the Marmot Report noted, individual health status is directly reflected by social status. Accordingly, the most disadvantaged people in society consistently suffer the highest incidence of morbidity and mortality:

“… these health inequalities do not arise by chance, and they cannot be attributed simply to genetic makeup, ‘bad’ behaviour, or difficulties in access to medical care, important as these factors may be. Social and economic differences in health status reflect, and are caused by, social and economic inequalities in society…”

Current conceptions of autonomy have no particular concern with social inequality. But if we agree that one of the duties of government is to promote equality of access to opportunity, including a healthy life, then we must consider the duty to tackle health inequalities that arise from noncommunicable diseases. A hands-off, laissez-faire approach to autonomy will not be sufficient.

C. Health: Whose Responsibility?

Some, like Ronald Dworkin, may argue that, even if it is true that autonomy is complex and we are creatures of our environment, never the less, we should not infantilise competent adults by a tyrannical, ‘nanny state’ approach to medicine. Assuming no solution is perfect, it is better to maximise individual freedom and to interfere as little as possible with personal choice. Perhaps we should nudge, but we should not mandate how people should live.

Indeed, some may argue that if public health deserves more attention, then greater pressure should be imposed on individuals to look after themselves better. By contrast, others may argue that extreme individualism may neglect those in most need and urge us to pay greater attention to the future sustainability of public health systems and rights to equality. They may urge the need for government to develop a stronger presence in preventive health both with respect to individuals, by warnings and information to the public, and by more extensive control of business by regulating the sale of sugar, salt and fat in the food that we buy.

The mounting global response to the damage caused by tobacco suggests that governments all over the world are beginning to adopt a more systemic response to the problems of non-communicable diseases. If this is so with respect to tobacco, then further steps may be anticipated in connection with food and alcohol.

In the end, do we believe that personal autonomy is founded on a fundamental ethical imperative with which we should be slow to interfere? Or is it more accurately a description of an acceptable relationship between the state and its citizens as to the proper balance between the right to be let alone and the legitimate responsibility of representative government to regulate in the public interest? If the classical notion of autonomy commenced at the ‘ethical’ end of the spectrum, perhaps it is on a journey toward the other side and the point at which a suitable balance of interests is achieved is more for the compromises of democratic politics than imperative ethics.

Professor Christopher Newdick University of Reading The full version of this lecture is available at www.innertemple.org.uk/education/lecture-series-2016

INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

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

The Library offers the following facilities and services: • a quiet environment for study, with over 90 reader places • a comprehensive collection of English legal materials, including the most up-to-date editions of major practitioner texts

• legal research training for pupils and students • legal research FAQs on the Library’s website • tours for students and pupils, plus a virtual tour on our website • web access to the library catalogues of the four Inns • AccessToLaw, a gateway site providing annotated links to selected UK, Commonwealth and worldwide legal websites (www.accesstolaw.com) • Current Awareness blog for legal news, changes in legislation and new case law (www.innertemplelibrary.com)

• an extensive archive of old editions of practitioners’ works

• quarterly electronic newsletter

• specialist Commonwealth & Scottish collections

• a Facebook page with information on Library services, news and events (www.facebook.com/innertemplelibrary)

• collections which are all on-site and easily accessible • a range of commercial legal research databases

• range of guides available in the Library or for downloading from our website

• PCs for online research, access to email and word processing

• equipment and software for users with hearing or visual impairment

• free Wi-Fi • photocopying, scanning and printing facilities • a document supply service

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

• an enquiry service (in person, by telephone and by email) • assistance with online searching and legal research • an overnight loans scheme for barristers

41

INNER TEMPLE

“ The only thing that you absolutely have to know, is the location of the library.”

By Tracey Dennis, Deputy Librarian

42

A

lbert Einstein said this over 60 years ago and it is as true now as it was then. Even in the age of ‘everything’ being online, the value of a library such as that of the Inner Temple has not diminished.

It is completely erroneous to assume that all you need for research is available online. A glance at the statistics kept at the Library’s Enquiry Point shows this very clearly. The most frequently requested materials are the old editions of practitioner textbooks. None of the subscription databases provides access to anything other than the current edition of a textbook, so even if the 2015 White Book is needed, the only way to see it is to go the library. Another good example is the request we received recently for personal injury textbooks from the 1960s. As we retain all previous editions, library staff were able to provide the barrister with the texts he needed very quickly.

The Inn Libraries are considered to be amongst the best law libraries in the country. As Jules Winterton (Director and Librarian, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies) has said: “The libraries of the Inns maintain some of the few great collections of books on foreign and international law in Britain and Ireland, as well as magnificent collections on English law.”

It is our unique and extensive collections that continue to make the Inner Temple Library an amazing resource. In 2009, a survey was carried out at the Inn’s behest to look at duplication between the Middle Temple and Inner Temple Libraries. The conclusion of the subsequent report was that the amount of duplication was very limited and that many of the Libraries’ holdings of foreign and international law material were unique and not easily found outside these Libraries. Particular mention was made of the Inner Temple’s legislation and case law collections for jurisdictions such as Canada, the Cayman Islands, the Bahamas and India. The material in these special collections is usually not available online and so our holdings are very important, as was shown by a recent request from the Supreme Court for legislation relating to Jamaica. Given the above it is easy to see why the Inner Temple Library is recognised as a library of national importance.

We know from observing how barristers use the Library that they often require obscure materials urgently. In 1971, Wallace Bream (late Librarian of the Inner Temple) wrote in A Sketch of the Inner Temple Library that “The needs of the barrister are diverse and sudden”. This has not changed and we are asked for help on a whole range of legal topics.

Finding the Act that stopped the practice of burying suicides with a stake through the heart; tracking down the Black Book of the Admiralty and locating a copy of the 5th report of the Law Revision Committee in 1936 are just a few recent examples. Only a library with extensive collections can

respond to such diverse enquiries and within the time limits necessarily imposed upon barristers.

Another valuable reason for continuing to maintain extensive collections is that we are then able to provide equal provision of information for barristers of all levels of experience and whatever their financial resources. As Jack of Kent said in his blog, “a good law library is a Public Benefit.

It provides a lawyer – any lawyer – with the same access to the very same legal resources as his or her opponents, however well-resourced or expensive those lawyers are.” Not all chambers can afford to have well-resourced libraries and in these days of legal aid cuts, publicly funded barristers find it more difficult to purchase highly priced textbooks. The Inner Temple Library is a great resource which gives its users access to an extensive range of hard copy and online materials which they might not be able to get hold of otherwise.

The above illustrates the complementary value of our hard copy and online collections. But we are not just caretakers of a depository full of old books. We have made use of modern technology and have created web-based services that permit barristers to carry out research when they cannot come into the Library. Our AccessToLaw database enables barristers to find authoritative free resources wherever they are based and our Current Awareness blog keeps them up to date with legal news. Our website has many useful tools for legal research, including training videos, legal research FAQs and guides for pupils and students. In addition, our document supply service means that materials from our holdings can be requested by barristers from all over the world.

Finally, the Library would not be such an acknowledged institution without its dedicated library staff. Users have often commented on the expertise and helpfulness of the staff and how “nothing is too much trouble.” A library of such size would not function without its staff. As one pupil barrister has said, “When I need to research an unfamiliar area of law the librarians are the first port of call to find out the key practitioners’ texts, relevant law reports and online databases to gain all the information I need.’

To conclude, the Library at the Inner Temple continues to be an impressive resource with unique and important collections and highly regarded staff. It is recognised as being of immense value to its users and also as a Library of national significance.

Cicero said “If you have a garden and a library, you have everything you need.”

Fortunately for Inner Temple members and tenants they have both.

Tracey Dennis

INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

God vs Caesar: Sir Edward Coke and the Struggles of his Time

From a sermon delivered at the Temple Church by Professor David Little, Research Fellow at Georgetown University, on 8 May 2016

I

n the 1580s a youthful Edward Coke (1552–1634), having recently completed his education here at the Inns and entered the Bar, was likely seated hereabouts on a Sunday morning taking notes on a sermon by Richard Hooker, Master of the Temple Church from 1585 to 1591.

Life was not peaceful at the Temple Church in the 1580s. Richard Hooker, who would, in a few years, become an eminent defender of the Anglican faith and Church, had been appointed Master instead of a rising Puritan leader and the incumbent Reader of the Temple, Walter Travers.

Queen Elizabeth and her close counsellor, Archbishop John Whitgift, had found Travers too much the Calvinist firebrand and reformer. At issue was a profound conflict that went well beyond the walls of the Temple Church. It would shake the foundations of religious and political authority in English life up through the 17thCentury, extending to the English Civil War and colonial policies, especially in North America, and it would thereby set the stage for some of the opposing themes and opinions that Sir Edward Coke would confront and attempt to reconcile during his long life.

English Puritans, like Travers, have rightly been characterized as proponents of a ‘proto-revolutionary ideology.’

English and American Puritanism is a complicated movement.

But however difficult it is to pin down its essence, a persistent

theme is the reform of church and state in one form or other, and some of the proposals by Puritans were quite revolutionary, indeed.

Travers, together with close associates like Thomas Cartwright, were not part of the most extreme wing, such as those who sought a complete separation of church and state and extensive protection for freedom of conscience. Travers and Cartwright were Presbyterians, which meant they desired to replace the existing Anglican system with a brand new form of church order, one derived from their mentor and inspiration, the Genevan reformer, John Calvin. They proposed a representative system of church government directed by presbyteroi or ‘elders’ who were to be elected by the various congregations. The arrangement favoured plural government – polyarchy, not monarchy – with the accent on election and participation.

Travers wrote that open elections are like a banquet, “where everyman bringeth his dish, which is so much the daintier the more that come unto it.” And Cartwright rebuked Archbishop Whitgift for his commitment to “ecclesiastical monarchy” since “it is harder to draw many into…error than one…[and] peace without truth is more execrable than a thousand contentions. [A]s by striking two flints together there cometh out fire,…sometimes by contention the truth which is hidden…may come to light…”

43

44

This emphasis on participatory government showed up in Presbyterian reflections on the state, pointing to the strong tendency among Puritans to favour parliamentary government. That is a form of governmentcharacterized by ‘speaking together,’ as in the French root, parlement.

In a formal debate over the idea of monarchy conducted at Cambridge University in 1564 before Queen Elizabeth herself, a youthful, impertinent Thomas Cartwright spoke against the idea. He argued that neither God nor nature ordains monarchy, for “mere men,” he said, “require a fellowship of labour and counsel.” Apparently, the Queen was unconvinced.

Central to the Presbyterian proposal was the right of the church to conduct its own affairs independent of state supervision. That point underscored the idea that the church constituted an altogether ‘new order,’ consisting of novel forms of equality and freedom. Every member finally stands or falls on the basis of personal obedience alone, without regard to traditional rank and status. While the nobility and gentry are capable of religion and zeal, “the common and most usual calling of God resteth in more of the poorer than the richer sort,” wrote Cartwright. “Simple men which carry no great countenance or show will undoubtedly do more good to the church…”

The new freedom, the new spirit of reform, was expressed in the active electoral and other forms of participation encouraged of members in both church and state, but it was also to be expressed in economic activity.

Cartwright and Whitgift wrangled over the existence of so many holy days, conjointly imposed by the Anglican Church

Courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto

INNER TEMPLE

“Simple men which carry no great countenance or show will undoubtedly do more good to the church…” and the state. If holy days were to be observed at all, that should be determined by “the will of everyone,” wrote Cartwright, “and not by the command of the Church or magistrate.” It serves neither “the wealth of the people” nor the preservation of good order “that there should be so many days wherein men should cease from work, being a thing that breedeth idleness and poverty…”

We must not leave the Presbyterians without calling attention to one contradiction in their proposals. The radical talk of new freedom was real enough, but it was seriously curtailed by the belief that their church should be legally established in place of Anglicanism. In effect, they wanted to “force people to be free,” in Rousseau’s words, something easier said than done. Other Puritans rejected the contradiction, holding that true Christian freedom could only be realized by separating church and state altogether.

So much for the Puritan challenge represented by Walter Travers. Richard Hooker and his close associate, Archbishop Whitgift, undertook to meet the challenge head on. Hooker resigned as Master in 1591, and, with the help of Whitgift, soon began publishing his famous work, The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, dedicating the lengthy fifth book to Whitgift. Living and working within the Inns of Court for six years, Hooker was in constant contact with lawyers and the law, and, in his magnum opus, he sought to crystallize the fluid legal and political thought of his day, albeit in strongly theological terms.

Both men perceived the Puritans as posing severe danger to the existing English system. Hooker disparaged them as “patrons of liberty,” imperiling duly established laws and commandments, propelled by the thought that “everyman is left to the freedom of his own mind in such things.” It

is they, said Hooker, who “shaketh universally the fabric of government,” “overthrow[ing] kingdoms [and] churches,” and everything else that gets in their way. Whitgift went out of his way to denounce the Puritan call for economic freedom, as a special threat to good order. Whatever Cartwright might say, the magistrate has full authority over his subjects to “call them from bodily labour or compel them unto it, as shall seem to him most convenient.”

In opposing the Puritan menace, Hooker and Whitgift stood fast for the Henrician and Elizabethan settlements. They consistently affirmed the ‘nationalization’ of the church of 1534, underwritten by the Supremacy Act, making the lay monarch supreme head of the church, and by the Uniformity Act, establishing Anglicanism as the only lawful religion in England.

They also defended the virtues of monarchy and hierarchy in church and state, as well as the great value of the indissoluble relationship between them. Whatever Puritans might say, monarchy is incomparably better than polyarchy in both church and state. “Where many rule,” declared Whitgift, “there is no order,” and “any platform” that “bringeth equally high and low into parish churches,” or “seeketh to make the nobility vulgar,” stated Hooker, must be rejected, since the Church of God “esteemeth [nobles] of more worth than thousands.” Moreover, church and state are so “twined together,” Hooker went on, that altering the one must “exceedingly weaken the other.” “There is not any man in the Church of England but the same man is also a member of the commonwealth, nor any man a member of the commonwealth which is also of the Church of England.” Membership in church and commonwealth is perfectly coterminous.

GOD VS. CAESAR INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Most important for Hooker, the authority of law and government rests on their antiquity. “There are few things known to be good till such time as they grow to be ancient.”

To be sure, the voice of the people equals the voice of God, but it must be the “general and perpetual voice,” expressed as that which the people have “at all times learned”. What was agreed to of old is the foundation for what is agreed to at present. “Corporations are immortal,” says Hooker.

“We were then alive in our predecessors, and they in their successors do still live.”

Hooker takes this point about the inseparability of ancestors and descendants very seriously. If we abrogate a longstanding law as being poorly drafted, “do we not,” he asks, “revoke our very own deed, and upbraid ourselves with folly?” So indistinguishable are the acts of past and present.

“Further, if it be a law which custom and continual practice of many ages or years hath confirmed, to alter it must needs be troublesome and scandalous…”

Faced with the struggle of views between Richard Hooker and Walter Travers, manifested in their ‘Battle of the Pulpit,’ Edward Coke appeared, at first blush, to side exclusively with Hooker and against Travers. He remained an Anglican all his life, declaring that those “who would have no bishops among us” “do strive” “to pluck the right hand of government” and “to break in sunder the golden frame of just authority, for if no bishops, then no laws, and if no laws, no King.” “For never was there a nation known to flourish having a monarchy in the kingdom, and [something different] in the church.”

Beyond that, Coke shared two other things of the greatest importance with Hooker. One was Hooker’s unbounded confidence in the legal profession and its indispensability in maintaining peace and order. The other was Hooker’s traditionalistic mindset. In describing his theory of law, Coke sounds again and again like Hooker: “For,” he wrote, “any fundamental point of the ancient common law and custom of the realm, it is a maxim in policy, and a trial by experience, that the alteration of any [law] is most dangerous; for that which hath been refined and perfected by all the wisest men in the former succession of ages, and proved and approved by continual experience to be good and profitable for the commonwealth, cannot without great hazard and danger be altered or changed.”

Coke never renounced or turned away from his backward-looking perspective. But he managed, by means of stunning feats of sleight of hand, to reconstruct much of the legal tradition in the image of his own time. He did that by introducing reforms dear to the hearts of Puritans, while making it appear that they were not reforms at all, but had always been part of the ancient law. By making the new look old, Coke succeeded, I am suggesting, in combining the messages of both Hooker and Travers, of both the Anglican and the Puritan.

Let me give two abbreviated examples, one economic, the other political. Many of Coke’s rulings and pronouncements regarding economic life amounted to an ideology of deregulation and free enterprise that match certain Puritan sentiments. Coke started out focusing his opposition against efforts by Elizabeth and James to regulate the economy by granting patents and monopolies. However, his passion against government interference finally got the best of him, as when he declared grandly that “monopolies in times past were ever without law, but never without friends.” Whatever one might think of the harm caused at the time by some forms of royal intervention, the notion that there was no ancient precedent entitling the Crown to grant monopolies and patents, or giving merchant and trade guilds the right to exclusive control of commerce, was “outrageously unhistorical,” in the words of one historian. Despite what

Coke said, it was not the past but the future that was contained in his rulings on economic life. The changes he authorized would indeed come eventually to “shake universally” the foundations of the existing social order, as Hooker had warned.

The same assessment applies to Coke’s growing preference for parliamentary government in opposition to the insistent exercises of royal prerogative by Kings James and Charles, another point of agreement between Coke and many Puritans of his time. Coke became a great defender of the supremacy of the rule of law and Parliament, leading to his dismissal by King James as Chief Justice in 1616, and his championing of the Petition of Right in 1628. As with his reforms of the economic order, these efforts opened the door to significant social and political change by advancing the cause of popular participation in government and equal protection under the law.

The only problem was Coke mistakenly claimed ancient warrants for Parliament that did not exist. He asserted that Parliament originated in pre-Norman times, and was as such part of the ‘ancient constitution,’ as it was known, associated with the legendary King, Edward the Confessor. In fact, of course, Parliament did not come into being until the mid13th Century. Thanks in part to Puritan agitation, Parliament was gaining new authority during Coke’s lifetime, and Coke backdated the sources of that authority to the early 11th Century so as to show, again, that what is new had always been so.

In his own way, then, Coke was, consciously or not, trying to mediate the struggles of his time, symbolized by the Battle of the Pulpit between Richard Hooker and Walter Travers, right here at the Temple Church in the 1580s. For a time, and despite his strong Anglican proclivities, Coke found strong allies among the Puritans – one 16th Century Puritan divine dedicated several pamphlets to him. Coke’s resistance to what was regarded as extensive royal overreach, and especially his efforts to subordinate church courts to the rule of common law, resonated loudly in Puritan ears. Interestingly, Coke considered the Presbyterians the “least dangerous” among the Puritan groups, suggesting on his part readiness for a working alliance with at least some of them.

However, as events unfolded, and proceeded to move inexorably toward the English Civil War (or Puritan Revolution) in the 1640s, Coke’s efforts to disguise certain Puritan interests in the clothes of the past – to ‘Hookerize’ Travers, if you will – did not work any longer for more radical Puritans, such as the Levellers, who were leftish members of Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army. They came to reject explicitly Coke’s backward-looking perspective, including his loyalty to an established Anglican Church. They found him insufficiently dedicated to the rule of law, as they understood it. They asserted in much bolder terms the ‘proto-revolutionary ideology’ introduced fitfully and inconsistently by Presbyterians like Travers and Cartwright, calling for a brand new form of government based on a written constitution, created deliberately and self-consciously by an express “act of the people,” and committed, unlike Travers and Cartwright, to the complete separation of church and state.

As things worked out, that ideology would come to have more long-term effects in the American colonies, and, eventually, in the founding of the United States, than it would in England. But that is altogether another story.

David Little Research Fellow Berkeley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs Georgetown University A fuller account of these matters is contained in David Little, Religion, Order, and Law: A Study in Pre-Revolutionary England (New York: Harper & Row, 1969; republished, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984).

45

46

INNER TEMPLE SPEECH

Temple Women’s Forum A Helping Hand: Experts’ Guide To Developing Careers

From the key note speech to the Temple Women’s Forum given by Peninah Thomson ���, Chief Executive of The Mentoring Foundation, on the 18 April 2016

I

began my career at the UK Foreign Office, then NATO, and from there went to PricewaterhouseCoopers, where I spent 13 years working as a consultant.

I then went on to work for 14 years as a Board-level Executive Coach at Praesta Partners, and while there, set up the FTSE 100 Cross-Company Mentoring Programme in 2003, with the support of several FTSE 100 chairs.

Since 2011, I have been running the FTSE Programme full time. There has been a huge push given to the subject of women’s participation at senior levels on UK corporate boards.

Based on my experience during the last 18 years, there are several things that highly successful women typically have in common.

1. They develop a roadmap – no matter how simple – for their career Plan your career, select immediate goals and ambitions, and develop a roadmap. The challenge then is to resist any temptation to stray too far from the critical path.

Women are often more reluctant than their male counterparts to develop a roadmap, and tend to become so absorbed in the day job that they neglect to think longer term. They believe that if we keep their heads down and work hard, the best opportunities will come their way. Sadly, this is not always the case. If you wait until you are half-way through your journey to plan your route, it is possible that you may make a wrong turn, or find yourself in a cul-de-sac.

2. They ‘fill the gaps’ By developing a roadmap, it becomes easier to identify gaps in your experience, skills or abilities that may become an issue as you seek to progress to the next level. Often we reach a point in our careers where we need to change gear in order to progress to the next stage, and understanding the skills, approaches and patterns of behaviour that will be necessary for that gear-change is critical if we are to develop them and achieve our goals.

Temple Women's Forum Cross Profession Networking Garden Party, 11 July 2016.

Speaker, Master Hallett

Peninah Thomson OBE

3. They make their achievements known Women can be worse than their male counterparts at putting their heads above the parapet, at putting themselves forward, and at making their achievements known. Some very recent research – the Hays Global Gender Diversity Report – found that 42 per cent of women feel they have the opportunity to self-promote and communicate their ambitions in the workplace, compared with 58 per cent of men.

All of these elements feed into the next characteristic.

4. They demonstrate a willingness to take risks It is often observed that women may be more risk-averse in their career aspirations than men. But when senior vacancies arise, those looking to fill those positions tend to seek out personable, opinionated, self-confident men and women who exhibit good judgment, and have the strength of character to initiate; to hold their ground; to challenge, and to resist the dangers of ‘group think’.

Women who succeed invariably do put their heads above the parapet; they raise their profiles; they have something to say; and they make sure they are heard saying it at conferences, in the right publications, and elsewhere.

5. They throw their hats into the ring A related but slightly different point is the need to put oneself forward when an opportunity presents itself. You will be familiar with the slightly hackneyed idea, but based upon sound research, that a man will apply for a job if his CV meets 6 out of 10 of the job description’s requirements, believing that he will be able to ease his way into the role and learn everything else on the job. Women, on the other hand, will often apply for jobs only when they are confident they meet more than 90 per cent of the stated criteria, and even then, may hesitate and overly focus on the gaps in their experience.

Women also often wait to be asked to apply for jobs, again believing that if they keep their heads down and work hard, opportunities will present themselves. This is known as the ‘descent of the tiara’. But the most successful women are not afraid to throw their hats into the ring.

TEMPLE WOMEN’S FORUM INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

6. They show resilience Exhibiting resilience can be the defining characteristic of women’s careers. There is no instant gratification when developing a career and pushing for success at the very highest level; women who succeed do so by developing thick skins, by passionately pursuing their long term goals, and by following that old adage that ‘if at first you don’t succeed …’.

7. They often follow non-linear career paths In our latest research paper, Tacking: Women’s Zig-Zag Careers, we look at the many non-linear ways in which women reach the upper echelons of their organisations.

In many businesses, the approach to leadership development remains firmly anchored in a linear model that may not suit many women. Often, women choose to exit the workplace mid-career for a period of time; they spend time working flexibly or part-time; they refuse a promotion or a foreign posting because of competing priorities outside the workplace; or they pursue other interests alongside their careers, such as not-for-profit roles.

Most talent frameworks have not yet incorporated a broad range of career trajectories into their thinking, and may therefore overlook women pursuing alternative routes to the top.

8. They learn to network.

Networking is often discussed as a problem area for women as they head to the top of organisations, as they are said to be less adept at it than men, whether because they dislike it or find it distasteful; have no actual time to do it; or are excluded from high-level networks that are male-orientated.

Some networking is clearly essential in the absence of a perfectly efficient skills market. Those responsible for promotions support their formal due diligence on candidates with information gathered through networking, and by asking the opinion of others that they know and trust and by taking soundings.

As long as networks are open and support the markets for talent and ability, rather than replace them, there is nothing to object to and they can improve the efficiency of markets for talent. The problem for ambitious and aspirational women is that networks are not always completely open.

Some are very old, and linked to school, or gentlemen’s clubs, and others have simply acquired qualities that reflect the current gender of the members.

One study of over 240 professionals in 2013 (by law firm Trowers & Hamlins and head-hunters, fdu group) found that women over the age of 35 network far less than men in the same age group. A quarter of women said they networked at least once a week, compared to 46 per cent of men; almost double. Among 25–34 year olds the split was much more even.

The obvious inference is that this is to do with childrearing commitments. The survey found 51 per cent of fathers but 24 per cent of mothers network once a week or more. Many mothers cited family commitments as the reason for networking infrequently.

What, then, are the pitfalls to avoid?

When it comes to developing your career, the following mistakes are the most common: •

failing to plan and have a clear idea of your longterm objectives;

•

hesitating to apply when opportunities arise;

•

lacking resilience and being reluctant to take risks;

•

neglecting to network and build a profile; and,

•

focusing on the task in hand at the expense of the longer-term.

In setting your sights, you can try using a procedure that we have found helpful in the past 1. Choose a goal you would love to achieve, but which you feel is beyond you, and which you are, therefore, currently making no attempt to reach.

2. Do what we call a ‘possibility brainstorm’: spend five minutes thinking of as many ways as you can to bring it within reach.

3. Make two plans: one going forward from where you are now; the other going backward from your ‘impossible’ goal. If you can get them to meet in the middle, it may not be impossible after all.

4. Find at least three pieces of evidence, no matter how small or apparently trivial, that show your impossible dream is already in the process of being realised.

5. Find three things that you can do right now that will increase the chances, even if only slightly, of reaching your goal.

6. Each morning for a week, repeat your possibility brainstorm for three minutes, each day take three actions, each evening write down three pieces of evidence.

7. Wait for the way to emerge. You will know when it happens, because you will find yourself taking more and more actions towards what you want – you will have begun to live the ‘impossible dream’.

Peninah Thomson ���

47

48

INNER TEMPLE

Western Circuit Women’s Forum

By Kate Brunner ��

T

he first woman to be called to the Bar, Ivy Williams, came from the heart of the West Country, and many have followed in her footsteps in the 94 years since: there are now nearly 300 women practising on the Western Circuit. Whilst there is no problem attracting women to the Bar on any Circuit, there is a deeply entrenched problem with retention and advancement. Women make up 50 per cent of barristers called to the Bar, but that percentage drops sharply over the years so that women make up a total of 35 per cent of the practising Bar and only 6 per cent of barristers over 22 years’ Call. One of the obvious effects of the poor retention rate is that, despite radical overhauls to the process of selecting silks and judges, we are far from equal representation of women at QC and judicial level, and representation on the Western Circuit lags behind the national average. A recent study suggests that at the present rate of change, equality may never be achieved.

The Western Circuit is not known for its pessimism, and so we are launching the Western Circuit Women’s Forum to confront the stubborn statistics. The principle objectives of this Forum are to ensure that every junior female barrister on our Circuit who wishes to remain at the Bar is supported in doing so, and that those barristers who have aspirations to apply for silk or to become a judge are helped and encouraged.

A recent qualitative investigation by the Bar Council (Snapshot: the Experience of Self-Employed Women at the Bar) identified that women’s experiences at the Bar remain significantly – and perhaps surprisingly – different to men’s.

The study identified differences in the type of work women are briefed to do, and differences in the challenges faced when progressing a career. Some are challenges specific to a career at the Bar, and some are challenges which face women in many professions. Two of the recommendations of that study were to put in place mentoring schemes and to make senior female role models more visible. With this in mind, the Western Circuit Women’s Forum is, with enormous support from members of Circuit across the south-west, identifying a mentor for every female member of Circuit under ten years’ Call. The Forum will be formally launched in autumn 2016, and thereafter will organise and moderate events for women barristers and disseminate information relating to return to work and other issues. The Temple Women’s Forum has proved an important resource for barristers in London, and it is hoped that the Western Circuit Women’s Forum can emulate that success. For more information on the scheme, please contact Kate Brunner QC at wcwf@westerncircuit.co.uk.

Kate Brunner �� Steering Group, WCWF (Funding has been gratefully received from the Inns of Court and the Western Circuit)

INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Education & Training

49

50

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

Education at the Inn E

ducation and training remains at the heart of the Inner Temple thanks to the pro bono contribution of members of the Education and Training Committee, chaired by Master Carr; the sub-committees managing the different areas of our provision, and the significant number of members who give up their time to support this core function of the Inn. The dedicated Education and Training team caters for several distinct groups: school and university students aspiring to a career at the Bar, student members on the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC), pupils, new practitioners and established practitioners. We continue to improve and enhance our outreach and advocacy training programmes to meet the needs of our different audiences, focusing resources on making the profession accessible to able candidates from any background and providing high-quality training and support to our members. In turn, this ensures that the best and the brightest students are attracted to the Inn each year, many of whom go on to secure pupillage and tenancy or employment. Inner Temple members secured 154 pupillages this year, our highest number in recent years. Annual surveys of new student members repeatedly emphasise that education and training opportunities are the main factor in a student’s decision to choose this Inn. The forthcoming upgrade of our website will allow us to make more outreach and educational resources available online (in addition to the Reader’s Lecture series, which can already be accessed on the website) and we look forward in the future to enhancing our education provision in new, fit-for-purpose facilities within the Inn. We continue to work with the other Inns to respond via the Council of the Inns of Court (COIC) to the Bar Standards

Board’s Future Bar Training review. In the past 18 months, the COIC Training Reform Working Group, on which Master Levitt is the Inn’s representative, has responded on behalf of all four Inns to consultations on the professional statement; the academic, vocational and professional stages of training; and continuing professional development. Having considered the responses from COIC and other stakeholders, the Bar Standards Board is due to set out its future plans for the regulation of Bar training in a consultation paper due to be published on 3 October 2016.

The following pages outline just some of this year’s education and training activities as well as forthcoming projects. We are looking forward to collaborating with the Library team on providing a new legal research training qualifying session for students. We will also be working with the Bar Council, the other Inns, the Circuits and the Inns of Court College of Advocacy to roll out the national Advocacy and the Vulnerable training programme for publicly funded advocates undertaking serious sexual offences cases.

The Inn is immensely grateful to all its member volunteers who are committed to the educational purpose of the Inn and willing to give up their precious time to support aspiring barristers and help them develop excellent advocacy skills and professional standards. With the ongoing support of our volunteers, the Inn will continue to do everything it can to meet the evolving educational needs of our members. If you are willing to help with any of our programmes or activities, please do get in touch.

Fiona Fulton, Director of Education

EDUCATION AND TRAINING TEAM INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Education and Training Team

From left to right: Kerry Upham, Julia Armfield, Struan Campbell, Fiona Fulton, David Miller, Georgina Everatt, Eamonn O’Reilly and Lacara Barnes-Rowe

Education & Training Department Treasury Building, Inner Temple, London EC4Y 7HL Tel: 020 7797 8208 • www.innertemple.org.uk www.twitter.com/TheInnerTemple

Policy, Student Advocacy Weekends, CPD and Pupil Supervisors Fiona Fulton Director of Education 020 7797 8240 ffulton@innertemple.org.uk Julia Armfield Education Co-ordinator and Assistant to DoE 020 7797 8207 jarmfield@innertemple.org.uk

www.facebook.com/TheInnerTemple

Schools, Universities, Academics and Research

Scholarships and BPTC Student Activities

Call to the Bar, Pupils and New Practitioners

Struan Campbell Outreach Manager 020 7797 8214 scampbell@innertemple.org.uk

Eamonn O’Reilly Scholarships and Students Manager 020 7797 8210 eoreilly@innertemple.org.uk

David Miller Professional Training Manager 020 7797 8209 dmiller@innertemple.org.uk

Georgina Everatt Scholarship and Students Co-ordinator 020 7797 8211 geveratt@innertemple.org.uk

Kerry Upham Education Co-ordinator 020 7797 8213 kupham@innertemple.org.uk

Lacara Barnes-Rowe Outreach Co-ordinator 020 7797 8262 lbarnes@innertemple.org.uk

51

52

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

Outreach Programme T

he Inn’s Outreach programme, in common with all education and training activities, relies heavily on the many members who give up their time to volunteer to take part in a wide range of events and activities: from running workshops at the Schools Project events to speaking to university students at Insight Events across England and Wales. The depth and breadth of activities for which our members volunteer alongside their willingness to support those aspiring to the profession are a credit to the Inn. Without this strong support from members, the Inn would not be able to develop its outreach activities.

Developing the Inn’s Outreach programme is more important than ever with recent news reports that social mobility is “too slow”, “too limited” and even “slower than in medieval England”. It is vital for the Inn, as a gatekeeper to the profession, to continue to review and develop its activities to ensure they are relevant in the ever-changing educational context and the wider pressures placed on students at school and university.

As part of this development process, the Outreach SubCommittee, chaired by Master O’Toole, committed in 2015 to a review of the Inn’s outreach activities. Following the yearlong review process, the Outreach Sub-Committee agreed a five-year strategy, the overarching objective of which would be “to create enriching opportunities, to inspire, connect and enable understanding about the Bar and the Inner Temple as an Inn of Court in the modern world”. A priority is to develop even further the flagship Pegasus Access and Support Scheme (PASS), which supports high-achieving students from non-traditional backgrounds into mini-pupillages. Part of

the outreach review included consideration of the evidence and research presented in a recently published report on the scheme. The report was jointly funded by the Inn and Keele University and was authored by Dr Elaine Freer as part of her PhD. The report stated that students found PASS to be helpful in a number of ways, including the opportunity for direct contact with barristers during their mini-pupillage.

Key for the students was the fact that the Inn covered the travel and accommodation costs of students undertaking their PASS mini-pupillage. The report noted that “a number of PASS students described having had to curtail previous non-PASS mini-pupillages as a result of the cost of travel and felt reassured knowing that this was not going to be an issue in their PASS mini-pupillage”. The report found that 51 per cent of respondents ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ the payment of expenses had been crucial to them undertaking a mini-pupillage. The report also set out a number of challenges, which the Outreach team and the Outreach Sub-Committee will try to address over the next few years: for example, introducing soft skills training to help support PASS students to make pupillage applications and prepare for pupillage interviews.

The Pegasus Access and Support Scheme is only one of a number of ways that the Inn seeks to create access to the profession for high-achieving students from a wide range of backgrounds. If you would like to join other members in volunteering to help with the Outreach programme, please contact the Outreach team (Struan Campbell and Lacara Barnes-Rowe).

Forthcoming Events

Month

Police Liaison Scheme Reception Law Fairs on every circuit Cambridge Insight Evening Oxford Insight Evening London Insight Evening Bristol Insight Evening Dinner for Legal Academics Schools Project Events North Eastern Insight Evening – Durham North Eastern Insight Evening – Leeds Dinner for Legal Academics Schools Project PASS Chambers Event Cardiff Insight Evening Dinner to the Universities PASS Skills Day Schools Project Events Dinner for Legal Academics Dinner for Legal Academics Dinner for Academic Fellows Prospective Students’ Question and Answer Day PASS Mock Trial Workshop COMBAR Scholars Reception Insight Evening Schools Project Events

September 2016 October to November 2016 October 2016 October 2016 October 2016 October 2016 November 2016 November 2016 November 2016 November 2016 February 2017 February 2017 February 2017 February 2017 March 2017 March 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 May 2017 June 2017 June 2017 June 2017 October 2017 October 2017

PEGASUS ACCESS AND SUPPORT SCHEME INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Pegasus Access and Support Scheme F

or aspiring barristers, undertaking mini-pupillages is a useful means of gaining firsthand insight into life in chambers and tends to be one of many ways to demonstrate commitment to the Bar – a quality often assessed in interviews for scholarships and pupillage. Since the inception of the Pegasus Access and Support Scheme (PASS) in 2012, more than 60 chambers have provided our students with opportunities to complete a mini-pupillage.

The students we work with are selected according to social mobility criteria, such as: having attended a state school/sixth form, being the first in their family to access higher education and eligibility for free school meals while at school. They must also demonstrate that they have either attained or are on track to attain a 2.1 or 1st in an undergraduate degree.

“ Since the inception of the Pegasus Access and Support Scheme (PASS) in 2012, more than 60 chambers have provided our students with opportunities to complete a mini-pupillage.”

XXIV Old Buildings is a consistent supporter of PASS and barrister Daniel Warents feels that the scheme is valuable, because it “is a great way for aspiring barristers to see what life at the Bar is like in practice. It was also incredibly rewarding for me to be able to help a bright young person (in a small way) achieve her potential.” One of this year’s participants, Shanze Shah, describes her experience shadowing Daniel:

I was lucky enough to gain work experience in the courts at a very young age and since then I have never stopped pursuing a career at the Bar. I found out about the Pegasus Access and Support Scheme through my university law society and I applied for a place, hoping to gain an honest understanding of the everyday life of a barrister at the Chancery Bar. I wanted to learn more about the work that is conducted inside chambers by barristers and all that happens before a trial.

I went to XXIV Old Buildings and shadowed Mr Daniel Warents. My main task was looking at materials and facts related to a specific case and preparing the advice I would give to the client. I was given the real case facts and other information that were provided to Mr Warents from the client, as well some textbooks, because it was an area of law unfamiliar to me. I studied the facts, the evidence provided and the surrounding case law in great detail. The task was concluded with a discussion about my findings and their validity. I really enjoyed this, as it allowed me to use my own skills and do the kind of task a junior barrister would commonly do.

Mr Warents took me for lunch at the Inns with other barristers from XXIV Old Buildings. I got to learn about their respective areas of law, as well as taking part in some very engaging conversations. During my mini-pupillage, Mr Warents was working with other barristers within the chambers to prepare for a complex case. I was able to see the kind of preparation that occurs before a case goes to trial, as well as learn about the communication between the representatives of each side, which was very fascinating!

Towards the end of my mini-pupillage, I was given Obergefell v Hodges to read – the case that led to the legalisation of gay marriage in the USA. I really enjoyed the discussion we had on the power of the judiciary and how far it should go. Even though this was not strictly related to work as a barrister, it was an extremely informative discussion on an important issue.

Shanzé Shah, University of Birmingham

53

54

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

Social Mobility and the Profession D

uring the course of the academic year 2015–2016, the Outreach team has worked to develop our core programmes and has reflected on the extent to which our provision aids us in developing a profession that reflects the diversity of a modern England and Wales. The Schools Project has been particularly successful: the amended workshop materials have provided our sixth-form students a chance to engage in lively discussions on case law, while the barristers facilitating these sessions have acknowledged the talent and potential of these students. Furthermore, we have seen the Pegasus Access and Support Scheme (PASS), our mini-pupillage programme for those not already on the BPTC, flourish. Alongside our traditional offer of a mini-pupillage at a partner chambers, we have included a well-received Legal Skills Workshop, designed to give advice on the various ways that our cohort of aspiring barristers might refine their skills and develop relevant experience.

Moving forward, we will rely heavily on the already robust support we receive from the profession to consider these issues and their implications for students considered to be from non-traditional backgrounds. Through the administration of PASS, we have been taken aback by the significant cost of undertaking a mini-pupillage in London: for those of our cohort based outside of the city, travel and accommodation amounted to several hundred pounds.

For students from less-privileged backgrounds, this is compounded by the fact that, often, undergraduate study will take place alongside paid part-time work, and so the prospect of taking time away from a much-needed paid role in order to spend money on legal work experience may well be untenable for aspirants from low-income backgrounds.

This, in turn, can considerably impede the ability of otherwise capable students to demonstrate merit and a commitment to the Bar.

“ Our engagement with these aspiring barristers is mutually beneficial to the extent that it provides insight to the issues around widening access to the Bar that are complex and sensitive in nature, namely the concepts of identity and merit.”

Both the Schools Project and PASS are underpinned by social mobility principles and gaining a place on either scheme is contingent on meeting criteria such as being the first in your family to progress to higher education, having attended a state secondary school or sixth form and/or your parents having been in receipt of state benefits. Academic success must also be demonstrated. These programmes have been valuable in that participants have received assistance that would be difficult to obtain elsewhere and, as a result of these schemes, our participants have been able to make important decisions about their journeys to the Bar. However, our engagement with these aspiring barristers is mutually beneficial to the extent that it provides insight to the issues around widening access to the Bar that are complex and sensitive in nature, namely the concepts of identity and merit.

The most satisfying feedback from sixth-formers attending our Schools Project events relates to a change in their perception of barristers. After spending the day with us, students mention that while they previously assumed that barristers might be aloof or posh, they were surprised by how friendly and ‘normal’ the profession is. The potential of our programmes to demystify the profession is great; however, it is also important to recognise that many of the prospective barristers that we encounter through our work have expressed troubling concerns that they may in fact need to conceal or amend aspects of their identity in order to be a ‘good fit’ for the Bar. Judge Tan Ikram and Judge Mark Sutherland Williams have provided invaluable assistance over the past year. On the opposite page, they share perspectives on the importance of diversity in the profession.

SOCIAL MOBILITY AND THE PROFESSION INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Aspiring barristers attend the Inner Temple’s Question & Answer Day

District Judge Tan Ikram Deputy Lead Diversity and Community Relations Judge If you want to get the job done well, you need the person best qualified and skilled to do it, whoever he or she is or where he or she started. Simple really, isn’t it?

Thus it is that the Schools Project gets young people into the Inn to bust some of the myths before some of those low glass ceilings become permanent fixtures. Others simply do not see the world as we do, and the obvious to us is not so obvious to others. Many young people will simply not have good mentoring and guidance early in life.

Role models are an excellent tool to break down barriers and I, as a judge of South Asian heritage, and from Slough, can be a surprise start to a visit to the Inn. Young people must see the profession as a realistic aspiration and see that others just like them have made it. Dismissing some of the stereotypes of who we are and where we came from is an essential part, as is making our profession a modern, welcoming and comfortable place for people from different backgrounds. The project introduces the students to the realities of the Bar and the variety of opportunities available including financial support through the Inn. It is also an excellent opportunity to showcase success in careers, demystify the route to entry and provide information which only ‘insiders’ or the ‘connected’ might otherwise secure.

Ensuring greater diversity is not political correctness or a job for someone else. We all bear that responsibility. Drawing from the widest pool and recruiting the best is essential in facing the increasing challenges and demands of the changing society that we serve.

A recent piece of research found great value to the students attending the Project. It failed to mention the value to us oldies too in the opportunity to hear what the young had to say. On behalf of all of us, thank you.

Tribunal Judge Mark Sutherland Williams Judge of the First-tier Tribunal, Visiting Judge of the Upper Tribunal Diversity and Community Relations Judge What is social mobility? In short, in the context of recruitment for the Bar, it is the movement of individuals from one perceived social level in society to another. Speaking for myself, I don’t even like the term, let alone the implications.

It suggests that when a person enters the legal profession as a barrister they instantly become viewed as a different person, even perhaps a better person; that their place in society changes; that they in some way metamorphose into a different class.

I prefer to think of social mobility as the transition from student to professional. In a profession such as the Bar, that can be a difficult leap for some to make. If you come from a fairly ordinary background, went to perhaps a fairly ordinary school, have no lawyers in the family, have no contacts in the profession, the thought of becoming a barrister can often be a very daunting prospect. But what really matters here? Is it the school you went to? Is it your parents’ jobs?

Is it Aunty Deirdre’s penchant for a glass of red wine and an embarrassing saucy joke at dinner? Of course not. What will make an individual succeed at the modern Bar is raw talent, intelligence, dedication, commitment, the ability not to choke, singlemindedness, a little drama, a little luck, hard work and great advocacy and networking skills. And if you pause to think about it – that is not very different to any other profession. Sure, the Bar may historically have been regarded as elitist, over-populated with public school and Oxbridge entrants, and I suspect some people still view it that way. But ours is the generation that must shake off those labels; we, like other professions, must now focus on talent, wherever it may come from. And, importantly, the Inner Temple and its members must be on hand to assist in this regard.

55

56

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

Dinner to the Universities T

he Inner Temple’s annual Dinner to the Universities presents an opportunity to open our doors to students across the UK. The event remains incredibly popular, with students requesting a place months in advance; however, this year, invitations were extended to those law societies or individual students that actively promote careers at the Bar at their respective universities. This year, we were delighted to be joined by Joe Milner, a second-year student at Canterbury Christ Church; Joe aspires to the Bar, having previously worked as an officer in the merchant navy and as apprentice at Loch Associates. His insights to this year’s dinner shed light on the value that our guests derive from the event and also the role that Dinner to the Universities plays in establishing strong relationships with tomorrow’s barristers.

Having attended the Inner Temple’s Question and Answer Day in 2015, Joe has taken advantage of the Inn’s university outreach programme as a means to gain further insight into the profession. He often shares the information gleaned from our events with his peers, which is why he was invited to attend the Dinner to the Universities. Of his work with his peers, he says: “I work closely with Canterbury Christ Church’s Outreach Department, ensuring students who are considering a career in law have an opportunity to meet a student like myself before making such a decision.” Given the size of the

Inn’s Outreach team (two staff members), we are limited in the extent to which we can directly engage with equivalent departments in universities across England and Wales; therefore, the proactive behaviour of the students that we reach in relaying the advice they receive from the Inn is vital.

Flouting preconceived notions about the barristers’ profession is one of many important aspects of Dinner to the Universities, but it is also a context in which students can interact with the Inn’s members. Although the dinner is not primarily a networking event, historically, many savvy guests have been able to make contacts and obtain valuable advice on gaining entry to the profession. The willingness of our members to support new entrants to the Bar is highlighted

by Joe when he describes his interactions with one of our benchers who “approached myself and my colleague, giving us the chance to find out about her practice area”.

The Inn’s atmosphere is often cited by new members as one of the reasons they opt to join Inner Temple. Joe states that one of the aspects of the Inn that he values most is “being made to feel very welcome and able to approach the members of the Inn who are more than happy to answer any questions. Every opportunity to visit Inner makes the Inn become more and more like home.”

The Inner Temple’s annual Dinner to the Universities

DISABILITY AT THE BAR INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Disability at the Bar T

he Inner Temple has supported thousands of aspiring barristers through its Outreach programme and for the academic year 2016–2017, we will develop the nature and scope of our work by exploring the issue of disability at the Bar. Our flagship programmes, the Schools Project and Pegasus Access and Support Scheme (PASS), have been instrumental in assisting talented students from lower income backgrounds to gain insight into and experience of the profession through workshops and mini-pupillages.

However, an evaluation of participants in three Schools Project events in 2014–15 revealed that just one person identified as having a disability, amounting to 0.5 per cent of the cohort of student participants.

Following the example of the Bar Council’s 2015 report, Momentum Measures, we have considered this statistic against population data. According to the Office for National Statistics (2011), 17.9 per cent of the population of England and Wales has a disability. Furthermore, the Association of Colleges states that 15 per cent of those attending further education institutions, including sixth forms, in 2015–16 in England have a learning difficulty and/or disability. While there are a number of pros and cons to using population data as the sole benchmark for diversity at the Bar, the disparity between the proportion of disabled students that we engaged through the Schools Project and the figures provided by these organisations highlights the need for further research on our approach to supporting academically capable students from all under-represented groups. The Outreach team will be considering how best it can connect with aspiring barristers who identify as having a disability and how it can work with other stakeholders to improve access to the profession for this group.

The 2012 increase in university tuition fees to £9000 per year, in addition to the significant cost to undertake the GDL and BPTC without a scholarship, could deter any aspirant to the Bar from pursuing a career in this profession. For those with a disability, the situation may be more acute when set against a backdrop of austerity measures: the government is set to make cuts to the Disabled Students’ Allowance (DSA), a fund used by disabled students in higher education to secure resources needed to complete their study.

Inner Temple currently works to support disabled students on the BPTC and those undertaking pupillage through the provision of a Disability Grant. Annually, up to £10,000 is available to those affected by serious disability who are able to show both financial need and a reasonable prospect of being called to the Bar. A further £5000 is also available to successful applicants for major scholarships or exhibitions who are affected by a serious disability and demonstrate financial need. This pool of funding is a boon, especially in light of proposed cuts to the DSA. However, very few applications are received. The reasons for this are unclear but may potentially include issues surrounding access, the profession generally or identity: disabled aspirants may wish to avoid being defined in any way by a disability.

Our existing outreach provision has been bolstered by the valuable input of the Inn’s members and we would be very grateful to have the assistance of those who could support us with our research in this area. Please contact Lacara BarnesRowe in the Outreach team.

57

58

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

Academic Fellows E

stablished 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,

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

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

Dr Alison Lui

Dr Adaeze Okoye

Dr Alison Lui is a senior lecturer at Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU). Dr Lui obtained her LLB (European Legal Studies) from the University of Bristol. She holds a LLM (Corporate and Commercial Law) from the London School of Economics and a doctorate degree from the University of Liverpool. Dr Lui qualified as a solicitor and practised commercial law before joining LJMU. She teaches a number of business-related modules on the LLB, LLM and LPC programmes. She is the Employability Officer in Law and LLB (Sandwich Year) Placement Tutor. Dr Lui’s research interests are predominantly in financial regulation and corporate governance. She has published articles and book chapters.

Her monograph, entitled Financial Stability and Prudential Regulation: a Comparison Between the Regulators and Central Banks of the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia and Germany, will be published in 2016 with Routledge. She has also appeared on a number of radio programmes. In 2010, she was runner-up in the British Federation of Women Graduates Travel Bursary Competition, whilst in 2011 she was awarded a Winston Churchill Fellowship. A year later, she was a joint winner of a Higher Education Authority grant for employability and social media and, in 2013, she was awarded an LJMU Early Career Researcher Fellowship. Dr Lui won a Max Planck Society Scholarship in 2015, which enabled her to spend three months at the Max Planck Institute of Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg, to conduct research into financial regulation.

Dr Adaeze Okoye is a senior lecturer in law at Canterbury Christ Church University, where she teaches company law and jurisprudence. She is also the staff coordinator for mooting.

Prior to that, she was a lecturer at Aberystwyth University and a graduate teaching assistant (GTA) at the University of Hull. She completed her undergraduate degree in law at the University of Benin, Nigeria, and her master’s degree at the University of Dundee, Scotland (Centre for Energy, Petroleum and Mineral Law and Policy – CEPMLP). She also holds a PhD in Law from the University of Hull.

Dr Okoye is a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Her research interests include law and corporate social responsibility (CSR), oil and gas transnational litigation, human rights and the environment. She has published a number of journal articles on law and CSR, corporate governance, and transboundary oil and gas resource disputes.

Her first monograph on legal approaches and corporate social responsibility will be published by Routledge (research in corporate law series) in early 2016.

Dr Okoye is a fellow of the Higher Education Academy (HEA), an alumni of the Institute for Global Law and Policy (IGLP) workshop, Harvard Law School and a visiting fellow of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (IALS), London (October 2015–April 2016).

The Inn was pleased to support Dr Okoye’s conference in June 2016 addressing emerging legal theory and practice aspects of corporate social responsibility. The main outcome from the conference is a Law and Corporate Social Responsibility Network with future events to come.

ACADEMIC FELLOWS INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Dr Tarun Khaitan

Dr Reuven Ziegler

Dr Tarun Khaitan is an associate professor at the Oxford Law Faculty and the Hackney Fellow in Law at Wadham College, Oxford. He is also an associate of the Oxford Human Rights Hub. He graduated with a BA LLB (hons) from the National Law School, Bangalore, in 2004. He then came to Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar and completed his postgraduate studies (BCL, MPhil, DPhil) at Exeter College. Before joining Wadham, he was the Penningtons Student (Fellow) in Law at Christ Church, Oxford.

Dr Khaitan’s research interests include public law, human rights law, discrimination law and jurisprudence, with a special focus on the Indian and English legal systems. His work has been published in leading British law journals, including The Law Quarterly Review, The Modern Law Review and the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. He is a regular columnist for Indian broadsheets. His article on the judicial use of the concept of dignity, entitled Dignity As an Expressive Norm (2012), is, according to the journal’s website, one of the 50 most cited articles published by the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies (as of 1 October 2015). Oxford University Press published his monograph, entitled A Theory of Discrimination Law, in 2015. Leslie Green, Professor of the Philosophy of Law at Oxford, described this book as “an engaging, and engaged, work on an important area of law, by one of the most interesting new voices in legal theory”.

Dr Reuven (Ruvi) Ziegler is a lecturer in law at the University of Reading, where he is a member of the Global Law at Reading research group (GLAR). He is Editor-in-Chief of the Working Paper Series Refugee Law Initiative at the University of London and a research associate of the Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford. He is also a researcher at the Israel Democracy Institute, analysing the treatment of African asylum seekers in Israel as part of the Institute’s Democratic Principles project.

Dr Ziegler’s areas of research interest include citizenship and electoral rights, international refugee law, comparative constitutional law and international humanitarian law. His forthcoming book, entitled Voting Rights of Refugees, will be published by Cambridge University Press. Previously, Dr Ziegler was a visiting researcher at Harvard Law School’s Immigration and Refugee Clinic and, with the Human Rights Program, a tutor in public international law at the University of Oxford, and a legal advising officer at the Israel Defence Forces’ Legal Counselor’s Office (mandatory military service).

Dr Ziegler holds DPhil, MPhil, and BCL degrees from the University of Oxford; an LLM (with specialisation in public law) from Hebrew University; and an LLB, BA (Economics) from the University of Haifa. He was called to the Israeli Bar in 2003.

Academic Fellow Updates Dr David Lowe, Liverpool John Moores University, was a guest speaker at the student advocacy weekend on Terrorism in December 2015, where he gave a thoughtprovoking presentation on the threat to national security posed by terrorist groups’ use of electronic communications.

Associate Academic Fellow, Joanna Miles, University of Cambridge, joined a panel of speakers at the student advocacy weekend in February 2016, where she gave a presentation on Advocacy in Semi-Represented Cases: the Lawyer and the Litigant in Person.

Dr James Goudkamp, University of Oxford, alongside his colleague, Professor Donal Nolan, gave a lecture at the Inn in January 2016 on Contributory Negligence in Practice.

Associate Academic Fellow, Dr Iyiola Solanke, published a new book: Discrimination As Stigma: a Theory of Anti-Discrimination Law. Using sociological and socio-psychological theories of stigma, Dr Solanke presents an “anti-stigma principle, promoting it as a method to determine the scope of legal protection from discrimination”.

The Inn was pleased to support Dr Maks Del Mar, Queen Mary University of London, with his successful conference on Imagination and Legal Reasoning: History, Theory, Pedagogy.

Dr Paul Wragg, University of Leeds, gave a lecture at the Inn in April 2016 on Privacy and the Media.

Dr Yvonne McDermott, Bangor University, published a new book entitled Fairness in International Criminal Trials (Oxford University Press). The book explores the theoretical concepts of fairness and its relationship to international criminal procedure. Dr McDermott kindly donated a copy to the Library for members to access.

Last year, the Inn was delighted to support Associate Academic Fellow Jamie Lee, King’s College London, with his Law Commissions at 50 conference. As a follow-up to the conference, Jamie Lee along with Matthew Dyson and Shona Wilson Stark have edited a book: Fifty Years of the Law Commissions, published in July 2016.

Associate Academic Fellow, Dr Catherine MacKenzie, University of Cambridge, was appointed to the position of Academic Governor on the board of the recently launched Inns of Court College of Advocacy.

59

60

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

Imagination and Legal Reasoning: History, Theory and Pedagogy Maks Del Mar, Academic Fellow, Queen Mary University of London

T

he notion that the imagination might play a role in legal reasoning is unorthodox, yet this is the question that a leading group of scholars from a variety of disciplines discussed at a one-day workshop on the topic.

The event, held at Queen Mary University of London, took place on 15 June 2016 and was very generously sponsored by the Inner Temple. It was also the first of a series of linked workshops on Legal Reasoning: History, Theory and Pedagogy, together with the Australian National University and the University of Toronto.

The role of imagination has been much understudied by scholars of how advocates persuade and how judges decide.

Yet it is clear that imagination is pervasively present in legal reasoning. Consider, for instance, all the different ways that legal practitioners imagine alternatives to a given scenario – as when they use legal fictions, treating something as if it has been proven when there is evidence to the contrary or an absence of positive evidence. Think, further, of all the ways legal practitioners imagine the future, using hypothetical scenarios to test consequences of possible rulings – both in the course of exchange between Bar and Bench, but also often in judgements. And recall the various ways legal practitioners imagine the past – asking what might have happened or what ought to have happened – drawing on counterfactual reasoning and/or thinking through imaginary perspectives (such as the officious bystander).

In all these cases – and these are just some – legal practitioners must use the imagination, ie the ability to construct alternatives and possibilities that are not immediately and directly dependent on sensory input.

Yet, if that is so, a great deal more reflection needs to be undertaken as to the benefits and dangers of the use of such imaginative devices. What, for example, are the links between imagination and bias? What kinds of cognitive and normative resources do, for instance, the use of hypothetical scenarios open up – and what kinds of specific problems might arise from their use in the legal context, as distinguished from, say, the use of thought experiments in philosophy or science? What are the relations between imagination and emotion – when, for example, do judges resist (perhaps without realising it) imagining the perspectives of certain persons who come before them?

And if imagination is so pervasive in legal

reasoning, then are we doing enough to educate future lawyers to use their imaginations (richly and carefully) – and if we are not doing enough, what are the best ways of training the imagination?

These are the questions that were confronted head-on by scholars in philosophy (Greg Currie, Kendall Walton), literary and film theory (Suzanne Keen, Joshua Landy, Margrethe Vaage) and developmental psychology (Paul Harris). The workshop – which also welcomed an interdisciplinary audience from all over the UK – had an innovative structure.

Each of the scholars from another discipline delivered a paper in their own field on different aspects of the imagination.

Legal scholars were then invited to comment on that paper, considering how it might inform the identification and evaluation of the use of the imagination in the legal context. The result was a robust multi- and interdisciplinary conversation, which has yielded not only many resources for thinking about the legal imagination, but also created a new community of scholars from many different fields and across many different cultures.

The event was a great success, and discussions on its themes have continued since. As the organiser of the workshop, let me thank the Inner Temple for its generous support – without it, this workshop would not have been possible.

Maks Del Mar will discuss the role of the imagination in common law reasoning at a lecture at the Inn on 10 October 2016.

INNER TEMPLE SCHOLARSHIPS INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Inner Temple Scholarships Inner Temple CPE/GDL Scholarship Winners 2016 Princess Royal Scholarships:

Exhibitions:

John-Paul Saleh, Maya Thomas-Davis

Jack Castle, Kisha Couchman, Harry Davies, Rose-Marie De Lemos, Sarah-Jane Ewart, Abdullah Geelah, Alice Hart, Fern HorsfieldSchonhut, Sarah Ismail, Georgia Lassoff, Amanda Salama-Fernandez, Mohammad Sharafi, Lucinda Spearman, Joshua Stamp-Simon, Jacob Vibetti

Major Scholarships: Joyman Lee, Miguel Angel Rodriguez-Correa Henderson, Simeon Wallis

Inner Temple BPTC Scholarship Winners 2016 Peter Taylor Scholarship:

Exhibitions:

Michal Hain

Ryan Anderson, Jake Armes, Henry Ashwell, Helen Ball, Cassie Blower, Measha Bruney, Alexander Bunzl, Andrea Campos-Vigouroux, Claire Carroll, Matthew ChipperfieldTaylor, Amelia Clegg, Darragh Coffey, Gemma Daly, Bethan Davies, Sapna Devi, Catherine Elvin, Beheshteh Engineer, Nathan Fitzpatrick, Leyla Garahan, Patrick Gartland, Emily Gillan, Henry Gillow, Akash Gohil, William Greenall, Wesley Griffiths, James Gwatkin, Lewis Hadler, Peter Hale, Rose Hampton, Matthew Hastings, Yasmin Hughes Pugh, Rezzi Ingemarsson, Sophie Kenny, Emma Kutner, Hope Lappin, Sophie Louise Laurence, Oliver May, Aaron Mayers, Charles McCombe, Georgia McDonnell,

Stephen Chapman Scholarship: Alice Irving

Princess Royal Scholarships: Georgia Beatty, Jonathan Goddard, James Kirby, Anirudh Mathur, Alexandra Sutton

Major Scholarships: Alex du Sautoy, Ulrike Ebner, Elizabeth Grace, Otis Graham, Melody Ihuoma, Sam James, Emily Jenkins, Thomas Keane, Arthur Kendrick, Lin Liu, Louisa Salmon, James Saunders, Henry Sheehan, Peter Sibley, Stacy Stroud, Katherine Taunton, Joshua Thomson, Katie Williams, James Yearsley, Rosalind Young

Michael McHardy, Shahead Miah, Natasha Miller, Vinesh Mistry, Tapiwa Moffatt, Angharad Monk, Callum Munday, Ehsanul Oarith, Katrine Broch Petersen, Andrew Pickin, Fiona Prior, Shannon Reynolds, Kemar Richards, Lorna Robertson, Peter Rowlinson, Rutvi Shah, Kane Sharpe, Eleanor Sharrock, Laura Singleton, Anna Stelle, Adam Stewart-Wallace, Joseph Thomas, Georgina Thompson, Liam Tinkler, Carrie Underwood, Daisy van den Berg, Lorena Veale, George Vibetti, Naomi Webber, Sam Whiteley, Tobias Willcocks, Emma Woods, Lily Wowk, Ellen Wright

The Inn made a total of £1,658,625 available for scholarships this year. From this fund the Inn has offered 101 awards for the BPTC, 20 for the CPE/GDL, 11 for internship awards and 8 awards for those with a minimally funded pupillage.

This year, we received 313 applications for BPTC awards and 83 for the CPE/GDL. We have a policy of interviewing every eligible applicant and it was only with the very generous assistance of over 60 members of Hall that we were able to do so this year. Volunteers are always warmly welcomed. Please contact Eamonn O'Reilly.

61

62

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

“ A career at the Bar is too often beyond the reach of many qualified candidates. It is easy to give up when confronted with what seem like insurmountable odds. Those odds seem all the greater when one’s background is quite different to that of many current barristers. That is why being awarded a scholarship meant so much to me personally.

It both recognised past achievements, whether academic or extra-curricular, and encouraged me to persevere. Inner Temple gave me the opportunity to pursue my dream and for that I will be forever grateful.”

“ It's an absolute privilege to have been awarded the Stephen Chapman Scholarship.

There are significant financial barriers to going to the Bar before you even start the competitive selection process. Having funding significantly reduces the stress of applying to the Bar, and the scholarship is a much appreciated boost of confidence leading into the pupillage selection process. I look forward to getting to know Inner Temple better, and will always be grateful for this contribution at the beginning of my career.”

Alice Irving, Stephen Chapman Scholar

Michal Hain, Peter Taylor Scholar

“ Embarking on a career at the Bar is daunting. “ I am immensely grateful for the generous I completed a non-law degree, which scholarship from the Inn; without it, I meant I had to finance both an additional would not have been able to continue to the conversion course and the BPTC – the BPTC. Nonetheless, my deepest gratitude financial barriers felt like a setback before goes far beyond the financial support offered.

I’d even begun. After doing some research As an immigrant to Britain in my late 20s I came across an Inner Temple access event from the post-1989 China, I identify myself in Manchester, which changed everything with two cultures in which the rule of law for me. I appreciated that the Inn had put perhaps strikes the utmost contrast. Much of on a regional event and was reassured that my decision to come to the Bar was propelled both means and merit were considered when by the desire to give new life and meaning making awards. I won the Princess Royal to an identity of contrasting roots. It is my Scholarship for the GDL and was able to aspiration to contribute to the Bar and be part start a course that otherwise would not have of the world’s finest legal tradition. I take been possible. I won another Princess Royal the award as a sign that I have been doing Scholarship for the BPTC, and I cannot something right so far, and having hardly overstate the difference both awards have made the first few steps, there is nothing better made, both personally and professionally.” than starting the next stage of this long and uncertain journey with a thankful heart.”

Alexandra Sutton, Princess Royal Scholar Lin Liu, Major Scholar

SCHOLARSHIP WINNER PROFILE INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Scholarship Winner Profile Emma Corkill, 39 Essex Chambers

I

received a generous exhibition for the GDL in 2008–2009 and the same amount for the BVC (now BPTC) in 2009–2010, topped up with a benefactor's award. Whilst the benefactor's award was only for a small additional sum, it gave me something to put in the otherwise sparse ‘awards’ section of my pupillage applications. I obtained pupillage, which I completed in 2013. Now, almost three years into tenancy, I am starkly aware that I would not have got here without the Inn’s generosity. To think that I nearly didn’t bother to apply…

I am from a family of non-lawyers (similar to muggles) and trying to understand the legal world was pretty daunting.

I remember hours spent with my parents trying to fathom the different routes to the Bar. Once we had just about got a handle on that, the horrible realisation of quite how much this foray into the legal world was going to cost hit home.

Fortunately for me (but unfortunately for my parents) they lived only a stone’s throw from London, and through only slightly forced smiles they said I could commute from home for two years whilst I studied. Many who wish to come to the Bar are not in such a fortunate position.

Evidently traumatised at the thought of their 20-something daughter living with them again, they found some information about scholarships provided by the Inns of Court (two days before the deadline). I thought it would be a waste of time applying, because I didn’t think I would stand a chance against the best and the brightest who would inevitably be applying for the scholarships.

One of the benefits of Inner Temple was that they interviewed everyone; whilst I might not have been the strongest on paper, I thought (or at least blindly hoped) that I would do well in an interview. I sent my application in just before the deadline, and the strain etched into my parents’ faces seemed to ease ever so slightly.

The scholarship interview went well. It was…fun!

The panellists were nice, normal human beings (at least outwardly), which took me a little by surprise; I had been expecting terrifying ogres who would rip my CV apart and laugh me out of the room. A few weeks later an envelope with the beautifully embossed Pegasus arrived and I was overwhelmed by the figure inside, not just because this took a huge financial strain off me (and filled my parents with cautious hope that I would leave them alone) but because maybe, just maybe, I wasn’t barking mad: some barristers thought I was worth investing in. The confidence boost their support gave me was priceless. Without the Inn’s generous award, I, like many others, may not have made it through the increasingly competitive (and expensive) process to get to the Bar. On top of the Inn’s financial backing, I took full advantage of pretty much every event the Education and Training Department arranged. I obtained pupillage at No5 Chambers, where I practised as a specialist personal injury barrister. I have recently moved to 39 Essex Chambers.

I became eligible this year to sit on Inner Temple’s scholarship interview panels and I jumped at the chance, although I was, I admit, slightly terrified that the students would show me up when discussing the legal questions. The general standard was very good and I was impressed by how well prepared the majority of candidates were.

“ Without the Inn’s generous award, I, like many others, may not have made it through the increasingly competitive (and expensive) process to get to the Bar.” The best moment for me was at the end of the second day of interviews, once all the scores across the various panels had been entered into a giant spreadsheet which showed who would receive awards. My panel had all been very impressed by one particular candidate and we knew that a scholarship would make the world of difference to her. I scoured the list and saw her name, with a very tidy sum next to it. I was sitting next to a fellow interviewer from my panel and I will never forget the look of sheer joy on his face when I told him the news. I confess I felt a little choked imagining how this particular candidate would feel when Pegasus flew into her house and delivered the news of her much-needed and much-deserved award.

63

64

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

Qualifying Sessions Lectures

These qualifying sessions allow students to hear from experts within the Inn and from academia on legal topics relevant to their studies and to a career at the Bar. The lectures are followed by a reception or dinner for students and practitioners.

Presentational Skills Course

Taught by professionally trained actors and vocal coaches, this qualifying session gives students the opportunity to develop skills such as voice projection, posture and awareness of space.

Panel speakers at the student advocacy weekend on Terrorism in the Dock. From left to right: Sara Khan, Richard Walton, Master Laws, David Anderson QC and Dr David Lowe

I

nner Temple qualifying sessions complement students’ academic and vocational education and form a bridge to pupillage. The sessions equip students to undertake the next stage of training and ensure that they are fit and proper to serve the public as barristers by meeting and learning the following from practitioners: • Professional Integrity, Ethos and Ethics • Professional Advocacy Skills • Professional Interpersonal and Communication Skills • Professional Development Focus is firmly placed on developing the knowledge and skills necessary to practise as a barrister. In no other profession is there such a structured and regular meeting of the most senior with the most junior of practitioners, with the former giving their time pro bono.

All BPTC students are required to complete 12 qualifying sessions in order to be called to the Bar. There is no limit to the number of qualifying sessions a student may complete during the BPTC or in any particular term, but qualifying sessions are only valid if they are completed in the five years leading up to a student’s Call Night.

Student Advocacy Weekends

Each year, the Inner Temple hosts three student advocacy weekends, each accredited for three qualifying sessions.

These weekends provide students with the opportunity to explore a particular legal topic, develop their advocacy skills, and benefit from the advice of experienced practitioners.

Recent weekends have focused on the topics of terrorism, the art of advocacy and vulnerable witnesses.

BPTC Advocacy Days

Taught by the Inn’s advocacy trainers as well as new practitioners who have recently completed the New Practitioners’ Programme, these qualifying sessions allow BPTC students the opportunity to practise their advocacy skills in a supportive and informal environment.

Education Day

This qualifying session is specifically tailored for students studying at providers outside London. Sessions include ethics, advice on pupillage applications and the pitfalls of the early years of practice.

Legal Research Training

Taught by members of the Library team, this qualifying session will provide students with the skills to research UK cases and legislation, to decipher legal abbreviations, to understand the need to use commentary sources, and to be able to keep up to date with developments in the legal world.

Storytelling and Improvisation Techniques in Advocacy

Taught by professional trainers, this qualifying session uses drama-based improvisation and storytelling techniques to teach students more effective ways of communicating in all aspects of their role as advocates.

Mooting Masterclass

Taught by Master Hodge, this qualifying session offers a masterclass in mooting skills including preparation, advocacy, timing and dealing with judicial intervention.

Local Qualifying Sessions

As well as attending qualifying sessions at the Inn - the vast majority of which are arranged on weekends in order to allow as many students to attend as possible - BPTC students on circuit are also able to hold up to three qualifying sessions in their local area. These sessions are overseen by Masters of the Bench and senior members of the Inn who generously donate their time and expertise. The Education and Training team supports student representatives at each provider in helping to finance and arrange these sessions, and by making contact with local practitioners who might be willing to host sessions. Thanks to enthusiastic student, barrister, judicial and Bencher volunteers, a wide variety of local qualifying sessions take place each year - including lectures, moots, pupillage workshops and advocacy training workshops.

TERRORISM IN THE DOCK INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Terrorism in the Dock Zeenat Islam, 25 Bedford Row

O

rganised by Master Paget, Kathryn Arnot Drummond and Robin Sellers, the ‘Terrorism in the Dock’ student advocacy weekend explored controversial aspects of counterterrorism legislation.

The Inn invited BPTC students from across the country to Cumberland Lodge for a weekend in December 2015 as part of their qualifying sessions programme. The weekend included a diverse panel of speakers, advocacy exercises and networking events. The purpose of the training weekend was to provide students with a unique opportunity to engage with a topical subject area, meet experts in the field and to prepare and deliver advocacy exercises applying counterterrorism legislation.

The weekend opened with a welcome talk from Master Pegden. This was quickly followed by a captivating ‘closing speech’ session where Master Jafferjee for the Crown and Courtenay Griffiths QC, defending, delivered closing speeches based on a case where the defendant was charged with encouraging an act of terrorism, contrary to section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006. Student participants were asked to decide whose speech they were most persuaded by and whether they would convict or acquit.

of the controversial PREVENT duty, conferring a statutory duty on specified authorities to refer people they think are at risk of being radicalised. The obligation has, for example, led to children being referred to PREVENT for issues in school, where a ten-year-old had mistakenly written ‘terraced house’ as ‘terrorist house’ and where a four-year-old who was trying to pronounce ‘cucumber’ was misunderstood as saying ‘cooker bomb’.

The Counter Extremism Bill has also attracted grave criticism. The proposed definition of ‘extremism’ is so broad that critics have said it risks criminalising free speech, thought and legitimate opposition to the government. In respect of this Bill, David Anderson QC has said: “If the wrong decisions are taken, the new law risks provoking a backlash in affected communities, hardening perceptions of an illiberal or Islamophobic approach, alienating those whose integration into British society is already fragile and playing into the hands of those who, by peddling a grievance agenda, seek to drive people further towards extremism and terrorism.”

Throughout the course of the weekend, students worked in small groups with advocacy trainers on a case study where the defendant had been charged with fundraising for

“ If the wrong decisions are taken, the new law risks provoking a backlash in affected communities, hardening perceptions of an illiberal or Islamophobic approach, alienating those whose integration into British society is already fragile” The Inn is hugely grateful for the esteemed panel of speakers who joined us and delivered lectures to the students in their respective fields of expertise. Chaired by Master Laws, panel members included: David Anderson QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation; Dr David Lowe, Liverpool John Moores University and Academic Fellow of the Inner Temple; Richard Walton, Commander, CounterTerrorism Command (SO15) and Sara Khan, Co-Director of Inspire. The panel discussion covered topics including: a review of existing and proposed counter-terror legislation, surveillance and investigation powers, an assessment of the current security threat in the UK and the distinction between Islam as a religion and the way it is manipulated to serve political ideology. The panel discussion led to an insightful and lively Q&A session between students and speakers.

Legislation purporting to address the current and increasing ‘terrorist’ threat is ever developing and not without issue. The Counter Terrorism Act 2015 saw the enforcement

the purposes of terrorism contrary to section 15(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000. Students were tasked with having to consider material the Crown sought to rely on, and prepare skeleton arguments and oral submissions for the purposes of a section 78 legal argument. The weekend culminated with the students delivering their advocacy in front of judges and receiving feedback.

The subject of the advocacy weekend was carefully selected in an effort to address a current, topical and contentious area of law subject to much public debate.

The Inn is committed to providing students with a rich and relevant learning experience in preparation of successful careers at the Bar. The weekend proved to be a huge success, with student feedback emphasising the interesting subject, the quality of speakers and the opportunity for debate and practical experience of advocacy in this area of law.

65

66

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

Storytelling and Improvisation Techniques in Advocacy Master Christie

C

onventional advocacy training teaches students the rules of examination-in-chief and cross-examination, techniques on how to elicit evidence effectively and how to construct set pieces such as opening and closing speeches, applications and pleas in mitigation. For many years the Inn has also supplemented this basic training with a course on presentation skills run by professional actors intended to enhance a student’s technical skills in vocal clarity, articulation and presence.

In 2013, the Inn commissioned a new training course (originally entitled Confidence and the Art of Persuasion), which uses a radically different teaching methodology, adapting techniques from drama-based modules on improvisation and storytelling to teach students more effective ways of communicating in all aspects of their role as advocate. Now in its third year, over 250 students have benefitted from the training so far and the course is wellestablished in the Inn’s calendar.

The course was designed by myself and Philip Woodford, another barrister turned actor, and is delivered by Philip and Oliver Senton, an actor, drama teacher and director. In three sessions, students are encouraged to step back from the technical rules and consider what they are trying to achieve at any given moment as an advocate (whether in or out of court), then learn the methodology to best help them achieve that aim.

The core skills learned on the course are:

Listening There is a reciprocal relationship between listening and telling: the better the listening, the better the telling. What this means for legal representation is that barristers best serve their clients by creating an optimal listening environment in which their client feels truly heard, for example in a conference where the barrister needs to focus on understanding what his or her client is really saying, as much as to offer their advice or opinion.

The exercises used in this session are all aimed at getting the listener to separate out facts from their own assumptions, reserve their judgment, listen for themes and understand the impact of charged words which may encourage or inhibit listening. Identifying the obstacles to listening, such as the barrister’s own preconceptions and knowledge, is the first step to becoming a truly effective listener.

Storytelling At the heart of every client’s case and of a trial itself is a story. Storytelling is our way of making sense of the world and helps us build connections with others, most especially

those we’re seeking to persuade. In helping to make sense of the narrative that flows from our clients’ experiences and in ensuring that we successfully influence our intended audience (be that judge, jury or other tribunal), the skills of storytelling are essential.

Benefits derived through narrative work include: • Convincing without effort • Making things more memorable • Building emotional connection and increasing trust • Sharing knowledge in an easily digestible way • Inspiring others to action.

The stronger the story, the stronger the impact, and the more our audience remembers what we have to tell them. Words have energy and everything we choose to say in a story counts. Narrative coaching can thus also be a model for the students on how to be more concise and to the point.

Improvisation Appearance in court as an advocate is a live performance. To differing degrees the same is true in conferences, mediations and many other arenas in which the barrister is required to perform. No matter how much a barrister has prepared the case, they will always need to ‘think on their feet’, deal with difficult questions and expect the unexpected.

Exercises used in this session teach trainees which parts of the process they are in control of and which they are not, to accept what is offered to them as an opportunity to turn to their advantage, and to respond with confidence rather than react with panic when things go wrong. Improvisation is an excellent tool for overcoming perfectionism and feeling more relaxed in your work as a barrister and in life in general.

The course consistently receives good feedback from participants and was noted in the recent Strategic Review as being at the ‘cutting edge’ of coaching for a career at the Bar. Observers who are in pupillage or at the Junior Bar have noted how beneficial similar training would be for those already in practice.

Iain Christie Master Iain Christie is an associate member of 5RB, the media and entertainment law chambers, a mediator, facilitator and professional actor. He recently joined PCA Law, a specialist coaching and communications company, who carry out experiential training in the legal sector. All their facilitators are dual qualified as lawyers and actors.

STUDENT SCHEMES INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Student Schemes

E

ach year, the Inner Temple offers its student members the chance to participate in schemes designed to enhance their skills and develop legal work experience.

Marshalling The Marshalling Scheme enables BPTC students to sit with a judge for a few days and discuss their cases in detail. This scheme is open to all current BPTC students and is a valuable chance to observe court proceedings from the perspective of the judiciary. There are a variety of placements available each year in different areas of law, all around the country.

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

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

Police Liaison Scheme The Inner Temple partnered with police stations in Camden, Islington, Lewisham and Southwark for another successful year of the Police Liaison Scheme. Throughout the year, students provided glowing feedback, praising the support they received from the officers that they shadowed over the course of their eight-hour placements.

The scheme is reciprocal and in return for their generosity in welcoming our BPTC students to their stations, the Inn organised a well-attended reception in September, offering an opportunity to hear from Adrian Keeling QC on key issues related to giving evidence in court. In June, Judge Tan Ikram, along with barristers Simon Heptonstall and Alan Blake, facilitated a mock trial for our contacts in the police, demonstrating the workings of a criminal trial.

A participant in this year’s scheme, Rawaid Javed, shares his experiences, below.

I thoroughly enjoyed my time participating in the Police Liaison Scheme. It was an interesting night and definitely something I am going to remember for a long time!

The staff at Lewisham station were really welcoming and took great care of me: Sergeant Brian Sherlock was really informative in presenting the challenges the police faced in regard to their job, as well as the difficulties in collecting evidence. It was intriguing to gain a sense of their experiences.

The two police officers, in whose car I sat, were really forthcoming and great to ‘ride along’ with. There were a number of different incidents that we responded to throughout the night. For example, we met a lady who could see ghosts and we also chased another car in the streets at high speeds – I couldn’t ask for more! But on a more serious note, it was interesting to see how varied the officers’ job was. The officers would attend a call, then come back to the station, write their report and fill in the necessary paperwork before heading out to respond to more incidents. Whereas one aspect of the job was pure excitement, the other part was a bit more ‘lawyer-like’.

Overall, the scheme opened my mind to the role of the police and has definitely made my friends at the other Inns jealous!

Rawaid Javed, BPTC student

67

68

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

Student Societies

From left to right: Oliver May (winner), Gayan Saramasinghe, Jake Armes and Nisha Sundra Rajoo next to a portrait of Lord Rawlinson

The Mooting Society Telders Team in the Hague

Debating Society

Mooting Society

The backbone of the Debating Society’s activities has always been our weekly training sessions, held this year in the newly refurbished Mitre Court. Under the guidance of trainer Jake Armes, novices and experienced debaters have honed their public speaking skills with substantial practice and feedback.

Putting this training into practice, Debating Society members have competed at university inter-varsities across the UK, as well as the European Championships in Vienna and the World Championships in Athens. Never far from the top, our debaters have returned finalists of the tournaments hosted by Imperial College London, King’s College London, Oxford and were the winners of the UCL Clifford Chance President’s Cup. Having enjoyed the hospitality of other institutions, the Society hosted the Inner Temple Inter-Varsity over a weekend in January. The competition was attended by 160 guests: 80 speakers travelling from across the globe to compete for prizes in the English-Second Language, Novice and Open categories, making it one of the most prestigious competitions in Europe. The three-course dinner in Inner Temple Hall also made it by far the most delicious.

With such an active Society, our internal Rawlinson Cup Final was particularly exciting this year. Held in May after the Mixed Dining Night, Oliver May made it his month, winning with wit and style. We were also delighted to win the InterInn Debating Competition in July.

Outside of competitions, Alexander Bunzl organised a series of panel events throughout the year. Debating alumni, now practising at the Bar, returned to share their advice on securing pupillage, offer insight into their areas of practice and raise a glass at the wine reception held afterwards in the Drawing Room.

All of these events and opportunities could not have happened without the continued support of the Inn, the guidance of Master Morley and the continued enthusiasm of our members, for which the committee members would like to express their gratitude.

It’s been another busy and successful year. The Lawson Competition offered everyone vital feedback, addressing both the strengths of their performances and the things that would most aid improvement. Across five rounds, our judges were made up of a blend of students, pupils, junior and leading counsel, with a final panel chaired by Master MacDonald of the Family Division of the High Court.

We had strong teams representing the Inn in both national and international competitions. Our Telders team won the national round, representing England in The Hague.

The annual Inter-Varsity Mooting Competition was held in January with a packed day of mooting and training for 32 teams from across the country. The problem, written by sponsors Tanfield Chambers, made for fascinating moots; whilst having counsel from the appeal on which the problem was based sitting on the final judging panel made for some challenging judicial intervention.

Our training events have continued, offering mooters of all levels an opportunity to improve their skills. We have strengthened links with other organisations, including the University of Dundee and the English Speaking Union, and hope to build on these next year. In July, we once again won the Inter-Inn Mooting Competition, following victory in the final of the event held at Gray's Inn. Our team, comprising Nick Grant and Alex Du Sautoy, won favour over the Middle Temple team, securing prizes of £250 each, kindly donated by the ELS. The victory also wins for the Inn the honour of hosting next year's event.

Thanks go to all the members and Benchers who have assisted us this year. Our events could not run without you and as we look to increase the number of learning opportunities for our members next year, we hope you will continue to consider requests for help favourably.

Robert Gadd, President

Meredith Major, President

STUDENT SOCIETIES INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Scene from the Drama Society Christmas Pantomime

Inner Temple Students’ Association (ITSA) Annabel Gough, President

The Inner Temple Students’ Association has had a very successful year and put on a number of events over that time, including three ‘ITSA nights’, a Christmas drinks reception, the annual Burns Night Supper, a networking event for aspiring criminal barristers and a boat party on the Thames.

The most notable successes of the year were the Burns Night Supper and the ‘Reviving the Criminal Bar’ event. Burns Night is always very well received and we were honoured to host Master Treasurer. Mr Derek Kerr read the ‘Address to a Haggis’ for the third year in a row and offered nothing but praise for the quality of the event, attended by students, barristers and benchers alike.

In a bid to move towards offering more tailored networking events, ITSA also hosted the first ‘Reviving the Criminal Bar’ event this year, which was attended by 22 practising criminal barristers and 37 students interested in pursuing the criminal Bar. The theme was to spread the positive atmosphere that is being felt at the criminal Bar this year. It was praised as the best networking event many of the students have attended and a large number of barristers suggested it should be an annual occurrence.

With representatives now in Bristol, Manchester, Newcastle and Birmingham, the regions have been at their most active since ITSA began. Despite some logistical issues, these regions have managed to hold some great events, including a very successful Christmas party in Manchester at the end of 2015. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Inn and all of this year’s committee members, who have been such a brilliant and enthusiastic group. I am sure they will all continue to attend future ITSA events. I will also be encouraging them to consider running for committee again next year, since the success of the Society relies heavily on having a strong and creative team at its head. The Society is going from strength to strength and we can all look forward to an even more successful 2016–2017.

Backstage at the Drama Society Christmas Pantomime

Drama Society

Sophia Papacharalambous, President It has been an exciting year for the Drama Society as we have stepped out and embraced a variety of new events.

We began the year with an improvisation night led by Master Iain Christie, who shared with us his theatrical skills and creativity through an evening of spontaneous and inventive ad-lib activities.

We also took to new waters with our Christmas pantomime Puss in Boots, which, for the first time, was performed in the Inner Temple Hall. Fortunately, our cast was bigger than ever and more than capable of filling the grand stage – as was the audience’s laughter, which penetrated the grandiose surroundings and high ceilings, not to mention the conga, which was cheerily danced round the hall by cast and audience alike.

The Society was also honoured to be involved in the premiere performance of Sleeping Dogs, a thought-provoking play addressing the question ‘When is it right to prosecute in cases of sexual allegations?’. The play was written by none other than Master Nigel Pascoe and the performance sparked a lively discussion amongst the audience, which included both students and eminent members of the legal profession.

This year has been particularly special, marking as it does the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death. We were thrilled, this July, to pay tribute with our own summer production of The Tempest.

69

70

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

Call to the Bar T

he Legal Services Act 2007 defines a barrister as “an individual who (a) has been called to the Bar by an Inn of Court, and (b) is not disbarred by order of an Inn of Court”.

Call is the conferral of the ‘Degree of the Utter Bar’ and the title ‘Barrister’. The degree is conferred on those who have completed the required academic, vocational and Inn’s qualifying session stages of qualification, and who have satisfied the Inn that they are fit and proper to be called to the Bar. In order for a barrister to be able to practise, he or she must also complete the profession training stage of qualification (pupillage).

CALL TO THE BAR INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

71

72

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

Advocacy and the Vulnerable Master Sarah Clarke

W

hen my colleagues and I started at the Bar, we routinely represented young and vulnerable defendants and prosecuted and defended in sexual offence cases in the Crown Courts. We learned at the coalface – and (if we are honest) at the expense of the vulnerable defendants we represented and the vulnerable witnesses we examined and cross-examined during those years. Is this the way to accord young and vulnerable witnesses and defendants fair and appropriate treatment?

We think not.

In 2011, the Advocacy Training Council of the Bar of England and Wales published its groundbreaking report Raising the Bar, which recommended that: “[T]he handling and questioning of vulnerable witnesses, victims and defendants is a specialist skill, and should be recognised as such by practitioners, judges, training providers and regulators… Advocates must have sufficient knowledge and training to identify where a commonly experienced vulnerability exists, and do more preparation with regard to vulnerable witnesses pre-trial.”

Building on this recommendation, the growth in research, training and understanding in this field has been exponential. In 2011, advocacy training in the handling of vulnerable witnesses was introduced on the South Eastern Circuit Advanced International Advocacy Course at Keble College, Oxford. The (then) Advocacy Training Council (ATC), Inns and Circuits followed suit and the Advocate’s Gateway (TAG) was developed by the ATC in conjunction with noted experts in the field, the judiciary and the Crown Prosecution Service together with representatives from other professional bodies. TAG provides tool kits for advocates to use when preparing and undertaking the questioning of witnesses with different types of vulnerabilities, together with case law and resource materials. In addition, the Criminal Bar Association produced its training film A Question of Practice, which was also of seminal importance in shaping current thinking in this field.

Despite these notable developments, there remain strong and justified concerns that best practice is not universally adopted in respect of the handling and questioning of vulnerable witnesses and defendants.

This was brought into sharp focus by well-publicised shortcomings in several high-profile trials.

In the autumn of 2014, the Lord Chancellor announced that every legal-aid funded advocate working on serious sex cases would have to undertake training in the handling of vulnerable witnesses and defendants. The MoJ asked His Honour Judge Peter Rook QC to work with the ATC and the Bar Council to devise the training package – which would then be rolled out by the Inns and Circuits between 2016 and 2018. This training will become mandatory for any advocate wishing to undertake publicly funded work in serious sexual offence cases involving vulnerable witnesses.

In creating this training course, consultation has been extensive and has involved pan-profession and interdisciplinary agencies, including judges, practitioners, experts, charities and interest groups. This has enabled the bringing together of strands of learning, practice and thought, and it is hoped that it will bring about the ‘sea change’ required in gaining the specialist skills needed to effectively deal with vulnerability in the courts.

The course has been designed to ensure that all advocates, when dealing with vulnerable witnesses, understand the key principles behind the approach to and questioning of vulnerable people in the justice system, irrespective of the nature of the allegation or the jurisdiction in which the advocate appears. It involves a minimum of seven hours of training to include four hours online and three hours of interactive training for groups of delegates, led by a facilitator trainer.

The course envisages three stages: Stage 1 is online preparation involving written and filmed material and the drafting of cross-examination questions based on a case study involving witnesses with a wide variety of vulnerabilities. Stage 2 is a face-to-face training course of a minimum of three hours’ duration. Stage 3 is consolidation involving the watching of exemplar films demonstrating elements of best practice in relation to the fictional case upon which the case materials are based.

The Inns of Court College of Advocates (ICCA – formerly the ATC) is responsible for the training of lead facilitators (a number have already been trained and there are to be several future training workshops). Lead facilitators will then take responsibility for training of facilitators, who will then cascade the training down through the profession.

Lead facilitators and facilitators are selected from among experienced practitioners and judges.

The Bar Council will lead on providing administrative support, oversight and liaison with the MoJ, solicitors profession, CPS and other stakeholders. The training will be provided by the Inns, Circuits and Specialist Bar Associations.

The Inner Temple has asked Peter Clark and I to lead on this project. We currently have a number of trained lead facilitators and we are intending to train some 24 facilitators in autumn 2016, with a view to training being cascaded to the Inn’s members over a number of dates in 2017 and 2018. It is estimated that a total of 6000 barristers will need to be trained, with 3000 based in the South East.

The scale of the project is daunting but it is important work, recognised as such by the Inn and ably supported by the Education and Training team. As ever, it will be successfully achieved by the combination of talent and goodwill of its members, upon which the Inn can rightly rely.

Sarah Clarke

ADVOCACY TRAINING FOR THE BAR INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Advocacy Training for the Bar Master Hodge

Left: Master Hodge delivers a demonstration, Middle: Advocacy training session, Right: Master Hampel teaches advocacy

T

he amount of advocacy training undertaken by pupils and new practitioners in the Inn has grown significantly over the last 20 years since I started at the Bar. What began in the 1990s as a short advocacy course for pupils has now grown into a large number of courses, both residential and in the Inn. The reason for this focus on training? It is simple. As with any other profession, the Bar must deliver, and be seen to be delivering, the best service to its clients and only the continual refreshing of skills and knowledge can achieve this.

Of all the four Inns of Court, the Inner Temple has played and continues to play the most major role in this area. It provides compulsory advocacy training for pupils, compulsory advocacy and ethics training for new practitioners, as well as offering courses on vulnerable witness handling and other specialist areas.

The content of the courses, although regulated by the Bar Standards Board and monitored by the newly created Inns of Court College of Advocacy, is decided by the Inn’s Advocacy Training Committee (currently chaired by Master Ayling). The Committee comprises a number of Masters of the Bench and barristers who are all very experienced advocacy trainers, both nationally and internationally.

In addition, the Inn is fortunate enough to have a faculty of dedicated advocacy trainers, made up of over 100 Benchers, barristers and judges who give up several evenings, Saturdays and weekends each year to train junior members of the Inn. They are not remunerated in any way for delivering this training.

Indeed, you might well ask why they do this. Well, I believe it is because they enjoy the collegiate atmosphere at the training events and often learn as much from their pupils and new practitioners as they themselves deliver. There is also a great social aspect to our advocacy training programmes and everyone is encouraged to participate as fully as possible.

The advocacy training courses offered by the Inn differ, depending on the stage of the participants. But in the main, focus is placed on case analysis, trial preparation, examination in chief, cross-examination (including the cross-examination of expert witnesses), closing submissions and jury speeches.

Teaching is done in groups of six, each group having two advocacy trainers. Each performance of a particular exercise is filmed, using the latest tablet technology, allowing the participant then to receive further feedback and review from a third trainer.

All advocacy training is done using the Hampel method, named after its creator, Professor George Hampel QC, now an Honorary Bencher of the Inn. Following a performance of a piece of advocacy, a participant is given what is known as a ‘headline’ – a short, pithy and memorable point, which will best allow them to improve. The advocacy trainer will then give them verbatim examples from their performance to illustrate the headline topic. This is known as ‘playback’.

In the third stage of the review, the trainer will explain to the participant why there is a problem – in other words, the ‘rationale’ behind the review. The trainer will then go on to provide the participant with a ‘remedy’ – a practical means of solving the problem and allowing them to perform better in the future. Finally, the trainer delivers a short demonstration of how they might have done it, in order to illustrate the headline point.

For those of you reading this article who are pupils or new practitioners, I very much look forward to seeing you at one of our courses. At the outset of your pupillage or tenancy, you might feel less than thrilled at the prospect of compulsory advocacy training, particularly when you have plenty of other professional commitments to which you could dedicate this time. However, and I think I can say this with some confidence (having been an advocacy trainer now for over 11 years), you will undoubtedly benefit from the experience and expertise of your trainers, improve your already existing skills and enjoy yourself in the process.

For those of you reading this article who are experienced practitioners and would like to become advocacy trainers, the Inn runs a teacher training weekend each October. For more information, please contact David Miller in the Education and Training Department.

Alastair Hodge

73

74

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

Inns of Court College of Advocacy O

n 13 June, the Council of the Inns of Court (COIC) launched the Inns of Court College of Advocacy (ICCA) as a successor to the Advocacy Training Council (ATC). The ICCA will be responsible for providing leadership, guidance and coordination in relation to the pursuit of excellence in advocacy. The College will be governed and supported by barristers representing the Inns and Circuits, the Bar Council, Specialist Bar Associations and the judiciary. It will oversee the development of advocacy training for the Bar of England and Wales.

The extra resources provided by the four Inns have given the ICCA the opportunity to expand the work in progress inherited from the ATC and to develop important new work of its own. In the forefront will be the continuing and important task, in collaboration with the Bar Council, the Inns and Circuits, of training advocates in the handling of vulnerable witnesses. The systematic programme which has been devised will deliver training over time to more than 12,000 barristers and solicitor advocates. It continues the groundbreaking work carried out by the ATC, supported by the Advocate’s Gateway (TAG), and follows the ATC and TAG’s successful International Conference held in 2015. This was attended by eminent members of legal and academic

circles from many jurisdictions and highlighted the need for change in the way we work with vulnerable witnesses in justice systems around the world. On 8 June 2016, the ATC and TAG launched their first published book, Addressing Vulnerability in Justice Systems, edited by Professor Penny Cooper and Linda Hunting and published by Wildy, Simmonds and Hill Publishing, which brings together the papers from the conference. A complete list of the papers which are included in this publication can be found on our Advocate’s Gateway website (www.theadvocatesgateway.org/ international-conference-2015).

Projects and Events The ICCA has many other projects on its domestic agenda: reviews of fundamental advocacy training techniques, the teaching of professional ethics and the handling of expert evidence. The expert evidence project includes collaboration with the Royal Statistical Society in the production of a manual for advocates on how to handle statistical material.

Advocacy in the youth courts and the digitisation of the court process are further challenges. But like the ATC before it, it has no ambition to take over the early training delivered by the Inns and Circuits to their own members: the qualifying sessions for Bar students, the pupils’ training courses and the New Practitioners’ programme. Its role here will be to function as a think tank, generator of training materials and forum for discussion.

The ICCA’s first public event will be an all-day conference on 29 October 2016 entitled Vulnerability and Power: Maintaining the Balance (the Client’s Perspective). This will be aimed at changing the view of vulnerability as a unitary problem with a single solution, and will widen the material on vulnerability currently restricted to vulnerable witnesses.

Speakers will include: Derek Wood CBE QC, ICCA’s new Chair of Governors; Baroness Hollins and Nicola Padfield, Reader in Criminal and Penal Justice at Cambridge University and Master of Fitzwilliam College. Themes to be explored will include autism and learning difficulties, vulnerable criminal defendants, young persons and the challenges of foreign languages in court.

INNS OF COURT COLLEGE OF ADVOCACY INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

International Work Internationally, the ICCA will continue the ATC’s extensive programme of delivering advocacy training overseas, particularly in the developing worlds, where improving standards of advocacy training helps to maintain the rule of law. In the past year, the ATC has delivered training in a wide range of territories, including Zimbabwe, Guernsey, Brussels and Belize. In Belize, training was delivered at the invitation of the Department of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs of the US Embassy. It provided urgently needed advocacy training to serving police officers who act as police prosecutors. In contrast to the UK, these officers are required to present some of the most serious cases, which could carry sentences of up to ten years’ imprisonment. They are also required to deal with committal proceedings in more serious cases, where often the defendants are unrepresented.

Future trips include Philadelphia, Ghana, Poland, Sierra Leone and South Africa. In all of its overseas training, the ATC adopted a ‘seed corn’ approach, giving direct training to local members of the legal profession and training local trainers to continue that process. The fact that the ATC and (now) the College have been constantly asked to provide this training is a measure of the impact it makes, and clear evidence that advocacy at the Bar of England and Wales is seen to set the ‘gold standard’ internationally. The trainers from the Inns and Circuits who give up their time to support these programmes, and the host countries who always make our trainers feel welcome, deserve the warmest thanks.

If you are interested in supporting any of the College’s projects, please contact Phoebe Makin (pmakin@advocacytrainingcouncil.org) for more details.

“ Seeing officers of many years’ experience absorbing the basic techniques of advocacy, and then matching that to their own deeper knowledge of criminal justice, meant that the trainers could take huge satisfaction in seeing their students rapidly improve.”

“ It was remarked on quite widely that there had not been so convivial a meeting of Bar and Bench for some years, and there appeared genuine relief among both parties that all could get along and learn from each other.”

Master Morley, Zimbabwe, April 2016

Saul Herman, Belize, March 2016

75

76

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

WE NEED YOUR HELP Treasury Building, Inner Temple, London EC4Y 7HL • Tel: 020 7797 8208

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 team (contact details on page 51).

BARRISTERS TO GIVE 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 valued highly 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 Georgina Everatt.

GROUP LEADERS/ JUDGES FOR STUDENT ADVOCACY WEEKENDS The Education and Training team organises three student advocacy weekends a year at external venues in Windsor and Northamptonshire. The weekends focus on a particular legal topic and include panel presentations from experts in that topic as well as sentencing exercises and advocacy exercises. Previous weekends have covered a broad range of topics including terrorism, the family court, deaths in custody 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 Struan Campbell or Lacara Barnes-Rowe. We are particularly keen to hear from members on circuit.

SCHOLARSHIP INTERVIEWS The Inn offers funds in excess of £1.6 million annually to be distributed as scholarships and exhibitions for Bar training and law conversion awards.

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 Eamonn O’Reilly for information.

REGIONAL QUALIFYING SESSIONS BPTC students at providers outside of London are able to organise up to three qualifying sessions locally. These may be lectures, advocacy training, mooting or debating sessions followed by a reception with members of the local Bar. These sessions are subsidised by the Inn. Our student members would greatly appreciate the support of local members for these sessions. If you would be willing to help with future sessions, please contact Georgina Everatt.

ADVOCACY TRAINING FACULTY The Inn’s dedicated Advocacy Trainers provide compulsory advocacy training courses for pupils and new practitioners and 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 October advocacy teacher-training course to support this core function of the Inn, please contact David Miller.

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 Kerry Upham 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 Georgina Everatt if you would like to help.

BEDROOMS AT THE INN With early starts in court and late night events, why not relax in one of our beautiful on site bedrooms?

CHAUCER ROOM

BOSWELL ROOM

Rich in heritage and tucked away high above the hustle and bustle of the city, our two beautifully decorated overnight accommodation rooms, the Boswell Room and the Chaucer Room, are waiting for you. Available seven nights a week for only ÂŁ150 a night, a peaceful night in either of these rooms will leave you relaxed and revived for the next day.

FOR BOOKINGS please contact Lorna Pay lpay@innertemple.org.uk 020 7797 8179

78

INNER TEMPLE

Why are those Boys Wearing Dresses?

The Temple Church Choirboys’ Tour to Singapore and Perth, July 2016.

By Master Thorley

O

n a Sunday evening in mid-July, the 21 boy choristers of the Temple Church Choir, ranging in age from 8 to 14, left Heathrow for Singapore accompanied by the Director of Music, Roger Sayer, the Organist, Greg Morris, The Master of the Temple and appropriate support staff. Owing to judicial duties, neither Treasurer was able to join them and I was asked to represent the Inns.

The structure of the tour was similar to that of the Washington tour of 2014, combining concerts by the choir with discussions with the local legal fraternity. As will, I hope, become apparent, the choir was a remarkable ambassador both for itself and for the Inns and what we stand for.

In Singapore, the Choir’s performance on 20th July followed a panel discussion on the The Rule of Law and Dispute Resolution in the Global Economy, held in the Old Parliament Chamber. This is a splendid and acoustically excellent venue with appropriate leather seating; the seat formerly occupied by Lee Quan Yu being permanently unoccupied out of respect.

There was an invited audience of around 200 including the British High Commissioner, Andrew Wightman, and Chao Hick Tin, the Vice President of the Court of Appeal, who was called to the Bar by the Middle Temple.

The panel discussion was introduced by the Master of the Temple and presided over by the Chief Justice of Singapore, Sundaresh Menon, who is an Honorary Bencher of the Inner Temple. The speakers were: Professor Anselmo Reyes, a former judge in Hong Kong and now a Professor at the University of Hong Kong. He is also an International Judge of the Singapore International Commercial Court and an Overseas Bencher of the Inner Temple; Professor Lucy Reed, recently appointed the Director of the Centre for International Law at the National University of Singapore and formerly a specialist in investment treaty and complex arbitration with Freshfields. She is a past President of the American Society of International Law; And me.

The discussion was wide ranging, extending from the history of the rule of law and the relevance of the Temple Church to that history, through to modern day examples of its success and failure. The discussion was well received, with significant contributions from the floor but I gained the clear impression that we were a warm up act for the main event.

The respect for and amity with the Inns was however readily apparent from the willingness of the Chief Justice and the Professors to attend the event and from the interest shown

WHY ARE THOSE BOYS WEARING DRESSES? INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

“ The concert itself was nothing short of magical, … As an encore the choir sang a Singaporean folk song Home, which was sung at Lee Quan Yu’s funeral last year and predictably led to a few damp eyes.” by members of the audience at the reception given by the Singapore Academy of Law afterwards.

The Choir Concert followed. The choir had themselves had a warming up session when they sang as part of the Jazz in July Festival at the Singapore Esplanade – an unlikely context for a choral performance but I am assured it was very well received. Unfortunately I could not attend as it coincided with the panel discussion.

The joint choirs began with Parry’s I was Glad and ended with Rutter’s Gloria where they were joined by musicians from the UWA’s School of Music creating a truly majestic sound. In between, each choir sang on its own and they were all plainly very proficient. The boys were, I think, the stars of the show but maybe I am a little biased!

On the legal side, before the performance, the acting Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University, Professor

From left to right: Master Reyes, Professor Lucy Reed, Master Menon with Master Thorley

The concert itself was nothing short of magical, involving works by Benjamin Britten and Richard Rodney Bennet, lieder from Brahms and Schumann, as well as Maybe It’s Because I’m a Londoner sung with cockney accents! As an encore the choir sang a Singaporean folk song Home, which was sung at Lee Quan Yu’s funeral last year and predictably led to a few damp eyes.

The success of the evening can perhaps be gauged by the Chief Justice’s enthusiasm for a repeat visit with a public concert, and Master Reyes suggesting that a visit to Hong Kong should be included next time.

And so to Perth where the choir had two engagements.

The first was at a religious assembly for the junior school at the Methodist Ladies College. This is a large and very wellfunded school for girls of all ages. The choir was waiting in their cassocks to go into the auditorium when a small child asked me “Why are those boys wearing dresses?” Thankfully that was not a comment overheard by the boys who again performed part of their repertoire with great skill.

The main event was a concert in aid of charity held in the cathedral like venue of the Winthrop Hall in the University of Western Australia. This was built in the early 1930s with a bequest from Sir John Winthrop Hackett, who was called to the Bar both in Dublin and New South Wales but who saw the light and made a fortune as a newspaper magnate. Three choirs took part: The Temple Church Choir, The Choir of St George’s Cathedral and The Chorale of the Methodist Ladies College. Altogether there were some 125 choristers on stage in front of an audience of more than 600.

Brenda McGivern, gave a reception which was attended by, amongst others, the Chief Justice of Western Australia, The Hon Wayne Martin AC. Afterwards there was a dinner in the University Club attended by the Vice Chancellor of the University, Professor Paul Johnson, Professor McGivern, Professor Peter Handford, a former Deputy Dean of the Law Faculty and a Middle Templar, the Dean of the Cathedral and the three Directors of Music together with The Master of the Temple and me. A thoroughly enjoyable occasion.

At this point, I left the choir who went on to perform (if that is the right word) at St Mary’s Cathedral in Sydney and St John’s Cathedral in Brisbane.

The performances in Singapore and Perth were exceptional and were justly received with acclaim. Significant goodwill was created amongst both the musical and legal fraternities. Communication amongst lawyers enhances the rule of law and the presence of the choir enabled a number of senior lawyers from across the world to get together to do just that.

The organisation of a tour like this is a logistical challenge and enormous thanks are due to Alice Pearson and her successor Nella Scott at the Church Office who masterminded the whole thing. Having successfully ensured that 21 choristers, their minders, the Director of Music and the Organists together with (perhaps the greatest challenge) The Master of the Temple were in the right place at the right time, Nella has a great future as a herder of cats!

Simon Thorley ��

79

INNER TEMPLE PEGASUS SCHOLARSHIP

USA

Clara Hamer, One Brick Court

T

he Pegasus Scholarship has long been about the broadening of legal horizons. Undertaking a packed seven week programme of legal and political activities across the US hosted by the American Inns of Court (AIC) – a national association of lawyers, judges and other legal professionals dedicated to promoting professionalism, civility, ethics and legal skills among the American Bar and Bench – certainly broadened mine.

The experiences organised for me and my co-scholar were remarkable. We visited a wide range of courts – from state trial court level up to the US Supreme Court, with everything from specialist patent and tax courts to a court martial at Quantico Marine Base in between. We watched a moot at Georgetown Law’s Supreme Court Institute where attorneys shortly due to appear in the US Supreme Court practised their oral arguments before a panel of ‘Justices’ made up of law faculty and advocates. We sat in on depositions, mediations and arbitrations, and attended classes at George Washington University and the Pacific McGeorge School of Law. Through meetings, we were given a flavour both of US private practice and the work of US Attorneys, District Attorneys and public defenders, as well as institutions such as the Department of Justice. AIC seminars taught us about topics as diverse as grand juries, prior inconsistent statements and one man’s exoneration after ten years on death row, and we watched compelling presentations on legal ethics issues. On top of this, we visited political hotspots such as Congress, the White House, the Pentagon, the California State Senate and Assembly, and the California Governor’s Office, where we met with lawyers and lawmakers alike.

I was also exposed to areas uniquely relevant to my practice in the UK. As a barrister specialising in media

and information law, I was fortunate to spend time at newspapers and broadcasters including The Washington Post, National Public Radio (NPR), the Discovery Channel, Black Entertainment Television and NBC. I met with lawyers at firms such as Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Dentons and Kirkland & Ellis LLP, who have acted in many of the leading media and First Amendment cases in recent years. Spending a day at the Federal College of Communications (the US equivalent of Ofcom), learning about US media regulation from specialist firm Wiley Rein LLP, and watching a landmark case on whether the statutory ban on registering ‘disparaging’ trademarks violates the First Amendment (it turns out, it does) were just some of the highlights of my time in America.

Others included meeting with an international expert on data privacy and information law, and attending a conference in Virginia on technology and free speech, where speakers included Edward Snowden.

Experiences such as these were truly enriching. I was able to pick up points of US law and procedure that should prove useful to my practice. But a Pegasus Scholarship brings wider benefits, such as fresh perspectives from which to consider both countries’ legal systems. It was fascinating to debate with lawyers and judges the pros and cons of choices made in England and Wales to have a split legal profession, lawyers commonly acting for both claimants and defendants, rarely having juries in civil cases, the principle of costs including lawyers’ fees generally being paid by the unsuccessful party, and automatic lifetime anonymity for complainants of sexual offences – all concepts foreign to the US system, at least in the states we visited. Watching appeals, it was interesting to consider the merits of a time-limited (30 minutes maximum per side), quick-fire Q&A style of advocacy and judicial intervention from panels of judges who, at times, seemed to give attorneys little more than 30 seconds to answer each question – apparently a product of the US tradition of submitting written legal briefs far longer and more expansive than our skeleton arguments. Hearing US perspectives on the balance struck between privacy, reputation and freedom of expression in cases from jurisdictions without something akin to the First Amendment was enlightening: the title of one discussion at the Virginia conference, The Future of Free Speech in the EU (or, Has the EU Gone Insane?) perhaps says it all. And it was certainly thought provoking to discover that a whole area of my practice, namely strict liability contempt (the prohibition on publishing anything creating a substantial risk of seriously prejudicing or impeding the course of justice in legal proceedings) simply did not exist in the US. The reason? Partly, I was told, because of the First Amendment, and partly because the US system of jury selection can involve questioning potential jurors about what media coverage they have seen, and removing anyone deemed biased towards one side of the case as a result.

I learned a great deal from the experience of being a Pegasus Scholar and am hugely grateful to the AIC and the Pegasus Trust for organising such an educational and enjoyable programme.

Clara Hamer

80

AUSTRALIA INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Australia

Natalie Ashkar, 3 Paper Buildings, Winchester

L

ess than 12 hours before I was originally due to fly to Australia for my scholarship placement, my beloved younger sister passed away unexpectedly, aged 27. The placement kindly agreed to take me on a slightly reduced and deferred time frame, but as I boarded the plane a month later, alone and feeling a mixture of grief and apprehension, I questioned whether I should continue with the scholarship. Now, upon reflection, I can see how much I learnt and I have absolutely no regrets about going.

It was a most challenging yet amazing experience.

My three-month placement was with the Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, The Honourable Diana Bryant AO. She is incredibly inspiring, gracious and intelligent, and was keen to include me in all things. I was quickly tasked with assisting her legal staff with undertaking research and assisting with the production of her lectures and supporting papers. I began to understand the jurisdiction of the Family Court of Australia, stemming from the Family Law Act 1975, and researched Australian case law and family law reforms.

In Australia, the Commonwealth or Federal courts have distinct family law jurisdiction from the State courts, and private child disputes, property allocation on relationship breakdown and serious medical issues in relation to children, all fall within the jurisdictional remit of the Family Court of Australia. Applications under international conventions are also heard by the Family Court of Australia, and the Chief Justice is a designated Hague Convention Liaison Judge.

I undertook considerable research into how the grave risk defence had been applied in a number of different jurisdictions for her. Despite huge differences in the family court system of Australia compared to England and Wales, I also noted significant similarities, not only in relation to legal principles to be applied but also the issues and challenges being faced by the family courts. These include increasingly complex legislation caused by significant reform, lack of funding and resources, allegations of ‘secrecy’, and concerns about ensuring adequate protection to children and parents exposed to family violence.

Whilst based in Melbourne, I saw trial court hearings conducted by other Family Court Judges as well as observing the Chief Justice presiding over the Full Court. I was also able to travel with the Chief Justice to Brisbane and observe both appeal and trial hearings there as well and assist her with the preparation for her hearings by producing case summaries.

One of the most memorable experiences I had was being allowed to attend and assist with the hosting of the Commonwealth and Common Law Conference in Sydney. In attendance were leading family law judges from all around the world, along with leading experts in family law issues, such as Professor Marilyn Freeman. It was interesting to hear how each family law jurisdiction operated and to engage in the judicial debate around controversial issues, such as forced marriage and trafficking, international surrogacy, intercountry adoption and international abduction. I really enjoyed discussing family law issues with the judges from other jurisdictions. Most significantly, I was invited to attend the evening social functions, and the standout event was certainly the formal dinner hosted by the Chief Justice at the Museum

of Contemporary Art in Sydney Harbour, overlooking the opera house. It was an unforgettable experience and I am grateful to have been so welcomed and involved in all aspects of this event.

I was also invited to attend a number of the other Chief Justice’s social functions, including her highly esteemed and very exclusive Christmas party! I was included in the other staff Christmas parties, which were always well catered and merry, even if it felt odd celebrating Christmas in searing heat!

I cannot recommend highly enough the Pegasus Scholarship scheme. For me, it was a brilliant opportunity to absorb and experience another jurisdiction, and to meet and discuss legal issues with junior and leading legal professionals.

Since returning, I have delivered a presentation about my experiences to the Local Family Justice Board, explaining the key differences and what perhaps can be learnt from my experiences in Australia.

Although the scholarship placement came at a time of incredible personal sadness, I received such a warm welcome from the Chief Justice and all of her staff, and also received great support back home from the Pegasus Trust, that it became a truly incredible experience.

Natalie Ashkar

81

82

INNER TEMPLE PEGASUS SCHOLARSHIP

Hong Kong

Gurprit Mattu, Dyers Chambers

I

was fortunate to spend time at three places during my stay in Hong Kong. Firstly, a few weeks with Eversheds law firm, in their Financial Services Disputes and Investigation team. I then spent three weeks with the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), and, finally, three weeks with a local law firm, Boase, Cohen & Collins. All three experiences were very different and enriching in their own way.

At Eversheds I assisted associates and partners with their work, from researching to drafting statements of claim. I worked with both UK solicitors transferred from UK offices and local lawyers. The cases were incredibly interesting, and I really picked up a flavor of the work that was done at Eversheds. I shared a room with the Head of Employment and vicariously learned about employment law which was also very interesting. The highlight had to be visiting the grand boardroom of the Bank of China which was very glamorous, straight from a movie scene. I was also able to observe a judicial review challenge at the Court of First Instance by the largest commercial broadcaster in Hong Kong, to a decision of the broadcasting regulator, that its contracts and policies were anti-competitive. I observed five silks, of which two were eminent UK silks. It felt like home from home.

HKIAC for me was the steepest learning curve as I had not been exposed to arbitration work before. I was one of four interns and, as a not-for-profit organisation, the luxury of a glass office disappeared. Everyone was incredibly welcoming and learning something altogether new was very exciting. I was kept busy with a variety of interesting work. I had the opportunity to read into several arbitration cases, drafted summaries and observed arbitration proceedings which Neil Kaplan QC chaired. The highlight was HKIAC Arbitration week, which was a great event to get involved in. I attended lots of seminars and parties, helped the HKIAC team get the show on the road when needed, and saw just how much effort and enthusiasm went into organising such a great week. I had the opportunity to network with lawyers from all over the world, and have kept in touch with a few of them.

Hong Kong lawyers are very much a networking community, and everyone has a business card at the ready. I think this placement is a must for anyone considering an arbitration role, as I gained an excellent insight into how arbitrations come together, and the role of all parties concerned.

Last but not least, Boase, Cohen & Collins, was a lovely place to be. My supervising partner, Colin Cohen, could not do enough to ensure I was gaining relevant experience and enjoying my time in Hong Kong. The work involved lots of research for partners on a variety of commercial and civil matters. Highlights included working on a pro bono Judicial Review application, which involved attending barristers' chambers (very swanky indeed!). I also observed a few days of a very long fraud trial. Our client (perhaps in China’s top 50 rich list) was being represented by non-other than Edward Fitzgerald QC. Being at court with barristers from a different jurisdiction, although similar to being in the UK, was a worthwhile experience. They all made an effort to make me welcome, and invited me out with them, unfortunately, just as it was time to leave.

On a more general note, working hours in Hong Kong are until late, but you usually start late too, and everyone loves to go out for lunch to meet friends. There is a real feeling of work hard, and play hard. At the weekend, an endless champagne brunch in a 5 star hotel is a culinary highlight, starting at mid-day, and continuing into the late afternoon.

Living in Hong Kong was just as eye opening an experience as the work. Everyone mostly eats out because your living space is very small, and kitchens are almost nonexistent in the average apartment. For the same reason, working from home is rare, unless you live out in the territories. Local restaurant food is inexpensive, but you need to know how to order it in Cantonese and not be particular about your meat. Almost everything else in Hong Kong is expensive, except travel around the city, whether by bus, boat or taxi. Eversheds kindly arranged my accommodation and paid for it during my time with them, which I was then able to keep on at a reduced rate for the rest of my time in Hong Kong. It was covered by my scholarship award in any event. I was assisted by Colin’s team in gaining my visa before I even got there, which I am very grateful for as it was not a straightforward process. I had to get three visas, one for each placement. My visa situation meant I had to leave the country after every placement, so I took myself to Macau, Vietnam and Taiwan for weekends away. I then finished with a weeklong holiday in Japan. Hong Kong is a great place from which to explore the rest of Asia; although erratic typhoon weather makes planning difficult in autumn.

This has certainly been amongst the most exciting three months in my life and I have come back more enriched culturally and certainly more learned in Hong Kong law and process. So, a big thank you to all those who helped with organising my placements, took me in for my placements and made me feel welcome and to the Inn for organising the award. In particular, I would like to thank Neil Kaplan QC for assisting in my placement in Hong Kong.

Gurprit Mattu

BERMUDA INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Bermuda

Chloe Campbell, Henderson Chambers

I

was very excited to be offered a Pegasus scholarship to work in Bermuda for six weeks in the summer of 2015. I was placed with Appleby, one of the most respected offshore law firms. The office was based in Hamilton, a colourful little hub of insurance and law firms which somehow feels both cosmopolitan and like a small island town. Top insurance firms sit alongside little old post offices trapped in time, and at the end of every office lined road is a perfect view of the sea. Yet within this quaint little town one is acutely aware that key international insurance deals are being brokered and multi million pound international disputes are being litigated.

It is an unusual and exciting working environment.

Appleby welcomed me warmly to the litigation/dispute resolution department. I worked under two of the partners, both of whom were leading barristers in Bermuda, their names appearing regularly in any Bermuda case law search I did. I very much felt I was experiencing some of the best work on offer in Bermuda, and the quality of it was extremely high. I worked on high value international shareholder and insurance disputes. I found it challenging and exciting and I think it will provide very useful experience for my wider practice at the Bar. The work involved research tasks, which offered a chance to investigate the relationship between Bermuda and English law, and detailed preparation of cases for trial, which involved working on witness statements, liaising with the clients, and drafting opinions and skeleton arguments. I even found myself drafting a skeleton argument for the Privy Council. I only went to court once, and I think this would not be unusual given that the majority of cases appear to be large, long-running disputes. However I was involved in the preparation for trial of a number of cases and the work I did was all contentious. I was greatly impressed by the overall quality of the cases in Bermuda and grateful to Appleby for giving me the opportunity to take such an involved role in working on them. To experience offshore work in a jurisdiction which relies on English law but applies its own twist and has its own set of case law, was a fascinating opportunity.

Appleby generously put me up in a little pool house in Flatts Village, a very comfortable base that I quickly considered home! It was a spacious studio with French doors opening onto a swimming pool which in theory was shared with the owner and one other rental property but in reality I had entirely to myself for the duration of the stay. Not a bad set up! Flatts Village was a charming village right on the Harrington Sound. A number of bus stops, a local shop,

an aquarium for rainy days and an Italian restaurant serving unbelievably good pizza were all within walking distance. The journey into town for work took about 20 minutes, although the buses are notoriously unreliable and hard to predict. The commute is pretty pleasant once you are on the bus though; not often can you stare whimsically out to sea for most of your journey into work. It certainly beats the tube.

Bermuda is an amazing place to experience living. The island is unbelievably friendly; everyone working in the local lunch spots will know your name in a matter of days and you will run into the same friendly taxi drivers who remember where they are taking you home at the end of the night! Fine dining restaurants are juxtaposed with slightly divey bars that you will inevitably find yourself in on a Friday night and where you will probably run into everyone you ever met in Bermuda.

It is very easy to make friends and I had a wonderful time.

It is also a breathtakingly beautiful island. At weekends there are some of the most glorious beaches in the world to explore. The South Shore is lined with pink sand beaches where you can lay down a towel and be almost undisturbed by others for the whole day. The beautifully turquoise sea offers amazing swimming, snorkelling and diving opportunities. In my first week, a local shop keeper told me I should try to make friends with people who had boats.

She was right and this was easier to achieve than you might imagine! Within a week or so I had been invited out on a number of boating trips to enjoy the favourite Bermudian pastime of rafting up with friends and enjoying a lazy day floating in the water, drink in hand.

There are also beautiful sights to see. St George’s, a UNESCO world heritage site, settled by the English in 1612, is said to be the oldest continuously inhabited English town in the New World. It is a captivating little town full of narrow alleys and beautiful old houses and churches. Cooper’s Island nature reserve offers entirely unspoilt beaches. At the far west of the island, the old Dockyard houses the national museum and is home to a handful of dolphins with some great tricks up their sleeve. It will also be home to the Americas Cup in 2017, when the island will become the centre of the international sailing event. They were already gearing up for it with great excitement while I was there so it will certainly be an exciting place to be in the next couple of years.

I would highly recommend a Pegasus placement in Bermuda to anyone who is lucky enough to be offered one.

I would like to thank the Pegasus Trust for the generous scholarship which made this experience possible and Appleby for hosting me so generously.

Chloe Campbell

83

84

INNER TEMPLE PEGASUS SCHOLARSHIP

New Zealand Neil Shah, Coram Chambers

F

or the last few months of 2015, as part of the Pegasus Scholarship, I was placed with Thorndon Chambers based in Wellington, New Zealand. Members of chambers (totalling 12 and making the set rather large by New Zealand standards) have wide ranging practices but generally focus on public and commercial law issues. I was immediately struck by the kind, generous and welcoming nature of everyone and was soon to learn that this was a common New Zealander trait. Chambers even felt the need to apologise for the fact that they would not be able to provide me with my own office with its harbour view!

During my first few weeks I observed three members of chambers acting on opposing sides in a landmark Māori land case being heard in the Supreme Court. The case was fascinating and, unsurprisingly, legally and factually complex.

The extent to which certain Māori words have become part of standard New Zealand English ensured that I was only able to decipher the lower court judgments by constantly referring to a Māori dictionary and textbook on the Treaty of Waitangi (New Zealand’s founding constitutional document signed by representatives of the Crown and Māori chiefs in 1840). Karen, one of the barristers involved, also invited me to attend a handing down ceremony at the Waitangi Tribunal (a permanent commission of inquiry charged with making recommendations on claims brought by Māori in relation to the Treaty) – a truly unique experience; I even participated in my first hongi!

My general time at Thorndon was spent assisting with a wide variety of mainly public law cases, including several judicial reviews. Highlights included drafting submissions that were used in a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act challenge to various curfew restrictions, assisting with the defence to an action brought in respect of the length of Wellington’s airport runway RESA (Runway End Safety Area), and researching a possible challenge arising out of New Zealand’s proposed entry into the Trans-Pacific Partnership. One of the aspects that struck me most was the lack of any requirement to seek permission before commencing judicial review proceedings (the same is the case with appeals which, in most cases save for those to the Supreme Court, are as of right). With recent developments in England going very much in the opposite direction, this gave me considerable pause for thought.

The breadth of general barristers’ practice in New Zealand (most would be considered generalists at the English Bar) meant that each week was filled with new and interesting cases in different areas of the law. Examples range from working on an appeal in which Australia sought the extradition of a mentally unwell man for historic and low level fraud offences, to an inheritance dispute arising out of the will of a recently deceased QC. Most noteworthy, however, were the cases brought as a result of the devastating Canterbury earthquakes in 2010 and 2011. In one such matter, concerning the right of a number of insured persons to bring a representative action against their insurer, I was fortunate enough to be given the chance to appear as junior counsel in the High Court. I was also given a personal tour of earthquake damaged Christchurch by Grant Cameron (our instructing solicitor), who took me to meet some of the claimants still very much affected by the tragedy.

Outside of work I was encouraged to explore different parts of the country on weekends, with colleagues at Thorndon giving me plenty of tips. Words cannot describe just how spectacular New Zealand is – whether it was the geothermal wonderland that is Rotorua, stunningly beautiful Lake Pukaki or the majestic Remarkables, my camera was in constant use (I even saw a kiwi!). I also decided that I could not leave the country without taking advantage of its reputation as the adventure capital of the world, which led me to sky jumping in Auckland, skydiving over Wanaka and canyon swinging in Queenstown!

I am indebted to everyone at Thorndon Chambers (and in particular to Francis Cooke QC) for making my time in New Zealand such a rewarding and enjoyable experience, and to the Pegasus Trust for making my trip possible. Aside from the incredible enjoyment of participating first-hand in the workings of a different legal system, I have no doubt that my experiences will be of considerable benefit to me as I return to practice at home. Given the nature of our profession, international opportunities are limited for junior barristers, especially those that are so enriching both professionally and personally, and I would strongly encourage others to apply for this scholarship. I have been left with a deep fondness for New Zealand and its people, a previously undiscovered love of (good) coffee and, above all else, some incredible and lifelong memories.

Neil Shah

FRANCE INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

France

Thomas Davis, Landmark Chambers

A

t the end of 2015, I was fortunate enough to spend three months working at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.

My placement came at a particularly interesting time as the UK’s relationship with the Court and the future of The Human Rights Act 1998 came under particular scrutiny in domestic politics and therefore I was eager to see for myself just how the Court operated in practice and how the lawyers and judges working there saw their role.

I was based in the Registry of the Court working mainly with the team of lawyers handling applications originating from the UK. Much of my day-to-day work consisted of reading and analysing new applications to the Court and deciding on their admissibility with my supervisor. Many cases fail at this first hurdle, either for procedural reasons such as a failure by the applicant to exhaust available domestic remedies in respect of their human rights complaints, or because their complaints are ‘manifestly unfounded’ in substance in light of the terms of the Convention and the Court’s existing case law. For these cases I drafted briefing notes summarising the issues for the single judge responsible for taking the final decision whether to dispose of the case. For the more complex applications I helped draft communication reports requesting observations from the UK Government, as well as carrying out research on points of Convention case law for the senior lawyers and judges considering the case. The subject matter of my work was extremely varied and during my short time at the Court I dealt with cases concerning many different aspects of the Convention including the use of adverse inferences from silence in criminal trials (Article 6: Right to a fair trial), religious discrimination in the workplace (Article 9: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and the investigative duties on the state arising from historic killings during the troubles in Northern Ireland (Article 2: Right to life) to name but a few as well as many other issues.

As one might expect from an international institution dealing with caes from all of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe, the lawyers and judges I met were drawn from diverse backgrounds and from all across the continent.

I was struck by their versatility and their ability to apply Convention principles to cases arising in almost every practice area and from multiple different jurisdictions. I especially enjoyed getting to know the many young trainee lawyers who joined the Court at the same time as me and learning about the varied legal traditions from which they came and

how the role of the Court is perceived in their own home countries (often much more positively than in some sections of the British media!) I made a great many new friends with whom I hope to remain in contact.

Particular highlights of my placement were the Q&A sessions hosted by the judges from Sweden, Norway and Belgium, where we had a wide ranging discussion covering the history of the Court, its working practices and its future challenges. All were keen to stress what they saw as the essentially subsidiary role of the Court and the importance of domestic courts sharing the responsibility for securing human rights protection across Europe. I also had the opportunity to witness several hearings before the Grand Chamber, including the controversial case of Hutchinson v UK concerning the compatibility of ‘whole life’ prisoner tariffs with the prohibition on torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention. Whilst the quality of the advocacy on display on these occasions was generally very high, the contrast with domestic practice in the higher courts was very noticeable. The hearings were much more of a set piece occasion with advocates permitted to speak at length addressing pre-notified issues arising from the parties’ written cases without judicial intervention. Although further questions were posed orally from the Bench at the conclusion of their submissions, the advocates were permitted a short break to consider their response before the hearing resumed (a luxury I have often wished for!)

Strasbourg itself was a wonderful place to live. The city is dominated by its striking thousand year old cathedral which towers above the rest of the Grande Ile, the central island which is surrounded by waterways and which has been a designated UNESCO World Heritage Site due to its amazing medieval architecture. I spent many weekends exploring its historic streets as well as travelling further afield into the Alsace region and over the border into Switzerland and Germany. As the festive period approached, the city transformed itself into the (apparently self-appointed) ‘Capital of Christmas’ and the streets filled with market stalls selling mulled wine, local crafts and every type of festive decoration imaginable which provided a wonderful backdrop to my last few weeks away.

I am greatly indebted to the Pegasus Trust for making my trip possible and to everyone I encountered at the Court who enabled me to have such an enjoyable and informative experience.

Thomas Davis

85

86

INNER TEMPLE PEGASUS SCHOLARSHIP

Australia

Jamie Sutherland, Falcon Chambers

U

ntil last September, the furthest I had travelled for court was to Lancaster: the hearing, in an agricultural tenancy case, was held in the most impressive courtroom I had yet entered, the Shire Hall in Lancaster Castle. However, my Pegasus placement last September and October set a new record for the furthest distance I had travelled to court and set a new standard for spectacular court locations.

At the start of my placement, I flew from Heathrow to Perth, the state capital of Western Australia (WA); early the next morning, I flew from Perth to Karratha, on the northwest coast of the state; and from Karratha, I travelled by 4x4 for a few hours inland to the Ti-Tree mining camp, in the Pilbara region. Ti-Tree was to be my base for the first ten days of my placement, when I assisted at a Federal Court of Australia ‘on-country’ hearing of Aboriginal evidence in a native title claim. Amidst the trees around Garliwinyjinha Creek, the court sat in an open-sided marquee, with the accompaniment of birdsong during many of the court sessions; a hearing by a pool in a gorge at Bangankarra was held completely in the open, and the judge, stenographers, counsel and witnesses found the most shaded rocks to sit on as the temperatures rose above 40°C and sunbeams dropped in columns directly between the surrounding cliffs and pierced through the water.

On-country hearings in the outback are part of the diet of the Federal Court of Australia, which deals with native title claims brought by Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders. When Australia was first colonised in the late 18th Century, it was considered in legal terms to be terra nullius or ‘land belonging to no one’: the Crown’s absolute beneficial ownership of the land was justified not on the basis of conquest or treaties with the indigenous peoples, but on the basis that there had been no pre-existing rights over the land when the settlers arrived. This legal principle held good until the High Court of Australia’s decision in 1992 in the case of Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) [1992] HCA 23, a claim brought by the Meriam people of the Murray Islands in the Torres Strait. In Mabo, the High Court rejected the doctrine of terra nullius and held that, where an indigenous claim group could show that they enjoyed rights and interests in land, under the traditional laws and customs which they had acknowledged and observed since pre-colonisation days, and that they still had a connection with the land, then the common law of Australia could recognise their native title.

The following year, the Australian Parliament enacted the Native Title Act 1993, which governs substantive native title applications, compensation claims arising from industrial or other use of traditional lands, and the scheme of Indigenous Land Use Agreements, which can be drawn up between native title holders and third parties who wish to use their land. The Act also established native title representative bodies, agencies made up of lawyers, anthropologists and other professionals, who act for claim groups and native title holders.

During the eight weeks of my Pegasus placement, I worked with two such organisations, the Yindjibarndi

Aboriginal Corporation (YAC) and the Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation (YMAC). I also worked with barristers in chambers in Perth and Sydney, who were instructed by YAC and YMAC on native title matters.

I enjoyed a wide variety of work during my placement: I prepared written advice on procedural points under native title legislation; I drafted submissions for an interim application on the admissibility of expert anthropological evidence; and I carried out tenure analysis and a review of evidence on issues of native title extinguishment, to establish whether continued use and occupation of traditional lands by a claim group had preserved their native title rights, despite the grant of pastoral leases and the creation of national parks within the claim area.

I was based at YAC’s office in Perth, and spent a week at a chambers in Sydney, but the highlights were the two on-country hearings I attended in the Pilbara, with YAC in the Yindjibarndi native title claim and YMAC in the Kuruma claim. In both cases, the State of Western Australia was a respondent; in the Yindjibarndi claim, the mining company Fortescue Metals Group (FMG) was a respondent. The Pilbara is rich in iron ore and if the Yindjibarndi claim succeeds, FMG will be liable to make significant compensation payments.

Everyone I worked with was very generous in giving their time and sharing their expertise and experience. There was plenty of opportunity to chat: over breakfast (between 4 and 6 am at the mining camp!); on the long drives in convoy through the red dust of the outback; over the barbeque lunches we enjoyed at the on-country hearings; and back in the cities, be that at a birthday dinner in Perth or a new silk’s party I attended with the barrister who hosted me in Sydney.

There was lots of fun and adventure: some days on country, we would be able to swim in a nearby waterhole during lunch or after the day’s hearing; and one day, there were photo opportunities with a python.

The greatest privilege of the trip was to learn about the cultures of the claim groups. I travelled from Karratha to TiTree with one of the Yindjibarndi witnesses, who welcomed me to Yindjibarndi country in the traditional way: when we first reached a river, he scooped the water into his mouth with his hands, sprayed it out and then called to the spirits in the country to explain who I was and why I was there. Later that week, I saw the judge being welcomed on country in the same way. In order to establish their claims, the witnesses have to describe their traditional laws and customs in detail, sometimes discussing matters which normally would not be shared with outsiders.

The judgments in both claims are still awaited and I am now following developments from this side of the world.

Overall, the placement was a unique opportunity to reflect on my property law practice here from a different perspective, to learn about Australian law and procedure generally, and to enjoy privileged insights into some of the world’s most ancient cultures. I am hugely indebted to the Pegasus Trust for making the experience possible.

Jamie Sutherland

NEW YORK INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

New York

Jacob Bindman, Garden Court Chambers

P

egasus has a long history of sending fellows to the Centre for Constitutional Rights (CCR), and previous recipients have spoken in glowing terms about their time with the organisation. I knew of the CCR from my time working as a paralegal at a firm of solicitors that represented the bulk of the British detainees held at Guantánamo Bay in the aftermath of 9/11. CCR has a strong reputation in the United States, but through its ground-breaking work on Guantánamo, CCR had significantly enhanced its international reputation.

It was with great pleasure then that I learnt that the Guantánamo team wished to host me during my three months at the organization, following a Skype interview. The creation of the island prison at Guantánamo, along with the jettisoning of the most basic tenets of the rule of law that accompanied it, was one of the issues that first drove me towards a career in the law. On a personal level, therefore, it was a particularly exciting opportunity to work with the team who had been at the forefront of the 14-year struggle to claw back basic legal rights that are ordinarily accorded to those imprisoned by the US government.

Although I already had a good knowledge of many of the broader issues surrounding Guantánamo, it was only once I saw the extent of the domestic legal struggle that has taken place since it was created that I fully understood the hurdles the lawyers at CCR and attorneys drafted in from outside had overcome. The recently deceased former president of the CCR, Michael Ratner, said, when filing the case of Rasul v Bush (which eventually resulted in the imposition of domestic legal authority over the detention of suspects at Guantánamo) that he had done so “100 per cent on principle”. He felt it was a hopeless case, but, because the importance of what was at stake, it had to be done – if nothing else but to exert pressure on the government to end this legal and moral aberration.

Such an approach gives a good idea of what the CCR is all about. The concept of public interest lawyering, ie using the law to achieve or press for change on major constitutional or policy issues, is slightly alien to us in Britain. In some respects, this is a positive result of the fact that, until relatively recently at least, we had a legal aid system that gave access to justice to poorer parts of society, and allowed people to fight injustices on a micro level, often setting important legal precedents in the process. In the US, where no legal aid exists except for a public defender system for the poorest criminal defendants, their approach has, by necessity, been different. A combination of campaigning lawyers, pro bono

attorneys from major firms and activists combine on issues of major public importance and litigate issues at a Federal or State level. Whilst I was at the CCR, they won a case that fundamentally changed the law on solitary confinement in the state of California.

The quality of the work of CCR is exceptional. They are not a wealthy organisation but rely on a team of highly talented and committed lawyers, campaigners, fundraisers and communications specialists to bring cases of major national and international importance, and effect tangible policy change. The lawyers come from various backgrounds; some, particularly in the Guantánamo team, were lured from careers in commercial practice after becoming involved as pro bono attorneys for those detained at the prison, while others came from backgrounds in academia or international law. All shared a strong commitment to the ethos of the CCR. Throughout my time, I was made to feel very welcome and put to work on incredibly interesting issues, ranging from international law to domestic torts. A significant amount of my time was spent assisting the attorney who was representing Tariq Ba Odah, a detainee who had been on hunger strike for seven years and whose body weight had reduced to a shocking 96 lb. Unusually at this stage in the life of Guantánamo, his case was due before the Federal District Court in Washington DC for a habeas corpus application to secure his release on medical grounds. I spent time helping the attorney prepare for his oral argument, something that is strictly limited in US courts, and attempting to test every possible weakness in the argument. It was a very different process to that which we at the Bar undergo when preparing for a case but a fascinating experience, and I was very pleased to be able to attend the hearing while I was there.

Aside from the working life, it goes without saying that New York is one of the most exciting places to be. The offices of CCR are perfectly situated on Broadway in the East Village, close to heart of the action in Manhattan. Having previously only spent time in New York on short holidays, I fell in love with the city even more after an extended period living and working there. I, like many I worked with, lived in Brooklyn and commuted into Manhattan. I loved them both.

Ultimately, I am extremely grateful to the Pegasus Trust for giving me the opportunity to work in New York and to the CCR for such an interesting and enjoyable experience. My practice, in particular my international work, has expanded as a result of the experience I gained during my time at CCR, and I intend to continue developing it in the years to come.

Jacob Bindman

87

88

INNER TEMPLE SPEECH

Temple Employed Bar Forum – Advocacy at the Employed Bar

From the key note speech given by Master Corbett, of Kobre & Kim (UK) LLP, to the Temple Employed Bar Forum on 18 July 2016

I

f you had told me on my call night 41 years ago that I would tonight be speaking at a meeting of the Temple Employed Bar Forum – and in particular on advocacy at the Employed Bar – I would simply not have believed it. Then, the status of so-called ‘in house’ lawyers in this country was relatively low and joining their ranks was a little like taking the veil. Not many returned. One of the remarkable changes of the last years is in the way in which employed barristers are viewed by the profession.

That change in status goes hand in hand with much greater mobility within and between the professions.

I was called in 1975. I spent some years as a university lecturer and entered pupillage in late 1977. I spent six months at a common law/criminal set on the Midland Circuit and was in court, watching trials, day in and day out. I then spent six months at what is now 20 Essex Street (then 3 Essex Court).

In those six months I was in court for precisely half a day and in the tail end of an arbitration for three days. Otherwise all of that pupillage was spent doing papers in chambers. I did a third six at what is now Hailsham Chambers, and saw the inside of a court for about ten days in total.

From 1979 to 2003, I practised on the Midland Circuit. For the first few years I did whatever came through the door. After a while I gave up crime and non-commercial common law work.

I learnt to be a Chancery practitioner and spent most of my time doing company law, insolvency and director’s disqualification. I cannot recall a time when I was not in court at least three times a week. In my last autumn as a junior I was in court every day from the beginning of September until 23 December.

After I took silk in 1999, my practice was still largely court-based but inevitably the cases were fewer but tended to be longer. That applied just as much when I moved to Serle Court in 2003.

The reason I say all of this is that I have seen and engaged in an awful lot of advocacy. I have seen it at its best and worse and conducted by an enormous range of advocates both in England and abroad. But as a result of joining a firm, I have been able to re-think from scratch the

Christiane Valansot (Middle Temple)

methods and processes by which advocates are produced.

I want to address three questions:

1. Are there real opportunities for advocacy at the Employed Bar? With some qualifications, the answer in my view is an emphatic yes.

I joined my firm on 6 April 2010. I took no cases with me. But within the first month I was appearing as leader in arbitrations in London and New York. Shortly after that I appeared in shareholder litigation in the Cayman Islands.

Since then there has been a steady stream of cases in London, Cayman, the BVI, Gibraltar and the Bahamas. Much the same applies to the other two silks who have joined the firm, as it does, no doubt, to the increasing number of silks who have joined other firms. There was and remains no shortage of opportunities to be on one’s feet in court or before tribunals. That part of the barrister’s job has simply not changed.

But there are qualifications. Together they serve to make the point that ‘employment’ is not a homogenous status applicable to all circumstances. The opportunities depend on the specific circumstances.

First, I am a barrister within a law firm. The firm offers its services to the paying public and markets itself as being conflict free. Although I suppose the kind of advocacy I do might be possible within the legal department of a company or fund with, in practical terms, only one client, I doubt it.

Secondly, my firm does nothing but litigation – no deal making, no transactional work, no corporate partners saying that we cannot take a particular case because an institutional client will not like it. There is no blurred focus. That means there will have to be court appearances. And if there are appearances then someone will have to do them. Not every litigator is an advocate, but for those with the experience and temperament, there is no shortage of advocacy to be done.

TEMPLE EMPLOYED BAR FORUM INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Thirdly, most of the cases in which my firm is engaged are international or cross border. Even as many jurisdictions are actively trying to shut down competition from foreign practitioners, the scope for advocacy is nevertheless expanded by the opportunity for admission on a case by case basis in much of the Commonwealth in particular.

But fourthly, the market for the provision of advocacy services in England is highly competitive. One reason for this is there is a corps of advocates from the Independent Bar. That poses a challenge for firms with advocates amongst its partnership. The client is entitled to the best service its money can buy and if that means that a member of the Independent Bar would be a better choice for a particular case, then so be it. So employed barristers not only compete amongst themselves but with or against the 14,000 or so barristers who practise independently.

Marketing the notion that there is no difference between those barristers who are employed and those who are independent is a tough nut to crack. There is weight of history still to overcome.

2. For whom are there these opportunities for advocacy?

The answer to that is, I am afraid, not everyone. If my firm’s experience is anything to go by, there is relatively little small work on which the less experienced can cut their teeth. Pretty well all cases that come the way of my firm justify at least one silk. Many have two. Client expectations are that it will be the leader who does the advocacy whether or not that is strictly necessary. They will not entrust a hearing to someone who, although extremely bright, is not experienced. That leads to a conundrum. You cannot get the experience without doing the cases, but you will not get the cases if you do not have the experience.

This is an issue which the larger American firms have faced for many years. Their safety valve is the criminal prosecution system. Would-be trial lawyers commonly spend some years working for a US Attorney or a District Attorney and, at the price of a number of years with poor salaries and conditions, go on to something far more substantial in private practice. I cannot see anything like that happening in England any time soon.

I wonder if some chambers do not make things worse. From the day I could be on my feet, I was. But in some sets a young talent will spend many years doing highly valuable work in chambers and only very occasionally see the light of day in court – usually with a leader. If chambers cannot get its members into court to do work, and learn, by doing cases suitable for their level of experience, then I cannot presently see how the problem of acquiring experience will be resolved.

This does not mean that the advocacy prospects for juniors are bleak at the Employed Bar. It is quite the contrary.

Michael Jennings (Government Legal Department) and Andrew Clarke (Middle Temple, General Counsel, Esso UK Ltd)

Much depends on the nature of the employer’s business.

There are, for example, a number of firms and organisations that specialise in employment law. Tribunal representation is conducted by a much wider range of advocates than, say, in the Commercial Court in London or the Financial Services Division of the Grand Court in Cayman.

Secondly, and arbitration is a good example, the relatively large number of solicitor advocates demonstrate that it is not necessary to be a silk, or even a barrister, to get ahead.

Thirdly, I do not underestimate the determination of individuals to get ahead. And neither should you.

3. Is there any continuing training in advocacy?

The third question I posed was about training. The training of barristers used to be left almost entirely to the industry or indolence of pupil masters. You learnt what you could as a pupil by observation and, if you were lucky, from the explanation by your master of what happened and why and what should be learnt from the process.

All of that has quite rightly changed. Pupillage is much more structured. A pupil will work with more than just one supervisor. There are courses to attend in which participation is unavoidable. I will take it as a given that these are all worthwhile. But a point comes at which pupillage and compulsory courses are over. Is there anyone or anything to turn to at the Employed Bar that enables the advocate to develop his or her skills on the route to partnership and beyond?

Many law firms now recruit both barristers and solicitors.

Significant numbers of those solicitors go on to become higher rights advocates. At the very least, younger barristers can expect to receive the same training and development as younger solicitors. But how much is that really saying?

One of the things I have admired about the Independent Bar in the 40 plus years since I was called is that, with some exceptions, pretty much all of the practitioners I have known have felt an obligation to bring on the younger members of chambers. Advice is asked and advice is freely given. It may not be formal or even well-organised, but it was part of the culture.

I cannot speak for every firm. Mine is a little unusual in that we take pupils. The supervisors are silks who have spent many years in chambers and embedded in that culture I mentioned. For now, the continuing support and mentoring by the more senior of the more junior continues. Long let it be so.

I conclude with this. For some it may be gloomy. I hope not. I still hold the Independent Bar in the highest respect. It is not the quality of the product that is in question. It is the uniqueness of the supplier of that product that is in question.

When that has gone, it is not particularly surprising that many of its members are voting with their feet.

James Corbett ��

Master Corbett and Master Levitt

89

90

INNER TEMPLE

Project Pegasus

By Richard Snowdon �����, Director of Properties and Surveyor

T

he Inn has had a long-held aspiration to improve its accommodation for the provision of state-ofthe-art educational facilities to its membership and cement its position as a world-class provider of education and training to the Bar and in particular its students. In the context of a largely listed estate, and in the Temple Conservation Area, opportunities are limited.

An initial exploration into the siting of such a facility

under the car park foundered due to groundwater and tree protection issues, and a potential conversion of 3 Serjeant’s Inn fell foul of the City’s Planning Department.

In looking at the Inn’s core accommodation comprising the Hall, Treasury Building and Library, it became clear that there was an opportunity to complete the original design for the building envisaged by Sir Hubert Worthington in the 1950s, following wartime destruction of the Victorian version.

Bomb damage

Sir Hubert Worthington’s original design proposal

HBA Architects, under their principal, Hugh Broughton MA (Hons) Dip Arch RIBA, undertook a series of design studies to enclose the required accommodation within an envelope true to Worthington’s original design shown above. During the time the current Hall, Treasury Building and Library were being designed, the Inn had parted company with Sir Hubert Worthington, and his associate, T W Sutcliffe, was tasked with overseeing the construction to a less ornate specification, and without the mansard roof over the main building. The mansard roof over Hall was required to contain its ventilation and other plant and equipment, and was constructed.

Last year, discussions were held with the City Planning Officers and Historic England (then known as English Heritage) on the new HBA Architects design for the reintroduction of the mansard roof over the whole building.

They were supportive and recognised the sympathetic treatment of the design to the setting of the surrounding buildings as shown below.

PROJECT PEGASUS INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Internally, the building will be remodelled to provide new offices for the Inn’s Education & Training Department, an auditorium for 120 persons and commensurate breakout/ seminar rooms.

This will provide the Inn with appropriate training facilities at its heart and underpin the Inn’s core purpose as a centre of legal education and training.

In September 2015, an application was made to Historic England to seek the addition of the Treasury Building and Hall to the National List of Historic Buildings, which would thereby have made development and reconfiguration more difficult.

The determination not to ‘list’ the building was made in late June 2016 by the Heritage Minister at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. The Inn’s Executive Committee has subsequently instructed that work proceed to obtain a formal planning consent, which is now underway.

Richard Snowdon ����� For further information about Project Pegasus, please visit http://www.innertemple.org.uk/index/project-pegasus

Architect’s CGI of the new rooftop construction

Indicative representation

91

92

INNER TEMPLE

The Hall Parke Legacy & the Inn’s New Steinway

Recalling a fascinating visit to the Steinway factory in Hamburg in 2015, Master Salter pays tribute to Hall Parke for his generous legacy.

E

veryone has their own vision of an earthly paradise.

For an amateur pianist like me, that Elysium might well be located in a hall filled with shiny new Steinway grand pianos, all just waiting to be played.

That was where I found myself on the afternoon of 5 February 2015. I was in Hamburg, with Henrietta Amodio (the Inn’s Head of Treasury Office), Philip Fowke (Steinway artist and Senior Fellow of Keyboard at Trinity Laban Conservatoire), and Peter Salisbury (a master piano technician, who until recently was the man responsible for all the pianos at the South Bank Centre): and we had come to the Steinway factory to choose a newly-built Model C piano for the Inn from all the examples on display there.

We had flown out of Heathrow early that morning, and our day in Hamburg had begun with a tour of the factory, where we were shown at close quarters just how Steinway pianos are made, and just how much individual loving care and attention goes into each one.

Steinways are the piano of choice for most concert halls throughout the world, and of most concert pianists. A Steinway grand takes nearly a year to create, and consists of more than 12,000 individual parts. The various woods used to make one are seasoned for two years in the factory’s yard, kilns, and conditioning rooms, so that they stabilize at a rigidly specified humidity. The rim of the piano case is then made from layers of maple and mahogany, bonded together with glue. The resulting rim is bent into the familiar distinctive shape around a special jig, using hand presses. That rim is then bonded to a specially constructed soundboard, made of lengths of sitka spruce joined together so as to match and grade the grain of the wood, and to give it the distinctive taper in thickness from the centre to the edge. The brass plated metal frame (cast in the US, but plated in the German factory) is then bolted into the heart of the instrument, before it is strung. The keys and the action are then fitted, and

are meticulously adjusted, note by note, to ensure perfect balance. The case is polished, the legs and lid are fitted, and the piano is carefully tuned, voiced and tested. Only then is a Steinway ready to be sent out into the world.

Lunch followed the factory tour: and, in the afternoon, the four of us got down to the serious business of choosing the Inn’s piano. We were taken to a large airy hall at the far end of the upper floor of the factory. Except for two aisles down the centre, this was filled wall-to-wall with new Steinways. There were a couple of the larger Model Ds, and a lot of the smaller Model Bs: but there were also a good number of Model Cs for us to compare.

In all, there are seven grands – from the “Baby Grand” Model S, through Models M, O, A, and B, to the concert grands C and D – and two uprights – V and K – in the Steinway range. The Model C – 227 cm in length – is the smaller of Steinway’s two concert grand models (the flagship Model D is 274 cm). The Model C was first introduced (in a slightly smaller version) in 1869, but was increased to its present size in 1886. It has the perfect combination of strength and sweetness of tone, to enable it to fill the vast echoing spaces of our marble-floored, high-ceilinged Hall with sound, but yet to be equally at home in the more intimate confines of our carpeted Parliament Chamber.

The first task was for our expert technician, Peter Salisbury, to look at each of the Models Cs on offer to us, to check that there was no flaw in it that he would be unable to correct once we got the piano to London. That preliminary selection left five Model Cs from which we could make our selection. Each piano, even of an identical model, has its own distinctive musical character. So, the next step was for Philip Fowke to play each of the five for us, swapping from instrument to instrument and back again, so that we could directly compare the same pieces played consecutively on each of the pianos we were looking at.

THE HALL PARKE LEGACY AND THE INN’S NEW STEINWAY INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

As we went along, we discussed our judgments and preferences, so that by the end of the session we had reduced the five that we were considering to three.

Henrietta, Philip and Peter then went off for a break, leaving me alone for half an hour or so to play, not just the three instruments that were in contention, but also some of the others, just for the fun of it.

Henrietta, Philip and Peter then came back with some of the staff from Steinway. Peter discussed with their technicians what he had found, while Philip played the three remaining pianos once more.

Because we were concerned that what we were hearing in Steinway’s demonstration hall might be affected by the particular location of the pianos – their closeness to the walls or windows – we asked the Steinway technicians to move each of them into the centre aisle, where Philip then played them all again. We then persuaded the Steinway technicians to shuffle them around yet once more, before Philip gave them all a further play through.

That process made things much clearer. At the end of it, we were all agreed that one of the three that we were considering plainly had the sweetest and most musical sound of all those that we had heard. So that was our choice. We made a note of its serial number, and Henrietta went off with the representative of Steinways to complete the paperwork.

After which, we all headed back to the airport and home – pausing only for a brief celebratory drink in the airline lounge.

Our piano followed us to London by special shipment a few weeks later, and Peter Salisbury spent a whole day on 11 March 2015 adjusting voicing, and tuning it for us.

A couple of days later, I gave an impromptu recital in the Parliament Chamber after lunch to announce its arrival: but it was not properly christened until Private Guest Night on 17 June 2015, when Peter and Philip were among the Treasurer’s guests, and Philip played a dazzling recital after dinner. Stunning recitals on Grand Night and at a TMF concert followed in the autumn, and the Inn’s new Steinway is now a regular feature of the musical life of the Inn. We have even lent it out for a professional recital in Dulwich Picture gallery.

In 1924, a Steinway Model C would have cost £420.

In 2015, our piano cost the Inn considerably more (though Henrietta was able to negotiate a very favourable deal indeed with Steinways in London). The money to pay for it came from an unusual bequest to the Inn by Hall Parke, who left the residue of his estate to the Inner Temple (after a life interest in favour of his wife, Jane) “to be used at the discretion of the Benchers for the general purposes of the Society. It is my wish that the monies be used to provide entertainment and the like for the Members of the Inn in memory of my said wife”.

Jane Parke died on 23 October 1997 and the Inn received £932,105 in 1998. It was the final distribution of £77,171 (bringing the total bequest to just over £1m), received last year, which was used, at the inspired suggestion of the Treasurer at the time, Master Tomlinson, to acquire the new piano.

Hall Parke was the son of Ernest Parke, editor of The Star newspaper for 27 years until 1918. Before joining The Star, Ernest had spent time in jail for criminal libel.

Whilst Ernest was editor of the obscure North London Press in 1889, a sex scandal broke that involved rent boys, aristocrats, and a possible royal connection.

A police investigation into burglaries led to the discovery of a “den of infamy” at 19 Cleveland Street, London W1. It transpired that this address was an upmarket brothel, where Post Office messenger boys worked as prostitutes. The brothel-keeper was Charles Hammond, and among his clients was Lord Arthur

Somerset, an equerry to the Prince of Wales. Sexual acts between males were illegal at the time; so a number of wealthy men could have faced jail. As it was, only two rent boys were prosecuted, and it was their lenient sentence that made Ernest suspicious: he questioned why the prostitutes had been given only a few months’ hard labour, when the usual penalty for ‘gross indecency’ was two years.

On discovering that the boys had named prominent aristocrats in their testimonies, he ran a story naming Henry FitzRoy, Earl of Euston, in “an indescribably loathsome scandal in Cleveland Street”. He further alleged that Euston might have gone to Peru to cover up the involvement of a more highly placed person — widely believed to be Prince Albert Victor, son of the Prince of Wales. Euston, still in England, brought a case against Parke for criminal libel.

At the trial, Euston admitted going to the brothel, but only because he believed he would find there a “display of female nudes”. He paid a sovereign to get in, but on discovering the “improper” nature of the place, left immediately. In court, it was Parke’s word against Euston’s, and, on 16 January 1890, the jury found against Parke. He was sentenced to 12 months in Millbank Prison.

When Ernest died in 1944, he left his estate (including 50,000 shares in Daily News Ltd) to his son, Hall.

In 1962, the Directors of Daily News Ltd, which owned the newspaper titles News Chronicle and The Star, agreed a sale of the business to Associated Newspapers Ltd for £2m.

The Directors submitted a resolution to shareholders for approval of a plan to distribute part of the proceeds of sale, a sum of £1,120,000, to the 3,400 former employees.

As a significant shareholder, Hall Parke sued Daily News Ltd and six Directors including three members of the Cadbury family (of chocolate fame) and Lord Layton.

Plowman J, in a reserved judgement (reported at [1962] 1 Ch 927, Ch D), said that the payment of an “enormous sum” for the benefit of the employees rather than the company was not allowable in law. He continued; “the proposal was prompted by motives which, however laudable and however enlightened from the point of view of industrial relations, were such as the law does not recognise as a sufficient justification”.

Hall Parke spent most of his life as a solicitor in government service. According to his nephew, Gordon Parke, Hall attended a number of functions at Inner Temple and thoroughly enjoyed its hospitality. Gordon remembers Hall telling him that he intended to leave a bequest to the Inn so that “they can have an annual dinner in my memory”.

So, when we listen with such pleasure after dinner to the Inn’s magnificent new piano, we should perhaps raise a glass and give thanks: to the vision of Master Tomlinson, to the great generosity of Hall Parke, and (in accordance with the terms of the bequest) to the memory of Hall Parke’s wife, Jane.

Richard Salter �� (with thanks to the Director of Properties and Surveyor to the Inn, Richard Snowdon, for his research into the life of Hall Parke)

93

94

INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE

Master Hidden

Judge whose recommendations after the Clapham train crash in 1988 led to improvements in safety.

L

eading QC and High Court judge who chaired the Clapham Junction disaster inquiry and forced an overhaul of rail safety Sir Anthony Hidden’s report on the Clapham Junction rail disaster in 1989 was a damning indictment of safety standards at British Rail and forced a radical overhaul of its safety culture. The disaster in 1988, the worst for the rail company in nearly 20 years, involved the deaths of 35 people with 132 others injured. Hidden, then a leading QC, was asked by the transport secretary, Paul Channon, to chair the inquiry.

No-one, Sir Anthony said, was in the dock over the failings; but some 11 staff were criticised and, in particular, the region’s signals and telecommunications department, which came under fire over its poorly trained and poorly paid workers, who had been working excessively long hours.

BR’s commitment to safety had been undermined by “bad workmanship, poor supervision and bad management”.

It was a tribute to Hidden’s reputation, first as QC and then a judge, that he was picked for the task in which he sat with lay assessors for 57 days of hearings, calling more than 100 witnesses. They concluded that the cause of the disaster was a redundant wire in a signal box that had been left live by technicians modernising the system. This had brushed against another, causing a green signal to turn red.

Hidden called for British Rail to speed up its development of an automatic train protection system that would halt any train passing a signal at danger. However, it was not rolled out before the crash at Ladbroke Grove in 1999, in which 31 died and 523 were injured.

Calm, precise and assured, Hidden was known for his attention to detail and prodigious memory: colleagues frequently remarked on his ability as an advocate to deploy a case without a note.

He was also a convivial figure who wrote in Who’s Who that he liked reading and “playing bad golf”. Never known for his sporting prowess — it was said he preferred the après part of skiing — he once turned out for the chambers cricket team but marked himself out, not for taking wickets or scoring runs, but for the spectacular ripping of his trousers and display of purple underwear. While legal ringbinder files were stacked ominously high and deep on his dining-room table, he was known to set aside time for such Saturday night television offerings as Baywatch, Gladiators and Blind Date, as well as bicycle rides in Richmond Park with his children.

Anthony Brian Hidden was born in 1936, the son of James Hidden and Gladys Brooks. He was educated at Reigate Grammar School and Emmanuel College, Cambridge, where he read English but switched to law for his third year. After National Service, he was called to the Bar at the Inner Temple in 1961. He joined chambers at 3 Temple Gardens where he became one of the famous triumvirate with Sir David PenryDavey and Anthony Scrivener QC. Hidden took silk in 1976 within weeks of his 40th birthday, sat as a recorder from 1977, and became a Bencher in 1985. He was appointed leader of the South Eastern circuit in 1986 in which task he was popular and conscientious. He would give an anxious pupil his full attention at whatever time of day or night, whether he was busy working a more serious case of his own or scarcely awake.

As a QC, he was instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions in complex and high-profile cases: he was chosen, for instance, to lead the prosecution of Lester Piggott on charges of tax evasion.

In one complicated drugs case that he prosecuted for Customs and Excise involving multiple handlers moving between several countries, there were boxes and boxes of witness statements and exhibits. At trial, Hidden opened the case in great detail over the course of a day. The boxes, which he had read and mastered, remained unopened behind him.

All he used — to devastating effect — was one piece of paper on which he had written some names, places and dates, as an aide memoir. Everything else had been memorised.

He was appointed a High Court judge in 1989 while preparing his report on the Clapham rail disaster. Within a year, he was asked to conduct trials in Manchester of civil claims for compensation for post-traumatic stress order after the Hillsborough football stadium disaster. Both this, and the inquiry into the Clapham rail crash, showed his ability at handling emotionally wrought but technically difficult cases.

Other cases of the day included sentencing two English recruits to the IRA to 30 years for their part in bombings outside Harrods and on a train, and giving a teenage drug addict nine life sentences for a string of robberies and assaults including a “murderous” attack on an 88 year old

MASTER HIDDEN INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

“ Calm, precise and assured, Hidden was known for his attention to detail and prodigious memory: colleagues frequently remarked on his ability as an advocate to deploy a case without a note.” woman, which left the imprint of his shoe on her face. He also tried the claim by Roy Kinnear’s family for damages over the actor’s fatal fall from a horse during filming of The Return of the Musketeers.

His career was cut short when he suffered a stroke while summing up a long murder trial at Maidstone in 2000. He finished the trial and continued trying to work, but was eventually forced to stand down. He spent the past decade in a nursing home.

Good company and generous with friends, he enjoyed a busy bachelor social life through the 60s and 70s, which included fast cars and glamorous girlfriends. One friend recounted that he had “an early Porsche 911 and a TR6 (driven as often as possible with roof down) — the cars just one at a time, not always so with the girlfriends”.

He was in his 40s when he met and married Mary Pritchard in 1982. They had three sons and a daughter: James, who is now an advertising executive; Lucy, who is a secondary school teacher; Tom, who is a support worker in the care industry; and Edward, a primary school teacher.

Although the marriage was dissolved in 2000, they had many happy years of family life.

It was noted that Hidden’s ability to perform a vigorous cross-examination remained undiminished when his approval was sought by a suitor for his daughter’s hand in marriage.

Sir Anthony Hidden, �� and High Court judge, was born on 7 March 1936. He died on 19 February 2016, aged 79.

Courtesy of The Times

In Memoriam

The Inn mourns the loss of the following members over the past year: Sir John Alliott. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 March 2016

The Hon Gerard Noel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 July 2016

Farid Anthony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 September 2015

Sir David Penry-Davey. . . . . . . . . . 10 October 2015

Gordon Canner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05 November 2015

John Reilly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 December 2015

David Davies JP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 September 2015

David Robson ��. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 July 2016

Simon Draycott ��. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 August 2015

The Honourable Justice

The Rt Hon the Lord Goff

Antonin Scalia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 February 2016

of Chieveley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 August 2016

Evridiki Sergides. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 November 2015

Michael Heywood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 06 June 2016

Peter Sparkes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 September 2015

Sir Anthony Hidden. . . . . . . . . . . . 19 February 2016

His Honour Angus

David Howker QC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 August 2016

Stroyan ��. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 March 2016

David Humphreys . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 December 2015

Christopher Swayne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Jan 2016

Charles Ingham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 February 2016

The Rt Hon Sir

Claudia Lorenzo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 February 2016

Swinton Thomas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 August 2016

Stephen Lowne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 April 2016

Alan Walsh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 June 2016

William David Mungo James Murray,

Simon Whitworth . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 November 2015

The Earl of Mansfield. . . . . . . . . . . . 22 October 2015

Kenneth Will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 August 2015

George Mills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 06 November 2015

Michael Worsley �� . . . . . . . . . . . 22 December 2015

Patricia Moore JP. . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 December 2015

95

96

INNER TEMPLE EVENT

Her Majesty The Queen’s ��th Birthday

The moving coronation service of Her Majesty The Queen, joyously and solemnly enacted by children attending the special service to mark The Queen’s ��th birthday on 12 June, is described by The Master of the Temple.

O

n 21 April 1947, The Princess Elizabeth broadcast a message to the Empire from South Africa.

“ On my 21st birthday I welcome the opportunity to speak to all the peoples of the British Commonwealth and Empire, wherever they live, whatever race they come from, and whatever language they speak…

Although there is none of my father’s subjects from the oldest to the youngest whom I do not wish to greet, I am thinking especially today of all the young men and women who were born about the same time as myself and have grown up like me in terrible and glorious years of the Second World War.”

At the Celebration of Her Majesty’s 90th birthday, on Sunday 12 June 2016, we heard at the start of our Choral Mattins a recording of that speech. In the clipped, clear voice which we still know well, the Princess made the vow to her people by which she has lived through all the decades since: “ Through the inventions of science I can make my solemn act of dedication with a whole Empire listening. I should like to make that dedication now. It is very simple. I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong. But I shall not have strength to carry out this resolution alone unless you join in it with me, as I now invite you to do: I know that your support will be unfailingly given. God help me to make good my vow, and God bless all of you who are willing to share in it.”

To close our Mattins on 12 June, we recalled the moment at which Her Majesty made such a vow once more, in the vast pageantry of the Coronation. The children re-enacted – in an abbreviated form! – the service of 1953. They processed up our aisle to the sounds of Parry’s I Was Gad, just as the Queen had in the Abbey, and complete with its spine-tingling acclamation, “Vivat! Vivat! Vivat Regina! Vivat Regina Elizabetha! Vivat!” We heard for ourselves the oath taken by The Queen before she was crowned.

Archbishop: “Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern your peoples all over the world according to their respective laws and customs?”

Queen: “I solemnly promise so to do.”

Archbishop: “Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?”

Queen: “I will.”

To the sound of Handel’s Zadok the Priest we watched the Anointing, the only part of the service in 1953 which was regarded as too solemn for television. The Archbishop had anointed The Queen with holy oil on her hands, breast and head, as Zadok anointed King Solomon.

Archbishop: “O Lord and heavenly Father, the exalter of the humble and the strength of thy chosen, who by anointing with Oil didst of old make and consecrate kings, priests, and prophets, to teach and govern thy people Israel: Bless and sanctify thy chosen servant Elizabeth, who by our office and ministry is now to be anointed with this Oil, and consecrated Queen, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.”

And we watched The Queen’s investiture with the Sword of Justice, the Sword of Mercy with its broken tip, and the Royal Sceptre, “the ensign of kingly power and justice”.

Archbishop: “Do justice, stop the growth of iniquity, protect the holy Church of God, help and defend widows and orphans, restore the things that are gone to decay, maintain the things that are restored, punish and reform what is amiss, and confirm what is in good order…. Be so merciful that you be not too remiss; so execute justice that you forget not mercy. Punish the wicked, protect and cherish the just, and lead your people in the way wherein they should go.”

It was a joyous morning in the Church, when the children could learn for themselves and remind us all of Her Majesty’s extraordinary life of service. Once before, many years ago at the anniversary of Her Majesty’s Accession, we played at Mattins the recording of her 1947 speech. Only when it had started did I see that Sir Christopher Geidt was in the congregation. “Thank you, Robin,” he said as he left after the service. “That will do. I will report to Higher Management on Monday.” I hope Higher Management, occupied with a far larger gathering in the Mall on 12 June, would have been pleased with our own domestic but heart-felt celebration.

Vivat! Vivat! Vivat Regina!

Vivat Regina Elizabetha!

Vivat!

THE QUEEN’S 90TH BIRTHDAY INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

“ It was a joyous morning in the Church, when the children could learn for themselves and remind us all of Her Majesty’s extraordinary life of service.”

Photos: Paul Clarke Photography

“ The children re-enacted – in an abbreviated form! – the service of 1953. They processed up our aisle to the sounds of Parry’s I Was Gad, just as the Queen had in the Abbey, and complete with its spine-tingling acclamation, “Vivat!

Vivat! Vivat Regina! Vivat Regina Elizabetha! Vivat!”

No such service would be complete without Thomas Cranmer’s famous praise for the Princess Elizabeth. From Shakespeare’s Henry VIII, Act V Scene 5.

Heaven, from thy endless goodness, send prosperous life, long, and ever happy, to the high and mighty princess of England, Elizabeth!

This royal infant – heaven still move about her!-Though in her cradle, yet now promises Upon this land a thousand thousand blessings, Which time shall bring to ripeness: she shall be-But few now living can behold that goodness-A pattern to all princes living with her, And all that shall succeed…

…all princely graces, That mould up such a mighty piece as this is, With all the virtues that attend the good, Shall still be doubled on her: truth shall nurse her, Holy and heavenly thoughts still counsel her: She shall be loved and fear’d: her own shall bless her;

…good grows with her: In her days every man shall eat in safety, Under his own vine, what he plants; and sing The merry songs of peace to all his neighbours: God shall be truly known; and those about her From her shall read the perfect ways of honour…, The Rev’d Robin Griffith-Jones

97

98

INNER TEMPLE EVENT

Inner Temple Street Party to celebrate Her Majesty The Queen’s ��th Birthday

INNER TEMPLE STREET PARTY INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

99

100

INNER TEMPLE

��th Anniversary of The Malaysian Inner Temple Alumni Association T

o the members of the Malaysia Inner Temple Alumni Association.

Shortly after my appointment as Sub-Treasurer in 2005, I had the great pleasure of accompanying Master Butler-Sloss on a visit to Kuala Lumpur for the inauguration of your Association under the inspirational leadership of your founding President, Master Abdul Malek.

The links between Inner Temple and Malaysia go back to the early days of the 20th Century and when the late Master Abdul Rahman was admitted to the Inn in 1922. Our records show that student members of the Inn came from the Straits Settlement, British North Borneo and modern day Sarawak, then under the administration of the eccentric Brooke family and with close ties to the Brunei Sultanate.

Today, our largest cohort of international Bar students comes from all the states of Malaysia and we greatly value the bond this brings.

Back in 2008, the Treasurer that year, Master Anthony May, and I were actually visiting you on the 400th anniversary day of the grant of the Inn’s Royal Charter in 1608, an event which you generously marked by presenting to the Inn a portrait of the late Tunku Abdul Rahman and which is now something of a shrine for all visiting Malaysians to the Inn. I have very much enjoyed visiting Malaysia on many occasions over the last decade and it will be a particular pleasure to join you this August when you will be celebrating the 10th anniversary of your Association’s foundation.

I wish you all many years of personal prosperity and a continuing commitment to the rule of law, wherever you may be practising it. With all good wishes,

Patrick Maddams Hon ����� Sub-Treasurer –4 August 2016

INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

International Outreach

Left: The Sub-Treasurer with Prime Minister Modi and the Prime Minister, The Rt Hon David Cameron MP, presenting the confirmaton of the reinstatment of Shyamji Krishna Varma (1857-1930) as a member of the Inn. Middle and Right: The Master of the Temple and the Sub-Treasurer with the delegation from Thailand.

I

nner Temple has continued its programme of international outreach events to support our members overseas, promote the Pegasus travel bursaries to our own young barristers, and welcome in London delegations of lawyers and judges from a range of countries.

Beyond the Reach of Law: Emerging World Order and the Search for Adequate Responses to Political Violence, held in Dubrovnik, Croatia; •

Participation in the judging of the Central and Eastern European Mooting Competition, which brings together some of the brightest law graduates from a range of Eastern European universities and who moot in English on an EU theme. Eleanor Sharpston QC, Advocate General at the European Court of Justice, oversees the competition;

•

Sending advocacy trainers to Zimbabwe, Belize, Ghana, Poland, Brussels, The Hague and South Africa, under the auspices of the Inns of Court College of Advocacy;

•

A warm welcome to 90 overseas students in the 2015/16 academic year.

Highlights from the last twelve months have included: •

Organising an anti-corruption conference with the Royal Commonwealth Society for High Commissioners in London and addressed by Benchers of the Inn;

•

Supporting a tour by the choirboys of the Temple Church to Singapore and Australia;

•

Magna Carta events at our embassies in Georgia, Bulgaria and Romania;

•

Establishment of an International Committee, chaired

by Master Nice, to give focus and direction to all our international activities;

•

Visits to the Inn by The Rt Hon Hugo Swire MP, former Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and by a number of High Commissioners and Ambassadors;

•

Hosting Singapore’s 51st National Day in the Inner Temple Garden with a performance by the choristers of the Temple Church;

•

Reinstatement of Shyamji Krishna Varma, a prominent Indian nationalist, and its endorsement by Prime Minister Modi of India on his visit to Britain in November 2015;

•

Visit by Master Treasurer and Master Scriven to Malaysia, Singapore, Bhutan and India and by Master Moore-Bick to Brunei;

•

Visits by senior members of Thailand’s judiciary, and members of the Ghanaian, Estonian, and Florida Bar Associations;

•

Visit by Romanian Minister of Justice, Raluca Alexandra Prună, and her senior team;

•

Student participation in a Master Class on Law, History, Politics and Society in the Context of Mass Atrocities, entitled, Conflict

We are looking forward to an active diary next year, and the Inn would be interested to hear from members with overseas legal links and who would like to participate in our work with international jurisdictions.

Please contact Jennie Collis, Executive Assistant to the Sub-Treasurer, at jcollis@innertemple.org.uk.

101

102

INNER TEMPLE

Timeline

By the Archivist, Celia Pilkington

New River Head from north in 1665. Enclosure of Round Pond and Water House of 1613, beyond Outer or Waste Pond Engraving by Wenceslaus Hollar

500 YEARS AGO

400 YEARS AGO

1516

1616

This is widely believed to have been the year of the birth of Sir Richard Sackville, who had been admitted to the Inner Temple by 1534. His family had aristocratic connections (he was a cousin of Anne Boleyn on his mother’s side) and, in 1541, he was appointed an escheator of Surrey and Sussex. In 1544, he was made steward of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s manors in Sussex. He married the daughter of a former Lord Mayor of London and plunged into the property market created by the Dissolution of the Monasteries, acquiring both a fortune and the nickname ‘Fillsack’.

In 1548, he was appointed Chancellor of the Court of Augmentations on condition that he assumed his predecessor’s debts. He was knighted the following year, but his ardent Protestantism caused him to keep a relatively low profile during Henry VIII’s reign and an even lower one during Mary I’s (though he did marry off his son, Thomas, to the daughter of Sir John ‘Bloody’ Baker, another Inner Templar and a persecutor of Protestants in his hometown of Cranbrook).

It was under Queen Elizabeth that Sir Richard finally blossomed. He was invited to her first Privy Council meeting and represented Sussex in Parliament. He was appointed Under-Treasurer of the Exchequer and, in 1561, lent the Queen £5,000 to restore the Exchange. He was involved in implementing the Acts of Uniformity and Supremacy and was guardian of Margaret Stewart, Countess of Lennox and a claimant to the English throne. He continued to speculate in properties, acquiring a chunk of the City of London in 1564.

By this time, however, he was in serious ill health. In 1566, his son, envoy to the Archduke Charles of Austria, who was busy courting the Queen, was permitted to delay a mission to the Archduke so that he could attend his father’s deathbed. In his will, Sir Richard left substantial gifts to both the Queen and his wife.

The problem of supplying the Inn with fresh water reverberates throughout the calendars during the 16th and 17th Centuries. The Thames supplied water for ordinary purposes, although not for cooking or drinking. Additional supplies came from “a spring head at the back side of Mr Holland’s house in Fleet Street,” which was then directed through leaden pipes to the Inn at a rent of 40s per annum.

It is possible that this was a house that once stood on the site of Hoare’s bank where a well still exists in the basement.

At a Parliament held on 25 January 1617, the cook, George Lowe, complained to the Benchers about the decay of the conduit springs and the urgent need for water in the kitchen. A committee was appointed to investigate what had happened to the water and the means of restoring the supply. They discovered that the pipe had been cut and the water had been diverted elsewhere. The Parliament requested that a committee be formed to investigate alternative sources of water, which were to be obtained from Sir Hugh Middleton’s great New River Company. The company completed an artificial waterway designed to supply London with fresh drinking water from 1613 onwards. It ran from Ware in Hertfordshire to Sadler’s Wells.

After much discussion and negotiation with Sir Hugh Middleton, a water course was created from the New River into the Inner Temple at a cost of £20. The water was directed to the Inn in wooden pipes for a half yearly rent of £1 6s 8 and a conduit house at the top of Heyward’s Buildings (the site of 1 Paper Buildings) was constructed.

TIMELINE INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

200 YEARS AGO

1817

Charles and Mary Lamb are two of the most celebrated residents of the Inner Temple. Charles Lamb (1775 to 1834) was born and raised in Crown Office Row and is famous for his Essays of Elias, where he describes the Old Benchers of Inner Temple. He completed his classic Tales from Shakespeare in collaboration with his sister, Mary. He was part of the London literary circle that included Wordsworth and Coleridge, whom he invited to his Wednesday suppers at his chambers at 4 Inner Temple Lane. The artist and diarist Benjamin Haydon describes celebrating the completion of his painting Christ’s Triumphal Entry Into Jerusalem with a Sunday lunch at his home. Extras in the painting included John Keats, Charles Lamb and William Wordsworth.

300 YEARS AGO

1717

Extracts from disbursements from February to November 1717 ACCOUNTS

£ s d

Paid Sir John St Leger his caution money

4 0

0

Mr Johnson a bill disbursed by him for wire works

3

2

Elizabeth Cox for nursing Thomas and Martha Temple 13 Weeks

3 18 0

Hugh Jones, the badge Porter for lighting the lanthorns at the Benchers’ staircase last winter

2

Mr Squire for half a year’s care of the two libraries, greenhouse etc

7 10 0

Ann Combden for nursing Elizabeth Temple 13 weeks

1 19 0

Rent for the New River Water

8 10 0

Dean Sherlock, a quarter’s payment

25 0

0

Mr Baron Fortescue in full of his allowance for the time he was Treasurer

25 0

0

For wine spent by the Masters of the Bench in Trinity Term last and for Michaelmas term

113 1

8

For wine spent by the Masters of the Bench in Hilary Term last

38 15

7

For wine spent at auditing the Treasurer’s accounts and at the meeting on the steward’s accounts 1

7

0

6

0

8

For wine spent by the Masters of the Bench for the Easter Term

47 13 9

For the lamps for last winter

4 0

The Under Treasurer for salary, allowances, poundage etc

91 11 4

Candles for the additional watch and newspapers last term

6 15

“On 28th December the immortal dinner came off in my painting-room, with Jerusalem towering behind us as a background. Wordsworth was in fine cue, and we had a glorious set-to on Homer, Shakespeare, Milton and Virgil.

Lamb got exceedingly merry, and exquisitely witty; and in his fun, in the midst of Wordworth’s solemn intonations of oratory, was like the sarcasm and wit of the fool in the intervals of Lear’s passion. He made a speech and voted me absent and made them drink my health. ‘Now,’ said Lamb ‘you old lake poet, you rascally poet, why do you call Voltaire dull?’ We all defended Wordsworth, and affirmed there was a state of mind when Voltaire would be dull. ‘Well,’ said Lamb, ‘here’s Voltaire – the Messiah of the French nation – and a very proper one too.’”

In 1809, the Lambs moved into 4 Inner Temple Lane. Charles Lamb described their rooms thus: “…have two sitting-rooms: I call them so par excellence, for you may stand, or loll, or lean, or try any posture in them, but they are best for sitting; not squatting down Japanese fashion, but the more decorous use of the [haunches] which European usage has consecrated. I have two of these rooms on the third floor, and five sleeping, cooking, etc, rooms on the fourth floor. In my best room is a choice collection of the works of Hogarth, an English painter of some humour. In my next best are shelves containing a small but well-chosen library. My best room commands a court [Hare Court], in which there are trees and a pump, the water of which is excellent cold, with brandy, and not very insipid without.

Here I hope to set up my rest, and not quit till Mr Powell, the undertaker, gives me notice that I may have possession of my last lodging.”

0

As will be seen from the above extract from the accounts for 1717, the greatest expenditure was upon the wine for the Masters of the Bench.

103

104

INNER TEMPLE TIMELINE

In 1817, they moved out of the Inner Temple after many years’ residence. Mary Lamb complained that “We have left the Temple. I think you will be sorry to hear this…Our rooms were dirty and out of repair, and the inconveniences of living in chambers became every year more irksome, and so, at last, we mustered up resolution enough to leave the good old place, that so long had sheltered us, and here we are, living at a brazier’s shop No 20, in Russell Street, Covent Garden, a place all alive with noise and bustle; Drury Lane Theatre in sight from our front, and Covent Garden from our back windows.”

100 YEARS AGO

1916

F C Dietrichsen was called to the Bar at the Inner Temple in 1907 and established a popular practice in Nottingham, specialising in civil cases. In 1914, he eagerly joined the Sherwood Foresters and was commissioned in November 1914.

Dietrichsen was not sent to the front but was placed in the reserve group led by officers brought out of retirement.

One of the Lieutenant-Colonels complained that three quarters of the reserve unit were novices with little experience of fighting in any capacity. These were the soldiers sent to Dublin to quell the Easter Rising. Many travelled to Ireland believing they were heading for the Western Front.

Dietrichsen was married to an Irish Protestant who had returned to Ireland briefly to visit her family. She was astonished to see her husband marching through Dublin and they managed to snatch a quick embrace before he was ordered into Mount Street where the Irish Volunteers were shooting at the soldiers. Dietrichsen was one of the first to die.

1916 – Twenty-seven Inner Templars were killed at the Battle of the Somme: Raymond Asquith (son of the prime minister), T H Bethell, R Bevir, A T Bonham-Carter, T G Brocklebank, R W F Campbell, L S R Cary, H Cloudesley, H E Coleman, C H Counsell, H N Dickinson, C G E Farmer, C L Hart, W A Kohn, M C Lawrence, S T Martin, A V Ratcliffe, J A Ritson, M A Robertson, J Y Scott, R F C Tompson, J R Trinder, G F Walker, C F J Wegg-Prosser, W T Wetenhall, H H C Williamson and R G H Yeatherd. Many Inner Templars were killed in other battles, such as F C Dietrichsen who was killed in the Easter Rising, Dublin, 1916.

Website: the-bba.com Email: susan@the-bba.com

Tel: 0207 242 4761

VISION AND MISSION STATEMENT We exist to support, help and comfort those members of the Bar in England and Wales and their families and dependants who are in need, in distress or in difficulties. During the recent past we have helped barristers and their families in every circuit, often saving not only dignity but careers.

We help when there is a real catastrophe.

Confidentiality limits our disclosure of case histories but they include the effects of severe illness or injury, accidents and other unforeseen tragedies.

Our staff are experienced, kind and practical: our Association is a last safety net for those struck down, their partners and children, where there is no income, no capital, no family back up.

INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Report from the North Eastern Circuit

By Maer Neil Clark

T

he North Eastern Circuit covers a large geographical area, from the Pennines in the west, to the east coast, from the south of Yorkshire and Humberside, south of the Humber to the Scottish border.

It also encompasses a variety of areas, from areas of traditional heavy industry, to those famous for their history and architecture and to areas of remote beauty including three national parks. Some of the most rural parts of the country coupled with some of the most vibrant and modern of cities are to be found within this circuit.

There are almost 1,000 members of the circuit practising in all areas of law. Since the formation of the circuit in 1876, it having previously been part of the Northern and Midland Circuits, it has been busy building a reputation for quality and hard work and been at the forefront of positive developments within the law. The nature of work on the circuit has increased in variety and now encompasses all manner of work in the courts, in arbitration and in mediation.

In addition to criminal courts dealing with cases from the gravest of murders and sexual offences to the most complex of frauds, the family courts deal with very significant public and private law cases; each division of the High Court sits on the circuit and there is a full time Technology and Construction Court which is very busy and deals with cases of real complexity. The Court of Appeal and the full Administrative Court have on a number of recent occasions sat on the circuit.

Although there remain concerns over the level of funding for publicly-funded work, chambers on the circuit dealing with this sort of work are busy, many of them thriving.

The increasing number of High and County Court Civil, Commercial and Chancery cases has seen a growth in the number of chambers and barristers dealing with this sort of work, and several national sets have annexes on the circuit.

Members of the circuit have been appointed to the very highest judicial offices in England and Wales, and there are a number currently sitting in the High Court and Court of Appeal. The reputation of the circuit is exceedingly high.

There are strong ties between members of the circuit and the Inn. There are a number of Masters of the Inn who are involved not just in organising and supporting events held by the Inn on circuit but also with various committees of the Inn. Indeed, Benchers and members of the Inn on circuit help with the organisation of the Highgate House and Cumberland Lodge and advocacy training weekends. There is also a strong connection between the Education and Training Department of the Inn and the circuit, as there are many student members of the Inn attending BPTC courses at Northumbria University in Newcastle, at BPP and at the School of Law, University of Leeds. There are also Student Bar Associations at a number of the universities on circuit. Dr Solanke at the University of Leeds is an Academic Fellow of the Inn, thus furthering the links between academia on the circuit and the Inn.

Alex Foster

Dr Iyiola Solanke

Master Anne Richardson

Master Graham Robinson

Master Greaney

Master Hill-Baker

Master Lee

Master Neil Clark

Rachel Hedworth

Richard Bennett

Simon Pickering

Victoria Hood

105

106

INNER TEMPLE

Events organised by the students are often attended by circuit members of the Inn and Masters of the Inn. This year there have been events at universities for Bar Students at Northumbria and at BPP in Leeds. The Inn hosted a very enjoyable dinner in Newcastle to mark the retirement from the Circuit Bench of Master Milford (His Honour John Milford QC). It was very well attended and the Sub-Treasurer, Master Richardson (His Honour Judge Jeremy Richardson QC) and of course Master Milford all spoke. The attendance level and the friendly atmosphere at the dinner I am sure reflected the fact that those who knew Master Milford at the Bar and on the bench are sad that he is leaving the profession. However, we wish him a long and enjoyable retirement and remain hopeful that we will continue to see him at circuit and Inner Temple events. All who attended are grateful to Master Anne Richardson who organised such a wonderful night.

At the time of writing the Temple North Women’s Forum is due to take place on 8 November at the University of Leeds. Organised by Dr Solanke, there will

The Inner Temple Library provides a fantastic service to all members of the Inn. It offers an enquiry and document supply service and legal research training for pupils and students. It also produces invaluable web services, such as the daily current awareness blog and AccessToLaw. The library staff are very helpful and willing to assist members of the Inn on circuit, and anyone who wishes to learn more about this valuable resource may contact Master Anne Richardson to obtain the necessary details to access the Library’s services.

Furthermore the Inn can and does make representations in relation to various proposals and programmes of reform for the development of the profession. In doing so, the Inn is always anxious to take into account the needs of those in practice on the circuit and takes into account the views of circuit members as relayed to it by the Circuit Representative on the Bar Liaison Committee (BLC), and the Masters of the Bench on circuit. Members of the Inn on circuit who have any issues that relate to the Inn, or about which the Inn

“ The Inn is always anxious to take into account the needs of those in practice on the circuit” be speeches from Master Simler (Lady Justice Simler) and Her Honour Judge Hillier (the designated Family Judge in Leeds).

It is an honour that this year four members of the Inn on circuit have been elected Benchers; His Honour Judge Paul Sloan QC, Paul Greaney QC, Her Honour Judge Gill Matthews QC and His Honour Judge Graham Robinson.

Congratulations to them all.

Sadly this year saw the death of Master Robson (David Robson QC). He will be remembered as one of the finest and brightest advocates this circuit ever had. He was an active member of the circuit and an active Bencher of the Inn. He was well known not just across the circuit but across the country. He gave his time and knowledge readily and willingly to all those who sought his assistance. Most of all, I am sure he will be remembered as a friendly, funny, exceptionally kind man. He will be very sadly missed by all on the circuit and by the Inn. Despite all of the activity of the Inn on circuit, it is inevitable that people in busy practice on a geographically distant circuit can feel remote from the Inn, its events and the support it can provide. Attending dinners or other events in London can be difficult and very costly for students and practitioners. It is therefore worth reminding those on the circuit who read this article of the good value, high quality lunches available in Hall.

The atmosphere and convenience of the Hall makes this as good a place as any to take lunch alone or with colleagues when working in or visiting London. There are rooms at the Inn that may be booked by members of the Inn when visiting London and the Pegasus Bar is a pleasant venue to meet for a drink either inside or, on a pleasant day, outside on the terrace after work.

may be able to provide assistance, should not hesitate to mention those to any of the Benchers on circuit or to the BLC representative, Alex Foster, and they will be forwarded on.

The current Treasurer and Reader, Masters Cryan and Pittaway, are very aware of the difficulties that distance can cause in keeping the Inn relevant to those practising at a distance from it. It is their hope that the Inn ensures that it remains of relevance and, if possible, becomes more relevant to those in practice on the circuits out of London and that people in practice on those circuits feel connected to the Inn. It is intended for there to be regular events on circuit for circuit and student members of the Inn, which will provide an opportunity for members to meet fellow circuiteers and to meet with and provide assistance and guidance to students. It will be possible at such events to provide information about further plans for the Inn on circuit and about services available to circuit members.

In addition to Masters of the Bench, there is an informal committee of practitioner members of the Inn on circuit representing the different court centres on the circuit, who are willing to assist with any Inner Temple event, with members’ and student members’ issues or events in their area, if they can. Any member or student member of the Inn may contact them directly or through the Inn if they do not wish to contact any of the other Masters of the Bench. This group will also provide regular feedback to the BLC representative should any matter arise or Inn event have taken place.

REPORT FROM THE NORTH EASTERN CIRCUIT INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

They are:

Newcastle Master Anne Richardson Rachel Hedworth

Teesside (Middlesbrough) Richard Bennett

York Victoria Hood

Leeds Myself, Master Neil Clark (His Honour Neil Clark) Master Hill-Baker (Jeremy Hill-Baker) Master Lee (Taryn Lee ��) Master Greaney (Paul Greaney ��) Alex Foster (Circuit BLC rep) Dr Iyiola Solanke, School of Law, University of Leeds

Hull Simon Pickering

Sheffield Master Graham Robinson (His Honour Judge Graham Robinson) Their contact details may be obtained from the Inn. The North Eastern Circuit offers a congenial environment in which to work and live. Practitioners from the circuit have a great reputation. There are excellent opportunities for those in practice in whichever field of the law they work; moreover there is a friendly and supportive attitude amongst practitioners on the circuit.

The circuit is actively involved with the Inn and the Inn with the Circuit. The Inner Temple is not simply a geographical place but a body that is alive and active on the circuit. It is hoped that these ties will become all the stronger in the coming years.

Members of the Inn practising on circuit should feel encouraged to use the facilities and support of the Inn. It is hoped that they will also involve themselves in the social aspects of the Inn. Members of the Inn who visit the circuit will always receive a warm welcome and if the Inn does have an event on circuit or is supporting a student event they will be more than welcome to attend.

Bridge and Company Ltd is a Family Run Printing and Stationery Company that has been providing Top Quality Services for over 110 years. our many products include: Fine Engraved Stationery Wedding and Party Invitations Die Stamped Crests and Logos Correspondence Cards Printed Envelopes Gilt Edge Cards At Home Cards Business Cards Letterheads

His Honour Judge Neil Clark

For More Information, phone or email

T: +44 (0) 20 7539 3486 E: info@bridgeandco.com www.bridge andco.com

B&C_AW.indd 1

107

11/08/2016 09:03

108

INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE

Master Scalia A

ntonin Scalia was a staunchly conservative US Supreme Court Justice who opposed gun control and gay rights and enjoyed courtroom controversy. His judgments frequently outraged liberal opinion. However, even critics of the US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s views acknowledged the directness of his style, the sharpness of his intellect, and the colourful way in which he prompted US debate about its most profound moral and constitutional disputes.

President Obama, far from a soulmate of Scalia in matters of legal and moral belief, said after the news of his sudden death that, in his near three decades on the Supreme Court bench, Scalia had been “one of the towering legal figures of our time” and “a brilliant legal mind with an energetic style”.

loved to argue,” he once admitted. “It may well be that I’m something of a shin kicker … something of a contrarian.”

His uncompromising judgments were shaped by what was termed ‘originalism’ – a belief that the US Constitution had a fixed meaning dating back to its 18th Century framing which the Court should seek to recover, and was not a ‘living’ text evolving with changing social, political and moral views. He spoke disparagingly of judges who ruled that “the Constitution means exactly what I think it ought to mean”.

He also championed states’ rights against what he saw as encroaching federal power.

Against that intellectual background, Scalia was broadly supportive of business, a strong supporter of the death penalty, and an opponent of affirmative action, gay rights and gun control. On abortion, he insisted that was a matter

“ It may well be that I’m something of a shin kicker… something of a contrarian.”

Scalia’s fame extended well beyond political insiders thanks to his fondness for the publicity surrounding the Supreme Court’s most controversial decisions, and his media-friendly, pithy, often witty summaries of why he had reached his decisions – and why he believed his opponents were wrong.

He could be, said The New Yorker, both “fiery and funny”, enjoying prolonged, pungent interrogations of lawyers appearing before the court. “Do you think he knows that the rest of us are here?” asked a fellow Justice during one of Scalia’s earliest court performances.

When he was often in a minority – he once said his outright judicial victories were “damn few” – he liked to read his own dissenting verdicts to the courtroom with rhetorical flair. And his language descended readily from legalese to highly quotable barbs. Efforts to defend President Obama’s health care reforms last year were dismissed as “jiggery pokery” and “pure applesauce”. The TV satirist Jon Stewart dubbed Scalia “the Human Dissentipede.” “I’ve always

for politics rather than the law, arguing that the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision establishing a woman’s constitutional right to abortion had been wrong: “The Constitution says absolutely nothing about it…the long-standing American traditions of American society have permitted (abortion) to be legally proscribed.”

Arguing against gun control, Scalia based his judgment in 2008 on a close historical interpretation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution, based on English and colonial precedent, suggesting that the right to bear arms was not limited to militias but also covered an individual’s possession of weapons for purposes such as self-defence.

On the death penalty, when a majority on the Court ruled in 2005 that states could no longer execute individuals aged 16 when they committed crimes, Scalia wrote scathingly of what he saw as an attempt by his colleagues to become “sole arbiter of our nation’s moral standards.” He accused them, too, of taking “guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures.”

On other occasions, he defended vigorously the constitutional protection of free speech, while expressing personal distaste for some of its consequences. “I do not like scruffy people who burn the American flag,” he once commented, “but regrettably, the First Amendment gives them the right to do that.” When rejecting attempts by the state of California to restrict the sale of violent video games to children, he argued that there was no tradition of protecting children from violent imagery, citing the pecking out of Cinderella’s stepsisters’ eyes.

Scalia was also distinctive on the Supreme Court as the first Italian-American to reach that office. He was born in 1936 as the only child of a Sicilian immigrant, who became a professor of languages, and a mother who was a schoolteacher. He graduated top of his class at Georgetown University and moved to Harvard Law School, where he edited the prestigious Harvard Law Review.

His legal career included academic posts at the universities of Virginia and Chicago, as well as a spell honing as general counsel of the White House Office of Telecommunications Policy under President Nixon. In 1982, President Reagan appointed him to the US Court of Appeals in Washington before, in 1986, promoting him to the Supreme Court bench.

Scalia’s robustly conservative approach and strong Catholic

MASTER SCALIA INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

faith endeared him to a strand of US opinion that began to assert itself over controversial social and moral issues in the so-called ‘culture wars’ – though he insisted his religious beliefs played no role in his legal opinions.

In a 1996 speech, Scalia urged Christians to “pray for the courage to endure the scorn of the sophisticated world”.

When an interviewer responded to his reference to the devil, Scalia retorted by saying: “You’re looking at me as though I’m weird … My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the devil?”

Scalia’s family life also followed a conservative pattern.

He met his wife, Maureen, on a blind date in 1960 while he was at law school and she was studying English at Radcliffe College. Of their marriage, he once quipped: “I take care of the Constitution. She takes care of everything else … That’s the deal.”

They had nine children, the result, he once said, of “Vatican roulette … We were both devout Catholics, and [that] means you have children when God gives them to you.” One child, Paul, became a priest, while Eugene and John are lawyers, Christopher is a PR executive, Catherine and Margaret work for the universities in Virginia, and Ann is in health care. Matthew is a US army officer and Mary works for local government in Philadelphia.

When not engaged in the legal world, Scalia enjoyed poker and smoking pipes. He was also a music lover, once appearing with one of his most prominent judicial opponents Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a Washington opera extra.

Ginsburg disagreed regularly with him on legal matters, but described Scalia as “an absolutely charming man” who “can make even the most sober judge laugh.”

Among many of his critics, though, Scalia’s views were far from amusing, most recently when, in a hearing on affirmative action case, he spoke with apparent approval of an assessment that it benefited minority students to attend “a less advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well.”

The angry response such comments attracted was, to Scalia, inevitable given his challenge to what he saw as a flawed attempt, sometimes led by judges, to promote a liberal society. “A man who has made no enemies”, he once claimed, “is probably not a very good man.”

Antonin Scalia, US Supreme Court Justice, was born on 11 March 1936. He died in his sleep on 13 February 2016, aged 79.

Courtesy of The Times

109

110

INNER TEMPLE

Digitalisation of the Courts

By Master McCreath

T

he other day I was at a meeting at which we were given interesting insights into the development of the Common Platform (of which more later). One of the presenters told this story.

In times long past, a rich man desired to own a swan. He commissioned a bird finder to get one for him. Many months went by but no swan appeared. In the fullness of time, however, the bird finder returned with a black swan.

“What is this?” asked the rich man.

“Why, it is a black swan, a mightily exotic bird, to recover which I have travelled over many lands and oceans,” replied the bird finder, “Do you not like it?”.

The rich man replied, “I wanted a normal swan, not one like this.”

“Then why did you not tell me you did not want a black swan?”

“Because I had never heard of a black swan. So far as I knew all swans are white. Why did you not tell me that you were getting me a black swan?”

“Because so far as I knew everybody had heard of a black swan, certainly everyone in the bird world. I knew that you would want a black swan; most of my swan customers are very pleased to have one.”

And on went the conversation until the rich man ordered the bird finder to start all over again.

It felt a bit like they had reinvented Jackanory, only the narrator was not a famous actor nor was he sitting comfortably in an armchair. But, although not famous and although standing, he was nonetheless making an important point.

The history of failed government IT projects is well documented and the causes are doubtless varied. One of them, perhaps the most common, was a failure on the part of those developing them to take the trouble to ask those who were to use them what they actually wanted. Experts in IT would get some idea of what users seemed to want and, no doubt, of what they would have wanted if only they had known about it, would vanish for a long time and, after much hard work, would return with a complete programme. Which would turn out to be a black swan. And a very expensive one.

The Criminal Justice Efficiency Programme, of which digital working is a central part, and the Common Platform have been developed rather differently. Two concepts underpin the development. The first is an agile approach, which has, as part of its objective, building on to existing and effective systems and processes and thus avoiding throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The second is an incremental approach so that the new processes are developed, tested and piloted bit by bit and only taken forward when they are seen to work. At the heart of this is finding out about the user experience and reacting to it. Huge efforts have gone into asking users what they want and whether what they are being given is, indeed, what they want.

So what is the Common Platform? Whatever it is, it is a long way from what we have now. At present, criminal courts use three quite different systems to record and transmit basic data. Any Crown Court case will feature on all three of them,

Libra, Crest and Xhibit by name. There have to be three different systems because the different agencies with which the court must engage all use different systems. When a case is completed, it must be recorded on all of them, otherwise, for example, the prison would not know how long to keep their new customer for; or the police would not know what the result of the case was; or the court would not have a record of the result of the case.

Case papers in the form of witness statements, documentary exhibits and visual material are currently held simultaneously by the same agencies, or by different agencies in relation to different forms of evidential material. If a defence lawyer wishes, for example, to access CCTV, the first point of contact will be with the CPS who in turn may well have to go to the police to recover it. And so on and so on and so on. In a sentence, we have become victims of working practices which have developed over time in a piecemeal and unfocused way.

The Common Platform, now under intensive development in an office in Croydon, is an integrated data source, together with a suite of services, of which the Digital Case System will be a part, which has the object of allowing everybody within the Criminal Justice System to have immediate access to and to use the same data. The mental picture which it conjures up is of a large foyer with many doors leading off it; behind each of those doors is a huge

“ …all relevant information, ranging from evidential and investigatory material via in-court presentation of evidence, up to verdict, sentence and any enforcement action will be put into the Common Platform and will be accessible to all who need to see it. The days of multiple systems will be over…”

DIGITALISATION OF THE COURTS INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

volume of data. Entry to the foyer is restricted to those who have a need to be there but once you are in you can go almost anywhere to find the digital material relating to your case. Behind some of the doors there will be material not available to everybody (confidential medical reports, sensitive undisclosed material, documents which are private to the defence or to the prosecution and the like), and to get into the room where that material is stored will require further and particular permission. If, however, you want to see, for example, the CCTV, you will be able easily to follow a path to it without having to go through the process of asking the CPS to get it for you. The intention is that all relevant information, ranging from evidential and investigatory material via in-court presentation of evidence, up to verdict, sentence and any enforcement action will be put into the Common Platform and will be accessible to all who need to see it. The days of multiple systems will be over, data will be easily accessed, efficiency will be increased and costs reduced.

All of that is for the future, although a future that is less distant than might be imagined. Some first steps have been taken on the way to that destination, of which digital working has been an important part.

When Southwark Crown Court was in the throes of piloting digital working last year, we were involved not only in putting the system into action but also in demonstrating it to a variety of people in leadership and advisory roles in important agencies, all of whom needed to have their enthusiasm for developing and, importantly, funding the system encouraged. On these occasions, we would point to the large bundles of papers in my room (relating, it is important to emphasise, to pre-pilot cases) and then to the large office opposite my room, filled with people hard at work at screens without a sheet of paper to be seen. The contrast was striking. It pointed up the unpalatable truth that the courts were lagging behind the rest of the world in their day-to-day working practices. Demonstration of the Digital Case System pointed up the more welcome truth that we were at last catching up.

When the pilot began in July 2015, there were sudden and fundamental changes in the working lives of the staff, the lawyers and the judges. Staff had to learn new working practices, lawyers had to get on to the court wi-fi and into the Digital Case System (and to learn how to use it) and the judges had to get up to speed with all of this pretty much overnight.

Most important of all, case papers had to be uploaded and delivered electronically. Gone were the days of multiple paper bundles of the same documents. In April 2016, just after completion of the national roll-out, Netmaster, the company which created the system, were reporting: “The Crown Court Digital Case System is expected to save over three hundred million sheets of paper every year. Already, with over 25,000 evidence bundles in place, the paper saved is the equivalent of 4 stacks each as high as the Shard.” And in the first week of August, the number of pages uploaded reached 10 million thus saving 75,000 trees. Documents need no longer be transported to and from court; instead they can be accessed anywhere on any device connected to the internet, whether a laptop, a tablet or even a smartphone.

For those who have not seen a case in the digital system, this screenshot, taken from a training video, gives some idea of what the file looks like. Along the top are tools for navigating round the case, searching it, making notes, downloading pages and so on. Down the left are the first few sections within the file; documents are downloaded into a file structure, nationally agreed. On the right are notes made by court staff and the judge (although it is open to anyone to make notes, whether for personal reference or to be shared more widely). The system is highly intuitive and, with a little practice and experience, easy to use.

Alongside the arrival of the Digital Case System came two other important developments.

The first was the roll-out of ejudiciary. This is, at last, the one-stop shop where the judiciary can access from the same (electronic) place our emails, the documents we have created and saved, links to the digital case system and other useful sites and, importantly, a very wide range of legal resources; the alphabetical list of publications starts with Adam’s Justiciary Reports (no, I haven’t heard of them either), and ends with Yale Law Journal, with a great deal of nourishing filling in the sandwich between them. And the information the court needs can be accessed very quickly; by way of one example of many, two clicks take the judge straight to the Sentencing Guidelines.

The second was the introduction of ClickShare. This is a means by which an advocate who wants to display material on the large screen which is now to be found in every criminal courtroom in the country need only borrow the court’s dongle, plug it into a laptop and by clicking the button on the dongle, share the material on the laptop with the those in court by thus displaying it on the screen.

The timescale over which digital working was piloted and rolled out was truly breathtaking. The pilots began at Leeds and Southwark Crown Courts in July 2015, national roll-out started towards the end of the year and within about 9 months of the commencement of the pilots, national roll-out was pretty much complete.

It would be idle to pretend that it has been plain sailing or that everything is now perfect. There are still training issues that need to be resolved. Some lawyers (but fewer and fewer as time goes by) still arrive at court without having accessed the cases they are instructed in. People still try to give the court bits of paper in digital cases. There are problems in relation to multi-handed cases (but soon to be finally sorted) and in relation to large, paper heavy cases.

But nobody expected it to be perfect from the outset.

Remember the agile approach, remember the incremental approach. The philosophy was and remains that it is better to make a start and to continue to develop and improve the system, more effectively achieved with the benefit of real user experience, than to delay to a point where enthusiasm dries up and the impetus is lost.

As to the future, the firm intention is to continue the work being done in the criminal justice sphere but not to rest there. Plans are well under way to extend digital working across the entire justice system. So be ready – digitalisation is coming to a court or hearing centre near you, whatever jurisdiction you practise in!

His Honour Judge McCreath

111

112

INNER TEMPLE

Divine Interventions & the Planting Holy Grail Head Gardener, Andrea Brunsendorf and Gardener, Amanda Dennis share insights into planting combinations from great gardens of the world.

E

very year we incorporate new plants and plantings in the garden with the aim of delighting both garden visitors and the garden team alike.

You may ask where our ideas for this come from and so we thought we would share them with you.

The highlight of the gardening calendar is considered by many to be the Chelsea Flower Show. Its Show Gardens can provide inspiration and showcase the latest trends however, we find that the most fruitful opportunities for inspiration come from the interesting conversations with the influx of visitors from all over the world. This year we have received many transatlantic visitors, including the Director and Trustees of New York Botanic Gardens, students from Longwood Gardens and Chanticleer. Closer to home we have hosted Head Gardeners of Sissinghurst, Wakehurst Place and many private estates, the Director of the Royal Parks and a delegation from German Historic Parks and Gardens.

International students based at Great Dixter, British trainees from Fulham Palace and Buckingham Palace and REEP scholars from Morocco have also visited.

Our journeys to Europe and garden visits in the UK also provide much horticultural stimulation. This was especially valuable this year whilst working on our new Hare Court development and when considering our aspirations to create a Peony meadow planting underneath the new Japanese Elm, which would then link with a refurbished Peony Garden with longer seasonal interest.

Here are our top six garden visits of the year so far:

Head Gardener studying a new planting at Hummelo, Piet Oudlof’s Garden in the Netherlands

Hummelo, Piet Oudolf ’s garden at his home in the Netherlands No introduction is required for this world renowned plantsman.

Piet’s ‘back garden’ initially served as a nursery to propagate the plants, otherwise unavailable commercially, which he wanted to use in his planting designs. Run successfully by his wife Anya, the nursery was a mecca for gardeners looking for unusual perennials. As the use of perennials became more popular, the plants became more readily available from mainstream wholesalers and the nursery was no longer required. The space became a site for experimenting with plants within a garden setting, trialling combinations to incorporate into new landscape and planting designs across Europe and the USA.

Hermannshof, a public garden near Heidelberg, Germany This garden embraces a naturalistic style, growing plants which originate from plant societies similar in nature, requiring similar conditions but arranging them in an aesthetically pleasing way.

It has a surprisingly similar micro-climate to the UK, sitting on the slopes of a hillside in a wine growing area. Riesling is produced there – another good reason for a visit!

Mien Ruys ‘recipe’ gardens to inspire the Dutch amateur gardener

Mien Ruys garden in Dedemsvaart, the Netherlands Mien Ruys was a pioneer working in the 1980s. She created easy maintenance plant combinations with a long season of interest and high aesthetic value that everyone could do at home in the back gardens of Holland. Her ‘recipes’ became very famous and are still innovative and relevant today.

Jardin Plume, a private garden near Rouen, France Over ten years, previous nursery-owners and husband and wife team converted a flat apple orchard into one of Europe’s leading herbaceous perennial gardens. Admired for the atmosphere they have created, the garden has a strong sense of place. The combination of structures and textures gives both softness and strong lines and the garden is a result of their collaborative artistic partnership.

“ However, as with anything in life, there are always exceptions and we are guilty of staking our Dahlias every year. They are the ‘Primadonnas’ of our borders but their colourful impact outweighs the extra time involved in nurturing them.”

DIVINE INTERVENTIONS & THE PLANTING HOLY GRAIL INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

A seasonal highlight at Sissinghurst – the White Garden in the Summer

Sissinghurst in Kent Sissinghurst is distinct from the above mentioned gardens as it turns the idea of long seasons of interest on its head. There are many seasonal highlights, unmissable and bold, each in their own distinct season. The White Garden is really worth visiting in the summer and, when you do, it is astounding. Nothing is done by halves here. There is an implicit understanding that the garden rooms have different seasons, creating a changing experience every time you visit.

Great Dixter in Sussex Combining bold seasonal highlights like Sissinghurst, Great Dixter also incorporates naturalistic styles and experiments with new ideas. This is a garden which does not stand still and despite the death in 2010 of Christopher Lloyd (who created the garden) it is still relevant to the time. The ornamental meadows have started creeping into the borders, softening them more than in Christopher Lloyd’s day where a more blocky approach could be seen. This chimes well with our general appreciation of naturalistic plantings, and feels somewhat like the Sussex countryside is creeping in; an approach we have embraced here, bringing some of the country into the city with our long grass areas and planting around the steps down onto the lawn, lending a romantic backdrop to our Rose Border.

Our transatlantic visitors and fellows reminded us of our love for American gardens, in particular Chanticleer and Longwood Gardens in Pennsylvania. Chanticleer has a mission to employ the top horticulturalist but many also have additional artistic talents, which allow them to make a unique contribution to the tapestry of the garden. Longwood Gardens is the epitome of ornamental horticulture where the sky is the limit and unimaginable displays are produced in succession throughout the year. They rely on very specialist growers, committed to growing things which cannot be found or easily replicated without them, such as the 1,000 bloom chrysanthemum created by specialist Japanese gardeners.

It is all too easy to be inspired by these great gardens but success will lie in the implementation and ongoing maintenance which can be an entirely different story! We are no longer in the Victorian times when it was usual to have an army of gardeners carefully tending every square metre, but must work on the principal of one gardener per acre. Our ambitions often far outweigh this, and we look to these great gardens for setting our horticultural standards and ornamental aspirations.

Drawing from the best approaches and innovations of these gardens, we create our own version, our Inner Temple Garden identity that fits within our specific setting, micro-climate, soil and environmental conditions.

Therefore our available resources dictate that our combinations must walk the fine line and balance available time with maximum aesthetic impact. There are some key principles we stick to, plants must have a long season of interest (not just with their flower but foliage too); generally be able to support themselves; fit our growing conditions; be resistant to disease and; cope with the inevitable competition of a herbaceous border. However, as with anything in life, there are always exceptions and we are guilty of staking our Dahlias every year.

They are the ‘Primadonnas’ of our borders but their colourful

impact outweighs the extra time involved in nurturing them.

There have been some famous examples of plants which fulfil our key principles and create maximum impact. Piet Oudolf’s wavy hedges create exciting structure and a backdrop to herbaceous borders. They do not require tight precision trimming twice a year and, unlike its strictly rectangular, razor sharp British counterpart, its form is more forgiving in its fluffy state, as can be seen along our War of the Roses border. A Mien Ruys planting combination, a star performer in semishade, is made of various small and tall bistorts, astilbes, hydrangeas, native goats’ beards, and ornamental grasses and ferns. The flowering times of each plant follow one another and the structure repeats with various forms of pinnate flowers all in shades of white, bringing light to darker areas. Some of these you may spot in the garden here! You know when you have a winning combination because you start seeing it in other gardens, and inevitably (as is the struggle of the pioneer) you need to find something new.

Our best and most successful plant recipes include the lawn edge of the Woodland Garden where we combine woodland asters, hydrangea, grasses, sedges, hostas and bistorts, creating a cohesive bower edge. This supports the central planting and creates texture and interest without relying solely on flowers, and you can safely push the mower past it without getting caught. If you are faced with full sun we would recommend Pennisetum ‘Bunny Tails’ and Pennisetum ‘Tall Tails’ combined with Verbena bonarisensis. Admittedly verbena is a bit old hat, but this combination cannot be beaten for length of flowering, height and airy transparency, creating a summery scene even on a cloudy day. Our ‘new hat' and the discovery of this summer is the combination of Heliopsis ‘Summer Nights’ and Calamagrostis ‘Karl Foerster’, both starting to flower in mid-June, epitomising the golden yellow of summer turning into autumn. In the High Border they form a beautiful complement to blousy Phlox and Dahlia. Heliopsis also works solo weaved through the border and verging to the front, starting to replace our old time favourite Kiss me over the Gate.

These can seem to the average garden visitors as though they have appeared by divine intervention but they are the result of many years of experimentation, observations, late night heated horticultural discussions and professional exchanges of knowledge, open mindedness to something which may initially seem whacky, lectures, seminars, and an endless interest in other gardens all over the world.

As a professional, when armed with a catalogue of your own recipes which can be applied in different situations, you feel that you are reaching the planting Holy Grail. The prospect of finally reaching it is an elusive idea which we strive to reach throughout our careers with every planting. In the meantime, we hope that our visitors enjoy the tangible development of this never-ending quest. Next time you visit a garden (perhaps one mentioned above) look out for one combination which you can bring home to try; you might just find your own Holy Grail!

Andrea Brunsendorf and Amanda Dennis

Left to right – Pamela Gent, Andrea Brunsendorf, Emily Blackmore, Amanda Dennis

113

114

INNER TEMPLE LECTURE SERIES

The Legal Glass Ceiling – Broken or Merely Cracked?

From a lecture given by Master Butler-Sloss on 9 November 2015

M

y son read the title of this lecture and said: “Who on earth would want the ceiling to come down?

Couldn’t one find some other method of dealing with what women are managing to get through?” A glass ceiling has become one of the obvious phrases. Perhaps it is not the right one.

Inner Temple has had a number of firsts. Perhaps the two most important are that Inner Temple had the first woman barrister and the first woman High Court judge.

The first woman to be called to the Bar was Ivy Williams.

She was born in 1877 and she died in 1966. She was a very distinguished academic and linguist. She obtained her first degree in Oxford in 1900 but was not able to matriculate until 1920 and thereafter to gain her degrees.

Ivy Williams joined Inner Temple in 1920. She was sponsored by Sir John Simon and called in 1922 at the age of 42 by the son of Charles Dickens, Sir Henry Dickens, beating 40 or so other women waiting to be called because she got a first in her Bar exams. Six months before her, Frances Kyle, the first woman barrister from Northern Ireland was called to the Dublin Bar. Ivy Williams was very frustrated by the prolonged refusal of the Inns of Court to accept women as barristers. In 1904, she declared: “Ladies holding university degrees in law could legally compete in the most lucrative domains and need not trammel themselves of lawyers’ trade union rules.” Then she

She chose not to go to university. At 20, in January 1926, she married Randall, at that time a university lecturer. They had one son who was mentally disabled and died at the age of 14. It was a very happy marriage. Her husband decided to read for the Bar so they read law together. They were both called by this Inn. I think of what it must have been like in the evenings and whether they actually had any social life at all.

She joined the Midland and Oxford Circuit. She had a very difficult time at the Bar, where she was not welcome, and was not allowed to be a member of the Bar mess. Sadly, that period was not set out in her autobiography.

She became Queen’s Counsel in 1950 and then the first County Court judge in 1962 and the first High Court judge in 1965 to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, which was popularly known as wives, wills and wrecks. She also became a Bencher of this Inn. I knew her very well indeed, as Elizabeth Lane was a close friend of my father. She was small, upright, dignified, with a stern and somewhat intimidating exterior with a largely concealed warm, kindly and understanding approach to the problems of families going through the divorce courts.

She was very well aware that she was leading the way for women judges and setting standards. For many years she was called “My Lord” in the High Court. There is a painting of her here; however, it is not a good picture of her. A former Master of Pictures of this Inn suggested writing on the back of the

“ …from now on Lord Justice Butler-Sloss would be called Lady Justice Butler-Sloss. That was fine until the headline in The Times the next morning: “Sex Change Judge.” ” threatened: “Admit us or we shall form a third branch of the profession and practise as outside lawyers.” She did not actually carry out that threat.

She was enormously kind and supportive to young people. She never married. She did not practise at the Bar, but taught law at the Society of Oxford Home Students, which became St Anne’s College where she became an Honorary Fellow.

She was a very fine linguist and, of all extraordinary things, she translated the Swiss Civil Code. In later life, as she started to go blind, she taught herself braille. Not only that, she wrote a braille primer, which has been extensively used by the National Institute for the Blind.

The first woman actually to practise at the Bar was Helena Normanton QC who was a member of the Middle Temple.

The second barrier was broken by Elizabeth Lane who was the first woman High Court judge. She lived from 1905 to 1988 and became the first woman County Court judge, now of course a Circuit judge.

portrait, “She was female”.

The Western Circuit, unlike the Midland and Oxford Circuits, made her an honorary member. She also became an Honorary Fellow of Newnham College.

She lived in the Temple for many years, as my husband and I do, and then retired to Winchester.

The second woman High Court judge I must mention was Rose Heilbron QC, of Gray’s Inn, who had an excellent practice at the Bar. In a sense, she started the movement of women practising civil law, which was very much followed by Elizabeth Gloster, now Lady Justice Gloster, who had a large civil and commercial practice. This was unheard of in my day.

Margaret Booth was the third High Court judge. She also had a very successful career but in divorce. All the first group of judges were sent to the Family Division. That does not happen anymore.

As to my own career, I was called to the Bar in 1955.

There were lots of spaces in chambers for pupils; lots of spaces in chambers for tenants. Pupils paid their Pupil Masters

THE LEGAL GLASS CEILING INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Dame Elizabeth Lane

Dame Rose Heibron

Master Butler-Sloss

Dame Rose Heibron photo: Mirrorpix

Ivy Williams

and tenants provided the rent. But there was no work: many solicitors would not brief women.

I can remember one particular example of this. I was in the clerk’s room between my clerk and a solicitor. The solicitor said: “Have you got a barrister to do an undefended divorce in Cambridge?” An undefended divorce in those days took about three minutes. The clerk said: “Miss Havers is five years called, she is very experienced.” The solicitor said: “Haven’t you even got a pupil who is a man?”

In 1970, I gave up the Bar and became a divorce registrar in Somerset House. In 1979, I became the fourth woman in the High Court.

When I was appointed to the Court of Appeal in 1988, I realised I was going to be called Lord Justice. I said to the then Master of the Rolls, Lord Donaldson: “Do you really want a woman called Lord Justice?” He looked at me very severely and said: “My wife is Lord Mayor of London,” which she was.

I did not make a fuss.

Brenda Hale wrote an article in an American newspaper saying my title was preposterous. Since it was obvious that she would follow me into the Court of Appeal, I thought I had better do something about it. I went to Lord Bingham who was by then the Master of the Rolls and said: “Can I please change to being Lady Justice?” He consulted the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, because the 1961 statute does not provide for women to be Lady Justices. Everybody was very worried about whether they were complying with the law.

Eventually everybody agreed, so I sat in court with the Master of the Rolls who announced that from now on Lord Justice Butler-Sloss would be called Lady Justice ButlerSloss. That was fine until the headline in The Times the next morning: “Sex Change Judge.” In 1999, I became President of the Family Division, which after that experience of the Court of Appeal was very convenient to unisex.

Let me take you to the present position of women at the Bar. Sixty years on from when I was called, more or less equal numbers are taking the Bar course, certainly reading law at university. All applicants for pupillages and all applicants for tenancies have real problems. As far as I can see, I do not think there are extra problems for women.

Women are no longer expected to do only crime or family. When I was called, there were 64 women and we were all expected to choose one of these. We were not suited to civil and commercial. Now, there are very successful women in big commercial cases and all types are well-paid work. Women are paid the same as men in the cases they do.

Nobody thinks about it nowadays.

A Bar Council report on self-employed women at the Bar said that women made up 35 per cent of those in practice in 2014. Over 22 years’ of Call, women are only 6 per cent of the Bar. Some interesting points are made in the report, including the lack of self-confidence of some women to push

themselves forward, the underrepresentation of women in the structure of chambers at the top, which does seem to reflect that between coming to the Bar and getting to the top, a very large number of women leave.

In the Lords, I have been pressing about the major disadvantages of the dramatic reduction in Legal Aid for litigants, particularly in family and crime. This loss of Legal Aid has had a disproportionately adverse effect on women at the Bar. Now let me turn to women judges. About 24 per cent of judges are women but this figure is dramatically less at the top. Lady Hale is the Deputy President of the Supreme Court and the only woman. Lady Justice Hallett is Vice-President of the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal. Interestingly, she was the first woman chairman of the Bar Council and a past Treasurer of this Inn. Lady Justice Black is head of International Family Law and a member of this Inn. To our credit, five out of the seven women in the Court of Appeal are members of this Inn. There is a great deal of talent wasted by women not returning to the law, particularly to part-time judicial posts.

Much more should be done to encourage them back, which will need, after several years away to have their children, actual training programmes and real encouragement. If we are to do something about the pool for the most senior judiciary, we have to look at the wasted talent.

The important point is merit. No one, male, female, from any background, should be appointed unless they are appointed on merit. It is not fair on the person appointed who is not quite good enough and, even more importantly, it is not fair on the public if that person is a judge.

If one looks at women in business for instance, many women earn very much less than men. In the boardroom there are relatively few women other than as non-executive directors. The FTSE 100 has now got some 25 per cent. There is no doubt that the Bench and the Bar of this country are doing much better.

We have come a long way since Ivy Williams in 1922.

There are now so many holes in the ceiling that it is rather like a smashed windscreen. You are driving along and it all disappears, but it is there and you just push it through. That is what we could do with the ceiling. Ignore it and work to get more women to remain at the senior Bar or to return to judicial posts after a period of family commitments, thereby to swell the pool of those who should be appointed on merit to the most senior judicial positions.

The Rt Hon the Baroness Butler-Sloss ��� The full version of this lecture is available at www.innertemple.org.uk/education/lecture-series-2015

115

116

INNER TEMPLE  EVENT

Highland Fling The Inner Temple Summer Party July 2016

HIGHLAND FLING INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Photo credits: MPP Image Creation

117

118

INNER TEMPLE LECTURE SERIES

The Essential Requirements of Good Advocacy

From a lecture given by Master Ainslie-Wallace on 14 March 2016

A

dvocacy is the art of persuasion; persuading the trier of fact to accept the conclusions for which you contend. Some time ago, there was no such thing as advocacy training. It was generally believed it could not be taught.

We now know that advocacy comprises a set of practical skills that can be learned, like learning the piano, learning to play tennis or indeed any practical skill.

The skills can be improved on and practised.

I want to focus on the three fundamentals of good advocacy.

First, the development of a case theory. The first requirement is knowledge; that is a mastery of the facts of the case; of the relevant law and of the rules of procedure and evidence. Obviously, you must know whether the law or the particular rules of procedure enable your arguments to be made. However, you need to know more – you need to know your opponent’s case. Their strengths are your weaknesses and you must prepare for and anticipate the attack on your case. Rules of court and procedure provide fertile ground for anticipating your opponent’s case; interrogatories, discovery and the issue of subpoenas in civil cases; in criminal cases, in some jurisdictions, the accused is required to provide a minute of an anticipated defence such as an alibi, and often there will be a recorded interview with the accused which will give an understanding of how the defence will be mounted.

Having a mastery of the facts and law, the next step is to analyse that knowledge to develop a case theory.

A case theory is a series of logical conclusions about the evidence which are consistent with your instructions and which, if accepted, will lead the judge or trier of fact to accept the result for which you contend. It is a road map through the evidence and facts of the case to get to the conclusion you want. Each conclusion must follow logically and sequentially from the one before.

There are a number of ways in which case theory may be approached. One way is to examine an issue or a conclusion that you will contend the court should accept, and examine what evidence in the case does and does not support the acceptance of that contention.

There are also other ways. I used to have a dialogue with myself arguing the other side’s answer to my various contentions about the evidence.

However you do it, that analysis must be sufficiently detailed to be a good map. It must deal with each conclusion, and the evidence supporting each conclusion, and be comprehensive enough to tell you everything that you have to do in the case.

What next? You now know the facts, you know the law and rules of evidence, and you have a plan about how to persuade the decision-maker to accept your version of events.

You know what you want to do in the case but you do not yet know how you are to do it. This is the second fundamental of advocacy, performance preparation, preparing to perform various advocacy tasks in the case. The ‘what to do’ lies in the analysis and the ‘how to do it’ is in the performance preparation.

Let us talk about a trial as four parts: The opening, evidence in chief, cross-examination and the closing argument, leaving re-examination aside.

In preparing to perform, where do you start? You start at the closing, because advocacy is purposive; it is directed to a determined outcome. You know where you are going and you direct your energies only to that path. You start by preparing the closing argument because that is where you are going to end up. It shows you what to call in evidence in chief and what you should focus your cross-examination on.

The next part you prepare is the evidence in chief as that contains your facts. Eighty per cent or more of the facts that you need to make your closing argument are in your own case.

The next thing that you prepare to perform is crossexamination, and, lastly, comes the opening.

I want to elaborate on the closing argument as it is seminal to everything you do in a trial and because it is the articulation of your case theory.

Let us consider the persuasive argument by first saying what it is not. It is not a mere recitation of the evidence. Nor is it a series of bald, unsupported propositions.

What is a persuasive argument? It is a series of propositions supported by the evidence in the case.

There is no more persuasive form of argument than in first stating the proposition for which you contend and then in supporting it by the evidence. At the Australian Advocacy Institute, we refer to this as ‘why and because.’ The proposition is stated and the judge thinks or maybe even says, “Why?” and the answer is: “Because…”

The ‘becauses’ are the evidence in the case that enable the decider of fact to accept that proposition.

Using this structure helps the listener understand the point you are making. As the judge is listening to the ‘becauses’, she or he is able to evaluate whether the reasons do, in fact, support the proposition. This structure enables the listener to assess the coherence of the argument and to see how the reasons fit within the proposition for which you contend. It is also far more difficult to follow an argument when the arguer refers first to the evidence before coming to the conclusion.

There are also three important features to a persuasive argument: First, it has to be logical. That is, it sits comfortably within the evidence that has been called and does not require some

THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF GOOD ADVOCACY INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

wild leap of logic to get from one proposition to the next.

Secondly, it must be rational in that it accords with common sense, the common, ordinary experience of the judge.

Finally, the argument has to be credible. We talk about credibility in two ways: the credible argument is one easily accepted; it is balanced in that it takes into account the weaknesses in the case, not by restating the other side’s case, but by arguing them in a way that makes them look less weak when surrounded by your better points. It is balanced, believable and rational.

We then turn to the importance of the credibility of the arguer, not in the sense of the honesty, integrity or the fragility of reputation of the advocate, but in the sense that the arguer is an advocate on whom the judge and court can rely. The arguments are well thought out and the arguer does not overstate or misstate the evidence. The advocate is well prepared and the argument is well presented.

Now, the third fundamental of advocacy – communication. You can have the best case theory, you can prepare until you have not had a wink of sleep for weeks, but if you cannot communicate, you cannot persuade.

All of us are able to talk to and communicate with each other quite well, and yet, when we get into court, we use the dreadful legalese that many lawyers use.

Why do you think that happens? Look at the architecture of the courtroom: high bench, the judge a tiny speck in the

listener so that you understand what the listener needs in order to understand and follow the argument.

How do we make this relationship with the listener? Eye contact; you look at the person you are talking to, to see if the listener is following what you are saying or if the judge has become distracted for a moment. You would be surprised, from a judge’s perspective, how few people actually look at us when they are talking to us.

What about pace? Like stand-up comedy, timing is everything in court. You must speak at the pace that assists the listener. You must also make sure you are easily heard.

Simple language is persuasive and makes your meaning clear. Use the powerful and persuasive language you use in everyday life. Do not shield the bench from that; they should have full exposure to your skills and not have these overshadowed by lawyer talk.

Good communication has three essential elements: The first is primacy: telling the listener the most important thing they need to know first to understand the argument. Think about what the listener needs to know, not what you want to say first. Put yourself in the listener’s shoes.

“If I was the judge, what would I want to know first about this case?”

The second aspect is storytelling. Every case has a story of sorts and some stories are more interesting than others.

However, consider communicating the story of the case in plain words with simple language and an elegant structure.

“ No advocate should ever say, ‘I am as good as I can be.’

We practise and we get better. Good advocates strive to improve their performance.” distance. You, way down below. Then, there are the roles, the titles, the rules of etiquette and rules as to conduct. What else about being in court prevents us speaking normally? The fact you are on the spot.

I believe the reason we seize up as communicators is performance anxiety and nerves. Every advocate is nervous when they go to court. It is a nerve-wracking experience and this causes advocates to use complicated, obscure words and stilted expressions in court. That kind of communication obscures meaning rather than illuminates it and good advocates must communicate to persuade.

Of course, performance anxiety is not innate; we are not born with it. We learn it as we become older and more self-critical. It is sometimes referred to as ‘the voice’. The voice in your head that says, “You’re really not up to this case. That opponent is much better than you. He’s got a better case. You’re not going to be very good at this.” If you are thinking, “I don’t have that voice” – that’s the voice.

These thoughts undermine and take the focus away from what you are doing. You cannot communicate whilst you are preoccupied with your own anxiety.

How do we deal with performance anxiety and communicate well? There are a number of ways.

The first is to accept that every advocate feels anxious.

Secondly, preparation is the greatest cure for anxiety. The harder you prepare, the less anxious you are that you might be taken by surprise. Thirdly, be realistic about your abilities. If you are starting out as an advocate, you will not be as good as an experienced advocate on the other side, but you will be in time. Be realistic about your case and its prospects.

A persuasive advocate must master the skill of speaking plainly and clearly. Every word counts. You want your words to be understood the first time.

What then is good communication? Good communication involves making a relationship with the

The third aspect of good communication is structure. Our hearings are essentially oral and so having a simple structure assists the listener in following the points you are making.

The structure may be through numbering the points to be made, or by making the argument under a heading, but however it is approached, oral communication in court must be easy to follow to be persuasive.

I stated earlier there were three fundamental aspects of advocacy, but, in fact, there is a fourth.

It is lifelong learning. No advocate should ever say, “I am as good as I can be.” We practise and we get better. Good advocates strive to improve their performance.

How do we improve? Advocacy is a skill and, like any skill, it has to be practised. But we do not practise it in court.

You practise it by analysing what you have done in court and asking how it could have been better. If you have had a great day in court, still ask, “What did I do today that was more persuasive than other times?” It is self-reflection, which is quite cruel sometimes for advocates, that helps them improve.

My experience teaching with the Australian Advocacy Institute is that no matter how senior or experienced the advocate, there can always be improvement. We conduct workshops in advanced cross-examination, appellate skills, handling experts and advanced questioning techniques. Very experienced, very senior advocates have been participants at these workshops because they understand the need for lifelong learning and lifelong improvement.

The Hon Justice Ann Ainslie-Wallace Chair, Australian Advocacy Institute The full version of this lecture is available at www.innertemple.org.uk/education/lecture-series-2016

119

120

INNER TEMPLE

Who Shot Judge Garlick?

Dr Dudley Moore describes the events leading to the death of Judge Garlick, and the controversy over the identity of the killer.

Portrait of Ernest Murray Pollock, Viscount Hanworth,

by John Crealock

D

Dinesh Chandra Gupta (1911–1931)

r Dudley Moore’s distant cousin on his father’s side, Judge Ralph Reynolds Garlick, was a member of Inner Temple who became caught up in the revolutionary events in pre-Independent India.

Ralph Reynolds Garlick was born in Stratford-upon-Avon in 1876, and was educated at the King Edward VI School in Stratford. Whilst at school, the Headmaster at the time, Reverend Robert S de Courcy Laffan, established the custom of a procession to the church on Shakespeare’s birthday. As head boy, Cousin Ralph was the first boy to lay the school wreath on Shakespeare’s tomb, the poet himself having been educated at the school several centuries before. A further link with Shakespeare comes in Ralph’s middle name, Reynolds: Ralph’s ancestor, William Reynolds, was a friend of William Shakespeare and the poet left him a mourning ring in his will in 1633.

After school, Ralph went up to Oxford, being elected to an open scholarship at Pembroke College, from where he passed the Indian Civil Service examination of 1899. At the end of 1900, he went out to Bengal, serving as assistant magistrate. Five years later, he was transferred to Eastern Bengal and Assam, but returned to Bengal in 1912 and, a year later, became a district and session judge.

On occasions of leave at home, he read at Inner Temple, and in April 1910, at the aged of 34, he was admitted as a student to the Inner Temple and was called to the Bar in May 1928. Although his home was in Stratford, he also spent a brief period of time at St Mary’s Lodge in Hackney, just five miles north of Inner Temple, where his occupation is listed on the 1911 census as “India Civil Service Joint Magistrate on leave.” By then, Ralph was married to Daisy Gwyther and at the time of the census the couple had a two-month old daughter, Helena.

Later in the same year that he was called to the Bar, he held an appointment as an officiating judge of the Calcutta High Court for a period of six months. Following his period of leave in 1929, Ralph was appointed District and Sessions Judge of Alipore, an area immediately to the south of Calcutta. Tragically, this was to be his last appointment.

In December 1930 in Calcutta, a Bengali rebel, Dinesh Gupta, along with two fellow revolutionaries, headed for the secretariat building of West Bengal, known as the ‘Writers’ Building’. There they shot dead the notorious British Inspector General of Prisons, Colonel N S Simpson, a man infamous for

The trial room, Alipore Sessions Court

The Writer’s Building, Calcutta

his brutal oppression of the prisoners in his jails. Unwilling to give themselves up, Gupta and one of his comrades tried to shoot themselves; the other died from taking cyanide. Dinesh Gupta was the only one of the trio to survive, and in February the following year, Ralph was a member of the tribunal that sentenced Gupta to death by hanging.

The hanging sentence was carried out at the beginning of July 1931, and sometime in mid-July of that year, Cousin Ralph received a letter threatening his life. As a result, two police sergeants and several detectives were stationed in his courtroom. Judge Garlick was undeterred by such threats and resolved to carry on his work regardless. It would appear that his wife and daughter were also in danger, for on one occasion his daughter, Helena, had arranged to ride with a court official but was detained. Later that morning, the court official who was to have accompanied her was shot.

On 27 July 1931, in Alipore, Calcutta, Judge Garlick returned to his courtroom after lunch to resume an earlier case. As he did so, Bimal Das Gupta (a Bengali architect) drew a revolver and fired at the judge from the far end of the court. The shot missed its mark but Gupta rushed up to the witness box and fired again, killing Judge Garlick instantly with a bullet to the head.

According to the newspaper reports at the time, the police opened fire and the assassin was killed on the spot, although one policeman was injured. Bimal Das Gupta was already a ‘wanted’ man, following the murder of a somewhat unpleasant Mr James Peddie, district magistrate at Midanpore, in April of 1931. A letter found in Gupta’s pocket stated that the murder of Judge Garlick was intended as a reprisal for his sentencing Dinesh Gupta, Bimal’s mentor, to death. The letter, written in Bengali, simply read, “Thou shalt be destroyed. This is the reward for the injustice done to Dinesh Gupta” and was signed Bimal Gupta.

A short time before this unfortunate event, Cousin Ralph had decided to apply for leave preparatory to retirement and would have been coming home in the not-too-distant future.

He was 55 years of age when he was shot dead.

William Wedgwood Benn, 1st Viscount of Stansgate, Secretary of State for India, (and father of Tony Benn), read a telegram in the House of Commons announcing the murder: “Regret to have to report that Judge Garlick, Session Judge, Alipore, was shot dead to-day in court by assassin at present unknown, who was himself killed by

WHO SHOT JUDGE GARLICK? INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

“ Cousin Ralph received a letter threatening his life.

As a result, two police sergeants and several detectives were stationed in his courtroom. Judge Garlick was undeterred by such threats and resolved to carry on his work regardless.” guards.” Benn added: “The House, will, I am sure, desire to express its sincere sympathy with the relatives of this officer.”

It is interesting that the telegram said “assassin at present unknown.” As late as 18 September 1931, The Straits Times (’India, Burma and Ceylon Week by Week’) ran an advertisement saying: “MR GARLICK’S MURDERER Rs 500 for identification of photograph. A reward of Rs 500 is offered for the identification of the photograph of the murderer of Mr R R Garlick, late District and Sessions Judge of 24 Pergannas. The amount originally announced was Rs 150, but it has now been increased to Rs 500.”

Bearing in mind the authorities were already looking for Bimal Das Gupta for the suspected murder of Peddie and found the aforementioned note referring to revenge for the death of Dinesh Gupta in Judge Garlick’s assassin’s pocket, it all rather pointed to Bimal. And the newspaper reports clearly blamed him at the time. However, Bimal’s father denied that the body of the assassin was his son’s – hence the offer of the reward.

To add a further layer of confusion, in a 2012 report, The Revolutionaries by Rhituparna Basu, it appears that some months after shooting Peddie (and after he was supposedly killed assassinating Judge Garlick), Bimal Das Gupta (Dasgupta) volunteered to assassinate the head of the European Association at the Writers’ Building (scene of the murder of Colonel Simpson, mentioned above). On 29 October 1931, Bimal entered the Writers’ Building but only wounded his target, Mr Villiers. He was arrested and subsequently tried for the murder of Peddie. Although no witnesses came forward he was still found guilty, but spared the death penalty and sentenced to life imprisonment on the notorious Andaman Islands penal colony, a sentence known as the ‘Black Waters’ sentence. The report does not mention the date of the incarceration (although we can assume it was immediately after the trial) but does go on to say that Bimal was set free in 1939 when political events led to a release of political prisoners. Further, the report states that Bimal died in 2000 and that there is a 20 foot statue that stands imposingly at the front gate of Midnapore College as a memorial to him.

So, if not Bimal Das Gupta, then who did shoot Judge Garlick?

According to Manoshi Bhattacharya (in her books, Chittagong: Summer of 1930, published 2012; and sequel, Eye of the Tiger: Chittagong, published 2014) it was Kanai Bhattacharya who pretended to be Bimal Das Gupta (Dasgupta) and killed Ralph Garlick. Also, she says

Ralph Garlick in Stratford-uponAvon before moving to India

the assassin was not shot by the police but died by taking a cyanide pill before he was overpowered. Whilst it is not initially clear what Kanai hoped to achieve by this deception, other reports state that he wrote the name of Bimal Das Gupta so that the British police would stop chasing Bimal, who was at the time on the run and wanted for the murder of James Peddie. Kanai (Kanailal) apparently came from a very poor family and joined the freedom revolutionary movement when he was very young.

These were indeed troubled times in India and there are pieces of correspondence in The Times newspaper in July, August and October of 1931, that refer back to the shooting of Judge Garlick as well as a number of other court officials.

Interestingly, both Dinesh Gupta and Judge Garlick have been commemorated for their roles in the events of 1930/1931.

B B D Bagh, formerly called Dalhousie Square, is the shortened version for Benoy-Badal-Dinesh Bagh. It is the seat of power of the state government, as well as the central business district in Kolkata (formerly Calcutta), the capital of the Indian state of West Bengal. Following India’s independence, the name was changed from Dalhousie Square to commemorate the leaders of the rebellion and the battle of Writers’ Building.

The Pembroke College Record of 1933–1934 details how Lord Hanworth, the Master of the Rolls, unveiled “a tablet commemorating Judge Ralph Garlick, Senior District and Sessions Judge of Bengal. The tablet is affixed to the wall of Big School at King Edward VI School, Stratford-onAvon….” The Record goes on to announce that “[a] Ralph Garlick Memorial Gift has also been founded, the prize being awarded to a boy who, proceeding to some place of higher education, is in need of help to purchase books or equipment.”

The Upper Guildhall, or ‘Big School’ as it is still known, was the room in which Shakespeare would have been taught and was the sole room of the King Edward VI School until the 1880s. Today, it is still used as a classroom and as an assembly room for the Sixth Form. I have yet to check whether the plaque or Memorial Gift are still in existence.

Dr Dudley Moore ���, (1952–2016) Middle Templar (We are grateful to Sarah Moore for kindly editing this article and, as a tribute to her late husband, for allowing its publication in the Inner Temple Yearbook)

121

122

INNER TEMPLE

The Hon O.D. Schreiner �� ��� �1890–1980� Master Paget describes the distinguished academic, military and legal career of an Inner Templar who served on the Transvaal Bench before being appointed one of the five permanent judges of the Appellate Division in Bloemfontein, Orange Free State, and for whom the office of Chief Justice of the Union of South Africa remained elusive.

Family and Background Oliver Schreiner was the son of William Schreiner (W P Schreiner) (1857–1919), who was born in the Cape Colony.

After school in South Africa, he came to England and was awarded a first-class law degree at Downing College, Cambridge, under Professor Kenny. William was offered, but declined, a teaching fellowship at Downing. He was called to the Bar by Inner Temple in 1882 and returned to South Africa to practise at the Cape Bar. In 1884, he married Frances (Fanny) Reitz. He became Attorney General in Cecil Rhodes’ ministry but resigned in 1895 after the Jameson Raid. From 1898 to 1900, he was Prime Minister of the Cape Colony and became a champion of black rights. From 1914 until his death in 1919, he was High Commissioner for the Union of South Africa in London.

William was one of twelve children. Several became well known in South Africa but only Olive Schreiner (1855–1920) is remembered outside South Africa. She was a remarkable woman, a novelist, writer on political affairs and feminist. Her most famous work is The Story of an African Farm. She was Oliver’s favourite aunt and he was a special favourite of hers.

Captain O D Schreiner during the Great War

Youth (1890–1911) Oliver Deneys Schreiner was born on 29 December 1890.

He was called Oliver after one of his father’s brothers who had died in infancy; Deneys was his maternal grandmother’s maiden name. In 1961, he wrote: “Only one fourth of me is British, one fourth being German and one half Dutch, including Huguenot. Perhaps it is for this reason that I have no feeling of group loyalty towards any particular section of the South African nation.” During the Boer War (1899–1902), Oliver supported the Boers; his father supported the British forces.

After Rondebosch High School, he completed his schooling at the South African College School in Cape Town.

He went on to the South African College (now the University of Cape Town). There he met his future wife, Edna Fincham, who became a teacher before she married Oliver. Oliver was awarded a BA with honours in 1910, being placed first in Classics, and won an important scholarship to study overseas.

In 1911, he left for England with his father and sister, Ursula. Oliver had chosen to go to Trinity. Ursula was to go to Newnham.

Cambridge (1911–1914) Through his father, Oliver had many connections with distinguished lawyers at the Cape. He wrote to the President of the Cape Provincial Division and to Sir James Rose-Innes (then a Judge of Appeal and later to be a distinguished Chief Justice) to ask for advice on what to read and whether Roman-Dutch law had a future. Both assured him that it had and Rose-Innes advised him to make a special study of Roman law.

He worked hard but had time for rugby, which he had played in South Africa. Courtney Kenny, his father’s old tutor and mentor, was now Downing Professor of the Laws of England and welcomed him into his family.

In June 1912, there were only two firsts in the intercollegiate examinations in law. They were, in order of merit, 1) Oliver Schreiner and 2) William McNair (the future Lord McNair), and in December 1912, Oliver came first again.

In March 1913, Oliver was elected to a senior scholarship at Trinity, and in June 1913, he obtained the top first in Part I of the Tripos and was awarded the George Long Prize in Roman Law and Jurisprudence.

THE HON O.D. SCHREINER MC LLD (1890-1980) INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

The Great War (1914–1918) Immediately war was declared, on 4 August 1914, Oliver went on an officers’ training course. On 13 September, he was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the 6th Northamptonshire Regiment and South Wales Borderers. He saw service in France with his regiment and became a captain.

In June 1916, a BA degree was conferred on him by proxy under special regulations for men on active service, so he never wrote Part II of the Law Tripos.

The Battle of the Somme began on 1 July 1916, and Oliver’s regiment took part in the dreadful events that followed. Oliver was wounded in the right arm at Trones Wood. While recuperating in hospital in England, he received the news in October that he had been elected to a fellowship at Trinity. Days later, he was awarded the Military Cross. Once he had fully recovered, he left England to rejoin his regiment, now in Mesopotamia (Iran). His ship was torpedoed, but he was rescued and saw service in the Near East. In mid-1918, he sailed home to Cape Town on furlough. He had kept in touch with Edna Fincham by letter and they became engaged to marry. He never forgot his old regiment and kept in regular touch with one of his old NCOs, Alan Young, until Young died in 1980.

Return and Qualification for the Bar (1919–1920) Oliver returned to Cape Town after demobilisation in April 1919. He and Edna were married in May. To practise at the South African Bar in 1919, Oliver had to qualify as a barrister in England. He returned to England with Edna.

Ex-servicemen were given special concessions and short courses. Oliver ate his dinners at Inner Temple and won the Yerburgh Anderson Scholarship. Within a few months, he had qualified and was called to the Bar. He said wryly that he had never completed the whole of a law examination and had only attended one lecture on Roman-Dutch law. Sir John Simon, who had known his father, arranged pupillages for him, and he spent six months with Wilfred Greene (later Lord Greene MR) and six months with Geoffrey Lawrence (later Lord Oaksey) before returning to South Africa with Edna and their first child.

The Johannesburg Bar (1920–1937) In October 1920, Oliver was admitted as an advocate of the Transvaal Provincial Division. He began his practice in Johannesburg. In his early years as an advocate he lectured, part-time, at the University College, Johannesburg (which became the University of the Witwatersrand in 1922). By 1929, his practice had become so demanding that he had to give up lecturing, but he remained a member of the board of the Faculty of Law for 58 years, until his death. In 1961, after his retirement as a judge, he was elected Chancellor.

From the start, Oliver’s practice was almost entirely civil and much of his work was advisory. In his spare time, he was a keen golfer. In 1935, he took Silk and, in February 1937, he sat for the first time, as an acting judge until August, when he was given a permanent appointment. He was 46.

The Transvaal Bench (1937–1944) and The Appellate Division (1945–1960)

“ Academic writers compared him with Lord Denning in ‘tapping slender streams’ to achieve what he believed to be a just solution.”

Division in Bloemfontein, in the Orange Free State.

It would be tedious to try to deal with even a selection of the many and varied cases in which he was involved, but mention should be made of three famous constitutional law cases that may have affected his career and prevented him from becoming Chief Justice.

Constitutional Law Cases (1951–1960) The nationalist government which introduced apartheid was elected in 1948. It introduced, and Parliament enacted, The Separate Representation of Voters Act 1951 to remove coloured voters from the common voters’ roll. The validity of the Act was challenged on the ground that the constitution contained in The South Africa Act 1909 had made the qualification of voters an entrenched provision and prescribed a special procedure for changes to the qualification of voters, which had not been followed. The special procedure required a majority of at least two-thirds at a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament. The Appellate Division held unanimously that the Act was invalid.

The government then secured the passage of The High Court of Parliament Act 1952 (by the ordinary two-house procedure), which stated that any Appellate Division decision invalidating an instrument purporting to be, and enrolled as, an Act of Parliament had to be brought before the High Court of Parliament for review. The members of the High Court were the members of the two Houses of Parliament.

The Appellate Division, sitting with the same five members, declared this Act to be invalid as well.

In 1954, there was a visit to South Africa by Lord Denning. He spent time with all the judges and visited the Kruger National Park with Oliver and Edna. Also at about this time, Oliver was offered, and declined, the post of Chief Justice of Southern Rhodesia.

By now, there were six judges. One had been added in 1950 but had not sat in the two cases just mentioned, and one of the five judges who had sat in those two cases then retired and was replaced by a comparatively inexperienced judge. The government next introduced, and Parliament passed, The Appellate Division Quorum Act 1955, requiring 11 judges of appeal to sit when the validity of a purported Act was in question. Five new judges were appointed.

All were experienced but not highly regarded, and the appointments were not welcomed by the Bench or the Bar. In the same session of Parliament, The Senate Act 1955 was passed and this enlarged the Senate enough to ensure that the government had a majority of two-thirds in both Houses of Parliament and to validate the previous Acts.

From 1937 to 1944, Oliver Schreiner served with distinction on the Transvaal Bench before he was appointed in 1945 to sit as one of the five permanent judges of the Appellate

123

124

INNER TEMPLE THE HON O D SCHREINER, MC, LLD (1890–1980)

In March 1956, The South Africa Act Amendment Act 1956 came into force. It was passed at a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament and by a majority of two-thirds. The Act re-enacted The Separate Representation of Voters Act 1951 and its validity was challenged by two coloured voters. The full bench of the Cape Provincial Division upheld the validity of the Act and there was an appeal to the Appellate Division.

It was heard by 11 judges. Ten of the judges upheld the validity of the Act. Justice Schreiner alone dissented.

The court accepted that the object of passing The Senate Act was to provide the government with a two-thirds majority at a joint sitting of the two Houses in order to pass at that joint sitting an Act to validate The Separate Representation of Voters Act 1951.

In giving the leading judgment, Chief Justice Centlivres held that Parliament sitting in two houses had power to reconstitute the Senate and that evidence of its purpose in doing so was irrelevant.

Justice Schreiner disagreed. The gist of his reasoning was that while Parliament sitting in two houses had power to alter its own composition, as soon as it used that power to alter the composition of one house as part of a scheme to exercise the power reserved to Parliament in joint session to alter one of the entrenched provisions, any resulting Act would be invalid.

It is a difficult argument and has been much debated ever since. In reaching his conclusion, he drew in part on Commonwealth cases decided in the Privy Council dealing with federal constitutions. Academic writers compared him with Lord Denning in “tapping slender streams” to achieve what he believed to be a just solution.

Waste Recycling Skip Hire Conidenial Waste Destrucion Oice Paper Collecions Oice Clearance

www.hawkinsandscot.co.uk

Chief Justice Albert Centlivres retired in 1956. Oliver was next in seniority, and certainly in stature, but Henry Fagan was appointed his successor. When Fagan retired in 1959, Lucas Steyn (L C Steyn) was appointed to succeed him. At the end of 1960, Oliver retired.

The Last Phase (1961–1980) In retirement, Oliver accepted appointment as a judge of appeal in what were then the High Commission territories of Basutoland (now Lesotho), Bechuanaland (now Botswana) and Swaziland, and served both before and after they became independent. He became President of the Court in 1969 and did not retire until the end of 1973, aged 83.

He was also in demand as an arbitrator. In addition, he was Chancellor of the University of the Witwatersrand and involved in other academic and charitable work.

These were the high points. There was sadness as well.

Edna died in 1962. In 1973, Oliver himself suffered a stroke but made a good recovery. In April 1980, he had a heart attack. Again he recovered and was able to go for walks as he had throughout his life. On the Sunday morning of 27 July, he died sitting in his favourite chair.

His Honour David Paget �� Source: Fiat Justitia: Essays in Memory of Oliver Deneys Schreiner, Edited by Ellison Kahn, Professor of Law in the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, published by Juta and Co Ltd (1983). The book contains a long biographical note by Ellison Kahn who knew Oliver Schreiner well.

INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Temple Church Choir ‘Parish Notices’

By Roger Sayer, Director of Music and Organist

N

o sooner had the vapour trail of the Magna Carta disappeared into the horizon, the Temple Church Choir headed off to Holland for a marvellous week of sell-out concerts. Since then, the engine has been on full tilt.

In the past year, the choir has broadcast twice on Radio 3, once on Classic FM, spent a creative working weekend in Felden Lodge, taken part in a 12 hour music marathon, given a world premiere of John Rutter’s new choral work Visions and recorded it, made a new CD, beaten the Chapel Royal Choristers at football and embarked on a two-week tour to Australia and Singapore.

I myself have recorded the 20 organ sonatas of Josef Rheinberger and collaborated on an album with the Latin American rapper René Perez.

Since their introduction last October, the weekly Choral Evensongs have become a popular addition to our musical life, providing a haven for many in the middle of a busy working week. The Temple Singers, who are our equivalent to the Tallis Scholars (some of whom sing with such ensembles), provide the music for 75 per cent of these services.

There is a real buzz in the choir which is fuelled by these diverse activities and which, in turn, provide stimulus to strive for excellence and act as outreach for future chorister recruitment. Much of this work is undertaken by 18 immensely talented boys, who fulfil these duties with professionalism and energy, despite the ever increasing pressures at school. Here, in the ‘back row’, you find some

of the finest choral singers in London providing the highest level of support to the boys. Whilst we almost never see the same group at the same time, the ensemble and musical cohesion is outstanding. Although we are busy with extracurricular activities, it is the weekly choral offering that is our raison d’être.

The organ in Temple Church has been famous for years but now it is having a renaissance following the most successful rebuild in 2013. Every Wednesday for 30 minutes a concert is given by some of the finest players, both nationally and internationally. Our own team of organists, Greg Morris and George Inscoe, provide the highest quality of playing week by week, as well as providing training to the younger choristers. Greg, too, has a diverse career in both playing and conducting, directing the hugely popular Bar Choral Society and Collegium Musicum of London Chamber Choir. His organ recital, broadcast live on Radio 3 last year, proved that he is a player of international standing. George is our organ scholar who has just completed his second year at the Royal Academy of Music. We have extended his scholarship for another year.

The Inns are hugely generous in their support of the choir. I hope that, in turn, our efforts and ambitions provide a national and international mouthpiece for the Inns, wherever we may be or in whatever we might do.

Roger Sayer

125

126

INNER TEMPLE MAGNA CARTA

Magna Carta: Did She Die in Vain?

From a lecture given by The Rt Hon The Baroness Hale of Richmond ��� ��� on 19 October 2015

M

y title comes from Hancock’s Half Hour, where Tony Hancock mimics the role of Henry Fonda in Twelve Angry Men. “Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you?”, he asks. “Did she die in vain?

That brave Hungarian peasant girl who forced King John to sign the pledge at Runnymede and close the boozers at half past ten.” If that were indeed what the King had agreed to, she would certainly have died in vain, now that the boozers can stay open much later but many are closing because alcohol is so cheaply available in retail outlets that people do not feel the need to go out to drink.

I want to explore the contemporary relevance of the Magna Carta. Judicial decorum dictates that I should do so without entering into party political controversy. I approach that delicate task through three other anniversaries which are celebrated this year.

The three great pillars of modern constitutionalism – the liberties of the individual, the consent of the people to taxation and other burdens, and the rule of law – all beg the question: what is the law and who makes it? The answer was certainly not clear in 1215. But where stand those three great ideas today?

As to the first, I ask where we are with the idea of such rights. Where better to look than Entick v Carrington, the 250th anniversary of which we celebrate this year.

It concerned the delicate balance between the needs of effective government and the freedom of individuals to oppose such government.

The events that culminated in Entick v Carrington all began with a series of cases prompted by issue 45 of The North Briton, a weekly news-sheet which was highly critical of the King and his government. The anonymous author, John Wilkes MP, countered the plea in the King’s speech to Parliament for “that spirit of concord, and that obedience to the laws, which is essential to good order”, with the retort that the “spirit of liberty” should rise up in proportion to the grievance they felt, “freedom is the English subject’s Prerogative.”

Lord Halifax, Secretary of State, issued a general warrant.

Wilkes and a number of printers and apprentices were rounded up, eventually achieving their release and brought actions for false imprisonment and trespass. The juries found for the plaintiffs and awarded them large sums in damages.

In none of these cases was the issue of the legality of such warrants clearly raised and decided, although both Chief Justice Pratt and Lord Mansfield expressed the view that they were not. The result was that it became unsafe to rely on general warrants and no more were issued.

Matters came to a head with Entick v Carrington. Halifax had issued a specific warrant, authorising Carrington and three other King’s messengers to search for the plaintiff, to seize and apprehend him, and bring him together with his books and papers before the Secretary of State to be

examined concerning his authorship of The Monitor, another weekly news-sheet.

The jury found that the messengers had broken and entered the plaintiff’s house, had searched, and seized some of his books and papers. They had also seized the plaintiff, who had then been released on bail, and was released a few months later. This was all part of the government strategy.

They did not generally plan to prosecute for sedition, merely to harass and disrupt publication. Cleverly, Entick’s claim was not for false imprisonment, but for trespass to land and goods. The jury returned a special verdict, setting out the facts and asking whether the search and seizure in pursuance of the warrant were lawful; if not, they awarded £300 in damages. This time, the issue of the legality could not be avoided. Lord Camden, as Chief Justice Pratt had become, was determined to decide it. The court found for the plaintiff.

The real gravamen was the interference with privacy, a clear foretaste of the “right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence”, now protected by article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The court also held that where torts had been committed, there was no defence of state necessity. There could be limits placed on liberty, for it must not become licentiousness, but if Parliament wanted to permit the seizure of seditious libels before they were published, it would have to legislate to do so.

Entick v Carrington provides the link between the first great idea in Magna Carta and the present day. It recognised that governmental power must not only be exercised in accordance with the law, but that the object of the law is to avoid the arbitrary and capricious use of power, and that there must be proper judicial safeguards for that purpose. All of these principles are with us to this day. They are enshrined in the ECHR. But we should not forget that these principles are also enshrined in the common law.

That brings me to the second great idea traceable to Magna Carta. The King promised not to violate the rights of free men except by the lawful judgment of his peers or the law of the land. The King also promised not to levy taxes without consent, save in very limited customary circumstances.

Another anniversary which we are celebrating this year is the 750th anniversary of Simon de Montfort’s second Parliament in 1265, often thought of as the first real Parliament. No doubt many kings would have done without Parliament if they could. But the reality was that they needed Parliament’s consent if they were to raise the taxes they needed to wage their wars. It took the upheavals of the 17th Century, culminating in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, for it to be finally established that “levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative without grant of Parliament … is illegal.” The Glorious Revolution also finally established that the King could not suspend or dispense with

MAGNA CARTA: DID SHE DIE IN VAIN? INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

the law, and that only the King in Parliament could make new laws.

In most other countries there is a superior law, a Constitution or a Bill or Charter of Rights, which limits the powers of the legislature to pass laws which infringe such fundamental rights. But I doubt whether most of us, brought up on the doctrine that “Parliament can make or unmake any law”, would want it any different. The sovereignty of Parliament should, of course, place a heavy burden on Parliament to legislate with great care when fundamental rights are at stake.

The third great idea which we can trace back before Magna Carta is the rule of law. Its essence lies in two principles. The first is that everyone is subject to the law, the governors as well as the governed. The King and his officers had to act within the limits of what the law allowed.

There is another aspect to the rule of law, derived from Magna Carta’s most famous guarantee: “We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man right or justice.”

In modern terms, everyone has the right to access to justice. It is a core function of the modern state to provide such access.

In a speech to the Commonwealth Magistrates and Judges’ Association, the Lord Chief Justice recently commented that government and Parliament may not fully understand how important access to justice is to the maintenance of the rule of law. It is the role of leadership judges to engage with them both, and with the public, to try and explain. Here is my attempt to do so.

The importance of affording a fair trial to persons accused of crime is not always obvious. All too often, our trial processes seem to the Great British public to result in the acquittal of the guilty. But a large part of the importance of a fair criminal process is to reassure the law-abiding: if we obey the law, we shall not be punished. If there is a risk of arbitrary and unjust punishment, what incentive is there to obey the law? In this connection, therefore, it is important to scrutinise any incentive to persons accused of crime to admit their guilt to police officers, or to plead guilty in court, in order to ensure that they do not place improper or unfair pressure on the innocent.

The importance of ensuring that people who have civil claims can also have access to justice to enforce or vindicate them is also not always obvious. Sometimes we in the justice system have only ourselves to blame. In my own world of

family law, we have been so keen to encourage separating parents or spouses to settle things between themselves that we may have neglected those who cannot, or cannot reasonably be expected to, do so. It is all very well to promote family mediation. As President of National Family Mediation I am naturally a supporter. But mediation can only work fairly and properly if it is backed up by the knowledge on both sides that a fair and just system of adjudication will be available if it fails. Otherwise, the bully will always win.

Where the family justice system led, the civil justice system soon followed. Fighting in court is to be avoided if at all possible. Alternative dispute resolution processes are to be encouraged. However, people and businesses need to know, on the one hand, that they will be able to enforce their debts and their civil claims if they have to do so, and, on the other hand, that if they fail to meet their obligations, there is likely to be a remedy against them.

For example, we can argue about whether or not it should be unlawful to sack a woman just because she is pregnant. But for as long as we have such a law, she has to have a realistic possibility of bringing a claim if the law is broken. It cannot be right effectively to subvert such a law by making it practically impossible to assert the rights which it gives her. Once again, I make no comment on whether the levels at which court and tribunal fees are now set is an unfair deterrent to those who seek access to justice to vindicate their claims. The point is that if Magna Carta is to mean anything today, right or justice must not be unfairly denied to anyone.

As well as being the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, the 250th anniversary of Entick v Carrington, and the 750th anniversary of the de Montfort Parliament, this is also the 15th anniversary of the coming into force of the Human Rights Act, which has reinforced the great ideas of Magna Carta in many ways, and we all hope and expect that those great ideas will be at the forefront of any proposals for reform.

I ask again: did that brave Hungarian peasant girl die in vain? I think not. The pledges which she made King John sign remain the basic principles of our Constitution today. But we all have to be alert to maintain those principles in the face of the very different risks and complexities of the modern world.

The Rt Hon the Baroness Hale of Richmond ��� ���, Deputy President of the Supreme Court

Credit: Hulton Archive/Getty

DOES MAGNA CARTA MEAN NOTHING TO YOU? DID SHE DIE IN VAIN? THAT BRAVE HUNGARIAN PEASANT GIRL WHO FORCED KING JOHN TO SIGN THE PLEDGE AT RUNNYMEDE AND CLOSE THE BOOZERS AT HALF PAST TEN.

127

128

INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE

Master Penry-Davey

High Court judge who sat on the appeal by the father of the murdered toddler James Bulger to block his killers’ release.

T

he muggers got more than they bargained for when they picked on Sir David Penry-Davey. The six-anda-half-foot tall High Court judge was beaten to the ground as five assailants stole his wallet and mobile phone near his south London home at West Dulwich station.

Undaunted, Penry-Davey, then 58, commandeered a passing car and asked the driver to follow the men in an attempt to apprehend them. He recovered his lost items, and at least one mugger was later caught and convicted.

The incident only occurred because of his love of a party: Penry-Davey had bumped into fellow judge, then Mrs Justice Hallett, who was off to an all-female dinner. He looked so sad at the prospect of being excluded that she invited him for one drink – which became several. Hence the next day he was taking the train, having had to leave his car behind.

The episode typified his ‘can do’ attitude, whether at work or play, through his career as a criminal barrister to being a High Court judge and to his final illness. Only when his Parkinson’s became a distraction did he step down. Until then, he would just tell juries to ignore any tremor – he was on top of the case. Among the many he sat on was the appeal in 2001 by the father of the murdered toddler James Bulger, who tried to block the killers’ release.

David Penry-Davey was born in Farnham in 1942 to Lorna and Samuel Saunders Watson Penry-Davey. His father was a solicitor and gifted after-dinner speaker, a talent his son would inherit.

Penry-Davey grew up with his three younger sisters in St Leonards-on-Sea, where he developed a passion for swimming and surfing in ice-cold water. At Hastings Grammar he was a thin gangly teenager, embarrassed at the height that would later make him a towering presence in court.

In 1969, he met Judy Walter, then a drama teacher, and marched home to say he had met the girl he intended to marry, which they did in May 1970. The same year they bought their house in West Dulwich, where they remained and brought up their three children.

DPD, as he was known, read law at King’s College London, then went to the Bar and remained with the same chambers, now at 2–3 Gray’s Inn Square. He loved Bar life and was one of a triumvirate of characters, with Anthony Scrivener, QC and Tony Hidden, QC, who became leading lights.

He practised for 32 years, becoming a recorder in 1986, Queen’s Counsel in 1988, leader of the South Eastern Circuit in 1992, chairman of the Bar in 1996 and a High Court judge the next year. Both as counsel and a judge, Penry-Davey’s overriding qualities were integrity and fairness. He was a workaholic but not showily so, a modest man who never point-scored.

With his prodigious energy, he thought nothing of attending a heavy trial at Lewes, driving to Norwich to give a speech, and then driving back to Lewes the next morning for the trial.

He was unstuffy, with an irrepressible sense of humour and fun. A clue was in his loud shirts and brightly coloured socks. He loved the crafting and delivering of the spoken word, yet his eloquence did not always succeed: he was defence counsel for an alleged murderer where his submissions left the jury in such a quandary that they used a Ouija board to try to contact the victim for guidance.

He lived with Parkinson’s for 13 years, working as a judge for eight years after receiving the diagnosis, and he became a trustee of the Cure Parkinson’s Trust. In recent months, life became tougher, but he and Judy went to Cornwall, where they “collected sunsets.” He still insisted on outdoor swimming at the local lido, taken by his eldest son, Matthew, a film director. Caroline, his daughter, is head of learning development at a school in Surrey. James, the youngest, is a solicitor and partner at Capsticks. PenryDavey’s last outing, a week before his death, was to see the film Everest, on which Matthew had worked.

Golf, music, cycling and fell-walking were his other great loves. To the end, he could stagger to the piano where his hands would lose their tremor as he played.

Sir David Penry-Davey, High Court judge, was born on 16 May 1942. He died of a heart attack on 10 October 2015, aged 73.

Courtesy of The Times

INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

In Praise of Inner Temple Golf – and its Society

By Master Hodge

T

he roll of honour of Inner Temple golfers continues to build.

The big event of the year for the golfing societies of all the Inns of Court is the Scrutton Cup. The first match was played at Woking Golf Club in 1921 and was won by Inner Temple. Since then, Inner has won 31 times; Lincoln’s Inn 23 times; Middle Temple 20 times; and Gray’s Inn 14 times.

In 2015, Inner Temple was again victorious. Under the watchful eye of Master Akenhead, the Society’s Captain in 2015, the team cruised to easy victories over Gray’s Inn and Lincoln’s Inn to clinch the trophy once more. Members of the winning team: Master Christie, Master Chadwick, Master Ross, Master Akenhead, Master Raggatt, Master Charlton, Master Hodge, Patrick McMorrow, Judge Philip St John Stevens, Mark Shaw QC, Jill Frances, Neil King QC, Jonathan Waite QC and Lizzie White. Thanks must also go to the Team Psychologist, Graham Rose.

To celebrate the victory, a dinner took place in the Inn in March 2016, which was a most splendid occasion.

Master Nick Coleman generously hosted a drinks reception before the meal. The Sub-Treasurer’s Grace, Oratio Imperiale Hodgensiensis, was majestic; and Master Akenhead’s speech about the ill-fated Inner Temple Golfing Society tour to South Africa in 1884 was one of the best Captain’s speeches ever delivered.

Further Society celebrations took place on 1 April 2016, when the wonderful Master Macpherson (or ‘Bill’ as he likes to be known) turned 90 years of age. He has been a stalwart of the Society for many years and hosted a number of parties for Inner Temple golfers at his home in Blairgowrie on previous Scottish tours.

The 2016 golfing season began with the Spring Meeting on Maundy Thursday at Worplesdon Golf Club, generously hosted by this year’s Captain, Patrick McMorrow, and his wife, Sarah. This was a new venue for the Society and members enjoyed a wonderful golf course and excellent hospitality.

Thomas Brudenell won the Captain’s Prize with 38 Stableford points. After lunch, Master Jeremy Carey and Judge Phillip Matthews triumphed in the Sir Ian Percival Salver with 27 Stableford points. For a moment, Master Chadwick was ecstatic and beamed like a Cheshire cat when he thought

“ For a moment, Master Chadwick was ecstatic and beamed like a Cheshire cat when he thought he had won the ‘longest drive’ prize. However, due to an administrative error on the part of the Honorary Secretary (yours truly), this was sadly not the case.”

129

130

INNER TEMPLE IN PRAISE OF INNER TEMPLE GOLF – AND ITS SOCIETY

Left to right: Master Chadwick at the Half Way House, Master Penry-Davey, Master Macpherson at 90, Master Akenhead & Patrick McMorrow, Lizzie White hits a crisp iron into the green

he had won the ‘longest drive’ prize. However, due to an administrative error on the part of the Honorary Secretary (yours truly), this was sadly not the case.

In April, members of the Society headed to Norfolk for the annual match against Hunstanton Golf Club. On a cold and windy day, Hunstanton emerged victorious by a margin of 11 points to 4. As always, Master Nick Coleman arranged a fine dinner in the clubhouse and ensured that festivities went on well into the small hours.

In May, the annual match against the Circuit Judges was held at New Zealand Golf Club and the result was a halved match.

Since 1994, the Society has had a biennial event in the form of a week’s golfing tour of Scotland. This year’s tour in August 2016 will take in a number of courses in the far north – Spey Valley, Castle Stuart (which hosts the Scottish Open in 2016), Brora, Dornoch, Nairn and Boat of Garten.

Following the Scottish tour, the remaining fixtures for 2016 include the Autumn Meeting, the Scrutton Cup and a match between Bench and Hall, all of which take place in September. As is now customary, the season will end with the Honorary Secretary’s Grouse Grope in December.

Now some sad news. In October 2015, the Society lost one of its greatest stalwarts. After a long battle with illness, our beloved Master Penry-Davey passed away.

The view at Castle Stuart Golf Club

David, or ‘DPD’ as he was known to many, won the Bar Golf Tournament in 1974, was Captain of the Inner Temple Golfing Society in 1989/1990, Captain of the Bar Golfing Society in 2000 and served as President of the Inner Temple Golfing Society from 2010 until 2015. He was the most wonderful golfing companion, both on the course and in the bar afterwards, and would always deliver the most wonderful after-dinner speeches.

I recall some years ago, David was asked to deliver the speech after dinner on the Saturday night of a Wotton House Advocacy Training Weekend. Needless to say, he had done his preparation, as he had noted that a large number of the advocacy trainers present were also members of the Inner Temple Golfing Society. One by one, he systematically ripped us to shreds and made audience members cry with laughter.

He is sorely missed by us all.

Finally, all golfing members of the Inner Temple are both eligible and welcome to take part in the Society’s programme of events. If you are, or might be, interested in joining the ITGS, please do not hesitate to contact me at hodge@5essexcourt.co.uk.

Master Hodge

INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

LONDON’S SPECIALIST CLEANERS FOR THE LEGAL SECTOR

With 20+ years’ experience, we are proud to be the specialist legal cleaning partner for the Inner Temple and other prestigious legal businesses in London. If you require London’s best cleaning for your premises then do not hestitate to get in touch.

ENQUIRE NOW FOR A NO OBLIGATION QUOTE ...................................

call us on: 020 7819 6700

We have been very impressed with the standard and quality of work which has quickly made Julius Rutherfoord a much respected and integral partner.

Director of Properties The Honourable Society of the Inner Temple

“

“

The Tramshed 12 Ingate Place London SW8 3NS

www.julius-r.co.uk T: 020 7819 6700 | E: sales@julius-r.co.uk

INNER TEMPLE CHRISTMAS CARDS For more details and to order visit the Inn Store at www.innertemple.org.uk or contact the Treasury Office on 020 7797 8250

CardsAd_02.indd 1

26/08/2016 17:29

131

132

INNER TEMPLE FIRST WORLD WAR

‘Help Me to Die, O Lord’ – the First Day of the Somme, 1 July 1916

By The Master of the Temple

A

t Choral Evensong on 29 June, we remembered the first day of the Somme with readings from some diaries, letters and later accounts of those who were there.

The Allies’ bombardment of the German positions began at 5.00 am on 24 June 1916. It could be heard and felt in Kent. It was intended to cut the wire in no-man’s-land, destroy the Germans’ trenches and kill any Germans who did not retreat. In every purpose, it failed. Between 30 per cent and 60 per cent of the ordinance failed to explode; the shells into no-man’s-land were ill-equipped to cut the wire; the German dugouts were too deep and well-built to be destroyed.

General Sir Douglas Haig wrote to his wife on 30 June 1916. “The attack is to go in tomorrow morning at 7.30. I feel that everything possible for us to do to achieve success has been done. But whether or not we are successful lies in the Power above. But I do feel that in my plans I have been helped by a Power that is not my own. So I am easy in my mind and ready to do my best whatever happens tomorrow.”

An unnamed 19-year-old member of B Company, the Lonsdales, described going over the top.

“What a long quarter of an hour it seemed to me. I wished hundreds of times it was up, every minute seemed like an hour. My heart thumped so hard I am sure it could be heard, but others must have felt the same as nobody commented on it. All talking stopped and to this day I can’t say for sure whether the order came to fix bayonets or not, I was so worked up. The suspense ended with the command, ‘Come on, “B” boys, get out’. I set my teeth and jumped out of the trench and followed the rest in single file. Captain H was standing at the edge of the trench, the same old smile on his face and as cool as if he was on parade.

“Within moments a machine gun somewhere opened out. A bullet burned at the back of my neck. My best pal

dropped, I looked back to see if he was wounded or what, he raised himself up on his hand, gave a smile and then drooped back – he gave a shudder and lay still. I knew he was out. This lad was only 17 … We had barely gone another five yards when it seemed to rain bullets, it was hell let loose. The Corporal dropped, shot through the hand. I made one dive for a shell hole for cover. A few more dropped beside me; we stayed there for a moment, we had only got to our feet again when those cursed machine guns opened up worse than ever.”

The German 180th Regiment in the Ovillers sector was facing the 8th Division. Its Maxim guns fired 500 rounds per minute at an optimum range of 2,000 yards. A report survives from the German trenches.

“The intense bombardment was realised by all to be the prelude to an infantry assault sooner or later. At 7.30 am the hurricane of shells ceased as suddenly as it had begun.

Our men at once clambered up the steep shafts leading from the dugouts to daylight and ran singly or in groups to the nearest shell craters. The machine guns were pulled out of the dugouts and hurriedly placed in position. As soon as the men were in position, a series of extended lines of infantry were seen moving forward from the British trenches. The first line appeared to continue without end to right and left. It was followed quickly by a second line, then a third and fourth. They came on at a steady easy pace as if expecting to find nothing alive in our front trenches.

A few moments later, when the leading British line was within a hundred yards, the rattle of machine gun and rifle fire broke out along the whole line of shell-holes. Red rockets flew up into the blue sky as a signal to the artillery, and immediately afterwards a mass of shell from the German batteries tore through the air and burst among the advancing lines. Whole sections seemed to fall and the

The Members of Inner and Middle Temple who died at the Somme on the Battle’s first Day, 1 July 1916.

Arthur Bonham-Carter, Captain, 1 Battalion Hampshire Regiment. Inner Temple.

Hugh Cloudesley, Lieutenant, 7 Battalion Royal West Surrey Regiment. Inner Temple.

Leslie Ekin, Second Lieutenant, York and Lancaster Regiment. Middle Temple.

C L Hart, Captain, 3 Battalion West Riding Regiment. Inner Temple.

Henry Maclean, Captain, 9 Battalion Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers. Middle Temple.

Sidney Martin, Lieutenant, 6 Battalion Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers. Inner Temple.

William Meeke, Captain, 2 Battalion Middlesex Regiment. Middle Temple.

Alfred Ratcliffe, Lieutenant, 10 Battalion West Yorkshire Regiment. Inner Temple.

Maxwell Robertson, Captain, 10 Battalion Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers. Inner Temple.

‘HELP ME TO DIE, O LORD’ INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

rear formations, moving in closer order, quickly scattered.

The advance rapidly crumbled under this hail of shell and bullets. All along the line men could be seen throwing up their arms and collapsing, never to move again.

“The British soldier, however, has no lack of courage, and once his hand is set to the plough he is not easily turned from his purpose. The extended lines, though badly shaken and with many gaps, now came on all the faster. Instead of a leisurely walk they covered the ground in short rushes at the double. Within a few minutes the leading troops had advanced to within a stone’s throw of our front trench, and whilst some of us continued to fire at point-blank range, others threw hand grenades among them. The British bombers answered back, whilst the infantry rushed forward with fixed bayonets. The noise of battle became indescribable. The shouting of orders and the shrill cheers as the British charged forward could be heard above the violent and intense fusillade of machine guns and rifles and bursting bombs, and above the thunderings of the artillery and shell explosions. With all this were mingled the moans and groans of the wounded, the cries for help and the last screams of death. Again and again the extended lines of British infantry broke against the German defence like waves against a cliff, only to be beaten back. It was an amazing spectacle of unexampled gallantry, courage and bulldog determination on both sides.”

Percy Crozier, 36th Division, was at Thiepval.

“I see rows upon rows of British soldiers lying dead, dying or wounded, in no-man’s-land. Here and there I see an officer urging on his followers. Occasionally I can see the hands thrown up and then a body flops to the ground. The bursting shells and smoke make visibility poor … Again I look southward from a different angle and perceive heaped up masses of British corpses suspended on the German wire in front of the Thiepval stronghold, while live men rush forward in orderly procession to swell the weight of numbers in the spider’s web.”

On 1 July, 120,000 men went over the top from the British lines. By the end of the day, 19,240 had been killed, 35,494 wounded and 585 captured; 2,152 were missing. The Germans lost 10–12,000 men. The disaster did deliver one almost immediate result in the Allies’ favour. Day 1 of the Somme was Day 132 at Verdun, from which the Somme diverted vital German forces. From 2 July, heavy batteries were being transferred to the Somme; on 11 July, General von Falkenhayn ordered the army at Verdun to go onto “the strict defensive” thanks to “the crisis in the Somme battle”.

The Somme was co-ordinated with Russian and Italian offensives; General Ludendorff admitted that even German troops might not be able to withstand sustained “Somme fighting” on three fronts. More significant, in the long term, would be the tactical lessons learnt over the following weeks

by British high command: improvements in the design and efficiency of ordinance, new rules for the infantry’s advance, and the introduction of the creeping barrage and of the tank.

Lieutenant-General Hunter-Weston commanded VIII Corps, which incorporated 4th, 29th and 31st Divisions. On the evening of 1 July, he issued a brisk communiqué to his own officers: “All observers agree in stating that the various waves of men issued from their trenches and moved forward at the appointed time in perfect order, undismayed by the heavy artillery fire and deadly machine gun fire. There were no cowards or waverers, and not a man fell out. It was a magnificent display of disciplined courage worthy of the

Before Action

By Lieutenant William Noel Hodgson, MC, published on 29 June 1916 in the weekly paper The New Witness, two days before he went into action with the 9th Battalion the Devonshire Regiment on 1 July 1916.

By all the glories of the day And the cool evening’s benison By that last sunset touch that lay Upon the hills when day was done, By beauty lavishly outpoured And blessings carelessly received, By all the days that I have lived Make me a soldier, Lord.

By all of all man’s hopes and fears And all the wonders poets sing, The laughter of unclouded years, And every sad and lovely thing; By the romantic ages stored With high endeavour that was his, By all his mad catastrophes Make me a man, O Lord.

I, that on my familiar hill Saw with uncomprehending eyes A hundred of thy sunsets spill Their fresh and sanguine sacrifice, Ere the sun swings his noonday sword Must say good-bye to all of this; By all delights that I shall miss, Help me to die, O Lord.

Lieutenant Hodgson was killed on 1 July.

best traditions of the British race… We have got to stick it out, and go on hammering. Next time we attack, if it please God, we will not pull our weight, but will pull off a big thing … I rejoice to have the privilege of commanding such a band of heroes as the VIII Corps have proved themselves to be.”

More poignant testimony were the occasional truces on 2 July, in which the dead and wounded could be collected from no-man’s-land. One account may stand for many and end this dark story with a glimmer of light. Lieutenant Harry Siepmann – a Londoner and Oxford graduate of German descent – saw the wounded, caught in the German wire, being picked off

by German snipers. Two men suddenly climbed out of the British trenches, without even a white flag.

“A stretcher was passed up to them and they proceeded to carry it ploddingly into no-man’s-land. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of eyes must have been upon them, and all firing of any sort ceased. Complete, uneasy silence descended like a pall, as the two men trudged steadily on and stopped beside a body lying on the ground. They lifted it onto the stretcher and plodded slowly back, the way they had come. The silence remained unbroken, until they were safe, and then the war was resumed.”

The Rev’d Robin Griffith-Jones For the passages quoted, I am indebted to Andrew Roberts, Elegy: the First Day on the Somme (2015) and Richard van Emden, Meeting the Enemy: the Human Face of the Great War (2013).

133

134

INNER TEMPLE LECTURE SERIES

Privacy and the Media From a lecture given by Dr Paul Wragg on 24 May 2016

A

fter a period of relative quiet, the misuse of private information tort has become front-page news again.

The press clamour to unmask the mysterious PJS, the unknown celebrity, who engaged in a threesome.

This, the press tells us, is a matter of great public interest, because this celebrity has deceived us all by playing happy families in public. On 24 April 2016, The Sun on Sunday exclaimed bitterly: “If this is not a matter of public interest, then what is?”

Apparently, one matter that is definitely not of public interest is John Whittingdale MP’s love life. He may have had a relationship with a woman whom he later discovered to be a dominatrix. We were told by the press on 12 April 2016 that this is not a matter of public interest because John Whittingdale was single at the time, a grown man, and entitled to do whatever he wanted to do in his private life.

By 16 April 2016, his sex life had become a matter of great public interest. He also had a relationship with a woman, who we are told is a former glamour model, who may have seen confidential government papers.

This was of such public interest that one newspaper felt justified in telling us not only of this incident, but also of a few others: the fact that Mr Whittingdale and his girlfriend had been thrown out of the Savoy Hotel for drunken, heavy petting; that Mr Whittingdale likes to wear a blue silk kimono to breakfast; and that he once took his girlfriend to the Commons, and then groped her, but only after he turned the light off to make sure they were not captured on CCTV. I have shared these images because I want to talk about the judicial task in determining misuse of private information claims, to put ourselves in the shoes of the judge.

The starting point is the decision in Campbell v MGN Ltd. Naomi Campbell found herself at the centre of a media storm, not dissimilar to the one that PJS is now facing, where she was outed by a newspaper for the fact that she was attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings. In the newspaper’s eyes, this was a matter of public interest because Naomi Campbell had lied to us.

Campbell gave us the misuse of private information tort, and it also gave us the essentials of the test to apply. The test has two parts: first, that it must be shown the information at stake generates a reasonable expectation of privacy. Once this threshold has been passed, the second part of the test should be considered: which of the two competing claims is the stronger, the public interest in the privacy of the claimant, or the public interest in disclosure of the information? Lord

Photo: Lenscap Photography / Shutterstock.com

Hoffman says in Campbell that the ultimate question must be whether there is sufficient public interest to justify curtailment of the conflicting right.

A neglected issue within this tort is the question of how a court is to determine the magnitude of the public interest in the privacy-invading expression, in order to conduct the balancing test properly. What we need to know is why press freedom is of such magnitude that it should overrule, that it should be treated as stronger than the privacy claim.

By examining the case law, we find that the court can make some very fine distinctions about the value of the privacy claim that is before it. In Murray v Express Newspapers plc, the court is instructed to take into account the attributes of the claimant, the nature of the activity that the claimant was engaged in, the place at which this activity was engaged, the nature and the purpose of the intrusion by the newspapers, the effect of this intrusion on the claimant, the circumstances in which the defendant acquired the information. It is for us to examine the facts and come up with very detailed assessments of the impacts on the claimant’s life, the impact on their family. From that we can envisage the court assigning some kind of hypothetical value to the privacy claim.

When we turn to the other side, we think about the public interest in the privacy-invading expression. What is missing from the case law is a set of principles that tells us how to evaluate the magnitude of the public interest.

The problem stems from Campbell itself. Campbell gives us a very interesting promise – this new privacy right is so strong that it is capable of protecting private information of public interest. But the court reached that decision by coming up with five discrete items of information. The court then went through them and decided if there is a public interest in each.

There was a public interest in knowing that she had taken drugs, so she had lied to us. There was a public interest in knowing that she was receiving treatment. But there was no public interest in knowing the details of that treatment, and there was no public interest in the photographs, the intrusive photographs taken of her leaving that treatment.

When we look at other cases, we can see this pattern repeated.

AAA v Associated Newspapers Ltd concerned a well-known politician who had an affair and

PRIVACY AND THE MEDIA INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

produced a child. The mother complained when a story about this appeared in the newspaper, alongside a photograph of the child.

The Court of Appeal found that there was no public interest in the photograph of the child, but there was a public interest in the story. The court commented on what it saw to be a very valuable balancing exercise by the judge at first instance. But I can see no balancing exercise taking place.

I see the application of a rule that says the outcome of a misuse of private information claim depends entirely on whether there is a public interest at stake in the information before the court. If there is a public interest in the information at stake, then the privacy claim will fail; if there is no public interest in the information at stake, then the privacy claim will succeed. But I do not see any underlying principles that explain to the court how it is to value the magnitude of the public interest.

I am referring to the work of John Stuart Mill. I am not suggesting that we should just import John Stuart Mill into our jurisprudence. I am suggesting that this kind of approach, where we think about whether the information is presented in such a way that would be unjustifiably coercive, gives us a good starting point to overcome the problem that I have described.

Coercion in Mill’s sense includes the moral coercion of the popular press, the moral coercion of adverse public opinion, and it calls to mind what the court is getting at in Weller and YXB. There was no unjustifiable coercion as far as the court was concerned in YXB, because the story, as embarrassing as it was, had no discernible impact on YXB and his family. But it was unjustifiably coercive with the Weller family.

This lends credence to the idea that protection for public interest expression ends when the defendant unjustifiably provokes the claimant into an effective withdrawal from

“ Rather than considering the magnitude of the public interest, the courts ought to consider whether the public interest expression was coercive or not.”

The solution lies in examining the case law. Compare two recent decisions: YXB v TNO and Weller and Associated Newspapers Ltd. YXB is a decision that is not for the faint-hearted. It is a case, as all of them seem to be, about a Premier League footballer misbehaving. This Premier League footballer misbehaves at his club’s Christmas party. He is a married Premier League footballer. He meets a woman there. They go to a hotel room. The decision gives pretty graphic information. Interestingly, the court decided that YXB was not entitled to an injunction. The main reason was that YXB had not presented witness evidence that explained the harm that would be caused to him and his family life through the publication of this information. There is clearly embarrassing information, or certainly very graphic information, which has no perceivable effect, or no documented effect, on the claimant.

Contrast that with Weller. The newspaper published photographs of Paul Weller and his family enjoying a day out, with pictures of him with his child. But Paul Weller and his family were successful. It is a great stretch to say the information is embarrassing or graphic, yet the court accepted the evidence that the effect on the family was harmful.

The comparison brings to mind a very well-established liberal principle that all expression should be free, by and large, unless we can show that that expression is unjustifiably coercive.

society, or causes them to modify their behaviour in order to bring the unwanted scrutiny to an end.

Rather than considering the magnitude of the public interest, the courts ought to consider whether the public interest expression was coercive or not. If it was coercive, then the court should think about the reasons for that coercion.

This should require the court to consider the impact of the claimant’s behaviour on society.

The fact that an MP allows his girlfriend the potential opportunity to read his papers might be something for which the newspapers should be able to coerce him – perhaps coerce him into resignation. Unauthorised access to state information is a problem that society should be able to prevent.

I suggest, though, that a celebrity who has a threesome with his or her partner’s knowledge and apparent blessing is really not something that impacts on societal progress. It may be that it is in the public interest for us to know that this celebrity may or may not have lied to us as a public – but that interest should not justify the coercive behaviour that we have seen in the case of PJS. It should not justify a press hounding of this individual to reveal his true identity or suffer the consequences. Privacy law should not be about determining the magnitude of the public interest at stake. It should be a matter of the court determining the legitimacy of the press causing real harm to real people.

Dr Paul Wragg School of Law, University of Leeds The full version of this lecture is available at www.innertemple.org.uk/education/lecture-series-2016

135

INNER TEMPLE

Erskine Childers

In the anniversary year of the Easter Risings, the Inner Temple Archivist, Celia Pilkington, examines the life of Erskine Childers, author of The Riddle of the Sands.

E

rskine Childers must be the only member of this Inn to whose CV the title ‘gunrunner’ might truthfully be added. It was Childers who supplied the arms for the 1916 Easter Rising, which led to Ireland’s civil war and eventually to its independence.

His life has variously been described as a riddle and an enigma, and at least two biographers have sought to explain how a committed imperialist who was raised in the heart of the British establishment became a martyr in a violent cause that was not his own. Charged with possessing illegal arms during the Irish Civil War, he was executed in 1923 on the orders of the newly formed Irish Free State.

The son of a prominent English orientalist, Childers had an unremarkable upper-middle-class upbringing. He was born in Mayfair in 1870. His mother belonged to the Barton family, part of the Protestant Ascendancy, whose seat was at Glendalough in County Wicklow. They were described by one biographer as a fared themselves Irish but were “proud to be part of the British Empire and any suggestion of Irish nationalism was anathema to them. ” Their nearest neighbours in Ireland were the Parnells with whom they were close, but they fell out when Charles Parnell became leader of the Irish Home Rule movement.

Both Childers’s parents succumbed to TB and he was sent to live at his mother’s estate in Ireland when only six years old. His schooling followed a typical establishment trajectory. He was schooled at Haileybury, which specialised in training youngsters for the colonial service, and he was awarded an exhibition at Trinity, Cambridge, to read Classics and later law.

He was admitted to the Inner Temple in 1892 but was not called to the Bar. It is possible that his admission merely allowed him to avail himself of the Inn’s numerous useful facilities, as he was resident at 2 Mitre Court Buildings from 1894 to 1896. He went on to fight in the Boer War as a volunteer in the Honourable Artillery Company.

In 1903, he published the fiercely patriotic novel The Riddle of the Sands, which many consider one of the finest adventure stories ever written.

136

During his early life, there is no indication that he was anything other than a keen supporter of home rule. This measure was due to be introduced under the Government of Ireland Act in 1914 but the First World War led to it being suspended for the duration. In the end, the Easter Rising delayed and nearly cancelled its implementation.

It is unclear what transformed Childers from a peaceful advocate for home rule into a violent revolutionary. He was influenced by a group of liberal-minded Anglo-Irish cultural nationalists who were alarmed at the actions of the Ulster Volunteer Force that began stockpiling weapons ready for conflict with the south. By 1914, Childers had smuggled a mass of German weapons into Howth, Dublin, and, by 1919, he was one of Sinn Féin’s most effective propagandists and an extreme Irish nationalist.

Roger Casement was appointed by the Irish Volunteers to act as quartermaster for the cache of weapons, which included 1,500 Mauser rifles and 49,000 rounds of ammunition. Casement later provided further weapons used by the rebels in the Easter Rising. The ordnance was purchased from a firm in Hamburg and transferred from a German tug on the River Scheldt to Childers’s yacht, Asygard.

Another vessel, Kelpie, belonging to Conor O’Brien, helped in the smuggling operation. Childers sailed into Howth on 26 July 1914, where the guns were handed over to uniformed lines of Irish Volunteers, pretending to be on a practice drill.

One of their commanders, Bulmer Hobson, was a member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood and he was able to use this huge stock of armaments to initiate the Easter Rising.

The revolt was violently suppressed after six days. Sixteen of its leaders were executed on the orders of General John Maxwell.

The mystery of Childers’s true affiliations is clouded by the fact that he was working for the British military while also engaged in smuggling operations for the Irish Volunteers.

During the early years of the First World War, he was part of British naval intelligence and he later joined the new naval air force.

He submitted to the navy a daring stratagem (inspired

by The Riddle of the Sands) to penetrate German defences with an invasion force that would surprise the Germans with an attack through the Frisian Islands. He also worked as a navigator and observer in the Cuxhaven Raid and he served at Gallipoli, where he earnt the Distinguished Service Cross.

ERSKINE CHILDERS INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

been killed in an ambush by anti-treaty forces. Childers was convicted by a military court and sentenced to death before his appeal could be heard. The sentence was therefore carried out while the legal process was still incomplete. Before his execution at Beggars Bush barracks, he shook hands with each member of the firing squad. He asked to be excused

“ No man has done more harm or shown more genuine malice, or endeavoured to bring a greater curse upon the common people of Ireland, than this strange being, actuated by a strange and deadly hatred for the land of his birth.”

This naturally created suspicion among his Irish comrades that he was a double agent. Michael Collins himself asserted that Erskine Childers had engineered the Easter Rising in order to prevent Ireland obtaining any reasonable concessions “by advocating an extreme course of action which must inevitably heighten English hostility to us”. The great irony is that Erskine was caught in possession of Michael Collins’s sidearm and it was this crime that led to his execution.

In 1919, Childers had returned to Wicklow to recover from a severe attack of flu. His cousin Robert Barton, by now a Sinn Féin activist, introduced him to de Valera and to Michael Collins. But it was only at this point that Childers became an official member of the Irish Republican movement.

He was appointed to the unsuccessful Irish delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, which hoped to advance the cause of Irish independence.

In 1921, he went to London as Secretary General of the Irish delegation that negotiated the Anglo-Irish Treaty with the British, but he opposed the draft agreement which offered the Irish Free State dominion status and required Irish leaders to take an oath of allegiance to the Crown. Along with de Valera, Childers wanted nothing less than the AllIreland Republic, as proclaimed by the rebel Padraig Pearse from the steps of the General Post Office in 1916. He refused to agree to the terms set out by the treaty, which was signed on 6 December 1921. Despite this opposition, the AngloIrish Treaty was approved by the Dáil in January 1922 but its terms remained divisive. The entire nationalist movement fell into pro- and anti-treaty groups, with de Valera leading the anti-treaty faction against delegates whom he called “traitors.” Within months, Ireland had descended into civil war.

Childers acted as de Valera’s propagandist during the conflict and one of his tasks was to report on the military activities of the Irish Free State. Yet he failed to gain the trust of anti-treaty elements within the rebel movement and he was referred to derisively as that “bloody Englishman.” At one stage, he was put to work addressing letters in the staff office in Macroom, Cork.

On 10 November 1922, he was arrested at his home in Glendalough and discovered in possession of the incriminating firearm belonging to Collins who had already

Winston Churchill, 1923

the traditional blindfold but this request was denied. His last words were a breezy informality to the firing squad. “Take a step forward, lads. It will be easier that way.” He had the previous evening asked his son, Erskine Hamilton Childers, to seek out each signatory to his death warrant and shake them by the hand. The son carried out this request and later became President of Ireland from 1973 to 1974.

Following Childers’s death, his friend Basil Williams said of him: “ We may think him wrong-headed and a fanatic, we may think of him as ‘nourished by dreams’, to quote a phrase of his own…but of one thing all those who knew him are convinced, that there was no particle of meanness or treachery in his nature; and that whatever course of action he adopted – however we deplore the judgement – it was based on the prompting of a conscience and sense of humour as sensitive and true as one may meet.”

Celia Pilkington

137

INNER TEMPLE

A Day in the life of the Sub-Treasurer

An excerpt from Caroline Daly’s interview with the SubTreasurer, Patrick Maddams, on 16 July 2016, as part of the continuing Inner Temple Oral History project.

I

138

recently read a book of essays called All Day Long: A Portrait of Britain at Work, about what people actually do all day, from train drivers to an orthodox rabbi. Tell me what you do all day at Inner Temple.

I am not a train driver and I am not a rabbi but perhaps I inhabit somewhere in between.

One of the great joys of an average day of my life is that it is never average.

Approximately a third of my working life here is to do with educational matters. The Inns of Court have been calling students to the Bar for over 400 years. Today, we have a very big outreach programme, trying to encourage the brightest and best young people in Britain to come to the Bar whatever their background or financial need or diversity.

Secondly, the Inn is a property management company and we have had the privilege of owning these buildings for 400 years. Our job as property managers is to maintain them to a very high standard. But we have an obligation to do this within the challenges of being in a conservation area.

The third part of the job is being the membership secretary. We have approximately 9,000 members of the Inn all over the world. There can be a tendency to think of the Inn as being very London-centric. We want everyone to feel that they are connected to the Inn. So we have done a lot of work on our membership database and our alumni associations overseas. If you have been called to the Bar by Inner Temple, you may no longer be a barrister, you may not live in London, but we still want you to feel that this is your Inn. Of course this is very much a collective effort and we have a great team of employees ably led by a professional group of departmental Heads. We meet weekly.

How does that translate into a typical day?

Yesterday, the day started with a meeting looking at a very major building project, substantially for educational use.

At lunchtime came the ambassadorial role. We were delighted to receive the new Indian High Commissioner.

The Inn has very strong historic links with India. Of our alumni, Gandhi is the greatest in terms of fame and international reputation.

Then yesterday afternoon I was preparing some papers where I had been asked to make submissions to the Bar Council Last evening, I had three events. First of all, there was a meeting of the Inn’s Estates Committee. We looked at some architectural work that might be needed on the wonderful Temple Church.

Then, the Singapore High Commission celebrated their National Day at the Inner Temple. One of the things I was doing at half past four was trying to work out where we were going to put 50 diplomatic cars.

Third, we try and support our members who do charitable work. A barrister in this Inn, Fiona Darroch, has set up a charity, Protimos, to represent the rights of indigenous people who are affected by big environmental projects. She had a reception here and I like to go along and show support.

Has the role of the Sub-Treasurer changed over time?

Yes. The earliest record of the Sub-Treasurer is in The Canterbury Tales, though I think the role was known as the Maunciple. He is described as being “the servant of thirty and four men learned in the law yet could he outwit them all”.

Perhaps that is why my nickname is Sir Humphrey!

The role has evolved substantially over time. I suspect that until the 19th Century students mostly came to the Inn to do their dinners and to sit in silence while a book of the law was read at you.

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF THE SUB-TREASURER INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

In the 20th Century, the Inns replicate the huge changes in society as the law extends to protect and defend more people, particularly after the Second World War with the creation of the welfare state. Then came the rapid rise of the economy. Probably more barristers now work in the commercial, chancery and public law sectors than they do in the traditional areas of crime and family.

I am the first Sub-Treasurer since the Second World War who has not been appointed from a military background.

Someone wittily said that I am the person who has now made the Bar a demilitarised zone. You did not want to be a student 30 or 40 years ago in trouble before the Sub-Treasurer.

The official opening of Belgium House, 27 July 2012

“ …you may no longer be a barrister, you may not live in London, but we still want you to feel that this is your Inn.” Do you have any sort of residual disciplinary role?

No, the Inns have created a collective body that deal with such things. I do however occasionally offer people advice.

This is when you are not quite formally reprimanded.

Is the offer of advice generally taken up?

Somebody said to me they would rather have paid a £300 fine than have a word of advice from me.

Can you tell us about the Inn’s involvement with the last Olympics in London?

The Inn owned a vacant building – Sergeant’s Inn, and built in the 1950s. The Inn needed to refurbish it and it was going to be very, very expensive.

The revolutionary idea came up that we should convert it into a hotel. One of the driving factors was that, back in 2010, London was very worried it was going to be short of hotel rooms for the Olympic Games. First, the company we appointed to develop and manage it had to get it ready for the Olympic Games which they did on time The Apex Temple

Court Hotel. We then wondered if a sports organisation might like to come and take over Inner Temple for the three weeks of the Olympic Games.

We ended up in the very happy position of being the home for the Belgian National Olympic committee here.

They got a great allocation of tickets, so a very high number of Belgians came. They would go to events at the Olympic Games and the ticket included lunch or dinner here, and, if wanted, a room in the hotel. For three weeks we became the Belgium House.

On the opening day of the Olympic Games their cycling team arrived having cycled from Brussels.

There is a fabulous shot of them crossing Tower Bridge and they arrived here to be greeted by the Crown Prince and the Prime Minister of Belgium.

Best of all was that one of the big sponsors of the Belgian Olympic team was Stella Artois. Not only did we have lots of Stella Artois here but they left a few cases behind.

The final touch was that our Royal Bencher, The Princess Royal, is a member of the International Olympic Committee, and she entertained her Committee members while they were in London here at her Inn. Can you put yourself in the position of ‘fantasy architect’ at Inner Temple?

We have these fabulous buildings and gas lamps and beautiful sash-windows, but there is this huge spread of black tarmac. At the very least we should be resurfacing it. More importantly, as the number of cars diminishes, we can start to reclaim parts of the car park, perhaps as a piazza.

We also have a beautiful, tranquil and historic garden here, but it is listed. Andrea Brunsendorf, our wonderful gardener, has transformed it with plantings but the shape of it has to stay the way it is. If we had less constraint on the actual morphology of the garden, she could do even more wonderful things than she is doing at the moment.

Iban longhouse, Malaysia

“ Our travels to the Iban longhouse will long remain in my memory. Here was the rule of law in about as extreme a place as you could ever hope to find.”

139

140

INNER TEMPLE A DAY IN THE LIFE OF THE SUB-TREASURER

Master Thorley and his daughter Francesca on Bhutanese stamps

Where have you really enjoyed going on your international trips?

They have all been very enjoyable. If I have to name one it was in 2009 when Master Vivian Robinson was Treasurer and we went to Malaysia. The island of Borneo has two large states, Sabah and Sawarak. The Chief Judge of Sawarak had been allocated Master Robinson as his mentor while a student here. Forty years later, Master Robinson had come to see his old mentee who was now the Chief Judge and Bencher of the Inn, Master Sulong Matjeraie.

There was a wonderful tour. On the final day we were taken into the jungle to an Iban longhouse. There are still very traditional communities in the forests. The local Chief, in traditional culture, is the local magistrate. We wear a wig and a gown; he wears feathers and a blow-pipe and a grass skirt.

We were offered a local drink. After three of these, Master Robinson and I were getting decidedly unsteady on our feet when we were invited to participate in the blow-pipe dart competition, with the reassurance that these were the original darts, the ones that kill you and that head-hunters use. When Master Robinson got up to blow his, I have never seen so many people hit the deck so fast in all my life.

Our travels to the Iban longhouse will long remain in my memory. Here was the rule of law in about as extreme a place as you could ever hope to find.

Is there a favourite dish that you could recommend in Hall?

The popularity of our menus, be it the lunches in Hall or the intimate dinners, goes down to Martin Cheeseman. Year after year he is so inventive with his menus.

The best fish and chips in town on a Friday are here. My only complaint is that baked beans are never served with them. If I can have one achievement in my ten years, it would be baked beans.

I do like baked beans but not as a complement to fish and chips.

He said, “over his dead body” because he has got standards.

For me, it has to be baked beans on toast at home with my teenage daughter Cecilia at the moment.

“ For three months all Bhutanese stamps had Master Thorley’s picture on them.”

I wondered if you could describe the pictures in this room.

The paraphernalia you see around you is what I have acquired over the years. The chap who is staring down at us is the Lord Baron of the Exchequer. He is wearing a fine gold chain and we have a similar one on display in the hall.

Just by the door you see a 19th Century etching of a building that was never built. In the 1860s, the Inn ran a competition for a new building here and the architects had to draw what the building would look like. To my mind it is a cross between the British Museum and St Pancras Station.

Sadly, it was never built.

There you see a musical instrument from the longhouse in Sawarak. You are sitting in front of the bust of Gandhi.

I should mention the lovely model boat from Mauritius.

They are great sea-farers and there is a long tradition of model boat-building. Every home in Mauritius will have a model boat as a talisman. That was a gift from our members in Mauritius.

Behind you there is a large display cabinet and it is full of memorabilia, all acquired since I started at the Inn, especially from our members in Asia and where there is a tradition of giving small gifts.

There are even stamps. When Master Thorley was Treasurer, he went into Bhutan. The King of Bhutan is an Honorary Bencher of this Inn, a young man, highly regarded in his own country and in Asia generally. Master Thorley had a number of audiences with the King and the Chief Justice.

At the end, the King presented Master Thorley with a gift – a book of stamps with Master Thorley’s picture on it. For three months all Bhutanese stamps had Master Thorley’s picture on them.

Was he embarrassed or pleased?

Both, I think, in equal measure.

These gestures are important in law. One of the special features of the Bar is courtesy. You might be given something quite modest, or a musical instrument, or a ship. I have tried to remember that when you give or receive a gift it is the courtesy behind it that matters. Whether my successor will want to keep them or not, well time will tell.

Caroline Daly is a tenant at FTB

INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Contributory Negligence in Practice From a lecture by Dr James Goudkamp and Professor Donal Nolan on 18 January 2016

T

he doctrine of contributory negligence reduces the compensation which the victim of a wrong receives where the victim was partly to blame for his or her own damage. The doctrine is one of the most important rules in English private law. It is frequently relied on by defendants both in litigation and in negotiating settlements, and damages are regularly discounted for contributory negligence by substantial amounts (often as much as 50 per cent). Despite the doctrine’s significance, there has never been a comprehensive empirical analysis of it in England and Wales (or elsewhere). Accordingly, in an effort to improve understanding of this important part of private law, we carried out two empirical studies of it.

The first study explores how the doctrine is applied at first instance. The second examines the operation of the doctrine on appeal. In this article we offer an overview of both studies.

liability claims (10 per cent). The 63 claims in the three remaining categories (public liability, sports injury and other) amounted to only 17 per cent of the sample.

Out of the 368 claims in our sample, the plea of contributory negligence succeeded in 221 claims (60 per cent) and failed in 147 claims (40 per cent). As shown in Figure 1, the success rate of the plea of contributory negligence was almost identical in personal injury claims and property damage claims (64 per cent in both instances), but markedly lower in pure economic loss claims (22 per cent).

Figure 1 – Success rate of plea by damage type

Contributory negligence at first instance For this study, we reviewed every electronically accessible contributory negligence case decided at first instance in England and Wales between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2014. Our sample comprised 368 cases. Most of these cases (223) were decisions of the High Court, because decisions of that Court tend to be published online more regularly than decisions of the County Courts. However, we were able to access a significant number (145) of County Court decisions too, including indirectly by way of information about such decisions found in judgments of the Court of Appeal. The two central questions in which we were interested were: (1) how often does the plea of contributory negligence succeed when pleaded; and (2) by what percentage are damages discounted when a claimant is found guilty of contributory negligence.

We also considered the extent to which the answers to these questions depended on the following variables: the claimant’s age; the claimant’s gender; the type of damage suffered by the claimant; the contextual setting of the claim; and the year of the decision.

We should give some basic information about our sample.

86 per cent of the claims in the sample were personal injury claims. Pure economic loss claims comprised 10 per cent of the sample, while only 4 per cent of the sample was constituted by property damage claims. One plausible explanation for the small number of property damage claims in our sample is the fact that many property damage claims are likely to be relatively low value. This is significant because claimants may be less inclined to commence proceedings in respect of lower value claims, and defendants may be more inclined to settle such claims when proceedings are brought. Furthermore, lower value claims are determined in the County Courts and, as we observed above, County Court decisions, because of their relative inaccessibility, are under-represented in our study. As for the contextual setting of the claims, claims arising out of road accidents were by far the most common type of claim (39 per cent), followed by employer’s liability claims (23 per cent), professional negligence claims (11 per cent) and occupiers’

A possible explanation for the difference in the success rate of the plea of contributory negligence between personal injury and property damages claims on the one hand, and pure economic loss claims on the other hand, emerges when the success rate of the plea is broken down by type of claim (Figure 2). This reveals that the plea of contributory negligence has a very low success rate in professional negligence claims (29 per cent). This success rate is roughly half that of the success rate of the plea across all types of claim in our study.

The reason for the close association between the success rate in pure economic loss claims and in professional negligence claims is not hard to find. Of the 37 pure economic loss claims, the vast majority (33 claims) fell into the professional negligence category; similarly, of the 41 professional negligence claims, the preponderance (33 claims) were for pure economic loss.

Figure 2 – Success rate of plea by type of claim

141

142

INNER TEMPLE LECTURE SERIES

Where the claimant was found guilty of contributory negligence, the average amount by which damages were reduced was 40.5 per cent. Figure 3 shows the average discount by damage type. As the graph indicates, the average discounts in both property damage claims and pure economic loss claims (48 per cent in each case) were somewhat higher than the average discount in personal injury claims (40 per cent).

Figure 3 – Average discount by damage type

The average discount by type of claim is shown in Figure 4.

Several features of this graph are noteworthy. One is that the highest average discount (58 per cent) was found in professional negligence claims. A possible explanation for this result is that given that (as we have seen) the courts are comparatively slow to find contributory negligence in professional negligence claims, a claimant who is found guilty of contributory negligence in such a case will generally have borne the bulk of the responsibility for the damage. A second noteworthy finding is that the average discount in employers’ liability claims was relatively low (31 per cent). It would seem that on the whole, employees who are found guilty of contributory negligence are treated more leniently than road users and those suing occupiers. A third important finding concerns the relatively high average discount in occupiers’ liability claims (51 per cent).

Figure 4 – Average discount by type of claim

2. Children aged over 10 are more likely to be found guilty of contributory negligence than adults, and when they are found guilty the discount is likely to be higher as well. These results cast doubt on the accuracy of the commonly expressed perception that courts treat children more leniently than adults when it comes to the application of the contributory negligence doctrine.

There was only one claim in our sample in which a child under 10 was found guilty of contributory negligence, although contributory negligence was pleaded against five children under 10, one as young as six.

3. We found no compelling evidence of a gender difference in relation to either the frequency with which contributory negligence is found or in terms of the size of the discount.

4. In personal injury claims, both the success rate of the plea of contributory negligence and the size of the discounts imposed remained fairly constant during the study period. We had expected that these variables might have been influenced by debate regarding the supposed ‘compensation culture’, which came to public prominence during the study period. However, there is no evidence that this debate had an impact on decisions regarding the contributory negligence doctrine.

Contributory negligence on appeal The appellate study encompassed all electronically accessible decisions of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in relation to contributory negligence between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2015. The sample comprised 112 cases. 35 per cent of cases were appeals from the High Court. The rest were appeals from County Courts. As with the first instance study, the preponderance of cases in the appellate sample were road accident cases (46 per cent), with the next most common type of case being employers’ liability cases (28 per cent).

As Figure 5 shows, important differences exist between the appellate success rates depending on the identity of the appellant. Claimants were considerably more likely to win an appeal overall than defendants, although it seems that most of this difference is attributable to a greater success rate by claimants in appeals on the existence of contributory negligence rather than in relation to the discount imposed.

Figure 5 – Success rate of appeal by party

Other key findings to emerge from our study of first instance decisions include: 1. The most popular discounts were fractions that are commonly used in everyday life, namely, one-half, one-third and one-quarter. Although judges use essentially the full spectrum of discounts, discounts at the higher end of the spectrum are relatively infrequent.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IN PRACTICE INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Figure 6 indicates the rate of interference depending on the court whose decision was the subject of the appeal. The difference in the overall success rate of appeals depending on the court from which the appeal came was negligible. However, the Court of Appeal was more willing to interfere with a holding regarding the existence of contributory negligence when the first instance court was the High Court, and more ready to disturb a holding regarding the discount when the first instance court was a County Court.

Figure 6 – Appellate interference rate by trial court

One interesting result to emerge from the appellate study concerns the manner in which the Court of Appeal varied the discount where an appeal in respect of the discount succeeded. The results in this regard are indicated in Figure 7. The two peaks in this figure are noteworthy. They indicate that when the Court of Appeal varied the discount, it tended to make substantial adjustments, most frequently by 20–29 per cent. It is not surprising that the Court of Appeal tended not to vary the discount by minor amounts.

Simplifying matters somewhat, it is a well-established principle that appellate intervention is warranted only when the trial judge has exceeded the ambit of legitimate disagreement when deciding on a discount. As Lord Reed explained in Jackson v Murray, “Since different judges may legitimately take different views of what would be just and equitable in particular circumstances, it follows that those differing views should be respected, within the limits of reasonable disagreement.” Accordingly, a minor variation in the discount would suggest that appellate intervention was unwarranted.

“ One striking finding to emerge from our study is that the number of appeals regarding contributory negligence fell dramatically over the study period”

Figure 7 – Discount difference following appeal

One striking finding to emerge from our study is that the number of appeals regarding contributory negligence fell dramatically over the study period (Figure 8). There are various possible explanations for this decline, one of which concerns the introduction of conditional fee agreements subsequent to the reforms implemented in the wake of the Woolf Report. The idea here is that lawyers, subsequent to the shift to conditional fee agreements, were less likely to launch an appeal (all other things being equal) as failure in the appeal would mean that the lawyer would go unpaid. Another potential explanation is that the workload of the Court of Appeal increased during the study period with the result that less time was available to hear appeals in relation to contributory negligence.

Figure 8 Number of appeals by year

Conclusion

Despite its immense importance in practice, the contributory negligence doctrine is woefully under-examined, especially empirically. These first instance and appellate studies go some way to filling the gap, and should be useful to judges and practitioners when confronted with contributory negligence issues. We intend to supplement these studies with further treatments of contributory negligence in the road accident and employers’ liability contexts specifically.

James Goudkamp, Associate Professor Oxford Law Faculty Donal Nolan, Professor of Private Law, University of Oxford James Goudkamp and Donal Nolan, Contributory Negligence in the Twenty-First Century: An Empirical Study of First Instance Decisions (2016) 79 Modern Law Review 575.

143

144

INNER TEMPLE

A Cup of Gold for the King

By Richard Parsons, Goldsmith and Advisor to the Inner Temple

W

hilst researching the origins of some of the early Inner Temple plate, I discovered an entry in the General Account Book for the period 1607–8 that aroused my curiosity. Reference is made to a gold cup given to James I; the most popular form of object given to the monarch in receipt of royal favours. Very few large items of early English gold plate have survived the melting pot, their demise caused by fluctuations in the nation’s political and economic fortunes. Any research into such a gold item would have to be an interesting diversion: “ To the King’s goldsmith, for half the cup which is to be presented to His Majesty, £333 6s 8d” A subsequent entry for the period 1608–9 states: “ To the Goldsmith for making a cup of gold which was given to the King, with a velvet case, the one half, £7 3s.”

Considering the almost adjacent entry in 1607–8 reads, “For building the Library, and repairing the old Library, £129 7s 1d.” this gold cup, including the cost of fashion and a case for a total of £673 16s 4d, financed equally by both the Inner and Middle Temples seems a very generous gift indeed.

An extract from the Inner Temple records describes the presentation and a description of the actual cup, if not the actual reasons for its creation, in the following passage: “In token of thankfulness of this princely donation the said two fellowships conjoining in one did thereupon at their mutual charges cause to be made a stately cup of pure gold weighing 200 ounces and one half, of the value of one thousand marks or thereabouts, the which in all humbleness was presented to his most excellent Majesty at his Court at Whitehall in the said 6th year of his Majesty’s reign over the realm of England for

a New Year’s gift, by the hands of Sir Henry Mountagu in the time of this edition, Baron Mountagu, Viscount Mandevil and the Earl of Manchester and of Richard Daston Esqre and other eminent persons of both those Honble Societies, the which it pleased his Matie most graciously to accept and receive. The proportion of which cup of here portrayed: upon the one side thereof is curiously engraven the proportion of a church or Temple beautified with turrets and pinnacles and on the other side is figured an altar whereon is couched the simulance of brands or sticks of wood feeding an holy fire, the flames appear and over those flames these words engraved “Nil nisi vota.” The cover of this rich cup of gold is in the upper part thereof adorned with a fabric fashioned like a pyramid whereon standeth the statue of a military person leaning with the left hand upon a Roman fashioned shield or target. The which cup his excellent Majestic while he lived esteemed for one of his royalist and most richest jewell.”

The princely donation referred to in the text was the granting of the letters patent to the then members and their successors in perpetuity of both the Inner and Middle Temples. This securing of the rights to the property as a virtual freehold was indeed a reason for producing such an important ‘gift’. Other points of interest are the weight of the cup at two hundred and a half ounces and the description.

The latter mentions a pyramid on the cover, suggesting that the gift was made in the form of a steeple cup, a popular style of cup which at least a 148 silver samples, made between the years 1599 and 1646, are recorded to have survived to the present day. To speculate on the size of the cup with any certainty is extremely difficult. If the form was a steeple cup, the weight of a good silver example standing at approximately 25 inches approaches 60 ounces. If the gold used in the Inn’s cup was 22 carat, the weight of a similar gold cup would be 100 ounces, the ratio of the weights of the two metals being 1:1.7. Providing that a similar gauge of

A CUP OF GOLD FOR THE KING INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

metal was used in making both cups, a gold cup weighing 200 ounces would have been a very considerable size.

The King’s goldsmith, mentioned in the Account Book, would have been John Williams: the son of William ap John, apprenticed to Sir Richard Martin, royal goldsmith. He was made free in 1593 and appointed royal goldsmith with Hugh Keel in 1603 and then as a sole appointment from 1604 until 1624. His work is mentioned by Phillipa Glanville, “a single purchase from John Williams of a gold ewer and basin to the ambassador of Henry IV, who had been resident in London for some years, cost James I £762 at a time when income of a peer was between £3,000 and £6,000, and when the single

“ Item. One Cupp of Goulde, with a Cover graven on the body, with an Alter and an inscription over itt (nil nisi vota) and the similitude of a Temple graven with a Peramides on the Topp of the cover, and a harnised man on the Topp thereof holding an Antique Shield in his left hand. Weighing two hundred ounces and a halfe.”

The trail then goes cold, most of the Crown Jewels were subsequently redeemed and returned but the cup, it seems, remained in the hands of the foreign moneylenders. If we calculate the value of the gold, based on the current 22-carat

“ Clearly it was greatly prized by James I but its fate may well have been sealed in the more unstable reign of the next monarch, Charles I.” purchase cost more than the total annual expenditure of many gentlemen.”

I have not been able to trace any record of the cup existing today. Clearly it was greatly prized by James I but its fate may well have been sealed in the more unstable reign of the next monarch, Charles I. A few months after his ascension and seriously short of finance, he thought to increase temporarily his liquidity by pawning the crown jewels. This would not have been a legal act in England and to overcome this hindrance he decreed, on 7th December 1625, that the crown jewels with other plate should be sent to the Low Countries as collateral for a loan. Among the articles of plate delivered by Sir Henry Midmay, keeper of the jewel house, to the Duke of Buckingham for the overseas journey was the following:

gold price (again assuming that the highest carat of metal was used), “two hundred ounces and a halfe” would have a value of approximately £200,000 (the average price of fine gold on 4th August 2016 was £1,027.58 per troy ounce). If we include the fashion and case at an additional £50,000, the purchase of the freehold for a quarter of a million pounds seems very reasonable indeed. It would still be true, if we consider the antique value of such a gold cup to be several million pounds, were it to appear on the market today.

Richard Parsons The original article was written for the Inner Temple View published 2nd June 1999. Since then, the price of gold has fluctuated very considerably, the value of the cup having been calculated at £40,000 in 1999.

The Letters Patent of James I from 1608 (right: with an enhanced detail). This granted the lands and buildings of the Temple to the two Inns in perpetuity on condition the Inns use them for the accommodation and education of students and practitioners of the Law and that the Inns maintain the Temple Church and its Master

145

146

INNER TEMPLE

The Statues of Geoffrey de Mandeville and Saer de Quincy

By The Master of the Temple

O

n 16 October 1834, the Palace of Westminster was destroyed by fire. It was rebuilt to a design

by Charles Barry, and decorated throughout with newly commissioned paintings and statues. In 1847, James Westmacott, still only 24 years old, was chosen to execute 2 of the 18 statues of Magna Carta’s protagonists – 16 barons and 2 prelates – for the House of Lords.

Barry cautioned that the statues “should be severe and monumental and consequently free from all violence of action”. The whole set was completed by 1858.

Westmacott’s two statues were of Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Gloucester and Earl of Essex, and of Saer de Quincy, Earl of Winchester. They were two of the Surety Barons of Magna Carta who were responsible under clause 61 for ensuring the King’s conformity to the Charter.

In 2015, the House of Lords brought down Westmacott’s two statues for exhibition. We are very grateful to the House for the statues’ loan to the Temple Church this year. They stand majestically at the mouth of the Round, and can be seen better and more clearly here than they ever have been before.

The story of these two barons illumines the turbulent energy that John’s relentless greed and the barons’ vengeful ambitions brought to the creation of Magna Carta. The network of baronial families was tightly knit. It is more than serendipitous that the Church’s own historic effigies include those of Geoffrey’s great-great uncle – the notorious Mandeville of Stephen’s Anarchy – and of William Marshal, de Saer’s eventual nemesis.

Geoffrey de Mandeville’s first wife was the daughter of the rebel leader Robert FitzWalter; John was rumoured to have raped her. In 1199, the marriage of King John and Isabella, Countess of Gloucester, was annulled. Isabella became the King’s ward, and in 1214 he sold to Geoffrey de Mandeville the right to marry her. John charged Geoffrey a fee of 20,000 marks (£13,333), to be paid within ten months.

Such a vast charge was unpayable; Geoffrey was probably cornered into the marriage by a threat from the King to re-assign Geoffrey’s whole Mandeville inheritance to a rival.

When Mandeville defaulted, John confiscated his estates.

Mandeville and Isabella then sided with the rebel barons.

THE STATUES OF GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE AND SAER DE QUINCY INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

“ The story of these two barons illumines the turbulent energy that John’s relentless greed and the barons’ vengeful ambitions brought to the creation of Magna Carta.”

In May 1215, John tried in vain to win Mandeville back to his cause by submitting the fine to the judgment of a court.

Magna Carta itself, clause 55, outlawed such monstrous fines by the king.

In 1207, Saer de Quincy was created Earl of Winchester.

From then on, he was prominent in King John’s service. He was custodian of the hostages demanded by John of William Marshal, the hero of Magna Carta whose effigy lies in the Round. Next to William’s effigy lies that of his own eldest son, another of the Charter’s Surety Barons, William Marshal II. As late as January 1215, Quincy was here in the Temple with the King and witnessed the King’s charter of ecclesiastical liberties, and on 4 March (Ash Wednesday) he was one of the nobles who with John took the cross at the Tower of London.

Quincy was nonetheless nursing grievances against the King.

John had made him Earl of Winchester but had, to Quincy’s humiliation, denied him Mountsorrel Castle in Leicestershire.

In April 1215, Quincy was in Scotland urging the intervention of King Alexander II in England, and then moved south to his own principal residence, Brackley in Northamptonshire, to join his old associate, the rebel leader Robert FitzWalter, and to march with the rebel army to London. When civil war broke out in October 1215, Quincy headed a deputation to France to seek French assistance and to offer the crown to Philip’s son, the Dauphin Louis; in January 1216, he led an initial force of French knights into England. Even after John’s death in October 1216, Quincy remained loyal to Louis, and cocommanded the army that was defeated by William Marshal at Lincoln on 20 May 1217.

The Rev’d Robin Griffith-Jones The Earl of Gloucester is in copper electroform, patinated; the Earl of Winchester in zinc electroform, electroplated with copper, patinated. Both were

by Elkington, Mason & Co, Birmingham, 1847–58. Members and staff of the Inns and of chambers are of course welcome to visit the Church free of charge.

Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Gloucester

Saer de Quincy, Earl of Winchester

147

148

INNER TEMPLE

Sir John Baker c.1489–1558 James Lloyd, the Inn's Volunteer Archivist,examines the life of Sir John Baker, Chancellor of the Exchequer under Henry VIII and brutal persecutor of Protestants, earning him the name of 'Bloody Baker.'

Sir John Baker © National Portrait Gallery, London

B

aker and John are both common names and there must have been no shortage of John Bakers over the years. The Inner Temple is lucky enough to glory in one such example as a Bencher. Not all John Bakers, however, have been personages of whom a place may be proud and one in particular, despite a dazzling career in law and politics, has been remembered by the people of the town where he lived as a villain of unadulterated evil.

Sissinghurst Castle, in the Weald of Kent, is poorly named. In fact, it is ironically named. It was dubbed thus during the Seven Years’ War by French prisoners interned in what had by then become a crumbling excuse for a manor house. In the 19th Century, it would become the poor house and it was only in the 20th that it would be resurrected as the attractive garden and National Trust property that it now is. Back in the 16th Century, however, it was a very different prospect; then, Sissinghurst was a mansion, one of the homes of Sir John Baker, an Inner Templar and MP for Kent.

Sir John held various government positions under Henry VIII. He was severally Recorder of the City of London, Attorney General, Speaker of the House of Commons, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Chancellor of the Court of First Fruits and Tenths, and ambassador to Denmark. In these offices, Sir John Baker milked the Dissolution of the Monasteries like a farmer on speed, helping himself to the estates forfeited by anyone, Catholic or Protestant, who managed to offend the famously touchy King Henry, until he had accumulated a property portfolio of 15,000 acres, worth about £75,000,000 in today’s money.

Sir John’s career was already winding down by the time Edward VI came to the throne but he returned to the fore, at least in local politics, under Queen Mary. Being on the Commission of the Peace for the County of Kent, Sir John held sessions at the George Inn in Cranbrook, where he was responsible for committing Protestants to the assizes and therefore (albeit indirectly) to the stake. Sir John’s own involvement in the Reformation was conveniently forgotten and, although one might with some justice argue that he was only trying to avoid the same fate himself, this two-faced approach to religion caused the people of Cranbrook to remember him, for centuries afterwards, as ‘Bloody Baker’, a sadistic bogeyman, who rigged the trials and revelled in the martyrdoms he caused.

The town of Cranbrook today has many unofficial memorials to Sir John. The parvise above the church porch is known as Baker’s Gaol and is said to be haunted by the disembodied groans of those he interred there. In reality, only one man was detained in the parvise and even he was a priest and only kept there overnight. He was not burnt until a year later, but this exaggeration is testament to the acidic reputation Sir John left behind in a town that had taken firmly to the Protestant religion.

Other stories are even more grandiose. A cottage on a hill overlooking the town, known as the Pestilence House, is said to be haunted by the ghost of his mistress, who hanged herself in the cellar in 1574 (16 years after Baker’s own death but, again, who cares about details?). There is even said to be a network of tunnels underneath Cranbrook, leading to Sissinghurst, which allowed Baker’s many lovers to visit him in secrecy.

The most grotesque story of all is also the one that bears the least resemblance to reality. Indeed, it appears to be a reworked version of the common north European folk tale of the Robber Bridegroom. As evidence of the sort of man Sir John Baker was believed to have been, however, it is a priceless piece of folklore.

The story goes that in the reign of Edward VI, Sir John dissipated his once extensive estates through careless living, until Sissinghurst was all that remained. He killed a man in a duel and went into hiding abroad until the heat had died down. He returned after the accession of Queen Mary, detecting that he would be safe from justice under the rule of a fellow papist. He brought with him a servant (a foreigner, so obviously bad news) and resumed residence at Sissinghurst. One fateful day, his eye fell upon a beautiful lady of Cranbrook, famous for always being bedecked in jewels.

SIR JOHN BAKER C.1489 –1558 INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017 Credit: Andrea Brunsendorf

“ ...this two-faced approach to religion caused the people of Cranbrook to remember him, for centuries afterwards, as ‘Bloody Baker’, a sadistic bogeyman, who rigged the trials and revelled in the martyrdoms he caused.”

Robber Bridegroom Private Collection

He paid her suit but she coquettishly resisted his advances, even though he was gradually (and inexplicably) becoming richer and buying back his lost estates.

Meanwhile, rumours began to circulate that travellers had been disappearing in the woods and that screams (bloodcurdling, one imagines) had been heard emanating from Sissinghurst. Our heroine (for the legend leaves her anonymous) paid no attention to these stories and one day, by chance, she happened to be passing Sissinghurst in the company of an elderly friend. Against her friend’s advice, she decided to surprise Sir John with an unannounced visit.

Conveniently, the door was unlocked and they ascended the staircase. As they reached the top, a parrot, perched on the newel post, exclaimed: “Peepoh, pretty lady, be not too bold, Or your red blood will soon run cold.”

Surprisingly unmoved by this, the lady carried on down the landing, until she opened one of the doors. To her horror, the room was filled with corpses of the missing travellers, whose purses, jewels and other treasures Baker had stolen to make the capital with which he had rebuilt his estate.

A noise distracted the two women. From the window, they saw Sir John and his servant returning to the house, carrying the dead body of a woman between them. They ran down to the hall but the front door was already opening. They hid themselves under the staircase, just as Sir John and his servant entered and began heaving the cadaver up the stairs.

Its arm fell loose and became caught in the baluster. Sir John swore, drew his sword and chopped the hand off. The severed member fell into our heroine’s lap but she managed to contain herself, until the two men were in the charnel chamber.

Several days later, Sir John was invited to a party, hosted by his intended paramour and attended by the relatives of the people he had killed. During this dinner, the heroine regaled him with the narrative of a dream she had recently had, which was in fact a description of what she had seen at his house.

“Dear lady,” he purred, “dreams are nothing. They are but fables.”

“They may be fables,” she retorted, casually tossing him the severed hand, “but is this a fable?”

Sir John attempted to run but constables had already been stationed in hiding places all around the room. They broke cover and arrested him.

Bloody Mary tried to save Bloody Baker but to no avail.

The people of Cranbrook dragged him to the street, tied him to a stake and burnt him alive.

In the real world, of course, they did no such thing. In the real world, however, Baker had been responsible for doing exactly that to Cranbrook Protestants and the townsfolk comforted themselves with this myth of poetic justice and forgot that Sir John actually died in his bed, in his house in London, shortly after the accession of Elizabeth.

The author grew up in Cranbrook. He heard about Baker’s Gaol, the Pestilence House, the tunnels under the town and the legend of the severed hand. They inevitably accompanied any information about Sir John Baker in the local history books. Those books might disown them but they repeated them nonetheless. In the old brewhouse in Sissinghurst Castle, there is even a staircase with a cupboard underneath where two frightened women might hide and a newel post hacked, it is said, by a sword.

James Lloyd

149

150

INNER TEMPLE 

Weddings and Baptisms at the Temple Church

Elizabeth Anne Schlote, baptised on 20 March 2016 Eleanor Main and Scott Willson, married 27 June 2015

elly Tutton and Richard Padley, K married 19 December 2015 Photo: credit Nicholas Hill Photography

Isadora Afia Blair, baptised 10 July 2016 Photo: credit Nitin Kapoor

WEDDINGS AND BAPTISMS INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

livia Hunt and Nicholas O Wilkinson, married 5 March 2016, Photo: James Green Photographer, jamesgreenphotographer.co.uk

ikita Watkins and Grant N Cooper, married 11 June 2016

hoebe Croyston and James Lake, P married 21 May 2016 Photo: Jonny Donovan Photography

eorge Thomas John Axon, G baptised on 8 May 2016

ebecca Williams and Nichoas Tse, R blessing on 8 January 2016 Photo: credit to Michelle Martinoli

151

152

INNER TEMPLE

Bar Liaison Committee

Simon Baker (Chairman)

Christopher Bond

Zachary Bredemear

Executive Committee; Car Park; Project Pegasus Steering Group

Estates Committee; Pictures

Education & Training Committee; Silver

Nicholas Craig

Adrian Eissa

Natalie Foster

Estates Committee; Moots

Advocacy Training Committee; Pegasus Scholarship Trust

Student Societies Sub-Committee; Temple Women’s Forum

Saul Herman

Sarah Martin

Tom Mitcheson ��

Student Societies SubCommittee; Qualifying Sessions Sub-Committee

Timothy Petts

(Vice Chairman)

Executive Committee; Archives; Assisting with redrafting of BTOs

Scholarships Committee; Outreach Sub-Committee; Marshall Hall Trust

Jason Sugarman

Scholarships Committee; Debates; South Eastern Circuit

Education & Training Committee; Information Technology Committee; Marshalling

Thea Wilson

Scholarships Committee; Student Societies SubCommittee; Drama

Sa�irse Cowley Employed Bar Rep

Nicholas Griffin �� Education & Training Committee; Mentoring

Simon Murray Library Committee; House; Cellar

Aidan Briggs

Staff & Remuneration; Student Societies Sub-Committee

BAR LIAISON COMMITTEE INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Dr Anton van Dellen

Library Committee

Can Yeginsu

Qualifying Sessions Sub-Committee; Library Committee; Communications Steering Group

Simon Gurney Northern Circuit

Sonia Nolten

Executive Committee Finance Sub-Committee; Investment Sub-Committee

Gordon Nardell �� Inn’s representative on the Bar Council

Andrew Warnock ��

Tim Penny ��

Daniel Sheridan

Outreach Sub-Committee; Garden

Junior Bar Representative

David Elias

Alex Foster

Advocacy Training Committee

Wales and Chester

North Eastern Circuit

Jason Hadden MBE

Jason Sugarman

Richard Wheeler

Alex Wright

Patrick Maddams

Midland Circuit

Jocelin Gale

Executive Committee; Finance Sub-Committee; Estates Committee (ex-officio)

South Eastern Circuit

Western Circuit

Yearbook Editor

Sub-Treasurer

KEY Elected Co-opted

Henrietta Amodio Head of Treasury Office & Secretary to the BLC

Circuit

Representatives

Ex-Officio Members

153

154

INNER TEMPLE

New Benchers

Christopher Sharp ��

Barrister Governing Bencher

Tom Kark ��

Barrister Governing Bencher

Paul Greaney ��

Ruth Henke ��

Barrister Governing Bencher

Kieron Beal ��

Barrister Governing Bencher

Barrister Governing Bencher

His Honour Judge Tolson ��

Dr Catherine MacKenzie

David Wolfson ��

Barrister Governing Bencher

Saira Kabir Sheikh ��

Barrister Governing Bencher

His Honour Judge Paul Sloan ��

Judicial Governing Bencher

Other Governing Bencher

Judicial Governing Bencher

His Honour Judge Robinson

Her Honour Judge Munro ��

Her Honour Judge Gillian Matthews ��

Judicial Governing Bencher

Judicial Governing Bencher

Judicial Governing Bencher

MASTERS OF THE BENCH INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Masters of the Bench In Seniority Order (as of 31 July 2016)

The Rt Hon the Lord Richard �� (U)

Sir Brian Jenkins ��� (H)

Anthony Smith Esq �� (U)

Murray Pickering Esq �� (O)

Royal Benchers

Sir Christopher Holland (S)

The Baroness Mallalieu �� (U)

Sir Edward Evans-Lombe (S)

The Rt Hon Lady Justice Gloster ��� (J)

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

The Rt Hon the Lord Irvine of Lairg (S)

Anthony Anderson Esq �� (U)

HRH The Princess Royal (R)

Evan Stone Esq �� (S)

Harry Turcan Esq (S)

Her Honour Shirley Anwyl �� (S)

Gerald Angel Esq (S)

Eben Hamilton Esq �� (S)

The Rt Hon Sir Richard Buxton (S)

His Honour John Previte �� (U)

Professor Sir Royston Goode ��� ��� �� (H)

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

The Rt Hon Viscount Runciman of Doxford ��� ��� (H)

Richard Clegg Esq �� (U)

John Swift Esq �� (U)

Michael Lyndon-Stanford Esq �� (U)

His Honour James Stewart �� (U)

The Rt Hon Sir Jonathan Parker (S)

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

Treasurer 2016 His Honour Judge Cryan (Hon) ��� (J)

Reader 2016 David Pittaway Esq �� (B)

Masters of the Bench (Ex-Treasurers) The Rt Hon Sir Stephen Brown ��� (S) The Rt Hon the Baroness Butler-Sloss of Marsh Green ��� (S)

John Beveridge Esq �� (U)

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

His Honour Humphrey LLoyd �� (U)

Stanley Brodie Esq �� (S)

The Rt Hon Sir Mathew Thorpe (S)

The Rt Hon Sir Swinton Thomas (S) Richard Southwell Esq �� (S) The Rt Hon Sir Konrad Schiemann (O) The Rt Hon Sir John Chadwick (O) The Rt Hon Sir Bernard Rix (O) The Rt Hon Sir David Keene (O)

Sir Edward Cazalet (S) William Crowther Esq �� (U) Roger Henderson Esq �� (O) John Deby Esq �� (O) His Honour Anthony Thompson �� (S) The Rt Hon the Lord Armstrong of Ilminster GCB ��� (H)

His Honour Jeremy Roberts �� (O) Sir David Clarke (O) Sir Neil Butterfield (S) Sir Peter Singer (S) His Honour Michael Lawson �� (O) The Reverend Roger ter Haar �� (B) Stephen Bickford-Smith Esq (B) Mrs Margaret Bickford-Smith �� (B) The Rt Hon Sir Jeremy Sullivan (U)

Ian Hunter Esq �� (B)

The Rt Hon the Lord Wilson of Culworth (U)

The Rt Hon Sir Henry Brooke (S)

Giles Wingate-Saul Esq �� (S)

Sir Peter North ��� ��� ��� �� (H)

Gerard Elias Esq �� (S)

Sir Martin Jacomb (H)

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Beatson ��� (J)

Patrick Ground Esq �� (B)

Anthony Hacking Esq �� (S)

David Vaughan Esq ��� �� (B)

Sir Hugh Bennett (O)

Professor Sir John Baker �� ��� ��� (H)

Dermod O’Brien Esq �� (S)

The Rt Hon the Lord Hutton (H)

The Rt Hon Sir Anthony Hooper (O)

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Moore-Bick (J)

His Honour James Wadsworth �� (U)

Bruce Mauleverer Esq �� (O)

Masters of the Bench

Jules Sher Esq �� (U)

His Honour Neil Butter ��� �� (S)

Eldred Tabachnik Esq �� (U)

His Honour Duncan Matheson �� (O)

Sir Michael Tugendhat (J)

Her Honour Christian Bevington (O)

John Crowley Esq �� (S)

Miss Caroline Willbourne (B)

The Rt Hon Sir Stephen Sedley (O)

Her Honour Judge Hughes �� (J)

Dame Rosalyn Higgins ��� JSD ��� �� (S)

Michael Sayers Esq �� (U)

His Honour David Elfer �� (S)

Sir Richard Henriques (O)

Raymond Potter Esq CB (S)

Martin Bowley Esq �� (O)

Nigel Hamilton Esq �� (U)

The Honourable Justice Stephen Breyer (H)

Sir Sydney Lipworth �� (H)

The Honourable Justice Anthony Kennedy (H)

The Rt Hon the Lord Sumption ��� (J)

His Honour John Gower �� (S)

Leonard Woodley Esq �� (U)

The Rt Hon the Lord Toulson (J)

Nicholas Wood Esq (O)

Tom Shields Esq �� (O)

The Hon Mrs Justice Slade ��� (J)

His Honour Judge Havelock-Allan �� (J)

Henry Knorpel Esq CB �� (S)

His Honour Simon Brown �� (O)

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

Jonathan Acton Davis Esq �� (B)

Stephen Williamson Esq �� (S) The Rt Hon Sir Anthony May (O) Vivian Robinson Esq �� (O) The Rt Hon Lord Justice Laws (J) The Rt Hon Lady Justice Hallett ��� (J) Jonathan Hirst Esq �� (B) Simon Thorley Esq �� (B) The Rt Hon Lord Justice Tomlinson (J)

David Widdicombe Esq �� (U) The Rt Hon the Lord Goff of Chieveley (S) John Willmer Esq �� (S) The Rt Hon the Lord Woolf CH ��� (S) The Rt Hon Sir Brian Neill (S) The Rt Hon Sir Andrew Leggatt (S) His Honour George Dobry ��� �� (U) William Glover Esq �� (U) The Rt Hon Sir Roy Beldam (S) Sir Oliver Popplewell (O) Sir William Macpherson of Cluny TD (U) The Hon Sir Charles Morrison �� (U) The Rt Hon the Lord Mackay of Clashfern KT (H) Professor Francis Reynolds ��� ��� �� (H) Sir Michael Morland (O) Sir John Drinkwater �� (S) Sir Michael Turner (U) Nigel Inglis-Jones Esq �� (U) The Rt Hon the Lord Scott of Foscote (S) Sir Thomas Legg KCB �� (S) Mark Tennant Esq (O) Sir Richard Curtis �� (U) Sir Allan Green KCB �� (U) The Rt Hon Sir William Aldous (U) Neville Thomas Esq �� (U)

Judge Martin Feldman (H) Sir Ivan Lawrence �� (B) James Goudie Esq �� (S) Christopher Lockhart-Mummery Esq �� (B) Richard Salter Esq �� (B) Sir David Steel (O) Neil Kaplan ��� �� �� (HK) (S) The Rt Hon Sir William Gage (S) Paul Purnell Esq �� (U) His Honour Jonathan Playford �� (S) Sir Thayne Forbes (O)

Anthony Temple Esq �� (B) Richard Rampton Esq �� (S) Sir Robert Owen (S) Gary Flather Esq ��� �� (S) Christopher Purchas Esq �� (B) Miss Pamela Scriven �� (B) Nicholas Padfield Esq �� (B) The Rt Hon Lord Justice Elias (J) Anthony Glass Esq �� (S) Michael Shorrock Esq �� (B) Sir Gordon Langley (O) Sir Christopher Pitchers (S)

155

156

INNER TEMPLE

Nigel Pascoe Esq �� (S)

James Guthrie Esq �� (B)

Jonathan Gaisman Esq �� (B)

Her Honour Judge Korner CMG �� (J)

Sir Raymond Jack (U)

The Hon Mr Justice Popplewell (J)

Oliver Sells Esq �� (B)

His Honour David Hodson (S)

The Hon Mr Justice Moor (J)

Kenneth Aylett Esq (S)

His Honour Judge McGregor-Johnson (J)

Sir Alex Allan KCB (H)

Andrew Tidbury Esq (B)

Dr Pehr Gyllenhammar (H)

Sir Edward Caldwell KCB ��(Hon) (H)

Sir Timothy Walker (O)

The Hon Mr Justice Wilkie (J)

Ian Laing Esq ��� �� (H)

Nicholas Merriman Esq �� (O)

Peter Joyce Esq �� (B)

Sir Ian McKellen CH ��� (H)

Robin De Wilde Esq �� (S)

Christopher Moger Esq �� (B)

David Spens Esq �� (B)

Peter Birkett Esq �� (B)

The Hon Philip Havers �� (B)

His Honour Judge Ford �� (J)

Robin Purchas Esq �� (B)

His Honour Judge Iain Hughes �� (J)

His Honour Judge Hammerton (J)

Sir Geoffrey Nice �� (B)

Tim Charlton Esq �� (B)

His Honour Thomas Crowther �� (U)

Sir Frederick Crawford �� FR Eng (H)

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Floyd (J)

Sir David Maddison (O)

The Baroness Deech ��� �� (Hon) (O)

The Hon Mr Justice Patrick Chan (H)

His Honour Nicholas Coleman (O)

Professor Sir Ian Kennedy �� ��� (H)

The Honourable Sir John McGrath (H)

Brigadier Peter Little ��� (H)

Sir Brian Keith (S)

The Rt Hon The Lord Sacks (H)

Sir Brian Williamson ��� (H)

His Honour John Weeks �� (U)

Professor Sir Alan Dashwood KCMG ��� �� (B)

Dr Stephen Cretney (LA)

Michael Spencer Esq �� (B)

Nigel Pleming Esq �� (B)

The Rt Hon Lord Hamilton (H)

His Honour Judge Denyer �� (J)

His Honour Judge Owen Davies �� (J)

The Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG (H)

Victor Temple Esq �� (O)

Charles George Esq �� (O)

Philip Mott Esq �� (B)

Sir Richard Plender (U)

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

Thomas Seymour Esq (B)

M Jean-Paul Costa (H)

David Streatfeild-James Esq �� (B)

Sir Robert Akenhead (O) Dame Caroline Swift ��� (O) Justin Fenwick Esq �� (B) Thomas Baxendale Esq (S) Kevin de Haan Esq �� (B) His Honour Jeffrey Burke �� (U) Ian Glick Esq �� (B) The Rt Hon the Lord Falconer of Thoroton (O) The Rt Hon Jack Straw (O) Chief Justice Yong Pung How (H) Judge Richard Posner (H) Professor Andrew Ashworth PhD ��� ��� (LA) The Rt Hon The Lord Hughes of Ombersley (J) His Honour John Adams (S) Sibghatullah Kadri Esq �� (S) Robert Webb Esq �� FRAeS (O) Nicholas Davidson Esq �� (B) Miss Rosamund Horwood-Smart �� (O) Stuart Brown Esq �� (B) His Honour Judge Everall �� (J) His Honour John Milford �� (O) Stephen Solley Esq �� (B) Dorian Lovell-Pank Esq �� (B) The Hon Mr Justice Field (J) Sir Hayden Phillips GCB �� (H) His Honour Denis Orde (O) The Rt Hon Sir John MacDermott (H) The Hon Dr Justice Adarsh Anand (V) Sir Jeffery Bowman FCA (H) Justice Richard Goldstone (H) His Honour Michael Fysh �� (S) David Friedman Esq �� (S)

M Luzius Wildhaber (H) Michael Austin-Smith Esq �� (S) His Honour Judge Peter Collier �� (J) Michael Redfern Esq �� (B)

Sir Nicholas Stadlen (O) The Hon Mr Justice Dingemans (J) The Hon Mrs Justice Carr ��� (J) Dr Mary Malecka (O)

Robert Smith Esq �� (B)

The Reverend and Valiant Master of the Temple (H)

Andrew Trollope Esq �� (B)

Adrian Brunner Esq �� (O)

Iain Milligan Esq �� (U)

Nicholas Asprey Esq (O)

Sir Robert Francis Esq �� (B)

Augustus Ullstein Esq �� (B)

Miss Elizabeth-Anne Gumbel �� (B)

John Ross Esq �� (B)

John Marrin Esq �� (B)

Professor Michael Lerego �� (O)

Richard Drabble Esq �� (B)

Jeremy Storey Esq �� (B)

Gavin Kealey Esq �� (B)

James Turner Esq �� (B)

His Honour Judge Burrell �� (J)

The Hon Mrs Justice Lang ��� (J)

The Hon Mr Justice Flaux (J)

The Hon Justice Salihu Moddibo Alfa Belgore (V)

Edward Fitzgerald Esq ��� �� (B)

His Honour Judge Simon Davis (J)

His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman �� (J)

Deputy Senior District Judge Arbuthnot (J)

The Hon Mr Justice Green (J)

His Excellency Judge Kenneth Keith ��� ��� (H)

Sir Stuart Lipton (H) Anthony Porten Esq �� (U) His Honour Judge Nicholas Browne �� (J) His Honour Judge Pegden �� (J) David Wilby Esq �� (B) The Hon Mr Justice Goss (J) His Honour Judge Leonard �� (J) Miss Alison Foster �� (B) Roger Stewart Esq �� (B) The Hon Mr Justice Ribeiro (H) Professor Christopher Forsyth (LA) Professor John Gardner (LA) Dr Mads Andenas PhD MA DPhil (LA)

The Hon Mr Justice Wyn Williams (J) The Hon Mr Justice Moylan (J) His Honour Mervyn Roberts (O) Robert Rhodes Esq �� (B) His Honour David Tyzack �� (O) Patrick Upward Esq �� (B) His Honour Judge Melville �� (J) Miss Sally Smith �� (B) His Honour Judge Jeremy Richardson �� (J) Nigel Giffin Esq �� (B) Jonathan Swift Esq �� (B) Christopher Brougham Esq �� (B)

Professor John Spencer �� (LA)

Nicholas Atkinson Esq �� (B)

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

Miss Susanna FitzGerald �� (B) Orlando Pownall Esq �� (B)

Malcolm Bishop Esq �� (B)

Sir Bernard Eder (O)

Mrs Gay Martin (O)

The Hon Mr Justice Davis (J)

Philip Sapsford Esq �� (U)

Richard Lissack Esq �� (B)

His Honour Judge Bourne-Arton �� (J)

Abbas Lakha Esq �� (B)

The Hon Mr Justice Nugee (J)

Her Honour Frances Kirkham ��� (H)

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

Professor Dr Jürgen Schwarze (H)

The Rt Hon Lady Justice King ��� (J)

His Eminence Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor (H)

His Honour David Paget �� (O)

The Hon Mr Justice Michael Soole (J)

Her Honour Elisabeth Fisher (O)

His Honour Judge Grainger (J)

George Staple Esq CB �� (H)

The Hon Mr Justice Openshaw �� (J)

Miss Margaret Bowron �� (B)

Michael de Navarro Esq �� (S)

His Honour Judge Critchlow (J)

His Honour Judge Seed �� (J)

Godfrey Carey Esq �� (O)

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

Charles Gibson Esq �� (B)

The Rt Hon Sir Dennis Byron (V)

Stuart Catchpole Esq �� (B)

Nicholas Stewart Esq �� (B) Timothy Raggatt Esq �� (B) The Hon Mrs Justice Cox ��� (J) The Rt Hon Lady Justice Black ��� (J) The Rt Rev and Rt Hon Lord Habgood (H) Sir Richard Gibbs (U) The Rt Hon The Lord Collins of Mapesbury ��� ��� (O)

Rex Tedd Esq �� (B) Johnny Veeder Esq �� (B) His Honour Toby Hooper �� (O)

Terence Coghlan Esq �� (S) Andrew Caldecott Esq �� (B)

The Hon Mrs Justice Simler ��� (J) Iain Christie Esq (O)

MASTERS OF THE BENCH INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

His Honour Giles Forrester (O)

Professor Nicola Lacey ��� (H)

Mark Wyeth Esq �� (B)

His Honour Judge McCreath (J)

The Rt Hon the Baroness Prashar ��� (H)

Jeremy Hill-Baker Esq (B)

His Honour Gregory Stone �� (O)

The Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia LVO (H)

Crispin Aylett Esq �� (B)

Patrick O’Connor Esq �� (B)

Professor Timothy Endicott (LA)

Richard Humphreys Esq �� (B)

James Corbett Esq �� (O)

Professor Timothy Macklem (LA)

The Hon Mrs Justice Roberts ��� (J)

His Honour Judge Bayliss �� (J)

Professor Julian Webb (LA)

Miss Máirín Casey (O)

Steven Kay Esq �� (B)

The Rt Hon Lord Reed (J)

Miss Eleanor Laws �� (B)

David Green Esq CB �� (O)

His Honour Inigo Bing (O)

Martin Goudie Esq (B)

Peter Wright Esq �� (B)

Charles Parsley Esq (B)

Alastair Hodge Esq (B)

Miss Deborah Eaton �� (B)

Miss Julia Dias �� (B)

Graham Chapman Esq �� (B)

Nicholas Lavender Esq �� (B)

Ms Finola O’Farrell �� (B)

Ms Desiree Artesi (B)

His Honour Judge Charles Harris �� (J)

His Honour Judge Blair �� (J)

Miss Fiona Jackson (B)

His Honour Judge Mark Brown (J)

Alistair Schaff Esq �� (B)

Professor David D Caron (O)

The Rt Hon Lady Justice Sharp ��� (J)

His Honour Judge Neil Clark (J)

Andrew Cayley Esq CMG �� (O)

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

Harry Matovu Esq �� (B)

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

Guy Beringer Esq �� ��� (H)

Miss Christina Lambert �� (B)

The Hon Philip Remnant ��� ACA (H)

Miss Taryn Lee �� (B)

Robert Buckland Esq �� MP (O)

Philip Moser Esq �� (B)

Professor Sir Roger Scruton ��� FRSL (H)

Michael Simon Esq (B)

Professor Spyridon Flogaitis (LA)

Alexander Hall Taylor Esq (B)

Paul Infield Esq (B)

Professor Cheryl Thomas (LA)

Stuart Denney Esq �� (B)

John Griffith-Jones Esq (H)

Miss Anne Richardson (B)

Michael Payton Esq �� (H)

The Hon Simon Davenport �� (B)

Ms Libby Purves ��� (H)

Leslie Thomas Esq �� (B)

Judge Paul Mahoney (V)

Miss Sara Lawson (B)

Justice Sundaresh Menon (H)

Christopher Quinlan Esq �� (B)

Nigel Aiken Esq �� �� (V)

Miss Camilla Bingham �� (B)

The Most Revd and Rt Hon Justin Welby (H)

Ms Anneliese Day �� (B)

Richard Benson Esq �� (B)

Scott Matthewson Esq (B)

Mark George Esq �� (B)

Miss Kelyn Bacon �� (B)

His Honour Judge Roger Thomas �� (J)

Miss Rachel Spearing (B)

Michael Burrows Esq �� (B)

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

Jonathan Laidlaw Esq �� (B)

The Rev Hugh Mead (H)

Rory Phillips Esq �� (B)

His Honour Judge Carey �� (J)

Martin Griffiths Esq �� (B)

Her Honour Judge Bancroft (J)

Richard Heaton Esq CB (O)

Her Honour Judge Corbett (J)

His Honour Judge Hiddleston (J)

His Honour Judge The Reverend James Patrick (J)

Tim Lord Esq �� (B)

Dr Anselmo Reyes (V)

Daniel Toledano Esq �� (B)

The Rt Hon Michael Gove MP (H)

Miss Sarah Clarke (B)

The Honourable Justice Ann Ainslie-Wallace (LA)

Adam Constable Esq �� (B)

The Hon Mr Justice MacDonald (J)

Dr Vanessa Davies (O)

Christopher Sharp Esq �� (B)

The Rt Hon Lord Menzies (H)

His Honour Judge Tolson �� (J)

The Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis (H)

His Honour Judge Sloan �� (J)

Lyonpo Sonam Tobgye (H)

His Honour Judge Robinson (J)

Philip Punwar Esq (V)

Thomas Kark Esq �� (B)

Professor the Hon George Hampel �� �� (LA)

Her Honour Judge Munro �� (J)

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

Her Honour Judge Gillian Matthews �� (J)

The Hon Reginald Rhoda Esq ��� (V)

David Wolfson Esq �� (B)

David Yale Esq ��� �� (LA) Nigel Lithman Esq �� (B) Her Honour Judge Hildyard �� (J) Andrew Goodman Esq (B) Grahame Aldous Esq �� (B) Guy Fetherstonhaugh Esq �� (B) Matthew Reeve Esq (B) Russell Coleman Esq �� (V) His Eminence Cardinal V incent Nichols MA MEd STL (H) Her Honour Judge Deborah Taylor (J) Michael Humphries Esq �� (B) Miss Alison Levitt �� ��� (O) His Honour Stephen Oliver-Jones �� (O) His Honour Charles Wide �� (U) Thomas Woodcock Esq ��� �� FSA (O) Professor Barry Rider ��� (LA) The Hon Mrs Justice Juliet May (J) Professor Robert Walsh (LA) The Honourable Justice Baragwanath KNZM �� (V) The Hon Mr Justice Peter Jackson (J) Miss Tracy Ayling �� (B) The Hon Mr Justice Dove (J) Iain Morley Esq �� (B) Dr Colin Ong (V) Miss Helen Davies �� (B) The Rt Hon Lord Bonomy ��� (H) Judge Koen Lenaerts (H) His Honour Simon Tonking (O) Paul Bleasdale Esq �� (B) Andrew Tait Esq �� (B) Simon O’Toole Esq (B) The Hon Mr Justice Cobb (J) The Hon Sir Peter Caruana KCMG �� (V) Dr Navinchandra Ramgoolam GCSK FRCP (V) His Majesty King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck of Bhutan (H) His Honour Judge Wait (J)

Datuk Sulong Matjeraie (V) Mrs Alison Saunders CB (O) Ami Feder Esq (B) His Honour Judge Mitchell (J) John Ryder Esq �� (B)

Miss Ruth Henke �� (B) Paul Greaney Esq �� (B) Dr Catherine MacKenzie (O) Kieron Beal Esq �� (B) Ms Saira Kabir Sheikh �� (B)

His Honour Judge Philip Waller ��� (J) The Rt Hon The Lord Maude of Horsham (O) Michael Pooles Esq �� (B) Martin Spencer Esq �� (B) Her Honour Judge Patricia Lynch �� (J) Miss Susan Jacklin �� (B) Aftab Jafferjee Esq �� (B) Richard Barraclough Esq �� (B) Peter Village Esq �� (B) Ian Stern Esq �� (B) Miss Raquel Agnello �� (B) Professor the Worshipful Mark Hill (B) Ms Patricia Robertson �� (B)

KEY (B) Barrister Governing Bencher

(O) Other Governing Bencher

(H) Honorary Bencher

(S) Senior Bencher

(J) Judicial Governing Bencher

(U) sUpernumerary Bencher

(L) Legal Academic Bencher

(V) oVerseas Bencher

Sam Stein Esq �� (B)

157

158

INNER TEMPLE

People Finder Title

Name

Telephone Email

TREASURY OFFICE

020 7797 8250

enquiries@innertemple.org.uk

Sub-Treasurer

Patrick Maddams

020 7797 8177

subtreasurer@innertemple.org.uk

Executive Assistant to the Sub-Treasurer

Jennie Collis

020 7797 8177

jcollis@innertemple.org.uk

Head of Treasury Office

Henrietta Amodio

020 7797 8182

hamodio@innertemple.org.uk

Assistant to the Head of Treasury Office

Helena Vaughan

020 7797 8182

hvaughan@innertemple.org.uk

Events and Administration Assistant (Maternity Cover)

Rosy Gotelee

020 7797 8183

rgotelee@innertemple.org.uk

Membership Registrar

Jude Hodgson

020 7797 8206

jhodgson@innertemple.org.uk

Records and Membership Assistant

Jacqueline Fenton

020 7797 8241

jfenton@innertemple.org.uk

Archivist (Wednesday-Friday)

Celia Pilkington

020 7797 8251

cpilkington@innertemple.org.uk

EDUCATION and TRAINING

020 7797 8208

education@innertemple.org.uk

Director of Education

Fiona Fulton

020 7797 8207

ffulton@innertemple.org.uk

Education Co-ordinator and Assistant to the Director of Education

Julia Armfield

020 7797 8207

jarmfield@innertemple.org.uk

Professional Training Manager

David Miller

020 7797 8209

dmiller@innertemple.org.uk

Education Co-ordinator

Kerry Upham

020 7797 8213

kupham@innertemple.org.uk

Scholarships and Students Manager

Eamonn O’Reilly

020 7797 8210

eoreilly@innertemple.org.uk

Scholarships and Students Co-ordinator

Georgina Everatt

020 7797 8211

geveratt@innertemple.org.uk

Outreach Manager

Struan Campbell

020 7797 8214

scampbell@innertemple.org.uk

Outreach Co-ordinator

Lacara Barnes-Rowe

020 7797 8262

lbarnes@innertemple.org.uk

COLLECTOR’S DEPARTMENT

collectors@innertemple.org.uk

Collector

David Bartlett

020 7797 8185

dbartlett@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 Assistant

Joanna Zawada

020 7797 8187

jzawada@innertemple.org.uk

Head of IT / Systems Librarian

Peter Higgins

020 7797 8220

phiggins@innertemple.org.uk

Senior Network Administrator

Jonathan Delaney

020 7797 8285

jdelaney@innertemple.org.uk

Technology and Communications Officer

Paul Clark

020 7797 8229

pclark@innertemple.org.uk

IT

LIBRARY

library@innertemple.org.uk

Librarian and Keeper of Manuscripts

Margaret Clay

020 7797 8215

mclay@innertemple.org.uk

Deputy Librarian

Tracey Dennis

020 7797 8248

tdennis@innertemple.org.uk

Library Administrator

Tina Williams

020 7797 8216

twilliams@innertemple.org.uk

Assistant Librarian (enquiries and cataloguing) Michael Frost

020 7797 8218

mfrost@innertemple.org.uk

Assistant Librarian (enquiries and acquisitions) Sally McLaren

020 7797 8221

smclaren@innertemple.org.uk

Senior Library Assistant

Simon Hindley

020 7797 8248

shindley@innertemple.org.uk

Library Assistant

Lucia Asnaghi

020 7797 8218

lasnaghi@innertemple.org.uk

Library Assistant

Verity Parkinson

020 7797 8218

vparkinson@innertemple.org.uk

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

Procurement Manager (To be appointed)

020 7797 8199

Office Manager (Job Share) Rene Hicks and Anne Mason 020 7797 8173 rhicks@innertemple.org.uk or amason@innertemple.org.uk Estates Officer

Albena Ahjem

020 7797 8202

aahjem@innertemple.org.uk

Mechanical and Electrical Engineer

Darren Readings

020 7797 8198

dreadings@innertemple.org.uk

Works Supervisor

Paul Simmonds

020 7797 8190

psimmonds@innertemple.org.uk

Foreman

Delbert Brooks (Julius Rutherfoord)

020 7797 8195

dbrooks@innertemple.org.uk

PEOPLE FINDER INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2016–2017

Electrical Foreman

Ian Ward

020 7797 8197

iward@innertemple.org.uk

Plumbing and Mechanical Foreman

Tony Baca

020 7797 8196

tbaca@innertemple.org.uk

Carpentry Foreman

Steve Hanks

020 7797 8275

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

Events Manager

Adam Bracegirdle

020 7797 8260

abracegirdle@innertemple.org.uk

Sales and Marketing Manager

Stefani Goodrem

020 7797 8230

sgoodrem@innertemple.org.uk

Sales and Events Co-ordinator

Niamh McCarthy

020 7797 8193

nmccarthy@innertemple.org.uk

Office and Events Co-ordinator

Lorna Pay

020 7797 8179

lpay@innertemple.org.uk

Head Chef

Martin Cheesman

020 7797 8232

mcheesman@innertemple.org.uk

Pegasus Bar Manager

Elcio Mendonca

020 7797 8234

emendonca@innertemple.org.uk

Head Gardener

Andrea Brunsendorf

020 7797 8243

abrunsendorf@innertemple.org.uk

Gardener

Amanda Dennis

020 7797 8243

adennis@innertemple.org.uk

Garden Administrator and Seasonal Gardener

Pamela Gent

020 7797 8243

pgent@innertemple.org.uk

Trainee 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

Roger Ward

020 7797 8255

rward@innertemple.org.uk

Under Porter 1

Dennis Moffat

020 7797 8255

dmoffat@innertemple.org.uk

Under Porter 2

David McLeary

020 7797 8255

dmcleary@innertemple.org.uk

020 7583 1034

tgate@innertemple.org.uk

GARDEN

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

The Rev’d Robin Griffith-Jones 020 7427 5642

Master@templechurch.com

Reader

The Rev’d Mark Hatcher

020 7353 8559

reader@templechurch.com

Verger

John Shearer

020 7353 3470

verger@templechurch.com

Administrator

Catherine de Satgé

020 7353 8559

catherine@templechurch.com

Director of Music

Roger Sayer

020 7427 5650

roger@templechurch.com

Associate Organist

Greg Morris

020 7427 5650

greg@templechurch.com

Music Administrator

Liz Clarke

020 7427 5650

liz@templechurch.com

Events and Finance Consultant

Carol Butler

020 7427 5641

carol@templechurch.com

Events and Marketing Manager

Lucy Mackay-Buller

020 7427 5641

lucy@templechurch.com

COUNCIL OF THE INNS OF COURT (COIC)

020 7822 0760

info@coic.org.uk

Director

James Wakefield

020 7822 0761

jwakefield@coic.org.uk

Personal Assistant to Director

Hayley Dawes

020 7822 0762

hdawes@coic.org.uk

Digital and Web Manager

Victoria Agenjo

020 7822 0769

vagengo@coic.org.uk

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

020 3432 7350

info@tbtas.org.uk

Registrar

Andy Russell

020 3432 7346

andy.russell@tbtas.org.uk

Tribunals Administrator

Margaret Hilson

020 3432 7348

margaret.hilson@tbtas.org.uk

Inns’ Conduct Committee Administrator

Francis Leeder

020 3432 7347

francis.leeder@tbtas.org.uk

MUSIC OFFICE

TEMPLE MUSIC FOUNDATION (TMF)

THE INNS OF COURT COLLEGE OF ADVOCACY (ICCA) (formerly ATC) 0207 822 0763

info@icca.ac.uk

Dean

James Wakefield

020 7822 0761

jwakefield@icca.ac.uk

Operations Manager

Beth Phillips

020 7822 0764

bphillips@icca.ac.uk

Programme Director

Lynda Gibbs

020 7822 0768

lgibbs@icca.ac.uk

Research and Development Co-ordinator

Linda Hunting

020 7822 0765

lhunting@icca.ac.uk

Administrator and Secretary

Phoebe Makin

020 7822 0766

pmakin@icca.ac.uk

159

160

INNER TEMPLE COMMITTEES

Chairs of Bench Committees & Sub-Committees Executive Committee Master Treasurer (Master Cryan) Finance Sub-Committee Master Roger Stewart (Senior Bench Auditor) Investment Sub-Committee Master Henderson Estates Committee Master Fetherstonhaugh Library Committee Master Sally Smith Education & Training Committee Master Carr Advocacy Training Committee Master Ayling Scholarships Committee Master Taylor

Temple Women’s Forum Master Taylor Temple Employed Bar Forum Master Robinson Marshall Hall Trust Master Shields The Temple Church Committee Ian Mayes �� (Middle Temple) Choir Committee Master Beringer

Masters of the Circuits and Assistant Masters European Circuit Master Nicholas Green Midland Circuit Master Bleasdale

Qualifying Sessions Sub-Committee Master Juliet May

Northern Circuit Master Birkett Master Bancroft

Student Societies Committee Master Morley

North Eastern Circuit Master Neil Clark Master Anne Richardson

Outreach Sub-Committee Master O’Toole Pupil Supervisors Sub-Committee Master Glick Pegasus Scholarship Trust Master Guthrie Benchers’ Selection Committee Master Reader (Master Pittaway) Archives Committee Master Baker

South Eastern Circuit Master Coleman Master Jeremy Carey Master Fiona Jackson Wales & Chester Circuit Master Parsley Western Circuit Master Iain Hughes Master Hiddleston Master Quinlan

Inner Temple Representatives on External Bodies Bar Council Master Fetherstonhaugh Master Rhodes Gordon Nardell �� Inns of Court And Bar Educational Trust Master Eder (Chairman) Master Rory Phillips Inns of Court Libraries Liaison Committee Master Sally Smith Institute 0f Advanced Legal Studies (IALS) Master Korner Inns of Court College of Advocacy Derek Wood �� (Chairman) Master Stein Master Mackenzie Council of the Inns of Court Treasurer (Master Cryan) Reader (Master Pittaway) Master Gloster Sub-Treasurer Incorporated Council of Law Reporting Master Patrick Elias Master Sally Smith Inns’ Strategic Advisory Group Master Treasurer (Master Cryan) Master Reader (Master Pittaway) Sub-Treasurer Education & Training Committee (Bar Council) Master Fetherstonhaugh Tribunal Appointments Board Master Willbourne Master Ayling

International Committee Master Nice

COIC Funded Pupillage Scheme Master Scriven

Project Pegasus Steering Group Master Reader (Master Pittaway)

Barristers’ Benevolent Association Master Fisher Master Toledano

Communications Steering Group Master Agnello

Selden Society Master Treasurer (Master Cryan)

THE ICLR ANNOUNCES THE

E X P A N S I O N O F T H E W E E K LY L AW R E P O RT S Since they entered circulation in 1953, The Weekly Law Reports have provided the most up to date and comprehensive generalist coverage of law-changing judgments in England and Wales.

To address the demand for wider and deeper coverage of case law, we have expanded The Weekly Law Reports.

Users of The Weekly Law Reports will be familiar with the existing three volumes: Volume 1 cases cover procedural matters and points of law of general interest.

Volumes 2 and 3 contain cases of greater long term significance which will subsequently appear (together with a note of argument) in The Law Reports.

We are now pleased to introduce Volume 4.

For a case to merit reporting in Volume 4, it must: (1) illustrate the application of established rules or principles to particular factual situations in such a way as to be of practical value to counsel or solicitors; or (2) helpfully bring together and summarise the established rules or principles applicable in a particular area of law; or (3) articulate principles to guide the exercise of judicial discretion conferred by statute, rules of court or the inherent jurisdiction; or (4) indicate the level of general damages awarded in particular factual situations in a way which may assist courts assessing damages in similar cases; or (5) indicate the level of sentence to be imposed for particular offences in a way which may assist courts sentencing for similar offences So that we are able to publish these additional reports as soon after judgment as possible, cases reported in Volume 4 will not be published in print. Volume 4 cases are available, along with those reported in Volumes 1 to 3, on ICLR Online.

The development of Volume 4 is a significant milestone for The Weekly Law Reports and ICLR’s general reporting capability.

For more information, call us on 0207 242 6471 or contact us on enquiries@iclr.co.uk or visit iclr.co.uk