Page 1

The Middle Templar Issue 56 Michaelmas 2016

Treasurer: The Rt. Hon Lord Justice Christopher Clarke Deputy Treasurer: The Rt. Hon Lord Dyson Lent Reader: The Rt. Hon Sir Richard Aikens Autumn Reader: David Blunt QC Editorial Consultant: Adam Speker Editor: Colin Davidson Assistant Editor: Lauren McHardy Photographs: Chris Christodoulou Peter Jones And the Inn’s own Design: Nrinder Dhillon at John Good Ltd Printed by John Good Ltd, Progress House, Butlers Leap, Rugby, CV21 3RQ Front Cover: Fountain Court by Chris Christodoulou Contacts: General Enquiries The Treasury Office Ashley Building Middle Temple Lane London EC4Y 9BT T: 020 7427 4800 F: 020 7427 4801 W: Education T: 020 7427 4800 E: Estates T: 020 7427 4840 E: Events T: 020 7427 4820 E: Finance T: 020 7427 4800 E: Library T: 020 7427 4830 E: Membership T: 020 7427 6385 E: Security (24 Hours) T: 020 7797 7768 E: Temple Church T: 020 7353 8559 E:

©2016 The Honourable Society of the Middle Temple. All rights reserved. The Middle Temple asserts its moral rights in the contents of this magazine.

Under Treasurer’s Foreword GUY PERRICONE A very warm welcome to this year’s edition of The Middle Templar. You will find the usual wide range of articles from an equally diverse group of contributors. I would like to express our thanks to all those who have contributed. This year we have been inundated with such a variety of articles that we have created two versions of the magazine. The printed version is as big as ever but the online version, which can be found on our website, contains even more articles which we hope you will enjoy reading. It is extremely encouraging to see such a level of interest in, and support, for The Middle Templar. As ever, the past 12 months have flown by, but I think it is no exaggeration to say that they have been a truly extraordinary 12 months, bookended by the celebration of the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta last summer, and the tumultuous events of the past few weeks. I am writing this Foreword the morning after our two Student Call sessions, at which almost 200 new members were Called to the profession by Middle Temple. In his speech to the new barristers, Master Treasurer noted that success in the profession is as difficult today as it has ever been, possibly even more so. The profession faces a number of challenges on various fronts, external and internal. However, and again as Master Treasurer noted, it is also true that our society more than ever needs to be able to rely on a strong and healthy Bar and legal profession, working to the highest standards of integrity and ethics. In this context, I believe the Inns of Court have a very important role to play. In my Foreword last year, I referred to the challenge laid down by Master Judge in 2014, and subsequently picked up by Master Hockman in 2015 and Master Christopher Clarke this year. Master Judge asked us to consider the role of the Inns of Court, and the need to redefine that role. We have been considering this issue over the past months, culminating in the adoption by the Inn of a new five-year strategic plan, the first such plan of its kind for many years – and indeed possibly ever. This plan restates the mission of the Inn to support the rule of law and the administration of justice in this country and beyond, and then further establishes that the principal way by which the Inn will achieve this overall objective is to support our members (and this means all our members, including selfemployed or employed) in their professional careers – this is our role. This support includes the educational and training programmes and activities we provide, as well as the wide range of other membership activities. All of these are intended to ensure that, by supporting our members, the Bar remains

healthy and vigorous, and able to meet the challenges of an increasingly complex world. We have fascinating essays and reviews on various professional and cultural events that have taken place over the past year, including the very successful Amity Visit last September to Hong Kong (to be followed this year by what we hope will be an equally, if not more, successful visit to Singapore). Master Leveson writes about technology and the justice system, a highly topical and relevant issue for all. Master Rosalind Wright has contributed an article on the first women members of the Inn, looking forward to the anniversary in 2019 of the first application to the Bar by a woman, Helena Normanton. One of the most successful initiatives we have introduced recently has been the ‘themed’ programmes of events focusing on particular areas of interest. You will find articles relating to the Temple Women’s Forum by Master Delahunty and Elaine Banton, and also on the Temple Employed Bar forum by Sally Bevan. Both these initiatives have gone from strength to strength this past year, together with the ‘Survive and Thrive’ series of events, and are intended very much to provide additional support to our members. Equally, a very successful initiative to support Wellbeing at the Bar has been introduced by the Bar Council, and Rachel Spearing talks more about this in her interesting article. The Temple Church and Choir are, of course, a most precious aspect of our Inn’s life, and there are various articles which relate to these. And finally, we are delighted to include a review by Lord Neuberger of Master Judge’s book, The Safest Shield and Master Dyson’s valedictory speech on his retirement as Master of the Rolls. Our focus in the coming years will be to ensure that Middle Temple provides the fullest support it can to all its members, and by doing this contributes to the health and strength of the Bar. We are keen to ensure that the services we provide to our members are the services they want from us, and I therefore strongly encourage all our members to provide their thoughts and suggestions to us, and help us fulfil this extremely important objective. In closing, I would like to thank all those members of the Inn who have contributed their time, skills and expertise to Middle Temple over the past 12 months, and also to my colleagues in our staff. It has been an extraordinary year, and I am already wondering - with some excitement - what I will be writing in this Foreword next year.

Under Treasurer's Foreword


Contents 1

Under Treasurer’s Foreword

Guy Perricone

Master Christopher Clarke

Guy Perricone


From the Treasurer

40 ‘Help me to die, O Lord.’ The First Day of the Somme

Master Robin Griffith-Jones

Master Rosalind Wright

Master Robin Griffith-Jones

Master Michael Ashe

Roger Sayer

18 The Queen's 90th Birthday

Simon Thorley QC

20 The Middle Temple Garden Party: 5 July 2016 22 Survive and Thrive

Master Robin Griffith-Jones

Juliette Levy & Klentiana Mahmutaj


The Inn’s Five Year Strategic Plan



Master Philip Bartle

The Submariners’ Memorial Service 2015 Master Stephen Hockman

10 Temple Open Weekend

Alice Pearson

Master Timothy Holroyde

Master Stanley Burnton

12 A Kingdom For a Stage

13 The Messiah came to Middle Temple 14 Bench Call 24 November 2015

42 Middle Temple and its First Women Members 44 From London to Dresden: 1940-45 46 High Treason ‘The Centenary of the Casement Case’ 47 Congratulations! Temple Church Weddings 48 Temple Church Calendar 2016-17 49 Church Choir

Dominic Tighe

Master Guy Mansfield

50 ‘Why are those boys wearing dresses?’ The Temple Church Choirboys’ Tour to Singapore and Perth

Master Robin Griffith-Jones

52 The Two Earls

16 Four Jurisdictions Conference: 6-8 May

54 Hall Committee

24 Antic Disposition

56 Temple Women's Forum: A History and the Future

25 Middle Temple Association in Mauritius

59 Temple Employed Bar Forum

26 Gibraltar Middle Temple Society

60 Young Bar

27 The Malaysia Middle Temple Alumni Association

62 The Property Bar Association

Master Adrienne Page

Ben Horslen & John Risebero

Master Jo Delahunty & Elaine Banton

M. Rashad Daureeawo SC

Sally Bevan

Master Adrian Jack

Louisa Nye

Master Zia Bhaloo

Rachel Spearing

Master Stephen Hockman

Master Chantal-Aimée Doerries & Master Andrew Langdon

Karen Reid

Ryan Turner

Renae Satterley

Renae Satterley

Master Igor Judge

Shaun Paulian

63 Wellbeing at the Bar

Master Stephen Hockman

64 Social Mobility at the Bar

28 Middle Temple Goes Global

30 Middle Temple Amity Visit to Hong Kong 2015

Laura Feldman

Lucy Harrison Shaw

Master John Mitchell

Robert J Olejar

31 Vanity Fair

32 Wolf Hall and the Middle Temple 34 The Sixth Middle Templar 36 The Lent Reading 2016 1916: War, Treason and Middle Temple

Master Richard Aikens

Lesley Whitelaw

38 WWI and Middle Temple


66 Bar Council 67 MTYBA 68 MTSA

70 Rare Books in Need of Restoration 72 Library Book Donations 74 Book Review: Let Equity Prevail

76 Book Review: EDUCATION SECTION: Jeremy Hutchinson’s Case Histories Master William Flenley 118 Welcome to the Education Section 78 Book Review: The Safest Shield Murray Baker The Rt. Hon. Lord Neuberger 119 Middle Temple Access to the Bar Awards 80 Book Review: The Brief Tricia Hemans Rex Tedd QC 120 Rosamund Smith Moot Winners 2015 81 Book Review: Damages Master Maura McGowan, James Cherry

Kenneth Fogarty QC SC

& Richard Cloughton

Lt Col David Phillips

Phoebe Makin

Jeremy Bloom

Hazel Hobbs

Master Michael McLaren

Angus Gull

Master Pat Edwards

Master Brian Leveson

Master Neil Davey

82 Barristers’ Red Bag

83 HRLA Competition 85 The Fishmongers’ Company 86 Valuing at Middle Temple 87 Technology and the Justice System 88 The Charities Forum 89 The Legal Education Foundation

122 ICCA

125 Mock Pupillage Interview Scheme 126 Middle Temple Scholarships 128 Scholarship Interviewer’s Perspective 129 Feedback from Scholarship students 130 The York Residential Advocacy Weekend 131 York Advocacy Weekend Feedback

Matthew Smerdon

Kavita Kaur Sandhu, Edmund Taylor Jackson & Zana Jashari

Kate Jenrick

Adeola Fadipe, Lily Walker-Parr & Lauren Howe

Master Eric Stockdale

Natasha Khalique

Emma Walker

Rebecca de Hoest

Master Andrew Hochhauser

Shazeeyah Akhtar

Daniel Isenberg

Master Khatun Sapnara & Miriam Yafai

Georgina Wolfe

Master David Wurtzel

Daniel Grütters

90 2016 Garden Highlights 92 Two Absent Members 95 If you can't Defraud your Spouse, who can you Defraud?

Richard Todd QC

Alan Bates

Master Geraldine Van Bueren

96 Brexit and the Bar 98 Justice for All: What can Law and the Courts do in Hard Times? 100 Comparative Criminal Justice Systems

Louis-Victor Sachs

James Keeley

102 Ask Not What Your Inn Can Do For You 103 The Death of Joint Enterprise?

Master Nicola Padfield

104 The Kiss & Tell is Dead: Long Live the Privacy Injunction!

Felicity McMahon

106 Why do we have an Assassination List in the Twenty-first Century?

Master Clive Stafford Smith

108 Case Hub

Michael Green

110 The Autumn Reading 2015 Domus: The Family Silver

Master Paul Worsley

Abigail Bright

Master John Dyson

Adam Speker

112 Are Human Rights Moot? 114 Lord Dyson Valedictory Address 116 The Limits to ‘Uninhibited Public Criticism’

134 Jeremy McMullen Access to the Bar Award 136 Cumberland Lodge March 2016 138 Qualifying Sessions

139 ‘When one is tired of Hong Kong, they are tired of life…’ 140 The Queen's Scholarship 141 The Willem C. Vis International Arbitration Moot 142 The BSB Consultation Papers: Proposed Reforms in Legal Education and Training 144 Legal Internship in Pakistan 146 When ‘Clerking’ Rhymed with ‘Working’ 148 Marshalling: Two Perspectives 151 A Canadian Foxtrot

152 Who Gets Pupillage? 154 The Middle Temple Law Centre Fellow at Hackney Community Law Centre 155 The Middle Temple Historical Society Events Calendar 156 New Masters of the Bench 160 Obituaries 163 In Memoriam 164 Obituaries 170 Staff News



From The Treasurer MASTER CHRISTOPHER CLARKE If you are one of those whose greatest wish is to live in interesting times, your wish has come true. When this year began I thought that it would be eventful, in various senses of the word, but I had not realised quite how eventful it would be. Readers of this edition of the Middle Templar in five years’ time will either struggle to understand what the fuss was about or note how a shifting of the constitutional tectonic plates was viewed in the inner recesses of the legal world. On any view, the decision of the British public, by a small majority, to vote in favour of leaving the European Union was not only the most significant public vote for years; it was also the engine of a cataclysmic change affecting, in different ways, some of our most prominent Honorary Benchers. Immediately after the vote Master David Cameron resigned as Prime Minister, and a new one had to be selected. Master Michael Gove (of Inner Temple), the Lord Chancellor, of whom the Bar had high expectations, and who had been Master Boris Johnson’s right hand man in the Brexit camp, then announced that he could no longer support him and Master Johnson abandoned his candidature and, it was thought by some, his prospects. Not long thereafter, Mrs Theresa May, having become Prime Minister, appointed Master Johnson as Foreign Secretary. Whilst the aftermath of the vote produced a series of twists and turns which would have been thought incredible if included in a television series or a novel, the effect on our world, including in particular our legal world, is potentially beyond measure; or, depending on your point of view, will all blow over. We are, at any rate for the moment, as we have been for centuries, the envy of less happy lands. So great a division of opinion on so important a matter might in other countries produce riots on the streets. Who knows, it still might. But shortly after the vote our Under Treasurer observed to me that for him one of the joys of being in this country was that, even after so seismic an event, the British for the most part simply soldiered on in their usual way. But, as I write in early August, we have little idea of how things are going to play out. Every chambers and law firm is busily arranging a seminar on Brexit with distinguished speakers dealing with intractable topics for which at the time of asking there is no self-evidently correct answer. By the time you are reading this it may be that at least the Divisional Court, if not the Supreme Court, will have determined whether notice under Article 50 of the Treaty can be given without some form of Parliamentary assent.


This is, however, but one of the myriad of problems that a possible Brexit has thrown up. Shortly before the referendum on independence for Scotland we had a most informative seminar in Hall to examine the range of legal questions (not the answers) that independence for Scotland would (and might still) engender. They were immense but seem now as nothing to those inherent in any departure from the European Union. What is to happen to the myriad of statutory instruments embodying principles or dictats of European law? Or to the European patent system? Or the regulations on recognition and enforcement of judgements and conflict of laws? What rules will govern non-UK nationals who are presently lawfully here, UK nationals who are presently lawfully in other countries of the Union, or asylum seekers? The impact on members of the Bar and the judiciary is, of course, potentially profound. Many of our members, including some of our most distinguished, labour predominantly in the European field. There are few for whom European law has no impact whatsoever. I suspect that if we do in fact secede from the Union (by no means a foregone conclusion) there may be up to a decade of work clearing up the mess. But at the end of the day there will, one presumes, be no Community law enforceable in the United Kingdom as such. There may then spring up in its place parallel systems e.g. of restricting anticompetitive behaviour which may call for similar skills but in a different context. And where we shall be with immigration, border controls and deportation, who can tell? Happily, the Bar of England and Wales has always been ready to reinvent itself. Where does the Inn stand in all this? Well, it is a very ancient institution. If you were starting from scratch you would not invent it. We combine the functions of (i) degree granting body; (ii) property company; (iii) generous educational charity; (iv) teacher of advocacy; (v) professional organisation; and (vi) ancient monument. We have survived the Civil War, the Great Fire, and the Blitz. We continue to strive to fulfil our principal objectives: to be an organisation that seeks to promote the interests of our members; to maintain the highest standards of probity and competence in the profession of advocacy; and to be a bastion of the rule of law. In pursuance of these objects we have and will have had an invigorating year. We had a very successful and enjoyable advocacy training weekend in York and (so far) two equally successful weekends at Cumberland Lodge. Her Majesty the Queen has graciously consented to have a scholarship named

in her honour to celebrate her 90th birthday and I was able, at the second Cumberland Lodge weekend, to thank her for allowing us to do this. Under the assiduous and careful direction of the Under Treasurer, who is its chief draftsman, we have compiled a Strategic Plan, which Parliament has approved and which we will now begin to implement. One of its aims is to ensure how best we focus the use of limited resources for the benefit of our members and what, in circumstances where we cannot do everything, should be our priorities. The Plan recognises that our raison d’etre is to support our members. This we endeavour to do as much as possible. We have supported the establishment of the The Inns of Court College of Advocacy; and contributed substantially to the response to the several consultation papers issued by the Bar Standards Board with a view to improving the BPTC, reducing its cost, and avoiding the situation where those with no realistic prospect of a career as a barrister (in whatever form) have to spend very large sums. We have had, so far, two excellent lectures from Master Anderson on 'Terrorising Terrorists' and Master Stafford Smith on his representation of those on Death Row and in Guantanamo. We look forward to the autumn lecture from Master Jeremy Gauntlett in relation to South Africa. The Survive and Thrive sessions have been exceptionally well attended and have proved a great success. Tasker’s, our new social space, which lies between the Bench Apartments and the Library, has opened and we hope to see it become increasingly popular as more people become aware of it. We have a very large outreach. It is our aim to forge and foster strong links with lawyers in those countries with which we have historic connections. In June I visited Gibraltar to sign the Articles of Association of the Gibraltar Middle Temple Society. Middle Temple has very strong links with Gibraltar, a territory of some 32,000 residents of whom over 200 are Middle Templars.

A large number of them attended the signing dinner. In the third week of September we shall have had our Amity Visit to Singapore where we have over 600 members. The visit has been jointly arranged with the Singapore Academy of Law with the support of the Chief Justice and looks to be a great occasion. It is sometimes said that the Inns must avoid becoming 'just' another form of Livery Company. There is nothing wrong with being a Livery Company. But the range of our activities goes way beyond that. And so it should. The importance of the functions that our members perform, which crucially affects the prosperity, wellbeing and happiness of so many persons, requires a functioning, welcoming and effective Domus. The Inn is one of the few places where heraldry lives on. We have a fantastic collection of coats of arms of past Readers and, latterly, Treasurers going back to the end of the sixteenth century which are shortly to be included in a small booklet with copies of each of them. The Coat of Arms that you see on this page was designed for me by Master Patric Dickinson, the Clarenceux King of Arms. The red diagonal cross on a white background reflects the red cross on a white background which, as he politely put it, was informally used by one of my ancestors (i.e. without a grant) until 1915. The cross is, in heraldic terms, a red 'cross formy fitchy' i.e. a cross with splayed limbs and straight ends and with the shaft tapering to a point. A cross formy is associated with the Knights Templar. The two arrows reflect, inter alia, the maiden name of my wife (Fletcher). The motto is my best rendering of 'Take it in stages', a response which I am said often to use when addressing a legal problem. The Latin reflects my membership of the Courts of Appeal of the Channel Islands as well as that of England and Wales and of the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved.

From The Treasurer


The Inn’s Five Year Strategic Plan GUY PERRICONE If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, as the saying goes. Some might argue that this is all Middle Temple requires by way of a strategic plan. Such plans may be normal in the commercial and not-for-profit sectors, but the Inn has survived, and thrived, for several centuries without such a document. Surely we all know what the purpose of the Inn is, and do not need any management mumbo-jumbo to tell us what we already know? It is indisputably true that Middle Temple and all the Inns of Court have been in existence for a long time. It is equally true that our general position today remains healthy – although there is certainly no room for complacency. However, there are a number of reasons which suggest that a longer-term view is now needed in managing our affairs, to assist the Inn in navigating through these uncertain times. The process which ultimately led to the new strategic plan began in 2014, with an important lecture delivered by the then Treasurer, Master Igor Judge, on the role and future of the Inns of Court. The challenges identified by Master Judge were subsequently picked up and pursued by the next two Treasurers, Master Stephen Hockman and Master Christopher Clarke. The nature and number of these challenges strongly suggested that the Inn needs a clear action plan if it is to be able to address these challenges effectively, and so that our limited resources (financial, management, human and operational) are focused for maximum impact. The strategic plan is our action plan for the next five years, and is intended to provide clear guidance on our priorities over this period. The challenges mentioned above are both external and internal. As an example of the external challenges, it is clear that the environment in which barristers operate has changed radically over the last 10 to 15 years, and will continue changing, perhaps at an even faster pace. Possible reform of training for the Bar, and changes in the regulatory framework, coupled with the fundamental and continuing advances in technology, mean that the working lives of all barristers (self-employed and employed) are likely to continue to change, and the Inn must be ready to adapt to this. As an internal consideration, the level of engagement between the Inn and its membership must be strengthened: this will be done by ensuring that the Inn adapts to the changing needs of its diverse range of members, and is able to provide services that are relevant to them today in their working lives.


These challenges have potentially profound impacts on the Inn. They are also clearly long-term challenges: they will not be solved or disappear in the next few weeks or months. However, the Inn has always tended to operate on a 12 month basis: an evident manifestation of this is the annual change of Treasurer. The five year strategic plan will provide a degree of continuity, allowing the Inn to plan in a more considered and focused way across a longer period of time, in order to address the challenges referred to above. The strategic plan begins by stating the Inn’s vision - its irreplaceable purpose and ultimate destination: The Middle Temple exists to promote and support the rule of law throughout the common law world and the fair and effective administration of justice which the rule of law requires. The rule of law is an essential cornerstone of a modern democratic society, and a strong, independent and ethical Bar is an essential component of it.

Having set out this fundamental vision, the plan then continues by stating how Middle Temple will pursue this vision: Middle Temple supports the Bar by supporting its members throughout their professional careers. It does this by providing excellence in advocacy and the highest standards of professional ethics through the education and training it provides, and the collegiate ethos it instils in its members.

At the core, therefore, is the need to support our members. But these statements of principle and high-level intention need to be translated into clear plans of action. This is the focus of the remainder of the strategic plan. Each department has established a series of objectives it wishes to achieve during the plan period, the strategies by which it plans to achieve these and the indicators by which success will be measured. The collective achievement of all these departmental objectives will ensure that, as a whole, the Inn remains true to its fundamental purpose and goals. Having established our key objectives over the plan period, we need to ensure that we are organised in such a way as will enable us to meet our objectives most effectively. As a result, a number of organisational changes were agreed and are now in the process of being implemented. One of the main changes has been the creation of a new Commercial and Operations department, under the directorship of Mark Taylor. This new department will have responsibility for, among other things, the catering and events activity. Andrew Hopkin is the Director in charge of the Corporate Services department which will assume responsibility for all financial and strategic planning activities, as well as a number of other important management and administrative areas such as data protection and risk management. Colin Davidson is the Director of Membership and Development, whose portfolio will now also include responsibility for the Library and the Archive. Ian Garwood continues in his role as Director of Estates, the Inn’s main and vitally important revenue generator, and Christa Richmond likewise continues as Director of Education Services, with responsibility for all our core activities for students and practitioners, and also the Inn’s significant scholarship programme.

In this way, the strategic plan is a manual setting out not only the overall direction to be followed by the Inn in the coming years, but also the routes that it must follow to succeed. It is vital that the plan is referred to frequently, and that appropriate mechanisms are put in place to ensure that our progress against our goals is regularly monitored. Moreover, the strategic plan will assist in our decisionmaking processes: it will help us decide not only what paths we must follow, but, as importantly, which paths we should not follow. One of the most difficult decisions any executive has to make is knowing when to say ‘no’ to a particular project or initiative. The plan will assist in this, and in this way, we will hope to manage our limited resources more effectively, and ensure that these are focused on achieving our agreed goals. The drafting of the plan is, in many ways, the easiest part of the exercise. The real challenge will come in ensuring that we use it effectively and remain focused on achieving the objectives set out in it. This will require the full commitment not only of the executive management of the Inn, but of all its governance structures and indeed the wider membership.

The Inn's Five Year Strategic Plan



The Treasurer's List

In a desire to re-engage with members and in accordance with the Inn’s strategic aim, the Bench Selection Advisory Committee (BSAC) has undertaken a review of the way in which Benchers are selected. The review concluded that it was desirable for all members of the Inn to be given the opportunity to propose a suitably qualified person as an Ordinary or Honorary Bencher. Parliament approved these proposals and, in the coming months, the Inn will implement online processes to ensure that all members of the Inn can, once in every calendar year, propose a suitably qualified candidate.

The Treasurer can propose three nominees as Benchers to BSAC and, if approved, to Parliament.

Why the change?

Six Ordinary Benchers (excluding Academic and Overseas Benchers) can be elected at each of the three Election Parliaments a year from a pool of ten proposed by BSAC. Benchers will be elected for life.

The Inn wishes to ensure that the Bench is as diverse as possible. To do this the Inn needs to engage with all members to ensure that no one who is suitably qualified is overlooked for any reason and especially those who practise on Circuit. What does suitably qualified mean? Anyone wishing to be considered as an Ordinary Bencher must show a convincing commitment to support the Inn and must satisfy at least one of three criteria: • First, a high reputation in their relevant area of practice or work. • Second, a significant contribution to the Inn which will continue once elected. • Third, a significant contribution to the profession. Potential candidates must be at least 15 years Call, Queen’s Counsel, or have been admitted ad eundem for at least 15 years. Honorary Benchers must be of outstanding distinction in their area of work and be prepared to contribute to the life of the Inn. Honorary, Academic and Overseas Benchers The Inn has a very diverse number of Honorary Benchers. Candidates who fall into these categories are proposed by BSAC and approved, as opposed to elected, by Parliament. Academic members of the Inn are proposed as Ordinary Benchers. Academics who are not members of the Inn are proposed as Honorary Benchers. Barristers or judges who practise overseas and who are members of the Inn can be proposed as Ordinary Benchers.



Consideration of Candidates Consideration of candidates will be completed within two years from the date of the proposal. Sadly, not all candidates will be successful as there are only 18 places available each year for Ordinary Benchers. The Election Process

Bench Call New Benchers are Called at a Bench Call dinner. After dinner, each candidate gives a short speech. Middle Temple is the only Inn where this takes place. It is an important part of the Bencher's introduction to the Inn. No more than six Benchers will be Called on each occasion and each speech should last no more than three minutes. These are fascinating accounts of the Bencher's career to date and are very worthwhile events to attend, especially to find out more about the Inn’s new Benchers. Conclusion Parliament has made very important changes about the selection of Benchers. We hope that all members of the Inn will seize the opportunity to nominate new Benchers and so play a vital role in the life of the Inn. Full details of the nomination process will be available on the Inn’s website this autumn and will be announced in the regular e-news that are sent out. Please keep an eye out and nominate! Master Bartle was Called to the Bar in 1976, took Silk in 2003 and was appointed a Circuit Judge in 2012. He was formerly a member of Littleton Chambers, specialising in professional negligence. He was a leading mediator and has lectured on mediation in the UK, India, China, Mauritius and Italy. He is currently a member of the Inn's Executive, Appointments and Bench Selection Advisory Committees and previously sat on the Education and Estates Committees.

The Submariners’ Memorial Service 2015

Photos: Rob Harding


The Middle Temple Guide contains a chapter entitled ‘The Maritime Connection’. The chapter explains the historic connection between this Inn and the notable mariners of the past, especially during the reign of Elizabeth I. These included Sir Walter Ralegh who was a member of the Inn, and Sir Francis Drake who was an occasional visitor. According to tradition, the Cupboard, upon which generations of students place their signature following Call to the Bar, was manufactured from the hatch cover of Drake’s vessel the Golden Hind. The octagonal lamp hanging by the entrance to Hall is known as Drake’s Lantern, because its precursor, destroyed during World War II, is said to have been the lantern which hung on the poop deck of the Golden Hind. The Molyneux Globes, the Inn’s most significant historical asset, were commissioned by a rich merchant who was a relative of Sir Walter Ralegh. Against this background it was extremely fortuitous to discover in the course of 2015 some further links between Middle Temple, the Royal family and our maritime tradition. It so happens that the Submarine Service, which for approximately 100 years has been such a significant feature of our naval defences, has the benefit of a Memorial on the Embankment very close to the Inn. The Sub Mariners traditionally hold an annual remembrance service at their Memorial on the Sunday before Remembrance Sunday. In 2015 it proved impracticable to hold the service on the Embankment owing to extensive road works. At the Sub Mariners’ request, arrangements were made for the service of Remembrance to be held in Middle Temple garden.

The service took place in fine weather in the presence of our Royal Bencher, HRH The Duke of Cambridge, who is the Commodore in Chief of the Submarine Service, and of our Honorary Bencher, Admiral of the Fleet, Master Boyce, former Chief of the Defence Staff and patron of the Sub Mariners Association. I had the privilege and pleasure of representing the Inn at this service which was most moving. It was memorable also for the traditional ceremony which took place at the conclusion of the service, when the parade marshal ordered those present to take out and uncork their hip flasks and raise a toast to ‘absent friends’! The service was followed by a reception in Hall, at which our Royal Bencher had the opportunity to meet many serving and retired Sub Mariners and members of their families, at what became a most warm and friendly occasion. Arrangements are now in hand for the service to take place at Middle Temple on a future occasion. One hopes that the renowned mariners of the first Elizabethan era were able to look down on this event in 2015 with a sense of pride that the maritime connection with Middle Temple remains still strong and vibrant. Master Hockman has been Head of Chambers at 6 Pump Court since 1997. He specialises in regulatory law, especially health and safety, environmental and energy law. He took Silk in 1990 and sits as a Deputy High Court Judge. He was Chairman of the Bar in 2006. He was Master Treasurer in 2015.

The Sub Mariners' Memorial Service 2015


Temple Open Weekend ALICE PEARSON

In early 2014, Middle and Inner Temple agreed to jointly curate a year of special events throughout 2015 to celebrate the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta with entry into the Open House London architecture festival as the pinnacle of the programme. The Temple Open Weekend of 19-20 September 2015 was a splendid occasion, during which the Inns turned their focus outwards to the wider public. Over two days we aimed to offer visitors an insight not just into the wonderful architecture of our buildings, but into the daily life of the Inns and our members. Superbly steered by the joint Inns’ Open House Committee Chairmen, Master Christopher Clarke and His Honour Judge Donald Cryan of Inner Temple, our aim was to show how the rule of law, the legacy of Magna Carta, is applied by those who appear in our courts today. Visitors were to have the opportunity to observe and experience aspects of the work of barristers, including mock trials and advocacy training - methods of delivery varying from lectures, to archive footage, to participative workshops. We aimed to provide accessible sessions for all ages and backgrounds, to encourage visitors to think about the importance of our


legal system, and to afford visitors an opportunity to meet some of those who protect the rights of individuals in our courts. Finally, we hoped to demystify the working of the courts and increase appreciation of the importance of the Inns and barristers to the life of our legal system and society in general. We accomplished our goals and more. Over two days more than 300 Middle Temple, Inner Temple and Temple Church helpers offered over 20,000 visitors access to 14 buildings, over 60 tours and talks, 22 Education and Training sessions, seven family-friendly shows and six musical productions. The Globe’s Shakespeare Untold team performed in Inner Temple Gardens, Ede and Ravenscroft displayed wigs and gowns in the Prince’s Room. Meeting students, members and staff gave visitors an insight in to the daily life of the Inns, their membership, and how the law plays a role in each of our lives, including theirs.

Activities were provided for all ages and levels of knowledge on the Inns and the Bar with even the youngest of family members enjoying the event. Everyone from local Londoners to national visitors and European, American, Australian and Canadian tourists were recorded. Wheelchair access was ensured in all the main buildings, a bespoke tour for partially sighted visitors was offered by charity VocalEyes, and a British Sign Language interpreter also joined tours and the Inn’s Equality, Diversity and Social Mobility group presented Your Career at the Bar, Bar Council videos in the Parliament Chamber. Feedback showed that our efforts to demystify the workings of the courts had been moved forward greatly by this weekend and that the attending public’s understanding of the Inns, barristers and our legal system was far greater than it was before their visit. Overall, the lasting impression from the Open Weekend was the public’s thirst for knowledge and interest in everything that was on offer. The enthusiasm of our visitors was astounding and this verve and passion was met time and time again by engaging and attentive Inns staff and members. QUOTES and feedback from the Weekend included: The ultimate open day. Civility and expertise personified. The whole staging reflects an enormous amount of work and thought. The love and enthusiasm of all those staff; the event is evident, reflects well on the Inns and makes the visit the best show in London. It brings tears to my eyes due to its magic. I much appreciated an informal and informative conversation with a man who only later revealed that he was a judge! Always thought [the Inns] interesting. Delighted to be invited in!

Alice Pearson Magna Carta Project Manager Middle and Inner Temple As part of this project to celebrate the anniversary of the 1215 Magna Carta, Alice sat on the Magna Carta 800th Committee on behalf of the Inns as well as its Tourism and Legal sub-committees, the latter chaired by the Master of the Rolls, Master Dyson. These committees led to close work with groups such as the City of London Corporation, the British Library, Parliament, the National Trust and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. As well as the hugely successful Open House weekend, highlight events from the year included the London City Charter anniversary, the aslive BBC World radio broadcast from Temple, and joining the Temple Church Choir on their trip to Washington D.C to perform in the Library of Congress and Supreme Court accompanied by HRH The Princess Royal.

Over two days we aimed to offer visitors an insight not just into the wonderful architecture of our buildings, but into the daily life of the Inns and our members.

Temple Open Weekend


A Kingdom For a Stage ‘This day is called the feast of Crispian …’

MASTER TIMOTHY HOLROYDE Wishing to mark the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Agincourt, Stephen Hockman QC, then Master Treasurer conceived the idea of inviting two of our Honorary Benchers, Simon Russell Beale and Nicholas Hytner, to take part in a discussion of their experiences of Shakespeare on stage. Those experiences have in the past coincided in the latter directing the former in productions of Much Ado About Nothing and Timon of Athens. Thus on Sunday 25 October 2015 we gathered in Middle Temple Hall to listen to, and learn from, two masters of their respective crafts. Master Philip Bartle acted as facilitator of the discussion, a role which he performed with considerable skill. Given the occasion, it was perhaps inevitable that Master Russell Beale would be invited to deliver the speech of Henry V on the eve of the battle (Act IV, Scene iii). Equally inevitably, he did so brilliantly. Master Hytner then used that speech as an introduction to one of the themes of the discussion: that Shakespeare’s plays continue to be performed for two reasons, to show how things have changed and to show how they have stayed the same. He recalled rehearsing Henry V at the National Theatre at the time of the war in Iraq, when he felt he could not avoid giving the play a contemporary setting. He commented that in the play, Henry V had sought validation for his actions from the Archbishop of Canterbury, and received it in what Master Hytner described as the equivalent of a dodgy dossier. He suggested another parallel: the principal characters in the play maintain the official line (‘spin doctors’), whilst the common soldiers tell a different story. In these ways, he suggested, Shakespeare allowed the audience to think that the war may not in fact have been justified: an example of a subversive element in Shakespeare’s writing. This led to a further theme which Master Russell Beale developed: the way in which Shakespeare in some respects leaves it to the actor to decide for himself the nature of the relationship between characters. By way of example, he pointed out that nothing is ever made clear about the nature of Hamlet’s past relationship with Ophelia in the period


A Kingdom For a Stage

before the play begins. A consequence for the actor is that ‘You can’t just “do the play” – it is not that simple’. Developing the theme of interpretation, both said that in principle anyone can play any of Shakespeare’s roles: it is perfectly acceptable to produce the plays in ways which are neither gender-specific nor race-specific, though both felt it remains necessary for a director to have regard to the contemporary climate. Both felt it legitimate to make small textual amendments to aid the understanding of a modern audience. They revealed that in the production of Timon of Athens, in which they were both involved, they solved the problem that there is no final line to the play by borrowing a line from As You Like It – an interpolation which went unnoticed by the critics! This was a stimulating discussion, greatly enjoyed by the audience. When asked by Master Bartle for their top tips, both asserted that ‘success is random’. Both, however, provided strong evidence to the contrary. Having survived an inauspicious start (not kept on after two pupillages, and getting by financially only because of the scholarship he received from the Inn) Master Holroyde practised from chambers in Liverpool throughout his career at the Bar. He began with the mixed common law practice which was usual at the time, but by the time he took Silk his practice was almost entirely in crime. He was appointed to the High Court in 2009. He retains a keen interest in the art of advocacy.

The Messiah came to Middle Temple MASTER STANLEY BURNTON

Handel composed The Messiah, at his home in Brook Street in the West End, within an astonishingly short 22 days, between 22 August and 12 September 1741. It was first performed on 13 April 1742 in Dublin, where he had been invited by the Lord Lieutenant, the Duke of Devonshire, to give a season of concerts. The first performance was a benefit concert in aid of three charities, including the Society for Prisoners’ Debts, and it secured the release from prison of 142 debtors whose debts were satisfied with one-third of the proceeds. The Dublin Journal reported, in a review that has withstood the test of time: ‘The sublime, the grand and the tender, adapted to the most elevated, majestic and moving words, conspired to transport and charm the ravished heart and ear’. The London premiere, at the Covent Garden Theatre on 23 March 1743, was not a success, but with repeated performances its popularity increased. In 1750 Handel set up an annual charity performance at the newly built chapel of the Foundling Hospital at Coram Fields in Bloomsbury, and a (or perhaps the) original manuscript score may be seen at the Foundling Museum in Brunswick Square. The Messiah is the most popular oratorio in the English language, and many think it the greatest. Yet, despite these connections with places close to Middle Temple, I believe that it was not performed in Middle Temple Hall until 14 December 2015, 273 years after its first performance. The music was wonderful: one great tune followed another. Yet the libretto was also a work of genius. Its author (or should I say compiler) was Charles Jennens, an English landowner and patron of the articles. He assembled it from the Authorised King James Version of the Bible, with the exception of verses from the Psalms. Much of it is from the Old Testament, with passages from the Hebrew Prophets foretelling the coming of the Messiah. The libretto benefits from the beauty of the language of the King James Version. Jennens presented the libretto to Handel at the nadir of his fortunes in London. The popularity of the Italian operas on which he had built his reputation had declined, particularly after the enormous success of Gay and Pepusch’s The Beggars Opera. The Messiah restored Handel’s reputation and fortune. As readers of my introduction to the programme for last December’s performance will know, The Messiah came to be

performed in Hall because I had been so impressed by its performance by Classical Opera in the Wigmore Hall some two years ago. I thought then that it would be wonderful to have them perform it in the beautiful surroundings of our Hall, a venue even older than The Messiah. My hopes for the performance were amply fulfilled. The orchestra played on original instruments, with a small choir of nine singers and four soloists (Louise Alder soprano, Helen Sherman mezzosoprano, Benjamin Hulett tenor and Darren Jeffery bassbaritone), conducted by Ian Page (on whose programme note I have extensively drawn for this article). The great advantage of a small orchestra and chorus is that each line of the music is heard with clarity. Moreover, the Hall has an excellent acoustic: I was told by those sitting at the back that they heard every word and sound. I have had nothing but praise for the performance, and I think deservedly so. It would be invidious to pick any particular excerpt, given the general beauty of the playing and the singing, but I have to mention ‘The trumpet shall sound’, really a duet between the trumpet and the bass. The trumpet was valveless, played by David Blackadder with astonishing verve. The spontaneous applause was entirely deserved. The tickets for December’s performance sold out shortly after they went on sale. The venture was so successful that it will return on Monday 19 December under the auspices of the Temple Music Foundation. Master Burnton retired from the Court of Appeal in 2012. On his retirement he returned to his former chambers, One Essex Court, to practise as an arbitrator. In November 2015 he was appointed as the Interception of Communications Commissioner. He is chairman of the British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII). He is also the President of the Slynn Foundation (, which provides support and judicial training internationally on the Rule of Law and Human Rights. Master Burnton is an Honorary Fellow of St Edmund Hall, Oxford, and a Visiting Professor of Queen Mary College, London.

The Messiah came to Middle Temple


Bench Call 24 November 2015 DOMINIC TIGHE

To my utter delight I received an email from Master Louise McCullough inviting my wife, Katherine, and me to dinner at Middle Temple to witness her ‘Call to the Bench’. Master McCullough has, on numerous occasions, come to support me in my work, once flying to Denmark to see me in The Comedy of Errors. What’s more, on all these occasions she has forked out not an inconsiderable sum of money to watch me in my workplace, so I thought it only fair that I return the goodwill and come to support her in her workplace (and there was no way I was going to turn down a formal dinner in Middle Temple, THE Middle Temple where Twelfth Night was first performed for goodness sake!). After accepting with much pleasure, the next thing that occurred to me was what on earth does ‘Call to the Bench’ mean? I’m not a man of the law, I’m sure you can tell, but I am a law-abiding citizen and have so far avoided a rub with the law. But I was curious to take a glimpse inside this old and brilliant institution. It wasn’t until Katherine and I arrived at Middle Temple (late) that we would have any idea about what the evening was about. Apart from knowing what the food was going to be (incredibly thoughtful of the organisers to let us know that) I had no expectations whatsoever. Having missed the best part of the champagne reception we were ushered into Hall. We were instantly faced with a black sea of gowned figures waiting to sit at table, with an empty top table. For a while I was convinced that I had either walked onto the set of Harry Potter (without children), or I was about to wake from a horrible dream where I was back at school about to eat school food and not the delicious chicken breast with a chardonnay sauce and Chateâuneuf-du-Pape that we had already been promised. We were ushered to our seats by the kind Colin Davidson and met our table neighbours for the evening.


Announcements were made and we were informed of who was going to process, when we should stand, what direction we should stand in, when we should sit, when we were allowed to talk, ‘no photos please,’ and most of all, ‘no one shall be allowed to go to the lavatories while dinner is in service.’ DAMN! I knew I should have gone before we came in. It struck me that the evening was likely to take on a rather formal and serious tone. Not surprising really, in the room were some of the finest legal minds in the country, I didn’t expect that conversation would be about what happened in EastEnders the night before. The procession of those already Called to the Bench began and I tried desperately not to make one certain senior Bencher, who I have also known for many years, laugh as he walked passed me. By now I had discovered that this was an occasion that recognises the talent within the Inn, where after many years of contribution and service, certain members are called to the Bench by more senior members and are ‘promoted’ within the hierarchy of the Inn. It’s a sort of pat on the back and ‘well done’ for being a good egg. As the newest members were literally Called to the Bench, any thought that the evening might take on a serious tone totally disappeared. It soon become apparent everyone was there to celebrate his or her profession and each other. I was struck by how many younger members of the Inn were present. I was touched by the warm applause and greetings that each new Bencher received. I was blown away by the raising-of-the-roof cheer that accompanied Master McCullough’s Call. Though I have to say I am not at all surprised that the younger members of the Inn should

We wandered (staggered) off into the night privileged to have been invited to such an event in such a magnificent setting, carrying on a centuries-old tradition. give her such a vocal cheer, knowing her as I do. The belief she has in young people and the support that she gives them is second to none. After dinner it was a chance for us to learn something of the newest Benchers. It was a pleasure to sit and listen to their stories of how they came to study law and their journeys up to that point. The sense of pride in the room from each of the orator’s families was palpable. It was then that it struck me that Master McCullough was the only female out of six Benchers to be Called. In fact, looking at those already Called, the ratio of men to woman was vastly in favour of the gents. I have no idea if this is proportional representation, but either way I was even more delighted to be there flying the flag for the lady that night. I came away from the evening relieved that despite the challenges that face the legal profession, the cutting of Legal Aid or whatnot, the backbone of our legal system is in the hands of these people. How lucky we are. We wandered (staggered) off into the night privileged to have been invited to such an event in such a magnificent setting, carrying on a centuries-old tradition. I doubt I will experience that again, though you never know. But it was a pleasure to be an outsider looking in for the evening. What’s more, I managed to get away with it… I went to the lavatory during dinner. Am I in trouble? Does anybody know a good lawyer?

Dominic is an actor living in London. Most recently he played David Cameron for The Comic Strip Presents… Red Top on UKTV and was last on stage in the original cast of Sunny Afternoon, at The Harold Pinter Theatre. In 2015 he set up Giant Productions and has just completed his first film, MDUDU BOY about a street kid who loves football. It was shot on location in Kenya, using a cast of real-life community members. He has several projects in development. @tighedominic

Bench Call 24 November 2015


The Four Jurisdictions Conference: 6 - 8 May 2016 MASTER GUY MANSFIELD This year Domus hosted this peripatetic conference. The conference is the occasion when members of the Inn get together with members of the three other Bars and their judiciary. The venue rotates: next year will be Dublin, then Belfast, and finally Edinburgh before it returns to London in 2020. The event is open to all members of the Inn, Bench and Bar alike. We were blessed with wonderful weather and good attendance from all four jurisdictions. Those attending included members of the highest ranks of the judiciary, senior and junior practitioners and their partners. The blend of experience, youth and enthusiasm made the event intellectually stimulating and great fun. There was a welcome party on the Friday night with drinks in the garden and a buffet supper in the library. The next day we had three first class sessions on very different topics. Session one addressed ‘Climate Change: What role do the courts have in addressing climate change?’ The three speakers introduced the (mostly) uninformed audience to this topic from different perspectives. We were taken through international treaties, the possible role and future intervention of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and thence to the role of national courts. The role of the EU was addressed. We learned that in Pacific jurisdictions the apparent effect of climate change and its damaging effect on environments was being prayed in aid in asylum and immigration cases by those who said they had been forced to leave their homes as a result. This possible impact was news to most present. Finally we were addressed on the extent to which it is proper for the court to have a role in such political fields where the science is not entirely settled and major policy decisions are in issue. The session showed how valuable an event such as this can be in bringing attention to new legal issues which will affect society as a whole. Session two was ‘ECHR Articles 2 and 6: How far back must we go? May the dead rest in peace and the living at ease?’ We considered the consequences of state and


institutional neglect or, worse, wrongdoing in the oversight and management of members of the clergy and institutions in which the less fortunate members of society had been placed. From there we moved on to the particular problems facing Northern Ireland, a society not yet at peace with itself. There are no fewer than 55 outstanding legacy inquests relating to 97 deaths which occurred mainly during the ‘troubles’. These involve a range of issues including allegations of collusion, shoot to kill and other unlawfulness. In Scotland there are prosecutions afoot for alleged historic sex crimes. How the courts will give a fair trial to all defendants in a jurisdiction which does not embrace the concept of ‘abuse of process’ was a troubling question which remained unanswered. What was clear is that it is critical not to sweep matters under the carpet; there can be no impunity and there must be accountability. But there are other problems too. Prosecutors and those involved in public enquiries must tread with care lest their well-meaning intentions reawaken memories in individuals who have long since put them to bed. We must be conscious of the dangers of re-traumatisation. There must be fairness to those accused of wrongdoing while giving redress and an opportunity to be heard for those whose lives have been damaged. These are deep and difficult waters to be navigated with care and sensitivity. Session three was ‘Cheap and Cheerful Justice: How can we provide access to civil justice?’ We heard a forthright and innovative paper from Master Burnton. He highlighted the critical need to reduce the cost of litigation. He supported the interim report of Lord Justice Briggs, that itself had drawn upon the report last year of a working party of JUSTICE, chaired by Master Burnton. We need to find ways to make access to justice a practicable matter for all or at least as many of society as we can. That means looking to simplify

procedures and language for matters which do not require high-powered lawyers. It might mean a new court official who can intervene to assist litigants to prepare their cases. We heard of similar problems in Scotland and Northern Ireland with different and possibly misguided attempts by the civil administrations there to reduce the scope of legal aid while driving down the cost of litigating. It was clear to all present that there is no easy answer, but we must do better. In the evening there was a drinks reception in the Round of the Temple Church, illuminated by a sparkling talk from the Reverend and Valiant Master of the Temple, Master Griffith-Jones. In 20 minutes we were treated to a history of the foundation of the church, the role of the Knights Templar, their expulsion and the architectural history of the building. It was a tour de force greatly enjoyed. This was followed by an excellent dinner in Hall. On Sunday morning we resumed our legal studies. The title was ‘Defamation Reformed: What is the right way forward? Where are we going?’ Each jurisdiction had either reformed its law on defamation relatively recently or is considering doing so. It was clear that the reforms which have been put in place have been a mixed blessing. Not least, in England and Wales the change in the definition of what is defamatory, and what a claimant has to prove to succeed, has driven up costs with expensive interlocutory hearings. The well-intentioned aim of enabling parties to obtain an early ruling on meaning and hence to save costs has not succeeded. In the other jurisdictions familiar problems arise – the cost of litigation, disproportionately high awards, the conflicts between access for the private citizen and protecting the freedom of the press. There are no right answers. The session was followed by a break before lunch. This enabled some of those present to go on a fascinating

guided tour of Sir John Soane’s Museum and others to attend Choral Mattins in the Temple Church, or simply do nothing! The event ended with lunch in Hall. It had been a stimulating and fun weekend. Next year the caravan moves to Dublin. I urge anyone who can to make the journey. The mixture of Bench and Bar from different jurisdictions and traditions and the mingling of older and younger members coupled with their partners has in recent years produced really good weekends.

Master Mansfield was Called to the Bar in 1972 and to the Bench in 2000. He practises from One Crown Office Row, where he focuses on legal and medical professional issues, appearing in many reported cases. He was Chairman of the Bar Council in 2005.

The Four Jurisdictions Conference: 6 - 8 May 2016


The Queen's 90th Birthday MASTER ROBIN GRIFFITH-JONES On 21 April 1947 Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth broadcast a message to the Empire from South Africa: On my twenty-first 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 ninetieth 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 pageanty 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 Glad, 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 Solomon king. 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.

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 Dr (Master) Robin GriffithJones DLitt, is The Reverend and Valiant Master of the Temple at the Temple Church, and Senior Lecturer in Theology at King’s College, London University. He has worked extensively on law and religion. His booklet, Magna Carta, 1215-2015: London’s Temple and the Road to the Rule of Law has been widely read. He ran the international conference on Magna Carta, Religion and the Rule of Law at the Temple in June 2014, and is co-editing the book.

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 Master 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.

The Queen's 90th Birthday


The Middle Temple Garden Party: 5 July 2016


The Middle Temple Garden Party


Survive and Thrive MASTER ADRIENNE PAGE Middle Temple exists to support its members throughout their professional careers. That is the mission that over the past year has engaged the Membership Committee, under the chairmanship of Master Alistair Webster, in exploring new ideas to emphasise and enhance Middle Temple’s essential role. title: ‘How to think like the SAS, perform like an athlete and bounce-back like an entrepreneur’, Honorary Bencher Anna Ford chaired a positive and upbeat session in Hall examining strategies for overcoming pressure, lack of self-confidence and fear of failure. These are common causes of stress that can impair performance, lower quality of life and, in some cases, damage domestic relations. The interest in more open discussion of stress at the Bar was evident in the speed with which the event sold out, with registrations topping 300 - a record attendance for the Inn and included many clerks and chambers staff signing up. Great credit for fact-finding and open confrontation of the issues must go the Bar Council for its ‘Wellbeing at the Bar’ programme, supported by Middle Temple and all the Inns. A survey and report commissioned from Positive was published by the Bar Council in April 2015. It painted a worrying picture of high levels of negative stress amongst barristers. To cite an illustrative passage from the Executive Summary, which many will recognise:

This was the context for the launch of a series of events for members under the title: ‘Survive and Thrive: The Middle Temple Guide to Professional Success’. At the time of writing, three events have so far been staged attracting a total attendance of well over 500. Planning is well advanced for the fourth event, to be held in Hall on 9 November 2016, on the art of public speaking. The series opened in October 2015 with a panel discussion on new business entities chaired by Master Stephen Hockman, during his term as Master Treasurer. The speakers were Christine Kings, Director of Outer Temple, and Master Robert Temmink, who both spoke about the practicalities and the pros and cons of practising in new entities, and David Simpson, Director of Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund, who outlined the availability and requirements for insurance cover. Encouraged by the feedback, Director of Membership and Development, Colin Davidson, engaged PR assistance from Lauren Marks-Clee who has brought a professional eye to the shaping and promotion of our second and third events. At our second event, for which Lauren created the


Rumination and self-critical perfectionism, whilst not at an unusual level for a professional services profession, are at notable levels and most respondents reported that a loss of a client affected their confidence...... the results ...... provide a strong sense that the pressure coming from standards expected of oneself and from others for continual excellence and perfection is considerable. Perfectionistic pressure will positively drive performance to a certain extent but at levels such as reported here is indicative of what is termed as unhealthy perfectionism, which not only leads to diminishing returns on performance, [but] is strongly correlated to psychological ill-health and burnout.

In the now established format, the evening started in the Bench Apartments with half an hour to enjoy a drink and network with the speakers before Master Ford opened the session with some personal reflections on pressure and stress in her own career as a television journalist and presenter. The speakers who followed included Andy McCann, one of the world’s leading performance coaches, who works to improve performance and resilience amongst high-

‘This session was live streamed so that members who could not be present in Hall, could log on to watch. Tweeting was encouraged, with the coverage flashed up on Twitter screens. The supplier of the screens later reported that in the space of two hours the event hashtag #survivethrivemt recorded 1.9m impressions, a figure representing the number of people potentially exposed to the event content. That was a useful lesson in brand promotion through Twitter’.

flyers from all disciplines, including sportsmen, politicians, surgeons and leading business figures. He was followed by James Pereira QC, who spoke frankly and with courage about his descent into a spiral of over-work, stress and insecurity and how he modified his working routines and developed strategies to restore a healthy work-life balance. They were joined for audience questions by barrister Rachel Spearing, Chair of the Bar Council’s ‘Wellbeing at the Bar’ initiative, and Elizabeth Rimmer, Chief Executive of LawCare, a charity providing support and a confidential help-line to members of the legal profession. On 12 May 2016, another distinguished Honorary Bencher, Sir Trevor McDonald, took the chair for a session on ‘Social Media – What’s the point and how to use it successfully’. This event attracted another full capacity audience in Hall. The speakers were Andrew Williams, Senior Director of FTI Consulting, who is a digital consultant and former Global Head of Communications at Tesco Plc. He was followed by barrister Felicity McMahon, a media law specialist, and Felicity Gerry QC, who has an impressive 9000+ following on Twitter. They engaged in a polished and amusing inter-change about the uses and misuses of social media. It was all the more remarkable for the fact that one Felicity (McMahon) spoke from the platform in Hall while the other, Felicity (Gerry QC), spoke from Australia on a technologically flawless live-link video line. This session was live streamed so that members who could not be present in Hall, could log on to watch. Tweeting was encouraged, with the coverage flashed up on Twitter screens. The supplier of the screens later reported that in the space of two hours the event hashtag #survivethrivemt recorded 1.9m impressions, a figure representing the number of people potentially exposed to the event content. That was a useful lesson in brand promotion through Twitter. As in the case of the previous event, the feedback forms scored the Social Media session close to the maximum across nine separate criteria, including ‘overall event experience’. On 9 November 2016, our fourth event will be held

in Middle Temple Hall entitled ‘Perfect the Art of Public Speaking....on the TV & Radio, to a Committee or Regulator or even at a wedding!’ This will not be about court room skills or professional advocacy. Public speaking is often assumed to come naturally to barristers, when – as we all know - it is something quite different. As much as anything, it is about being you: the person, not the hired advocate. Once again, we will draw upon our distinguished cadre of Honorary Benchers to lead the event and share their personal insights. The chair will be taken by the Reverend and Valiant Master of the Temple, Master Robin GriffithJones, whose skill in public speaking without a note in his hand is familiar to many from the Inn. The other speakers will include David Crystal OBE, writer, editor, lecturer and broadcaster. He is the author of more than a hundred books on phonetics, Shakespeare’s language and related subjects. He is Honorary Professor of Linguistics at the University of Bangor. In addition we will be hearing from another exponent of public speaking, Josephine Corbett, the Managing Director of FTI Consulting. So where next for ‘Survive and Thrive’? From our feedback surveys, we believe that time management, memory improvement, effective communication, selling yourself and managing expectations of lay and professional clients are high on the wish-list and no doubt we will be returning for more on the subjects already covered.

Master Page is Deputy Chair of the Membership Committee and an elected member of the Executive Committee. She was Called to the Bar in 1974, took Silk in 1999 and was elected a Bencher in 2003. She practises from 5RB, the specialist media law chambers in Gray’s Inn, where she was joint Head of Chambers from 2003 – 2011. Survive and Thrive


Antic Disposition BEN HORSLEN AND JOHN RISEBERO Earlier this year, theatre company Antic Disposition staged a critically acclaimed production of Henry V in Middle Temple Hall, marking the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death. Directors Ben Horslen and John Risebero explain the challenges and rewards of mounting productions in the building. From the moment we stepped inside Middle Temple Hall for the first time back in 2011, we were captivated by the building’s beauty and history. Over the preceding few years, our company, Antic Disposition, had been staging theatre productions in unusual non-theatre spaces. We toured southwest France each summer, performing open-air Shakespeare in mediaeval town squares, gardens and castles, and had just finished a yearlong residency in an atmospheric but chilly derelict church in north London. We knew of Middle Temple Hall’s strong theatrical tradition, particularly as the location of the first performance of Twelfth Night in 1602, and so in 2011 – more in hope than expectation – we approached the Inn about the possibility of staging a production in the Hall… Fast-forward five years and Antic Disposition’s association with the Middle Temple has become our most important and enduring professional relationship. To date we have staged six productions in the Hall: The Tempest, celebrating the play’s 400th anniversary in 2011; A Midsummer Night’s Dream; A Christmas Carol for three festive seasons; and earlier this year, Henry V, marking both the quatercentenary of Shakespeare’s death and the centenary of the First World War. Set in a French military hospital in 1915 with the action of the play performed by recuperating soldiers, Henry V received critical acclaim and went on to tour some of the UK’s finest cathedrals. It’s no exaggeration to say that it has been those years, these productions and that relationship which have made Antic Disposition’s reputation, bringing critical success, and culminating in the company being presented with the prestigious Peter Brook / Equity Ensemble award in 2014. Of course, for a company that specialises in classical work, the opportunity to perform in a genuinely historic setting is a particular thrill – the Hall’s connections with both Shakespeare and Dickens mean that their words carry extra resonance when spoken under its Elizabethan beams. It’s this combination of action and atmosphere that, we feel, gives our productions a little extra something. Our style of staging has always been minimalist. Rather than using elaborate scenery, we rely on our spectacular performance spaces and an imaginative use of costume and


Antic Disposition

lighting to create a sense of time and place. We often light the architecture as well as the playing area, bringing genuine grandeur to the court scenes in A Midsummer Night’s Dream and a sense of real history to the narrative of Henry V. The vast space above the actors’ heads, with those double hammer-beams looming beyond, created real menace and mystery on Prospero’s island in The Tempest and during Scrooge’s ghostly visitations in A Christmas Carol. So when we’re asked – as we sometimes are – whether we miss the resources of a ‘proper’ theatre when working in the Hall, the answer is always a resounding ‘no’. There may be no fly-tower or stage machinery, but the building provides its own brand of theatrical magic, its own sense of drama, which no purpose-built theatre could hope to match. We’ve lost count of the number of times that audience members have remarked, upon leaving, ‘What a wonderful show and what an incredible setting’, instinctively understanding that the two are inextricably linked. For us, this remains one of the most exciting and rewarding elements of working here – the sense of introducing audiences not just to our shows or to the building, but to the strange alchemy that occurs when we bring the two together. Antic Disposition was founded in 2005 by director Ben Horslen and director / designer John Risebero. The award-winning theatre company presents innovative and entertaining interpretations of classic plays and stories, with a particular emphasis on the works of Shakespeare. The company is perhaps best known for its site-specific plays in spectacular historic buildings, including recent productions in Middle Temple Hall; Temple Church; Gray’s Inn Hall; Winchester, Salisbury, Bristol, Gloucester and Worcester Cathedrals; and Holy Trinity Church, Stratford-uponAvon, burial place of William Shakespeare. For more information visit

Middle Temple Association in Mauritius M. RASHAD DAUREEAWO SC

It is a matter of great pleasure and privilege to contribute in this year’s Middle Templar. The Association was officially launched in 2007 during a three day Amity Visit. The former Master Treasurer Robert Seabrook QC graced the inauguration ceremony and signed the Memorandum of Understanding between the Association and the Honourable Society of Middle Temple. It is our objective to establish strong links for bilateral exchange for the advancement of the legal profession in Mauritius, while strengthening the collegiate spirit between Bench and Bar. We congratulate Middle Temple’s International Sub-Committee which is active and instrumental to ‘Develop and improve relations with Middle Templars outside the UK’ and to further the Inn’s international reach, raise the profile of the Inn here and abroad, and consider how the Inn can improve the position of lawyers in other jurisdictions who need support, building on the strong reputation of the Bar of England and Wales. We are eager to extend collaboration and networking with existing Middle Temple Societies in Hong Kong, Malaysia, Gibraltar and others. We are working to increase membership with the Association and help promote and develop fellowship amongst our members and a real Middle Temple culture. The Association has been organising social events and other activities for newly sworn in Barristers to meet and reinforce the legal fraternity and fellowship. There are approximately 250 Middle Templars in Mauritius with an increasing number choosing Middle Temple as their preferred Inn of Court to be eventually admitted to the Bar.

A visit to Middle Temple is always considered a privileged pilgrimage at source with the sense of pride and belonging to the Middle Temple family. Mauritius has had the benefit of recommendation by the Mackay Commission in bringing about much needed judicial and legal reform which is in progress. The legal profession is fast moving towards specialisation and a solid based Chamber Systems to tackle challenges of the twenty-first century in a globalised world. We are proud of the public confidence of the Independence of the judiciary as a last resort for citizen’s dispute, albeit arbitration and mediation is taking deep roots in Mauritius. However, we consider financial autonomy of the judiciary will go a long way to reinforcing the independence and impartiality of our justice system. We do take pride in having a fearless Bar with highest ethical and professional standard. We take this opportunity to welcome any Middle Templar visiting Mauritius (as tourist or otherwise) to contact us to make necessary arrangements for the reinforcement of fellowship and to share experiences. M.Rashad Daureeawo was Called to the Bar in 1970. He is currently Head of RD Chambers in Port Louis and mainly involved in civil, corporate and criminal law. He took Silk as Senior Counsel in 2010. He has served as President of the Bar Council and also in the Law Reform Commission. He was High Commissioner of Mauritius to Pakistan from 2012 to 2015.

Middle Temple Association in Mauritius


Gibraltar Middle Temple Society MASTER ADRIAN JACK On 2 June at a dinner attended by nearly 100 Gibraltarian Middle Templars, the Gibraltar Middle Temple Society was launched. Master Treasurer, Lord Justice Christopher Clarke, and Master Anthony Dudley, the Chief Justice of Gibraltar, signed the constitution. Shortly after Gibraltar was ceded to Britain in 1713, the English law was applied to the then ‘Fortress and Town’. English common law continues to apply, but statute law is a mixture of some old (sometimes very old) English statutes, which continue to apply notwithstanding their repeal in the United Kingdom, and a few more modern Westminster statutes. The majority of statute law is now made by the Gibraltar Parliament. The (English) Civil Procedure Rules apply and criminal substantive and procedural law is modelled on current British statutes. The last 30 years has seen a great expansion of the Bar in Gibraltar. Both barristers and solicitors qualified in England can be admitted to practise in Gibraltar although the separate status of barrister and solicitor is recognised in Gibraltar, for practical purposes the profession is fused. However, since there is no requirement that a barrister do pupillage, the Bar route is much more attractive to law students wanting to practise in Gibraltar than the solicitor route which requires that a two-year trainee contract be completed before admission to the roll. Gibraltar has a long-standing connection with Middle Temple. Sir Joshua Hassan was chief minister of Gibraltar for 19 years between 1964 and 1987. He was Called by Middle Temple in 1939. In 1961 he took Silk in Gibraltar and became pre-eminent at the Bar. As was then possible, he combined being Chief Minister with continued practise as senior partner of, what is now, Hassans, Gibraltar’s biggest law firm. In 1983 he was called to the Bench of Middle. Since it used to be a requirement that a student be sponsored by a Bencher for his or her call to the Bar, he was able to ensure (until his death in 1997) that most Gibraltarian bar students joined the Inn.


Gibraltar Middle Temple Society

The result is that Gibraltar has the highest density of Middle Templars anywhere in the world - about 200 in a population of 32,000. The Supreme Court of Gibraltar is also dominated by Middle Templars. Of the four judges, Master Dudley, Mrs Justice Ramagge Prescott and myself, all are members, as are the registrar and the clerk to the Justices. In the political world, the current Chief Minister, Fabien Picardo QC is a member, as is the minister of justice, Gilbert Licudi QC, together with many other ministers and members of the Gibraltar Parliament. The interim chairman of the Society is Gillian Guzman QC. She is a family and human rights specialist. In 2012 she became the youngest Silk ever appointed in Gibraltar. She has already assembled a strong steering committee from across the various firms practising in Gibraltar. Master Dudley has agreed to be the president. Julian Santos, a nativeborn Gibraltarian practising at 5 Raymond Buildings, is the London representative of the Society and David Hughes in Cardiff the representative for the rest of England and Wales. The main purpose of the Society is to provide assistance with continuing education, particularly advocacy training. At present the proposal is that Inner Temple (who have a much smaller Gibraltar Society) and Middle alternate in sending trainers over. In addition, there will of course be social events to keep in contact with the Inn. Master Jack¸ an Australian by birth, studied law at Oxford. He was Called to the Bar in 1986. After practising as a common lawyer in the Temple, he moved to Chancery/commercial chambers in Lincoln’s Inn in 1998. In 2000 he was called to the German bar. In 2014 he was appointed as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar. He was made an Overseas Bencher in 2016.

The Malaysia Middle Temple Alumni Association SHAUN PAULIAN The Malaysia Middle Temple Alumni (TMMTA) chapter of the Middle Temple was registered as a society in January 2011, completing the presence of all four Inns of Court in Malaysia. In 2013, Kuala Lumpur was the host city for the Middle Temple Annual Amity Visit and TMMTA hosted its Annual Dinner and were honoured to have three former heads of the Commonwealth judiciary, Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin bin Haji Abdullah (former Chief Justice of Malaysia), Dato Seri Chan Sek Keong (former Chief Justice of Singapore) and Master Igor Judge (former Chief Justice of England & Wales) in attendance. The attendees of the conference enjoyed talks and discussions on the theme of ‘The Rights of the Individual v. Those of the State’. TMMTA continues to hear wonderful things from all the attendees of the respective events and hosting them shall remain proud feathers in the Alumni’s cap. On 24 September 2016, TMMTA will hold its Annual Dinner, following the Middle Temple Amity Visit to Singapore. The Malaysian Middle Templars shall be joined by a small delegation from the Inn, including Master Treasurer, Master Christopher Clarke. We eagerly anticipate the opportunity to catch up with Master Clarke and other guests from the Inn, in enjoying some good food, enlightening discussion and merriment.

Moving forward, TMMTA has begun expanding its scope of incepting alumnus from all the states of the nation, with the appointment of state representatives to reach out to the growing number of those called to the Inn and who reside or practise in the respective states. TMMTA continues its efforts to actively collaborate with the Malaysian chapters of the other three Inns of Court. Such collaboration could mean the forming of a large community of fellow Malaysian barristers, sharing their respective experiences while carrying on the legacy of the Inns handin-hand.

Shaun Paulian was Called to the Bar in 2010 and thereafter entered practice in Malaysia in prominent law firms, gaining experience in Corporate and Commercial Dispute Resolution, Litigation and ADR. In 2016, he set up the partnership Malek, Paulian & Gan with fellow barristers, wherein he heads the Corporate and Commercial department. Shaun is the Secretary of TMMTA for 2016/17.

The Malaysia Middle Temple Alumni Association


Middle Temple Goes Global MASTER STEPHEN HOCKMAN As Treasurer in 2015, I felt that it would be beneficial to increase the emphasis given within the Inn's programme of activities to international affairs. This would have the twin benefits of strengthening our links with our members both here and overseas, and enhancing the reputation of the Inn as a champion of the rule of law.


Step one: involved the setting up of our International Committee, chaired by Master Paul Darling whose remit is as follows: • To develop and improve relations with Middle Templars outside the UK. • To further the Inn’s international reach, raise the profile of the Inn here and abroad. • To formulate a policy for reconnection with members outside the UK and agree a protocol for the support of and cooperation with Middle Temple societies. Step two: involved identifying a suitable location for our next international amity visit and making appropriate arrangements. In this I was hugely assisted by a number of colleagues including Master Kemal Bokhary, Chair of the Middle Temple Society in Hong Kong; Master John Scott, who practises full time in Hong Kong; Master Caroline Wilson, British Consul General to Hong Kong; and Master Igor Judge, my predecessor, who kindly agreed to join me in leading our intrepid group of visitors last September. The management of the visit was under the superb supervision of the Under Treasurer, Guy Perricone and of the Director of Membership and Development, Colin Davidson. In the event the visiting party comprised some 57 individuals from the UK, including 40 judges and practitioners, and 15 partners. Basing ourselves at the Conrad Hotel, we hosted a major reception on our first evening for local judges and practitioners (also attended by Lord Neuberger who was about to sit in the Court of Final Appeal). We also hosted a very well attended plenary discussion on the Rule of Law, at which the keynote speech was given to huge acclaim by the Honourable Geoffrey Ma, Chief Justice of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. This was attended by many other distinguished visitors who found themselves in Hong Kong, including Master Beverley McLachlin, the Chief Justice of Canada, and the Chief Justices of Australia and New Zealand. A dinner to mark our visit was kindly organised by the Middle Temple Society in Hong Kong and four distinguished local lawyers were Called to the Bench at dinner, namely Master Rimsky Yuen, Master Joseph Fok, Master Aarif Barma and Master Winnie Tam. There was then the traditional seminar devoted to a range of relevant legal topics at which local and visiting practitioners, expert in

these fields, presented sessions, attended in particular by the younger practitioners. Included within this was a magnificent advocacy training session organised by the Director of Middle Temple Advocacy, Master Derek Wood. By coincidence, during our visit, the Chief Justice presided over a momentous ceremony marking the reopening of a new building (recently occupied by the Legislative Council) for the Court of Final Appeal, a building which had originally been used by the Supreme Court of Hong Kong. In his remarkable speech at the opening ceremony, the Chief Justice emphasised the importance of the rule of law saying as follows: Those components of the rule of law which are of particular relevance to Hong Kong – indeed to all common law jurisdictions, of which Hong Kong is one – comprise: first, the due recognition of rights and fundamental freedoms, not just for oneself but also for others (respect for one’s rights, respect for the rights of others, and equality of all persons before the law); [and] secondly, the existence of an independent Judiciary to enforce these rights and fundamental freedoms. … Decisions of the courts may sometimes not be to everybody’s liking – whether they be private individuals, political and other groups, or even the Government – but it is not the role of the courts to make popular decisions. The function of the courts is to adjudicate on disputes according to the law and its spirit, and judges are to discharge their responsibilities in accordance with their judicial oath, namely, to do so ‘honestly and with integrity … without fear or favour, self-interest or deceit’… The rule of law provides the social stability that is the foundation of a contented and prosperous society.

To mark his notable contribution to the preservation of the rule of law in Hong Kong, and his generosity towards his Middle Temple guests, the Chief Justice himself was elected as an Honorary Bencher of this Inn and will be Called to the Bench at a ceremony on 15 November 2016. Master Hockman has been Head of Chambers at 6 Pump Court since 1997. He specialises in regulatory law, especially health and safety, environmental and energy law. He took Silk in 1990 and sits as a Deputy High Court Judge. He was Chairman of the Bar in 2006. He was Master Treasurer in 2015.

Middle Temple Goes Global


Middle Temple Amity Visit to Hong Kong 2015 LAURA FELDMAN The Middle Temple held its annual Amity visit to Hong Kong in September 2015. The visit saw a host of events which bridged links between the Bar and judiciary from across the Commonwealth. The delegates from the United Kingdom included many esteemed Middle Templars, former and current members of the judiciary, such as Master Treasurer, Master Jackson and Master Judge, and former Lord Advocate of Scotland, Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC. Chief Justice Ma, the head of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, was amongst the delegates from Hong Kong. From across the Commonwealth, members and justices of the High Court of Australia attended, including the Honourable Justice French and Madam Justice Bell, as well the Chief Justice of Canada, Master McLachlin. The visit opened with an evening inaugural reception hosted at the British Consulate General, at 1 Supreme Court Road, which is perfectly located a short distance from the Hong Kong High Court and Court of Appeal. A gala dinner was held at the Hong Kong Club, which presented a further opportunity for delegates from Hong Kong and the United Kingdom to meet and network. The dinner opened with addresses by Master Bokhary, former member of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal and Master Hockman. Master Hockman was at the vanguard of organising the visit, for which the delegates are most grateful. The reception also marked the Calling to the Bench of Middle Templars from the Hong Kong Bar and judiciary, including Master Yuen, Secretary for Justice; Master Barma, Justice of Appeal; Master Tam, Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association; and and Master Fok, Permanent member of the Hong Kong Final Court of Appeal.


As well as social events, learned members of the Middle Temple from both the United Kingdom and Hong Kong judiciary and Bar kindly offered their time to give presentations on topical issues and give guidance through workshops. The Plenary training session comprised a morning of discussions on the Rule of Law, a topical issue in Hong Kong as it charts its future legal system under the principle of one country two systems. A conference was held consisting of presentations and training on a range of topics, including: international arbitration and construction law; case management; family law; and planning and environmental law. The final day of training workshops focused on general tuition on advocacy in the courts, as well as more specific workshops on examination of witnesses. The event was warmly praised by delegates, who are grateful for Colin Davidson for organising a successful visit. The 2016 annual visit will be to Singapore. Laura Feldman was called to the Bar in 2009. She is a Senior Associate at Eversheds LLP. Laura has extensive experience of international arbitration and litigation, with the handling of financial services matters being the focus of her practice. She was awarded a distinction in a Masters specialised in Commercial law and she has acted as a clerk in the English High Court and Court of Appeal.

Middle Temple Amity Visit to Hong Kong 2015

Vanity Fair LUCY HARRISON SHAW Last January I was delighted to produce (in association with Eleanor Conlon of Rust and Stardust Productions) a dazzling, ensemble-led production of Declan Donnellan's frenetic adaptation of Vanity Fair, William Makepeace Thackeray's satire of social mobility. Staged in aid of the Middle Temple Scholarship Fund and in Middle Temple, where Thackeray himself was once a pupil, we delighted audiences with our experimental lighting, high-octane physical storytelling and laughs aplenty.

Despite the lighthearted tone, there’s flashes of sincerity throughout. Vanity Fair isn't quite mocking its characters, instead approaching them with humanity and sympathy (despite their occasionally diabolical behaviour).

The reviewers remarked as follows:

The cast convey all that with aplomb. Particular praise is directed towards Shaw’s Becky, she’s played like a Georgian-era femme fatale. There’s something predatory in the way she stalks the stage, chewing up the chumpish men that dot the parties and parlours of Vanity Fair.

Vanity Fair packs a lot in. Over three hours, we travel through William Makepeace Thackeray’s depiction of life in the first half of the nineteenth century, experience jewel-studded high life and dowdily miserable poverty, travel from the streets of Bloomsbury to the casinos of Brussels and the tropical heat of imperial India. There’s even a miniature re-enactment of the battle of Waterloo! This is a tall order for a cast of seven actors and minimal props/scenery. Fortunately they’re buoyed up by the absolutely magnificent backdrop of Middle Temple Hall. Constructed during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, the place practically sweats history. The floor is studded with decades of furniture scrapings, dead monarchs peer down from oil portraits, the walls are festooned with magnificently calligraphed crests and suits of Roundhead armour peer down at all in attendance. As if to add a historical cherry on top, the hall is renowned for hosting the premiere of Twelfth Night, with none other than William Shakespeare himself acting in it. I was won over before even a single line of Vanity Fair had been uttered. For those unfamiliar with it, the book follows the intertwining fortunes of two friends: Becky Sharp (Lucy Harrison Shaw) and Amelia Sedley (Emily Plumtree). We first meet them graduating Miss Pinkerton’s Academy for Young Ladies, each with ambitions, hopes and dreams. The narrative then snakes around a series of suitors, various betrayals, comedic interludes and moments where history sticks its big nose into affairs. For the most part these developments are dealt with high irony. Every coincidence and unlikely development is played with a raised eyebrow locked in pace. The result is a large cast of characters who primarily consist of caricatures. Then again, this might be by necessity; there’s an awful lot of prattish upper class dandies in this play, and caricature is the quickest way to work out who’s who.

The rest of the cast are no slouches either. Patrick Warner impresses in his many roles, sharply defining the (distractingly named) George Osborne against the other male suitors. Nicholas also brings a pleasantly raffish charm to the buffoonish Rawdon Crawley, as well as bringing a raft of minor supporting characters to life. Perhaps the highest praise I can give the production is that I was able to follow this byzantine web of relationships with clarity from start to finish. As things twisted and turned I had a genuine emotional connection - I cared about these characters… London City Nights 10 January 2016 Playing Becky was an unforgettable experience and I will always remain grateful to all those in the Inn who helped to make the production the marvellous success that it was.

Lucy read Law at Cambridge University, was called to the Bar at Middle Temple in 2007 and crossqualified as a solicitor in 2010. She has now left the Law and recently moved to Abu Dhabi where she hopes to bring Vanity Fair on tour and run advocacy training courses in International Arbitration.

Vanity Fair


Wolf Hall and The Middle Temple MASTER JOHN MITCHELL

Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies and their dramatisations have been highly successful.

Waiting for the final novel in the trilogy provides us with an opportunity to consider not only those members of the Inn who appear in them but also those who could have been included. Unsurprisingly, common lawyers played a prominent role in Henry VIII’s break with Rome, having increasingly replaced the clergy as royal administrators. Their rise culminated in Thomas More (Lincoln’s) replacing Cardinal Wolsey as Lord Chancellor and Thomas Cromwell (Gray’s) becoming the King's first minister. Their intellect, pragmatism and their personal confidence counterbalanced by their personal convictions (or lack of them) combine to make the drama of the rise and fall of More and (spoiler alert) Cromwell so compelling. Richard Rich entered the Inn as a student in 1516. Described by Mantel as ‘a golden-haired young man, pretty as an angel who has an active, quick and secular mind’, he was Solicitor-General in June 1535 when he was present at More’s interrogation in the Tower. Whether the interviews produced more than mere legal sparring on hypothetical issues is unclear and the official record is damaged. However, More was subsequently indicted for maliciously refusing to give a direct answer to the question whether Henry and not the Pope was the Supreme Head on Earth of the Church of England. When Rich gave evidence at Westminster Hall, More turned on him with a razor slash: No man ever took you to be a man of credit in any matter of importance. We both lived in the same parish and there you were esteemed very light in your tongue and a great dicer, likewise in the Temple. Rich continued his advancement becoming in 1536 both the Speaker of the House of Commons and Chancellor


of the Court of Augmentations, taking advantage of the latter office to secure a fortune when the monasteries were dissolved. His career reached the summit when Edward VI appointed him Lord Chancellor as Baron Rich. He died in 1567 and his effigy in Felsted church shows him to be a most potent, grave and, perhaps, reverend seigneur although history has treated him less kindly. Another member of the Inn who played a small part in the events of 1532-1537, but who does not appear in Wolf Hall, had the splendid name of Jasper Fyllol. For a time he held a post at Court and later he became a member of the House of Commons, but otherwise his career was undistinguished. In 1512, for example, a promise that he would become the Lord Treasurer’s remembrancer was revoked on the grounds of his insufficient experience and learning. When Fyllol was in his sixties and seeking provision for his old age he brought himself to Cromwell’s attention in 1532 by sending him an account of alleged corruption in the London Customs House. He was unsuccessful in his attempt to secure appointment as the surveyor of customs but three years later Cromwell used him to write two anticlerical tracts as part of a propaganda campaign supporting the King’s claims. Although in his earlier years Fyllol appears to have been a devout catholic and his personal manuscript prayer book, now in the Pepys Library at Cambridge, is filled with invocations to saints he does not seem to have been troubled by his task, although he was prudent enough to delete with light hatching any references in his prayer book to papal indulgences. Fyllol’s efforts were rewarded to a limited extent in 1535 when Cromwell made him governor of the London Priory of the Carthusians in Smithfield, whose Prior and three of its most senior monks had recently been executed at Tyburn. In Cromwell’s words (as written by Mantel):

It is the Charterhouse of London where the mischief originates, that austere house of men who sleep on straw; it is where Thomas More tried his vocation, before it was revealed to him that the world needed his talents. Fyllol’s charge was to ensure that the remaining monks accepted Henry’s Supremacy. Two of them were members of the Inns, Maurice Chauncy (Gray’s) and Richard Bere who had spent two years as a student in the Middle Temple before becoming a monk in 1522 (see The Middle Templar, 2012). Fyllol’s task was a difficult one and his complaints to Cromwell about the way in which the monks resisted his efforts were almost comical in their detail. The monks refused to hear a Scottish friar preach. Although they were well fed they wanted the same food as had been provided previously despite a rise in prices. They called themselves hermits but were too ready to receive visitors bearing news and perverse advice. I am right sorry to see the foolishness and obstinacy of these religious men who are so addicted to the Bishop of Rome that they reject all advice. They take great pleasure in reading books filled with foul errors and heresies but none at all in reading the New Testament. Eventually most of the community, including Chauncy, took the Oath of Supremacy but not Bere. In May 1537 he and two fellow monks and seven lay brothers were taken to Newgate Prison. By September he and all but one lay brother had died of gaol fever. Bere and his companions were beatified in 1886. Whatever Henry VIII’s claim to be Supreme Head there was no doubting his papally bestowed title of Defender of the Faith and he gave effect to this by pursuing Lutherans, whom his conservative supporters viewed as heretics. The Inns were intellectual centres where Martin Luther’s ideas could be examined and where there was a risk they would take hold. More’s son-in-law William Roper (Lincoln’s) for example denied the efficacy of ceremonies and sacraments before reverting to his former faith, after a no doubt uncomfortable interview with Wolsey. A member of the Middle who was strongly attracted to Luther’s teaching was James Bainham, reputed by John Foxe to be

In 1531 Bainham was arrested in the Temple and taken to Chelsea where More attempted to persuade him to recant using means which are hotly disputed. His story is told in episode 3 of the televised adaptation of Wolf Hall. When he refused to change his beliefs he was taken to the Tower where he was tortured to such an extent that he was unable to walk. Despite this he refused to recant or disclose the names of other followers of Luther in the Temple. Months of imprisonment followed and eventually he was persuaded to abjure at St Paul’s Cross, carrying a faggot as an indication that if he again lapsed he would be burned to death. He quickly had second thoughts and the following week went to the city church of St Austin where with the New Testament in his hand he asked the congregation to forgive him for his abjuration. ‘If I had not returned again to the truth, this word of God would damn me both body and soul at the day of judgment.’ Inevitably he was re-arrested and died at the stake at Smithfield in April 1532. Three years later, when More was himself interrogated, Mantel has Cromwell respond to his claim that he never harmed anyone. What about Bainham? You forfeited his goods, saw him racked with your own eyes and [had him] carried in a chair to Smithfield to be burned alive. And you say that you do no harm? More was executed and later canonised. Soon we shall be able to read in The Mirror and the Light how Hilary Mantel describes the future of Thomas Cromwell (otherwise known as Master Mark Rylance) and possibly, Richard Rich.

Master Mitchell is the Chairman of the Middle Temple Historical Society. Called to the Bar in 1972 and to the Bench in 2012, he was appointed District Judge in 1999 and Circuit Judge in 2006. He currently sits at the Central London Civil Justice Centre.

[V]ery merciful to his clients using equity and justice to the poor, very diligent in giving counsel to all the needy without money or reward and briefly, a singular example to all lawyers.

Wolf Hall and The Middle Temple


The Sixth Middle Templar ROBERT J OLEJAR

Middle Temple is proud of the five members who signed the Declaration of Independence and the seven who signed the United States Constitution, honoured on the plaque in Middle Temple Hall. One more could have signed the Declaration, and, although credited with signing the Constitution, never actually took a pen to either. When the Second Continental Congress voted for independence 240 years ago, among its members was a sixth Middle Templar, John Dickinson. On Monday 1 July 1776, as John Adams made his way to the Pennsylvania State House for the vote on Richard Henry Lee’s resolution on independence from England, he had no reason to expect anything other than a quick vote, followed by approval of Jefferson’s draft Declaration, submitted to Congress three days earlier, then on to other business. But, it was not to be. One of the most conflicted men of the time was John Dickinson, American born, Called to the Bar by the Middle Temple in 1757, and long known throughout the Colonies for his service as a delegate to the Stamp Act Congress in 1765, and his pamphlet series, Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania. He wrote, ‘We are taxed without our own consent, expressed by ourselves or our representatives. We are therefore—SLAVES’. He wrote America’s first patriotic tune The Liberty Song. Dickinson was a moderate, one of the pragmatic successful businessmen of the time who legitimately questioned whether the unknown and incalculable risks of war outweighed the known benefits of continued association with Great Britain. But, he was an American. At the First Continental Congress in 1774, he authored The Petition to the King and gave his support to John Adams and his cousin, Samuel Adams, to help sway Congress to boycott British goods. Shortly after the Second Continental Congress convened in May 1775, Dickinson spoke, acknowledging the Colonies should ‘prepare vigorously for war’, but allegiance to the mother country called for another attempt at reconciliation. ‘We have not yet tasted deeply of that bitter cup called the Fortunes of War’. Dickinson’s constant attempts to delay action pending reconciliation vexed Adams to no end, especially Dickinson’s Olive Branch Petition of July 1775. In June 1776, Congress appointed him chairman of the committee to draft the Articles of Confederation, which included fellow Middle Templars Edward Rutledge and Thomas McKean. Dickinson


A more estimable man, or truer patriot, could not have left us…Among the first of the advocates for the rights of his country when assailed by Great Britain, he continued to the last the orthodox advocate of the true principles of our new government, and his name will be consecrated in history as one of the great worthies of the Revolution. had prepared long and hard for this last chance to preserve colonial ties with England. John Hancock, President of Congress, opened the meeting. Dickinson, pale and thin, rose to his feet. ‘My Conduct this Day, I expect will give the finishing Blow to my once too great, and (my Integrity considered) now too diminished Popularity’. Knowing events outside the chamber had already decided the outcome inside, the barrister put his case nonetheless. Declaring independence prematurely would be to ‘brave the storm in a skiff made of paper’, a direct reference to the proposed Declaration. In Vindication (1783), he explained he did not object to independence, merely the timing. Adams’ assessment of Dickinson’s speech was uncharacteristically generous:

I expected no more would be said in public, but that the question would be put and decided. Mr. Dickinson, however, was determined to bear his testimony against it with more formality. He had prepared himself apparently with great labor and ardent zeal, and in a speech of great length, and with all his eloquence, he combined together all that had before been written in pamphlets and newspapers, and all that had from time to time been said in Congress by himself and others. He conducted the debate with great ingenuity and eloquence, but with equal politeness and candor, and was answered in the same spirit.

When no one rose to speak, the Harvard-trained American lawyer took the floor of Congress to deliver the greatest speech of his life. No one knows what Adams said. Not expecting to speak that morning, Adams had no notes, unlike Dickinson who came loaded for bear. Incredibly, no notes were kept by anyone. Adams lamented, ‘I wish someone had remembered the speech, for it is the only one I ever made that I wish was literally preserved’. Jefferson called Adams ‘the Colossus of the Debate’. After nine hours of debate, a preliminary vote resulted in only nine colonies for independence. New York abstained claiming it lacked instructions. Delaware was evenly split, 1-1. There were two ‘no’ votes: South Carolina, all Middle Templars, 0-4; Pennsylvania, led by Ben Franklin, surprisingly sided with Dickinson, rejecting independence, 3-4. Every contested colony numbered at least one Middle Templar in its delegation. Rutledge moved to postpone the vote until the next day. Everyone agreed. The Middle Templars went to work. The next morning, 2 July 1776, Middle Templar Thomas McKean, the Delaware delegate who voted for independence, watched the door. To break the tie with George Read, McKean had dispatched a rider to fetch the third Delaware delegate. Just as the doors were about to close and the session begin, Caesar Rodney entered the chamber. Rodney and McKean had served together in the Stamp Act Congress, and led the movement to create a separate state of Delaware from the Lower Counties of Pennsylvania. Rodney would cast Delaware’s deciding vote for independence. Overnight, Rutledge managed to convince the South Carolina delegation, Thomas Heyward Jr., Thomas Lynch Jr., and Arthur Middleton, a Loyalist’s worst nightmare, to support Lee’s resolution, 4-0. Pennsylvania remained the sole opposing state. But, when the delegates looked to the Pennsylvania delegation, they saw two empty chairs where Dickinson and Robert Morris should have been, leaving Pennsylvania 3-2 in favor of independence. Dickinson may have defeated Franklin within the Pennsylvania delegation, but he would not win Congress. Abstention virtually guaranteed a unified, if not, unanimous, vote for independence. The balance of that day and next two days were spent arguing about the language in Jefferson’s draft. The South Carolina delegation, along with others, succeeded in having any reference to slavery deleted. On 4 July 1776, the last change was made. John Hancock and Charles Thomson, Secretary of Congress as his witness, signed Jefferson’s marked up ‘fair copy’, to be typeset and distributed to the colonies. An engrossed copy was prepared and signed by 50 delegates on August 2, 1776. McKean was the last to sign, possibly as late as 1781. Dickinson joined the Continental Army and, on 4 July 1776, lead troops from Philadelphia to Elizabethtown, New Jersey. In his Vindication, Dickinson explained the quick

change of position, saying, ‘all my arguments were of no more use after…[the resolution]…was made, than the rubbish caused in erecting a palace? Reasons that were proper in a debate, were useless after a decision’. Dickinson’s refusal to sign the Declaration now made no sense. Dickinson’s entire reputation had been built on defending the Colonists’ rights as Englishmen. But, he did not understand, as fellow Middle Templar Edmund Burke, MP, had warned Parliament, if the Colonies could not secure their rights as Englishmen, they would secure those rights as Americans. The decision to abstain would prove disastrous. Pennsylvania removed him as a Congressional delegate. Adams wrote to his wife, Abigail, on 8 April 1777, ‘He (Dickinson) is in total neglect and disgrace here. I am sorry for it, because of the forward part he took in the beginning of the controversy’. No one entered the debate for independence more revered and left more reviled. But, no one of any merit questioned his patriotism, and his talents as a writer and statesman were needed. Delaware commissioned him its delegate to Congress in April 1779. In 1781, he became a member of Delaware's governing council which then elected him President of the state. In October 1781, he was elected to Pennsylvania's executive council, which elected him state President, making him the chief executive in both states. But, he would not fully rise from the ashes of 1776 until the Constitutional Convention convened in May 1787, as a delegate from Delaware. Again, Dickinson did not sign, accounts differing as whether due to illness or business elsewhere; George Read would sign the Constitution as his proxy. Had Dickinson advocated independence over conciliation, 'The Penman of the Revolution' may well have been chosen to write the Declaration. But, owing to his Middle Temple training, it likely would have been grounded in the limited English constitutional experience, rather than Jefferson's universal natural rights theory. The 55 words beginning with, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident...’, words that have inspired virtually every freedom movement for almost a quarter millennium, might never have been written. Jefferson, on learning of Dickinson’s death in 1808, wrote: A more estimable man, or truer patriot, could not have left us…Among the first of the advocates for the rights of his country when assailed by Great Britain, he continued to the last the orthodox advocate of the true principles of our new government, and his name will be consecrated in history as one of the great worthies of the Revolution.

Writing to Jefferson in 1813, even the radical Adams had high praise for his moderate adversary, ‘There was a little Aristocracy, among Us, of Talents and Letters…Mr. Dickinson was primus inter pares—first among equals—the Bell Weather;…leader of the Aristocratical flock’. Robert J Olejar is an American trial lawyer and forensic accountant specialising in criminal defence, fraud and commercial litigation. A licensed Certified Public Accountant and Certified Fraud Examiner, he is regularly appointed as Receiver and Court's Forensic Accountant by the Chancery Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. He was Called to the Bar of England and Wales on Thanksgiving Night 2014. A former U.S. Marine, he holds a Fifth Degree Black Belt in the Japanese martial art of Ninjutsu.

The Sixth Middle Templar



1916: War, Treason and Middle Temple MASTER RICHARD AIKENS An extract of Master Reader’s reading given on 16 February 2016. 1916 was a turning point in the war unleashed by the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914. The war was truly worldwide in scope. Besides the well-known Western and Eastern fronts there were theatres of war in the Italian Alps, the Dardanelles, the Balkans, Mesopotamia (known to British soldiers as ’the Mess Pot’) the Caucasus, in Asia, in West Africa, South West Africa, East Africa, and at sea in the North Sea, the Atlantic, the Indian Ocean and off South America. The archives of Middle Temple reveal that members of the Inn – barristers and students - were involved in many of these theatres, from Flanders to Mesopotamia to East Africa and beyond. They were also involved in events closer to Domus - not least the trial and appeal of Sir Roger Casement, Irish patriot or English traitor according to your point of view. Students in the forces were concerned that they could not keep their dining terms, especially as they had to pay not only an entrance fee (£50) but also a termly fee of £1 (multiply by 80 to get today’s equivalent). The Inn ruled that students in the forces must pay the termly fee but were excused keeping their dinners. As the war continued, students on active service asked if they could be deemed to have passed their exams even if not taken. All four Inns decided that they could call someone to the Bar even if he had not passed all his exams or kept his terms, provided he was ‘a member of the Forces of the Crown or otherwise engaged in connection with the war’ (at that time women could not become barristers; it was only possible after the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 was passed).


Conscription was introduced only in February 1916. Before that all servicemen were volunteers. A leading advocate of conscription was Sir Edward Carson KC MP, Bencher of Middle Temple. He was briefly the Attorney General in Asquith’s coalition government of 1915-16. However, there were no conscripts fighting at the battle of the Somme. The attack started on 1 July 1916, after six days of artillery bombardment of the German positions. 19,240 allied soldiers were killed that day; total casualties were 57,470. At least seven Middle Templars died on that first day and 23 were killed during the battle, which continued until November 1916. One was Captain Henry MacLean of the 9th battalion of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers. They were part of one of 13 divisions of the British and Imperial forces who launched an attack on Gommecourt and Maricourt with very heavy losses. Edward Finlay of the 16th battalion, the Rifle Brigade, had been a King’s Scholar at Eton and Scholar at Balliol College, Oxford. He died on 4 July, as did his brother. Major Herbert Fletcher died ‘as a result of a flying accident’. One future Middle Templar, Lieutenant Eugene Paul Bennett won the Victoria Cross at the Somme. Also present at the battle was the Irish MP, William Redmond, Called by Middle Temple in 1892. A fervent proponent of Irish Home Rule, he also believed that Irishmen should fight for the Allies and so help the cause of an independent Ireland. His death in battle in 1917 was internationally mourned. Middle Temple has associations with other theatres of war. In the Mesopotamian campaign Sir Berry Cusack Smith (5th Baronet) of Middle Temple, commanded the 1st battalion of the Home Counties Brigade of the Royal Field Artillery. He was highly critical of the generals in command of that theatre. In East Africa the British forces were commanded

by the South African, General Jan Smuts, who had joined Middle Temple in 1894. He was made an Honorary Bencher in 1919. Captain EG Cooper fought with the King’s African Rifles in German East Africa (now Tanzania). He and Captain Harold Burgess were killed in the East African campaign in 1916. There is a Middle Temple association with the theatre in the Balkans. Captain John Teague RMLI, a barrister, fought and died at Gallipoli. In 1916, Hugh Scrutton, youngest son of The Rt. Hon Sir Thomas Scrutton, was fatally wounded in the campaign in the Struma valley when countering a joint Bulgarian and German offensive in Northern Greece. On the Italian front, Major General Robert Blackham of the Middle Temple was a senior medical officer. At home, Middle Templars were much involved in the trial of Sir Roger Casement, an Ulster protestant and former distinguished British Consular Service officer who became a fervent Irish patriot. He went to Germany and tried to enlist Irish prisoners of war to join a Free Irish Brigade. He also persuaded the German authorities to smuggle guns and ammunitions into Ireland to assist the Irish uprising planned for Easter 1916. But the Secret Service had tracked both the coaster taking the arms and the German submarine carrying Casement to Tralee Bay. He was arrested and charged under the Treason Act 1351, a statute that was written in Norman French and had to be ‘translated’ for the trial. The major legal argument was the extent to which acts giving ‘aid and comfort to the King’s enemies’ outside the jurisdiction fell within the terms of the Act. The trial judges and the Court of Criminal Appeal held that they were. Of the three trial judges, two were Middle Templars: The Most Honourable The Marquess of Reading, formerly Sir Rufus Isaacs KC, and The Hon Sir Thomas Horridge, who later became Treasurer of the Inn. On the appeal, two of the five puisne judges who heard the case were Middle Temple Benchers: Scrutton (made Lord Justice later that year) and The Hon Mr Justice Lawrence, later The Rt. Hon Lord Trevethin – but for 11 months only. At the trial and on appeal, Casement was represented by Serjeant Sullivan, of the Irish Bar, but also a Middle Templar. He and Scrutton had heated exchanges on the appeal about the correct interpretation of the 1351 Act. The last, and admittedly most tenuous connection with Middle Temple, is that between the Inn and the assassin of the ‘mad’ Russian monk Gregorii Rasputin, who was killed on 30 December 1916 in St Petersburg. The assassin was Prince Felix Youssoupoff, one of the richest aristocrats in Russia. He had been an undergraduate at University College, Oxford from 1909 to 1913 and a member of Inner Temple. In 1912-13, the Prince of Wales (the future Edward

VIII) was an undergraduate at Magdalen College. The two were bound to have met because both were members of the famous Bullingdon Club, described in an article in The New York Times of 1 June 1913 as ‘the acme of exclusiveness at Oxford; the club of the sons of nobility; the sons of great wealth’. The Prince of Wales had been invited to become a Royal Bencher of Middle Temple in 1912. The war delayed his actual election; but the connection with Youssoupoff and Rasputin – by several degrees of separation admittedly – is there. So there it is: Middle Temple was at the centre of things in 1916, just as it is today! The idea for my Reading came from a book written by my close friend, Professor Keith Jeffery, which is entitled simply 1916. Keith was professor of British History at Queen’s University, Belfast and had written the official history of MI6. He died of a rare cancer on 11 February 2016 and the Reading on 16 February 2016 was dedicated to his memory. I must also thank the Middle Temple archivist, Lesley Whitelaw and her staff for all the assistance given to me in looking at documents and records. The full version of Master Aikens' article is available on the website.

Master Aikens was Called to the Bar in 1973 and was a Harmsworth Scholar. He practised from Brick Court Chambers from 1974 to 1999. Appointed QC in 1986 and was a Judge of the High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, from 1999 to 2008. Appointed to the Court of Appeal and made Privy Councillor in 2008. He rejoined Brick Court Chambers as an arbitrator following his retirement from the bench. He was Lent Reader in 2016.

1916: War, Treason and Middle Temple


WWI and Middle Temple LESLEY WHITELAW When on 9 July 1914 the Masters of the Bench of the Middle Temple convened at the final Parliament before the summer vacation, few if any would have thought that a month later, Britain would be part of the first European-wide war in 100 years. The proceedings of this Parliament follow in the long tradition of records of the Inn’s governing body dating back to 1501 in making no reference to national events. Instead the Masters confined their official deliberations to consideration of the Consolidated Regulations of the Bar, disciplinary matters and the Fancy Dress Ball which had been given on 7 July. When Parliament re-convened on 15 October 1914, Britain had been at war for over two months. The tone and concerns of this Parliament were now fully focused on what would preoccupy its members for the duration of the War: support for the war effort and for those who fought, and securing Inn buildings and possessions against the risks of new, aerial warfare. Its first order was to vote a donation of £1,000 to be divided equally between the Prince of Wales’ National Relief Fund and the Officers’ Families Fund. Its second act was to approve insurance against Bomb Fire for the Inn’s principle buildings, assets, Middle Temple’s share of the Temple Church and Master’s House. Thirdly, an amendment was made to the Consolidated Regulations to enable Benchers of any Inn to dispense with the keeping of terms by any student unable to do so by reason of his being a member of the Forces of the Crown or otherwise engaged in connection with the War. The Parliament of 15 November 1914 invited advocates of the Belgian Bar who were in England to become Honorary Members of Middle Temple (if not already Honorary Members of another Inn). The same Parliament was the first of all too many at which letters of sympathy were sent to Benchers whose sons had been killed. On 3 June 1915, after directing letters of condolence to the families of members killed in action, Parliament ordered that the death of any member of the Inn in the service of his country should be reported as soon as possible to enable Parliament to give the necessary order for letters of condolence. By the time Parliament reconvened in early November the list of fallen included a major, three captains and seven lieutenants. From the outset, the Inn made its Hall available for raising funds for War charities. The first application came in a letter from HF Dickens asking leave to give a dramatic recital of the works of his father, Charles Dickens, a former member


of the Inn, in Middle Temple Hall to raise funds for the British Red Cross Society and was approved by the Bench on 12 November 1914. The most ambitious of these fund raising events took place in July 1916 on behalf of the British Red Cross Society and the Order of St John of Jerusalem for the use of Hall and Gardens for a Shakespeare Fete, to raise funds. The glittering cast and supporters included names from the world of theatre, politics and Society – Ellen Terry, Sir George Alexander, Lillah McCarthy, the daughters of the Prime Minister and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Miss Nancy Cunard, and Lady Diana Manners (later Cooper). Despite inclement weather, it raised the substantial sum of £1,560 which was acknowledged by the King and by Queen Alexandra. Parliament was also active in ensuring the adequacy of fire appliances for protection of buildings and property of the Inn against fire bombs and other risks. One rather overzealous Bencher lost a motion that the Fire Committee be instructed to consider the advisability of fixing steel or other netting over the roof of Hall and over the roof of the Church. It was left to Master Treasurer’s discretion to order the removal of pictures to a place of safety over the long vacation. Despite the fear of bombing, the Inn’s property suffered minimal damage (so different from the devastation it was to suffer in the Blitz just over two decades later). On the night of 30 September 1917, the Inn suffered minor damage from anti-aircraft artillery. Brass plaques in the floor of what was then the Parliament Chamber (now the Queen’s Room) mark where a three-inch shell fired by anti-aircraft artillery fell through the floor. There was also damage to No 1 Pump Court following an incendiary bomb attack on 19 December 1917. This was the only actual damage caused by enemy fire. As food shortages worsened, the increasing cost of provisions led to the introduction of a war charge for each

dinner and luncheon served from 13 March 1916. In January 1917 Parliament ordered the curtailment of menus so as to come within Food Regulations and from February 1918 only non-rationed food was served in Hall for luncheon. Notwithstanding this, in June 1918 the Wine Committee felt able to buy a parcel of port, ‘about 13 dozen’ 1863 and 1868 vintage. While life at the Inn continued, it was noticeable that overwhelmingly those Called to the Bar were now from abroad. Charitable functions continued. The Inn paid for equipment for choristers joining the Officers Training Corps (OTC); it made a donation to Inns of Court OTC for increased accommodation; it gave concerts in Hall for wounded soldiers with music by Dr. Walford Davies and his choir; and it generously refunded fees of officers withdrawing from the Inn because they faced financial embarrassment. For staff called up on active service, the Inn made up the difference between their military pay and their Middle Temple salary. Throughout there was a keen awareness of the suffering and courage of those in the trenches and the bereavement of members who had lost sons and brothers. Although two Middle Templars won the VC, both joined after the war itself. James Leach was decorated for recovering a trench near Festubert in October 1914 and Paul Bennett for rallying an attack near Le Transloy in November 1916. Members on active service were requested to keep the Inn apprised of their service and the records were conscientiously kept and made into a finely produced illuminated volume in grateful and lasting memory of those ‘who in the Great War with the Central Powers of Europe nobly and courageously fought for King and Country in Defence and Vindication of Liberty and Honour’. On 14 June 1917 General Smuts was Called as an Honorary Bencher of the Inn at a dinner attended by over a hundred Benchers, barristers and students. He had been admitted to the Inn in 1892 while an undergraduate at Cambridge, before returning to his native land to fight against the British in the Boer War. Now in Britain representing South Africa in the Imperial War Cabinet, he was to play a prominent role in the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. As the tide of the War turned, the Master of the Temple preached a sermon ‘Jerusalem’ on 16 December 1917 to commemorate General Allenby’s capture of that city a few days earlier. The records of 1918 give an intimation of two developments which were to shape the post-War Middle Temple: the admission of women barristers and the Inn’s close links with America. On 21 February 1918 Parliament rejected Helena Normanton’s application to join the Inn. However, the effects of the war on the role of women meant that the days of allmale Inns were numbered and she was indeed to become the first woman to be admitted to the Middle Temple at the end of the following year, after the passing of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919. In June 1918 the Inn held a Guest Night to which Prime Ministers of the Dominions were invited. The following month a dinner was given for American Lawyers and Law Students serving in Britain. The close ties between the two countries had been promoted by Lord Reading, a Middle Templar, who served as British Ambassador to the United States (1918-19) while still Lord Chief Justice. This dinner foreshadowed the Call of the Hon. John Davis, US Ambassador and former Attorney General, in January 1919 as an Honorary Bencher, a tradition which continues to this

day of electing US ambassadors Honorary Benchers. In November 1918 the Armistice was proclaimed at Temple Bar. Physically the war had left little mark on the Inn. On Sunday 29 December 1918 The King and Queen, Princess Mary, Prince Henry and Prince George attended morning service at Temple Church. Lady Reading was granted the use of Middle Temple Hall for a ball on 31 December. In a world which had seen the overthrow of the German, Russian and Ottoman emperors, the life of the Inn might have appeared deceptively unchanged, but after four years of carnage, nothing would be the same again. Extract from an article first published in Counsel.

Lesley Whitelaw graduated from St Andrews University in 1981. Subsequently she was Archivist to the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, Archivist to the Lothian Health Board and held curatorial posts in the National Archives of Scotland. She has been Archivist to the Middle Temple since 1990.

WWI and Middle Temple


‘Help me to die, O Lord.’ The First Day of the Somme, 1 July 1916 MASTER ROBIN GRIFFITHS-JONES At 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 5:00am 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% and 60% 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 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 seventeen … 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 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. 120,000 men went over the top from the British lines on 1 July. 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 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. 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).

The Rev Dr (Master) Robin GriffithJones DLitt, is The Reverend and Valiant Master of the Temple at the Temple Church, and Senior Lecturer in Theology at King’s College, London University. He has worked extensively on law and religion. The Temple Church is the collegiate church of the two legal colleges or Inns of Court, Inner and Middle Temple; it is famous as ‘the mother-church of the Common Law’. His booklet, Magna Carta, 1215-2015: London’s Temple and the Road to the Rule of Law has been widely read. He ran the international conference on Magna Carta, Religion and the Rule of Law at the Temple in June 2014, and is co-editing the book.

‘Help me to die, O Lord.’ - The First Day of the Somme, 1 July 1916


Middle Temple and its First Women Members MASTER ROSALIND WRIGHT Middle Temple Library proudly displays the wig, bands, shoe buckles and photographs of Helena Frances Normanton, the first woman admitted to an Inn of Court, having made her application to Middle Temple on Christmas Eve 1919, 48 hours after the passing of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act of that year and was successful. She was Called to the Bar on 17 November 1922. But she was in fact the first of ten women to be called by that evening. Inner Temple, having had the distinction of calling the very first woman barrister, Ivy Williams, in May of that year, called the eleventh of the ‘1922 cohort’, Theodora Llewellyn-Davis to the Bar that night. The Middle Temple Nine, consisted, as well as Helena Normanton, of: • Monica Mary Geikie Cobb, who was the first woman barrister to hold an assize brief. In 1922 she wrote an article, 'Trial by Jury' for the Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law; • Auvergne Doherty, who was an overseas student from Australia. She did not practise and returned to Australia where she became the manager of a cattle station; her father was a wool broker; • Ethel Bright Ashford, who achieved prominence in local politics. She was a councillor in Marylebone as well as being very active in social work; • Elsie Wheeler, admitted to Middle Temple 1920, practised at 5 Paper Buildings; • Beatrice Davy, who was also called by Inner Temple ad eundem in 1926. Beatrice stressed that ‘for a woman who must earn her own living the Bar is the very last profession in the world’, and became a solicitor; • Sybil Campbell, who became the first woman stipendiary magistrate, at Tower Bridge Court and was renowned for her severe sentencing; • Naomi Constance Wallace, who died in 1980, intestate, still described as ‘a barrister’ and Lillian Maud Daws were also called by Middle Temple that night.


We, who enjoy relative equality with men at the Bar today, owe these pioneers a huge debt. Their struggle to overcome the presumption, enunciated by Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke as ‘fems ne poient ester attorneys’ (women cannot be attorneys) only succeeded with the passing of the landmark 1919 Act, which enabled women for the first time in the United Kingdom to become lawyers. The gender restriction on those who could be a barrister is an ancient one: students of the Inns of Court were formerly called Apprentices Nobiliores and, in 1603, an Order in

Council provides that, ‘None be from henceforth admitted into the Society of any House of Court (sic) that is not a gentleman by descent’. In forms of application for admission in 1852, adopted by all four Inns, the applicant had to state that he was ‘the son of …..’ and the reference he provided required the referee to vouch for the applicant’s standing as a ‘gentleman of respectability’. The words ‘son’ and ‘gentleman’ were retained in the Consolidated Regulations current in 1903, when Bertha Cave applied for membership of Gray’s Inn and was rebuffed in the House of Lords. The Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Halsbury kindly remarked, ‘I am afraid that the objection is that no lady has ever yet been admitted to an Inn; and that, dealing with legal institutions, is a very powerful argument against [the admission of women]’. Others had tried and failed. When Helena Normanton applied for admission as a student on 11 February 1918, enclosing her fee of one guinea, Middle Temple Parliament relied on Lord Halsbury’s speech in the House of Lords in Bertha Cave’s case as authority for refusing her and decided that no reasons were to be given to her. Middle Temple’s archives include a spluttering invective from a J. Maule (I assume male) writing from the Queen’s Hotel, Southport and enclosing a press cutting, recounting Helena Normanton’s efforts to be admitted, saying, ‘For Heaven’s sake don’t admit this egotistical and interfering woman … a female lawyer would be the limit of endurance..’. However, Inga Hawks, a Norwegian lady, wrote to Middle Temple on 26 February 1918, to say,

Inns as to the desirability and the legality of women being admitted as students and called to the Bar. The following week, Parliament considered the ‘Case of Miss Normanton’ and recorded that ‘a committee, consisting of Masters Muir, Mackenzie, Macmorran, Lloyd and Colyar be appointed to consider this case’. No record seems to have been made of the results, if any, of these committees but on 19 December, some five days before Helena Normanton’s successful application, and obviously bowing to the inevitable, the minutes of Parliament show a proposal by the new Treasurer, Sir John Edge, that ‘the members of the committee appointed to deal with the admission of women, report on any steps it may be necessary to take in respect of lavatory accommodation etc.(sic)’. This was carried. Helena Normanton led the vanguard, but applications by women for membership of the Inns that followed did not constitute the deluge that some had predicted. By 1964, when I was called to the Bar, there were only slightly over 100 women in practice. Today, applications by women for admission outnumber those from men. We have come a long way since 1919. The future for women at the Bar looks much brighter than it did to our grandmothers. It is up to us to make the most of it. I am indebted to the help given me in preparing this article by Lesley Whitelaw, Middle Temple Archivist.

I am sorry for you that it was your lot to tell the women of England that the door to Middle Temple is closed. It is only a matter of time when the Masters of the Bench will have to swing the door wide open to women. The Masters will, with humble bent heads stand by the door, saying 'Come - welcome, we want your help to make laws…’.

Helena Normanton, herself, told The Daily Telegraph, ‘This is merely the first step in a contest which will not be a long one in view of the fact that I have behind me six million enfranchised women who will not tolerate for long this absurdity of the benchers’. Helena Normanton appealed against Parliament’s decision to a panel of judges in July that year, and was, again, refused. She did not give up. There was support for extension of entry to the professions for women in the House of Lords: The Sex Disqualification (Removal) Bill was not the only Bill to be presented to Parliament proposing women’s admission to the legal profession, it was one of three. The first was the Barristers’ and Solicitors’ (Qualification of Women) Bill, introduced by Lord Buckmaster on 26 February 1919, followed by the Women’s Emancipation Bill, introduced 21 March 1919 and the ultimately successful Sex Disqualification (Removal) Bill introduced in July 1919 by the Government – all introduced in the House of Lords and rebuffed by the lower House. Anticipating that change was imminent, the minutes of Middle Temple Parliament for 16 January 1919 record the proposal by Master Treasurer, Lord Coleridge, that there be a committee appointed to confer with the other three

Master Wright was Called to the Bar in 1964 and was elected as a Bencher in 2001. She was Reader in 2010. She was formerly the Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions and Director, Serious Fraud Office, 1997- 2003.

Today, applications by women for admission outnumber those from men. We have come a long way since 1919. The future for women at the Bar looks much brighter than it did to our grandmothers. It is up to us to make the most of it. Middle Temple and its First Women Members


From London To Dresden: 1940-45 MASTER ROBIN GRIFFITH-JONES London was bombed every night between 7 September and 13 November 1940. Middle and Inner Temple were already suffering from the Blitz. In autumn 1940 Inner Temple’s Library was damaged and a mine landed in Middle Temple Lane which brought down the Hall’s east wall and the screen. Windows in the Church were blown out twice. The most famous photograph of the War, of St Paul’s surrounded by smoke and flames, was taken from the roof of The Daily Mail building in Tudor Street during the great raid of 29 December. The night of 10 May 1941 was fine and moonlit. The sirens sounded at 11:00pm; 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 an incendiary landed on the roof of the Church. 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 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.


By mid-November it was clear that the attacks on London and elsewhere in the country 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 halfa-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. 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. He confirmed 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% 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. 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 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 twelve 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. An extract from a sermon given by the Master of the Temple to remember the 75th Anniversary of the bombing of Temple Church.

The Rev Dr (Master) Robin GriffithJones DLitt, is The Reverend and Valiant Master of the Temple at the Temple Church, and Senior Lecturer in Theology at King’s College, London University. He has worked extensively on law and religion. His booklet, Magna Carta, 1215-2015: London’s Temple and the Road to the Rule of Law has been widely read. He ran the international conference on Magna Carta, Religion and the Rule of Law at the Temple in June 2014, and is co-editing the book.

From London To Dresden: 1940-45


High Treason ‘The Centenary of the Casement Case’ MASTER MICHAEL ASHE

This picture is of the unsuccessful appeal of Roger Casement on 17 and 18 July 1916 against his conviction for High Treason Casement is in the dock while the Court is being addressed by his counsel, Serjeant Sullivan, later Master Treasurer. Leading Counsel for the Crown, the Attorney General, Sir F.E. Smith KC, is seated in front of the Serjeant and to his left. This painting conveys the drama of the court room but its artist, Sir John Lavery, observed, ‘It was difficult to realise that a man’s life was at stake in the drowsy monotony of the talk that went on for two days…’ The Serjeant later described his own argument as ‘very dull’ and ‘intelligible only to myself’. Casement had been arrested on 21 April 1916, after being put ashore from a U-Boat in the south-west of Ireland. On the same day, a German ship was apprehended by the Royal Navy off that coast and was scuttled. The cargo was a large number of guns and ammunition. Three days later the Easter Rising broke out in Dublin. After arrest, Casement was sent to England and charged with High Treason by attempting in Germany to suborn British prisoners of war from their allegiance to the Crown. He had distinguished himself in the Consular Service serving in Africa and South America, receiving the CMG, the South Africa Medal and a Knighthood. He had retired in 1913. Casement had not been radicalised overnight, but retirement and the UK politics of the time led him to contribute to Irish nationalism. Since colonisation, the government of Ireland had been problematic. Home Rule had been a difficult issue in the nineteenth century but became a possibility after the Parliament Act 1911.


This ignited fury among Unionists. Led by Sir Edward Carson KC MP, armed insurrection to prevent Home Rule was threatened by Unionists and an Ulster Volunteer Force was equipped with weapons purchased in Germany. This was backed by the Conservative Party, with its leader, Bonar Law and F.E. Smith KC MP being the most vociferous in their support of Carson’s armed threats against the Crown. In response, diverse nationalist groups formed the Irish Volunteers and armed them. Casement became their chief recruiter. As Serjeant Sullivan was later to comment, ‘The ludicrous situation arose in which a loyalist army was to overthrow British law while rebel organisations were seizing arms ostensibly to enforce it’. The Home Rule Bill became law in 1914 but, due to war, was immediately suspended. Most members of the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Irish Volunteers joined the British Army. In May 1915 a new coalition government appoint Carson and Smith, previously on the verge of treason, the law officers of the Crown! Casement’s radicalism lay both in his Irish background and in his career. As a young man he had developed a love for Irish history, mythology and culture. He became a nationalist. He had had long experience of colonial government. He had seen deprivation, had a passion for human rights and humanitarian aid and, famously, had exposed injustice in the Congo by Belgium and in South America by British rubber companies. By the end of his career Casement had concluded that colonisation had ruined cultures and traditions including those of Ireland. He believed that if Irish

people did not receive their independence they must take it by force. At the outbreak of war in 1914, Casement was in the United States raising funds for the Irish Volunteers. From there he went to Germany until 1916 and with the cooperation of the German authorities tried to recruit Irish prisoners of war to an Irish Brigade formed to support Irish independence after the war. Serjeant Sullivan’s view of his client was ‘that his principal belief was in his own importance. He had that touch of megalomania which is associated with mental aberration of a more unpleasant kind’. The indictment alleged that Casement was ‘adherent to the King’s enemies in his Realm, giving them aid and comfort in the Realm and elsewhere’, contrary to the Treason Act 1351. Casement had done nothing within the Realm. All his actions had been carried out by him in Germany. Essentially the defence was that no offence had been committed but this found no favour at trial before the then Chief Justice, Lord Reading, or in the Court of Criminal Appeal presided over by Mr Justice Darling.

The argument was not without merit and would have benefitted from consideration by the House of Lords, particularly given that a life was at stake. An appeal in a treason case required the fiat of the Attorney General and this was not forthcoming. Casement was hanged at Pentonville on 3 August 1916. Master Ashe is Master of the Archive. He was Called to the Bar in 1971 and was elected as a Bencher in 1998. He is Queens Counsel in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland and is Senior Counsel in Ireland. He is also a Recorder. His practice is commercial Chancery. On 14 March 2017, Master Ashe will be giving a paper to the Middle Temple Historical Society about Lavery’s picture and the Casement Case.

High Treason 'The Centenary of the Casement Case'




The Inn would like to congratulate the following couples who were married in Temple Church and wishes them all the best for the future!

Lucy Simon and Frederick Fallon - 3 October 2015

Photo: Charlotte Fielding

Caroline Mair and Andrew Beasley - 25 April 2015

Janine Wolstenholme and Michael Morley - 10 October 2015

Eleanor Jones and Benjamin LĂŠger - 24 October 2015

Jenna Lucas and Daniel Steeds - 17 October 2015

Master Robert Seabrook and Sarah Bird - 23 April 2016

Charlotte Holman and Pablo Ros - 28 May 2016

Temple Church Weddings


Temple Church Calendar 2016-17 In addition to the regular Sunday services at 08:30 and 11.15 the following events will take place in Temple Church. OCTOBER 2016


MARCH 2017

Sunday 2 October 11:15am

Wednesday 7 December 6:00pm

Wednesday 1 March 5:30pm

First Service of the Legal Year

Temple Church Carol Service (I)

Choral Evensong: Ash Wednesday

Wednesday 5 October 5:45pm

Thursday 8 December 6:00pm

Wednesday 22 March 6:00pm

Choral Evensong The Temple Church Choir with the Choir of Westminster Cathedral To celebrate the Diamond Jubilee of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Bencher of Inner Temple

Temple Church Carol Concert A Christmas Celebration

Choral Evensong, Amity Dinner (at MT)

Monday 12 – Friday 16 December

APRIL 2017

Wednesday 12 October 5:30pm

Choral Evensong For the 950th Anniversary of the Battle of Hastings (14 October 1066) Wednesday 19 October 5:30pm

Choral Evensong, St Luke's Day Thursday 27 October and Friday 28 October 7:30pm Saturday 29 October 6:00pm

And London Burned – The Great Fire Opera Booking:

NOVEMBER 2016 Wednesday 2 November 5:30pm

Choral Evensong All Saints and All Souls Friday 11 November 10:55am

Armistice Day, Last Post and Reveille, Church Court Sunday 13 November 10:55am

Choral Mattins Remembrance Sunday Wednesday 30 November 6:00pm

Advent Carol Service

Temple Church/BBC Radio 3 Winter Festival Monday 12 December 7:30pm

The Temple Church Choir with Catrin Finch, harp. To be recorded for BBC Radio 3. Booking Thursday 15 December 1:00pm

Greg Morris, organ Sunday 18 December 11:15am

Temple Church Carol Service (II)

Please note, tickets are required for this service. Priority will be given to Members of the Inns. Booking: Catherine de Satgé

Followed by Children’s Nativity Play 3:00pm All children welcome to take part Contact: Liz Clarke Wednesday 21 December 5:30pm

Christmas Carol Sing-Along

Sunday 9 April 11:15am

Choral Mattins: Palm Sunday Thursday 13 April 1:15pm

Choral Communion: Maundy Thursday Friday 14 April 11:15am

Choral Mattins: Good Friday Saturday 15 April 8:00pm

Easter Vigil: Holy Saturday Sunday 16 April 11:15am

Choral Communion: Easter Sunday MAY 2017 Wednesday 3 May 5:30pm

Easter Carol Service Sunday 7 May 11:15am

Easter Carol Service

Saturday 24 December 11:15pm

(repeat service of Wednesday 3 May)

Christmas Eve: Midnight Choral Communion

Wednesday 24 May 5:30pm

Sunday 25 December 11:15am

Christmas Day: Choral Mattins JANUARY 2017 Sunday 08 January 11:15am

Choral Mattins, First Choral Service of the Term Wednesday 11 January 5:30pm

Treasurer’s Reception for Benchers and Choral Evensong

Choral Evensong: Ascension Day JUNE 2017 Wednesday 28 June 5:30pm

Choral Evensong: St Peter's Day JULY 2017 Sunday 30 July 11:15am

Choral Communion, Last Service of the Legal Year - family lunch or 23 July

FEBRUARY 2017 Wednesday 1 February 5:30pm

Choral Evensong, Candlemas

Contacts Catherine de Satgé 020 7353 8559 50

Liz Clarke 020 7427 5650

Temple Church Calendar 2016-17

Temple Music Foundation 020 7427 5641

Church Choir ROGER SAYER NO 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 Three, 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 is about to embark 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 the introduction last October, the weekly Choral Evensongs have become a popular addition 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% of these services. There is a real buzz in the choir which is fuelled by these diverse activities which 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 extra-curricular 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 mouth piece for the Inns, wherever we may be or whatever we might do.

Roger Sayer has been the Organist and Director of Music at Temple Church since October 2013. He was previously Organist and Director of Music at Rochester Cathedral. Between 1980 and 1984 he was an organ student at St. Paul's Cathedral and was appointed organist of Woodford Parish Church in 1981. Roger's most well-known recording to date is as organist on Hans Zimmer's soundtrack for Christopher Nolan's 2014 film Interstellar.

Church Choir


Why are those boys wearing dresses? The Temple Church Choirboys’ Tour to Singapore and Perth. July 2016. SIMON THORLEY QC On 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 Church 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 20 July followed a Panel Discussion on the Rule of Law and Dispute Resolution in The Old Parliament Chamber. This is a splendid and acoustically excellent venue with appropriate leather seating; the seat formerly occupied by Master Lee Kuan Yew being permanently unoccupied out of respect. There was an invited audience of around two hundred, including the British High Commissioner, Scott Wightman, and Chao Hick Tin, the Vice-President of the Court of Appeal, a Bencher of Middle Temple. The panel discussion was introduced by the Master of the Temple Church and presided over by the Chief Justice of Singapore, Sundaresh Menon, who is an Honorary Bencher of 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 Inner; Professor Lucy Reed who was recently appointed the Director of the Centre for International Law at the National University of Singapore was formerly a specialist in investment treaty and complex arbitration with Freshfields. She is a past President of the American Society of International Law; and myself. 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 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 warm-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 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 Kuan Yew’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. 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 – 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 Brenda McGivern, gave a reception which was attended by, amongst others, the Chief Justice of Western Australia, The Hon. Wayne Martin QC 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 Church 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 Church were in the right place at the right time, Nella has a great future as a herder of cats!

Simon Thorley QC was Called to the Bar by the Inner Temple in 1972 and took Silk in 1989. He ceased practice as an advocate in July 2014 after more than 40 years as a barrister and was recognised as one of the leading practitioners in Intellectual Property. He was Chairman of the IP Bar Association 1995-99 and was appointed as Deputy High Court Judge 1998-2013. He is a Bencher of Inner Temple and was Treasurer of the Inner Temple in 2013. Photo: Graham Semark

Why are those boys wearing dresses?


The Two Earls MASTER ROBIN GRIFFITH-JONES On 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 two of the eighteen statues of Magna Carta’s protagonists – sixteen barons and two 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 Quency, 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 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 reassign Geoffrey’s whole Mandeville inheritance to a rival. When Mandeville defaulted, John confiscated his estates. Mandeville and Isabella then sided with the rebel barons. In May 1215 John tried in vain to win Mandeville back to his cause by submitting the fine to the judgement of a court. Magna Carta itself, Clause 55, outlawed such monstrous fines by the King.


In 1207 Quincy de Saer 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 his 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 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. The Rev Dr (Master) Robin GriffithJones DLitt, is The Reverend and Valiant Master of the Temple at the Temple Church, and Senior Lecturer in Theology at King’s College, London University. He has worked extensively on law and religion. The Temple Church is the collegiate church of the two legal colleges or Inns of Court, Inner and Middle Temple; it is famous as ‘the mother-church of the Common Law’. His booklet, Magna Carta, 1215-2015: London’s Temple and the Road to the Rule of Law has been widely read. He ran the international conference on Magna Carta, Religion and the Rule of Law at the Temple in June 2014, and is co-editing the book.

Church Statues



Our Committee & Work We represent the views and interests of the majority of the members of the Inn: that is, any member who is not a Bencher. As such, Hall Committee (HC) represents a broad spectrum of members from post-Call to Judges. Members of HC come from an equally broad spectrum of practice areas, from the Self-employed and Employed Bars and also members of the Middle Temple Young Barristers Association (MTYBA) and the Middle Temple Students Association (MTSA). 2016 This year, more than any other perhaps, in the face of ‘Brexit’ the work of HC and its contribution to the life of the Inn and its members, comes into focus. Why do we say this? We have a great heritage of upholding freedom and democracy in our country and abroad. Members of our Inn have been involved in some of the greatest challenges and events in our history, including being signatories to the American Declaration of Independence. Now in 2016, we face a new challenge, that of Brexit. Not only was the outcome unexpected (to put it neutrally) but it has thrown us into chaos and perhaps even a constitutional crisis. Most importantly, recent events have resulted in unprecedented debate about our constitutional rights, our Parliament, and in essence our democracy. We owe it to our members to ensure the Inn continues to provide support and indeed comfort, in these uncertain times and to engage and inform the debate where we can. Some of our Honorary Benchers, such as Sir John Major, David Cameron and even Boris Johnson, were actors in the events that led to Brexit. Some of our Benchers are current or former Members of Parliament, some also holding senior positions in government. Some of our members are constitutional and EU law experts and of course some are members of the judiciary. Many of our members at the Employed Bar support the financial and business sectors, ranging from investment banks to the aviation industry. What can the Inn do at a time of crisis? We can provide a home for debate, assess the diverse implications facing us, and ensure that we support our current and future members in developing the skills and expertise so that we always have a generation of members ready, willing and able to serve their country and the people in times of crisis.


So how do we do this? At HC we will continue in our endeavours to support the Inn in its mission of serving its members, open our Hall to debate and exchanges of ideas, so that together we can find or effect solutions. On the international side, members of HC also sit on the Inn’s International Sub-committee which brings together all our membership abroad and ensures that we all remain connected for friendship and business. Our Remit Over the last three years in particular, our voice and influence within the Inn has grown from strength to strength. HC owes this in no small part to the leadership of our 3 most recent Treasurers; Master Judge, Master Hockman and this year’s Treasurer, Master Clarke. They were, and are, determined to reconnect with our members and ensure the survival of the Inn for centuries to come, and recognise the importance of HC and the members it represents, in the achievement of this objective. We have, as a committee, developed a ‘special relationship’ with our Treasurer, for which we are very grateful. The Treasurer attends our meetings, so as to understand firsthand the issues we deal with and provide support, ensuring our voice is heard on all Standing Committees, throughout the Inn, and in Debate Parliaments. A prime example of this ‘special relationship’ is the opening of the new member’s social space ‘Tasker’s’ which would not have been possible without our Treasurers’ support. Our Work this year This has been another busy year for HC. Whilst we continue to support and work with the other Standing Committees of the Inn, we also have our own projects and initiatives, and continue those we started last year. Here are some examples. Tasker’s – The New Modern Member’s Lounge On 21 April, ‘Tasker’s’ was opened by Lady Mair GriffithWilliams, the daughter of Master Tasker Watkins VC GBE. Named after an inspirational Middle Templar, Tasker’s has been designed to offer members a stylish, modern and relaxed environment to work and play. It comes complete

with a large flat screen TV, a working fireplace, and even a bar. To top it all off, it is decorated with images selected from the Inn’s rich archives. The aim is to change the display of images selected from the archives, so as to coincide with historic anniversaries, such as the Magna Carta, the Great Fire etc., and offer more opportunity to learn about and enjoy the rich history of our Inn. Since Tasker’s has only been open for a relatively short period of time, you may be forgiven for not visiting it yet. Tasker’s was opened in response to members’ requests for a members’ lounge and we encourage all of you to enjoy its offerings. The furnishings and décor were selected by us together with Master Adrienne Page (Deputy Chairman of the Membership Committee), whose flair for interior decoration is evident for us all to see. On the archive front, we were expertly assisted by the Inn’s archivist, Lesley Whitelaw, the Director of Estates, Ian Garwood and the Master of the House, Master Ian Mayes. For our part, discovering the treasures of the archive, was a delight.

Hot Topics Events are currently being planned for both Brexit and the American Elections, so watch out for details in due course. HC Elections & Members Participation Whilst we cannot promise to fulfil all your needs, we will try our very best to address them. In order to enable us to do this we encourage your participation by contacting any of our members listed on the MT website, or by contacting one of us by email: or We also have a new Chamber’s Representative initiative in the pipeline, which will be launched at an event next Term. Our annual elections will be held in December. If you would like to participate more actively in the Inn via HC, please consider standing for election. If not, please participate by voting for candidates. Ask not, what your Inn can do for you, but what you can do for your Inn!

Mentoring Scheme And Thank you… In light of the success of the mentoring scheme we launched as a pilot, the scheme will now be offered to a wider selection of members. Its aim is to offer mentoring support to members throughout their entire career arc at the Bar after pupillage, from securing tenancy to a judicial position. We are planning a mentoring event later this year. Master Louise McCullough heads up the scheme and we know she would be delighted with expressions of interest from prospective mentors and mentees. The scheme is one of a number of initiatives of the Inn to supplement the educational support it offers members, such as the Wellbeing initiative and the Survive & Thrive events created by the Membership Committee. Support for the Junior Bar Last year, we set up a working group to examine the crisis resulting from the chronic lack of pupillage leaving talented aspiring barristers with no route to practise at the Bar. In the last quarter of the year, we prepared a detailed response to the BSB’s consultation on the Future Training of the Bar, and we will continue our engagement with the BSB on these issues. This year, our work has evolved further, and we are examining initiatives to increase pupillage opportunities, with the assistance of Master Stephen Hockman and Master Gerard McDermott. Support for the Employed Bar The Employed Bar accounts for 20% of the Bar and continues to grow. The Inn has long recognised its importance and we have ensured that they have a voice in the Inn, particularly through HC. Last year, we set up the Employed Bar Forum together with Inner Temple, in order to bring together employed barristers for seminars, lectures and workshops focused on their particular professional development. Last November, the first event was held at Inner Temple, entitled ‘The Employed Bar: Opportunities for Established and Aspiring Practitioners’. It was a sellout success. The second offering entitled ‘Advocacy at the Employed Bar, and hosted by the Inn, took place on 18 July 2016.

Finally, we would like to thank the members of our committee; all the members of staff at the Inn, particularly Ian Garwood and William Kervick who were invaluable on the Tasker’s front; Master Adrienne Page for her tireless efforts on the décor and style of Tasker’s; Lesley Whitelaw and Master Mayes on the Archive front for Tasker's; Dimpy Sanganee and her successor Glen Newman from the Treasury; Master Arlidge who turned our Annual Dinner into a triumphant evening with his erudite and witty speech; and last but by no means least, our Treasurer.

Juliette Levy was Called to the Bar in 1992. She practises from Cerulean Chambers, where she specialises in commercial, chancery and telecommunications law. She relishes the opportunities that working with the Inn and on the Hall Committee bring her, particularly working with barristers from a wide spectrum of practice areas, experiences and stages of practice ranging from student to senior members of the judiciary. Klentiana Mahmutaj was Called to the Bar in 2005 and practises from Red Lion Chambers, where she specialises in criminal and international law. As a member of the Hall Committee, she is particularly interested in promoting the Inn’s international role as a vehicle for networking and professional opportunities for its members.

Hall Committee


Temple Women’s Forum: A History and the Future

MASTER JO DELAHUNTY AND ELAINE BANTON Middle Temple was established in the mid-fourteenth century, surviving turmoil amongst kings, queens, Parliament and war between nations. The richness of its history is breath-taking. But Middle Temple cannot, and does not, expect to survive into and beyond the twenty-first century solely through relying upon its past. Middle Temple exists to support and promote the Rule of Law. As society changes so does the Law it creates and those changes in turn are reflected in the membership of the Inn and its functions. It is therefore a matter of pride that an Inn which claimed Sir Walter Ralegh as a member and welcomed Sir Francis Drake as a guest, opened its doors in 2012 to welcome into its magnificent and vast Hall the largest number of women in that space in the Inn’s 400-plus year history. The event which heralded this celebration of professional diversity and excellence was the inaugural meeting of the Temple Women's Forum. 50 guests had been expected, 350 signed up, over 400 attended. Middle Temple had a networking success on their hands. That event was the start of many. What was ‘The Middle Temple Women’s Forum’ is now ‘The Temple Women’s Forum’. How did this initiative come to be and what does the future hold for the forum?


It is no accident that a women’s forum was established in 2012 by Middle Temple. Master Dawn Oliver was the first female Treasurer of Middle Temple and Catherine Quinn the first female Under Treasurer appointed to any Inn. They were alert to concerns of women at the Bar: the difficulties experienced through outdated attitudes to women in some chambers and clerks’ rooms, the challenges of combining practice with caring responsibilities, and of career expectations limited by (sometimes self-imposed) expectations of what could be aimed for and achieved by women at the Bar. In Master Oliver’s own words, ‘the intention was to provide support for women practitioners through meetings at which keynote speakers would report on their own ways of dealing with challenges of practice, and specialised panels – not only of women practitioners – would discuss their experiences and give advice’.

The Temple Women’s Forum has continued to evolve by looking at the serious issue of retention of women at the Bar and their under-representation in the middle to upper reaches of the Bar, in Silk and the Judiciary. The Forum has succeeded not just because of the message and advice it seeks to disseminate but also because of the dynamism and experience of the speakers it is able to call upon. That first event in 2012 saw keynote speaker The Rt. Hon Lady Justice Heather Hallett speak about the difficulties in the early part of her career, the lack of female role models at the time as well as the both positive and rewarding impact that senior female barristers can have by mentoring those more junior to themselves. We later co-hosted an event in association with a large city investment company under the banner ‘Backroom to Boardroom’ intended to cut across professional sectors and to encourage female participation in the boardroom. Subsequent evenings have brought together speaker and panel members such as The Rt. Hon Lord Sumption, Master Paul Coleridge, Lady Justice Black and the Head of Investment Office, Coutts. The Temple Women’s Forum’s Cross-Profession Networking Garden Party last summer proved immensely popular with over 400 attendees. The Rt. Hon Baroness Hale spoke passionately of the seemingly fluid transition of male practitioners to the Supreme Court in comparison to herself being the only female Justice of the Supreme Court for over 10 years despite several appointments made during that time. True to its original aims, this year we celebrated milestones such as the ‘First 100 Years’, marking the centenary of women in the legal profession. Other events have addressed diverse topics such as career paths outside the Bar, work/life balance, silk applications and a ‘Survivor’s Guide to Staying at the Bar’. Alongside barristers and judges we have had clerks, life coaches and accountants participate in our panel sessions. This spring we delivered an event called ‘A Helping Hand: An Experts’ Guide to Developing Careers’ where the audience heard from a panel of leading experts on

accountancy, application coaching, career management and development. Our most recent event, held in July, was another of our successful cross-profession networking garden parties which saw the forum welcoming self-employed and employed barristers, solicitors, judges and legal academics into its glorious gardens, which saw Lady Justice Hallett give its opening address. The Temple Women’s Forum events are as vibrant, energetic and challenging as the women it seeks to support and bring together. Through events such as these, the Temple Women’s Forum is playing its part in fulfilling Middle Temple’s commitment to discussion, education and support for its members. Middle Temple is a forward-looking institution. It has to remain relevant to its members. Our current Treasurer, Master Christopher Clarke and Under Treasurer, Guy Perricone, have developed a five-year Strategic Plan for our Inn, approved by Parliament. The Women’s Forum illustrates one of the ways in which the Inn will continue to find ways to support and promote a healthy, independent, dynamic, diverse, and well-trained Bar. As Guy Perricone says, ‘the forum can serve a triple function: it will provide a network for our women members to assist them in their professional objective, it will provide them with access to skills and knowledge from experts within and outside our profession to expand horizons and career possibilities and, lastly, it will provide a mechanism through which the Inn can be told what more it can do for its members’. Middle Temple can be proud of the fact that it is leading initiatives to continue to make the Inn relevant in a rapidly changing legal and social landscape. And what of the future of the Forum? The Temple Women’s Forum does not limit its invitees to the members of Middle and Inner Temple. It is space alone that restricts the Forum’s ability to extend its welcome to Gray’s and Lincoln’s as all Inns would like - neither Middle nor Inner has the capacity to accommodate the large audiences attracted by the events hosted by the Temple Women’s Forum. Perhaps we may need to think of hosting events outside the Inns, breaching the Temple walls and making it known in the City?

Temple Women’s Forum: A History and the Future


We would like to broaden the networking opportunities for Middle Temple members, expanding our horizons beyond the self-employed Bar. The qualities that attract people to the Bar, the energy that drives them forward to qualification and joining an Inn, do not end if they leave the Bar. We must not lose touch with our members when they leave the ranks of those who remain closest to us in the Bar and Judiciary. The Bar attracts students and practitioners who have transferable skills such as an entrepreneurial drive which takes them to the city, setting up a business, and working abroad. Middle Temple loses out if we lose connection with our members as they move beyond the Temple. The Forum is well grounded in the principles of the Inn which created and shaped it. It will strive to play its part in the Strategic Plan for Middle Temple. Master Oliver and Catherine Quinn spotted an unmet need at the Bar. Tribute should be paid to them for their foresight. As Catherine Quinn has said when reflecting on her time at the Inn ‘If I am proud of one thing I did whilst Under Treasurer of Middle Temple, it is having begun this initiative, which appears to mean so much to so many’. We are doing our best to meet the heightened expectations of members of the Inn, but there is no room for complacency. There is much work to be done if we, and our Inn, are to harness and maximise the wealth of skills which Middle Temple has nurtured.

Master Delahunty has been a member of the Temple Women’s Forum Steering Group since its inception in 2012. She was Called to the Bar in 1986 and took Silk in 2006. She practises from 4 Paper Buildings and returns to the Family Bar having represented 77 bereaved families in the Hillsborough Inquests in 2014/5 for which she and the family lawyers were awarded the 2016 Legal Aid Lawyer ‘Outstanding Achievement Award’. Within the Family Division, she specialises in cases involving the death of/catastrophic injuries to a child, sex abuse and ritualized abuse alongside ISIS/radicalism cases. She is a Recorder and was appointed Professor of Law by Gresham College London (est. 1597) in 2016.


Elaine Banton was Called to the Bar in 1996 and practises at 7 Bedford Row Chambers. Elaine has specialised in employment, discrimination law and human rights from the outset of her career. She is a co-author of the chapter on Human Rights and Employment Law for Tolley’s Employment Law. Formerly Treasurer of the Discrimination Law Association for six years. Elaine was named a ‘Pro Bono Hero’ for 2009 by the Attorney General’s Office. Elaine is a member of the Bar Council’s Equality Diversity and Social Mobility Committee and also the Temple Women’s Forum.

Temple Women’s Forum: A History and the Future

The Temple Employed Bar Forum SALLY BEVAN THE TEMPLE EMPLOYED BAR FORUM IS A JOINT INITIATIVE OF MIDDLE AND INNER TEMPLE SEEKING TO REACH OUT TO EMPLOYED MEMBERS WHO HAVE LOST TOUCH WITH THEIR INNS. Many employed barristers do not work in the physical location of the Temple and so have lost the habit of taking the time to keep in touch. I am an employed barrister myself and had not visited the Inn for years until I joined BACFI (Bar Association for Commerce, Finance and Industry, www.bacfi. com) and started attending meetings that brought me back to engagement with the Inn and the rest of the profession. Employed barristers make up a large minority of membership and are a diverse group including barristers from the Government Legal Service, in house barristers in companies all over the world, associates in law firms and consultants offering non reserved legal services to a variety of clients. They use their advocacy and drafting skills in court, in arbitration and mediation, tribunal work and many kinds of negotiations. They also instruct other barristers regularly and are ambassadors in the business world for the excellence of the Bar. The aim of the Employed Bar Forum is to bring together these employed barristers for seminars, lectures and workshops, focused on their particular professional development. Three of these events are normally planned each year and suggested topics are a result of surveys with employed members and by working with organisations such as BACFI. The first event was entitled: The Employed Bar: Opportunities for Established and Aspiring Practitioners, which took place on 10 November 2015. About 100 people attended to hear the panel of distinguished speakers from the Employed Bar. The chair was taken by Vivian Robinson QC and the panel included the general counsel of both Rolls Royce and Esso UK, the COO of the CPS, a senior associate of Enyo Law and a newly qualified barrister working for the Financial Reporting Council.The panel session was followed by a networking session with drinks and the feedback received was very positive about this opportunity to meet fellow practitioners and to hear of alternate careers informally.

There is increasing fluidity at a senior level between the selfemployed and employed Bar and it’s always good to talk. There is another group of Inn members who gain a lot from such events; the students still searching for pupillage and wondering about their options in an ever more competitive and fractured market. Many of them may in the future work as employed barristers. Many students raised the question of how to attain pupillage at the employed Bar; that is a subject that requires more work by the BSB and others. Many students took the trouble to fill in the questionnaire provided and were full of the new ideas and insights they’d received. By the time this goes to press we will have had a second open forum event (Advocacy at the Employed Bar, 18 July 2016) to build on the success of the first. I hope that this initiative will help to educate students about possibilities, enable practitioners to meet similar others and raise the profile of the employed Bar generally.

Sally Bevan was Called to the Bar in 1982 and after completing a common law pupillage embarked on a career as an in-house lawyer, first in the music business and now in IT. She is on the general committee of BACFI (Bar Association for Commerce, Finance and Industry) and is a member of the Middle Temple Hall Committee.

The Temple Employed Bar Forum



When I started my year as Chairman of the Young Bar I had a few goals in mind: (i) change the definition of ‘young barrister’; (ii) run a Workshop focused on advocacy and ethics; and (iii) make sure that the Young Barristers’ Committee and the work we do is publicised. This, in effect, reflected my view that the Young Barristers’ Committee has two main functions; to represent young barristers and to support young barristers. There are many challenges facing those who are coming into the profession. Most have very high levels of debt. Many find that the area that they wanted to practice in becomes almost unsustainable, even if they do have a strong vocation to practice in that area. The pressures of the digital age and draining finances have a detrimental impact on health and wellbeing. Never has it been so important to make sure that our young barristers are looked after in the best possible way. The Young Barristers’ Committee was established in 1954. Its main terms of reference are to advise the representative committees of the Bar Council on all matters of particular concern to young barristers; to liaise with the BSB on such matters as necessary; and to take such steps as seem likely to promote the interests of the Young Bar having regard to the interests of the Bar as a whole. The term ‘young barrister’ was originally defined in the Bar Council Constitution as those who are less than seven years Call. The difficulty with that definition is that times have changed. This year 1,887 candidates made 15,138 applications through the Pupillage Gateway applying for 243 pupillages. The total number of pupillages available this year was only around 440. We are all too aware of the fact that young barristers rarely go straight through to pupillage after the BPTC. Anecdotally, young barristers are spending at least a couple of years working as paralegals, judicial assistants, or pursuing post-graduate studies, before they finally obtain a pupillage. Even then, third six pupillages are the norm at the criminal Bar. In light of that, in April 2016, the Bar Council voted unanimously to change the definition of a ‘young barrister’ to those within their first seven years of practice (from the date they first became eligible for a practising certificate). This will enable the Young Barristers’ Committee to represent a larger group of individuals, and ensure that we are supporting young barristers throughout those difficult first years. This includes representing third six pupils, and the Committee is currently


contributing to the Bar Council’s work looking into best practice guidance for Chambers and those undertaking third sixes. The amended definition also reflects the fact that young barristers are not necessarily ‘young’ any more. There will be those who have had different careers first, those who take family career breaks, and those who simply come to the Bar later in life. It is just as important that we support their concerns and recognise the pressures that they are under. Sadly, ‘Committee for Barristers in their First Seven Years of Practice’ doesn’t have such a good ring to it! Neither does ‘the Junior Junior Barristers’ Committee’. So for the moment we will remain ‘Young’! On Saturday 4 June 2016, the Young Barristers’ Committee hosted its first half-day workshop entitled ‘The Specialist Advocate’. Our keynote speaker was The Rt. Hon Lady Justice Black, DBE, who offered incredibly practical and clear advice on appellate advocacy. The break-out sessions provided guidance and training in criminal, civil, family and employed advocacy and ethics, with a focus on real life scenarios and practical ways to deal with common problems. The plenary Q&A session titled ‘Everything you wanted to know about advocacy but were too afraid to ask’, was chaired by The Rt. Hon Sir John Goldring. The panel, made up of Lady Justice Black, The Hon Mr Justice Marc Dight, District Judge Tan Ikram and Master Derek Sweeting, were questioned on a range of topics from skeleton arguments to stubborn judges! Attended by 100 delegates, the Workshop was a good example of the enthusiasm that there is for quality practical training beyond the first three years of practice. As far as goal number (iii) is concerned: the fact that I am writing for The Middle Templar has added to the number of people who will, hopefully, have become more aware of the Young Barristers’ Committee this year. We have a very active website and twitter account @YoungBarristers. The Young Bar Hub hosts the Young Bar Toolkit, which contains resources and information in relation to practice management, finances and wellbeing. There is also a blog which contains regular updates and articles. The ‘day in the life’ series of blogs has been particularly popular. In addition, we have had meetings with Treasurers and/ or Under Treasurers of all of the Inns, the Leaders of the

Circuits, the Chairman of the Institute of Barristers’ Clerks, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division, the Senior Presiding Judge, the Presiding Judge for the Tribunals, and the Chairman of the Bar Standards Board. With more meetings to follow later in the year. The Young Barristers’ Committee have been involved in policy work concerning the Review of the Civil Courts by Lord Justice Briggs, the consultation on paid McKenzie Friends, issues arising out of Better Case Management, the proposed Advocates Graduated Fee Scheme, good practice for third six pupillages, Wellbeing at the Bar, regulatory independence, and training for the Bar – to name a few items! I have been to Dusseldorf to take part in the European Young Bar Association’s AGM and Summer Conference and spoke at the World Bar Conference in Edinburgh. ViceChairman, Duncan McCombe, and I will attend the International Bar Association’s Annual Conference in Washington and go to Amsterdam as part of the Anglo-Dutch Exchange. The Young Barristers’ Committee has also helped to welcome the Chinese lawyers on the Bar Council’s China Training Scheme and will be jointly hosting International Weekend in London in September. The YBC is very involved in international work and recognising the importance, especially for young barristers, to be involved in different lines of work. Regardless of the decision

to leave the European Union, globalisation will continue and London’s status will continue to attract international work. These will be running themes at the Young Bar Conference and Annual Bar Conference on Saturday 15 October. As young barristers, we are also lucky to have Inns and Circuits which are so dedicated to maintaining high standards of advocacy, which is a precious export. Possibly one of the most enjoyable parts of my year thus far was going to Cumberland Lodge with the Middle Temple students and explaining to them the opportunities that they have and the support and advice that is available to them. One of the main themes that has come up time and again in my conversations with people is ensuring that the Bar keeps going; making sure that we have a strong, capable and resilient cadre of young barristers who can be the QCs of the future and who can take their place in the ranks of the judiciary. This requires financial support, clear advice and assistance, and encouragement to continue in spite of the challenges. The most important thing that the Young Barristers’ Committee and my year as Chairman have reminded me of is that the work we do as barristers does matter. We enable other people to have access to justice; through representation, quality advice and excellent advocacy. Working to make sure that young barristers can continue to do this has been and continues to be a privilege.

‘Never has it been so important to make sure that our young barristers are looked after in the best possible way’.


Beginning, Beginning,

middle, middle,

Louisa Nye was Called to the Bar in 2007. She is Chairman of the Young Barristers’ Committee of the Bar Council of England and Wales for 2016. She practises at Landmark Chambers and specialises in property and landlord and tenant law.

and end and end

Events at Middle Temple For complete events experience For a complete events experience please call 0844 8587427 0677 4820 please call 020 or email or email middle temple HP.indd 1

11/7/2014 10:15:03 AM

Young Bar


The Property Bar Association MASTER ZIA BHALOO The Property Bar Association (PBA) was founded in 2000, with the aims of, inter alia: • Promoting the interests of members, particularly with regard to training, continuing education and the general development of the practices of property practitioners; • Providing a forum for discussion of matters of common interest and formulating and adopting common strategies to best serve members’ professional interests; • Liaising with the Bar Council, the Chancery Bar Association, the Chancellor, the Inns, the media and other bodies. Any practising barrister able to certify in writing that not less than 50% of his or her practice is property or property– related work is eligible to become a member. Associate membership is open to any practising barrister under five years’ Call able to certify an intention to develop a specialist practice in property or property-related work. We also now have honorary academic members, who include Master Kevin Gray and Professors Martin Dixon, Susan Bright, Ben McFarlane, Nick Hopkins and Graham Virgo. We offer a programme of lectures for both established and junior practitioners throughout the year. Our annual conference and reception in November typically comprises a keynote lecture by a senior member of the judiciary, a series of interactive workshops on diverse topical issues led by experienced specialists from a variety of backgrounds (including barristers, solicitors, surveyors, academics, representatives of the Law Commission, and members of Tribunals) and a final lecture by a leading figure. This year we launched our first student essay competition. The title was ‘If you could reverse any decision of the House of Lords or Supreme Court in the fields of landlord and tenant or property law which would you choose and why?’ The Chancellor and Professor Elizabeth Cooke will rank the 3 finalists, and the winning entry will be published in the Estates Gazette. Recently we have focused on improving our links with the Property Litigation Association (PLA), whose members are comprised of solicitors who are property litigators. They remain the primary source of work for the property Bar and


The Property Bar Association

fostering these links, particularly at a junior level, is of crucial importance to the continued success of the property Bar. Over the last year we have opened up some of our seminars to PLA members, held a joint summer party with them, cooperated with the PLA on law reform consultations and established better links at the junior end of the profession through joint seminars and social events. The PBA throws good parties. The now annual PBA/PLA summer party was held on 29 June 2016 at The Sky Bar near St Paul’s. We regularly hold a Bar and Bench party, which provides a welcome opportunity for our members to speak informally to members of the judiciary, and for members of the judiciary to get to know some of our members, particularly more junior ones. Last year’s annual dinner was held at the Natural History Museum and was spectacular, as were some of the shapes thrown on the dance floor at Boujis after the dinner.

Master Bhaloo is Chairman of the Property Bar Association and was elected as the Head of Enterprise Chambers in 2013. Her practice covers all areas of commercial chancery, property and landlord and tenant work. She is a member of the Chancery Bar Association and the Property Bar Association. She is a founder member of the Social Housing Law Association.

Wellbeing at the Bar RACHEL SPEARING

Many of you may have read about the campaigns in public and private sector business to improve people’s Wellbeing. The business case for improving people’s health and wellbeing in their work and lives has been well documented and shown to demonstrate great benefits to the quality of their work, retention rates, relationships both personal and professional, health and longevity. The Bar has traditionally been a profession within which mental health and wellbeing has rarely been spoken of, yet so many of us know colleagues who have experienced varying levels of difficulties at some point in their working lives. The Bar by its very nature, is a challenging place to work, from the complexity of our working structures, to the demands of our specialist work; both of which have been compounded by digital developments and financial crisis. The terrain in many areas has drastically changed in the last 20 years which requires preparation and resilience to meet the demands of practice in the current legal market. In late 2014 the Bar Council set up an initiative to investigate the issues impacting upon barristers’ professional practices. This was in partnership with all four Inns of Court, and assisted by a charitable donation from the Charlie Waller Memorial Trust. There are many definitions with regards to wellbeing; but wellbeing for ‘us’ is about having the resilience and ability to carry out your professional duties in a healthy way. The confidential survey using a team of specialist experts to analyse the data, yielded almost 2,500 responses, demonstrating appetite for the initiative from practitioners employed and self-employed from all areas of specialism and circuit. The research found that 1 in 3 found it difficult to control or stop worrying; 2 in 3 felt that showing signs of stress was perceived as weakness; 1 in 6 felt low in spirits most of the time and 59% demonstrated unhealthy levels of perfectionism (closely linked to causing symptoms of burn out), which placed us higher than research findings for medical trauma consultants. It also confirmed what many of us suspected, that psychological wellbeing within the profession is rarely spoken about. A full copy of the report and findings can be downloaded from the Bar Council’s Wellbeing section of their website. The entire Leadership of the Bar have united in responding to this report by committing to a programme

which is designed to provide members of the profession with the information and skills they need to stay well; to support members of the profession as they deal with difficulties that arise insofar as they affect a barrister’s professional life; and to provide assistance to those with responsibility (or taking on a supporting role) for those in difficulty or crisis. The working group consists of a representative from every SBA, Inn, Circuit and also now includes the Institute of Barristers, Clerks, who have additionally committed to their own working group within the IBC to mirror the programme for their membership. In the Autumn the programme will launch a Wellbeing Portal of online resources for individuals (pupils, new practitioners, practising barristers) and those with a management responsibility in Chambers. We plan to expand and support mentoring programmes and improve education and training for new and existing practitioners, so that they are provided with the same preparation as other highly skilled professionals undertaking demanding work. This programme is not aimed at softening who we are or what we do, but about providing us with the additional skills and knowledge to optimise our performance, maintain and retain our excellence and the valuable service that we provide to our clients. We plan to visit each Circuit following the launch. Please support this project in whatever way you can. For more information, contact Sam Mercer at smercer Rachel Spearing is the Co-Founder & Chair of the Wellbeing at the Bar Project. Called to the Bar in 1999, she is a Mediator and practises in Crime, Financial and Regulatory Law at Pump Court Chambers in London and the Western Circuit. She teaches within the Business School at the University of Portsmouth and Internationally in Executive Education and was appointed a Bencher of Inner Temple in 2015.

Wellbeing at the Bar


Social Mobility at the Bar MASTER STEPHEN HOCKMAN Introduction to the issue It is now widely recognised that it is unacceptable for barristers and judges to be drawn solely from a narrow section of society. The reasons for this are threefold. Firstly, the profession risks missing out on a considerable number of individuals who have the talent but not the practical capacity to succeed. Secondly, and as a result, substantial unfairness is likely to be caused to those individuals who might otherwise benefit from becoming part of the profession. Thirdly, the perception of the profession as being part of a social elite undermines its reputation, and affects adversely the confidence of the public upon which the administration of justice so crucially depends. At the same time one must also recognise the wider social context. For this I draw upon two sources. The first is a report in December 2015 by the independent statutory Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, chaired by the former Labour minister Alan Milburn. The Commission reported as follows: There is a growing social divide by income and by class… At the very bottom of society there are more than 1 million children living a life of persistent poverty. They are excluded from sharing in the many opportunities that life in modern Britain affords. This form of social exclusion... finds an echo in the exclusive social make up of those at the very top. Those who rise to the top in Britain today look remarkably similar to those who rose to the top half a century ago. In the professions, 71% of senior judges, 62% of senior Armed Forces and 55% of civil service departmental heads attended independent schools - compared to just 7% of the population who had a private education… There can be few people who believe that the sum total of talent resides in just 7% of pupils in the country’s schools.


My second source is from the British Academy sociology lecture given at Oxford on 15 March 2016 by Dr John Goldthorpe. He and his colleagues at the department of social policy analysed the social origins, education and work histories of about 30,000 men and women born in the 1940s, 50s, 70s and 80s. Their work shows that people born in Britain in the 70s and 80s have tended to be less upwardly mobile than their parents and grandparents, while an increasing number of men and women have started to drop down the social ladder. Dr Goldthorpe argues that: what can be achieved through educational policy alone is limited - far more so than politicians find it convenient to suppose… To look to the educational system itself to provide a solution to the problem of inequality of opportunity is to impose an undue burden upon it. Rather a whole range of economic and social policies is needed… In fairness, it is worth stressing that statistics from the Bar Council suggest that the position is improving, albeit gradually. Thus in the year 2012, some 55% of pupils came from state schools and some 61% from non-Oxbridge universities. In 2013, some 56% of the practising Bar had been to a state school, and some 68% of practitioners had been to non-Oxbridge universities.

Potential solutions – the three stages I do not feel that we have arrived at any radical or clear-cut solutions to the issue. In consequence, I have formed the view that the issue has to be addressed at three distinct stages: The first stage involves considering the image of the profession. Ideally no student with the necessary ability to succeed should be deterred from making the attempt by the perception that the Bar is too exclusive. The Bar, both in London and on circuit, has a number of schemes designed to address this particular problem. These schemes involve the creation of opportunities for young people, to engage in conversation with the practising Bar, and to make shortterm visits to chambers and to the employed sector, in order

to see for themselves what the work involves, and thereby to gain an impression both as to the accessibility of the Bar and as to their own ability to succeed. One scheme which I myself initiated with the help of a brilliant charity ‘Big Voice’ involved establishing contact with a large number of schools in the London area but specifically from less well-off parts of London. Groups of students from the schools, with their teachers, were invited during the course of the year to Middle Temple, to participate in lectures which were also open to the Bar itself. This modest scheme alone enabled several dozen youngsters to gain first-hand experience of our work, and of the setting in which it tends to be conducted, and the response and feedback were universally positive. Some of my colleagues criticised me because they said that we already have a major numbers problem, in other words a severe shortage of pupillages and tenancies compared with the number of applicants, and outreach work of the kind which I have described could only serve to exacerbate this difficulty. However, it seems to me that irrespective of the numbers issue, we must do what we can to ensure that people from all walks of life have a fair opportunity of access. The second stage involves considering the fairness of the selection process. In the past it was easy to criticise the Bar for a system which simply identified ‘clones’ of those who had already succeeded, who tended to be upper-middle class white males. In this area our regulator has ensured that significant change has taken place. Selection for pupillage and tenancy must now take place in accordance with publicised criteria and identified and standardised processes, just as it has taken place in the employed sector for some considerable time. This is particularly important as long as there continue to be more people wanting to practise than there are opportunities available. An excess of applicants is a mark of a thriving profession, but we cannot justify such a situation unless the selection process is objectively fair. The third stage, however, is the most important and also the most troublesome. It is all very well encouraging people from a wide range of backgrounds to consider joining the profession, and to ensure that we select the applicants who are the brightest and the best, regardless of social origins, gender, or ethnicity. But the question is whether in practice a young person with limited means has a fair opportunity to start in practice, or whether the Bar, as someone once famously said about the justice system as a whole, is open to all in the same way as the Ritz hotel. This problem has indeed been exacerbated in recent years as state support for the profession has gradually declined, meaning both local authority grant funding for students and public funding in the form of legal aid for practitioners. One aspect of this problem to which has been giving a great deal of thought is as to the cost of training. In relation to this, the Bar Standards Board has undertaken a major consultative exercise. Part of the problem lies in the requirement to undertake the Bar course through a recognised provider, which, for a range of reasons, these providers have been able to charge handsomely for. Last year in response to the BSB consultation, the Inns of Court evolved a proposal which would have subdivided the Bar course into two stages, the first being undertaken online and therefore very inexpensively, the second involving more practical training but only being available to those who had successfully completed the first stage, and therefore were more likely to see a return on the investment involved in undertaking part two. It remains to be seen what if any consensus emerges as to changes in this area.

Another aspect of the problem to which we have devoted anxious consideration was the application of the substantial scholarship funding which the Inns of Court have traditionally made available, amounting to some £4-5 million a year. At Middle Temple a working group chaired by Master David Blunt considered whether we were making best use of this funding, and in particular whether some of it ought to be re-allocated to those undertaking pupillage, or even at a later stage of practice. The modest conclusion was that a relatively small element of funding should indeed be reallocated to those undertaking pupillage.

An underlying issue A fundamental practical problem remains however, which is that, there remain many more young people who wish to practise than there are apparently places available. There are those who suggest that nothing can be done to address this practical problem, which is said to be the result of market forces. I take leave to disagree. Looking at our ever more complex society, and at the growth of legislation and regulation in recent years, it seems to me clear beyond doubt that the demand for legal services has increased, and will go on increasing. Partly as a consequence of this, the number of those wishing to practise law is also going to go on increasing. If it is indeed the market which is preventing both those in need from obtaining the legal help which they require, and those who are desperate to practise from finding the opportunity to do so, then there is something badly wrong with the market. This point needs to be shouted from the rooftops to all who are involved in the organisation of our profession. The problem is, I believe, an organisational one, and we need to create the structures within which those on both sides of this equation can achieve their aspirations. Towards the end of 2015 we at Middle Temple received a presentation by a representative of the Chicago Bar Association, outlining to us a scheme which they have introduced called the ‘Incubator’. In essence this involves the provision of a framework within which young practitioners can receive training, and take the first steps towards establishing themselves in practice. The beneficiaries are not only the trainees themselves but their potential clients, who are generally among the least well off, and who have no other means of obtaining legal help. The challenge for us is whether we can envisage a British version of this scheme, bearing in mind that we have many young people who would be eager to obtain the opportunities provided by such a scheme, and we also have (given the seemingly inevitable limitations on legal aid provision) many potential clients who could benefit from low cost legal help. Watch this space!

Master Hockman has been Head of Chambers at 6 Pump Court since 1997. He specialises in regulatory law, especially health and safety, environmental and energy law. He took Silk in 1990 and sits as a Deputy High Court Judge. He was Chairman of the Bar in 2006. He was Master Treasurer in 2015. [This article is based on a presentation given at the World Bar Conference in Edinburgh in April 2016.]

Social Mobility at the Bar


Bar Council MASTERS CHANTAL-AIMÉE DOERRIES & ANDREW LANGDON It so happens that this year all the officers of the Bar Council are Middle Templars. Both the Chairman, Chantal-Aimée Doerries, and Vice-Chairman, Andrew Langdon, of the Bar Council are Benchers of the Inn. The Chairman of the Young Barristers Committee, Louisa Nye, and the Treasurer, Lorinda Long, are also members of Middle Temple. And the Chairman’s Special Adviser, Mark Hatcher, is a Bencher of Middle Temple. Between us we reflect the profession of today, publicly funded as well as private, senior as well as junior, London and out of London, and employed and self-employed. The Chairman, is a former Chairman of the Bar Council’s International Committee and the Vice-Chairman, is the immediate past Leader of the Western Circuit. The job of being Chairman is incredibly varied and challenging. It ranges from leading negotiations on behalf of the Bar, together with the Circuits and relevant SBAs (for example, in relation to legal aid with the Legal Aid Agency), to lobbying on justice issues which have a strong public interest such as making the case against enhanced court fees in civil and tribunal cases and lobbying for the protection of legal professional privilege in the Investigatory Powers Bill. In any given year we usually respond to in excess of 40 consultations from Government, regulators and others. The role also involves looking after the profession’s interests, so, for example, considering the ramifications of Brexit on practitioners with EU law practices and on London as the premier international dispute resolution centre. Much of our work involves working closely with the Inns, for example, collaborating with the Inns College of Advocacy in relation to the implementation of Vulnerable Witness Training. Another example of close collaboration between Bar Council, Inns, Circuits, SBAs and the Institute of Barristers' Clerks, is the research into wellbeing at the Bar and the production of a suite of online resources to help barristers and chambers with wellness issues. When collaborating with others, the Bar Council often acts as the apex body bringing together the different strands that make up the Bar. One of the most enjoyable parts of being Chairman is going into robing rooms, chambers and courts across the country and meeting with barristers. Most of us have to a greater or lesser extent developed relatively specialist practices since our Call. This, combined with the size of the Bar, now in excess of 15500, means that we do not always have the opportunity of connecting across practice areas and regions. Being Chairman allows you the privilege, and indeed requires you, to understand and to represent the profession as a whole. Every day of the job involves this. The fact is that the work of the Bar Council could not be more crucial to the vitality of the Bar domestically. At home, there continue to be many challenges facing the profession including the ongoing restriction of public funding of legal representation with resultant loss of access to justice, in particular in family courts and employment tribunals; the connected increase in the number of litigants in person and paid McKenzie Friends; the online civil courts proposals; and, the criminal courts’ digitisation. In addition, each Chairman, and Vice-Chairman is involved in supporting the promotion of the Bar’s work internationally.


Bar Council

30% of last year’s increase in earnings across the profession came from international work, either domestically or overseas. This work is by no means limited to commercial work, as evidenced by the number of criminal practitioners joining the Bar Council’s business development mission to Cyprus earlier this year. As Benchers of Middle Temple, we each believe in the value of the Inns, but the relationship between the Inns and the Bar Council, which has always been important, has become especially significant in challenging times for the profession. As each Inn looks for ways to ensure it serves the interests of its wider membership, so does the Bar Council look for ways to ensure that what the Inns have to offer the profession, and in particular the junior Bar, is made known to them. A small but important example illustrates the point. It is a common cry at Bar Council meetings (when 100 or so members meet on a Saturday morning from across the country in unsatisfactory, cramped conditions at the Bar Council Offices) that surely the Inns between them could accommodate these meetings in surroundings more fit for purpose. Indeed, for the purpose for which the Inns in part exist? Recent developments are encouraging: we were able to host the last two Saturday meetings at Inner Temple and Lincoln’s Inn respectively. Further, Middle Temple has kindly offered to host four of these Saturday Bar Council meetings in 2017 together with Master Langdon’s inaugural meeting in December of this year as next year’s Chairman. We both very much welcome Middle Temple’s support of the profession and the Bar Council and take this as a positive and symbolic sign heralding closer cooperation for the future. We hope that the other Inns will respond similarly. Such cooperation between the Inns and the Bar Council can only be a positive thing, for the benefit of the whole profession. Master Doerries is this year’s Chairman of the Bar. She was Called to the Bar in 1992, after studying at the University of Pennsylvania and at Cambridge University, where she was President of the Union. She practises from Atkin Chambers, took Silk in 2008 and became a Bencher in 2010. She is a past Chairman of the Bar Council’s International Committee and of the Technology and Construction Bar Association. Master Langdon was Called to the Bar in 1986, took Silk in 2006 and practises from Guildhall Chambers, Bristol. He prosecutes and defends Regulatory Crime. He also prosecutes and defends serious mainstream crime – gun crime, homicide, fraud and corruption.. Andrew was appointed to sit as a Recorder in the Crown Court in 2002. He is a Bencher of Middle Temple. He was Leader of the Western Circuit from 2013-2015. He was elected Vice Chairman of the Bar for 2016. He will be Chairman in 2017.

MTYBA KAREN REID After ending 2015 in style with our Christmas Party in Hall, complete with pianist, chocolate fountain and fire magician, MTYBA hit the ground running in 2016. The year started out with the MTYBA AGM to elect this year’s committee. 2016 has seen a number of new ventures for MTYBA, including the addition of a new elected committee position, Employed Bar Representative, who is arranging two events this year for our members in employed practice, a networking event in the summer and a CPD evening later in the year. We have also launched a new award scheme providing Practice Development Grants for members who are in their first five years’ of practice. The scheme will make two awards of up to £500 each towards the cost of undertaking courses (or other experience) which will enhance the individual’s practice. The scheme is currently open for applications and the successful candidates will be announced in August. As well as holding our pupillage application series across three evenings in London, we combined the three events – application form feedback; mock interviews; and interview advocacy training – into a full day in Manchester so that our members on circuit could access it more easily. The event was held at Manchester Metropolitan University on 4 June and was a great success. We hope to continue this event next year, as well as expanding our events for pupils and tenants on the circuits as well. MTYBA has also continued its regular programme of events. To supplement our series of talks for members undertaking pupillage, we have started an advice blog where members can share advice and tips they learn during pupillage. This has so far proved to be a valuable

resource. A particular highlight this year was the advocacy competition in May, which was won by Andrew Herd and Paul Smylie. MTYBA would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate this years’ winners of the Intern Award, Natasha Hausdorff and Julian Ranetunge. There will be a further opportunity for those who have not yet secured a pupillage to apply for an intern award later in the year. The MTYBA CPD calendar for this year will include a number of lectures, including one on mental health law, and an evening with Dominic Grieve in November. We also have a number of socials planned for 2016 including a summer party at the end of August, a trip to the Great British Beer Festival and of course our annual Christmas Party at the end of November. MTYBA would like to hear from any members of the Inn who are looking for pupillage; about to start or on pupillage; or are in their first seven years of practice and would like to get more involved in MTYBA. More senior members of the Inn who are willing to assist with our events are also very welcome to get in touch. Please email or visit to join the mailing list.

Karen Reid was Called to the Bar in 2010 and is a tenant at 1 Gray’s Inn Square. Her practice comprises predominantly Immigration and Social Housing law. Karen is the 2016 MTYBA President.

Middle Temple Young Barristers' Association (MTYBA)


MTSA RYAN TURNER I chose to run for President of the Middle Temple Students’ Association (MTSA) this year as I believe that there should be greater student participation in the activities of the Inn. It has the potential to give hundreds of new members the opportunity to relax with their peers, build professional networks and engage with the career they wish to pursue. MTSA is led by a committee of current BPTC students who volunteer their time alongside their other varied commitments. This year we have held three centrepiece events in Hall which were a great success. The Christmas Masquerade Ball and Summer Ball were each attended by over 100 students and featured live musical performances, including from the King’s College London Big Band, that kept us revelling long into the night. The Pupillage Advice Session in February was a far more sober affair, but was equally engaging. It gave students the opportunity to seek one-on-one advice from members of the Inn on life at the Bar, how to improve their CVs and what they could expect during pupillage and beyond. Alongside its social and academic function, the MTSA has broken new ground this year in becoming an active voice in formulating Middle Temple policies, ensuring that student views are taken into consideration. This participation has been especially important this year because of the ongoing Bar Standards Board consultation into legal training. The rootand-branch review of legal education being undertaken by the BSB considers every stage of training for a career at the Bar, including undergraduate studies, the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) and pupillage itself. The particular focus of the review is to reform the current system to ensure that aspiring lawyers are given the best chances of attaining pupillage and securing the future of the profession.


Middle Temple Student's Association (MTSA)

Now more than ever, anyone aspiring to a career at the Bar is under extensive financial pressure and it is hoped that the results of the consultation process will, at the very least, reduce this burden on students when pursuing their career goals. Students intending to start the BPTC in September 2016 can now expect to pay up to £19,000 for a nine-month course which is an eye-watering amount of money, especially for those students who do not have the benefit of an Inn scholarship. My experience as President has been extremely rewarding and I hope that students will continue to develop the role of MTSA in future years as a platform for better links between students and other members of the Inn. I would like to extend special thanks to Christian Decle (Treasurer), Andrea Ong (Communications Officer), Rebecca Musgrove (Events Officer) and Aphra Bruce-Jones (Equality and Diversity Officer) for their enthusiasm and dedication this year in ensuring that different events and activities of the MTSA ran as smoothly as possible.

Ryan is the current President of the Middle Temple Students' Association. During his appointment, he has been an active member of several standing committees of the Inn (on behalf of MTSA), including Executive, Hall and Membership. Ryan will be commencing pupillage in 2017, having completed the Bar Professional Training Course this year. He was Called to the Bar in July 2016.


BAR MUSICAL SOCIETY Patron: The Right Hon. Lord Dyson President: Professor John Uff, CBE, Q.C. Chairman: Damian Falkowski

CHILDREN’S CONCERT Prokofiev - Peter and the Wolf Ravel - Mother Goose

Narrated by Sir Richard Stilgoe Conducted by Nikolas Clarke

IN MIDDLE TEMPLE HALL th Sunday November 2016 from midday AT ST.20 ANDREW’S CHURCH, HOLBORN

You are invited to bring your own picnic lunch to enjoy during the concert Concert tickets: £10, for adults, free for children Members may obtain tickets via the Treasury on 020 7427 4800, or in person at the Ashley Building, Middle Temple Lane, London, EC4Y 9BT

Rare Books in Need of Restoration RENAE SATTERLEY The Library has run a rare book sponsorship programme since 2007, which has been used to restore over 120 books from the generous donations of Middle Templars and others. Currently, there are over 200 books that still require repair and in this article I highlight five of them from some of the very tiniest books in the collection, to some of the largest. These books highlight the range of subject matter to be found in our collections, reflecting the long and varied history of the Library since its foundation in 1641.

• The first book on our list is Pietro Bizzarri’s Persicarum rerum historia in xii libros descripta, printed by Christopher Plantin in Antwerp in 1583. This is a history of Persia in 12 books, running up to 1581 and includes accounts of the war of the Persians against the Turks, the war of the Turks against Venice, and travel and cultural accounts of Persia. It is not illustrated, unfortunately, but does contain a woodcut illustration of the Coat of Arms of August, Elector of Saxony (the book’s dedicatee) on the verso of the title page. It also has a lovely example of the Plantin printer’s device on the title page. Bizzarri was born in Italy in 1525 and was educated in Venice, where he converted to Protestantism. He moved to England in 1549, but was forced to leave when Mary I came to the throne in


1553, after which he moved back-and-forth between England and the continent for the next 20 years, sharing intelligence on European matters with William Cecil and Francis Walsingham. By 1578 he was established in Antwerp, making contact with Plantin, who printed a number of his works. The book is bound in a contemporary calfskin binding, plainly decorated, and showing evidence of having once been chained; books were chained in the library up until the late eighteenth century. The cost of repair for this book is £380.

• The second is a tiny book, measuring only 10cm in height. It is by Gaspar de Loarte (1498-1578) on the mysteries of the Rosary entitled Instruiçam & auisos pera meditar os mysterios do Rosario da sanctissima Virgem Maria. It was printed in 1587 by Antonio Ribeiro, in Lisbon and is the only recorded copy of this work in the British Isles. Loarte entered the Society of Jesus and wrote treatises on Jesuit spirituality. He was Spanish, but lived in Rome and wrote mostly in Italian. The work is illustrated with small woodcuts throughout and is meant as a guide to Rosary prayer, using five (’quinto’) Mysteries upon which to pray. The cost of repair for this book is £275.

• Next on our list of discoveries is The Raven, by Edgar Allan Poe, published in 1883. This extra-large folio was illustrated by Gustave Doré, the well-known French illustrator and engraver, and donated to the Inn in 1961 by Charles Hallius. The book is bound in its original green cloth binding, with a beautiful illustration on the front cover. As with the book by Loarte, books of unusually large or small size become damaged much more quickly than books with a more regular size. This is due to the difficulty in shelving them adequately. Large books such as this must be shelved lying flat, as the weight will break the spine and binding if shelved upright, as has happened in this case. The cost of repair for this book is £450.

• Last but not least is Hector Boece’s Descrittione del regno di Scotia, et delle isole sue adjacenti, 1588. Although the title page claims that the work is printed anonymously in Anversa (Antwerp), it was in fact printed in London by John Wolfe. Wolfe was a well-known Elizabethan printer, often in dispute with The Stationers’ Company for printing books illicitly, often infringing on other printers’ privileges; some printers, such as Christopher Barker, had the sole right to print certain works such as grammars and law books. Ironically, in 1587 he became beadle to the Company, where, according to the Dictionary of National Biography, he ‘became well known for his success in searching out and prosecuting illicit printers’. He was based at Stationers’ Hall in 1588, which is when he entered this work into their registers. The work was translated by Petruccio Ubaldini and is based on Boece’s Scotorum historia, which was originally printed in Paris in 1527. Wolfe had worked as a printer in Florence in the 1570s and may well have come across the work in its original form there. Boece’s work traces the history of Scotland from 330BC to the death of James I in 1437 and is written as a dramatic narrative, in a humanist style. The cost of repair for this book is £380. If you would like to know more about the rare books collection, please see our website. In January 2016 we created a new feature, the Rare Book of the Month: rare-books-manuscripts/rare-book-month-0

• A quarto-sized book is next on our list - Chronicon Hollandiae, printed in Leiden in 1617. The work is a history of the Netherlands and includes Hugo Grotius’s commentary on the Dutch Republic, attempting to ‘establish the continuity between the Batavians, as described by Tacitus, and the rebellious Dutch Republic warring with Spain’ (Michiel van Groesen, The Batavian Myth). This account was written during the Dutch war of independence against Spain. It was printed by Joannes Maire, a printer and bookseller in Leiden, who published over 500 works during his lifetime, including Descartes’s Discours de la methode, in 1637. The Library does not have a copy of that work, but it does have a copy of Maire’s 1649 publication of Descartes’s Geometria, which is also in need of restoration. The cost of repair for the Chronicon is £400; the cost to repair the Geometria is £350.

If you would be interested in sponsoring the repair and conservation of any of these books, please get in touch with; 020 7427 4830. Renae Satterley has been working at Middle Temple since January 2006. Following the retirement of Vanessa Hayward last year, Renae took over as Librarian. Renae is originally from Canada, having completed her BA at Concordia University in Montreal and her Master’s of Library & Information Studies at McGill University in 2004. She came to London via Cambridge, having worked at Emmanuel College for a year.

If you sponsor a book, you will receive before and after photos of the conservation work done, and a bookplate commemorating your donation will be placed in the book. Rare Books In Need Of Restoration


Library Book Donations RENAE SATTERLEY

The Library would like to thank the following people for their generous donations of books to the library: From Master Richard Arnold: Performers’ Rights, 5th edition, 2015. By Richard Arnold

From Barry Denyer-Green: • Compulsory Purchase and Compensation, 4th edition, 2013. By Barry Denyer-Green

From Francis Barlow: Williams on Wills, 10th edition, 2014. By Francis Barlow, Richard Wallington, Susannah L. Meadway, James Macdougald; assisted by Charlotte Kynaston

From Tadhg Dorgan:

From Master David Bean:

From Master Anthony Dudley of the Gibraltar Middle Temple Society:

• Injunctions, 12th edition, 2015, by David Bean, assisted by Andrew Burns From Master Stuart Bridge: • Benjamin’s Sale of Goods, 9th edition, 2014. By Michael G. Bridge (general editor) • The International Sale of Goods, 3rd edition, 2013. By Michael G. Bridge • The Law of Personal Property, 2013. By Michael G. Bridge [et al.] • Personal Property Law, 4th edition, 2015. By Michael G. Bridge From Simon Brilliant: • A Practical Guide to Land Registration Proceedings, 2014. By Simon Brilliant From Steve Broach: • Disabled Children: a Legal Handbook, 2nd edition, 2016. By Steve Broach From W.H. Bryson: • Fourteen Cases from Herbert Jacob’s Queen’s Bench Reports, 2015. By W.H. Bryson (editor)

• Damages, 1st edition, 2015. By Tadhg Dorgan and Peter McKenna

• Justice so Requiring: The Emergence and Development of a Legal System in Gibraltar, 2012. By John Restano. From Felicity Gerry: • Sexual Offences Handbook, 2nd edition, 2014. By Felicity Gerry From Alisdair Gillespie: • International Child Law, 3rd edition, 2014. By Trevor Buck • Cybercrime, 2016. By Alisdair Gillespie • The English legal system, 5th edition, 2015, By Alisdair Gillespie From Sarah Green: • Causation in Negligence, 2015. By Sarah Green From Ian Grenville Cross: • Sentencing in Hong Kong, 6th edition, 2011. By Ian Grenville Cross From Richard Harwood: • Planning Permission, 2016. By Richard Harwood

From Master Shami Chakrabarti: • On Liberty, 2014, By Shami Chakrabarti From S.D. Dave: • The Privy Council, the British Courts and the Personal Laws of India, 2014. By S.D. Dave


From Fiona Horlick: • Lissack and Horlick on Bribery, 2nd edition, 2014. By Richard Lissack and Fiona Horlick

From John Keown: • Reason, Morality and Law – the Philosophy of John Finnis, 2015. By John Keown and Robert P. George (editors)

From Steven Powles: • May on Criminal Evidence, 6th edition, 2015. By Steven Powles, Lydia Waine and Radmila May From Jonathan Schwarz:

From Master Andrew Le Sueur: • De Smith’s Judicial Review, 7th edition, 2013. By Lord Woolf, Jeffrey Jowell, Andrew Le Sueur, Catherine Donnelly and Ivan Hare From Peter Leyland:

• Residence, Domicile and UK Taxation, 18th edition, 2014. By Jonathan Schwarz and Neil D. Booth From Master Eric Stockdale: • Send for Benson! A Life of Sir Christopher Benson, 2015. By Eric Stockdale

• Accountability in the Contemporary Constitution, 2013. By Nicholas Bamforth and Peter Leyland (editors)

• Preventive Justice, 2015. By Andrew Ashworth and Lucia Zedner

• Sovereignty and the Law, 2013. By Richard Rawlings, Peter Leyland and Alison L. Young (editors)

• Blackstone’s Criminal Practice & Supplements, 2016. By David Ormerod and David Perry (general editors); founding editor, Peter Murphy ; consultant editor, John Phillips

From Master Clive Lewis: • Judicial Remedies in Public Law, 5th edition, 2015. By Clive Lewis From Lynne McCafferty: • Civil Appeals, 2nd edition, 2015. By James Leabeater, James Purchas, Lynne McCafferty, Sean O’Sullivan From Master Ian Macdonald: • Macdonald’s Immigration Law & Practice, 9th edition, 2014. By Ian A. Macdonald and Ronan Toal (general editors) From Stephen Mason: • Electronic Signatures in Law, 3rd edition, 2012. By Stephen Mason From Hafsah Masood: • The Protections for Religious Rights, 2013. By James Dingemans, Can Yeginsu, Tom Cross, and Hafsah Masood From Jason Olson: • Legal Research in a Nutshell, 11th edition, 2013. By Morris L. Cohen and Kent C. Olson • Oil and Gas Law in a Nutshell, 6th edition, 2014. By John S. Lowe From Master David Ormerod: • Smith and Hogan: Criminal Law, 14th edition, 2015. By David Ormerod and Karl Laird • Smith and Hogan’s Text, Cases and Materials on Criminal Law, 11th edition, 2014. By David Ormerod and Karl Laird From C. Phipps: • Confidentiality, 3rd edition, 2012. By .G. Toulson and C.M. Phipps From Harry Potter: • Law, Liberty and the Constitution, 2015. By Harry Potter

• The Machinery of Criminal Justice, 2012. By Stephanos Bibas • Thieves of Book Row, 2013. By Travis McDade • Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, 2009. By William Shawcross From Surya Subedi: • Life as a UN special Rapporteur, 2015. By Surya Subedi From Master Michael Supperstone: • Judicial Review, 5th edition, 2014. By Michael Supperstone, James Goudie and Paul Walker; general editor: Helen Fenwick From Michael Wilkins: • Jersey Insolvency and Asset Tracking (Supplement), 2014. By Anthony Dessain From Richard Wydick: • Representing Justice, 2011. By Judith Resnick From The Death Penalty Project: • The Abolition of the Death Penalty in the United Kingdom, 2015. By Julian B. Knowles • The Public Opinion Myth, 2015. By Mai Sato From St. Edmund’s College: • The History of St Edmund’s College, 2013. By Nicholas Schofield From Tanfield Chambers: • Service Charges and Management, 2013

The Library would also like to thank Master David Lynch for his donation of a number of works on the history of American law and the Constitution.

Library Book Donations


Let Equity Prevail Recollections and Reflections by Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead BOOK REVIEW BY MASTER IGOR JUDGE No one who knows Master Nicholls will need to be told that from its arresting first line, ‘I was almost 60 years old when I first saw a photograph of my mother’, to the very last chapter, where he observes that he ‘sought to record about myself something of what I wish I had known about her’. These recollections provide an engrossing read. As an autobiography, the book is of course written in the first person singular, but the story unfolds with unfeigned modesty. Whether Master Nicholls is describing how he came to leave school at 16, or how he managed to win the only sports medal he ever won ‘in the only sport I ever hated’ (boxing), or why he came to the Middle Temple to read for the Bar, because ‘qualifying as a solicitor was (for financial reasons) out of the question’, the short chapters record many moments when he is laughing at himself, and inviting us to laugh with him. Thus, for example, he successfully overcame the moment when, walking to the Royal Courts of Justice from his chambers in Old Square in his robes, his wig was ‘suddenly snatched’ off his head by an overhanging branch of wisteria and left dangling in mid-air as he set about to retrieve it. The experience did not damage a stellar career. All of us will understand his belief, and the consequent pressure, that in the eyes of instructing solicitors a barrister is only as good as his last case, and that the higher your professional standards as a barrister, the more is expected from you. You also appreciate how the burdens of a very heavy practice, with a growing family at home, presented Master Nicholls with some stark choices about priorities. In these, as in every aspect of his life, Jenny, to whom the book is lovingly dedicated, was a constant inspiration. The section ‘On the Bench’ is packed with insights into judicial responsibilities of different kinds at different levels. They include the old system for assisting the Lord Chancellor with appointments, and the administrative arrangements required to run a Division. He describes how ‘judging’


should be approached, from first instance to the House of Lords, first, when sitting alone, then in a constitution of three judges, and then with five or more judges, and the value of dissenting judgements (‘sometimes I was unable to persuade my colleagues of the error of their ways’). As with his many judgements he uses simple words, in short sentences, without self-indulgent embellishment. Some of the cases he discusses, like the miners’ strike in 1984, or the Pinochet extradition litigation will be familiar; others, post-divorce property arrangements, the clash between freedom of expression and protection of reputation, and the clarification of the provocation defence to murder may be less well-known. ‘Prospective over-ruling’, how the judiciary should respond to changing times, and whether it is still true that Parliamentary sovereignty is unlimited, are some of the more general topics of great interest. Retirement, now some nine years ago, has not diminished the clarity of expression which characterised his judgements. The pages are readily turned. Among a number of specific topics addressed in the book, two issues were of particular fascination to me personally. First, Master Nicholls did not welcome the

constitutional revolution, announced in June 2003, out of the blue. It is a ‘sorry, unedifying story.’ He spoke against it in the Parliamentary debates. ‘We should not fear to be different’. He is not enamoured of the idea of appointing an individual who is not a lawyer to the office of Lord Chancellor. Second, the chapter dedicated to his year in 1997 as Treasurer of the Middle Temple, reveals how, to inspire a rethink about the

role of the Inn, he initiated a series of discussions about ‘the Inn in a changing world’. Although the recommendations made at the end of the discussions were largely accepted by Parliament, ‘disappointingly’, very few of them were implemented. Perhaps, and it is a very tentative ‘perhaps’ things are now moving forward. We must live in hope. I should end at the beginning, with the title of the book. Master Nicholls’ motto, ‘Let Equity Prevail’, is of course, a bow in the direction of the Chancery Division, of which, as Vice Chancellor, Master Nicholls was the distinguished Head. It is, however, much more than a pleasantry. It reflects his judicial philosophy. The law provides the set of rules by which society is governed and the maintenance of a fair balance between competing interests is ‘their fundamental objective’. Equity in this motto is a synonym for ‘fairness’. This passionate belief in fairness, or as the motto tells us, ’equity’, is integral to his career in the law. And indeed to his life outside the law. It explains his sympathy with a fruit tree in his garden at home. Picking fruit he fell off a ladder and broke some ribs. To avoid any possible recurrence, Jenny decided that the tree had to be cut down, ‘as though my accident was the fault of the tree’. You can sense the smile, and the affection, as this was written. For him the unfairness, to the tree, may have been more troublesome than the prohibition against any further ladder climbing. As it seems to me, this book reveals that long before Master Nicholls created his motto, an innate sense of fairness had already been built in to his genes.

‘Let Equity Prevail’... Equity in this motto is a synonym for ‘fairness’. This passionate belief in fairness, or as the motto tells us, ‘equity’, is integral to his career in the law’. Master Judge was Treasurer in 2014. He was the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales from 2008 to 2013. He was previously President of the Queen’s Bench Division. He joined The Dickson Poon School of Law at King’s College London as a Distinguished Fellow and Visiting Professor in 2013. Master Judge was the President of the Selden Society from 2009 to 2015.

Let Equity Prevail: Recollections and Reflections: Book Review


Jeremy Hutchinson’s Case Histories by Thomas Grant QC Paperback edition

BOOK REVIEW BY MASTER WILLIAM FLENLEY The hardback edition of this book, published in 2015, received universally positive reviews from a string of eminent lawyers and critics (see pages one and two of the paperback edition). It is difficult, indeed impossible, to improve upon those; and it is tempting simply to copy them out. But that temptation must be resisted. Master Hutchinson was the leading criminal advocate of the sixties and seventies. He also co-founded the Criminal Bar Association and was its chairman for six years, and latterly sat as a Labour, and then SDP/Liberal Democrat, peer in the House of Lords. He later sat on the Arts Council and chaired the trustees of the Tate Gallery. Importantly for present purposes, he became a Master of the Bench of the Middle Temple in July 1967. He is now the oldest Bencher, and retains a great affection for the Inn. The author, Thomas Grant QC, is also a Middle Templar. He is a Chancery barrister and author of various legal textbooks, but he is also a neighbour in Sussex of the now retired Master Hutchinson. He has therefore been able to include Master Hutchinson’s observations throughout the text. Although principally a set of studies of Master Hutchinson’s most famous cases, the book begins with a biographical sketch, which provides helpful context for what follows. It describes a glamorous upbringing in London and Sussex, closely connected to the Bloomsbury Group, membership of a distinguished circle at Oxford, and then wartime service in the navy and marriage to the actor Peggy Ashcroft. In 1945, Master Hutchinson stood as the Labour candidate for the Westminster constituency, a solid Conservative seat even in that landslide year, and began his pupillage in 1946, aged 31, at his father’s former chambers, 1 Garden Court. Although he became best known for defence work, during the fifties Hutchinson both prosecuted and defended. He observes that it is crucial for any barrister both to prosecute and defend in order to learn the job. In 1953, in a trial which ultimately led to the decriminalising of homosexuality, Lord


Montagu of Beaulieu was accused of sexual assault in a beach hut. The jury could not reach a verdict and a re-trial was ordered. There was massive publicity at the time. It was then proposed that Lord Montagu be tried for a further set of allegations of a similar nature. Master Hutchinson advised the DPP that it would be wrong to try Lord Montagu for the second set of offences while the first trial was pending, since it would prejudice his defence in the re-trial. The effect of giving that advice was to persuade the prosecuting authorities to remove the papers from Master Hutchinson, who thereby lost a very high profile brief. But he retained his independence of mind and integrity, and was later thanked by the DPP, Sir Theobald Mathew, for his advice in the case. Master Hutchinson took Silk, after only 14 years in practice, in 1961, and began the series of cases discussed in the book. In part, the book tells the story of the changes in social attitudes during that remarkable decade, including the trials of Penguin books for publishing Lady Chatterley’s Lover, of Christine Keeler arising out of the Profumo affair, and of the makers of Last Tango in Paris. The historical context is superbly demonstrated by reference to the newspapers of the time and the recollection of many of those involved, and the book moves at a riveting and utterly absorbing pace. It is an astonishing achievement for a very busy civil practitioner. It also, obliquely, answers the question: how to be a good advocate? That includes the question of how to deal with the difficult judge and the bullying opponent. The first case dealt with is the trial of George Blake, a British spy who had secretly worked for the Soviet Union for nine years. He confessed under interrogation, so the question at trial was purely one of sentence. Counsel for the prosecution was

This book is a hymn to the finest traditions of the Bar, and to the rights of the individual which they uphold. It ends with a powerful postscript by Master Hutchinson himself, who laments a series of attacks by governments of all kinds on the criminal Bar and the criminal justice system. Anyone who wonders whether that system is worth defending should read this book, as, in my view, should any advocate. the Attorney-General, Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller QC. Manningham-Buller agreed that the whole trial should be held in camera, but then reneged on that agreement on the morning of the trial. Master Hutchinson decided that he could not re-write his speech and his approach at the last minute, so his plea of mitigation was heard in private. Lord Parker was unmoved, and pronounced an exceptionally long sentence of 42 years. After the publication of the hardback edition of this book, evidence emerged that, the night before passing the sentence, the Lord Chief Justice had telephoned the Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, and asked for details of the damage which Blake had done to the country. Master Hutchinson was, of course, not told of this, and given no opportunity to respond to whatever the Prime Minister had said. This book is a hymn to the finest traditions of the Bar, and to the rights of the individual which they uphold. It ends with a powerful postscript by Master Hutchinson himself, who laments a series of attacks by governments of all kinds on the criminal Bar and the criminal justice system. Anyone who wonders whether that system is worth defending should read this book, as, in my view, should any advocate. And now I am going to give in to the temptation to copy something out, namely an extract on p.223 from a speech which Master Hutchinson gave in the House of Lords in 1990, along similar lines to Sir Robert Morton’s speech to the House of Commons in Rattigan’s play The Winslow Boy:

At the very basis of our freedom lies the knowledge that in the criminal courts, however unpopular your cause, however hopeless, however unlikely, however seemingly overwhelming the pressure of the state upon you as an individual, you can obtain an independent, professionally dedicated advocate to undertake and argue your case and to argue it before a tribunal which is presided over by an equivalently independent judge. From then on the advocate must fearlessly promote by all proper and lawful means that person’s interest without regard to his own. I feel I have not been able to do justice to this book in a short review such as this. I think you will enjoy it.

Master Flenley was Called to the Bar in 1988 and to the Bench in 2014. He was Chairman of the Professional Negligence Bar Association from 2013 to 2015. He is the co-author, with Tom Leech QC, of Solicitors’ Negligence and Liability, and practises from Hailsham Chambers in professional liability cases.

Jeremy Hutchinson's Case Histories: Book Review


THE SAFEST SHIELD Lectures, Speeches and Essays by Lord Judge BOOK REVIEW BY LORD NEUBERGER This collection of Master Judge’s lectures, speeches and essays is like a superior box of chocolates.

The packaging is eye-catching, evocative and appropriate: the book’s jacket is a reproduction of a section of the British Library’s Dering Roll. And, once opened, the contents are well-presented and tempting, with each item being best savoured lingeringly, and then remembered with pleasure. But, as with good chocolates, once one has consumed one item, it is very difficult to resist the temptation to move on at once to the next, in the hope (always fulfilled) that it will be as good as its predecessor. Master Judge has an accessible and relaxed style, which ensures that the reader is immediately engaged and carried along by these pieces. However, the style also results in the reader almost being taken unawares by the depth and breadth of the author’s scholarship; his deep attachment to his country, its history and its institutions; and his passionate commitment to justice and the rule of law. Indeed, it is the rule of law which permeates throughout this inspirational collection of lectures, speeches and essays. And, as Master Judge mentions in his preface, it is the rule of law which is referred to in the title. It was Sir Edward Coke, like Master Judge, a great Lord Chief Justice who observed that ‘law is the safest helmet’. The pieces are grouped into six sections. The first is entitled ‘Towards a Constitution’, and it starts (appropriately for a book published in 2015) with the gripping story of the creation and early years of Magna Carta, followed by a biography of William Marshal, whom Master Judge justifiably describes as ‘the hero of the convoluted events that which culminated in the creation and survival of Magna Carta’. It then moves, via essays on Justices of the Peace and the ‘Authorised Version of the Bible’, to the eighteenth Century and the issue of ‘No Taxation Without Representation’. As with some of the other essays in this book, the title of this essay belies its wide-ranging nature. It includes a discussion about the contrast between the Supreme Court’s function in the United States with the far more limited role of


the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court. Master Judge is not alone in his unswerving support of the unique constitutional settlement enjoyed by the UK and in his rejection of the possibility of the UK Supreme Court becoming like its US counterpart. What is less familiar is his concern that it would lead to political involvement in judicial appointments. As he puts it, ‘[t]he more we allow the appointment of judges to become part of the political process, the quicker the judiciary will be subsumed into it’. ‘And’ he adds trenchantly ‘what price then, judicial independence?’ The second section of the book is devoted to ‘Continuing Constitutional Issues’. Of the five essays included in this section, the three longer ones are based on speeches which Master Judge gave shortly after he retired as Lord Chief Justice. Much of the first two essays are devoted to the relationship between the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights and the UK domestic Courts. As a serving judge, I should not express views on this issue publicly. As Master Judge implies, it is a nice point how far retired judges should express strong views, even in coded form, on such controversial issues. It is almost inevitable that a clear view on a controversial topic expressed by a senior, recently retired judge will be treated, at least by those newspapers and politicians who agree with it, as representative of the view of the judiciary. This places serving judges, especially those who do not hold the same views, in an invidious position: silence would be treated as being assent, and speaking out would be a breach of judicial independence. However, some may think that this is a price worth paying for having experienced retired senior judges taking an active part in UK politics, albeit on a non-party basis, as beneficially happens through the House of Lords cross-benches. Two of the other three essays in this second section are based on excellent speeches which Master Judge gave at the Lord Mayor’s annual dinner for the Judges; one is concerned with judicial involvement in parliamentary governance and

the other with so-called Henry VIII clauses (if you don’t know, read the book!). Unsurprisingly, Master Judge is against both. The final essay is on the highly charged and controversial issue of assisted suicide. It is a topic on which both Master Judge and I have each given more than one judgement, and therefore I shall say no more about it other than to commend his characteristically thought-provoking treatment of this difficult subject. The third section is entitled ‘Liberties and Rights’, and it starts with the text of Lord Judge’s speech on ‘Equality before the Law’ at the 2013 Commonwealth Law Conference in Cape Town. Most unusually for such a sober gathering, this speech received a standing ovation. There is also an essay on Human Rights, during the course of which Master Judge reminds us that he was born on a smaller island than Great Britain, but one with an equally proud and independent history. In it, he emphasises the importance of an independent and effective judiciary and of an independent and free press. These two topics are dealt with more fully in two important essays – one concerned with the judiciary and the media, and the other with press regulation. Perhaps rather less expected is the last essay in the third section, which contains ‘Reflections’ on the Welsh language, based on a lecture which Master Judge gave at Swansea University to the Association of London Welsh Lawyers when he was Lord Chief Justice. It may be an unexpected topic, but there is no doubt that it is an important and apt issue, both in itself and because Master Judge was, of course, not only Lord Chief Justice of England, but also of Wales. While never ignoring practical reality and common sense, the essays in the first three sections of the book are generally at a higher, more principled level than the latter three sections. Thus, the fourth section of the book is concerned with ‘Administration of Justice’, and it is in this section that one can read about ‘The Art of Advocacy’ from a great master of that art, as well as issues which lie at the heart of the justice system and about which this author has unparalleled experience and great wisdom – ‘Trial by Jury’, ‘The Sentencing Decision’, ‘Miscarriages of Justice’ as well as perceptive thoughts on evidence from experts and from child victims. Unsurprisingly, there is a section, the fifth, entitled ‘The Judiciary’, in which Master Judge characteristically manages to write about four vital topics on that theme: the timeless topic of Judicial Independence and (which are equally important and he rightly does not overlook) Responsibilities; the by-definition-not-timeless, but equally important topic of Being A Judge Today; as well as Judicial Education, and Judicial Diversity.

Master Judge has an accessible and relaxed style, which ensures that the reader is immediately engaged and carried along by these pieces. The final section is a mixture of ‘Personal Reflections’ ranging from the tragic (‘Catastrophic Spinal Injuries’) to the joyful (‘Celebration of the Diamond Jubilee of HM The Queen’), and includes two essays on his beloved Middle Temple (one about its history and the other about its future). This section also includes his inspirational welcome to those attending the judicial induction seminar, a couple of personal recollections, and a justification for reading law. And, inevitably, appropriately, and inspirationally, the last piece is ‘Our Independent Judiciary’.

The Rt. Hon. Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury (in the county of Dorset) became President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on 1 October 2012 after being Master of the Rolls from 1st October 2009. Called to the Bar (Lincoln’s Inn) in 1974 and made a Bencher of Lincoln’s Inn in 1993. Appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1987, a Recorder from 1990 -1996 then a High Court Judge, Chancery Division in 1996. He became Supervisory Chancery Judge for Midland, Wales and Chester and Western Circuits for 2000-04. Appointed Lord Justice of Appeal in January 2004, then Lord of Appeal in Ordinary (‘Law Lord’) in January 2007 and given a life peerage.

The Safest Shield. Lectures, Speeches and Essays: Book Review


The Brief by Simon Michael BOOK REVIEW BY REX TEDD QC

Simon Michael's new novel catches the essence of life at the Criminal Bar in the early 1960s. According to the brief biography, at the back of the book, the series is ‘based on Simon’s own experiences at the Criminal Bar’. If so, the author has led a less sheltered professional life than many of his contemporaries, few of whom can have been chased through the back alleys of the Temple by police officers attempting to arrest them on suspicion of murder. The book is set in an era in which Charles Holborne’s client, a minor villain named Del Plumber, faces execution if convicted. Unsurprisingly, his more villainous co-accused can see only too clearly the opportunity to save his own neck (in a very literal sense) by cut-throat tactics, and enthusiastic co-operation with an investigating officer whose ethical standards do not attain the highest modern levels. Holborne, a young but able junior, is propelled into the driving seat of the case when his leader withdraws because of injury. This situation is woven into the fabric (and myth) of the Criminal Bar, at which reputedly the thrusting junior’s greatest hope (or worst nightmare) is that he will advance precipitately into the front row, thus covering himself in glory (or more likely humiliation). However, Del’s ‘brief’ has the necessary qualities to take on the case single-handed at a moment’s notice. The author has an acute perception of the small, but important, details - and indeed the radically changing ethos - that distinguishes the criminal courts then and now. Gone (largely) are the dishonest detectives who ‘verballed’ suspects, by inventing oral or written admissions. The halflife of the robing room, and the clerks’ room, are caught to a nicety. The tension in chambers between those doing the ’carriage trade’ commercial work, and the ‘criminal hack’ was true then, and perhaps even now. In The Brief, those tensions go well beyond mere professional rivalry. Another, superficially friendly, member of chambers is playing a dangerous and treacherous game. A third is consumed by jealousy. Unsurprisingly, the Head of Chambers hovers on the edge of appointment to the Bench, and is remote from the daily cut and thrust of chambers life. As always, the senior clerk holds the entire set together by sleight of hand behind the scenes. He plainly had previous experience of arriving for work, only to discover a member


The Brief: Book Review

of chambers unconscious on the floor. His solicitous, if disingenuous, enquiry of the stirring Holborne, ‘Have you fainted sir?’ cannot be faulted, carrying as it does the implicit suggestion that the barrister concerned has some entirely innocent explanation for the situation. Holborne’s personal life is a complex mess. Socially, and in the criminal underworld into which he is forced while on the run, he is swimming out of his depth. As he attempts to extricate himself from an increasingly tight spot, people very close to him are being killed. This is an intriguing and interesting book. In several key passages, the author sets out in ‘transcript’ form the tense exchanges between the key prosecution witness and counsel. This is done realistically and to great effect. There is real insight into the impact upon the parvenu Holborne of the collapse of his personal and professional world about his ears. The Brief has a strong plot, which the reviewer is constrained not to reveal. The book catches the essence of the Criminal Bar half a century or so ago. I look forward to the next in the series.

Simon Michael was Called to the Bar in 1978. He was a tenant at Francis Taylor Building doing general common law work, particularly crime and personal injury. He had several novels published here and the USA in the 1990s and a short story, Split, was shortlisted for the Cosmopolitan/Perrier Short Story Award. Simon joined No 5 Chambers in 2001, specialising in personal injury and clinical negligence and was first-tier ranked in both by the Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners. In 2016 Simon retired early from the Bar to resume his writing career. The Charles Holborne novels, set on the dangerous gangland streets of 1960s London are based upon his experience as a criminal barrister.

Damages by Dorgan & McKenna BOOK REVIEW BY KENNETH C FOGARTY QC, SC Damages by Tadhg Dorgan together with Peter McKenna fills a vacuum that has existed in Irish law for many years, with an up to date and detailed exposition on the law of damages in Irish law. When Sergeant Sullivan QC published his memoirs in 1952, he wrote: The Irishman is the last man in the world to grudge a stranger a stroll through the farm, but the neighbour’s cow may be a serious matter. The strolling cow may be the first move in a deep-laid plot to establish a right of way. While Damages does not have many accounts of strolling cows being harnessed to establish rights of way, the number of cases analysed by the authors shows that damages being awarded for trespass to land is something that has not altogether changed since Serjeant Sullivan’s time. As The Honourable Ms. Justice Baker of The High Court, Dublin, states in her glowing foreword to the book: Many lawyers, and law students are far less proficient in their understanding of the principles of the law of damages than they are perhaps the principles in the law of torts or contract and land law, as the case may be. The difficulty highlighted by Ms. Justice Baker, is one that is familiar to the practitioner and academic alike, and where it cannot be said that there is a similarly developed body of analysis that surrounds the principles of damages when compared with the principles of tort or contract law for instance. Damages succinctly sets out and identifies the principles that should be applied and thus goes very far in closing this lacuna in the Irish lawyer’s knowledge. As might be expected, considerable time and space is devoted to the issue of damages in the context of personal injuries, and in particular damages for psychiatric injuries. The chapter on professional negligence analyses the law of damages with regards to various classes of professional persons including: lawyers, medical personnel, accountants and auditors and bankers, to name but a few. The book includes a chapter on damages for wrongs to the person, which runs the entire gamut from simple assaults up to damages for breach of constitutional rights and damages

for infringements of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the latter category, the relatively recent Grand Chamber judgement in O’Keeffe v Ireland, which found that Ireland had breached the applicant’s Article 3 and Article 13 rights, shows that the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court will remain increasingly important to litigants in future. Particularly, in circumstances where both the High Court and Supreme Court in Ireland had ruled against Ms. O’Keeffe in her claim for damages against the State and held that the State was not vicariously liable for the actions of the teacher in the school. This chapter also focuses on the Supreme Court judgement in Shortt v Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, where the plaintiff sought damages for malicious prosecution and received an award in excess of €4 million, and which must count as one of the most egregiously corrupt episodes in An Garda Síochána’s (Irish police force) long history. The text has been welcomed and the authors have been commended by the Attorney General of Ireland for their scholarship. Overall, the text has been well received and has been positively reviewed by the distinguished Senior Legal Affairs Correspondent Ms. Mary Carrollan of The Irish Times. In conclusion, it can be said that Damages makes a unique and creative contribution as it is the first and only such text in Irish law that sets out and identifies the contours of the Irish law on damages. I commend it to you. Kenneth C Fogarty QC SC Member The Honourable Society of the Kings Inns, The Honourable Society of the Middle Temple and The Northern Ireland Bar.

Damages: Book Review


Barristers Red Bag LT COL DAVID PHILLIPS Last year I was presented with a red brief bag by the then Head of the Service Prosecuting Authority, Bruce Houlder QC. It was presented in relation to a case involving detainee abuse in which he had led me. This article aims to briefly outline the origin of presenting red bags by silks to juniors at the Bar. When being sworn into the Supreme Court of New South Wales in 2011, The Hon. Mr Justice Sackar, noted that the tradition was not as widespread as it once was. Referring to the occasion when he was presented with his red bag by Doug Staff QC he said: I was rather overcome with the gesture until I realised that the tradition also involved having the initials of one’s leader, not mine embroidered on the side. Clearly an early form of product placement it was nonetheless an important vote of confidence which I have cherished the whole of my professional life. The practice of a silk giving red bags to promising juniors, whom they have led in a case, continues to be observed in a number of common law jurisdictions including Canada, Australia, England and Wales, and parts of the former British West Indies. The red bag is normally presented with a note of thanks by the giving silk. In some cases, bags can now be purchased with a piece of parchment fixed inside for this purpose, as at Ede and Ravenscroft.

Origin of the Tradition Traditionally there were only two brief bags allowed in the Courts of England and Wales. Judges would carry a green bag. The only counsel allowed to have a brief bag in court were Senior Counsel. These were red bags given to silks by the Crown annually as part of their retainer to be instructed by the Crown. The blue bag originated in the late eighteenth century and, of course, is not permitted in court. John Jeaffreson, a barrister-at-law writing in 1866, observed that juniors may have carried green bags before the trial of Queen Caroline (see Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (1894), by Ebenezer Cobham Brewer, which states that at Common law red bags were reserved for Queen’s Counsel and Serjeants, but that stuff gowns may carry one if presented by a silk).

A silk’s red bag would have been invariably carried into court by junior counsel. The origin of the red bag began with the institution of King’s Counsel under the reign of King James I, circa 1601. This new appointment immediately outclassed Serjeants-at-law. It was not until the reign of Charles II that the appointment of King’s Counsel became more firmly established. King’s Counsel were appointed by letters patent. In addition, silks received an honorarium of £40 per annum and a number of red brief bags from the Crown. Silks could not refuse a brief from the Sovereign without good reason and required the Crown’s permission to appear for other parties. The provision of red bags, or an allowance to purchase them, continued up until 1830, whereafter Senior Counsel were not exclusively bound to act for the Crown. The position of Silk before 1830 is perhaps more analogous to Senior Treasury Counsel today. The practice of awarding surplus red bags appears to have originated during the period where the Crown made annual provision of new red bags to Senior Counsel. Certainly at this time Senior Counsel would have had his red brief bag carried into court by a junior. Before 1830 King's Counsel were much fewer in number. Nevertheless, the etiquette of presenting the red bag to the junior as a reward for excellence in some important matter continued. The practice would have been for Senior Counsel to present a surplus red bag with his own initials to a junior who had provided a high standard of support during a case. Some leaders today might mark a junior’s efforts by presenting him/her with a bottle of champagne. It is submitted that the ancient tradition of presenting red bags to worthy juniors is a powerful and noteworthy discretion retained by Senior Counsel as noted by Jeaffreson. It is a permanent and enduring mark of esteem. In some cases the presentation of a red bag can be seen as a right of passage for a successful junior barrister.

In referring to the tradition of a silk presenting red bags Jeaffreson, stated, the liberality which, for the last five and twenty years, has marked the distribution of ‘Silk’ to rising members of the Bar, and the ease with which all fairly successful advocates may obtain the rank of Queen’s Counsel, enable lawyers of the present generation to smile at a rule which defined a man’s professional position by the colour of his bag, instead of the texture of his gown; but in times when ‘Silk’ was given to comparatively few members of the Bar, and when that distinction was most unfairly withheld from the brightest ornaments of their profession, if their political opinions displeased the ‘party in power it was natural and reasonable in the Bar to institute for themselves an ‘order of merit’ - so deserving candidates could obtain admission without reference to the prejudice of a Chancellor or the whim of a clique.


Barristers Red Bag

David Phillips is currently serving as a Crown Prosecutor in the Military Courts as a Lieutenant Colonel. He will leave the Army in September this year and will be joining 3 Paper Buildings. He has been a barrister in England and Wales since 2004 and a barrister in NSW since 1996. He is a pupil supervisor and advocacy trainer at Middle Temple. Aside from prosecuting he has had extensive experience in advising on the Law of Armed Conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. Prior to being called to the bar David was an Infantry Officer in the Royal Australian Regiment.


On Thursday 14 April, the final of the Human Rights Lawyers Association 4th Annual Judicial Review Competition took place in Middle Temple Hall. Two teams met to present their arguments before a distinguished panel of judges consisting of Master Longmore and Professor Sara Chandler QC. The teams were arguing the lawfulness of fictitious regulations that would restrict state benefits to people on the basis of their citizenship or residency. The Claimant in the case, an Australian citizen, unable to work, with a 7 year old daughter, was represented by Hannah Gardiner and Lucy Meredith. The Defendant, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, was represented by Emma Foubister and John Fitzsimons. Counsel for the Claimant argued that the regulations were in breach of Article 8 ECHR as they prevented family life from continuing in the particular circumstances of the case. They submitted that the regulations ultra vires of the enabling Act of Parliament, as the Secretary of State had failed to take the needs of the individuals who would lose social security entitlements into account. This was a relevant consideration for the Secretary of State when deciding to introduce the regulations. Counsel for the Defendant argued that any interference with Article 8 ECHR could be justified to achieve the aim of reducing welfare expenditure, as long as the action was not manifestly without reasonable foundation. They argued that primary purpose of the enabling Act of Parliament was to reduce welfare expenditure and that considerations of residency and citizenship merely flowed from this primary consideration. The judges vigorously challenged the arguments put forward by Counsel, who responded with impressive fluency and composure. All contestants demonstrated an excellent knowledge of the law, but the Court ultimately found in favour of the Defendant, as its Counsel displayed particular clarity of presentation. Michael Polak, Chair of the Young Lawyers’ Committee of the Human Rights Lawyers Association, stated that ‘it was impressive how both teams managed to present complex arguments in a succinct and engaging way’. After the competition, the teams enjoyed dinner together in Middle Temple Hall, along with the judges, members of the Young Lawyers Committee of the HRLA, Middle Temple Benchers and their guests. What better way

to relax and soak up the atmosphere of Middle Temple after such a performance? The HRLA Young Lawyers Committee would like to thank the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple, Master Longmore, Professor Sara Chandler QC, Church Court Chambers, Doughty Street Chambers, Hart Publishing, and all those who helped organise the competition. Jeremy Bloom is a Treaty Manager at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, leading their work on reporting and driving implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Prior to this position he worked for a number of years on international campaigning and research projects at Amnesty International with a focus on Latin America. He was awarded a distinction in an LLM in International Human Rights Law at the University of Essex.

HRLA Competition



free shipping worldwide

The Fishmongers' Company MASTER MICHAEL McLAREN The Fishmongers’ Company might seem, to some, an anachronism. It is one of the oldest livery companies; its Hall arguably the grandest; and its Hall’s views of the Thames certainly the finest. But is the company still relevant, and anything more than a sumptuous dining club? The answer is, resoundingly, yes. The company does a huge amount of good, as I have learnt in my 14 years on its Court and this past year as its Prime Warden. Unlike many livery companies whose industries have disappeared, the Fishmongers’ Company still has an industry, which it supports in many ways. For instance, at Billingsgate Fish Market, one of the three great markets of London (along with Covent Garden and Smithfield), the company provides inspection services – a dawn visit provides a fascinating insight into a traditional market and will also net you the freshest seafood in town. Beyond London, it offers targeted grants to fisheries projects and fishing communities across the country. It supports other associations which work to conserve shellfish and salmonid fish (to name but a few). It also uses its independence and respected position in the industry to foster debate about fishy issues – for instance, working for a cleaner Thames. But the company’s work goes far beyond the fishing industry. Like many livery companies, it is deeply involved in education, supporting in particular Gresham’s School in Norfolk, where Benjamin Britten and WH Auden were educated, as well as various primary schools. The company also offers scholarships to musicians at three London conservatoires, artists at the City & Guilds of London Art School, female medical students and many others. It is a fascinating, and surprisingly complex, enterprise. Its substantial assets, together with its historic Hall, its pictures and furniture and its numerous charitable and fisheries ventures, need to be managed effectively. Much remains to be done to make the company fitter for the 21st century. This year, I initiated a strategic review of the direction the company should be taking, to reassess its objectives and to refocus its work at the heart of the fishing industry and education. Being Prime Warden has been a great privilege but also hard work. I have chaired many meetings, eaten too much and become weary of the sound of my own voice making too many speeches. On the other hand, I have been able to guide a review of the company’s constitution, which has reformed its standing orders; and I am proud to have promoted an additional Summer Concert at Fishmongers’ Hall, which gave our scholars a chance to perform in a spectacular venue as well as raising funds for the Company’s main charitable trust – I hope this might become an annual fixture.

As Prime Warden, I have seen and done fascinating things which would never otherwise have come my way. For instance, the Brigade of Gurkhas (recently affiliated with the company) invited me to their Attestation Parade in the Nepalese town of Pokhara, where each year’s recruits are inducted into the British Army. This was followed by tours of Gurkha Welfare Trust centres and a week’s trek in the earthquake-ravaged area of Gurkha – all a different perspective into a country I love and have visited several times. Closer to home, there have also been various visits to schools and fisheries, to Edinburgh, Bristol, Sheffield and Ironbridge. Combining the office of Prime Warden with commercial practice at the Bar (and a few other things) has been a jigsaw puzzle. But other Middle Templars have done likewise. For instance, Masters Zellick and Pulman have each been Master Haberdasher; this year, Oliver Wise (a tenant in QEB and member of Lincoln’s Inn) is Master Grocer. Boxing and coxing, burning the midnight oil and sheer luck all play their part in avoiding diary clashes. When an over-running accountants’ disciplinary case threatened to prevent me from chairing some important company meetings, the expedient of serving a 64-page closing skeleton worked a treat – it gave the Disciplinary Committee so much to think about that it released the parties for that crucial morning (and also won the case for my client)! All in all, it has been a great privilege and pleasure to lead for one year this ancient livery company, with its strong sense of purpose and charity. I can reassure other barristers who might be pondering a similar step that, not only it is possible to combine practice at the Bar with other such activities, but also it can be immensely rewarding. Master McLaren was Called to the Bar in 1981, took Silk in 2002 and was made a Bencher in 2012. He practises from Fountain Court Chambers, and has a general commercial practice, with an emphasis on aviation, regulation and professional disciplinary work. Keen on music, he is a director of the Temple Music Foundation and sits on the Church Committee.

The Fishmongers' Company


Valuing at Middle Temple ANGUS GULL Working on the picture, furniture, silver and arms & armour collections at Middle Temple is about as close to valuation nirvana as one can hope for. The array of objects from the late sixteenth century onwards provides a delightful assault on the intellectual senses, which only time can assuage. Part of the challenge is sorting the wheat from the chaff, working out which objects warrant a seat at the valuation high table and which should remain in the lower ranks. During our recent valuation update we focused a lot of attention on the silver. Once the knack of opening the safe door had been negotiated, we were thankfully allowed to temporarily release a few objects at a time from their yellowy lit cave and have the luxury of inspecting them at close quarters under more natural light conditions. With the combination of a good magnifying glass, an experienced eye in the shape of my colleague, Duncan Campbell, and time, we were able to psychologically pick apart both the maker’s work and that of subsequent repairers so as to understand how and why objects were made. Further research has, and will, enable us to put some of these treasures into their historical context. One highlight of our 2013 valuation was to take the sublime 1618 silver gilt ewer and basin to Goldsmiths Hall, and have it tested to help work out whether its origins lie in London or Lisbon; the former won out. Goldsmiths’ grand entrance belies the state-of-the-art chemistry lab where the testing is done. The two days spent working on the Arms & Armour section culminated in an entertaining and informative talk to staff by Bill Harriman, whose appearances on the Antiques Roadshow helped to ensure his natural ebullience came across. He was certainly at ease handling one of the Inn’s muskets, as my snapshot shows.

On the paintings front, we spent a day fathoming the age of a lot of the picture frames and working out whether they started out life with their respective paintings. We were able to inspect both the fronts and backs of selected frames; the good news is that the majority of the frames warrant attention as works of art in their own right and are indeed contemporary with the portraits they hold. As with the silver, science can help us with selected pieces of furniture. At the time of writing, we are aiming to make the most of the Hall closing in August and September 2016 by commissioning dendrochronology and carbondating tests on the High Table, Drake’s Cupboard and a few other pieces to help firmly date timber and thus confirm or deny longstanding stories about their origins. One distinct highlight of our time at the Inn was the unfailing friendliness, help and hospitality given to us by all staff whose paths crossed with ours. We felt honoured to be asked to spend a passage of time aboard a happy ship full of good people and wonderful objects.

The array of objects from the late sixteenth century onwards provides a delightful assault on the intellectual senses...

Angus Gull is a director of L&J Gull Fine Arts Limited, an independent art and antiques valuation company.


Valuing at Middle Temple

Technology and the Justice System MASTER BRIAN LEVESON Technology has generated many problems for the criminal justice system and it must be at the heart of the solution. When I started at the Bar, a criminal brief consisted of a few prosecution statements, an occasional exhibit (usually with a statement under caution compiled at least ostensibly in accordance with the Judges’ Rules) and a proof of evidence from the defendant. We kept carbon copies of our advices and took law reports to court. The proliferation of paper (and the multiplication provided by the photocopier) has continued so relentlessly that the documents (including print outs from social media, cell site analysis and downloads of CCTV) create a risk that criminal trials are becoming unmanageable. The answer has been the digital case system. By mid-June 2016, it had saved the printing of more than 7 million pages (or 56 trees, or a pile of paper taller than the Shard). There are 16,446 registered users, which include Judges, Defence Advocates (the largest group) and CPS Prosecutors amongst others. In addition, Wi-Fi is available to professional court users in all 240 of our criminal courts across England and Wales. Evidence can be presented from laptops onto large screens through ‘Clickshare’. This allows advocates to share images from their laptops to the court screens in order to display files and evidence to the court. Such technology is not only making it easier for the courts to be efficient with the cases they have, it can also remove the need for minor cases to come to court at all, allowing precious resources to be expended on more serious matters. By mid-June the system ‘Online plea’ was live in 39 courts, giving people charged with summary motoring offences the option to plead online at and to use the website to respond to charges against them. Nor is it only criminal courts. On 15 November 2015, the Court Electronic File system for case filing and issuing was launched in all the jurisdictions of the Rolls Building, which handles business and property law. The system makes it possible for parties to issue a case online, lodge a claim form and make payment through the Court Electronic File interface, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, from anywhere in the world. Again by mid-June, 5844 documents had been lodged by E-Filing and there are 769 registered users on Court Electronic file. We are developing plans for Wi-Fi in all Family and Civil courts (together with an online court). Meanwhile, the latest figures establish that online submission of claims before Employment Tribunals are used in 87% of all such claims received by HMCTS.  

For young lawyers, researching online, filing and controlling material on a screen and note-taking on a computer will be the way that they have worked for years. For those of us who are older (and, in some cases, much older), it is more difficult.  Moving from a bundle of statements and exhibits to electronic filing requires us to learn new skills at a time when we are comfortable with the way that we have worked throughout our professional lives. But we must embrace the change. Whatever your approach to technology, there is no alternative. Master Leveson was born in Liverpool and educated at Liverpool College and Merton College Oxford. Called to the Bar in 1970, he practised in Liverpool across the full range of the Common Law. He was appointed Silk in 1986. He became a Recorder of the Crown Court in 1988; he was a member of the Parole Board between 1992 and 1995. He was appointed a Judge of the High Court in 2000, and served as a Presiding Judge of the Northern Circuit between 2002 and 2005. He became a Lord Justice of Appeal in 2006 and was Senior Presiding Judge for England and Wales for three years. He was Chairmandesignate of the Sentencing Council from 2009-2013. From 2008-2011 he was chairman of the Criminal Justice Council. In 2011, he was appointed to chair the Inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the Press; his report was published in November 2012. He was sworn in as President of the Queens Bench Division in October 2013. He is married with three children.

Technology and the Justice System


The Charities Forum Each year, the Inn collaborates with a charity selected by the Treasurer from the list of organisations that are members of The Charities Forum, an umbrella organisation of all the charities to which TRH The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and HRH Prince Harry of Wales give their patronage. Middle Temple is included in this organisation through its association with the Duke of Cambridge, our Royal Bencher. The Inn works hard to further its goal of a more diverse and accessible Bar through its various Scholarships and Access to the Bar awards, but the Charities Forum offers the Inn the opportunity to reach out and lend its support to those who would not typically fall under its remit. The Inn supports a partner charity through its involvement in the London Marathon. In 2016 the Treasurer chose Centrepoint. Focusing on young people who have been made homeless, Centrepoint supports over 7,800 young people in London, Sunderland and Bradford. Its service starts with a room, a solid foundation from which a young person can begin to build a future. Centrepoint also provides access to physical and mental health services, life skills training and the support to access education and training. Previous affiliations have been with SkillForce in 2015, which provides an exserviceman-led programme of activities and training to school children, helping them to improve their confidence, work ethic and leadership skills. Prior to this, the Inn supported the Royal Marsden Hospital in 2013 and Child Bereavement UK in 2012. In 2014 the Inn also supported the Imperial War Museum’s First World War Centenary Partnership. Set out below are our fellow organisations in the Charities Forum. Sometimes these organisations seek assistance from the Inn for legal issues. If you are interested in assisting these organisations in any way, in the first instance, please speak to the Under Treasurer. For further information on the Charities Forum please visit:

100 Women in Hedge Funds - SkillForce - 1851 Trust - SportsAid - Action on Addiction - The Art Room - Air Cadets - The British Army - Anna Freud Centre - The Football Association (FA) - British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) - The Henry van Straubenzee Memorial Fund - British Sub Aqua Club (BSAC) - The Honourable Society of the Middle Temple - Centrepoint - The Natural History Museum - Child Bereavement UK - The Royal Air Force - Comic Relief - The Royal Foundation of TRHs The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge & Prince Harry - Diana Award - The Royal Marsden Hospital - Dolen Cymru - The Royal Navy - East Anglia’s Children’s Hospices (EACH) - The Royal Society - English Schools Swimming Association - The Rugby Football Union (RFU) - Fields in Trust - The Scout Association - MapAction - The Welsh Rugby Union (WRU) - Mountain Rescue Council England and Wales (MREW) Tusk Trust - National Portrait Gallery - Walking with the Wounded - Place2Be - WellChild - RFU Injured Players Foundation - Welsh Rugby Charitable Trust - Sentebale -


The Charities Forum

The Legal Education Foundation MATTHEW SMERDON In July 2016, the Legal Education Foundation reached and passed the milestone of distributing its first £10 million, doing so via 185 grants to organisations across the legal field. Many will know the Foundation under its previous name, The College of Law. In 2013, the Governors of the College devoted the monies generated by the sale of the education and training business to endow the organisation as a Foundation. At the time of the sale the charity received permission from the Privy Council to change its name from The College of Law to The Legal Education Foundation. Its charitable purpose remains the same, ‘to promote the advancement of legal education and the study of the law in all its branches’ and the Foundation does this by making grants to a wide variety of mostly charitable organisations working in different social, professional and academic settings and by commissioning research. The Foundation is building a work programme that reflects its belief that the conduct of the legal system and the ability of people both to use the law and to understand its obligations is fundamental to a democratic society. The Foundation largely works by distributing grants across three principal strategic objectives: increasing public understanding of the law and the capability to use it; enhancing the skills and knowledge of legal services providers; and increasing access to employment in the profession, particularly focusing on social mobility and diversity. Two further themes underpin these programmes with a focus on research and on the role of technology. Over its first three years, the Foundation has also built links with other foundations in the field, working in partnership on programmes that include efforts to support the legal advice sector to adapt to the new funding environment by developing new ways of working and new sources of income, and to support non-legal voluntary organisations to use the law and legal remedies in the delivery of their charitable objectives. In addition to making grants, the Foundation has launched its own initiative called the Justice First Fellowship programme. The social welfare legal advice sector has been particularly hard hit by the reduced levels of public

funding at the same time as legal need and access to justice concerns have increased. One of the results is that the sector’s capacity to take on trainee lawyers has reduced significantly. This prompts serious concern over the next generation of specialist social welfare lawyers not being recruited into the sector. Having discussed this with advice organisations and other funders we launched the Justice First Fellowship, a scheme to provide fully-funded training contracts and wider development opportunities for the next generation of specialist social welfare lawyers. Fellows spend two years working in leading UK organisations where they learn alongside the best in the profession. In partnership with a growing number of sponsors and host organisations, the scheme has now placed 18 Fellows who are already meeting legal needs in communities across the UK. A further 13 will be recruited in 2016, including for the first time two pupil barristers working in Family law. The Foundation and its partners are keen for the scheme to grow in scale and prestige so as to help more people build long lasting and effective careers as leaders in this vital field of legal practice.

Matthew Smerdon joined The Legal Education Foundation as its Chief Executive in October 2013. He has worked in the foundation sector since 2004 developing a particular focus on support for the legal advice sector. Previously Matthew was Director of Community Work at Community Links in east London. He is the author of publications on legal advice, social action, public services, the voluntary sector and grant making. In September 2013, Matthew was appointed to the Civil Justice Council as the lay member, and in June 2015 joined the Executive Committee.

The Legal Education Foundation


2016 Garden Highlights KATE JENRICK

Spring started early this year - in fact, it didn’t wait for the New Year. The first daffodils were out 30 November 2015.

Spring then seemed to stall. Tulips on the main terrace are usually short lived because it becomes too hot too soon. This year the show went on for several weeks. The main beneficiaries were the trees and shrubs - like the laburnum.

We have had successful broods of wrens (one nest above the clematis over the garden gate).

Blackbirds - one of several nests in the Bay. Also robins and blue tits. Our colony of bees came through the winter and have had a busy time collecting nectar and pollen. We are looking forward to a honey harvest this year.


The young wisteria by the gardeners’ shed had a good showing - only its second time. The established one in Fountain Court was at its best in the middle of May and a good second flush at the end of July. Fountain Court and Elm Court had a wide variety of spring flowers from dictamnus, muscari and all sorts of bulbs.

A small early season wild flower area near Blackstone Chambers, is a new development. A colony of ground nesting carder bees established in the grass here which provides an incentive to extend the wildflowers longer through the season.

The garden was used much during May for lunch, but the cool damp June saw all that change. Plenty of young seedlings raised in the greenhouse vegetables behind the church and tomatoes for the kitchen were demanding more time.

After gaining a Diploma in Horticulture with Honours from the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Kate worked in 18th Century Landscape Garden at Painshill Park, Cobham and community social enterprise in east London. She came to Middle Temple in December 2008 where the mix of history and a busy, demanding use of the garden provided all the challenges a Head Gardener requires.

2016 Garden Highlights


Two Absent Members MASTER ERIC STOCKDALE One of the disadvantages of reaching a ripe, or indeed overripe old age, is that absent members, who were contemporaries and friends, increasingly remain absent. The two I shall miss most when November comes around this year will be Master Michael Sherrard and Master Leolin (Leo) Price. I became a student member of the Middle Temple at the age of 17 on 15 November 1946; Michael had joined a month earlier, while Leo was to join four days after me. Michael was an 18 year old law student at King's College, London; Leo was a 22 year old former Royal Artillery captain, at Oxford to read jurisprudence. The three of us did not meet until a few years later, as I followed Leo into his regiment early in 1947, serving in it for two years. Michael was the first to be Called to the Bar in June 1949, aged 21. Leo followed in November, while I was tail-end Charlie and was Called in June 1950. It was only after pupillage that I met both of them at different times, lunching at the same table in Hall. As Michael was soon busy in the London criminal and county courts, I occasionally encountered him in those, but as Leo was a Chancery practitioner, I only met him at the Inn. My own mixed practice, in London and on the Midland Circuit, grew slowly, with many cases being heard in Bedford. In August 1961 my wife, Joan, and I were on holiday with our two sons when I read about the A6 murder, committed just south of Bedford. Inevitably, I wondered which of my Midland colleagues would be instructed in any resultant prosecution. Shortly after our return home, I was in court in Bedford and ran into the senior county police officer in the case. He informed me that they had just arrested a suspect and that he was sure they had got the right man, called Alphon. I was not impressed when the police were shortly afterwards equally certain that James Hanratty was the offender. The prosecution team was a formidable one: Graham Swanwick QC, the Leader of the Circuit and later a High Court Judge, and Geoffrey Lane, soon to be the Recorder of Bedford and eventually Lord Chief Justice. Although not a member of the Midland Circuit, Michael was chosen to defend Hanratty and recommended that Victor Durand QC, a very experienced criminal lawyer, should be engaged as his leader. Unfortunately, almost immediately afterwards, Durand was suspended from practice for a year, and Hanratty insisted that he wanted Michael to defend him. Michael was sometimes criticised for taking on such a difficult capital murder defence on his own, but he had no option, as his lay client insisted on his doing so.


The trial of Hanratty started at the Assizes in Court 1 of the Shire Hall, Bedford, before The Rt. Hon Mr Justice Gorman in January 1962. During the preceding two days in that court room, I had been working on another case. To make room for the Hanratty trial, the third and last day of our case was transferred into the second court. When our jury retired to consider its verdict, I slipped into the private gallery above Court 1 and looked down onto Michael and his client. Hanratty had dyed his hair when on the run and his yellow thatch, growing out to reveal his natural colour, looked very strange. It occurred to me that the jury would have a constant reminder of his pathetic attempts to disguise his looks. Another major problem for Michael and his client was that Hanratty produced two different alibis - never a good idea. Michael's strongest point was that the identification evidence was very poor. However, despite his best endeavours, after the longest criminal trial then on record, Hanratty was convicted and executed. Years later, after two inquiries into the correctness of the verdict, DNA evidence showed that Hanratty had been correctly identified and convicted. Among those relieved by that finding was Lord Lane. Michael's practice soared after that case, both in England and further afield. He dealt with both criminal and civil cases, many of them concerning very complicated frauds. However, in his memoirs, Wigs and Wherefores, he also described different appearances at the Old Bailey, several before Judge John Maude QC. Maude had a theatrical background, and used his voice and intonation like a ham actor in an amateur production of a Noel Coward play; Michael portrayed him accurately in his book. On one occasion I was defending a client before Maude, with Rosina (later Master) Hare appearing for a co-accused, when he tried to put a female witness at her ease, as soon as she had entered the witness box. 'Madam. You see that long thin BLACK object in front of you? No, NOT the USHER: the MICROPHONE! I want you to speak into that CLAY-ARELEE, so that we may ORL be able to hear what you have TO SAY'. The usher, who was white but garbed in black, was not amused. (Absent Michael, only the actor Simon Callow could do the judge's delivery justice.) In his memoirs Michael omitted to tell the best Maude story, which he had told me at lunch in Hall soon after the event. He was appearing before The Rt. Hon The Lord

Parker, then Lord Chief Justice, and two colleagues in the Court of Criminal Appeal. He was submitting that Maude had misdirected the jury and was reading out the transcript of his summing up. At one point, Michael glanced up and noticed that Lord Parker was smiling. When he next looked up, he was amazed to see that the two wingers had grins on their face. 'Suddenly, I REALISED that I had slipped into reading the transcript, using John Maude's voice and intoNATION – and that the Court had appreCIATED what had happened’. Michael's greatest gift to his Inn and the profession was his setting up and running of Middle Temple Advocacy. His overall success may be gauged by his getting Silk in 1968, being elected a Bencher in 1977, Treasurer in 1996, and being appointed CBE for his services to the legal profession in 2003. Leo Price was also a successful advocate, but with a rather different style from that of Michael Sherrard. He always spoke very clearly and precisely, in a didactic manner that he may have acquired from one of his dons, when he was Treasurer of the Oxford Union. Like Michael, he had, and made use of his sense of humour. His most famous quip came during an appeal to the House of Lords. He explained in his opening that the case involved the basics of contract: offer, acceptance and consideration. Lord Widgery told Leo: 'I think you can take it that we understand the basics'. Leo replied: 'Milord, that was the mistake I made in the Court of Appeal’. Leo may on occasion have been a little prolix with his submissions in court and would seem to have irritated at least one senior Chancery judge, as – unlike Michael, who got Silk on his first application in 1968 – he was turned down several times before finally succeeding in the same year. Michael and Shirley Sherrard were married in 1952. Leo lagged behind us and only married his young wife, Lindy, in 1963. Both Leo and Lindy undertook voluntary work in the hospital field. Lindy was appointed CBE for her services in 1994 and Leo two years later, for his charitable work. He had been made a Bencher in 1970 and was Treasurer in 1990, so that both he and Michael had the same four distinctions, starting with Silk. Apart from anything else, Leo served the Inn well by being one of the hard-working founders of the Sponsorship scheme. He also drafted the will of Stanley Wareing, the generous Bench waiter, who decided to leave his house and money to the Inn. Leo acted as his executor and saw to it that the Inn converted the house into student accommodation. After a short time in Silk, Leo was asked whether he would be prepared to defend an accountant who had been falsely charged with a number of offences of company fraud. He was to be tried at the Old Bailey and the solicitor thought that it was essential to have an expert in company law to defend him. Leo pointed out that he had never been in a criminal court but saw the wisdom of that opinion. He agreed to take the case, provided he could have an experienced junior to hold his hand. Fortunately, the solicitor had known me for some 20 years, so the two of them agreed I should hold the junior brief. The Old Bailey was at that time short of courtrooms, so some of the cases with defendants who posed no escape risk, were fixed for trial 'over the road' in the Royal Courts of Justice. Our case was heard in one of the new courts in the basement. To make the whole thing more civilised still, we had a very pleasant and popular judge, Norman Brodrick

QC, who was a Bencher of Lincoln's Inn. Not only were Leo's chambers there but he had joined Lincoln's ad eundem. At one point in the case, Brodrick said with a smile: 'I shall admit that piece of evidence de bene esse, as we say in Lincoln's Inn, Mr Price’. Leo's cross-examination was superb. At no time was I tempted to prompt him. Nor was there any need for me to put him right on any point of criminal procedure. At the close of the prosecution case on the third day, Leo made an excellent submission that there was no case to answer. He reviewed the evidence at greater length than is normal at such a time, but the judge seemed perfectly happy and never once suggested that Leo should speed up. Brodrick accepted the submission and directed the jury to acquit. That case provided an example of what two good lawyers could achieve; I refer, of course, to Leo and our instructing solicitor. As my contribution to the case had been, to be frank, nil. Michael Sherrard was plagued by Parkinson's in the new century and retired from practice. He died in 2012. Leo continued to practise until a comparatively short time before his death in the following year. In 2006 Michael, Leo and I decided to have a joint dinner in November, to celebrate our 60 years as members of the Middle Temple. I would have liked to have a joint celebration of our 70 years as members of the Inn but, sadly, I am the sole survivor of the trio. However, I shall make a point of lunching or dining in Hall on 15 November 2016 and raising a glass, filled with water if necessary, to two very special absent members.

Master Stockdale was Called to the Bar in 1950. MSc, LLM, PhD, Hon LLD. Circuit Judge 1972-94; Supreme Court Procedure Committee 1982-94; Central Council of Probation Committees 197984; Central Council for Education & Training in Social Work 1984-89; Parole Board 1985-89; Criminal Injuries Compensation Board/Appeals Panel 1995-2005. Co-author of Middle Temple Lawyers and the American Revolution; author of 'The Middle Temple since 1900' in History of the Middle Temple, Richard Havery (ed).

Two Absent Members


Website: Email: Tel: 02072424761

Website: Email: We exist to support, help and comfort those members of the Bar in England and Wales and their families and VISION AND MISSION STATEMENT

Tel: 02072424761

dependents 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, VISION AND accidents andMISSION other unforeseenSTATEMENT tragedies.

We exist to support, help and comfort those members of the Our staff are experienced, kind andand practical: our and Association a last safetyand net for those struck down, their Bar in England Wales theirisfamilies dependents partners andin children, there is noor income, no capital, no family back up. who are need,where in distress 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,with accidents and other unforeseen tragedies.

Do more

Hammicks books cd-roms





law reports

+44 (0)1784 423 321


online services

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 newslettersback up.

If you can’t Defraud your Spouse, who can you Defraud? RICHARD TODD QC

Fraud unravels all or fraus omnia corrumpit as we Latin-wielding rebels like to say. The adage dates back to 357BC and the Lex Fraus Licina Sexta Modo Agrorum (See Ulpian’s Digest chapter 49, section 14, § 4). Some might say it is settled law. So what’s new in Gohil v Gohil (No 2) [2015] UKSC 61 and Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60? To recap, Gohil concerned the antics of Mr Gohil. He was a convicted money launderer with a nice side-line as a solicitor. He was under a duty to give full and frank disclosure. Rather than launder his proverbial dirty washing in public, Gohil chose to be circumspect about the extent of his finances. The Wife suspected as much. But instead of running him to ground, she put in a recital to a consent order in 2004 saying, ‘the [wife] believes that the [husband] has not provided full and frank disclosure …but [she] is compromising her claims in the terms set out in this consent order despite this, in order to achieve finality’. In 2007, the wife applied to set aside the order on the basis of Gohil’s fraud. Unsurprisingly the fraud unravelled the consent order. The Supreme Court held that one spouse cannot exonerate another from the duty to disclose to the Court. Only when it had that knowledge could it discern if the proposed order was fair and thereafter approve the order. In considering what evidence was relevant, the Court was also entitled to draw adverse inferences from silence in the face of prima facie evidence (as explained by Lord Sumption JSC at para [44] of Petrodel v Prest [2013] 2 AC 415). An unintentional non-disclosure required the complainant to show that a substantially different order would have been made (Paragraph [44]). But where intentional, the burden shifts to the non-discloser to show that the order would have been agreed and made in any event; there is a presumption that the fraud was material.

In Sharland, the Husband denied that his company was preparing for an IPO. That was dishonest and made a dramatic difference to the value of his shares. Had the Judge known the true facts it was inconceivable that he would have disregarded them. It was a plain case of fraud and the order was unravelled. The Wife and the Court had been cheated; an ancillary relief (as the Act calls it) consent order derives its authority from the court and not the contract of the parties. Deliberate fraud is presumed to have been material to the Court’s determination. Such an approach embraced the jurisprudence going back to at least Smith v Kay (1859) 7 HL Cas 750. The Supreme Court held in paragraph [33] that a Court might still find that the fraud would not have influenced a reasonable person to agree to it or the court would not have made a significantly different order but the burden of so proving lies with the perpetrator of the fraud. Such an approach must be right; fraud still unravels all. It always did (albeit we must now say it in English and no longer in Latin). Richard Todd QC was Called to the Bar in 1987 and practises out of 1 Hare Court (London) and Temple Chambers (Hong Kong). He specialises in relationship generated disputes; principally high value matrimonial finance disputes. He is co-author (with his wife) of Todds’ Relationship Agreements. He also coauthors Practical Matrimonial Precedents; At Court; and The Essential Family Practice. He has been elected as a Bencher and will be Called to the Bench in November.

If you can’t Defraud your Spouse, who can you Defraud?


Brexit and the Bar ALAN BATES

Early in the morning of Friday 24 June 2016, as their radio alarm clocks switched on, few Middle Templars will have pressed the ‘snooze’ button as they heard the first news headline. Based on the overnight counting, the presumptive result of the referendum, on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of, or leave, the European Union was a win for ‘Leave’. That was not a result that had been widely expected the night before, when voting stations had just closed. After all votes had been counted, however, there was no doubt as to how the UK had voted: 52% ’Leave’ (the option referred to in popular parlance as ‘Brexit’), and 48% ‘Remain’. For many stunned Remain voters, the result roused deep emotions: sadness, loss, alienation, even grief. The referendum aftermath has been a salutary reminder that decisions about political structures are not merely economistic choices between alternative legal constructs, but involve deeply personal perceptions of identity, shared values, and a sense of place and belonging. Those were considerations that arguably received too little attention in the referendum campaigns. For barristers, their immediate personal reactions to the referendum result will also have included a shuddering realisation of the immensity of the legal challenges to be overcome for giving effect to the result. There is no area of practice at the English Bar which has not been affected substantially (and, in the cases of some areas of law, fundamentally) by UK membership of the EU. Over the past 40 years, entire areas of practice – such as procurement law, competition law and VAT law – have been essentially created by EU law; but the permeation of EU law has been such that there is no longer any practitioner at the English Bar who is not also an EU law practitioner. In legal terms, the referendum result itself has, of course, changed nothing. The EU Referendum Act 2015 mandated the holding of a referendum but said nothing as to the result’s consequences. The UK remains a member of the EU, and there is not even a statutory duty on the Government to take steps for seeking to give effect to the referendum result. Arguably there is not even a legally enforceable legitimate expectation that the Government will take any such steps. But the political impact of the referendum is profound. Whilst some Remain supporters are seeking to use a mixture of legal and political devices to impede Brexit from happening,


the potential ramifications of not implementing the result, including for the popular consent that is the precondition to a polity enjoying both liberty and peace simultaneously, merit thoughtful consideration. The new Prime Minister, Theresa May, who backed Remain, has made clear that the Government’s position is that the result must be honoured: ‘Brexit means Brexit’. But what is still far from clear is what Brexit means. In the run-up to the referendum, there was little public discussion about the desired form of the UK’s future relationship with the EU in a Brexit scenario (notwithstanding the Bar Council’s admirable trilogy of papers for informing the public discourse, which received little media attention). Following the result, there has been much discussion of ‘the Norwegian model’, ‘the Swiss model’ and ‘the Canadian model’; however, none of them provides an obviously suitable model for the UK’s future relationship with the EU which both (a) meets the aspirations of Leave voters to ‘take back control’ including in relation to EU/EEA immigration, and (b) secures the UK’s access to the Single Market including for services. The legal process for Brexit itself Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union sets out a mechanism by which effect is to be given to an exercise of the right, which Article 50(1) states that every member State has, to ‘decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional arrangements’. The mechanism for the lawful taking of a decision to withdraw, as the precondition for triggering the mechanism in Article 50, is therefore a matter for the State’s own law. There is already litigation in the English courts directed at establishing whether an Act of Parliament is required in order for the Government to be able lawfully to trigger Article 50. That is a matter that is exclusively for the UK courts to decide. In practice, however, it is possible that the UK courts will find it necessary to first seek an authoritative preliminary ruling from the EU Court of Justice (CJEU), about how Article 50 works. That is because a collateral aspect of the claimants’ argument is that the triggering of Article 50 would itself produce legal consequences of terminating the UK’s membership of the EU and thus undermine the intent underlying the European Communities Act 1972. Since Article 50 has never been triggered before, there is

considerable uncertainty as to how it should be interpreted. The CJEU is the only body able to give an authoritative interpretation of Article 50 that would be binding on all the EU States and the EU institutions. The Article 50 mechanism is triggered by the State giving a notification to the European Council (which brings together the member States’ heads of government) that it wishes to withdraw from the EU. Negotiations then take place between the withdrawing State and the EU so as to ‘conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the [EU]’. Although that agreement will be as to the arrangements for withdrawal itself, rather than the State’s future relationship with the EU, is it clearly envisaged that the agreement will be made in circumstances where at least some consideration has been given to the form of that future relationship. The European Council can take a decision on the agreement by qualified majority voting: a single State cannot block an agreement. That does not, however, guarantee that it will be possible to reach an agreement quickly. The negotiation would inevitably be a complex exercise even with strong political will on all sides to reach a mutually beneficial amicable agreement. Article 50 (3) effectively places a time limit on the negotiations: the EU treaties ‘shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification’. Thus, if no agreement is reached within two years of the notification, the default position is that the UK would find itself outside the EU automatically. That might create a ‘messy divorce’ situation, with damaging impacts both on trade flows and on the rights of businesses and individuals (such as UK citizens already living in other EU countries). Although the two-year period could in theory be extended, this would require a unanimous decision of the Council, which might be impossible to achieve. A currently unanswered legal question therefore arises as to whether the UK could, in those circumstances, withdraw its notification, thus remaining in the EU beyond the two-year period, and perhaps give another notification at a future point in time. Article 50 is not necessarily the only way in which Brexit might be achieved. It is conceivable that the UK Government might decline ever to give a notification under Article 50, and might instead seek to negotiate amendments to the EU treaties which would provide a new EU framework under which the UK retained some particular status, albeit with substantially different rights and obligations than at present.

repealed. A parallel could be drawn with the approach used when British colonies obtained independence: their substantive laws remained much the same on the day after independence as the day before. Such an approach would go a considerable way to avoiding unforeseen lacunae in the law, but it would not be a complete solution. EU legislation is to a large extent concerned with ensuring mutual recognition and cooperation between EU States, including through the principle of ‘home State regulation’, and by means of common institutions including various subjectspecific EU coordinating bodies and mechanisms. PostBrexit, the UK may be excluded from those mechanisms. It seems inevitable that Parliament will need to confer broad enabling powers on Ministers to make secondary legislation to address these kinds of issues in the many contexts in which they will arise. A further issue will be the willingness or otherwise of EU States to continue affording mutual recognition to UK acts and decisions. A particular concern for lawyers will be the arrangements for the allocation of civil and commercial jurisdiction among States’ courts and the recognition and enforcement of judgements. Rolling our sleeves up There is presently vast uncertainty as to what the legal arrangements for the post-Brexit UK-EU relationship will be. What is certain, however, is that the English Bar will be called upon to help the Government and others explore options and find legally workable solutions. Middle Templars will address themselves to that task with skill and vigour in the coming months and years. Alan Bates was Called to the Bar in 2003. He is a barrister at Monckton Chambers in London, specialising in EU, competition and public procurement law. As well as practising before the English courts, he also appears in the EU courts, including on behalf of the UK Government and the European Commission. Alan was recently elected to the Middle Temple Hall Committee and serves on the Education Committee. Alan was recently elected to the Hall Committee and serves on the Education Committee.

Ensuring the coherence of UK law immediately post-Brexit Very many fields of private and public activity are regulated by UK legislation that is interdependent on EU legislation (some of it ‘directly effective’ so that it is part of UK law automatically, i.e. without a need for it to be transposed by UK ‘implementing’ legislation). The process of disentangling UK from EU legislation could take decades. It is easy to guess the basic legislative technique that will be used for ensuring continuity in UK law post-Brexit. The European Communities Act 1972 would be replaced by legislation that provided for all existing EU legislation to continue to have effect as part of UK law unless and until

Brexit and the Bar


Justice For All: What can Law and the Courts do in Hard Times? MASTER GERALDINE VAN BUEREN It is too often assumed that law has little to offer in alleviating poverty in the United Kingdom. This is partly the responsibility of law schools, where many lawyers and judges are taught, erroneously, that courts are institutionally incapable of adjudicating on resource allocation. The sad consequence of this has been that too little attention has been paid to our own mediaeval legal history and to the legal developments in newer democracies and at the United Nations. The Middle Temple together with Queen Mary’s Human Rights Collegium jointly organised on 16 October 2015 a conference to highlight the successful litigation being won around the world on a wide range of social rights including the right to housing and the right to health and what such rights could achieve, if implemented in the United Kingdom. The conference also highlighted the overlooked British tradition of socio-economic rights. A part of the problem in considering the incorporation of socio-economic rights into United Kingdom law is that it is frequently assumed that socio-economic rights derive only from international and regional human rights instruments and comparative law sources, principally Commonwealth and Latin American and that the enshrining of socio-economic rights is either alien or new to the United Kingdom and a departure from British legislative traditions. To rebut such claims it is necessary to consider some of the frequently overlooked provisions of the Magna Carta other than its civil and political rights provisions, its sister Carta, the Charter of the Forest, and judicial decisions which concern issues of socioeconomic entitlement, even though the decisions precede the contemporary language of socio-economic rights.


Justice for All was so popular and oversubscribed that people were prepared to be placed on a ten minute standby list, which highlights the welcome hunger within the legal profession for effective tools to combat domestic poverty and growing inequality. Attendees included Master Dyson, Master of the Rolls, Joshua Rozenberg and United Nations officials. At the time of writing the United Kingdom is awaiting the United Nations report on how it has implemented the principal treaty which binds the UK on the safeguards it ought to establish for the most vulnerable in our community, even whilst implementing an economic and political austerity programme. The United Kingdom has been legally bound by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966 since 1976 and regularly submits extensive reports on a wide range of social justice legislation. Maria Virginia Brås Gomes, a member of the United Nations Committee on the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Committee, the body overseeing the treaty’s implementation, discussed the concerns of the Committee, including the impact of university fees and the deterioration of living standards amongst the poorest. She highlighted how governments can use the Covenant as a legal tool to guide them in shaping social and economic policies. Lawyers in a growing number of jurisdictions are able to mount successful challenges to governments, pleading as causes

of action specific articles in the Covenant, either because the Covenant has been directly incorporated or because its provisions are reflected in national constitutions and Bills of Rights. Within Europe and often overlooked in the United Kingdom, is the sister treaty to the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Social Charter. The latter is a treaty of the Council of Europe, and a number of European states, including France and Portugal, allowing petitions to the European Social Charter Committee. The United Kingdom is only party to one section of the treaty and no United Kingdom government of any political persuasion has ever indicated that it wishes to see ratification of the whole treaty. Professor Colm O’Cinneide highlighted some of the jurisprudence under the European Social Charter, including a decision on the inadequacy of French schools regarding school students with autism. Although unlike the European Convention on Human Rights, whose decisions are binding, the Council of Europe’s Social Charter Committee can only recommend, but its recommendations can be submitted as persuasive authority before the relevant courts.

justice protection beginning with Airey v Ireland, in which the European Court of Human Rights recognised one of the grundnorms of international human rights law that civil and political rights are equal and indivisible in value from economic, social and cultural rights. Judgements of the European Court of Human Rights have been delivered on a wide range of matters, and whilst not offering an equal alternative to incorporated socio-economic rights, the incremental protection of socio-economic rights ought not to be undervalued. Critics of socio-economic jurisprudence sometimes confuse polycentricity with complexity. Socio-economic jurisprudence is complex, but no more complex than civil and political rights jurisprudence. The conference provided evidence that if socio-economic rights were incorporated into United Kingdom law the courts would be capable of acting as a constitutional safety net when legislation, policy, revenue incentives and other political and fiscal aspects of the welfare state have failed specific groups in the community.

The European Convention on Human Rights was drafted principally as a treaty focusing on civil and political rights, but nevertheless there have been cases where it has been successfully used to protect social justice rights. Professor Sionaidh Douglas-Scott discussed the English courts’ approaches to the attempted non-application of the European Charter on Fundamental Rights to the justiciability provisions on social rights. Although there has also been a failure of the European Union in protecting vulnerable groups from the bailout conditions, there were possible lines of argument, which could be adopted by the European Court of Justice. Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC and Richard Drabble QC both traced the historical developments of social justice protection in the United Kingdom in relation to access to courts through legal representation, the changes to the welfare state since the Beveridge Report and the significant obstacles to mounting successful challenges without considerable pro bono legal service. The European Convention on Human Rights was drafted principally as a treaty focusing on civil and political rights, but nevertheless there have been cases where it has been successfully used to protect social justice rights. Professor Sandra Fredman traced the development of social

Master Van Bueren is Professor of International Human Rights Law, Queen Mary, London; Visiting Fellow, Kellogg College, Oxford; a practising barrister and Associate Tenant at Doughty Street Chambers, Geraldine is a Commissioner on the Equality and Human Rights Commission and a drafter of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Her recent books were commissioned by the UN and the Council of Europe Law’s Duty to the Poor (UNESCO) and Child Rights in Europe (Council of Europe). She received the UNICEF and Law Society’s Child Rights Lawyer Award and co-founded INTERIGHTS. Her writings have been cited in courts and legislatures globally.

Justice For All: What can Law and the Courts do in Hard Times


Comparative Criminal Justice Systems LOUIS-VICTOR SACHS

France and the UK have always been rivals. This is usually underlined by a number of differences between our countries. We drive on the right hand side, you drive on the left. Your country is led by a long serving Queen, ours is led by an uncharismatic President. But this is also the case concerning our judicial systems and most particularly the way criminal cases are handled. Hence in England your ancestors chose the adversarial system as the best way to deal with criminals, whereas France relies upon the inquisitorial system. Of course, in the collective sub-conscience, inquisitorial is not an adjective that first appeals to the notion of justice. It refers back rather to the Inquisition in the Middle Ages when the Catholic Church sentenced heretics to somewhat unpleasant punishment. However, our system has changed substantially since these times. The main difference lies in the criminal procedure adopted prior to a case being brought before the judge. Indeed, in your system the CPS decides if a case is to be dismissed or tried. In France this power is given to the investigative judge (le juge d’instruction). Thus when a complaint is filed with the police, the gendarmerie or a state prosecutor it will be then sent to the investigative judge. The latter will take account of both prosecution and defence, he will carry out investigations, visit the scene of the crime, and can make domiciliary searches in the presence of the defendant. In the end he will decide whether the case should be tried or not. This system has been subject to a lot of criticism. This is because there have been cases where the neutrality of the judge was open to question. This was the case in the ‘Outreau Trial’. In 2004, 17 people were sentenced for taking part in a criminal network involving child sexual abuse and incest between 1997 and 2000 in Outreau, a small working-class town in the north of France. The accusations were made by family counsellors who had noticed ‘strange sexual behaviour’ among children they had been helping, who had been allegedly subject to violence from their father. They confessed to having been forced to watch pornographic material and


taking part in sexual practices in which a number of their neighbours were involved. They were aged from 8 to 12. Upon examination of the children, doctors did not find any evidence of abuse, but the youngsters were described as credible witnesses by the psychologists. Furthermore, the accusations formulated by the children were later confirmed by some of the accused. One of the defendants confessed in court and exonerated most of the other accused. She and three others were convicted and did not appeal, admitting their guilt. But amongst the remaining thirteen, seven were acquitted and six sentenced, although it had been clearly established that they were innocent. They appealed and were sentenced in 2005 to two years in prison (meaning that they could walk free, since they had already spent three years behind bars) in an effort to save the French system of justice. Indeed, what caused outrage in this case was how it was handled by Judge Burgaud (investigative judge in the case). In 2002, right after he graduated, he took over the case and was deeply shocked by the testimonies of the children. As a result he put all the seventeen defendants in the same basket and held them in pre-trial detention, whereas the evidence was clearly insufficient against most of them. It led to a public scandal in 2004 in France when the first trial took place because the presumption of innocence had not been respected and therefore thirteen people had spent unnecessary time in prison. One of them died in his cell as a result of an overdose. Our system of justice was highly criticised. Judge Burgaud was publicly examined in front of MPs. It was put to him that he had been too influenced by the media (articles based on hearsay had been in published in the press) and the opinion of the psychological experts in the case. He had also given too much credit to the evidence of Myriam Badaoui, the principal defendant, who accused and exonerated co-defendants from one day to the other. Shortly after the parliamentary hearing, a Commission was

The main difference lies in the criminal procedure adopted prior to a case being brought before the judge.

appointed in order to draft a new system for the pre-trial procedure. Unfortunately the reform never went through. Another difference between your criminal system and ours, is that a victim or their family can take part in the proceedings and therefore pick their own barrister if an injury has been sustained, both psychologically and physically. This is different from your system where the CPS will appoint a barrister of their choice to represent the prosecution. This procedure of allowing the injured party to take part in the proceedings is called action civile as opposed to action publique. The object of the former is to put the victim in the same state as he was before the offence, and therefore receive financial compensation from the defendant. Moreover, the action civile can be brought in both civil and criminal courts. Although it is pointless to bring the action before a civil court alone since it will only be dealt with when the judgement is delivered in the criminal court and besides civil procedure takes a considerable time as compared to its criminal counterpart. As a result, French legislators have been trying to diminish the role of civil courts in criminal proceedings.

However, what struck me most forcefully concerning the proceedings in the UK is the jury system. First, when the jury is appointed in France, the defence can turn down four of their number and three for the prosecution. A jury in our country will only be appointed at the cour d’assises, which deals with the most serious crimes (murder, rape, armed robbery and kidnapping). Thus in less serious cases the decision will be left to the judge alone. That is why I believe our system is less efficient than yours, because we lack the neutrality that your pre-trial procedure and your jury system provide. Therefore I sincerely hope that the matters that were discussed in the light of the ‘Outreau Trial’ will eventually lead to a reform that would allow us to adopt a more impartial approach in the criminal procedure and perhaps emulate the system which operates so fairly in your country.

Louis-Victor Sachs marshalled alongside Master Paul Worsley at the Old Bailey for four months, where he was able to observe several murder trials. He is doing a double Master’s degree at Université Paris X Nanterre-La Défense, in French Law/Common Law.

Comparative Criminal Justice Systems


Ask Not What Your Inn Can Do For You JAMES KEELEY Last year I wrote an article about my Middle Temple journey. I told you about the struggles I had faced and how I would not have had the chance of any career at the Bar but for the help, support and guidance of Middle Temple and our members. I decided it was time to pay back the assistance that I had received. I began by training to become an advocacy trainer. Middle Temple was at the vanguard of introducing advocacy training through the late and great Master Michael Sherrard. I was fortunate to attend the first course 20 years ago. Over this period there has been a tremendous amount of time, commitment and effort given by Middle Temple to helping the next generation of advocates. Christa Richmond has worked tirelessly to provide a first rate programme of advocacy training. Attending Cumberland Lodge completed my training. The last time I was there was over 20 years ago. I had the great privilege of assisting some incredibly talented students and we all had the chance to socialise after the training - it was truly a wonderful weekend. After becoming a trainer I have spent a lot of time training young Middle Templars. It has been a truly humbling experience to see how accomplished these young advocates are. I also volunteered to be part of the Middle Temple Scholarship Committee. Once again I received some incredibly useful training. Everyone who puts in an application for a scholarship at Middle Temple gets an interview. I booked three days out of my diary and was part of a committee interviewing candidates. Once again I was hugely impressed by the quality of the young men and women who I saw. Their Middle Temple journeys were fascinating and inspiring. Our Inn does incredible outreach work and I took over ten students to our Open Day this year. The students had a chance to listen to some very interesting speeches from various Middle Templars both about life at the Inn and at the Bar. They also had a chance to have lunch and have a look around Hall and the gardens. I have now begun assisting people preparing for pupillage interviews. I hold mock interviews and then give


Ask Not What Your Inn Can Do For You

feedback about how people can improve their chances of securing pupillage. Although, such is the high standard of the applicants, my advice tends to be asking them to just to keep on believing that they will succeed. Throughout all of my endeavours I have had the assistance of the incredible team of people that we have at Middle Temple. They are simply wonderful. I thank Christa, Sarah, Indira, Jess, Murray and Sally. These are just a few of the amazing people who help our Education and Training department run. Thank you all! As for the future, I intend to carry on helping out in the way that I have been doing. I also very much hope that I will obtain a place and be part of the Middle Temple team running the London Marathon in 2017. More than ever I have realised that we are one family always there for each other. For me, I am truly humbled to see the next generation of advocates. From what I have seen, despite all of the difficulties that the Bar faces, we will survive and thrive. Without doubt, the future of Middle Temple is in safe and secure hands. I decided to get involved as a way of paying back. However, I have found that I have received a lot more by helping out. Therefore, I really do say ask not what your Inn can do for you but ask what you can do for your Inn!

James Keeley was Called to the Bar in 1993. He began his career in London as a judicial assistant in two of the biggest fraud trials in history. Whilst in London he was involved in Serafinowicz, the first ever War Crimes Trial. He has recently moved back to London as a tenant at 15 New Bridge Street, after practising in Leeds for a number of years where he developed his practice in serious criminal matters.

The Death of Joint Enterprise? MASTER NICOLA PADFIELD

The decision of the Supreme Court in R v Jogee; Ruddock v The Queen [2016] UKSC 8; [2016] UKPC 7; [2016] 2 WLR 681 has re-written the law on joint enterprise. The facts of both cases were simple enough, both illustrating how difficult it can be to get good evidence in cases involving more than one defendant. Jogee had been ‘egging on’ his friend, Hirsi, at around the time Hirsi fatally stabbed the victim. The only witness who gave evidence at trial was the victim’s girlfriend. The trial judge, The Hon Mrs Justice Dobbs, directed the jury that Jogee was guilty of murder if he participated in the attack on the deceased, by encouraging Hirsi, and realised when doing so that Hirsi might use the kitchen knife to stab the deceased with intent to cause him really serious harm. This was an orthodox direction in accordance with Chan WingSiu [1985] AC 168. Ruddock was prosecuted in Jamaica on the basis that he and the principal had executed a common intention to steal a car and to kill the victim. The judge directed the jury that they could find this common intention where each defendant ‘knew that there was a real possibility the other defendant might have a particular intention and … went on to take part in [the offence]’. The Court of Appeal (led by The Rt. Hon Lord Justice Laws) had dismissed Jogee’s appeal. But the Supreme Court unanimously (a single judgement from Lords Hughes and Toulson, with which Lords Neuberger, Thomas and Lady Hale concurred) quashed his conviction for murder on the basis of a misdirection – and there is, we now know, to be a retrial. Ruddock’s appeal was also allowed. The Court went surprisingly far in condemning what has become known as ‘parasitic accessorial liability’. They held that the law had taken a wrong turn in Chan Wing-Sui back in 1984, when the Privy Council had equated foresight with intent to assist, as a matter of law. Now they are clear that it is not legitimate to treat foresight as an ‘inevitable yardstick’ (para 87) of ‘common purpose’; in doing so, the Privy Council had allowed the law to depart from the rule which had been well established over many years that the mental element required for accessory liability was an intention to assist or encourage the principal to commit the offence charged. The consequence is that the way judges have been encouraged to give directions to the jury in ‘joint enterprise’ cases in recent years has had to be set aside. The required conduct element of complicity is that the accomplice assisted or encouraged the commission of the offence by the principal. The mental element is an intention to assist or encourage the commission of that crime. Foresight that the principal might commit the offence charged is not to be equated with an intent to assist.

Foresight may be evidence, for the jury to consider, of an intent to assist and encourage. This makes the law much more straightforward for the future, without changing much of its underlying structure (though a pinch-point for the future will be what kinds of conditional intents satisfy the fault element in complicity. It may be too that the law on manslaughter needs revisiting: the Supreme Court say that a person who joins in a crime which any reasonable person would realise involves a risk of harm, and death results, is guilty at least of manslaughter: is this too broad a definition?). The law may now be more straightforward for the future, but many prisoners will be feeling justifiably unsettled or disgruntled as they wonder whether they can seek to have their ‘joint enterprise’ convictions revisited. Of course, they will have to show ‘substantial injustice’ to be granted leave. I suspect that lawyers will continue to use the term ‘joint enterprise’ when two defendants commit a crime together – acting with ‘common purpose’. But they must certainly avoid using the term when one party to the agreement goes further than had been agreed. Perhaps the time has come to stop referring to ‘joint enterprise’ at all? My thanks to Dr Matt Dyson for stimulating discussions and comments. Master Padfield is Master of Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, and a Reader in Criminal and Penal Justice at the University of Cambridge. She has a broad research lens, engaged in both ‘hard’ law and in socio-legalcriminological research. She is a leading European expert on sentencing law, including the law and practice of release from (and recall to) prison. A barrister by training, she has published widely. Her books include The Criminal Justice Process: Text and Materials; Criminal Law; Beyond the Tariff: Human rights and the release of life sentence prisoners. She has edited collections of essays, and was the editor of the influential monthly Archbold Review. She now writes the monthly Editorials in the Criminal Law Review. She sat as a Recorder from 2002-2014, was made a Bencher in 2009, serving on the Education Committee.

The Death of Joint Enterprise?


The Kiss & Tell is Dead: Long Live the Privacy Injunction! FELICITY McMAHON We’ve all seen the headlines, outrage at being ‘gagged’ from telling the great British public the name of the married celebrity who had a threesome. The case that made it to the Supreme Court quicker than a news flash has been welldiscussed in the media, but what does it mean for the law of misuse of private information? First, a word on terminology. The injunction granted in PJS is not a ‘super-injunction’. If it was, I wouldn’t be allowed to write about it. There are broadly three types of injunction preventing publication of private information: (1) a (regular) injunction where you know who the parties are, but the court prohibits the publication of certain information about them; (2) an anonymised injunction – where you know what the information is, but the court prohibits publication of who the parties are (or at least the identity of the claimant); and (3) a super-injunction – where the court prohibits the publication of the information, the names of the parties AND the fact that an injunction has been granted. Super-injunctions are very rare and are only likely to be granted for a short period of time to avoid ‘tipping off’ the defendant. The PJS injunction falls squarely into category (2). The decision has not, as some columnists have suggested, effected a major change in the law. It has not ‘created’ a law of privacy. That existed already. The headline from the Supreme Court judgement is that they did NOT change the law. The Justices held that it was not necessary to throw one’s hands up in despair when material subject to an injunction was published on the internet. There was still something the law of private information could and should protect, even in today’s digital world. However, whilst not revolutionary, the decision has certainly bolstered the positions of claimants whose lives are of interest to the tabloids. The question the Supreme Court had to decide was rather a narrow one: had publication of PJS’ identity on the internet and in other jurisdictions (including as close to home as Scotland) changed the circumstances since the time when the Court of Appeal had first imposed the interim injunction? To put it another way, was it still likely that PJS would obtain a permanent injunction at trial? The Court of Appeal thought that the circumstances had changed. It considered that the information was now well-known; that PJS’ privacy rights had now been reduced as a result; and that the court should not make orders which were ineffective. The Rt. Hon Lord Justice Jackson, giving the lead judgement of the court, said:


It is in my view inappropriate (some may use a stronger term) for the court to ban people from saying that which is common knowledge. This must be relevant to the exercise of the court's discretion. Injunctions are a discretionary remedy.

The majority in the Supreme Court disagreed. It decided that the injunction was not ineffective and that the Court of Appeal had erred in three respects. First, the Court of Appeal had wrongly interpreted section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 as giving enhanced weight to freedom of expression; rather freedom of expression (Article 10) and privacy (Article 8) are on a par and where the values are in conflict an intense focus on the comparative importance of the rights being claimed must be carried out. Second, it was wrong for the Court of Appeal to have referred to there being a ’limited public interest’ in publication. The Rt. Hon The Lord Mance explained that there is not, without more, any public interest in the legal sense in disclosing infidelity. He stated: Every case must be considered on its particular facts. But the starting point is that (i) there is not, without more, any public interest in a legal sense in the disclosure or publication of purely private sexual encounters, even though they involve adultery or more than one person at the same time...

This is the part of the judgement which would seem most worrisome to the media, but note the inclusion of the words ‘without more’ – if a publisher can show public interest reasons for publishing a particular story the position will be different. Third, the Supreme Court found that just because some people now knew the identity of PJS did not mean that there was nothing left for an injunction to protect. If the identity of PJS were published in the mainstream media here there would be a qualitative increase in the intrusion into the lives of PJS and family. The court should consider the rights of the children, and the IPSO Code (which includes provisions on public interest and children). To reach this conclusion, the Court accepted that intrusion is an important element of the tort of misuse of private information from which the court could and should protect a claimant. Here the court drew an important distinction between breach of confidence, which is more squarely

The march of the internet and new ways of receiving information from all over the world will continue to test the limits of the court’s power. about protecting secrets, and misuse of private information, which is wider, encompassing intrusion. They approved the reasoning of The Hon Mr Justice Eady and The Hon Mr Justice Tugendhat respectively in the case relating to Ryan Giggs (previously known as CTB v News Group Newspapers). As Eady J explained in CTB: It is fairly obvious that wall-to-wall excoriation in national newspapers, whether tabloid or ‘broadsheet’, is likely to be significantly more intrusive and distressing for those concerned than the availability of information on the Internet or in foreign journals to those, however many, who take the trouble to look it up. Moreover, with each exposure of personal information or allegations, whether by way of visual images or verbally, there is a new intrusion and occasion for distress or embarrassment. ….For so long as the court is in a position to prevent some of that intrusion and distress, depending upon the individual circumstances, it may be appropriate to maintain that degree of protection….

So, whilst the law has not changed, is the ‘kiss and tell’ story dead as a result of PJS? It has certainly taken a big hit. The Supreme Court has stated that, ‘without more’, information about sexual relationships is private and went so far as to suggest that:

it may be that the mere reporting of sexual encounters of someone like the claimant, however well known to the public, with a view to criticising them does not even fall within the concept of freedom of expression under article 10 at all.

This will make life harder for the tabloids. However, I’m wary of death knells: we’ve heard them both for celebrity injunctions and for ‘kiss and tell’ stories before. That a case with very little by way of any public interest arguments (so far) made it all the way to the Supreme Court suggests to me that this isn’t the last we’ve heard of either. The march of the internet and new ways of receiving information from all over the world will continue to test the limits of the court’s power. Does there come a point at which information is so well-known that an injunction is futile? For the present, the Supreme Court both upheld the law as it stood, and the rule of law in general. Felicity McMahon was Called to the Bar in 2008. She is a barrister at 5RB specialising in media law, including privacy, defamation, harassment, reporting restrictions and data protection. Her work often includes consideration of the balance between Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Kiss & Tell is Dead: Long Live the Privacy Injunction!


Why do we have an Assassination List in the Twenty-first Century? MASTER CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH There was a time – perhaps 500 years ago – when attempting to assassinate a particular enemy was accepted. For example, in 1485, at the Battle of Bosworth Field, Henry Tudor and his army made a concerted effort to target Richard III in the knowledge that, if Richard was killed, the kingdom would be won and he would become Henry VI. That said, off the battlefield itself, assassination was already for the most part disdained – outside, that is, such rogue places as the Republic of Venice, which planned or attempted about two hundred assassinations between 1415 to 1525, for purposes of its foreign policy. Much of the justification for targeting someone like King Richard evaporated when the head of state ceased to take to the field. Thus, four centuries ago in 1612, Alberico Gentili posited that assassination was generally pointless as well as being illegal and immoral, since the calculated murder of a leader would inflame the enemy and ‘a new leader would emerge, with followers all the more inflamed by their previous leaders death’. By the time Emmerich de Vattel wrote his 1758 treatise on international law, he described a developing moral code: I give, then, the name of assassination to treacherous murder ... and such an attempt, I say, is infamous and execrable, both in him who executes it and in him who commands it.... The sovereign who makes use of such execrable means should be regarded as an enemy of the human race, and all Nations are called upon, in the interests of the common safety of mankind, to join forces and unite to punish him.

After that time, occasionally, various people proposed wartime assassinations – one cabal proposed killing Napoleon in 1806, for example, but the British government arrested the would-be assassins and even reported it to the French. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the rules were very clear: the U.S. Army’s Lieber Code of 1863 provided that ‘[c] ivilized nations look with horror upon offers or rewards for the assassination of enemies as relapses into barbarism’. As with all such issues – the death penalty, torture, detention without trial – there have been periodic lapses in the evolution of the accepted rules. The U.S. adopted a formal bar on assassinations, for example, when it came to


light that the neocons of the day had made various attempts to overthrow left-leaning governments in Africa and South America - a bar that was strengthened by the famously conservative President Reagan. So how is it that we are now, in 2016, faced by politicians on both sides of the Atlantic boasting that they have instituted a ‘Kill List’ or, as it is titled in the American lexicon of euphemisms, a ‘Disposition Matrix’? Here is yet another of the short-sighted, retrograde and counterproductive measures that have typified the domestic populism of post 9/11 American and British policy. Torture did not make us safer; Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay did not make us safer; and assassinating a blacklisted Muslim won’t either. The kill lists of the Drone Age are proliferating. The Americans have boasted of an extraordinary process, where President Obama convenes ‘Terror Tuesday’ every week in the White House. He watches a powerpoint display of the bearded Muslims recommended for execution without trial and, like a Roman emperor of yore, he turns his metaphorical thumb up or down. Generally, the British have been joined at the hip to the U.S. in most of the excesses of the past 15 years, including the kill lists. To be sure, the British have tried to distance themselves from the more blatant illegalities. Thus, when the British have wanted one of their own citizens to be killed by the Americans, they have generally stripped him of his British passport first (sometimes hours before), to limit his family’s opportunity to sue. To the extent that the British have a different emphasis on who they want to assassinate, however, it has been a focus on those with the highest media profile. Mohammed Emwazi, known in the tabloid press as Jihadi John, was top of the UK kill list, ‘even though he is thought to have played no military role within IS’. He was no doubt deranged, and the futility of his assassination is rather obvious: ISIS applauded the fact that he had been ushered into martyrdom, and immediately selected another (doubtless mentally unstable) British spokesman from the large pool (at least 800) who had gone to wage their perverse jihad in Syria: ‘David Cameron’s decision to bomb ISIS targets in Syria had made Britain more of a target. And that whenever one British ISIS frontman was killed, another was ready to take his place’.

There are at least three very troubling aspects to the Kill List – in merely practical terms. One, drone assassinations have been monumentally counterproductive. In Pakistan it has predictably caused raging hostility against the West. The U.S. has tried to assassinate 41 named people deemed leaders of the extremists. According to the best numbers available, attempts to assassinate these men have resulted in the deaths of 1,147 other people, including over 150 children – and they are still missing their targets. For example, in trying to kill Ayman al Zawahiri, the CIA killed 76 children and 29 adults, al Zawahiri is infamously still alive. In another case, it took the US six attempts to kill Qari Hussain - allegedly a commander not of Al Qaeda but rather the TTP, a group opposing Pakistan. In those six strikes, 128 other people were killed, including 13 children. Understandably, perhaps, the families and communities of these civilians and their children now hate the U.S. and demand blood revenge. Does this make the world a safer place? Two, our drone war has brought extremism within our own borders. The would-be Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, was not recruited by Al Qaeda to attack his own country, but by the drone war. ‘We don’t have to do anything to attract them,’ a terrorist organiser in Lahore told The Guardian:

The Americans and the Pakistani government do our work for us. With the drone attacks targeting the innocents who live in Waziristan and the media broadcasting this news all the time, the sympathies of most of the nation are always with us. Then it’s simply a case of converting these sentiments into action.

And third, by adopting our own Kill List policy, we do what we always do – free up retrograde states to assassinate people they don’t like, whether it is in the Middle East, Africa, or even on the streets of London: ‘If America can legitimately kill its citizens in Yemen, why can’t Russia do the same in London? A few wonder if it already has, pointing to the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko’. Waiting in the wings, many other countries would like to have their own Kill Lists and we are giving them their excuse. It is always open to lawyers to quibble over arcane legal theories that we think might justify assassinating people. Or we can stand aside and allow the world to take a huge step backwards along the moral spectrum. But we do so at our peril.

Master Stafford Smith is the founder and Director of Reprieve. He is responsible for overseeing Reprieve’s Casework Programme. After graduating from Columbia Law School in New York, Clive spent nine years as a lawyer with the Southern Center for Human Rights working on death penalty cases and other civil rights issues. In 1993, he launched the Louisiana Crisis Assistance Center, a nonprofit law office specialising in representation of poor people in death penalty cases. Since 2004, he has focused on achieving due process for the prisoners being held by the US in Guantánamo Bay and in the countless secret prisons around the world that were established in the wake of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. He is an Honorary Bencher of Middle Temple.

It is always open to lawyers to quibble over arcane legal theories that we think might justify assassinating people. Or we can stand aside and allow the world to take a huge step backwards along the moral spectrum. But we do so at our peril.

Why do we have an Assassination List in the Twenty-first Century?


Case Hub MICHAEL GREEN I remember the moment well: I was sitting through a consumer law lecture on my LLM, and it was painful. Not because the course was bad (far from it), but because the rules set out by the EU were vague – certainly too difficult to be of use in everyday situations. This was strange: surely this is what consumer rules are designed to do? The vagueness is partly down to the lack of judicial interpretation from senior courts on key consumer instruments (both at EU and national level). This has stunted both State and private enforcement of the law. The senior courts rarely get to consider these problems because the legal system is too expensive – it is not sensible to invest lots of money to enforce vague rules with open ended norms of fairness, when you risk paying the other side’s costs if you lose. A cynic would say no-one is a winner, except for large companies (and their in-house counsel), who giggle away to themselves, in pantomime fashion. Consumer disputes have an impressively short half-life: with small losses, people mostly swallow it and move on. The occasional County Court judgement will surface online, but even when successful, the outcome is not binding on anyone else. Getting a small-value issue to the High Court to set precedent is not financially feasible for individuals (nor often possible, if they have won at first instance). Without this clarity we end up with some strange results. For example, up until late last year around 50% of the County Courts were ruling that private parking charges were unenforceable penalties. The other half concluded the opposite. The number of times claims issued in 2014 by one firm alone was in the tens of thousands. Despite this, the issue had not been given senior judicial treatment in centuries, until the Supreme Court finally answered the question in Parking Eye Limited v Beavis. One might respond: we have regulators and consumer groups to enforce these low-value disputes, because of the difficulties above.


In practice I am not convinced these bodies have sufficient resources, nor the appetite, to pursue expensive and highstake litigation. It went away after OFT v Abbey National, in which the former consumer regulator impressively exhausted over a year of its litigation budget on one blockbuster case. Successor bodies such as the CMA are in their early days, but so far they have preferred a consultative process, fixing problems going forward, and hardly looking backwards to provide redress for those who have lost out. Two problems arise with doing this: first, people who suffered wrongs in the past do not get their wrongs righted – they are forgotten, and become case studies presumably stored on some database to inform the regulator’s work. Second, without litigation, the law will never be clarified. Regulators can only offer their ‘understanding’ of the rules, because, as they correctly point out, only the courts can give the definitive answer. The result of this is that large companies have little downside, should they choose to operate within the law’s shadow. The chances of losing whatever they might have wrongfully gained are fantastically unlikely. I cite the payday lending market as an example of this type of market failure, which has affected millions of people, very badly. Despite the OFT finding 'widespread noncompliance with [the law]', Wonga was rumoured to be worth £14bn in 2014. Wonga’s impressive growth was down to it being backed by several prominent venture capital funds, which normally prioritise growth in markets where regulation will not slow them down (Uber is another good example of a venture-funded company that thrives within legal grey areas:

We focus on what we see as particularly ‘bad’ practices that everyday people face. lawyers are just catching up on this with many lawsuits around the globe). I suspect a lot of Wonga’s revenue (and that of its competitors) would be returned, were the Consumer Credit Act and Unfair Terms Regulations self-enforcing. But of course the law is not self-enforcing, and so the money will stay in what is (probably) legally the wrong hands. The settlements brokered by the FCA and the larger payday lenders were, in my view, insulting in quantum, and only benefitted a small proportion of the people actually harmed. The others will need to find their remedy in private redress. Only a fraction of the people affected will ever realise and then act on this. I set up CaseHub in November 2014 to try and fix these problems. We focus on what we see as particularly ‘bad’ practices that everyday people face. We use consumer law to do this – although we should avoid the word ‘consumer’, as it imports ideas of vapid consumer behaviour, such as purchasing phones or clothes. Our aim is to build group litigation online. The cases we pick are ones designed to set precedent and fix broken markets. We focus on big issues, such as ‘my bank has thrown me into a debt spiral’, or ‘the letting agents are making moving house unaffordable by charging fees they never mentioned’, or ‘the airlines are holding onto half a billion pounds of tax that does not belong to them’. My examples sound oddly specific, because they are real.

The business is eclectic and combines in-house legal R&D with a financial model that turns mass consumer claims into an asset class for litigation funders to invest in. The premise is that investors can get a return on their money while also doing social good, by enforcing consumer rules. Not that litigation funders have a mandate to care for social good. Maybe someone should set one up. What we do enables claimants who opt-in online to get most of their money back, while simultaneously setting precedent if it wins. We are trying to fix whatever the problem is going forward, by clarifying what is and what is not lawful, while getting money back for the people who have suffered the loss. Like a litigation funder, we get paid on a case settling or succeeding, through a percentage of the total payout. This is great for the affected people, who are able to join litigation, costing millions, without fronting any money nor facing adverse costs if it loses. For them there is no downside. The organic approach leads to inefficiencies and gaps in our legal framework: there is often no case law to cover a given dispute, and there are too many areas of legal uncertainty. These uncertainties will be used by companies to the detriment of ordinary people. I doubt this is likely to change, unless technology or radical legal reform enables it. If CaseHub works, and that is a big if, it is only a small patch staring at a painful and daunting ‘access to justice’ problem. I would be happy to hear your thoughts. Michael studied law at Cambridge between 2010 and 2014, completing a BA and LLM. Before this he spent 6 years developing popular computer games that were sold to companies in the US and Canada. He founded CaseHub in late 2014 to try and create a communitydriven regulator that puts together riskfree group litigation online, working with litigation firms and counsel. Michael lives in North London. He can be contacted at

Case Hub



Domus: The Family Silver MASTER PAUL WORSLEY

Silver is part of the heritage of the Inn, so much so that we always have a distinguished Bencher who is Master of the Silver. Presently it is Master Burnett. These days many of the splendid pieces find their place on the tables at Grand Night. In researching the Inn’s collection I acknowledge my debt to the pamphlet entitled A Brief History of the Silver, published by Master Williamson in 1930 and later updated by Master Stewart in 1998, himself a Master of the Silver. I learned that in 1930 the Inn possessed no silver pieces earlier than the mid-seventeenth century. How could that be, since the Hall was founded in the days of Elizabeth I? There can be no doubt that in its early days the Inn had owned silver. Indeed the Benchers’ records reveal that in the reign of Elizabeth I there was a special rule of the House. It was that any member elected a Bencher should present silver to the value of at least £10 for the furnishing of the Bench Table. Under James I the rule continued. Benchers today would do well to heed the commitment of their predecessors. In the reign of Charles I disaster fell. In 1642, the Civil War under Cromwell broke out. The flow of new recruits to the Inn fell off. Its members scattered. At Middle Temple the whole burden of financing the Inn fell on the shoulders of the Under Treasurer. Where better could it fall? More normal conditions in the country began to return in 1647. The Benchers then found themselves indebted to the Under Treasurer. It was to the then colossal sum of £1800. Five years were to elapse before the Benchers were able to discharge the debt. How would they raise the money? The Inn made the following Order on 1 June 1649. It read thus: That all the plate of the House, more than is for ordinary use, be forthwith sold by Master Treasurer. The monies thereof coming to be paid to the Under Treasurer in part satisfaction of his debt due to him from the House.


Thus the silver all went to repay the Under Treasurer. Today the Under Treasurer would, I am confident, have waived the debt. But there was another reason for the absence of any Elizabethan or earlier silver at the Inn. A new practice thereafter arose amongst the new Benchers. When they came to make their presentation of silver to the Inn upon their election it became settled practice for Benchers to pay for it, wholly or in part, by the exchange of old silver belonging to the Inn. Then having sold the old silver they would use the monies obtained towards the cost of a newly made piece. It is remarkable that after the presentation of silver by Master Hatsell in 1803 there is a long interval of more than 80 years during which no silver was given to the Inn. But the practice of a Master of the Bench making a commemorative gift of silver was revived by HRH the Prince of Wales – later Edward VII - in 1887 at the end of his year of office as Treasurer. He presented a Paul Storr silver gilt cup made in 1800. It was long used as a Loving Cup on Grand Days and at the Reader's Feast. His example was followed as recently as 1949 by her late Majesty the Queen Mother, who was Treasurer that year. She presented the Inn with a silver gilt snuff box with a diamond monogram set in blue enamel on the lid. Thereafter many Treasurers have made gifts of silver to the Inn. 1930 you may recall was the year when Master Williamson lamented in his pamphlet that the Inn had no early pieces of silver. The reason for the change in the Inn’s fortunes lay in a man called Harold Sidney Harmsworth who was born in 1868. The day that Lord Rothermere, for by now Harmsworth had been ennobled, came to lunch in the Benchers’ Rooms proved to be a red letter day for the Inn. His Who’s Who

entry shows he had been created Baronet in 1910, Baron in 1914 and Viscount in 1919. His portrait by de Laszco hangs in the old office of the Under Treasurer. He had founded, in June 1924, in memory of his father the Alfred Harmsworth Memorial Fund with its scholarships and benevolent trusts. But it is not about his generosity in that area that I speak. It was after he had been elected an Honorary Bencher on 3 May 1928 that Lord Rothermere made his series of outstanding additions to the Inn’s silver collection. He was himself a knowledgeable collector of silver. Realising that the Inn had no early silver he decided to remedy that omission. Over a period of nearly 10 years starting in 1931 he gave, in all, some 24 pieces of silver to the Inn. They were all of the highest quality. They thereby enriched immensely the Inn’s collection to become what it is today. Each of those pieces bears hallmarks which reveal that they were made between 1557 and 1658, a period chosen to fill the void created by the vicissitudes of the Cromwellian era. The two stars of the Rothermere Collection are the silver gilt ewer and basin and the silver gilt ewer and dish. The former ewer is chased with bands of dolphins and flowers and the dish with five panels of Father Time and probably the Four Seasons. The latter is chased with panels of sea monsters, roses and scrolling foliage. It used to be owned by the 3rd Viscount Palmerston. The insurance value in 2012 of his gifts was just shy of £5 million. All because he loved this Inn and all it stood for. I am particularly pleased to say that a beautifully crafted Magna Carta piece was commissioned when we celebrated 800 years since the momentous events of Runnymede where the Great Charter was signed. I trust that Domus will never have to sell The Family Silver.

I learned that in 1930 the Inn possessed no silver pieces earlier than the mid-seventeenth century. How could that be, since the Hall was founded in the days of Elizabeth I? Master Worsley was Called to the Bar in 1970 and joined Chambers on the NE Circuit in Leeds where he practised in Crime before taking Silk in 1990 and joining 1 Hare Court as a Door Tenant. He first sat as an Assistant Recorder in 1983. He was appointed a Circuit Judge at Middlesex Guildhall in 2006. In 2007 he was appointed a Senior Circuit Judge at the Old Bailey where he still sits. He has a son, Nick, and a daughter, Charlotte, who are both members of the Inn and practice in Leeds.

The Autumn Reading 2015: Domus: The Family Silver


Are Human Rights Moot? ABIGAIL BRIGHT Human – constitutional – rights are moot. At their fringes, at least, they are moot. Serious debate about human rights, without exception, is about the scope and parameters of fundamental rights. Rarely is the debate about the core or minimum content of those rights. Few people indeed dispute the essence and necessity of minimum human rights protections. Perhaps this is because human rights are lived in democracies. The European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’) is ‘an instrument designed to maintain and promote the ideals and values of a democratic society’: Kjeldsen v. Denmark, 1 E.H.R.R. 711. Hallmarks of a democratic society are ‘pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness’: Handyside v. UK, 1 E.H.R.R. 737. These underpin the ‘rule of law’: Golder v. UK, 1 E.H.R.R. 524. Decision-makers and judges should reflect the increased sensitivity of the public to the fair administration of justice: Borgers v. Belgium, 15 E.H.R.R. 92. Human rights protections are a floor, not a ceiling. Human rights are living, neither static nor brittle. Early decisions of English courts evidence this. Essentially, the parameters of freedoms that Parliament and the courts have been willing to recognise as fundamental rights rely on argument. They rely on submissions and, from those, forensic distillation and judicial pronouncement. In 1980, the Privy Council observed that an enactment giving effect to fundamental rights is ‘sui generis, calling for principles of interpretation of its own, suitable to its character’. It requires ‘a generous interpretation avoiding what has been called ‘the austerity of tabulated legalism’, suitable to give individuals the full measure of the fundamental rights and freedoms referred to’: Ministry of Home Affairs v. Fisher [1980] A.C. 319, PC. In 1995, the Privy Council vindicated this practical and pragmatic approach. Courts should look to ‘the substance and reality of what was involved and should not be over-concerned with what are no more than technicalities’: Huntley v. Att-Gen. for Jamaica [1995] 2 A.C. 1, PC.


Submissions on human rights protections never are about generalities or vagaries or abstractions. Human rights routinely rely for their force on judicial interpretation of the language used in primary and secondary legislation. If ever it were in issue, a further Privy Council observation makes this plain. ‘If the language used by the lawgiver is ignored in favour of a general resort to “values” the result is not interpretation but divination’: Matadeen v. Pointu [1999] 1 A.C. 98, PC. Underpinning (general resort to) values is a legal hook that holds weight, if the submission holds good. Strasbourg has long endorsed that the Convention ‘is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical and illusory but rights that are practical and effective’, Marckx v. Belgium, 2 E.H.R.R. 330. Effective advocates of human rights arguments have boots on the ground. They are able to write and speak persuasively on how domestic case law and legislation should be read so as to uphold, in an individual case, a fundamental right or rights. The best advocates of human rights can apply common law rights protections ably, alongside rights protections that are found elsewhere than the common law. The development at common law of human rights protections was not silenced by the Human Rights Act 1998. That Act was never intended to, nor does it, make the common law an ‘ossuary’: per Lord Toulson, Kennedy v. Charity Commission (Secretary of State for Justice intervening) [2015] A.C. 455, SC. Kennedy is a strong example of recently revived judicial assertion of existing common law protections for human rights.

Ability to deploy such arguments was plainly shown by all four finalists of the inaugural King’s College London and Doughty Street Chambers Human Rights Moot. The final round took place on Thursday 3 March 2016 in the Dickson Poon School of Law, east wing of Somerset House. The four finalists, in order of leading and junior appellants and respondents, were: Daniel Crofton-Green, Alice Munnelly, Isabella Reynoso, and Meher Jamy. Within minutes the judges had a winner: Alice Munnelly, a second year law undergraduate student. Alice took the top prize – a large engraved shield with space for her name and the names of many mooters yet. The judges thought her answers to judicial interventions were remarkably thoughtful yet concise. She was light of foot. She sparkled. The judges picked out Daniel Crofton-Green, a fourth-year law undergraduate student, as an especially able competitor. Daniel used his right of reply to powerful effect, having wisely divided his time between his submissions. He was clear. He was passionate. Alice and Daniel both surely have futures as pupils at the Bar. Demonstration of this lay with their grasp of the set moot problem and their respective presentation of their cases. What raw material did the moot finalists have to work with? The claimant, a Sikh and a serving prisoner, had been excluded from taking up work at a prison workshop. He had been excluded because he had refused the polite and repeated requests of his gaolers to take off his turban and wear a helmet. The workshop was a dangerous place. There was no other work available for prisoners. Following his protest and his complaint, the prisoner had also been subject to what he claimed were discriminatory and oppressive searches of his cell, his property and his legal correspondence. The claimant

sought to persuade that the prison had breached his rights pursuant to Articles 3, 8, 9, and 14 of the Convention. He relied on section 11 of the Employment Act 1989, the statutory exemption for Sikhs from wearing helmets and/or hard hats. Section 11 is subject to an enlarging provision, clause 18, in force as of 25 March 2014. Clause 18 amends section 11 such that section 11 now provides that Sikhs are not required to wear a helmet/hat in three circumstances: (a) on a construction site; (b) in any other workplace; (c) in any other industry. Before 24 March 2014, the only exemption was ‘on a construction site’. The result of the amended legislation is that a helmet/ hard hat is required where a Sikh ‘works or is training to work on an occupation that involves (to any extent) providing an urgent response to fire, riot or other hazardous situations’. Leading and junior counsel for the appellants submitted it was significant that Parliament had expanded the statutory exceptions available to Sikhs so as to apply to all workplace or training environments. The exempted circumstances must be construed expansively. Limitations must be read down, counsel submitted, such that the intended expansion of freedom was not eroded. ‘Other hazardous situation’ would need to be as clear and compelling a situation as are fire or riot.  Leading counsel for the respondent Prison Service rightly made an early, readily given concession. There had been a prima facie interference with fundamental rights (Articles 3, 8, 9, and 14 of the Convention). Notwithstanding that, counsel’s submission was that the interference had been pursuant to a legitimate aim and was proportionate. It was not unlawful. In this case, no instance of interference with a fundamental right, counsel submitted, was such as to warrant a finding of a violation.

Abigail Bright was invited to judge the final of the KCL/Doughty Street Chambers Human Rights Moot. She was Called to the Bar in 2010. She practises at Doughty Street Chambers in a range of chambers’ areas of expertise, including crime, judicial reviews of the issue and the execution of search reviews, inquests, and human rights actions for damages against public authorities.

Serious debate about human rights, without exception, is about the scope and parameters of fundamental rights.

Are Human Rights Moot?


Lord Dyson Master Of The Rolls VALEDICTORY ADDRESS, 26 JULY 2016 Thank you. This is a very emotional moment in my life. There has been little time for reflection as I have rushed around doing one thing and another. But I have thought how lucky I have been to live in this great country. I wonder what my father’s parents would have made of today. They came from Lithuania at the turn of the twentieth century. They were both 19 years of age. They had had little education and little money. They were hoping to go to the US, but could not afford to get any further than Leeds. And my mother came from Bulgaria in 1939 at a time when most people in this country had probably not even heard of the place. Her mother spent six months in Bergen Belsen in 1944. Something that she could hardly ever bring herself to talk about. I wonder what she would have made of today too. I keenly regret that my parents are not here today. Even at my age, I would have liked to bring them my achievements for their approval. It is on an occasion like this that I feel a deep gratitude to this tolerant country for allowing my forebears to settle here and giving me and my family the opportunity to flourish here. I fervently hope that the events of recent weeks have not put that tolerance at risk. I am fearful that it is being put under strain by the xenophobia and dangerous forces of hate that have been unleashed in some quarters. But I have great faith in the fair-mindedness of the British people and believe that their tolerance will continue to shine through. As a fallback position (and it is always good to have a fallback position) I may have an escape route. It’s a bit of a long shot. I think that, thanks to my mother, I may be entitled to apply for a Bulgarian passport. I can still think of no better place to live than in this country. I am proud to have been able to give something back to it. Maintaining the Rule of Law is as important as it has ever been. Perhaps even more so today, as the Executive arrogates to itself more and more powers. I hope that I have been able to make a modest contribution to maintaining the Rule of Law in my 23 years as a judge. I have been hugely privileged to have had a wonderful career. There is so much that I shall miss about the RCJ. I confess that I shall not miss the endless meetings. We are in the grip


of an epidemic of meetings to which there appears to be no known antidote. But I shall greatly miss the people who work here. Everyone is so friendly and helpful. I wondered what it would be like to be in charge of the Court of Appeal. I confess that I had a certain sense of foreboding when I faced the serried ranks of 38 colleagues at my first plenary meeting some four years ago. I had been warned that they were independent-minded and could be difficult. I need not have worried. I could not have wished for a more supportive and collegiate group of people. The work is hard and there has been the odd complaint. But overall, it has been a great and happy experience. I cannot possibly mention all the people whom I would like to thank, including the staff who have worked so hard to support me and make the place function and all the clerks who have looked after me. But I must mention Peter Farr, my private secretary. He is the embodiment of wisdom and good judgement. He has become a good friend in whom I confide everything, well almost everything. Inevitably, there have been times when the going has been a little rough. Peter has always been there to calm me down and keep the show on the road. He is one of the kindest persons I have ever met. Of my judicial colleagues, I must mention Martin MooreBick who has been a wonderful Vice-President of the Court of Appeal Civil Division. I have been able to delegate so much to him in the knowledge that he has an unerring feel for the right answer. He has taken a great weight off my shoulders. Michael Briggs has been my Deputy Head of Civil Justice and done great work to alleviate the pressures facing the Court of Appeal. He is a man of vision and drive who has helped me enormously in so many ways. And my thanks also go to their predecessors Maurice Kay and Stephen Richards for all their work. I must also thank David Neuberger, who is a wonderful President of the Supreme Court. He has encouraged and supported me over the past few years in more ways than I can say. And I am grateful to him for many hours of delectable gossip, which is very necessary to keep one sane. Finally, of the currently serving judges, John Thomas. We have worked together very closely for the last three years. I can say without fear of contradiction that he is a great Chief Justice. A reformer of real vision and a man of terrifying energy who

I cannot possibly mention all the people whom I would like to thank, including the staff who have worked so hard to support me and make the place function and all the clerks who have looked after me.

keeps telling me that he is slowing down and like the rest of us not getting any younger. He has given me tremendous support in all that I have tried to do since becoming Master of the Rolls. For this I shall always be grateful. I would also like to thank Igor Judge who was Lord Chief Justice during my first year as MR. It was Igor who first suggested that I should apply to be MR. I thought he must be joking. I told him that, apart from anything else, I was far too old. He brushed that objection aside with that combination of charm and firmness with which many of us are familiar and which brooks no opposition. Of course, he said, I was of exactly the right age. I am grateful to him for planting the idea in my mind. I have left the hardest bit to the end. I have made many decisions in my life, but far and away the best and most important was to ask Jackie to marry me all those years ago. I knew she was the girl for me almost immediately and we were engaged within a few weeks. My professional life has been very exciting and stimulating. But I have been happiest when in her company, just doing the simplest of things. She has been my rock of support and my life mate. I have been so fortunate. And so fortunate to have a wonderful family, all here today. One of my grandsons has said that Grandpa has an interesting job and Grandma just tags along. How cruel children can be. Anyway, it’s not true: I mean the bit about tagging along. I do not intend to retire to cultivate my garden. I plan to be quite busy. But I do hope to be able to spend more time with her. I am astonished and humbled by how many have come to say goodbye today. I thank you all so much. Master John Dyson was Master of the Rolls from 2012 to 2016. He was Called to the Bar in 1968. He was made a Bencher in 1990 and will be Treasurer in 2017. He was a Judge of the High Court from 1993 to 2001. He was the Presiding Judge for the Technology and Construction Court between 1998 and 2001. In 2001 he was appointed a Lord Justice of Appeal. Lord Dyson was appointed Justice of the Supreme Court in April 2010. He was the second Justice to be appointed to that court directly. He is married with a daughter and a son.

Lord Dyson, Master Of The Rolls: Valedictory Address, 26 July 2016


The Limits to ‘Uninhibited Public Criticism' ADAM SPEKER

In Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers, decided in 1993, the House of Lords held that local authorities could not sue for defamation. This was because it was of the highest public importance that a democratically elected governmental body should be open to ‘uninhibited public criticism’. Mr Kell of Rothbury in Northumbria would no doubt agree. Earlier this year, the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) had to consider whether Freedom of Information Act requests made by Mr Kell to Rothbury Parish Council (RPC) were vexatious. Mr Kell admitted that he had conducted a campaign over four years to try to improve the governance of RPC which included postings on Facebook. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) concluded that RPC was entitled to hold that his campaign was vexatious. It found Mr Kell’s conduct to have caused unjustifiable stress for councillors and imposed a disproportionate burden on resources. Mr Kell appealed to the FTT. In evidence the Parish Clerk estimated that dealing with Mr Kell occupied 80% of her working hours and often demanded more time than provided for by her contract. The FTT upheld the decision of the ICO. It said: An imperfect record in matters of governance by a town or parish council does not, of itself, justify a remorseless campaign of complaints and requests for information designed to reform it, however sincere and public-spirited the campaigner or campaigners may be. That such a campaign has been and is being waged in this case is not disputed by Mr. Kell. Whether the motives that inspire it are indeed entirely altruistic we greatly doubt.

It explained that the: burden was gratuitously increased by allegations of fraud and references to the police of supposedly dishonest or improper practices by clerk and members, apparently without any sound evidential basis.

The Rothbury case is not a one-off. Far from it.


In Thompson v James [2013] EWHC 515 (QB) the claimant, Jacqui Thompson, sued Carmarthenshire County Council and its chief executive, Mark James, for libel in respect of a letter posted online which accused her of being engaged in a campaign of defamation, intimidation and harassment levelled at council officials. She lost. The Hon Mr Justice Tugendhat upheld the defence of justification or truth. Mr James counter-claimed for libel in respect of postings on the claimant’s blog accusing him of corruption and Mrs Thompson sought to argue that for him to sue was an abuse of process. The Judge rejected that argument and found for Mr James. Tugendhat J acknowledged that actions brought by public officials could chill free speech but categorised Mrs Thompson’s conduct as a ‘campaign of vilification’ and provided a number of other examples; against Council officials in Lambeth; against solicitors on the notorious Solicitors from Hell website; and against businessmen. To this list he could have added: against Council officials in almost every local authority, MPs, particularly female MPs on Twitter, members of the Bar representing unpopular causes, Judges at every level, employees at laboratories experimenting on animals and workers at nuclear reactors. The internet and social media can be a force for good. However, they have, as Tugendhat J said, made it easier to launch and persist with campaigns of vilification. This means that, whilst Derbyshire is still good law on the question of whether government bodies can sue for defamation, the rationale underpinning the decision cannot be the final word in the internet age. Two recent cases decided at first instance under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA) provide some guidance on the limits to public criticism. In Merlin Entertainments v Cave, the first to fourth claimants were companies involved in running amusement parks, including Chessington World of Adventures (the Park). The fifth claimant was a director. Mr Cave had been retained to produce a report on safety at the Park and had done so. It was clear that there was a safety issue. A dispute arose over payment. Mr Cave’s company applied for an injunction to stop the Park re-opening. He lost. Then he began a campaign which involved the dissemination of emails; mail drops to local residents; and publications on the internet, including on websites set up by him, criticising Merlin’s safety record.

As with all cases where free speech conflicts with other rights it is a question of balance and proportionality.

The claimants applied for an interim injunction. The Hon Mrs Justice Laing rejected the application. She explained that the PHA, as amended, ‘has, to a limited extent, conferred protection on [companies] from pressure being exerted on them by a defendant who harasses their employees’. Where the statements, complained about as harassing, were sought to be defended as true, ‘the real question is whether the conduct complained of has extra elements of oppression, persistence and unpleasantness and therefore crosses the line referred to in the cases’. In this case there was a public interest in safety at theme parks and, on the facts, no case for an injunction. In Cheshire West & Chester Council v Pickthall, an application for an interim injunction under the PHA was brought by the Council on behalf of councillors and employees and by four councillors and employees on their own behalf and on behalf of others. The nature of the harassment relied upon was the publication of abuse and strident accusations of fraud, corruption and criminality by named employees, officers and councillors on a website set up by the defendant and in hard copy newsletters distributed in the local area. Reliance was also placed on the excessive number of emails sent by the defendant to named Council staff. As in Rothbury, the course of conduct was not in dispute. Allegations that council officers were committing fraud or criminality could, of course, be in the public interest but the defendant had been pressed for evidence and had produced none. The Hon Mr Justice Edis concluded: …he has become obsessed and perhaps even exhilarated by his ability to cause distress by repeating long dead allegations over and over again. By accusing each new recipient of corruption if they do not immediately do whatever it is he asks of them, he widens the scope of his campaign to include people who have nothing to do with it. …. Elected politicians and public officials must be subject to proper public scrutiny, but this is not unlimited. They are not helped in discharging their public functions by having to deal with vitriolic abuse addressed directly to them and published widely to the world at large. This is distressing, as the defendant knows: that is why he does it.

Edis J’s judgement was not the end of it. Summary judgement was obtained by the claimants and in July 2016 the defendant was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment when The Hon Mr Justice Soole activated a suspended sentence imposed by The Hon Mr Justice Holroyde in December 2015 for breaches of Edis J’s order. An extended civil restraint order had been imposed a week earlier by The Hon Mr Justice King. As with all cases where free speech conflicts with other rights it is a question of balance and proportionality. The courts will carefully consider whether there is any evidence of truth; whether the public interest is engaged; the nature of the speech and its mode of communication; the motive of the defendant; and the status of the parties. Where the defendant is the media or an expert or a politician, greater caution is required before restricting speech but where a single individual with a computer can overwhelm a parish or town council, public criticism cannot be uninhibited. Adam Speker was Called to the Bar in 1999. He is a member of 5RB and specialises in defamation, privacy, media law and harassment. He acted for the defendants in Thompson v James & Carmarthenshire County Council and the claimants in Cheshire West & Chester Council v Pickthall.

The Limits to ‘Uninhibited Public Criticism'


Welcome to the Education Section MURRAY BAKER Welcome to the Education Section of the Middle Templar. Two of the primary aims of the Middle Temple are to be both a training ground and a professional home to our members. We are proud of the hard work that the Education Team and the wider Middle Temple community does to achieve these goals. The team is headed by Christa Richmond. As Director of Education Services, Christa oversees the entire education function at the Inn and plays an active part in the wider strategic direction of education services. Christa also manages the Pupil Supervisor accreditation scheme, CPD programme, and arranges guest speakers for Qualifying Sessions, amongst many other things. I am the Education Services Manager for Middle Temple and I am responsible for the accurate preparation and execution of Middle Temple’s Call to the Bar ceremonies as well as being responsible for the line management of the Education Team who make the wheels turn. They include: Sarah Hankinson who is responsible for special admission categories such as Specially Qualified Applicants and Ad Eundem membership. Sarah also assists in preparing the Call ceremonies and manages the very successful Marshalling scheme which connects student members with judges, who generously allow students to spend time shadowing them. Melissa Tucker manages the student admissions process and Sponsorship Scheme, which connects student members with practising barristers. Students are encouraged to seek advice about their career and academic studies from their sponsor and this hopefully leads to a lifelong professional friendship. Indira Pillay is the Training Officer. She manages all the mandatory training courses that newly-qualified members need to complete after being Called to the Bar. Middle Temple offers a full range of courses several times throughout the year including the Pupil’s Course, the New Practitioner’s Programme and the ‘Training the Trainer’ course. Jess Masi looks after a wide range of education services and helps Indira with our training courses. Jess coordinates the annual Rosamund Smith Mooting Competition and the very popular Advocacy Training Weekend programme for students.


Welcome to the Education Section

Sally Yorke is Middle Temple’s Scholarship and Prizes Officer. She manages the entire BPTC and GDL scholarship process from enquiry to the awarding of funds. Sally also looks after the overseas scholarship opportunities for Middle Temple students looking to gain some overseas work experience and the various Essay prizes as well as the already very successful and continuously growing Access to the Bar award scheme, which is set up to encourage able students from disadvantaged or underrepresented backgrounds with the potential to be successful barristers to make a more informed choice about a career at the Bar. Christopher Bates is our newest member of staff in the Education Team and his role is to provide treasury and education support to our members, enquirers and colleagues. He assists with membership cards and security passes, ticket sales, information about upcoming events at Middle Temple, and general enquiries. Chris also manages the very popular Mock Pupillage Interview Scheme which gives student members who have a real pupillage interview coming up an opportunity to have a ‘practice run’ with a barrister. As you can see, the Education Team at Middle Temple covers a wide array of services all designed to enhance the student experience and provide an efficient and professional service to our newly-qualified members. A common denominator in most of our programmes is that we rely on the willingness of our members to kindly volunteer their time, expertise and services to bring these programmes to life. If you are looking for a way to ‘give back’ to your Inn, getting involved in Education Services is a fantastic way to do so. You could become a judge in our mooting competition, a trainer for one of our many training programmes, a sponsor or a mock pupillage interviewer. If you are sitting as a judge perhaps you could consider taking on a student for marshalling, or perhaps if you are based on circuit you could be a guest speaker at a local Qualifying Session which is taking place in your home city. If you are interested in getting involved please do get in touch. You can contact me on 020 7427 4869 or by email at I hope you enjoy reading this year’s Education section of the Middle Templar!

Middle Temple Access to the Bar Awards TRICIA HEMANS In 2011, Middle Temple launched the Access to the Bar Awards. The purpose of these awards is to encourage able students from disadvantaged and/or underrepresented backgrounds with the potential to be successful barristers to make a more informed choice about a career at the Bar. I applied for the award in that year and was among the first Middle Temple students to benefit from the scheme. At the time I was in my final year of a law degree and was due to begin the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) at the start of the next academic year. Despite having completed my secondary school education in a state school which saw only 20% of pupils achieve five or more GCSE results and having no legal professionals within my family, I was determined to pursue a career at the Bar and had taken several steps towards this during my time at university. I was a quarter-finalist in my university’s internal Mooting Competition and had been part of the winning team in the English Law Student Association’s Annual Mooting Competition. I also worked as a student advisor in intellectual property at the Queen Mary Legal Advice Centre. Despite these experiences and my strong academic record, I was far from confident that pupillage and tenancy thereafter were to become part of my future. Many of the challenges I faced on the road to tenancy were of a sociocultural rather than academic nature. The Inn as an institution and the Bar generally, with its traditions and formalities, seemed very intimidating to me at the time. I did not have access to the social networks or knowledge base that could provide me with an insight into the profession. The experience that I gained from being part of the scheme was absolutely invaluable. The Access to the Bar Awards gave me the opportunity to undertake a two week funded placement in the summer of 2011. This included a one week minipupillage at Lamb Building and a week-long stint marshalling with Master Worsley. Not having any contacts within the Bar meant that I had been unsuccessful in my previous attempts to arrange marshalling experience. It was, however, unlike any other Bar related experience I had ever had. During my week with Master Worsley I was fortunate enough to witness a trial at the Old Bailey from beginning to end. I learnt a lot during that time about what makes a good advocate from a judge’s point of view. Master Worsley talked me through his thoughts on the case as it progressed and invited me to give my opinion. I was also tasked with conducting legal research, which helped me to feel very much a part of the proceedings. During my time at Lamb Building I was able to shadow several different barristers. I observed a number of hearings

and conferences and gained a valuable insight into what the day to day life of a busy junior really is like. In addition, I was able to have very open and frank discussions about some of the challenges facing junior barristers. This would later help me to make more informed decisions about where to apply for pupillage. I was also given a great deal of practical hints and tips in relation to pupillage applications and interviews. The process of applying for the Access to the Bar Awards proved valuable experience in itself. It involved a written application following which, academic references were scrutinised. I was then interviewed by a panel of three senior members of the Inn, clerked by Christa Richmond. I recall being pleasantly surprised at how friendly and approachable the interviewers were; something which dispelled some of the preconceptions I had about senior members of the Bar. The interview itself assisted me with later preparations for my scholarship interview at Middle Temple, and also with pupillage interviews. The scheme helped to give me some much needed exposure to the profession, which in turn led to a huge rise in my confidence. The Access to the Bar Awards is a fantastic scheme and even now, almost five years later, I have no doubt that receiving the award played a pivotal role in my journey towards pupillage, which has led to tenancy at a wonderful set of chambers.

Tricia Hemans is a tenant at Falcon Chambers and specialises in commercial and property law. She was Called to the Bar in 2013 having received the Nicholas Pumfrey Memorial Award and an Access to the Bar Award from Middle Temple. Before coming to the Bar, Tricia attended Queen Mary University of London and achieved a first class honours degree in law before going on to complete the Bar Professional Training Course on a part-time basis at the College of Law (now, the University of Law).

Middle Temple Access to the Bar Awards


Rosamund Smith Moot Winners 2015 JAMES CHERRY & RICHARD CLOUGHTON

After a long journey Richard and I had arrived at the fabled University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill, the culmination of a year’s hard work from six taxing moots. I was particularly excited as this was also my first trip stateside, it being all the sweeter to have won it as well. We set out to take full advantage of what was on offer at campus. I was even able to attend and partake in a lecture on the First Amendment - the right to free speech. It was interesting to engage in the polarising opinions sweeping the lecture theatre. Early in the week we met our American competition, who we would moot against over the following week both on campus and then at the state Supreme Court. Our round on campus was held before two local judges in North Carolina and Master McGowan from our own shores. There was a noticeable difference between the American and British styles of advocacy, which was satirised by Master McGowan in this way: ‘In the UK, all arguments are made as submissions, we do not care what you think!’. To round up the week, Saturday means one thing in North Carolina: game day! Generously we were given tickets to watch the American football matchup between the UNC ‘Tar Heels’ against North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University (NC A&T) ‘Aggies’. As an added act of generosity, the Law School had even given us VIP seats in the Chancellor’s box. As we walked out into Kenan Memorial stadium, filled to its 60,000 capacity, it was easy to forget that we were here for a university game. The event was prototypical Americana; marching bands trading raucous renditions, cheerleaders thrown through the air, and the stadium erupting for every score replayed on the 90 foot big screen (which turned out to be a frequent occurrence). In the end it was an outstanding performance from the Tar Heels that won the day, running up a score of 53-14 against their cross-state counterparts.  James Cherry was Called to the Bar in 2016 and was the winner of the ‘Rosamund Smith’ Mooting Competition. He studied Law at Kingston University, and begins a Masters of Law at King’s College London this September.


The second round of mooting took place in the Supreme Court of North Carolina which was the largest and most intimidating court we appeared in. The Supreme Court Justices enjoyed contradicting all of us throughout our submissions and cracking jokes about the imaginary clients instructing us. The court scenes I had just listened to on audiobook from To Kill a Mocking Bird were just about all I could think about during my submissions given the layout of the venue and the incredible southern accents of the Supreme Court Justices. It was a wonderful experience followed by dinner with the judges who spoke at length about their power to send defendants to death row, something all of them had managed to avoid to date. James and I were wined and dined by Chapel Hill’s law school throughout our week of mooting. More specifically, this mainly consisted of incredible craft beers and more deep fried food that you thought possible. The blueberry ale was a favourite of mine. The baseball game we attended fulfilled every stereotype I held in my mind from years of watching US TV and films. We had bats and balls flying into the crowd, T-shirts being fired at us by cheerleaders, hot dogs, a marine returned from service surprising his daughter, a comedy mascot, a proposal in the audience and a steady stream of home runs. All of this combined with the fact that I was sitting in between a High Court Judge and an Ex-District Attorney made for a very interesting day. It was a delightful week we both thoroughly enjoyed and learned from. Richard Claughton was Called to the Bar in 2015. He won the Rosamund Smith Mooting Competition 2015. He currently works in the Complex Case Team for the Health and Care Professions Council representing the Council in professional discipline tribunals. He hopes to obtain pupillage with a focus in crime and health care regulation.

‘Going to UNC to participate in or judge a moot is an enormous privilege and huge fun but frankly it would be worth going for the tomatoes alone’. MASTER MAURA MCGOWAN It’s a long way to go to Chapel Hill, North Carolina for fried green tomatoes and chicken. But it is well worth the trip. There is also much fun to be had at the Law Faculty of the University but it’s difficult to beat the fried green tomatoes! Middle Temple has had very close links to the University of North Carolina (UNC) for many years, originally thanks to Master Wilmot-Smith’s time spent there on a Morehead scholarship. That close connection means that every two years two mooting teams go from MT to UNC and in alternate years two teams come from UNC to join us in London. The students and staff at UNC are incredibly welcoming and hospitable. Not only were they keen to show off their faculty and the talent of their mooters, they were anxious to make sure we saw as much of their beautiful state as we could. We were treated to an outing to a ball game with lots of hotdogs and beer and some very expert tuition. It’s not cricket but it was great fun nonetheless. We also spent a glorious afternoon at the coast at Wilmington Beach paddling or boogie boarding in the warm Atlantic Ocean. We did do some work, honest. The moots were of a surprisingly high standard, from both teams, and the transnational legal problems made them even more interesting. The final was held in the State Supreme Court in Raleigh where two of the Justices, Cheri Beasley and Sam Ervin, gave up their valuable time to judge the moot and even came out to join us for dinner. It was a real pleasure and a fantastic opportunity for our students to be able to say they have addressed Justices of the State Supreme Court. The Dean, Martin Brinkley, was absolutely charming and did all he could to make us welcome. Bev Sizemore took charge of us on a day to day basis. Master Ken Broun, a former Dean and the coach of the UNC team, is actually ‘King of Chapel Hill’, despite an apparent democracy. They are all such good friends of the Inn and we are looking forward to welcoming them to London in October this year, even if we can’t guarantee gloriously sunny weather day after day. Chapel Hill is a small city which is built around the university. It is a very attractive place and one of my only regrets is that I didn’t have longer to explore more of the towns and country side around. It is a very highly regarded university and its law faculty is one of the best in the country. I was very swotty and sat in on an evidence lecture on bad

character. It was surprisingly familiar. Not so familiar that I felt able to make any contribution, or even ask any questions but it was an interesting comparison. Chapel Hill is not a destination, even for a short trip, which is consistent with serious dieting. ‘Mama Dips’ is a long established favourite restaurant. It is named after the owner, still going in her 80’s, who is so tall that she has to dip her head, coming into or leaving a room. It is the place for wonderful fried chicken and the infamous fried green tomatoes. Going to UNC to participate in or judge a moot is an enormous privilege and huge fun but frankly it would be worth going for the tomatoes alone. Join in the mooting competition and give yourself the chance of a wonderful experience. Master McGowan was Called to the Bar in 1980 and took Silk in 2001. She was also called to the Irish and Northern Irish Bars. She was a criminal practitioner with extensive experience in all areas of crime; most notably murder, drugs, violent and sexual assault, child abuse and serious and complex frauds. She also appeared in public inquiries. She is an advanced international advocacy trainer. In 2014 she was appointed as a High Court Judge to sit in the Queen’s Bench Division and is currently a presiding judge on the South Eastern Circuit. She is Chairman of the Bench Selection Advisory Committee.

Rosamund Smith Moot Winners 2015


ICCA MASTER DEREK WOOD On 13 June 2016 the Council of the Inns of Court (COIC) launched the Inns of Court College of Advocacy (ICCA) to succeed to the functions previously carried out by the Inns’ 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, the Specialist Bar Associations and the judiciary. It will oversee the development and delivery 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, 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 the Advocate’s Gateway website (www. 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

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. by the Inns and Circuits to their own members: the qualifying sessions for Bar students, the pupils’ training courses and the New Practitioners’ Programmes. 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: Master Derek Wood, ICCA’s new chair of governors, Baroness Hollins and Master 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. International work Internationally the ICCA will continue the ATC’s extensive programme of delivering advocacy training overseas, particularly in developing countries, 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 10 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 (USA), Ghana, Poland, Sierra Leone and South Africa. In all of its overseas training, the ATC adopts 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 Indira Pillay (i.pillay@middletemple. with your details or Phoebe Makin (pmakin@ for more details.



The Council of the Inns of Court 2 King’s Bench Walk, Charity Number: 1155640 London EC4Y 7DE Company Number: 08804708 T: 020 7822 0763 Registered Office: 2 King’s Bench Walk, London EC4Y 7DE E:

Pupillage Matched Funding Scheme The Council of the Inns of Court is pleased to announce the launch of the 2017/18 and 2018/19 Pupillage Matched Funding Scheme. The scheme encourages the provision of additional pupillages in those chambers (and other approved training organisations) whose work is predominantly publicly funded. The Scheme was launched in 2013 to assist students to obtain pupillage and qualify as barristers. The first round of the Pupillage Matched Funding Scheme supported 14 pupillages in 12 sets in 2014/15. The scheme has grown, with 41 grants being awarded for pupillages in 2015 and 44 in 2016; this was the first occasion that demand exceeded supply of funds. In short, the Inns will match the first six funding already provided by chambers. If, but for this scheme, a chambers would offer one pupillage, then the chambers can apply for a matched funding grant of £6,000 to fund the first six months of a second pupillage. If a chambers would, but for this scheme, have offered two pupillages then it can apply for up to two grants of £6,000 to fund up to two additional pupillages, and so on (hence matched funding). Applications for a grant of £3,000 will also be considered from those chambers which have not recently provided a pupillage and would like to do so; chambers would provide £3,000 towards the first six months of pupillage. Subject to the permitted set-off of the pupil’s earnings, the second six months of the additional pupillage(s) would be funded by chambers.

How and When to Apply Applications will be invited from 1 September 2016. Please follow this link for more details: Online applications must be completed and submitted by 5pm on Wednesday 19 October 2016. Please note this is earlier than previous years, in order to accommodate the new Pupillage Gateway timetable. Should you have any questions, please contact Hayley Dawes, COIC secretary via:

Become a Friend of the PSU PSU volunteers give free, independent assistance to people going through civil and family courts without any support.

The Free Representation Unit has been around since 1972. Since then we have offered an unrivalled opportunity for junior lawyers, particularly Bar students, to gain advocacy experience at the start of their careers. Many distinguished silks had their first advocacy experience representing a FRU client. We work in the areas of employment, social security and criminal injuries compensation. We act both at first instance and in appeal tribunals. Many of our clients are vulnerable and on low incomes and without our assistance they would likely be litigants in person. In the year to the end of June 2016 our volunteers represented clients in more than 600 cases. To find out how you can volunteer for us or make a donation to support our work, please visit our website

“An invaluable, sometimes miraculous service”

The Rt. Hon the Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, President of the Supreme Court

By making a regular gift to the PSU you will be… 

Helping people alone in court gain access to justice

Invited to our engaging cultural and networking Friends and social events

Updated regularly about our work with our quarterly newsletter and annual report

A gift of £5 a month could cover a PSU volunteer’s expenses for two months, enabling them to help people over fifteen times.

Find out more: Contact: Court Based Personal Support. Registered Charity No. 1090781



I feel extremely lucky that I joined Middle Temple which has a raft of programmes and dedicated practitioners to help prospective barristers get their foot on the ladder in any way they can. I have been asked to write this article on my experience of the mock interview scheme, but I have had so many positive experiences with Middle Temple that I can attribute to my success. The mock interview scheme in particular allowed me to overcome so many hurdles which would have hindered my chances of success. To qualify for the scheme you must have already obtained an interview. When I applied my interview was in just two weeks’ time, but within a few hours of sending off my application I received a reply with a mock interview slot organised in the next week. On the day of the interview I finished Bar school in Birmingham and got the train to London. I was to be interviewed by Nicola Newbegin at Old Square Chambers and was both excited and nervous at the same time. Nicola had asked for a copy of my application, my CV and for information on my elected modules. When I arrived at Old Square Chambers I waited in the reception. Whilst I was waiting, Nicola gave me a piece of legislation to look at which I had never heard of before. In the interview I was given various questions on this legislation. It turned out that most of my real interview consisted of these types of question, if it wasn’t for my mock interview I don’t know how I would have realistically prepared for this on my own. Nicola then asked me a number of questions, some I thought I was prepared for, others less so. This not only helped me to hear my answers out loud and defend them under scrutiny, but also allowed me to see the difference between an outstanding answer and a mediocre answer. One of the questions she asked me was; what was my proudest achievement? I gave her two answers, the first being my completion of the BPTC, explaining that I had commuted to Bar school for five hours a day; the second was when I taught myself Mandarin and acted as a semi-translator

On the day of the interview I finished Bar school in Birmingham and got the train to London. for my friends in China. It was then that I realised that there was a difference between something I was personally proud of, because of the effort I had put in, and what someone else might think of it. Taking part in the mock interview scheme gave me an outside perspective which allowed me to present myself better in my real interview. I can say with certainty that if it wasn’t for Nicola and the team at Middle Temple I wouldn’t have been able to achieve my dream of getting pupillage. So if you think you might be able to donate a little time to this scheme please remember that even an hour could make all the difference and possibly allow someone’s hard work to come to fruition.

Hazel Hobbs was Called to the Bar in 2015 and is currently undertaking a mixed common law pupillage at Maidstone Chambers.

Mock Pupillage Interview Scheme


Middle Temple Scholarships

BPTC Scholarships Awarded 2016 Queen Mother Scholarships Ryan Dowding, Stephen Greatley, Nataliya Manskova, Sarah Platts, Misa Zgonec-Rozej, Helen Waller, Karl Anderson, Hugo Bell, Ethan Connor, Hannah Daly, Thomas Frazer, Joshua Happe, Theodore Lester, John-Paul McCarthy, Frederica Onslow, John Warriner Duke & Duchess of Cambridge Scholarships

Middle Temple has developed a reputation for being open and welcoming to all talented people, regardless of background. We were the first Inn to make the decision that all candidates for major scholarships should be interviewed. It is felt that every candidate should be given an opportunity to demonstrate their potential as an advocate. At least one of the other Inns has since followed in our footsteps. In awarding any of the scholarships, our interview panels first decide whether a candidate merits a scholarship as determined against the criteria of intellectual ability, motivation to succeed at the Bar, potential as an advocate, and personal qualities. The size of any individual scholarship awarded will then depend on a candidate’s financial circumstances. Whilst these awards are intended to alleviate the burden they will not usually be sufficient to cover all expenses for the year, however every effort is made to ensure those with the greatest need receive larger awards. This year the Inn awarded a total of more than £1.1 million in scholarships. The majority of funding is granted to students undertaking the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC). The remainder is split between scholarships for the law conversion course (GDL) and other smaller awards for post-BPTC activities. Below is a list of our major scholarship and entrance exhibition winners this year; we offer them all our congratulations.

Seauntelle Brady, Jessica Lawson Diana, Princess of Wales Scholarship Christopher Bevan Astbury Scholarships Tutku Bektas, Charlotte Goodman, Philip Hughes, Catherine Hunt, Leora Taratula-Lyons, Michael Woollcombe-Clarke Diplock Scholarships Emma Alexejewa, Nicola Barnett, Sam Clarke, Harriet Di Francesco, Sian Holmes, Lucile Taylor, Emile Yusupoff Harmsworth Scholarships Matthew Barnett, Charlotte Bennett, Aaron Clegg, Benjamin Donnell, Faye Edwards, Samuel Hartman, Betsy Hindle, Stacey-Lee Holland, Lidia Iancu, Alicia Jones, James Lewis-Bale, Cian McCann, Rebecca Morgan, Joanne Twomey, Sophie Walmsley, Emma Wilson Jules Thorn Scholarships Emily Heggadon, Melissa Jones, Byroni Kleopa, Safiyah Moulana, Jessica Purchase, Michael Puvanesan, Chelsea Ward Benefactors Scholarships John Asaad, Amalea Bourne, Megan Curzon, Donnchadh Greene, Gareth Hutton, Lauren Karmel, Jake Newell, Ibrahim Olabi, Caroline Platt, Daniele Scanio, Sey Shabani, Jaysen Sharpe


Individual named awards

GDL Scholarships Awarded 2016

Atkin Chambers Scholarship, James Preece

Queen Mother Scholarships

Blackstone Scholarship, Rebecca Steels

Helen Rodger, Samuel Rowe, Tessa Standen, Kate Strange

Brick Court Chambers Scholarship, Giles Pengelly Sir Christopher Benson Scholarship, Hannah Wilson

Diplock Scholarship

Cunningham Scholarship, Sonia Alford

Neil Shastri-Hurst

Gardiner Scholarship, Anthony Wentworth H.R. Light Scholarship, Sophie Ashley

Harmsworth Scholarships

HHJ Paul Clark Scholarship, Lydia Campbell

Victoria Hamblen, Aidan Hocking, Elizabeth Melvin,

Hubert Monroe Scholarship, James Divecha

Philip Leonard

J.B. Montagu Scholarship, Daniel Baldwin Jamieson Scholarship, Cillian Bracken

Astbury Scholarships

Jerry Parthab Singh Scholarship, Joe Mcbrien

Rachel Hunter, Oliver Jackson, Alex Leonhardt

Joseph Jackson Scholarship, Harry Campbell Leolin Price QC Scholarship, Thomas Nicholls

Jules Thorn Scholarships

Malcolm Wright Scholarship, Oliver Heaton

Matthew Cullen, Ivana Daskalova, Lara Izzard-Hobbs

Melissa McDermott Scholarship, Ciara Bartlam Mona de Piro Scholarship, Olivia Simpson Quatercentenary Scholarship, Yasmin Omotosho

Entrance Exhibitions Awarded 2016

Readers' Scholarship, Amy Rumble Robert Garraway Rice Scholarship, Nathan Davis

Blackstone Entrance Exhibitions

Rosina Hare Scholarship, Irene Amofah

Emma Alexejewa, John Asaad, Sophie Ashley,

Safford Scholarship, Sebastian Walch

Charlotte Bennett, Seauntelle Brady, Aaron Clegg,

Sir Joseph Cantley Memorial Scholarship, James White

Ivana Daskalova, James Divecha, Ryan Dowding,

Sir Robert Micklethwait Memorial Scholarship,

Stephen Greatley, Donnchadh Greene, Victoria Hamblen,

Rebecca Titus-Cobb

Betsy Hindle, Aidan Hocking, Stacey-Lee Holland,

Stanley Levy Memorial Scholarship, Pranali Tripathi

Lidia Iancu, Lara Izzard-Hobbs, Melissa Jones, Lauren Karmel,

State School Scholarship, Philip Judd

Byroni Kleopa, Jessica Lawson, James Lewis-Bale,

Terence Fitzgerald Scholarship, Adiba Bassam

Nataliya Manskova, Cian McCann, Elizabeth Melvin,

The Connor Scholarship, Catherine Campbell

Sarah Platts, James Preece, Joanne Twomey, Katy Varlow,

The Lowry-Calvert Scholarship, Aisling Campbell

Sebastian Walch, Emma Wilson, Misa Zgonec-Rozej

The Luboshez Scholarship, Rachel Chapman The Nicholas Pumfrey Memorial Scholarship,

Harmsworth Entrance Exhibitions

Katy Varlow

Harry Campbell, Catherine Hunt, Helen Waller

The Rose Scholarship, Chloe Lee The South Square Scholarship, Damien Seddon

Lord Justice Sachs Entrance Exhibition

Winston Churchill Scholarship, Michael Brett

Karl Anderson



Scholarship Interviewer’s Perspective MASTER PAT EDWARDS I have regularly been a member of scholarship interview panels for over ten years. It is very tiring, but I regard it as one of the most satisfying ways of serving the Inn Middle Temple interviews every applicant for a major scholarship for the BPTC or GDL. This has the advantage of giving all applicants the opportunity to display their advocacy potential and the interviewers are delighted when a candidate who did not look too promising on paper shines at the interview. The disadvantage, for both the interviewing panel and the candidates, is that, to enable us to interview all, the interviews must be short. This means that there is limited scope for initial pleasantries to put candidates at their ease; the interview must quickly focus on giving the candidates an opportunity to demonstrate, and the panel to judge, how they meet all four criteria (intellectual ability, motivation to succeed at the Bar, potential as an advocate and personal qualities). There is simply no time to invite candidates to ask questions of the panel. We also need to have a number of panels. Every interviewer has first to undergo training, and there is guidance, regularly reviewed in the light of feedback from interviewers and candidates, to ensure consistency of approach between panels. Care is also taken to balance the panels in terms of gender, age, area of practice and so on. Over three days a panel may see 50 or more candidates. This demands sustained concentration. After the final interview, we are helped to recall the candidates by their photographs which they are asked to provide. The award of scholarships takes time and care, reviewing the mark sheets which each interviewer has completed with scores for each of the criteria. Having decided which candidates will be awarded scholarships, and which – Queen Mother’s Scholarship; Diana, Princess of Wales Scholarship; Duke and Duchess of Cambridge Scholarships or another named award, many of them named after generous individual benefactors or sets of chambers – we decide on the amount, in accordance with the Inn’s policy of awarding scholarships on merit and quantifying them solely according to financial need. To our regret we are unable to cover fully any scholar’s need because funds are insufficient. We hope that further donations to the scholarship fund and a much desired


Scholarship Interviewer's Perspective

reduction in course fees may, in due course, enable us to help to a greater extent. We remember many candidates for their intellectual ability, their inspiring accounts of adversity overcome in their quest for a career at the Bar, or their interesting other occupations or activities. A smaller number may impress us because unfortunately their aspiration for the Bar seems misplaced and we are concerned that they will waste time and a lot of money undertaking a course for which they are unsuited; some seem to have been ill-advised by their universities. Overall, however, I am always impressed at seeing the high quality of so many applicants when doing the preparatory reading of the huge bundle of forms: it is encouraging that the Bar, despite the difficulties faced by those aspiring to practise, continues to attract candidates of such calibre. We are pleased when attending call ceremonies to see those to whom we awarded scholarships achieving the next stage of their careers. Master Edwards was Called to the Bar in 1967 and to the Bench in 2003. She was Head of the Office of Fair Trading’s legal services division from 1996 to 2004, before which she worked in a number of Government Legal Service posts, including Deputy Legal Adviser to the Home Office.

Feedback from Scholarship students Comments from the anonymous questionnaire that was sent to all candidates interviewed for a BPTC scholarship at Easter 2016: ‘Although the questions had the aim of challenging me to think on my feet and so could appear somewhat confrontational in their form, I could see the panel wanted to see me at my best rather than catch me out. This was in part conveyed by the panel balancing their challenges by affirmation, discussion and also leaving room for humour where the situation allowed it. I left the room feeling as if I had had an interesting discussion rather than a stressful interview’. ‘Clearly, when you enter a process such as this, the interview is going to be very demanding - but although the questions I was asked were testing, at no point did I feel uncomfortable or made to feel like I didn't know what I was talking about. The interviewers were obviously just trying to find out how I would react to questions which challenged the point I was making - and in this sense, the interview was very fair’. ‘I wish to thank Middle Temple for their commitment to interviewing anyone, and their flexible application form which I think is imperative to the process’. ‘One of my questions was about ethics at the Bar. While I wasn't required to know particular provisions of the Bar Code of Conduct, I was expected to think on my feet, establish my position quickly and defend it against follow up questions from the panel’.

Hannah Daly, Jules Thorn Scholar 2015 (GDL), Harmsworth Entrance Exhibitioner and Queen Mother Scholar 2016 (BPTC). ‘Thank you for having taken the time to interview me a few weeks ago for Middle Temple's BPTC Scholarships, and for most generously awarding me the Queen Mother Scholarship. I have been a student member of the Inn for almost a year now, and in the furtherance of the GDL, the BPTC, my ongoing studies and mooting, the Inn has been the most tremendous support to me. I am deeply grateful for the care you have taken to ensure that candidates for the Bar are looked after and that they can pursue their studies without fear of financial burden. I feel it is an enormous privilege to be a part of such a prestigious, honourable and historic body, and it is my sincere hope that I should be able to contribute something myself to the life of the Inn as I make my way to the Bar’.

Chris Bevan, Benefactors Scholar 2015 (GDL) and Diana, Princess of Wales Scholar 2016 (BPTC). ‘Receiving two scholarships from Middle Temple has transformed a mere hope of being Called to the Bar in to a life changing reality. As a child who had grown up in a children’s home, I would have never imagined then that I could one day be joining the Bar, but I have worked extremely hard to overcome substantial challenges. Furthermore, the support from the Inn, an organisation which I am immensely proud to be a part of, really has truly transformed my life! It just goes to show, that provided one does work hard and remains focused, that the Inn will support talented young trainee barristers, regardless of his or her background. I am forever grateful and indebted to my Inn’.

Ciara Bartlam, Melissa McDermott Scholar 2016, will be commencing the full time BPTC at Manchester Metropolitan University in September 2016. ‘I am absolutely thrilled to receive the award; not least because it relieves a portion of the financial stress of the BPTC, but because it is such an affirming feeling to know that members of the Inn are invested in you. The scholarship will help cover the fees for next year and allow me extra time to focus on my studies. More than that, it has given me the confidence to believe that I might actually have a career at the Bar, which is pretty amazing. All that is left is for me to prove that I was worth the investment’.

Rosie Scott, Queen Mother Scholar 2011 (GDL) and 2012 (BPTC), studied both the GDL and BPTC at City Law School. She is due to complete pupillage at 39 Essex Chambers in September 2016. ‘When I was awarded a Queen Mother Scholarship in 2011 for my GDL, my overwhelming reaction was delight. Real, qualified, practising barristers had interviewed me and looked at my achievements and thought that I might be able to do what they do.  Receiving the same scholarship for the BPTC gave me confidence that I was still on the right trajectory.  Of course the money was immensely helpful; it formed the bulk of my funding for both the GDL and BPTC.  Even that, however, was overshadowed by the endorsement the awards gave me as a potential barrister and the confidence I took from that.  During both of my pupillage application rounds, the scholarships were mentioned by interviewers at excellent sets who sounded impressed – as far as I could tell from my side of the table, they were seen as a useful indicator of good candidates.  I am really pleased that I applied for the scholarships:  they gave me confidence, greatly improved my financial situation and I am convinced that they helped during my search for pupillage’.

Scholarship Interviewer's Perspective


The York Residential Advocacy Weekend MASTER NEIL DAVEY Every year during the first weekend in February I host the York Advocacy weekend. It is in effect ‘Cumberland Lodge in the North’, designed to give intensive advocacy teaching to Middle Temple BPTC students, as we do three times a year at Cumberland Lodge, but this weekend (although open to all students) is intended mainly for students at BPTC providers in the North and Midlands who find it more convenient to travel to and from York over a weekend. We stay at the Royal York Hotel which is literally next to the railway station. The venue is thus very easy to reach, especially for the London practitioners and judges who set off for York after a day’s work. As at Cumberland Lodge, we assemble for a ‘meet and greet’ reception on the Friday evening before dinner. After dinner and an introduction to the weekend by Master Treasurer, the work begins with an introduction to Advocacy and to Witness Handling in which trainers give advice on Advocacy generally and on Examination-in Chief and Cross-Examination in particular. There follow practical demonstrations of how to conduct Guilty pleas for both Prosecution and Defence. During this evening session I urge the students to treat the practitioners and judges present over the weekend as a living learning resource. We are there not just to teach advocacy but to help in any way we can with the students’ professional development, and so I positively encourage them to talk to us whenever they can about life at the Bar, applying for pupillage (for example we are happy to vet students’ pupillage application forms and offer advice) and career options. Saturday is a full-on working day. It begins at 9.00am with a short lecture on Written Advocacy – an increasingly important part of the barrister’s repertoire – followed by an unfailingly helpful and amusing lecture on Case Analysis by Master Richmond. There are practical demonstrations by the trainers of Examination-in-Chief and Cross-Examination – and then it’s off to the classrooms for the advocacy teaching in small groups, working our way through invented cases as we deliver training in Pleas in Mitigation and Witness Handling.


The York Residential Advocacy Weekend

We usually have groups of six students with two advocacy trainers per group, so the work is intensive, but all the more effective for that. All the trainers are accredited by Middle Temple Advocacy and all have substantial experience of advocacy in practice and of teaching it. On Saturday afternoon I conduct an optional (but invariably well attended) session on applying for pupillage, assisted by veterans of pupillage committees and by my wife, Beverley, who has much experience of successful interview techniques. There follows more advocacy teaching in groups until we all assemble for the final session of the day in which Master Richmond and I demonstrate Closing Speeches. By now it is 6.45pm and everyone is exhausted. I assure the students that no more than 45 minutes preparation is necessary for tomorrow`s work, and that it can be done in the morning! At 8.00pm we have dinner and we all enjoy being able to talk and relax over and after dinner at the end of a long working day. Sunday morning is free for students to explore York before Closing Speeches, our final teaching session in groups at 11.45am. Master Treasurer closes the weekend at 1.30pm and with a packed lunch we all depart. The seniors give up their time because the weekend of mingling with our fellow Middle Templars in such different ways is fulfilling and enjoyable. I just hope that the students enjoy it as much as we do! Master Davey was Called to the Bar in 1978 and practised principally in Crime from the same set of Chambers in Leeds throughout his career. He took Silk in 2001 and was elected a Bencher in 2009. He became a member of Middle Temple Advocacy in 1999 and since 2011 has hosted the York residential Advocacy teaching weekend. In 2014 he was appointed a Circuit Judge at Bradford Combined Court Centre where he deals with cases both in the Crown Court and in the County Court.

Advocacy Weekend, York, February 2016 KAVITA KAUR SANDHU, EDMUND TAYLOR JACKSON AND ZANA JASHARI I would like to thank Middle Temple for giving me the opportunity to write about such a rewarding experience – the Middle Temple Advocacy weekend. What exactly is the advocacy weekend? A time where you embarrass yourself whilst everyone else seems to know what they are doing? The pressure of performing to the expert level that is expected of you in the presence of judges and Masters of the Bench? I can assure you that this is exactly what it is not. As the only member of my Law school to have attended the weekend as a last minute whim and receiving the material only two days before it was set to begin, I was sure that I had thrown myself in the deep end. My first time in York, however, could not have been a more pleasurable, useful and rewarding weekend. It was a time to learn about advocacy styles and techniques from judges and other individuals who have a wealth of knowledge – and a few comforting anecdotes which were a humble reminder that even those who might be experts in their field still make mistakes. In fact, mistakes were the catalyst that truly enhanced the learning experience. The tutors adopted the Hampel Method, which, in a nutshell is where throughout your piece of advocacy a certain part of it might may be addressed as an area that could be improved. You are given a demonstration of how it could be improved and you simply try again. What I found to be the most useful about this is that the tutors broke down any sense of distance and nervousness by demonstrating the improved performance next to you - the advocate. They placed themselves in the position of the advocate and remained extremely encouraging – this is compared to being spoken to from across the other end of the table which I tend to find sometimes creates an unhealthy pressure. What is key to remember, is that there is absolutely no pressure to perform to the same level as experienced barristers who have of course been tending to their advocacy skills over many, many years. The truth is that it is okay to have weaknesses and there is nothing at all to feel uncomfortable about if they are highlighted.

I am certain that I am not speaking for myself when I say, despite the weekend having only lasted for three days, the improvements really were noticeable - even more so for those students who had not previously attempted advocacy that the weekend had covered topics such as closing speeches. It is clear that the weekend is suited for a range of students at a range of levels. There is no doubt that the skills you learn are not only transferable to the BPTC, but for the rest of your professional career at the Bar. If you are considering it next year, don’t let nerves hold you back! It’s an opportunity not to be missed and in any event, you have more to gain than you have to lose. Kavita Kaur Sandhu studied her undergraduate degree at Nottingham Law School. She is currently a BPTC student and aspires to become a Family Law Barrister. She is hoping in particular to be involved with cases that involve domestic violence and childcare matters. She lives in Birmingham.

There is no doubt that the skills you learn are not only transferable to the BPTC, but for the rest of your professional career at the Bar.

Middle Temple Advocacy Weekend, York, February 2016


...the weekend complements everything you are learning and undertaking on the BPTC, and is exactly the type of ‘real-world’ scenario that allows you to hone your skills. After completing the BPTC, I wanted to keep my hard-earned advocacy skills up-to-date, and, as an Out Of London Student (OOLS), to stay in touch with my Middle Temple family. Where better than a Middle Temple Advocacy Weekend! Typically my train to York was delayed and after 33 minutes refreshing my memory on the materials, I disembarked, suitcarrier billowing behind as I powered ahead, whilst Archbold did its best to slow my progress. I arrived at the Royal York Hotel and entered the exquisitely furnished building, checked in, changed into my suit and rushed downstairs to attend dinner … minus cufflinks. Time to look composed on the surface but fall apart inside? An ability to master at the Bar I’m told! The dinner was a perfect way to break the ice and to socialise with students and practitioners: to get to know your extended Middle Temple family well. Saturday morning Advocacy training started at 09:00. Lectures prior to the advocacy sessions are brilliantly structured: they are inclusive and rich in advice, designed in a way that encourages participation. As students, we know that being confident is important as a barrister. When you know your craft, the confidence will come and these sessions certainly reinforce and develop your legal knowledge and aptitude for addressing a room. Following the lectures, you are divided into your teaching groups. The practically 'one-to-one' sessions give you the opportunity to hone your skills further. Whatever you have learned on the BPTC and whatever your ability on the BPTC, this setting will improve you. Conducting advocacy in front of practitioners of 20-plus years Call, QC’s in their respective practice areas, and who may presently sit as a circuit judge provides feedback from both sides of the bench: advice on presenting your case and advice on how it will be received. This type of feedback is invaluable. The focus of the weekend’s teaching is to improve students’ advocacy and preparation is key: if you do not prepare your advocacy or the dramatis personae of the characters, you will not achieve anything from the weekend. These sessions are designed to help you at the beginning of your career, so help yourself to get the best start. After the day's teaching, you are provided with a demonstration of advocacy, such as a defence and prosecution closing speech. For anybody wishing to be an advocate, being given the opportunity to watch and learn from this advocacy is unequalled, and something which Middle Temple really strives to ensure every student member has the chance to benefit from.


Dinner on Saturday is accompanied by an impromptu but customary variety performance which is brilliant! The Middle Temple weekend really brings those in attendance together and reinforces that you are all together, regardless of ‘rank’. Sunday offered the opportunity to wander around York, or to attend Eucharist at York Minster. Either option must be taken advantage of. The remainder of the morning was an opportunity to approach the Benchers and get their advice on your CV. I cannot emphasise strongly enough how vitally helpful and important this opportunity is: you are getting feedback from practitioners who have sat on their respective chamber's Pupillage Committees. That the practitioners give up more of their time outside of that which they have already given up to teach you, is astonishing. Similarly, the number of practitioners and Benchers teaching on the weekend exemplifies just how highly regarded the weekend is, and their desire to develop the next generation of Middle Temple advocates. A fast-paced yet intimate weekend of training may appear as though it is too much for your (rightly considered) precious free-time, particularly in the run up to Centralised Assessments. However, the weekend complements everything you are learning and undertaking on the BPTC, and is exactly the type of ‘real-world’ scenario that allows you to hone your skills. It allows you to see just how what you are learning should be delivered, in order for you to be the most effective advocate you can be. Edmund Taylor Jackson was Called to the Bar in 2015. He completed his undergraduate degree and the BPTC at Northumbria University. He is currently working as a Paralegal in a busy medico-legal law firm that conducts investigations into mental health homicides and deals with clinical negligence claims. He is also completing a Masters at Northumbria University part-time; self-defence in international law. He lives in Darlington.

Not only did this Advocacy Weekend count as some of my compulsory Qualifying Sessions, but it was a confidence booster to say the least. An exceptional weekend filled with education, entertainment and enjoyment. The tasks were intellectually stimulating, especially for me since I had not done some of them before at University, such as witness handling. I felt I picked up Examination in Chief quickly, yet Cross Examination, although more fun, was slightly more difficult. In the next academic year I will be entering my second year of the BPTC and I believe the witness handling skills I have learnt from the Advocacy Weekend will serve me very well. I now feel I have a head start going into my final year. We had a demonstration of each of the tasks and then had the opportunity to have a go ourselves in smaller groups. I think the size of the groups allowed us to get effective feedback from the practitioner. I was fortunate to have Master Singleton who dedicated the same amount of time to each of us and if we did not understand something, or she saw that we were struggling, would help us. It was welcoming to see other Bar students in the same boat as myself - all with different levels of experience and knowledge, along with similar struggles. I believe I learnt a little bit from everyone on this fantastic weekend. It was clear how much preparation each of us did. Master Singleton first instructed us to put into practice what we had prepared before attending the smaller group session and then she would demonstrate her excellent advocacy using our individual notes as the basis of her speech. We would then have the opportunity to repeat the task again, implementing what we had just heard; further strengthening our advocacy skills. The improvement was definitely visible and I am grateful that I took part in each of the tasks with full prior preparation and ongoing determination. We were provided with a bundle that we were advised to print out and read. The more prepared you were the more effective the workshops and the better help the practitioners could give us. If I was to give any advice to others that plan to attend an Advocacy Weekend, it is to familiarise yourself fully with the additional materials you will be sent prior to the event and prepare the best you can. I think preparation is a key skill for a successful career at the Bar, or any other job for that matter.

York is a beautiful city and the Royal Hotel is just as stunning. Being from York, I could not think of a better location to host such an incredible weekend. It was nice to share a room with another student and work on the tasks together - I think it makes it all the more worthwhile sharing ideas with students from other BPTC institutions. We still keep in touch now, so the social aspect of the weekend was great also. Not only did this Advocacy Weekend count as some of my compulsory Qualifying Sessions, but it was a confidence booster to say the least. It was also amazing to meet and speak to Masters of the Bench, along with Master Treasurer, Master Reader [Master Aikens] and some of the Inn’s staff. I was very fortunate to have my CV looked at by Master Davey, and just generally to have another opportunity to network and speak to other members of Middle Temple. Zana Jashari is studying an integrated Master's programme at Northumbria University, whilst currently working as an Events Representative at the University. She is working towards a Master's level qualification while at the same time achieving a qualifying Law degree which incorporates the BPTC. She hopes to graduate in 2017. Zana was born in Pristina, Kosovo and grew up in York.

Middle Temple Advocacy Weekend, York, February 2016


Jeremy McMullen Access to the Bar Award



Due to the generosity of the late Master Jeremy McMullen and his colleagues and friends who so generously gave to the Jeremy McMullen Access to the Bar Award Scheme, I was fortunate enough to spend a week at Goldsmith Chambers on a Mini-Pupillage and a week at Field House Marshalling. During my week at Goldsmith I shadowed Marie de Redman on an assault case, Notu Hoon who was prosecuting in a case of employee burglary and Christabel McCooey who was defending a client accused of fraud by false representation. During this week, I gained a deeper insight into the procedural requirements of criminal law from the case management hearing to admission of evidence under Sections 9 and 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. I particularly valued the time spent with Ms McCooey as a pupil in chambers, who gave me useful advice on the Pupillage application process and what factors to consider when choosing which chambers to apply to. I really enjoyed my time at Field House and Judge David Allen made a concerted effort to ensure I was able to observe in court each day and was able to see a real range of cases. On Monday I sat with Judge Melissa Canavan on a case concerning the right to private life and the best interests of a child in respect of the immigration rules. On Wednesday I observed The Hon. Mr Justice Warby and Judge Allen presiding over a case concerning the consideration of expert evidence which was a core issue in determining the appellant’s nationality for the purposes of an asylum case. On Thursday I sat with Judge Craig and saw a very technical area of law being advanced by John Walsh of Doughty Street Chambers. The case brought many of the concepts I explored in my undergraduate degree to life and it challenged my level of understanding. During this week I was able to understand the approach and techniques that good advocates take, it became clear that there are stark differences between jury advocacy and judge advocacy and this will aid me in the future when advocating in a range of practise areas. I gained an in-depth insight into immigration law. To be able to speak with judges about what the main issues in a case are, what their thoughts are following submissions and what factors they will consider in their judgement,


has increased my knowledge base and my ability to grasp complex concepts quickly. As the first person in my immediate family to go to University, this scheme has been a great motivation for me to keep going in my endeavour to be a barrister. It has given me the confidence in my abilities and skills, because I have consistently felt supported and encouraged by those I have met during the experience. Judge Allen always made time to address my queries and the other judges also took an active interest in ensuring I understood the cases to enable me to make the best use of my time there. A reception hosted by Middle Temple was also extremely helpful; being in a room surrounded by legal practitioners who are actively giving up their time to support students from diverse backgrounds is deeply humbling. I have made numerous contacts and I feel happy approaching both advocates and judges for advice in the future. This is an opportunity that I will continue to reap the rewards from in the months and years to come. I wholeheartedly encourage other students to apply because this initiative has exceeded my expectations and challenged me to work harder to get a pupillage and secure a tenancy. I wish to thank the family of the late Master McMullen for his generosity which has allowed me to gain this worthwhile experience, together with all the legal professionals involved in the scheme who are actively making the Bar more accessible for students like me.

Adeola Fadipe read Law at the University of Hull, graduating with a first class degree. She will be undertaking a Masters in Criminal Justice Policy at the LSE from September 2016 and plans to commence the BPTC in September 2017. She enjoys contemporary dance, playing football and spending time with family and friends.

Lily Walker-Parr is currently reading Law at the University of Bristol. She is from Nottingham and developed an interest in law whilst in secondary school, which has continued to grow. She is also the President of the University of Bristol Bar Society She looks forward to pursuing her aim of joining the Bar in the next academic year, supported by the knowledge she has acquired whilst taking part in this scheme.

I was fortunate enough to be placed with a Coroner in London and a barrister in Leeds for my two week placements. I am from Leeds and have always said that I plan to practice in the North, so I was particularly keen to experience the North Eastern circuit. I had, however, always been interested in the work of the Coroner and the opportunity to come down to London and experience this was too good to miss. Being allocated a room in lodgings two minutes’ walk from the Royal Courts of Justice definitely made my time in London easier! The Coroner I was placed with had a highprofile inquest taking place during my visit and this was a great opportunity to explore the work undertaken both by the Coroner and also the officers. I learnt a great deal during my time and had a lot of my questions answered. I also thoroughly enjoyed the drinks reception which was organised during my week in London. I doubt many students have had the chance to speak to a large number of barristers and judges all in one room! I particularly enjoyed speaking with Master David Bean about his work with the Law Commission. Another highlight was meeting Debbie McMullen and learning more about her husband, the late Master Jeremy McMullen, who had made my experience possible. I am looking forward to the next part of my placement, shadowing a barrister, later this summer. I am very excited about this and hope to build my knowledge of the North Eastern circuit. I am very grateful to Middle Temple and to Master McMullen for this opportunity. Not only have I been able to access placements that I would never normally have been fortunate enough to obtain, I also met and spent time with some likeminded and passionate students. Building connections was important to me and I have maintained links with some of my fellow students. I would also like to thank Middle Temple and all of the barristers and judges who ensured the success of this scheme and also, in particular, Debbie McMullen on behalf of Jeremy Master McMullen.


I am currently entering my third and final year of reading Law at the University of Bristol. This year I received a Jeremy McMullen Access to the Bar Award, which provided me with the financial support and opportunity to undertake work experience at 5RB Chambers and the Royal Courts of Justice. I live in Nottingham and so the scheme offered essential support with associated expenses such as food, accommodation and travel. I previously had very few connections to the Bar, being the first in my family to read and intend to practice Law, and the scheme served to introduce me to aspects of the Bar which I may not have had the chance to explore. I spent one week at 5RB Chambers shadowing Adam Speker and exploring Media Law topics such as defamation, libel and privacy. I spent time learning about these new topics in Chambers, before seeing them in practice in court later in the week. The following week I spent marshalling judges at the Royal Courts of Justice including The Hon Mr Justice Supperstone, The Hon Mrs Justice Laing, The Hon Mr Justice Hickinbottom and The Hon Mr Justice Leggatt (all of whom are Middle Templars, of course) and watching cases in the Queens Bench and Chancery divisions of the High Court. The true value of these experiences comes not only with the academic benefits of learning about new areas of law, but with experiencing the day to day lives of practitioners working in their respective fields. The two weeks taught me that no area of law, or Chambers, are the same, and they each have distinct characteristics which can only be truly appreciated by spending time involved in their work. I now have both a solid foundation from which I hope to build upon my knowledge of Media law, and the desire to explore other areas of law to which I previously had little exposure. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the family of Master Jeremy McMullen and Middle Temple for providing me with this experience, as it has doubtless impacted my career choices. Adam Speker and the barristers at 5RB, and Judges at the Royal Courts of Justice, have further secured my belief that there is no stereotypical barrister, and that the Bar is for anyone with the ambition and ability. I encourage any eligible applicants to apply to this scheme next year.

Lauren Howe read Law at the University of Huddersfield and graduated with a First at the top of her year. Currently studying an LPC, she is hoping to qualify initially as a solicitor but continues to explore the advocacy options available to her, including Higher Rights. She hopes to continue living and working in Yorkshire where she is from.

Jeremy McMullen Access to the Bar Award


Cumberland Lodge March 2016 Andrew Herd I attended the Cumberland Lodge weekend in the year after completing the BPTC. My hope was that it would be a great opportunity to brush up on my advocacy skills before starting pupillage. The weekend surpassed my expectations. I improved my oral advocacy immensely and had the chance to do a closing speech – something that we didn’t cover on the BPTC. I also learned other useful skills, such as the importance of creative thinking in case preparation, and to leave a column of space beside my written notes so that I could make easy amendments. I am really grateful to all of the fantastic people who gave up their weekend to impart their helpful advice. I cannot recommend the experience enough. Kat Shields The March trip to Cumberland Lodge was a much-needed escape from London in the middle of the BPTC revision period. It was also a great opportunity to meet members of the Inn and sharpen our advocacy together. The Hampel method, the way in which feedback is given on our performances, is brutal but it is also extremely effective. By observing leading practitioners and incorporating their advice into my own advocacy, I was able to improve substantially over the weekend. The impact of the trip on my oral exams and my interview performance was immediately evident. Other highlights included the hearty food after all of the advocacy exercises and bracing walks, late night pianoplaying/karaoke, and the surreal experience of bumping into the Queen outside the local chapel. All student members should definitely go to Cumberland Lodge. Charles Brabin Not having attended the Cumberland Lodge weekend whilst studying for the BPTC, I was pleased to be able to participate this year, post-call. The experience was a rewarding one. The course involved a mix of lectures and workshops with practitioners who have extensive experience not just of working in the law but of teaching, too. Working in small groups brought a huge amount of individual attention and personal feedback and there was an important social element, too; over evening drinks and (delicious) meals it was possible to talk in a relaxed setting to the 'teachers' who had given up their weekend.


The course is intense but also entertaining and enjoyable and should be extremely valuable for anyone with interviews or pupillage on the horizon.

As we lined up on the grass after the service - exhausted, but inspired after a packed weekend - there was only one response to Her Majesty's enquiry of ‘Busy weekend?’.

Helen Waller

Elicia Davis

One Friday evening in March a bus load of budding barristers weaved their way through London’s rush hour to escape the city for Cumberland Lodge, a seventeenth century house in Windsor Great Park, for a residential advocacy weekend courtesy of Middle Temple. Met with roaring fires and soft leather chairs, we students quickly dropped off our things and headed to the reception before a sumptuous dinner. An evening of talks ensued, with advice from some of the finest barristers and judges that Middle Temple has to offer on topics ranging from case analysis to pleas in mitigation. After the talks the night was young. We proceeded to drinks in the bar; silks, judges, and Benchers happily offering their pearls of wisdom over a glass of grape juice. Up early the next morning for a very welcome breakfast, we were split into groups and herded off into allocated rooms for a tight schedule of small group sessions, where we tested out our advocacy skills in front of the trainers. As daunting a prospect as it was, offering our student performances in front of the best of the best, the advice and feedback that we were given was superb and our learning curves were steep. That evening a candlelit, three-course dinner was followed by some tongue-in-cheek judicial advice from Master Leslie and a selection of - to us students - very reassuring stories about our trainers’ first cases. The weekend was rounded off with a trip to church on Sunday morning, where we shared the chapel with the Queen, Prince Philip, and Prince Andrew.

Having attended several qualifying sessions this year, Cumberland Lodge has by far been the best. The weekend provided me with a great opportunity to build on areas that had only been touched on briefly by Advocacy classes on the BPTC. Being a part time student, it gave me an insight into the Advocacy skills I shall be working on in my second year, but also to develop the weaker areas in my advocacy skills such as my confidence and voice projection. Cumberland Lodge also gave me invaluable opportunity in getting to know not only my fellow students but also other members of the profession. It was the perfect way in which to practice not only your oratory skills but your networking abilities too, in a very relaxed atmosphere. While I arrived nervous, I left feeling very positive about my choice in pursuing a career at the bar. I would highly recommend to any member of Middle Temple, student or qualified barrister alike, attending an advocacy weekend at Cumberland lodge.

Cumberland Lodge March 2016


Qualifying Sessions NATASHA KHALIQUE

My path into law and the Bar has been a non-traditional but rather an exciting journey thus far. As a young teenager, coming from a family of medics and lawyers, I was always torn between the two professions, but I decided to choose the medical sciences. After graduating with an undergraduate degree in Biology and a postgraduate degree in Cardiovascular Science, it dawned upon me that perhaps a career in medicine was not for me. After listening to the advice from my mother (the lawyer!), I decided to undertake legal work experience and absolutely loved it. Better late than never, as they say. Transitioning from a career in medical sciences to law was exciting but incredibly daunting at the same time. That said, Middle Temple was an obvious choice when it came to choosing my Inn of Court. I was struck by the history and character of Middle Temple during a tour and while wandering along Middle Temple Lane. From

course. The annual Rosamund Smith Moot Competition run by Middle Temple has provided students once again with a fantastic opportunity to develop their advocacy. Students greatly appreciate practitioners giving up their time to judge the rounds and provide useful feedback. Talks given by members of the Inn on topics such as professional ethics and civil litigation reforms by Master Rupert Jackson, have been exceptional. It is easy for students to see attending qualifying sessions as a chore but the practical application and insight gained from such events should not be underestimated! It is fascinating as to how much you learn about the profession by networking at the dining events. Equally, hearing stories from Benchers and their journey at the Bar are not only inspiring but also encouraging. From my experience, attending as many qualifying

From my experience, attending as many qualifying sessions as possible is key to getting the most out of the BPTC year. my first encounter with the education department and corresponding with Christa Richmond and her team, I was instantly made to feel welcome and the friendly nature was palpable. I knew I had made the right decision. The qualifying sessions organised by Middle Temple this year have been outstanding. I have thoroughly enjoyed the variety of events including All Inn Dining, Grand Day, Music Night to the Cumberland Lodge Advocacy weekend. Not only did the sessions provide the opportunity to meet fellow peers from across the country but also an opportunity to speak with and learn from the best practitioners in their respective fields. For me personally, the advocacy weekend has to be one of the highlights of the year. Being coached by experienced practitioners and receiving bespoke feedback was an invaluable experience which supplemented the BPTC


Qualifying Sessions

sessions as possible is key to getting the most out of the BPTC year. It goes without saying the BPTC course is challenging, but knowing you have a professional home supporting and guiding you throughout is invaluable.

Natasha Khalique read Biology and completed a Master’s degree in Cardiovascular Science. She undertook the BPTC at BPP Law School this year. She is a member of the Inn’s Education & Training Committee as a MTSA representative.

‘When one is tired of Hong Kong, they are tired of life…’ EMMA WALKER When receiving the news that I had been selected to be a Hong Kong Scholar I was waiting to enter my first dreaded LLM exam. The news could not have been better timed to provide a much needed smile. Particularly, given that the exam was International Commercial Litigation, and the scholarship was for a commercial law placement, in Hong Kong. The placement lasted three weeks, consisting of a minipupillage at Des Voeux Chambers, and marshalling with a judge of the Court of First Instance of the High Court, The Hon Mr Justice Jonathan Russell Harris, who is a Companies judge. Legal Experience Throughout my time at Des Voeux, I was able to experience a variety of different issues and matters, within the practice of commercial law. It varied from insolvency disputes, to broader commercial disputes, from both a single jurisdiction and cross-border perspective. I undertook significant work on an ex parte application for an Anton Piller Order, and assisted in the drafting of the Anton Piller Order, the Skeleton Argument and applicable Witness Statements, accompanying the Order. I researched the procedural requirements for the Order, analysing the Civil Procedure Rules of Hong Kong and the Rules of the High Court, providing an analysis into the procedural intricacies of Hong Kong’s judicial system. In addition, I drafted a Statement of Claim in two different Commercial cases; one under solely Hong Kong Company law, whilst the second a corporate group dispute between a Hong Kong parent, and a Bermuda subsidiary. I saw multiple trials, and appeal applications being made in the High Court of Hong Kong. I also attended an afternoon session at a local County Court, in order to see the contrast in the workings of the Judicial System of Hong Kong - a contrast that is not unusual to England and Wales. I gained the invaluable experience of seeing, and working, in a different jurisdiction, being able to compare and contrast to the workings of England and Wales. Whilst marshalling with Mr Justice Harris, I gained insight into Winding-Up petitions in the Companies Court. Significant time was spent on each petition, in addition to written judgements – a major contrast to the Companies Court in the Rolls Building!

Hong Kong Experience During the three weeks, I was truly fortunate to gain an experience of Hong Kong, and what its culture has to offer. I savoured every element I possibly could, from its food to its sights, and its customs. I hiked up Victoria Peak, visited as many fishing villages as possible, sailed on a fishing boat to see pink dolphins, took a cable car to Lantau Island to visit the Po Lin Monastery and Tian Tan Buddha. I fell in love with the waterfront, taking as many trips on the Star Ferry I could fit into each week, and made sure I watched the Symphony of Lights show each week I was in Hong Kong. I tried as many of the culinary delicacies I could find, and experienced the strange sensation of sipping cocktails at 118 floors. Final Thanks I am unbelievably grateful to Master John Scott, for the truly incredible experience and hospitality he provided, and to Doris Yung for answering my many ridiculous questions, and all at Des Voeux, for welcoming me as one of their own. Emma Walker is a Queen Mother Scholar, and was Called to the Bar in 2014. She is currently in her second six months of pupillage, at Old Square Tax Chambers.

'When one is tired of Hong Kong, they are tired of life'


The Queen's Scholarship Her Majesty’s 90th Birthday was a magnificent celebration of The Queen’s life, her dedication to the Commonwealth and international affairs, her deep involvement with the Navy, Army and Air Force, and her incredible contribution with a multitude of charitable organisations. While Her Majesty’s interests spread far and wide, there is often a common theme running through them; her passion in the investment of the future, especially that of future generations. In order to mark Her Majesty The Queen’s 90th Birthday this year, Middle Temple created a new scholarship in recognition of this historic landmark: ‘The Queen’s Scholarship’. This new scholarship will be awarded annually to a student showing exceptional promise and will benefit future students of the Inn, many of whom rely on the funds provided by the Inn to be able to train as a barrister. Middle Temple interviews all scholarship applicants and whilst scholarships are awarded purely on merit, the value of any award is based solely on the candidate’s financial means. The Inn has a track record of channelling funds where they are most needed and to people who will ultimately be a credit to the profession and the administration of justice regardless of their background. The statistics surrounding the Queen’s reign are quite remarkable. She has sat for 129 portraits, is patron of over 600 charities and organisations, 400 of which she has held since 1952. The Queen has personally held over 610 investitures. She has sent over 175,000 telegrams to centenarians in the UK and Commonwealth. She has answered around 3.5 million pieces of correspondence. She has given out approximately 90,000 Christmas puddings to staff, continuing the custom of George V and George VI. She has visited Australia 16 times, Canada 22 times, Jamaica 6 and New Zealand 10 times. The Queen has launched 21 ships during her reign. She has attended 35 Royal Variety performances. Perhaps one of the most remarkable of all is that on the day the Queen became the longest reigning monarch of the UK, she did so by surpassing Queen Victoria’s record of 23,226 days, 16 hours and 23 minutes. With these notable and outstanding statistics clear in mind, it is therefore so unfortunate that The Queen’s Scholarship has only managed to raise a total of £2,637 since its inception on 25 May 2016. We are sure you will agree when we say that the Scholarship deserves more. The Middle Temple Scholarship Fund Appeal invites you to support us in honouring the Queen and our dedication to keep in step with the wider societal commitment to equality and diversity by advancement based purely on merit and not on privilege.


The Queen's Scholarship

Please do get in touch to give what you can today to The Middle Temple Scholarship Fund Appeal. All funds raised will be used to support this new scholarship. Together, we can ensure that Middle Temple can go further in ensuring that those who are talented enough to succeed at the Bar are not deterred by the financial cost. To donate today please visit our Just Giving Page at middletempletrustfunds.

The Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot REBECCA DE HOEST The ‘Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot’ (‘Vis’) culminates every year in Vienna with students from over 300 law schools from across the world gathering to put their advocacy skills to the test. Following a rigorous interview process, a team of six students was selected to represent Middle Temple in written submissions, pre-moots, and the final oral hearings in prestigious venues across Vienna. The thorough programme of advocacy training was overseen by Masters Jeffrey Gruder and Stuart Ritchie along with Lord Hacking. Prior to the main competition in Vienna, the Middle Temple team took their arguments to a Practice Moot in Munich. The team faced strong arguments from a diverse range of teams including those from Turkey, Germany and India. Nonetheless, the Middle Temple team thundered into first place with an average score of 93% across eight moots. Team member Julian Ranetunge said ‘a personal highlight was mooting before Prof. Dr. Klaus Sachs, one of Germany’s most distinguished experts in international arbitration’. With little or no intervention during the carefully prepared 15-minute submissions, Prof. Sachs proceeded to pit counsel against one another with a stream of incisive questioning for a further 20 minutes. ‘It was a thrilling moot that really unpicked the problem’, noted Middle Temple mooter, Daniel Grutters. In early March, the team took their arguments to a second Practice Moot, heard in the International Chamber of Commerce, Paris. It was a strong performance, and team members were praised for their confidence, fluency, and mastery of both the problem and the law. These experiences formed the foundation for a spectacular team performance in Vienna. Facing arbitrators including Professor Ingeborg Schwenzer, and Dr Erich Schwarzenbacher, the Middle Temple team mooted a further eight times. We faced tough questioning in these preliminary rounds and we demonstrated an astute ability to reshape and refocus arguments, by working through the night, every night. Julian Ranetunge proved to be the star of the team, commended by Professor Ingeborg Schwenzer for being ‘the best mooter’ she had judged in over 20 rounds. With succinct arguments, the team passed through the preliminary rounds and into the knock-outs, ranking higher than 247 other teams worldwide.

The knockouts were held over a single day, whittling down the top 64 teams. Arguing in the final three rounds, James Gale said ‘it was both exhausting and exhilarating to face such well-presented arguments, and still persuade the tribunal to our way of thinking’. Middle Temple reached the quarter-finals before being defeated by the University of Perth in a split tribunal decision. This is the furthest the Middle Temple has ever reached in the history of the Vis moot. This year, Middle Temple scored the highest amongst all European teams. The future of the team is bright. Rebecca de Hoest has secured pupillage at 4 Pump Court, well-known for its arbitration practice; Daniel Grutters is currently the Middle Temple Law Centre Fellow at Hackney Community Law Centre and in pursuit of pupillage; Julian Ranetunge will be conducting research and has secured a work placement with Professor Ingeborg Schwenzer before pursuing an LLM at the LSE; James Gale aims to qualify as an attorney in the Caribbean before returning to the UK for pupillage; Jon-Selous Borlace will join Atkin Chambers in Autumn 2016; and Gemma Ralph is continuing her BPTC education alongside a full-time job. The team is deeply grateful for the invaluable support from the coaches. Rebecca de Hoest is an Astbury Scholar, holding a B.A. in Law from Churchill College, University of Cambridge, and an LLM from the University of Edinburgh focused on international investment and Law of the Sea. During her LLM, Rebecca worked closely with Professor Alan Boyle in international arbitration between Mauritius and the UK. Rebecca was called to the Bar in 2015, and worked with White & Case in their White Collar Crime department, before moving to the Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority. She commences pupillage at 4 Pump Court in Autumn 2017.

The Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot


The BSB Consultation Papers: Proposed Reforms in Legal Education and Training MASTER ANDREW HOCHHAUSER Proposed reforms in legal education and training. There is a Chinese curse – may you live in interesting times. And from the perspective of the reform of legal education and training, the times have been very ‘interesting’ and busy. Since March 2015 the Bar Standards Board (BSB) has issued a series of consultation papers, covering the contents of a qualifying law degree, delivery of the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC), the possible forms pupillage should take and what knowledge, skills and attributes are to be expected of a barrister on the day on which he or she obtains a first Full Practising Certificate (‘Day One’). In June 2013, the Legal Education and Training Review (LETR) was published. It had been commissioned by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), Institute of Legal Executives (ILEX) Professional Standards (now CILEX), and the BSB. The report drew a general conclusion that the existing framework meets current needs for competent practice. It was felt, however, that training of future barristers, solicitors and legal executives would need to be reviewed to accommodate significant changes in the market for legal services. The BSB decided that future education and training for the Bar would have to: •p  repare trainees for competent practice at the outset of their career; •p  romote innovation in teaching and learning; •o  ffer flexibility in the pathways to qualification for the Bar or elsewhere; •m  inimise barriers to access to the profession, and •e  nsure ongoing competence throughout a practitioner's career. · This triggered a series of consultations on Future Bar Training (FBT).


To ensure a constructive response, the Inns have submitted a joint response to each of them through the Council of the Inns of Court (COIC). Each of the Inns has a working party, whose comments are then fed into the COIC working group, which prepares the joint response. I chair this Inn’s working party. I am also the Inn’s representative on the COIC working group, which is chaired by Master Derek Wood. The COIC working group makes recommendations to the Board of COIC. The first BSB consultation related to the Professional Statement. It focused on the end of the journey of legal education and training, because the Professional Statement describes the knowledge, skills and attributes which a barrister must possess on Day One. The consultation closed in June 2015, and the Professional Statement in its final form was published in October 2015. That Professional Statement is to be supplemented and amplified by what are known as ‘Threshold Standards’, which are intended to describe in more detail what a barrister should know and be able to achieve on Day One. The consultation period for the content of Threshold Standards closed on 5 June 2016. COIC has made detailed observations and proposed amendments. We await the BSB’s response. Entitled The Future of Training for the Bar: Academic, Vocational and Professional Stages of Training, the BSB issued an enormous consultation paper, which covered all aspects of training. That consultation opened in July 2015, before the Professional Statement had been published. In its response, COIC focused particularly on the Vocational Stage of Training. In a nutshell the COIC proposals are that: 1. the existing three-fold structure of training, namely the academic, vocational and professional stages - i.e. law degree or other degree plus a law conversion course; BPTC and pupillage - should be retained; 2. the present syllabus for each of these stages should be retained;

3. to promote greater diversity and equality of opportunity among able students looking for careers at the Bar, and in the interests of all Bar students, the BPTC should be restructured, being split into two parts: Part 1 should consist of the knowledge-based part of the course, principally the rules and practice of civil litigation, criminal litigation and sentencing. It should be an inexpensive exercise. Students should be free to prepare for this Part by private study or by using any other source of tuition they see fit. The Part 1 examination should be centrally set and examined by the BSB at times and places during the year to be determined. 4. Students should not be permitted to progress to Part 2 until they have passed Part 1. The requirement to pass Part 1 will supplement the present Bar Course Aptitude Test (BCAT), acting as a more effective filter. It will be recalled that BCAT was introduced for the very purpose of restricting entry to those likely to pass the course; but regulators calibrated the pass mark at such a low level that it has failed to achieved its intended purpose. Recently the BSB have announced that there will be a very modest uplift in the BCAT pass mark from 37 to 45 out of 80. This will have little impact on the BPTC failure rates. Statistics for the years 2012-14 show that the average outright BPTC failure rate is 14%. The proposed pass mark increase would reduce that failure rate by only 16.8% (of the 14%).

5. Part 2 should consist of the skills-based part of the course, for which attendance at an approved provider would still be required. It should, however, be a shorter and far cheaper course, than that presently charged by providers for the BPTC. We await the reaction of the BSB to the response of COIC, and indeed others. There could be some radical changes ahead. Interesting times indeed.

Master Hochhauser is Chair of the Education & Training Committee and Vice Chairman of the Inns of Court College of Advocacy, with particular responsibility for the Specialist Bar Associations. He practises at Essex Court Chambers, specialising in commercial and employment litigation. He was Called to the Bar in 1977, took Silk in 1997 and became a Bencher in 2000. He is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and a Deputy High Court Judge, authorised to sit in the Chancery and Queen’s Bench Divisions.

The BSB Consultation Papers: Proposed Reforms in Legal Education and Training


Legal Internship in Pakistan SHAZEEYAH AKHTAR I was fortunate to undertake a three-month internship which involved working with two organisations: • Sarim Burney Welfare Trust (SBWT) - A non-governmental organisation that assists women and children who have been abused, escaped from forced marriages or trafficked for honour or money. Besides providing financial and legal support, they also run a shelter and provide safe homes. Sarim Burney, the Chairman, has been defending human and civil rights in Pakistan for most of his adult life. • Sindh Human Rights Commission (SHRC) - A provincial government appointed commission which has a mandate to serve the human rights needs of the people of Sindh. The Chairperson, Justice (Rtd) Majida Razvi was the first female Judge of the High Court of Pakistan, who has dedicated many years of her professional life to this cause and was even nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005. I worked six days a week and nearly every day I observed proceedings and interacted with clients at the City Court and the High Court. The buildings were crowded with the accused sitting on the floor in groups shackled, often with chains and padlocks, as some facilities do not have handcuffs. Their families come to talk and eat with them within the corridors of the courts. There are armed guards everywhere and it was unnerving how ‘accepting’ I had become of being in such close proximity of so many guns. I saw a broad range of cases which were conducted in a mixture of Urdu and English and have tried to summarise some of the key points below.


Domestic Abuse and Divorce Many of the women that come to SBWT are seeking ‘Khula’, a divorce that is instigated by the wife. A common scenario is that the husband gives the wife a verbal divorce (‘talaq’), then banishes her and often the children from the home and refuses to give her the official written divorce. The majority have experienced domestic abuse and often the police refuse to log a report because they feel these are internal family affairs. Commonly the women are uneducated, with no supplemental income and usually with parents who are so poor they cannot afford to keep their daughter as well as her children. There is no government run housing system or state benefits available for the evicted family, so the feeling of helplessness is inevitable. For myself, the most frustrating part of the divorce process were the numerous stages of service of legal notices. Firstly, as there are no postcodes, locating homes is a real problem. Then getting parties to accept papers is challenging, as sometimes there are no letterboxes or no one opens the door to receive papers and so matters can take weeks to progress. Miscarriage of Justice I met a man (X) (his identity is preserved for his current legal case as well as his safety) in the Central Jail in Karachi. He looked very young and explained that he was framed by the police and tried in the Anti-Terrorism Court as an adult when he was just 13/14 years old. His mother had come to SBWT

There is a great deal of work being done in Pakistan in order to educate the police, government officials, judiciary and citizens. from her village having discovered ten years later that her son was alive and in prison. X was a friend of another boy (Y) (the main culprit) accused of kidnapping a teenager. SBWT’s legal team requested the court file but, after significant efforts, we were only given select pages and even those contained a number of questionable points. X explained that he was tortured for his confession and as he did not have any proof of his age, he underwent a medical age determination. The illogical report declared X as an adult and Y as a child, hence Y avoided the death penalty and received a much reduced sentence. X’s sentence was changed to a life sentence upon appeal. There are a number of irregularities in this case and some powerful personalities behind the scenes but the SBWT legal team are striving to attain justice for X. Missing Person The High Court has allocated days when certain courts only deal with missing person cases. The courtroom is usually packed from the door to the bench with advocates, senior police officers and desperate families. A repeat pattern of the cases that I heard was that Rangers (a paramilitary security force) come into homes, work or street gatherings and pick up certain individuals. These officials do not leave any paperwork, contact details or reference numbers and this person does not return home for months. The family go to the police station and ask for assistance but there is often little help provided. As a final resort, the family log a petition in the High Court. Even then the procedure is laboriously long, with letters requesting information of the missing person being sent to all provinces, police headquarters, prisons and various government departments. This is followed by several hearings just to get updates regarding those replies. Slowly the wheels of justice turn and the judge issues deadlines to the officials. Unfortunately, the end result is not always satisfactory. If you are lucky then your loved one returns home, otherwise they may be located in a prison somewhere. The worst case scenario is that the police give a dubious story about how your family member was ‘apparently’ shot in an altercation.

and a boy ran away and got married. When they returned to the boy’s family home, they were not accepted, so decided to go to a different village. However, within days, the girl’s family came and took her to a third location and is alleged to have killed her. The boy’s family also came and took the boy, but his body was never found. It is an unspoken agreement between the families - neither logs a missing person police report and no one claims the body. Much of this crime happens in rural areas and the police do not proactively investigate.

Conclusion There is a great deal of work being done in Pakistan in order to educate the police, government officials, judiciary and citizens. I attended a two-day training session for senior prosecutors and policy makers, aimed at highlighting genderbased discrimination. I also appeared on a live breakfast TV show to discuss a new domestic violence (DV) law that had been enacted in the province of Punjab. There was a great deal of uproar in society that this was a very aggressive and intrusive law which undermined the traditional position of the husband. However, the statute is aimed at empowering the local government infrastructure by setting up shelters, giving powers to enforcement officers and a DV helpline. On the programme, I emphasised that regardless of the technicalities of the Act, I would want the audience to understand that physical, mental, sexual and financial abuse are all unacceptable behaviour be it by husbands, fathers, brothers, uncles or sons. Overall, it would be belittling the experience if I said that it was educational. There are many desperate, poor people who are truly helpless and getting to the doors of the court is a reality available for a select few. There is no doubt that a significant section of society is working very hard to protect people’s rights, but true change will only happen when the general public embraces these values in practical terms and not just as feelgood concepts. I am most thankful to the organisations that I worked with because the lessons I have learnt have enlightened my way of thinking and improved my skills as a barrister.

Honour Killings ‘Honour Killing’ is a misnomer, as there is no honour in these barbaric murders. Even so, they are a regular occurrence if a girl and a boy fall in love or a girl dares to say no to an arranged marriage. These simple disagreements become a point of status, pride, self-respect and shame. I researched several cases relating to these matters. In one such case, a girl

There are two ways of looking at this picture…a dark wall full of holes...or rays of sunshine find their way in.

Shazeeyah Akhtar originally gained a Computing Science degree from Imperial College, re-trained and was Called to the Bar in 2014. She is currently at a pre-pupillage stage.

Legal Internship in Pakistan


When ‘Clerking’ Rhymed with ‘Working’ DANIEL ISENBERG As an English lawyer, it is very easy to feel comfortable in most law libraries around the world; especially where there are nineteenth century reports from the Chancery Division to make one feel at home. The volumes of the All England Law Reports are not in the library of the Israeli Supreme Court merely to look pretty, however. By section 46 of the Palestine Order in Council 1922, ‘the substance of the common law and the doctrines of equity in force in England’ were to prevail where lacunae existed in the Mandate’s legal framework – a state of affairs that continued beyond the establishment of the modern State of Israel. Not only is the relatively young state’s legal infrastructure born of the common law, but to this day it draws significant influences from across the legal world, including our own jurisdiction. As part of that practice of utilising the common experiences of legal systems throughout the globe, the Court engages ‘Foreign Law Clerks’, and I was fortunate enough to spend last summer working for Justice Hanan Melcer (‘clerk’, I was told, to rhyme with ‘work’, rather than ‘bark’). The Israeli Supreme Court differs from our own in a number of ways. Firstly, it functions not only as the state’s highest appellate tribunal, but also as a court of first instance on applications for judicial review. In fact, when carrying out this role it adopts its alternative name of the ‘High Court of Justice’, known by the Hebrew acronym ‘Bagatz’. In spite of Israel – like the UK – lacking a written constitution, ‘Bagatz’ nevertheless enjoys a power to invalidate primary legislation, on the basis of incompatibility with the country’s ‘Basic Laws’: statutes that have ‘supra-legal constitutional status’. Such a power has only existed since the landmark decision of the Court in 1995 led by Aharon Barak in the Bank Mizrachi case: Israel’s Marbury v Madison.

Perhaps this more activist streak in the last two decades partly explains the feistier relationship between the branches of government in Israel than occurs across Parliament Square. My time at the Court coincided with one of the peaks of friction in the unsteady relationship between judiciary and legislature: following a decision of the Court ordering the demolition of two illegal buildings in the Jewish settlement of Beit El in the West Bank, one Member of the Knesset (the Israeli Parliament) stated that the bulldozers should instead be used on the High Court of Justice. Not quite the words one would expect from a minister or MP after the handing down of judgement in the Administrative Court. The Supreme Court building and Knesset are separated only by a rose garden, the tranquillity of which often belies the tension beneath. Yet a possible further cause of strain

I would certainly encourage student and junior members of the Inn to consider applying for what was a unique and rewarding opportunity to assist in the development of the common law around the world.


is the greater willingness of the Israeli Court to entertain questions with a political flavour, from which our judges would understandably shy. This did, however, make for a fascinating summer of research for my fellow law clerks and me. One of the most ‘political’ cases before the Court during my tenure as a clerk involved a challenge by MK Yair Lapid to the ability of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to hold multiple portfolios in government. My research spanned the common law world on issues relating to principles of constitutional and statutory interpretation in cases of gaps; how constitutional conventions operate; and whether there exists a concept of ‘constitutional desuetude’. The experience demonstrated that despite the lines of demarcation we draw between civil and criminal law, separating practice areas, and across jurisdictions, ultimately ‘law is law’. The skills of analysis, of statutory interpretation, and applying case law span the gamut of legal questions and I swiftly realised that it mattered little that I had no previous experience in either family or insolvency law, the two fields relevant to my first research task. The same applied to the exploration of issues of electoral eligibility, principles of criminal sentencing, and the principles of tax law applicable to football transfers. Having previously studied in the United States, I was in more familiar territory looking into questions of the compatibility of a state policy of selective funding of the arts with the First Amendment. Arguably the most contentious case on the docket during my summer at the Court was Desete v Minister of Interior et al, the third round of litigation regarding the compatibility of statutory provisions for the detention of ‘infiltrators’ with the right to liberty under Article 5 of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. A panel of nine (rather than the usual three) Justices heard the case, including Justice Hanan Melcer, with the ultimate decision to deem the three month detention period constitutional, but the subsequent requirement to stay at a ‘residence centre’ for 20 months to be disproportionate and hence unconstitutional. A number of the Justices drew heavily on comparative law, with much focus on EU Directive 2003/9/EC (and its recast form). It is especially rewarding as a clerk when a Justice draws heavily on your research on a particular point, and sometimes even uses passages from a research note as the basis for a segment of analysis in his or her judgement.

My summer experience at the Court would be more accurately characterised as an experience of Jerusalem. The duration of the clerkship was sufficient to feel like a ‘Yerushalmi’, rather than a tourist just passing through the city that truly emerges in the summer months. My accommodation in the artisan quarter of Nachlaot was close to the iconic building that houses the Court, and my ten minute walk home from work each day would pass through scores of families enjoying barbeques in the late summer sun of Sacher Park. I had been fortunate enough to spend time previously in Jerusalem, but my role at the Court provided the perfect opportunity to explore the city’s delights (often with my fellow foreign law clerks from the United States, Germany and Poland) in the evenings and at weekends: from lunches enjoyed in the Knesset Rose Garden; to wine tasting; political tours; outdoor films in the Old City; trips to the beach; and Tel Aviv’s ‘White Night’. I am particularly grateful to the Anglo-Israel Association, from which a Wyndham Deedes Memorial Travel Scholarship in part funded my summer in Jerusalem, and to the Court from which I am sure I took as much as I contributed. I would certainly encourage student and junior members of the Inn to consider applying for what was a unique and rewarding opportunity to assist in the development of the common law around the world. Daniel Isenberg was Called to the Bar in October 2015. Following his summer as a Foreign Law Clerk at the Supreme Court of Israel he undertook pupillage in the fields of commercial, public and European/competition law. He is currently the Judicial Assistant to Lord Sumption and Lord Carnwath at the UK Supreme Court.

When 'Clerking' Rhymed with 'Working'


Marshalling from a Judge's perspective MASTER KHATUN SAPNARA

One of my main motivations for becoming a Bencher was the opportunity to be involved in the equality, diversity and social mobility programme of the Inn. There is recognition that even experienced barristers and parttime judges require mentoring to ensure that talented individuals from groups which are under-represented in the judiciary, receive targeted encouragement and support to apply for a post. This approach is still more essential at the earliest stage of education. Research studies have highlighted that any effective programme of work needs to be systemic, multi–pronged and pro-active: hence the Inn’s commitment to outreach work in schools and colleges, and to the marshalling scheme. This helps to level the playing field so that individuals are not able to access a judge on a marshalling placement simply because they, their family or friends know a judge socially. In light of the cuts to student funding; rises in the cost of education and training; and cuts to the public funding of areas of practice which have historically attracted a higher proportion of women and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) practitioners, there is a real threat to the diversity of entrants to the Bar and, ultimately, the composition of the judiciary. I have mentored a large number of law students over the years, mainly (but not exclusively) women and/or from a BAME and/or a working class background. What is striking is that even where students are obviously academically gifted, and perhaps have attended Russell Group universities or Oxbridge, they frequently lack the confidence and essential ’soft skills’ which are not necessarily innate to one’s character but which can, critically, be learned. I have five broad aims guiding me in my approach to marshals: Access. I offer marshalling experience to individuals I meet who are likely to benefit from it (I met Miriam Yafai at Call Night). Some may not even be aware of the possibility, much less know how to access it. For all the existing diversity initiatives, my experience is that there are few things more powerful than seeing someone in your own image simply doing the job. Advice. Provide constructive, pragmatic advice tailored to an individual’s needs without crushing aspiration. Basically, treat the student as I would my own children without being patronising.


Transparency. Demystify the Bar, the judiciary and the workings of the justice system so individuals can envisage themselves working within it, allowing them to attain a sense of where they would like to position themselves. For example, by sharing knowledge of how chambers work and the reputation of different sets, marshals can see how they might set about establishing a practice and increasing their networking skills. Enhance skills. Help them to identify their strengths and how best to focus their skills and talents. This might involve assisting them to overhaul their CV or provide advice on interview technique. Encourage. Develop and enhance self confidence. It was a pleasure to host Miriam. As a recipient of the Inn’s Benefactors’ Scholarship and the Princess Diana Scholarship, her story was obviously not a conventional one. She grasped the nature of the legal and factual issues and brought an interesting and thoughtful perspective to our discussions about cases. I hope she enjoyed the experience and derived some benefit from it. Her determination and commitment to becoming a barrister was certainly an inspiration to me and I wish her every success for the future. Master Sapnara was Called to the Bar in 1990 and was appointed as a Circuit Judge in March 2014. She was appointed as a Recorder in 2006. She read law at the London School of Economics. She was recognised as a leading barrister and practised for 24 years, specialising in family public law cases. She is an acknowledged expert in forced marriage, ‘honour’ based violence and domestic violence. She has served on the Family Law Bar Association Committee and also the Equality and Diversity Committee of the Bar Council. She has taught at the Judicial College and currently serves as both Diversity Community Relations Judge and a Judicial Role Model. She is married to Simon and has 2 sons.

Marshalling from a young aspiring barrister's perspective MIRIAM YAFAI Shortly after my Call night in March 2016, I was fortunate enough to secure a marshalling experience with Master Khatun Sapnara, for three days at the East London Family Court. Having arrived at the Family Court, I was greeted by the Court clerk and shown to Master Sapnara’s chambers, who was awaiting my arrival. Master Sapnara was very welcoming and warm. She informed me about the number of cases that were due to appear before her for the next three days, and their nature, printed the most relevant precedents and provided me with briefs to read whilst she dealt with the mornings court matters. During this time we both sat in silence reading through the papers. The clerk would inform the Judge when the parties had arrived and if there were any further instructions for the case. On occasion counsel would require additional time to take further instructions from their clients and to be able to speak to the other parties involved. Once all the parties were ready we made our way to the court room. Master Sapnara introduced me to her clerks and the court team and once we were in the court room I took a seat beside her. This was a humbling experience and when counsel were making submissions it almost felt as though they were making them to me. This was also an interesting opportunity to be able to watch counsel presenting their legal arguments and witness the judge’s role as an impartial and independent assessor of the facts and how the law applies to them. This was an invaluable experience which gave me an insight in to how the adversarial system actually comes to life. During this time I was also able to observe counsel’s advocacy and the different styles adapted by each one. In some cases there were up to six barristers, each representing a party concerned in the matters before the court.

As is with the law, it was a very unpredictable three days. The majority of the cases due to be heard had a remarkable change of course, which was extremely interesting to witness. One afternoon a case that was due to be heard was adjourned. Master Sapnara did not want me to miss out due to this, so she asked the other judges whether they had any hearings listed and if they would be willing to allow me to join them. One of the judges was kind enough to accommodate me and gave me an insight in to the case he was presiding over. The case was of a complex nature and the judge made sure that I was aware of the issues so that I would be able to follow the events of the hearing that afternoon. Master Sapnara was extremely kind and informative. She engaged in conversation with me and invited me to join her and the other judges for lunch, who were equally as welcoming. On the last day of marshalling, Master Sapnara was kind enough to provide me with some words of advice about embarking on a legal career and also read through my CV. As a young aspiring barrister, marshalling was a truly enjoyable and educational experience for me. It is something that I would advise everyone to apply for. The opportunity to be able to sit with a judge in any court is not only rewarding, but also an excellent addition to your CV. Miriam Yafai was Called to the Bar in 2016. She was a recipient of the Princess Diana Scholarship and Benefactors Scholarship. She is currently employed as a Money Advice and Employment Law Advisor for a charity and is searching for pupillage.

Marshalling: From Two Perspectives


Interested in becoming a Marshalling Judge? Marshalling is a wonderful opportunity for our students and members to experience the courtroom from the point of view of the judge. By sitting on the bench alongside the judge, students can watch a case ‘play out’ in front of them. Their whole perspective is challenged as they study the jury, scan the public gallery, watch and listen to witnesses, are mesmerised by the advocacy skills of the barristers, and become part of the comings and goings of the courtroom. Even just one day in court delivers a wealth of interest, experience, and knowledge – and the amazing opportunity to be guided, tutored, and informed by a member of the judiciary. Invaluable for an aspiring barrister. Exchanging, even briefly, the lecture room for the courtroom brings the law to life as they watch it in action. If you are at all interested in joining the Middle Temple Marshalling Scheme as member or student, please contact Sarah Hankinson at: Recruiting now for any court in England and Wales!


ry, Kirker e in style. the


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.







2 0 1 5






2 0 1 6

2 0 1 5











L A N K A ,





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









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


2 0 1 5





N e p a l



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


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











italy • JAPAN • morocco • POland • PORTUGAL • Russia • Spain • TURKEY 2016

La FENICE, VENICE • LA SCALA, MILAN • LEIPZIG • malta baroque • new york • north Norfolk puccini festival • Schubertiade • S IBELIUS • THREE CHOIRS, gloucester • VERONA • vienna

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 SOUTH AFRICA: CAPE TOWN THE GARDEN ROUTE


• •











luxury trains















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







Page 1





















2 0 1 6

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

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







2 0 1 6





2 0 1 5









2 0 1 5




















2 0 1 6






















Page 1












020 7593 2293 quote code XMT




Speak to an expert or request a brochure:



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.



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

Unique Concierge Service







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.


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.


A Canadian Foxtrot GEORGINA WOLFE

Harold G. Fox’s heart must have sunk. The year was 1932 and his impecunious client was going to have to pay him in shares. But fortunately that client was the Lightning Fastener Company. The product they were developing was a new-fangled device called ‘the zipper’. Fox’s fortune was made and, along with it, the fortunes of many unborn British barristers. Following an appearance in the Privy Council, Fox, a Canadian patent litigator, was deeply impressed by the Bar of England and Wales. He developed a relationship with Middle Temple and became an Honorary Bencher. He also founded the Fox Fund, an organisation which developed the scholarship now known as the Harold G. Fox Scholarship. This created an exchange for law students between England and Canada. Today the scholarship is going strong. Each year two British scholars go to Toronto and two Canadians join us here in London. In 2007, I was one of the fortunate scholars. Along with Alex Robson (now at Littleton Chambers), I spent six months living and working in Toronto. I was thrown in at the deep end with a clinical negligence trial. A stripper was suing her 70-year-old plastic surgeon for removing ‘too much fat’ during a liposuction procedure. The next case was a professional negligence claim involving the mass burial of thousands of tyres in rural Ontario and a constructive dismissal claim brought by a high-powered realtor. I was also co-opted to join the team bringing Canada’s first ever conspiracy class action – a claim brought by a class of small plastic manufacturers against the behemoth DuPont. It was brilliant. When we weren’t racing between court and the 46th floor offices (I know I will never have a view like that again), Alex and I had the most fantastic time making Toronto our home. The scholarship provides each scholar with an apartment downtown, right on the shore of Lake Ontario. In the summer, we enjoyed the Canadian ‘patio culture’ and took trips out to the islands in the lake. In the winter we learned to ice skate. After a late night preparing for trial, we would often sneak out to the lake’s open-air rink for a midnight skate (much safer for third parties if I practised when no one else was there). Alex was quickly a pro. We skied on the Ontarian ‘snow hills’ and visited Niagara

and the ice wine region. We saw the Toronto Maple Leafs play (ice) hockey and we made the most of our law firms’ occasional unwanted corporate seats (surprisingly none of the partners thought a Christina Aguilera concert would be a good networking opportunity). We even started writing a book to help students seeking pupillage. Nine years later and I am still using the skills I learnt during the Fox Scholarship. I was able to practise areas of law I might otherwise never have experienced in the increasingly specialised world of the London Bar. It gave me the confidence to know I could turn my hand to anything. It also gave me an insight into the roles of both advocate and solicitor (Canada has a fused Bar). It was the most brilliant dry-run for pupillage and, later, practice. Last year I was delighted to join the panel of Trustees and now have the great honour and responsibility of helping to select the new scholars. It is a wonderful task. I love meeting the applicants and remembering how I felt sitting across the table in the interview. But most of all, I love knowing what a fabulous time awaits the two scholars. I hope that they too will be inspired by new areas of law, thrilled by the courtroom, and, of course, I hope they get to enjoy the magic of a midnight skate on the edge of Lake Ontario. Georgina Wolfe is the first female UK Trustee of the Fox Scholarship. She practises at 5 Essex Court and has just been appointed to the Attorney General’s B Panel of Counsel. Together with her former co-scholar Alex Robson, she wrote ‘The Path to Pupillage’ (3rd edition, Thomson Reuters). She is still working on her triple Lutz.

A Canadian Foxtrot


Who Gets Pupillage? MASTER DAVID WURTZEL Getting into the Bar has always had an element of chance. Hundreds of chambers act as autonomous recruitment boards, sovereign in who and how many they select, and indeed how they select them subject to compliance with the Bar’s non-discrimination code. Pupils are chosen on the basis of who would suit those particular chambers, according to the criteria established by that particular set. The number of pupils (a relatively steady average of 430 to 440 over the last five years) is about the same as the number of people taken on for tenancies. It is though, much fewer than the number of chambers, which means that in any one year, a substantial part of the Bar plays no part in the selection of its newcomers. At the same time, the Bar believes that our own-make-up should reflect the society it serves in terms of class, ethnicity, gender and means. Young people should feel that anyone can be accepted at the Bar, regardless of background or education. The challenge is that they can only be accepted through the existing mechanism. It is open to firms of solicitors to recruit by some unified selection process and thus produce a cohort which can be chosen to achieve whatever degree of diversity they like. That is not open to chambers who take pupils in one’s or two’s or perhaps as many as four’s. Even though the numbers involved would allow it, no one would imagine, say, choosing the new crop of pupils by specialism or circuit and then assigning them to respective chambers. So, by sticking to our traditional method, can we say who gets pupillage? Relying on Facts We can find the relevant figures in statistical reports which have been carried out over the years by the Bar Council and the Bar Standards Board, and in particular, Bar Barometer and Barristers’ Working Lives, joined more recently by the Bar Standard Board’s analysis of BPTC students in 2011-14. According to a recent report from Dr Steven Vaughan of Birmingham University, chambers tend not to disclose their own diversity data, apart from gender. The Bar Council/ BSB figures are freely available to anyone on the relevant websites. This means that every potential student can make an informed choice about whether or not to take the Bar


course, knowing well in advance the profiles of the people chambers has wanted in the past. Despite all the warnings, though, supply continues to outstrip demand. Nearly all BPTC students will have at least a 2:1 degree and 70% will go on to get Outstanding or Very Competent marks. Thus those who do not get pupillage have qualifications which are similar to those who do, disproving the suggestion that the BPTC providers admit people who never had a reasonable prospect of getting a place. The BSB reckon that about 30% of domestic BPTC students find a pupillage. This has been a fact of life for 20 years and is not likely to change in the short term. The Legal Services Board has made it clear that it does not favour capping numbers. Fortunately, exit surveys show that 90% of those who don’t get pupillage go on to do further study or get a job at a starting median salary of £25,000 pa. So being Called to the Bar is not a negligible qualification. Key Factors Student numbers are gender equal and men and women score almost equally in the BPTC assessments (in the 201114 period of the BSB analysis, more men than women got Outstandings; more women than men got Very Competent). The ratio of men to women pupils fluctuates. Looking at the past four years, on average there have been 53% men to 47% women. The percentage of BAME young barristers has not changed in the past five years: at 15% it is a bit above the profession overall. The ethnicity figures look different only if one uses the figures for Call, but that would be inaccurate since it ignores the fact that 30% of BPTC students come from overseas. The key factor in getting a pupillage is not, however, overall, gender or ethnicity; it is which university and what degree. In terms of education, the Bar increasingly draws its numbers from a tiny number of universities. And it certainly favours those with the best degrees. The first one-third of

pupils who obtain their places before they start the Bar course are particularly high achievers. Half of them have first class degrees (nearly all the rest have 2:1’s). 40% will in due course get Outstanding marks - only 7-8% of all Bar students achieve that. Of the 1/3 of pupils who get their places during their BPTC year, 31% will get Outstandings. Overall, half of those who get a pupillage within six months of doing the course have firsts. Which Universities The BSB analysis for 2011-14 used the list in the Sunday Times Good University Guide. About 18% of Bar students studied at one of the top ten universities on that list. Nevertheless, 45% of all barristers under three years’ Call have been to only one of two universities—Oxford or Cambridge. In 2013 75% of all barristers under the age of 30 had been to Oxford, Cambridge or a Russell Group university, compared to 49% of those over the age of 30. The balance has clearly tilted. According to a recent Legal Services Board report, in 2015, individuals who had been to fee-paying schools (7% of the entire school population) made up 35% of pupils and 34% of the practising Bar (Barristers’ Working Lives puts the latter figure at 45%). Those who were the first generation in their family to attend university made up 46% of the practising Bar but only 31% of pupils. In 2012 the BSB published a comparison between those who applied for pupillage in 2009 and those who did pupillage in 2011: 31% of applicants went to fee paying schools but 42% of pupils did; 52% of applicants had parents who were educated to degree level but 71% of pupils did; 16% of applicants had no student debt at all but 26% of pupils started their careers with a financial clean slate. There needs to be an honest discussion of all this. If the Inns of Court College of Advocacy succeeds in delivering a course in which the vast majority of aspiring students are weeded out on the basis of a knowledge test, then the honours will presumably go to those who studied where law is taught best. Will that narrow or widen the pool? If we want to encourage social mobility and diversity, how will that be taken into account? There is clearly no shortage of talented youngsters knocking on our door. That is the good news. The difficult bit comes after that.

In terms of education, the Bar increasingly draws its numbers from a tiny number of universities. And it certainly favours those with the best degrees. Master Wurtzel was Called to the Bar in 1974 and to the Bench in 2001. He practised at the criminal Bar for 27 years and for 12 years was involved in training, particularly in respect of vulnerable witnesses. He was consultant editor of COUNSEL.  He is a door tenant of Red Lion Chambers.

Who Gets Pupillage?


The Middle Temple Law Centre Fellow at Hackney Community Law Centre DANIEL M. GRÜTTERS Since February, I have had the honour to be the first ever Middle Temple Law Centre Fellow (‘Fellow’) at Hackney Community Law Centre (‘HCLC’). At the time of writing, I still have two months to go at HCLC, but already I have done and seen so much. I have used the space here to share my experiences and hopefully I will inspire many budding barristers to apply for the 2017 Fellowship. As the Fellow I have been working under the direct supervision of Hilton von Herbert, Senior Supervising Immigration Caseworker at HCLC and the 2013 Legal Aid Lawyer of the Year. Hilton has been very supportive of the Fellowship and has made every effort to ensure I get to work on all steps and elements of the asylum process. Furthermore, while Hilton provided guidance and oversight over the work done, I was given the opportunity to sink my teeth into all elements of the asylum work done at HCLC. Shortly after arriving at HCLC, I started work on a fresh referral from the UK Lesbian & Gay Immigration Group (UKLGIG), a charity that promotes equality and dignity for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people who seek asylum in the UK. The client has a genuine fear of persecution back home and when he was referred to HCLC he had not yet had his substantive asylum interview. I worked with the client on his asylum statement in anticipation of his interview and we are currently awaiting the Home Office decision.

In another case, our client feared persecution due to an extramarital relationship and child, which gave rise to an asylum claim and issues surrounding the right to a family life. I became involved in the case shortly before the appeal hearing against the Home Office decision at the Immigration & Asylum Chamber First-tier Tribunal (FTT). In order to address the problems with the Home Office decision, I worked with both the client and her partner to draft their witness statements, in addition to drafting the Appeal Bundle Index. I also drafted the instructions to counsel and attended the tribunal hearing with client and counsel. While the FTT dismissed our appeal, the Immigration & Asylum Chamber Upper Tribunal (UT) has since granted us permission to appeal on all of our three grounds. In another successful case at the UT, I worked closely with counsel in drafting a victim impact statement and the Appeal Bundle Index. In other cases I: drafted a pre-action protocol for judicial review letter before claim; encountered issues related to professional ethics; assembled and filed appeal bundles; corresponded extensively with the Legal Aid Agency on a range of issues; and instructed experts. The work has provided me with the opportunity to apply many of the skills gained on the BPTC, including drafting, conference and professional ethics. As the Fellow I have seen and worked on all elements relating to asylum law cases, both before and during litigation, thereby illuminating both the work of counsel and the arduous work that precedes counsel’s involvement. I have benefitted enormously and am grateful to Middle Temple, HCLC and Hilton for the amazing opportunity. I hope that the Fellowship will continue for many years to come and I cannot recommend the experience enough and encourage future BPTC students to apply for the 2017 Fellowship! Daniel holds a BSc (Joint Hon.) in Economics and Political Science and a GDL from the University of Birmingham, as well as an LL.M. in Public International Law from Leiden University. This academic year, Daniel pursued the BPTC, was part of the Middle Temple ‘Vis Team’ and volunteered with Vocalise and the School Exclusion Project. In the past, Daniel has worked with the International Forum for Democracy & Human Rights, 9 Bedford Row International, as well as the Dialogue Advisory Group, a mediation NGO specialised in facilitating political dialogue in situations of armed conflict.


The Middle Temple Law Centre Fellow at Hackney Community Law Centre

Middle Temple Historical Society Events Calendar All members and staff of the Inn and their guests are welcome to attend the Society’s meetings and outings. Talks are preceded by drinks at 6.30pm and a buffet supper at 7pm (£30pp, £15 for students) in the Bench apartments. Bookings for supper talks should be made by email to no later than seven days before the event. Cheques made payable to the Society should be sent to the Middle Temple Historical Society c/o The Treasury by the same date. Students should note that meetings are not qualifying sessions. Membership enquiries should be sent to the Society’s email address.

2016 Tuesday 1 November 6:30pm Dr (Sir) Anthony Seldon Is Contemporary History Merely Journalism? The Challenges of Writing Contemporary History Dr. Seldon is both an educationalist and a renowned historian, whose many publications include biographies of John Major, Tony Blair and Cameron at 10: The Inside Story 2010-2015. Previously Master of Wellington College, he is Vice Chancellor of the University of Buckingham. Wednesday 14 December 6:15pm Annual General Meeting - Professor Rebecca Probert A Right Royal Farce: The History of the Royal Marriages Act Professor Probert is Professor of Law at the University of Warwick and the leading authority on the history of English marriage law. She will describe how the attempts of the Royal Marriage Act 1772, designed to regulate princely marriages, led to heartbreak and confusion.

2017 Tuesday 17 January 6:30pm Dr Emma Rhatigan The Temple Sermon of John Donne Dr. Rhatigan is Lecturer in Early Modern Literature at University of Sheffield and an editor of The Oxford Edition of the Sermons of John Donne, who between 1616 and 1621 was Preacher at Lincoln’s Inn. Donne’s sermons in the Inns of Court were specifically tailored to a congregation which valued witty, intellectual preaching and contained legal references which the congregation would appreciate. One such sermon was preached at the Temple Church in the early seventeenth century. Tuesday 21 February 9:15pm Outing to the Ceremony of the Keys at the Tower of London  We meet at the West Gate to the Tower at 9:15pm. There is no charge. As numbers are limited all bookings must be made to mths@middletemple. by no later than 7 February 2017. Tuesday 14 March 6:30pm Master Michael Ashe High Treason: The Casement Case 1916 Master Ashe describes the trial of Sir Roger Casement in the aftermath of the Easter Uprising with the help of Sir John Lavery's painting High Treason and discusses the issues and personalities in the trial and appeal.

2016-2017 MT Historical Society Events Calendar


New Masters of the Bench These Masters of the Bench were all Called to the Bench between October 2015 and July 2016, following their election by Parliament. They are Called by Master Reader in a ceremony held in Hall attended by their guests, fellow Benchers, members of Hall and students. After dinner, each of the new Benchers is introduced by Master Treasurer and gives a brief address. Bench seniority is determined by date of Call to the Bar for members of the Inn, and at the Treasurers’ discretion for Honorary Benchers. This list is in order of seniority, with the most recently called Bencher, ‘Master Junior’ at the end of the list. At each Inn event, ‘Master Junior’ replies to the Treasurer’s toasts to The Queen, Domus and Absent Members. A full list of Masters of the Bench can be viewed on the ‘Members’ section of the Inn’s website. The Honourable Rimsky Yuen (Honorary) Rimsky Yuen was appointed Senior Counsel in 2003. From 2007 to 2009, Mr. Yuen was the Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar. Before being appointed Secretary for Justice of the Hong Kong SAR on 1 July 2012, Mr. Yuen was in private practice specialising in commercial disputes. He also served as an arbitrator and mediator.

Silk in 1999.

The Hon Mr Justice Joseph Fok Joseph Fok is a Permanent Judge of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. He was appointed a Judge of the Court of First Instance in 2010 and a Justice of Appeal in 2011, prior to his appointment to the CFA in 2013. He practised at the Hong Kong Bar from 1986 to 2009, taking

The Hon Mr Justice Aarif Barma Aarif Barma studied Law at Exeter College, Oxford and was Called to the Bar at Middle Temple and in Hong Kong in 1983. He practised in Hong Kong from 1984-2003, taking Silk in 2002. He was appointed to the Court of First Instance in September 2003, and to the Court of Appeal in November 2012.


Winnie Tam SC Winnie Tam is the current Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar and a Recorder of the Court of First Instance. Winnie was called to the English Bar in 1988 and was appointed Senior Counsel in Hong Kong in 2006. She is recognised as one of Hong Kong's leading specialist advocates in intellectual property law and has maintained her ties with the English Bar through her overseas membership in the chambers of Mark Platts-Mills QC at 8 New Square. The Hon Mr Justice Simon Picken Simon Picken read Law at Cardiff University and Cambridge University where he obtained a Starred First Class in the LLM. His practice was in commercial law, with a particular emphasis on insurance and reinsurance, oil and gas, professional negligence and shipping. He is co-author of the leading book, Good Faith and Insurance Contracts. He was appointed a QC in 2006. He became a Deputy High Court Judge in 2010. Simon was the Commercial Law QC to the Welsh Government from 2009 to 2015. He was also QC to the Church Commissioners between 2013 and 2015. He was appointed a High Court Judge in the Queen’s Bench Division in June 2015.

Evanna Fruithof Evanna Fruithof represents the Bar of England and Wales in Brussels. Called to the Bar in 1985, she was President of the MTSA. In practice in London until 1990, she then spent two years with the European Commission in Brussels. Following further diverse legal and policy experience, in 1999 she was invited to establish the Bar Council Brussels Office, and has since been the Bar’s eyes, ears and mouthpiece on matters EU. Gary Blaker QC Called in 1993, Gary took Silk in 2015. He studied History and Law at Christ’s College, Cambridge and practises from Selborne Chambers specialising in property litigation, professional negligence and chancery law. Gary chaired the Hall Committee in 2012 and 2013 and is an Inn representative on the Bar Council. He is also a member of the Inn’s Equality Diversity and Social Mobility Committee. The Rev. Hugh Mead (Honorary) Arthur Hugh Mead was educated at Haileybury and King's College, Cambridge. He taught history at Karachi Grammar School and, for over thirty years, at St Paul's School. Ordained in 1980, he has served as Chaplain of St Paul's, Priest in Ordinary to HM The Queen, and, for the last twenty years, Reader of the Temple. He has been married to Judith since 1966. The Rt. Hon The Lord Bach Called in 1972. Practised in criminal law on Midland and Oxford Circuit from Leicester Chambers. Head of Chambers. Member of Society of Labour Lawyers. Entered House of Lords in 1998. Minister at LCD, MOD, Defra, and Ministry of Justice. Shadow Attorney General 2014/5. Shadow Justice Minister 2015/16. Leicestershire Police and Crime Commissioner 2016. Married with 3 Children. Lives in Leicestershire. William Bailhache QC (Bailiff of Jersey) Appointed as Her Majesty’s Attorney General for Jersey in 2000. He was appointed Deputy Bailiff of Jersey in 2009, and took office as Bailiff of Jersey in January 2015. William has appeared in the Royal Court, Court of Appeal, and in the Privy Council. He has represented the Island politically before the Human Rights Committee in the United Nations. As Deputy Bailiff and Bailiff he has presided in the Royal Court over a variety of criminal and civil cases. Noelle McGrenara QC (Honorary) Noelle was Called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 1978 and took Silk in 1999. She is the Former Chairperson of the Executive Council of the Inn of Court and Bar Council of Northern Ireland. Noelle Co-Chaired the FBA and ICAB. Bencher of the Inn of Court of Northern Ireland since 2004 and Treasurer of the Inn in 2014. Noelle is a trainer for the Advocacy Training Board.

The Rt. Hon James Wolffe James Wolffe QC was Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, the elected leader of the Scottish bar from 2014 - 2016. James was admitted as an advocate in Scotland in 1992 and took Silk in 2007. He was called to the English Bar as a member of Middle Temple in 2013. He was appointed as Lord Advocate of Scotland in June 2016. Professor Murray Hunt Murray Hunt has been a Visiting Professor at Oxford since January 2011, working on the AHRC funded research project on 'Parliaments and Human Rights'. He is currently Legal Advisor to the UK Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights. He was a key founding member of Matrix Chambers, London and has specialised in human rights law and public law. James R Silkenat (Honorary) James is a past President of the American Bar Association. He is a partner in the New York office of Sullivan & Worcester LLP. He is a former Legal Counsel at the World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation. James is the editor/author of 15 books and over 100 articles on legal issues. He is the recipient of the Diversity Champion Award of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Simon Kverndal QC Simon Kverndal is a shipping specialist and a member of Quadrant Chambers (formerly 2 Essex Court), practising as advocate, arbitrator (in particular Lloyd’s Open Form salvage) and mediator. Closely involved in the London maritime industry, as a member of the Shipwrights’ livery company, LMAA, LSLC and Maritime London. He plays for the Bar real tennis team and sits on the Middle Temple wine sub-committee.

the law.

Neil Saunders Neil was Called in 1983 and has practised in a wide variety of criminal cases, disciplinary hearings and inquests. There is real rivalry in the Saunders household as Neil is married to DPP Alison Saunders who is a Bencher of Inner Temple. They have two sons. Neither are involved in

Adrian Hughes QC Before the Bar, Adrian spent five years in the Royal Navy including an expedition to Antarctica. He currently practises from 39 Essex Chambers, concentrating on commercial and construction work with a focus on international arbitration. He sits as arbitrator and mediator. A longstanding member of the Bar’s International Committee, he chairs China relations and runs the Bar’s China training scheme. He also contributes to advocacy and moot training for the Inn. Married with 3 children, he plays racket sports and enjoys exploration and photography.

New Masters of the Bench


John Cavanagh QC John Cavanagh is Joint Head of Chambers at 11KBW Chambers. He specialises in employment law and related areas of commercial, public, and European law. He was Chair of the Employment Law Bar Association from 2005-7 and is a Recorder and a Judge of the Administrative Tribunal of the Bank for International Settlements. Louise McCullough Louise read Law at UCL and is a proud Middle Templar. She practises in Crime and Family Law. Louise teaches with Middle Temple Advocacy at all levels up to New Practitioners and has sat on the Scholarship Panels. Louise has assisted with developing the Middle Temple Mentoring Programme and she sits on the Bar Council’s Wellbeing at the Bar working group. Her passions include young people, dance and London. She is on most forms of social media most of the time. Professor Matthew Weait Matthew Weait BA (Hons), MA, MPhil, DPhil is Dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of Portsmouth. He has taught law and supervised legal research for almost three decades. The recipient of a Queen Mother Scholarship from the Inn, he was Called to the Bar in 1999 but does not practise. His Excellency The Honourable Patrick Robinson Judge Patrick Robinson is a Member of the International Court of Justice. Formerly, he was Deputy-Solicitor General, Jamaica; member of the International Law Commission; member and President of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; member of the Haiti Truth and Justice Commission; member and Vice-Chairman of the International Bio-ethics Committee of UNESCO; Judge and President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The Hon Mrs Justice Zaila McCalla (Honorary) Zaila McCalla, OJ, since her admission to the Bar in 1976 has served as Clerk of Courts, Crown Counsel, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, Resident Magistrate and Senior Resident Magistrate. In 2007, she became the first woman to be appointed as Chief Justice of Jamaica. She chairs several committees including the Judicial Service Commission, the Supreme Court Rules Committee, the Queen’s Counsel Committee, the Advisory Board of the Justice Training Institute and the Archives Advisory Committee. She is the Keeper of the Records of the Island Record Office. She is also Chancellor of the Anglican Diocese of Jamaica and the Cayman Islands. She is married to Mr. William Charles McCalla, Attorney-at-law and they have three children.


The Rt. Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer (Honorary) Sir Geoffrey Palmer QC was admitted to the Bar in 1966. He was a law professor in the United States and New Zealand for some years before entering politics. In Parliament he held the offices of Attorney-General, Minister of Justice, Leader of the House and Deputy Prime Minister. He served as the 33rd Prime Minister of New Zealand from August 1989 to September 1990. He was responsible for reforms of the country’s legal and constitutional framework. He is a member of Her Majesty’s Privy Council. He was formerly President of the New Zealand Law Commission. Andrea Coomber (Honorary) Andrea has been Director of JUSTICE since February 2013. Between 2002 and 2013 she was Equality Lawyer and then Legal Director at INTERIGHTS where she litigated key cases before the European Court of Human Rights and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Before joining INTERIGHTS, she worked at the International Service for Human Rights in Geneva and at the South Asia Documentation Centre in New Delhi. She is qualified as a barrister and solicitor in Australia. Rhodri Price Lewis QC Rhodri Price Lewis went to Oxford and Cambridge Universities. He was Called to the Bar in 1975. After beginning his practice in common law chambers he moved to a specialist town and country planning set. He took Silk in 2001. He is a member of the Wales Circuit, a Recorder, a deputy High Court Judge and an Election Commissioner. Henry Blaxland QC Henry Blaxland was Called in 1978. He joined his current set, Garden Court Chambers, in 1979 when there were 15 members. There are now 180 members. He was elected Head of Chambers in 2012. He has practised almost exclusively in criminal law for his entire career at the Bar. He took Silk in 2002. He currently specialises in fraud and terrrorism. He has appeared in many high profile criminal appeals. He is the vice chair of the Criminal Appeal Lawyers Association. Anthony Cross QC Tony Cross was the Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association from September 2014 to September 2015, having been the Vice Chairman for the previous year. He is a criminal Silk on the Northern Circuit. He has served on the Circuit Executive for a number of years and last century captained the Northern Circuit soccer team. He was made a Judge on the Isle of Man in 2012.

Robin Dicker QC Robin is a commercial Silk. He was at Brasenose College, Oxford where he obtained his BA (jurisprudence) and BCL. He was Called to the Bar in 1986 and was a Harmsworth Exhibitioner. He joined South Square and subsequently took Silk in 2000 after 14 years at the Bar. He was appointed a Deputy High Court Judge in 2016.

The Hon Mr Justice Adrian Jack Adrian Jack¸ an Australian by birth, studied law at Oxford. He was Called in 1986. After practising as a common lawyer in the Temple, he moved to Chancery/commercial chambers in Lincoln’s Inn in 1998. In 2000 he was called to the German Bar. In 2014 he was appointed as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar.

Michael Collard Michael Collard is the Head of 5 Pump Court and specialises in property and related cases. He is a Mediator and TECBAR Adjudicator and has belonged to the Hall, Estates, Finance, Library, Bench Selection and Executive committees. In his spare time he swims, plays bridge, and indulges his interests in history, real ale, and part-ownership of a community pub.

The Hon Mr Justice Peter Fraser Peter Fraser was educated at Harrogate Grammar School and St John’s College, Cambridge, where he read law both for his BA and LLM in the 1980s. He is a Harmsworth Exhibitioner and Astbury Scholar and was called to the Bar by the Inn in 1989 and appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2009. In 2015 he was appointed to the High Court Bench. He is an Ironman triathlete.

Dame Helen Alexander (Honorary) Chairman of UBM plc, non-executive director of Rolls-Royce and of Huawei UK, senior adviser to Bain Capital and a member of PwC’s Public Interest Advisory Board. Deputy Chair of the Women on Boards – FTSE 350 companies Review and Chancellor of the University of Southampton. Involved in non-for-profit organisations as director of the Thomson-Reuters Founder’s share Company, the Grand Palais (Paris) and Said Business School. Dame Helen has an MA from Oxford, an MBA from INSEAD and was recently awarded the Legion d'Honneur.

Jessica Simor QC Jessica Simor is a member of Matrix Chambers and a leading specialist in human rights, public, EU, and regulatory law. Called in 1992, Jessica was a founding member of Matrix in 2000, taking Silk in 2013. Previously, she was a tenant at Monckton Chambers and also worked for periods in the European Commission, the European Commission of Human Rights, and the Human Rights Ombudsman in Bosnia.

His Honour David Lynch David Lynch was Called in 1968 and practised on the Northern Circuit until his appointment as a Circuit Judge in 1990. He retired in 2005 having spent many years on the Mental Health Review Tribunal and as Liaison Judge to St. Helens Magistrates and Liverpool John Moores University. He is an Honorary Fellow and Visiting Research Fellow of LJMU, having completed a PhD there in 2015.

Saba Naqshbandi Saba is a commercial crime, regulatory, inquests and inquiries specialist practising from Three Raymond Buildings whose advice is sought both nationally and internationally. Her current and recent appointments include Membership Committee (2014-), Bar Council International Committee (2016-), Chair of the Annual Bar Conference (2013), Co-Chair of the International Bar Association Criminal Law Committee (2009-2012) and Committee member of the Criminal Bar Association (2009-2012).

William (Bill) Mousley QC Bill Mousley is the current Leader of the Western Circuit (until 2019) and Head of Chambers at 2KBW. He is predominantly a criminal practitioner. He prosecutes and defends in equal measure and is one of the busiest and most successful Silks on the Western Circuit, instructed in the most serious and high-profile cases across the country. He is a Crown and County Court Recorder.

New Masters of the Bench


Obituary: Master Geoffrey Howe Lord Howe of Aberavon served as Margaret Thatcher’s faithful and apparently docile praetor for 15 years, 11 of them as chancellor and foreign secretary, before astonishing the Commons with a resignation speech of such bitterness that it triggered the prime minister’s downfall. Geoffrey Howe in 1990 Photo: Rex

Underneath Howe’s mild, avuncular manner lay a convinced monetarist minded and equipped to implement policies instinctively dear to Mrs Thatcher. As her opposition Treasury spokesman to 1979 and subsequently as chancellor, Howe laid the economic foundations of Thatcherism, with its emphasis on free markets and competition. His first budget, in June 1979, was over-ambitious. The Tories had promised to honour an independent study – by Prof Hugh Clegg which recommended restoring public sector pay to levels close to where they were before Labour’s IMFenforced cuts. Howe also cut the standard rate of income tax


to 30p in the pound. To balance the books, VAT was almost doubled, with inflationary effects, to 15 per cent. Exchange controls were abolished, Mrs Thatcher having warned him: ‘On your own head be it, Geoffrey, if anything goes wrong’. In the teeth of a world recession, his 1981 budget was crucial – and much criticised even on the Tory benches. It cut public spending in real terms and – in a severe fiscal squeeze – increased the duty on petrol. Unemployment rose further and the Conservatives’ standing in the polls plummeted. Yet, although it did not seem so at the time, it proved the turning point for the government’s fortunes. From that

day output and growth began to recover. By his fifth and last budget in 1983, Howe was able to cut income tax once more. Rewarded with the Foreign Office after that year’s landslide election victory, Howe gained a reputation as an unflappable slogger and an effective ambassador for a country whose international stature he had been instrumental in reviving. He was widely seen as Mrs Thatcher’s natural successor. He certainly harboured ambitions to enter No 10. But his time at the Foreign Office was marked by growing tensions with her, notably over Britain’s relations with Europe. These reached crisis point at an EU summit in Madrid in June 1989 when, with the chancellor Nigel Lawson, Howe forced her to agree to conditions for entering the European Exchange Rate Mechanism by threatening to resign. Mrs Thatcher took her revenge a month later, replacing him with the little-known John Major. To his subsequent regret, Howe accepted the job of Leader of the House, Lord President of the Council and deputy prime minister. In Howe’s ministerial heyday, the New Statesman ran a competition on the most doom-laden words you could hear on arriving at a London dinner party. The winning entry: ‘Come right in, you’ll find Sir Geoffrey’s in sparkling form’. If Mrs Thatcher felt she had little to fear from ‘Mogadon man’, she was disabused on 13 November 1990 when he rose to explain his resignation to a packed House. In a devastating piece of parliamentary oratory, Howe delivered a ferocious indictment of Mrs Thatcher’s style of leadership in which he compared her treatment of her subordinates negotiating in Europe to that of a cricket captain who sends his batsmen to the crease, having first broken their bats in the changing room. With a final devastating flourish he threw the door open to a leadership challenge by declaring: ‘The time has come for others to consider their own response to the tragic conflict of loyalties, with which I have myself wrestled for perhaps too long’. No one present had ever heard a speech with such devastating effect, let alone from a reputed poodle like Sir Geoffrey. ‘I didn’t think Geoffrey would ever make a speech like that’, those sitting close to Mrs Thatcher heard her say. Howe’s words provided Michael Heseltine with the launch pad he needed to bid for the leadership. Within two weeks Mrs Thatcher had been forced to step down, to make way for Major. She never forgave Howe for his ‘bile and treachery’. Many felt it odd that Howe chose to resign when Britain had joined the ERM. The deeper reasons for his anger became apparent in his autobiography, Conflict of Loyalty (1994), which painted a picture of an incompatible political marriage that had broken down after years of mutual irritation, antagonism and incomprehension. What is perhaps remarkable is that the final shipwreck did not occur earlier than it did. Richard Edward Geoffrey Howe was born into a middleclass Welsh family on 20 December 1926. Precociously gifted, he won an exhibition to Winchester. Thus he escaped from what he himself termed the ‘Port Talbot Taffia’, in which his contemporaries were Richard Burton and the trade unionist Clive Jenkins. Indeed his Welshness in later life was barely discernible. Geoffrey was at Winchester for the duration of the Second World War. He took as little exercise as possible, while developing his keen interest in politics through the

school debating society. He also ran the Home Guard signal platoon and – prophetically – a National Savings group. Active too in the photographic and film societies, he would often as a statesman be seen — and photographed — snapping the sights of the world. Going up to Cambridge in 1948, he switched from Classics to Law. His father, a solicitor and coroner, had given him work during his gap year that had stimulated an interest in a legal career. Howe coupled his studies with an active involvement in politics, following what would become the classic post-war route to a Tory seat. He chaired the university Conservative Association then, having graduated, was a founder of the Bow Group, becoming its chairman in 1955 and managing director of its magazine Crossbow in 1957 (he was its editor from 1960 to 1962). He was Called to the Bar by the Middle Temple in 1952 and practised in Wales, specialising in industrial accident cases. He served on the Bar Council from 1957 to 1961, and was a council member of Justice. One of the highest earners in his branch of the profession, he sacrificed the chance of wealth for a political career. In his memoirs Howe admitted that his first instinct when the foreign secretaryship was taken from him had been to resign. He probably should have, because his last year in the government was miserable and he nurtured a gnawing sense of grievance over Mrs Thatcher’s ‘ceaseless and hectoring interruptions’ and petty acts of rudeness. In his book The Chancellors, Edmund Dell suggested that even differences over Europe might not have led to the final breach, had any mutual sympathy survived between these two pillars of the Thatcher revolution. After his resignation speech, Howe was deluged with little bags from constituencies containing ‘30 pieces of silver’, which he gave to Guide Dogs for the Blind. Yet among his colleagues he retained his reputation for decency, honesty and courtesy. In 2005, when Mrs Thatcher marked her 80th birthday, Howe gave a generous speech about her achievements: ‘Her real triumph was to have transformed not just one party but two, so that when Labour did eventually return, the great bulk of Thatcherism was accepted as irreversible,’ he said. The events of 1990, he explained later, ‘could not wipe out 15 years of close comradeship’. Geoffrey Howe was knighted in 1970 and created a life peer in 1992. He became a Companion of Honour in 1996. Geoffrey Howe married, in 1953, Elspeth Shand, who enjoyed a distinguished career in her own right and was sometimes reckoned to be the driving force behind her husband’s ambitions. Elspeth Howe was created a life peer as Lady Howe of Idlicote in 2001. She survives him, with their son and two daughters. Lord Howe of Aberavon, born 20 December 1926, died 9 October 2015. Extracted from, and reproduced by kind permission, of The Daily Telegraph.

Obituary: Master Geoffrey Howe


Obituary: Master Lisa Jardine Master Lisa Jardine, the historian, was the daughter of Jacob Bronowski one of the twentieth century’s greatest public intellectuals, and a woman for whom no more perfect title could be invented than the one she possessed: Professor of Renaissance Studies at University College, London. Lisa Jardine in 2010 Photo: Rex Features

Lisa Jardine effortlessly straddled CP Snow’s ‘Two Cultures’; she studied both Mathematics and English at university, was fluent in eight languages including Ancient Greek and Latin, and wrote on everything from Shakespeare and Francis Bacon to feminist theory and the history of science. Her book Going Dutch: How England Plundered Holland’s Glory, about how the influence of Dutch thinkers and scientists reshaped England’s intellectual landscape in the seventeenth century, won the $75,000 Cundill International Prize in History in 2009. Lisa Jardine championed science to such an extent that she was made a council member of the Royal Institution (she resigned in protest when its director Susan Greenfield was made redundant in 2009) and served as head of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority from 2008 to 2014. She held an honorary fellowship of the Royal Society, winning an RS medal for popularising science, and was a fellow of the Royal Historical Society. In 2012-13 she served as president of the British Science Association – a rare honour for a historian. Lisa Jardine’s limitless intellectual curiosity combined with a love of gossip and an easy familiarity with teenage slang made her a lecture-room star. With her raucous laugh and earthy sense of humour she was as comfortable addressing a general as an academic audience and forged a prolific career as a cultural commentator, able to stump up interesting or witty sound bites on almost any subject. Lisa Anne Bronowski was born in Oxford on April 12 1944, the eldest of four daughters of the mathematician and scientist Jacob Bronowski and the sculptor Rita Coblentz. Her father’s family were Polish Jews who had fled the pogroms, and ended up in the East End in 1918. Her grandfather was a furrier. Her relationship with her father was an unusual one as he treated her more as an adult companion and confidante than a child. Aged six, she was sharing her parents’ dinner table with the likes of Aldous Huxley and Yehudi Menuhin.


Obituary: Master Lisa Jardine

But Bronowski was attractive to women and not always faithful. ‘He told me things he shouldn’t have told me,’ she recalled. She loved reading and history, but won a Mathematics scholarship to Cheltenham Ladies’ College. She was always top of her class but spent Saturdays with her friends in a coffee bar on the town’s promenade, recalling that ‘we did absolutely nothing except pinch our skirts in tight and hope that someone would pick us up’. Lisa went up to Newnham College, Cambridge, as one of nine women undergraduates out of an intake of 180 on the Mathematics course. After two years she switched to English, because she was told that only boys got Firsts in Maths and because she had fallen under the spell of Raymond Williams, the English don, whom she had got to know through her membership of Labour Party groups.

She went on to study for an MA in the Literary Theory of Translation with Professor Donald Davie at the University of Essex. She was awarded a PhD from the University of Cambridge with a thesis on the scientific genius of Francis Bacon, published as Francis Bacon: Discovery and the Art of Discourse, in 1974. Although she was ‘very, very conscious’ of being her father’s daughter, she found his fame a burden. When she married – for the first time, in 1969 – Nick Jardine, a Cambridge historian and philosopher of science, it was with some relief that she adopted her husband’s name, which she kept after their divorce 10 years later. ‘Until 1999, the name Bronowski never occurred in cuttings about me, and it was broadly unknown that I was his daughter,’ she recalled later. In 2004 Lisa Jardine was diagnosed with breast cancer, which required surgery, followed by gruelling courses of radio and chemotherapy – an experience which she felt had given her a good grounding in the complex ethical dilemmas faced by scientists, and equipped her for the job of steering the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Britain’s fertility regulator, as it grappled with the complex implications of the new Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. During her time as chairman, from 2008 to 2014, she led the HFEA through bruising legal battles with some of the IVF clinics it licensed and through highly

emotional debates about embryo research, confirming its existence as an independent, quasi-autonomous body. Lisa Jardine was a famously good cook and confessed to being a ‘cautious fashion victim’ (at Cambridge in the 1980s she and Mary Archer shared the accolade of Cambridge’s best-dressed woman). Among numerous appointments, she served, for eight years, as a trustee of the Victoria and Albert Museum and as chairman of Chelsea Physic Garden. In 2012, she was appointed as Professor of Renaissance Studies at University College London and founding director of its Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in the Humanities. When she was appointed CBE in 2005 it was for her contribution and commitment to state education (her three children all attended state schools), including her governorship of two inner-London schools. In 1982 she married, secondly, the architect John Hare, who survives her with their son, and a son and daughter from her first marriage. She once claimed that her greatest achievement was her three well-balanced children. Lisa Jardine died 25 October 2015. Extracted from, and reproduced by kind permission, of The Daily Telegraph.

In Memoriam The Inn is sad to announce the passing of the following members in the past year. Masters of the Bench


Master Geoffrey Howe Master Lisa Jardine Master Roger Farley Master John Hull Master Adrian Hardiman Master Carolyn Toulmin Master Gavyn Arthur Master Patrick Mayhew Master Arthur Mildon

Stephen Emmott His Honour Thomas Heald Baron Janner of Braunstone Mollie Clarke Nicholas Courtney Jacob Dutton Dr Dudley Moore Christina Gorna Malcolm Nunns Salahuddin Ahmed Matthew Turner Kate Mallison

In Memoriam


Obituary: Master Roger Farley DR NICHOLAS BRASLAVSKY QC With the passing away of Roger Farley QC the Northern Circuit lost one of its most colourful, endearing and beloved characters of this generation. Invariably, valedictory speech-making and obituary writing are preceded by the making of several phone calls collecting a handful of amusing tales worthy of both repetition and inclusion. He communicated (and taught) with great effect by the telling of stories – a crafted mixture of fact, fable, hyperbole and downright fiction. Those close to him never tired of hearing them. Over the years the anecdotes may have completely lost any relationship with the facts but Roger never lost the enthusiasm for the telling and the stories never lost their message. Nor is the story of Roger’s life one of those grand recitals of one professional or personal achievement after another in the ceaseless pursuit of greatness. It is more a story about a hugely intelligent and educated man with an irresistible personality which affected and determined everything he did. Roger Boyd Farley was educated at Giggleswick School (although he didn’t always present in the true image of a public school boy) and at Liverpool University and was admitted as a solicitor in 1969, joining the firm at which his late father was a senior partner. From the legion of stories of his time as an articled clerk and newly-qualified solicitor it seemed that there was no type of work which he did not undertake, nor any barrister on the Northern Circuit whom he did not brief. One of his fondest memories was being sent by his father to the local Magistrates’ Court to represent a client charged with murder. The instructions were merely to oversee the smooth passage of the case on a short committal from the Justices to the Crown Court. Roger spotted a weakness in the Crown’s case and made a successful application for the accused to be discharged. He announced the outcome to his father with enthused triumph: “You stupid b……..” retorted his father. He never had any sense of the economics of the legal professions. It became clear to Roger that what he really wanted to be was an advocate and the call of the Bar was irresistible. He was Called in 1974 and he became a pupil at 60 King Street, Manchester. Six months or so later, he joined Bow Lane. By the 1980’s he could have practised in almost any field he wished, but he only wanted to be an advocate and therefore practise at the Criminal Bar was his metier.


Obituary: Master Roger Farley

Roger became a Recorder in 1993 and took Silk in the same year. Typically, he had told nobody that he had applied. The clerks refused to believe the rumours circulating on that particular Maundy Thursday (when appointments to Silk were made properly). He was very proud. Throughout his time at Kings, no-one knew Roger well without knowing Molly. They were a wonderful, mutuallysupportive couple whose lives rested on each other and on their children, Tony, David and Jonathan. Roger left Kings Chambers to become Head of Chambers at Cobden House where he was equally loved and respected. Roger was a man of great humanity and spirituality although he did not align himself to any formal religion except perhaps sport and rugby in particular. He had been a useful back row forward in his day albeit in times when dietary and fitness regimes were not quite those of today. My stories of his stories would themselves lead to me going part-heard. Suffice it to say, we have lost a good and beloved man, implicitly trusted, respected and loved by all he came across. Is there really anything else? Extracts edited from an obituary by Dr Nicholas Braslavsky QC

Obituary: Master John Hull A Barrister and Judge who approached life at home and at the Bar with an engineer’s mind. John was born on 21 August 1931, the eldest son, by a short whisker followed as he was by his twin brother David, with whom he shared a close relationship until the day of his death and was said by those who knew him to share a telepathic bond. Together they would go on to Sandroyd Prep School in Dorset then Rugby School. They would separate at University – but only by Colleges with John attending King’s College, Cambridge on scholarship. To begin, John read Mechanical Science in which he attained a First, before deciding to study Law in which he also attained a First. John was Called in February 1958. He then went on to complete pupillage under Roger Winn and obtain tenancy with Lamb Building chambers. It was while at King’s, where John sung and played piano, that he first met Master David Calcutt, later Sir David who was Treasurer of the Inn in 1998, who was at King’s as an Organ Scholar. John followed David into practice on the Western Circuit and together, in their early days at the Bar, as was common for the time, chose to supplement their earnings with journalistic work. John and David, along with Master Alan Rawley, reported Law for The Times and between the three of them concocted such witty headlines that they were published by Punch magazine. This talent for witty humour, particularly a love for silly rhymes, became a defining characteristic throughout his life. At the Bar, John maintained a practice in common law and gladly took on anything but it was his meticulous eye for detail and engineering knowledge that kept bringing him construction work. For National Service John had served as an engineer in Germany building bridges with the Royal Engineers. This was a ‘home’ posting as in an emergency he would be required as a code breaker. His preference had been for a posting to the Far East an ambition he went on to meet as a Silk (taken in 1983) practising construction law in Hong Kong. John would not stay in the Far East for long though, for home was always where his heart was and was a motivation for him accepting an appointment as a Circuit Judge in 1991 serving various towns around his home in Reigate. Serious and conscientious John also served on the Ethics Committee of St Thomas' Hospital from its inauguration.

And as a Bencher (Called 1989) he was tasked with sharing in a review of the Bar’s Consolidated Regulations. He retired as a Circuit Judge in 2003. In 1961 John had married Gillian Stemp, herself a Middle Templar, indeed they had met at the lunch table in Hall. They were married in St Mark’s Church, Reigate and went on to have 54 years together celebrating their 50th Wedding Anniversary at the Inn. One of their great shared ventures was in the garden, where John’s engineer’s mind showed itself once again as he planned and plotted great drainage works and compost heaps leaving Gillian to focus on the ‘jolly’ parts. They had two daughters, Katharine and Carolyne who would often lament that school was dull because Dad made life much more interesting. Of her husband Gillian said, ‘He was just a lovely ordinary and upright man’. John Hull died 19 November 2015 aged 84. Derived from a eulogy by Master Michael Rich and letters from Gillian Hull.

Obituary: Master John Hull


Obituary: Master Adrian Hardiman Adrian Hardiman was the intellectual giant of the Irish Supreme Court, producing elaborate, well-reasoned judgements replete with rhetorical flourishes as well as a formidable output of scholarly work on law, history and literature. Catapulted in 2000 to the Supreme Court straight from the Bar, where he had been a deadly cross-examiner, he was so quintessentially a partisan advocate that many wondered if he could adjust to a judicial role. In the event he made few concessions, remaining something of an enfant terrible, playing the advocate in court and among his colleagues. He criticised the arguments of counsel and other judgements more trenchantly than was the norm. He was sometimes compared to the late Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court. Like Scalia, Hardiman, distrusted the intrusions of the state and its agents into the lives and liberties of individuals and waxed eloquent on ‘weasel words’ such as ‘justice for victims’ used to justify such intrusions. He was merciless in condemning the malpractices of the police and other officials. Last year, in a powerful minority judgement, he expressed himself horrified that his colleagues would water down the rule making inadmissible evidence obtained by infringing constitutional rights. ‘The rule of law,’ he warned, ‘threatens to become rule by law enforcers’. He was unreceptive to arguments that the courts should expand social and economic rights to protect the marginalised. It was not, he opined, the business of unelected judges to make decrees imposing financial obligations on the Exchequer. ‘Human rights law has become too big, too boundless, too unitary,’ he exclaimed after the European Court of Human Rights had over-ruled a judgement of the Irish Supreme Court. Significantly, he was the sole dissenter on the court insisting that a referendum amending the Constitution was necessary for Ireland to become party to the ESM Treaty – under which it had to pay 11 billion into a bailout fund for distressed states in the eurozone. Born in Dublin on May 21 1951, the son of a teacher father and shopkeeper mother, Adrian Hardiman was educated by the Jesuits at Belvedere before reading history at University College Dublin. Hardiman was something of a young fogey in an era of student revolt. With his baritone voice and eloquent use of language, he was a star public


Obituary: Master Adrian Hardiman

speaker. He was elected head of the college debating society and won the Irish Universities championship. He was called to the Bar in 1974. As a barrister, he was the champion of the small man, often briefed by unimportant solicitors to take on the state or powerful institutions. But neither as a criminal defender nor in other cases did Hardiman serve only those of whom he approved. ‘He was,’ said one rival, ‘always ready to represent the damned’. He got record libel damages for the leader of an extreme Left-wing party accused of conspiring with Russian communists. Hardiman married Yvonne Murphy, a fellow barrister who later became a judge. She survives him, with their three sons, one of whom is a barrister. Adrian Hardiman died 7 March 2016. Extracted from, and reproduced by kind permission, of The Daily Telegraph.

Obituary: Master Carolyn Toulmin MASTER RODNEY STEWART SMITH A frequently expressed concern is that the Inn is perceived by many members as irrelevant to them following their Call to the Bar unless they become candidates for election to the Bench. This was emphatically not a perception of the Inn which was shared by Carolyn Toulmin, who died on 3 April 2016, or by her husband, Master John Toulmin, who was Lent Reader in 2008 and died in 2012. All their lives they both participated to the full in Inn activities and they and their family were regularly to be seen there. After graduating at King’s College London, Carolyn was Called to the Bar in the autumn of 1965 and she met John for the first time at the Call ceremony. She was a pupil of Master Michael Sherrard and practised briefly as a member of his Chambers. She and John married in May 1967 at the Temple Church and had three children and eight grandchildren. When she wished to resume legal work, Carolyn became a law reporter and for many years prior to her retirement in 2012 she was a reporter for the Official Law Reports in the Court of Appeal. Judges need to be able to rely on the skill and accuracy of the reporters and in Carolyn’s case they soon knew that they could. From 1980 until 2008 she was a General Tax Commissioner and became Chair of the St Pancras Division. Her devotion to the Temple Church was lifelong and total. Following their marriage she and John worshipped there regularly on Sundays for the remainder of their lives and numerous family events were celebrated there. She unfailingly supported the Church through the difficult period in the 1990s when congregations had declined and there was a real risk of its fading away as an institution. She played an important part in helping the Church to acquire a new focus and once again become the flourishing and valued institution that we see today. As a keen music lover she supported both financially and personally the work of the Temple Music Trust and the Temple Music Foundation. She was regularly to be seen as a volunteer at the Church desk welcoming visitors and sharing her knowledge and wisdom with them and the friendliness of her greeting no doubt contributed greatly to the pleasure of a visit. In February 2014 Carolyn was elected as a Bencher of the Inn on the nomination of the Treasurer, Master Igor Judge. Following her death he said that her nomination was one of the best things he did as Treasurer and it was universally welcomed. Following her election she was an

assiduous attender of Inn functions, particularly those closely involving students, and very appropriately became the Inn’s representative on the Council of Law Reporting. An important part of Carolyn’s life was the house and small vineyard in Burgundy which she and John bought and renovated in 1997. There will be a number of readers who enjoyed generous hospitality there and many more who have tasted with pleasure the Clos Toulmin which was cultivated there. Unhappily and cruelly the period of her service to the Inn and the Church was cut short by the diagnosis of a terminal illness in the autumn of 2015. Towards this she characteristically adopted the realistic and brave philosophy of Oliver Sacks that ‘I am now face to face with dying but am not finished with living’. During her last few months she devoted herself with remarkable energy to the task of making things as easy as she could for those she left behind. To her great pleasure her eighth grandchild, Robin, was born three weeks before she died. He spent much of those three weeks at her bedside and one day will learn of the wonderful grandmother he never knew. Obituary: Master Carolyn Toulmin


Obituary: Master Gavyn Arthur Waltzing judge with a sense of duty and a passion for chocolate cake who became Lord Mayor of London and godfather to ten. Asked to identify the toughest aspect of his role as Lord Mayor, Sir Gavyn Arthur claimed that it was hosting the annual Mansion House fancy dress party for 600 children. ‘There is no more demanding audience — and that includes the Court of Appeal’. It was an amusing answer given that his job also involved having to smile for photographs as he shook hands with Presidents Putin of Russia and Assad of Syria. He was an attentive godfather to his small army of godchildren, 10 of them altogether. He travelled a great deal and would always send them postcards, which amounted to hundreds over the years. When he was sworn in as the 675th Lord Mayor of the City of London in November 2002, the occasion was marked with a banquet and he made sure that his godchildren had pride of place. In his speech that day the Lord Chancellor noted: ‘My Lord Mayor, this weekend you take over the governance of the City of London, one of the few places in the empire your family have not governed before’. He was alluding to the reputation that the Arthur family enjoyed for having been ‘the backbone of colonial administration, with a habit of naming ports after themselves around the world’. In the first half of the nineteenth century, it should be explained, Arthur’s great-great-great grandfather, Sir George Arthur, served as Governor of Bombay, as well as Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada and what is now Tasmania. During his time in Australia, he founded the notorious convict settlement of Port Arthur. Other members of the Arthur family fought and died at Lucknow, avenged General Gordon at the Battle of Omdurman in 1898, and ordered the start of the Zulu War. Arthur inherited from these illustrious forebears a profound sense of public duty. He was the first holder of the office of Lord Mayor to be a working barrister, and in assuming this demanding and unpaid role he walked away from a thriving family law practice. ‘After so many years at the Bar, I needed a break,’ he explained, ‘and there is such a thing as public service. There are more things in life than simply getting the cheque at the end of the week’. The only surviving child of Major Leonard Arthur and his wife Raina, Gavyn Farr Arthur, was born in the KwaZulu-Natal district of South Africa in 1951. His father, known as Midge, worked for the Colonial Service and served at one stage as chairman of the Natal Provincial Assembly. Arthur was educated at Harrow and read jurisprudence at Christ Church, Oxford. There he made two lifelong friendships, with Alexander ‘Johnny’ Dixon and Bernard Lever. All three would go on to join Middle Temple on the same day in 1975 and all ended up on the Circuit bench. When they arrived at Oxford they compared notes about what they had done in their gap years: Dixon had worked as a navvy on the A38; Lever had worked the night shift at a Kellogg’s factory; the eccentric Arthur had packed his tails and white tie and headed for Vienna, where he stayed as a paying guest in the house of Countess Esterházy. While there he learnt to waltz and developed a passion for Sachertorte. After a spell as a criminal lawyer, he switched to family law, focusing on financial matters and post-divorce arrangements in particular. In 1991, he began a 16-year spell as an alderman for the Ward of Cripplegate. It suited his personality and he appreciated the opportunity it gave him to talk to, and spend time with,


Obituary: Master Gavyn Arthur

Photo: Getty Images

people who had lived lives much less privileged than his own. In 1998, he became Sheriff of the City, a role that required him to live at the Old Bailey and open court proceedings each morning. During his year as Lord Mayor, Arthur lobbied for the abolition of stamp duty on share dealings, which he saw as a disincentive to equity trading. While his predecessors tended to avoid the issue of corporate governance, Arthur was more than happy to air his views on the subject. Having already served as a recorder since 2002, he was appointed a Circuit Judge in 2007. The following year, he became a deputy high court judge in the family division. A fine raconteur with a lively turn of phrase and a ‘full frontal’ delivery, Arthur was much in demand as an after-dinner speaker. In 2014, to mark the centenary of the outbreak of the First World War, he gave a number of lectures on the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. He lived at the Barbican, remained a bachelor and enjoyed entertaining his wide circle of friends at Brooks’s. He had a reputation for being a bit of a card. When he was Lord Mayor he once sat anonymously as a recorder in Derby and served all the judges their tea and coffee. At one point, as he was doing his waiterly rounds, he delighted in hearing one of the judges say to another: ‘We have the Lord Mayor of the City of London sitting with us, and I have to take him to dinner with the Lord-Lieutenant’. Though he had a commanding presence — he towered over Putin — Arthur also had a boyish face which seemed to suit his character and his penchant for what his friend Bernard Lever characterised as ‘gallivanting and making mischief’. He was one of the few people Lever knew who managed to live out his youthful fantasy ‘to one day parade around London in a gold coach in fancy dress waving at his adoring public’. That said, ‘he was the only person of my generation I knew who kneeled at the foot of his bed at night to say his prayers’. Not only was Arthur in possession of a lofty intellect, he was also a fastidious man, a high-maintenance houseguest and, when it came to grammar, punctuation and etiquette, a notorious pedant. Lever had two best men at his wedding, Arthur and Dixon. In his speech Arthur said, ‘Bernard says and thinks that he has two best men but you can’t have two best of anything. So I want to make it clear to you all that I am the best man, Johnny the better man’. One of Arthur’s hobby horses was the iniquities of London’s transport system, something which as mayor he was powerless to tackle. He would, nevertheless, ‘shout about them as loudly as I could’, arguing that transport problems were damaging the capital’s reputation as a business hub and Europe’s leading financial centre. He was perhaps more effective in his legal career, as a campaigner for family justice. A note attached to some flowers delivered to court at Luton after his death read: ‘HHJ Sir Gavyn Arthur, rest in peace. Thank you for giving me my children back. A dad’. Master Gavyn Arthur died 16 May 2016. Extracted from, and reproduced by kind permission, of The Times.

Obituary: Master Patrick Mayhew Photo: Martin Pope

Lord Mayhew of Twysden, was the solicitor general whose fury at the leaking of his confidential advice over the Westland affair forced the resignation of Leon Brittan as trade and industry secretary and almost brought down Margaret Thatcher; he was later an unexpectedly patient Northern Ireland secretary under John Major, laying much of the groundwork for the eventual peace. Paddy Mayhew’s anger stemmed from the leak in January 1986 of his letter to Michael Heseltine disputing the claims behind the latter’s campaign for the ailing helicopter firm to pass to European, not American, hands. Heseltine resigned as defence secretary in mid-Cabinet three days later. Brittan’s subsequent departure amid the storm over the leak put the prime minister at risk. She owed her survival to luck, distrust in the party of both Heseltine and Brittan, and Neil Kinnock’s failure to dominate the debate on the resignations which Mrs Thatcher – who did not blame Mayhew – feared would force her to go. As secret contacts and a public peace initiative launched by his predecessor Peter Brooke started to bear fruit, Mayhew became the first secretary of state to meet the Sinn Fein president and former IRA commander Gerry Adams. The initiative foundered on the IRA’s refusal to disarm, but the contacts established with Sinn Fein (and Dublin) paved the way for the Good Friday Agreement months after Mayhew’s retirement at the 1997 election. Some colleagues feared one concession too many to

Sinn Fein, and he crossed swords with the home secretary Michael Howard. Yet it was Mayhew who, after the IRA called a supposedly permanent ceasefire in 1994, insisted talks could not begin without a physical handover of weapons. Patrick Barnabas Burke Mayhew was born on 11 September 1929. His father was an oil executive with a distinguished war record and his great uncle Henry Mayhew, author of London Labour and the London Poor; his mother’s side were Anglo-Irish from the 13th century. He was educated at Tonbridge and Balliol College, Oxford, becoming president of the Union – unopposed – in 1952 and of the university Conservative Association. Previously, he served as a subaltern in the 4th/7th King’s Dragoon Guards. The young Mayhew cut a dash, whether hunting with the Beaufort or dressed in white tie and tails. He was a keen cricketer, and later a passionate yachtsman. Awarded a scholarship by Middle Temple, he was Called in 1955 and became a Bencher in 1980. He practised at the criminal Bar, mainly defending, and took Silk in 1972. Patrick Mayhew married Jean Gurney in 1963; she and their four sons survive him. Lord Mayhew of Twysden died 25 June 2016. Extracted from, and reproduced by kind permission, of The Daily Telegraph

Obituary: Master Patrick Mayhew


Staff News New Starters The Inn warmly welcomes the following members of staff who have joined in the last year. Katy Beck, Gardener Katy joined in July 2016 to work as a Gardener, alongside Kate Jenrick. She read Botany at Reading University, and subsequently worked at Queen's University, Belfast and RBG Kew (in the Herbarium). She has been working as an amenity gardener for five years, and gained some valuable experience as a volunteer at Inner Temple. In her spare time she travels with her children to accompany them to Irish Dancing competitions, recently travelling to Montreal, Glasgow and Killarney.

Kristina Schmidt, Event Sales Manager Kristina graduated in 2003 from Hotel Management School in Heidelberg and began her hospitality career at the Hyatt Regency London -The Churchill as Food and Beverage Co-ordinator and moved to the Grand Hyatt Muscat as Catering Sales Executive in 2005. After two years she came back to the UK and joined The Grove Hotel as Event Manager. In 2009 she joined the Grand Connaught Rooms and Hotel Russell as Cluster Conference and Events Co-ordination Manager for four years. Before joining in June 2016 Kristina worked as Events Manager at the Sheraton Skyline, Heathrow for two years.

Paul Crane, Senior Sous Chef Paul joined the Catering & Events Team in April 2016. He has previously worked in iconic venues such as the Royal Opera House and the Bank of England as well as the offices of Google in London. Recently married, he reached the quarter finals on MasterChef: The Professionals in 2008.

Gasen Kevo Fang, Chef de Partie Joined the Catering & Events Team in March 2016. He has a background in private members clubs and restaurants in London. He plays drums in a band in his spare time.


Patrick Ghirardello, Library Assistant Patrick started working as the Library Assistant in March 2016. He moved to London from Norfolk in 2010. After completing his degree in Comparative Literature he spent two years working in a primary and secondary school library. He plays bass guitar in a band.

James Moore, Estates Security Supervisor James joined the Estates Security team in March 2016. He has over 13 years of experience in the security industry. Prior to joining the Inn, he managed teams of up to 40 officers for special events such as The Royal Variety Show & The Bafta Awards.

Alexander Vagianakis, Demi Chef De Partie Alexander joined the Catering & Events Team in March 2016. He has spent his career to date working in restaurants and hotels in Greece, Sweden and London. Alex has travelled to many countries playing with his band, who have released two records.

Sarah Marks, Information, Governance & Records Manager Sarah joined the Inn in February 2016 as its first Information Governance and Records Manager. She has previously worked at East Sussex County Council, Gloucestershire County Council and The National Archives. Sarah originally studied Biology at university and did a PhD in genetics before qualifying as an archivist and records manager.

Jessica Masi, Education Services Assistant Jessica joined the Education Team in February 2016 and assists with the day to day operation of Education Events such as Mooting, Post Call Training Courses and the Advocacy Training Weekends. Having graduated in Psychology and Criminology, she possesses an interest in the criminal justice system and the way people operate.

Konan Frederic Kouadio, Cellar Attendant Freddy joined the Catering & Events Team in February 2016. He has previously worked for Conrad London, St James Hotel; Alyn Williams, The Westbury Hotel; and Gordon Ramsay, Royal Hospital Road.

Richard Frost, Education Office Assistant / Bench Events Co-ordinator Richard joined the Education Team in December 2015 and has now moved to the Membership Team. Previously he worked for the Punch Drunk Theatre company on their The Drowned Man production.  Richard read History at the University of Hull and graduated in 2012.  In his spare time he enjoys walking and playing the electric bass.

Keith Kilmurry, Front of House Officer Keith trained as a chef and has extensive experience in hospitality back in Scotland before moving to London in 1999. He became a part of the Temple when he worked at Temple Church and subsequently joined as a Front of House Officer. Keith enjoys martial arts and holds a brown belt in karate. He enjoys films and is an avid collector of movie memorabilia.

Barnaby Bryan, Project Archivist / Assistant Archivist Barnaby joined the Archive department in November 2015 and is undertaking various projects including the detailed cataloguing of the Inn's Parliamentary papers. Before coming to the Inn, he worked in a number of archive services, including Unilever’s historical archives in Port Sunlight. He read Philosophy at the University of Cambridge, graduating in 2011, and went on to complete a master’s degree in Archives & Records Management at UCL. He was recently promoted to Acting Assistant Archivist.

Jordan Andrews, Head Chef Jordan joined in November 2015. He moved from Australia four years ago and has a background in 5*hotels, restaurants and the world’s largest cruise ship. He most recently worked in London at the Royal Horse Guards and for Marriott Hotels. He is excited by the prospect of change and enjoys working with seasonal, local British produce.

Michal Cerny, Chef de Partie Joined the Catering & Events Team in November 2015. He worked for several contract caterers in London including the offices of Facebook. He enjoys a healthy lifestyle and recently began cycling everywhere.

Adam Woellhaf, Training & Development Librarian Joined in October 2015 as the Training & Development Librarian. Originally from London, he graduated with a BA in English Literature from the University of Sheffield followed by an MSc in Social & Political Theory from the University of London. He previously worked at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies for six years.

Michael Curry, Estates Security Officer Michael has worked in the security industry for over 20 years for various companies and sites including Amazon and Coca-Cola. He was also a security supervisor on the Olympic Park at the Aquatics Centre before, during and after the Olympic and Paralympic Games until January 2014. His hobbies include music, films and spending time with his first granddaughter.

Carlotta Maggi, Sales Co-ordinator Charlie joined in September 2015 as the Sales Coordinator. She moved to London from Italy four years ago to study for a Master's degree in Events Management and launched her career in the exciting world of events. She loves travelling and every summer organises a trip to a country she has never visited before.

Leavers and Retirements The Inn thanks the following members of staff who have retired or left Middle Temple, for all their hard work and wishes them well for the future. Catherine Whayman, Administrative Assistant Nargees Choudhury, Education Assistant Erin Gow, EU & Government Publications Librarian Lorraine Thorne, Sales and Marketing Manager Sharon Jager, Interim Head of HR Thomas Lane, Assistant Gardener Dimpy Sanganee, Administrative Assistant Dawid Adamkiewicz, Cellarman Megan Dunmall, Assistant Archivist

Staff News



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 or visit

Middle Temple Calendar 2016/17 Friday 30 September 2016

Music Night: King Masco

Saturday 1 October 2016 All Inn Dining Sunday 2 October 2016 Sunday Lunch Monday 3 October 2017 Michaelmas Term begins and Hall re-opens for Lunch Tuesday 4 October 2016 Scholars’ Dinner Thursday 6 October 2016 Great Fire of London Anniversary Dinner and Play: A Very British Fire Thursday 13 October 2016 Call Day Tuesday 18 October 2016 Bench Call Thursday 20 October 2016 Grand Day Monday 24 October 2016 Moot Final Monday 31 October 2016 All Inn Dining Wednesday 2 November 2016 Music Night: Aurora Orchestra Thursday 3 November 2016 Private Guest Night Monday 7 November 2016 Guest Lecture: Advocate Jeremy Gauntlett SC Wednesday 9 November 2016 Middle Temple Survive and Thrive Programme IV Sunday 13 November 2016 Sunday Lunch Tuesday 15 November 2016 Bench Call Friday 18 November 2016 Circuit Dinner Saturday 19 November 2016 CPD Day Sunday 20 November 2016 Children’s Concerts: Peter and the Wolf & Mother Goose Tuesday 22 November 2016 Reader’s Feast: David Blunt QC Thursday 24 November 2016 Call Day Friday 25 November 2016 Midland Circuit Dinner in Birmingham Saturday 26 November 2016 North and North East Circuit Dinner in Manchester Thursday 1 December 2016 Private Guest Night Wednesday 7 December 2016 Christmas Lunch I Thursday 8 December 2016 Christmas Lunch II Tuesday 13 December 2016 Parliament Dinner (Benchers only) Wednesday 14 December 2016 Christmas Lunch III Thursday 15 December 2016 Christmas Lunch IV and Revels Friday 16 December 2016 Revels Sunday 18 December 2016 Carol Service Lunch Wednesday 21 December 2016 Hall closes after Lunch and Michaelmas Term ends Wednesday 4 January 2017 Wednesday 11 January 2017 Tuesday 24 January 2017 Saturday 28 January 2017 Tuesday 31 January 2017

Hall re-opens for Lunch Hilary Term begins and Evensong & Treasurer’s Reception (Benchers only) All Inn Dining Burns’ Night An evening with The Rt. Hon Lord John Dyson and friends in aid of the Scholarship Fund Appeal

Tuesday 7 February 2017 Bench Call Thursday 9 February 2017 Private Guest Night Friday 10 February 2017 Music Night: Callum Au Big Band Saturday 11 February 2017 Ordinary Dining Night Sunday 12 February 2017 Sunday Lunch Monday 13 February 2017  Guest Lecture: Professor Sir Nigel Rodley - The UN Human Rights Committee at 40 Tuesday 14 February 2017 Reader’s Feast: Mrs Pat Edwards Thursday 2 March 2017 Clerk’s Dinner Wednesday 8 March 2017 Bench Night (Benchers only) Thursday 9 March 2017 Call Day Sunday 12 March 2017 Sunday Lunch Wednesday 22 March 2017 Amity Dinner with Inner Temple at Middle Temple (Benchers only) Thursday 30 March 2017 Private Guest Night Tuesday 4 April 2017 Music Night: Southbank Sinfonia and Soraya Mafi Tuesday 11 April 2017 Bench Call Wednesday 12 April 2017 Hilary Term ends Thursday 13 April 2017 Hall closes after Lunch Monday 24 April 2017 Hall re-opens for Lunch Tuesday 25 April 2017 Easter Term begins Thursday 18 May 2017 Annual Dinner Tuesday 23 May 2017 Music Night: Charles Owen and Katya Apeksheva Friday 26 May 2017 Easter Term ends Tuesday 6 June 2017 Trinity Term begins and Bench Call Thursday 8 June 2017 Private Guest Night Monday 12 June 2017 Moot Semi-final Tuesday 20 June 2017 Moot Semi-final Monday 26 June 2017 Music Night: Heath Quartet and James Baillieu Tuesday 27 June 2017 All Inn Dining Tuesday 4 July 2017 Tuesday 18 July 2017 Thursday 20 July 2017 Thursday 27 July 2017 Monday 31 July 2017

Middle Temple Garden Party Bench Call Private Guest Night Call Day Trinity Term ends

Friday 4 August 2017

Hall closes after Lunch

Events in bold are Qualifying Sessions Hall will remain open during the Whitsun vacation 2017. Barrister and student members can book tickets through the Treasury Office on 020 7427 4800. Masters of the Bench can book with Richard Frost on or 020 7427 4804. Events and dates may change. All event information, including timings, cost and specific booking information is on our website

The Middle Templar 2016 Online Version  
The Middle Templar 2016 Online Version