At the Bar March 2010

At The Bar March 2010

ANNUAL CONFERENCE 2010 – MILLBROOK IN QUEENSTOWN 27 TO 29 AUGUST

– MARK YOUR DIARIES NOW

NZBA President Speaks at First Sitting of Supreme Court

INSIDE THIS ISSUE Pg 2 - NZBA President Speaks at First Sitting of Supreme Court Pg 4 - Criminal Procedure Bill 2010 Aims for Court Efficiencies Pg 5 - United Kingdom Civil Litigation Costs Jackson Final Report Pg 6 - Barristers’ Rules - New Zealand and Australian Developments Pg 7 - ABA’s International Delegation Visits New Zealand Pg 8 - Chapman Tripp Cocktail Evening Photos Pg 9 - Roundtable Discussion Photos Pg 10 - A Tribute to Pioneering English Lawyer Jean Southworth QC Pg 11 - Stress at the Bar Pg 13 - AWLA Celebrates Success Pg 14 - NZBA Training Programme Pg 15 - What Members Need to Know Pg 17 - Junior Barristers’ Update Pg 18 - Australian Bar Association Advanced Advocacy Course by Jane Glover Pg 19 - The Law Report EDITOR Catriona MacLennan Tel: 0064 9 378 0964 Email: catmac@orcon.net.nz EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Miriam Dean QC Convener Tel: 0064 9 377 8959 Email: miriam@barrists.co.nz Monique Pearson Tel: 0064 9 303 4515 Email: nzbar@nzbar.org.nz Graham Kohler Tel: 0064 9 307 9816 Email: kohler@shortlandchambers.co.nz John Matthews Tel: 0064 9 409 2010 Email: jgmatthews@xtra.co.nz NEW ZEALAND BAR ASSOCIATION Tel: 0064 9 303 4515 Fax: 0064 9 303 4516 Email: nzbar@nzbar.org.nz Web: www.nzbar.org.nz P O Box 631 Auckland 1140

2

T

he Privy Council had lessons to offer the New Zealand legal system in relation to the timeliness and complexity of the judgments produced by the judiciary, said NZBA President, Colin Carruthers QC. Speaking at the first sitting of the Supreme Court in its new building, Mr Carruthers said that it was appropriate that the formal opening of the building had taken place in January. January derived from the Roman god, Janus – a god with one face looking forward to the new year and one facing backwards to the past. The addresses at the January opening had reflected both on what had passed and had looked towards the future. However, Mr Carruthers said that the time had now come to stop looking backwards.

“Appeals to the Privy Council have been abolished. There has long been debate – probably always – about their value and their justification in the judicial system of a self-governing country.

I do not need to rehearse the arguments. I do, however, take a moment to indulge in the nostalgia of trips to London and the opportunity to rub shoulders with the English Bar and to lock horns with some of the great minds who have graced the Bench of the Privy Council.”

In looking forward, though, Mr Carruthers cautioned that it was important to remember the lessons of history. A number of aspects of history could assist in looking forwards.

“There is the vast reservoir of jurisprudence which the Privy Council has given us. A measure of that contribution is the fact

that more than 100 decisions on appeals from New Zealand are reported in the Official Reports, the Appeal Cases. The range of the subject matter is breathtaking.

But not only jurisprudence. The Privy Council has given us some practical lessons on the efficient conduct of litigation.”

Mr Carruthers said that some historical examples were relevant to a modern court such as the Supreme Court. He discussed five specific illustrations. The first of these was the structure of judgments.

“For the Bar, and I suspect lower courts and the community, particularly the commercial community, it does not help to have five separate judgments, each articulating a different analysis of an essential legal issue in the case. I appreciate that there must always be a dynamism in the life and development of the law, but I question the efficacy for those whom the court serves of such a disparate approach to judging.”

Mr Carruthers said that the lesson which could be taken from the past was the Privy Council’s approach to judgments. For a long period, only one piece of advice had been given to His or Her Majesty. In later years, there had been provision for dissent, but the judgments were susceptible of easy analysis, even in difficult cases.

Secondly, Mr Carruthers pointed to the time taken to deliver judgments.

In other jurisdictions, he observed that there was a process of review and an expectation that judgments would be available within a relatively short time.

“Again, for the future, the process of decision-making adopted by the Privy Council usually led to prompt judgments. And in England now, there is a system which involves an expectation that judgments will be available within a specified period of weeks.”

the appellant’s own argument with what the respondent had said in opposition. The practice of filing the note of oral argument a week before, or during the week before, the hearing was a step which worked towards the efficient disposal of the case.

Thirdly, he suggested that a lesson should be learnt from the High Court of Australia’s approach to applications for leave.

Finally, Mr Carruthers commented on the constitution of the court. He said that the ever-expanding internationality of the rule of law pointed to the desirability of drawing on common law resources from other jurisdictions.

“A prominent consideration is the relatively small size of our country with all the advantages and disadvantages that this entails for judging. This factor points to the merit of having an outside view participating in the decision-making of our final court. In a different way, this was a feature which the Privy Council provided previously.”

Mr Carruthers pointed to Hong Kong as a modern example.

He said that its final court drew one member from a panel of overseas judges. Lord Cooke and Sir Ivor Richardson had previously been on that panel. It was instructive that the population base of Hong Kong was more than four times that of New Zealand.

“The model is one which commands attention.”

In conclusion, Mr Carruthers quoted Justice Jackson’s “wry, if not cynical” observation in the United States Supreme Court that “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.”

“Oral argument is rare in our jurisdiction: it is the norm in Australia. I accept that there are applications which can be determined on the papers, either for or against, because the outcome is obvious. There is, however, a number in the twilight zone. Apart from any concern on the part of the Bar as to the way in which applications are disposed of, the appearance of due process for the litigant is important too – particularly for the unsuccessful party.”

He said that the aspiration must be that the Supreme Court would not only be final, but would pursue an aim for the future which suggested infallibility.

Mr Carruthers said that this issue raised a question of advocacy as well. There were some advocates who were good on paper and not so good orally, and vice versa. He said that he questioned whether the right balance on the mode of disposal of leave applications had been struck.

Fourthly, there was an issue concerning the use of written argument at the hearing. The current process involved the appellant’s written argument being filed and served. The respondent replied and the argument was then left in that state until the hearing. Mr Carruthers said that the court had now issued a Practice Note that no further written material by way of argument should be put before the court.

However, he said that one of the practices of the Privy Council which provided a lesson from history was the value of the short note or outline of the oral argument, particularly for the appellant who then had the opportunity to synthesise

3

Criminal Procedure Bill 2010 Aims For Court Efficiencies A major change suggested was an Act 1961, the District Courts Act 1947 and increase in the jury trial threshold so that other legislation. The new regime would be implemented over an appropriate time period. a maximum penalty of more than three years’ jail would be required, rather than The paper stated that inefficiencies in the the current three months. It was also current system meant that up to 14,900 proposed that the category of indictable court appearances each year might be offences which could be laid summarily unnecessary. Further, the median time to at the discretion of the prosecution dispose of a District Court jury trial was one should be abolished. Such cases would year, an increase of five-and-a-half weeks in future initially follow the lower-level in the past five years. The corresponding summary procedure, with the defendant figure for High Court jury trials was able to elect trial by jury if the jury trial “Our courts have used audio-visual sixteen-and-a-half months, up five-andthreshold was met. The District Courttechnology for witness evidence for some a-half months in the past five years. The only category of indictable offences time. Allowing that technology to be used commission and ministry observed that the would be abolished. for a wider range of criminal proceedings average administrative cost of a District would mean offenders can appear in court Court jury trial was $20,000, compared with The paper said that, based on 2007 figures, it was estimated that removing by video-link for routine appearances, $2000 for a summary defended hearing. the category of indictable offences making courts faster and safer and saving The commission and ministry accordingly which could be laid summarily and money and resources.” suggested that changes should be made to raising the election threshold to more A Law Commission and Ministry of Justice ensure that court hearings were held only when than three years would have led to consultation paper titled Criminal Procedure a judicial decision or intervention was required, 1100 fewer cases being committed (Simplification) Project – Reforming Criminal out-of-court discussion between parties for trial and 300 fewer jury trials. The Procedure and a Criminal Procedure Bill Plan became the standard way for progressing commission and ministry said that were released on 21 December 2009. The cases, and incentives and sanctions promoted the Crimes Act currently provided that consultation document said that criticism of compliance with procedures. Unnecessary offences punishable by a maximum criminal procedure had been building over adjournments should be minimised, jury trials penalty of 14 years or more jail must the past 10 to 20 years. It had focused on should be reserved only for the most serious always be heard by a jury. However, they “needless delay” and the inefficiency of court cases and modern technology should be said that, with the exception of murder processes, as well as an out-of-date and utilised appropriately. and treason, it was not sure whether this unnecessarily complex legislative framework requirement should continue. Feedback A central drafting approach taken by the which had been complicated by numerous project was to ensure that court processes was sought on the issue. piecemeal amendments over the years. could take advantage of developing The document suggested that offence In response to those criticisms, the information technologies. Consideration categorisation could be further Criminal Procedure (Simplification) should accordingly be given to prescribing simplified if the link between the Project had been established as a joint the use of technology in secondary, rather appropriate fact finder (judge or jury) undertaking between the commission and than in primary, legislation to enable it to be and the relevant hierarchy level (High the ministry to undertake a comprehensive updated more speedily in future, said the Court or District Court) were to be review and propose improvements. A commission and ministry. separated. Appendix 3 discussed this number of papers seeking comment suggestion in more detail.

The paper proposed two forms of criminal on specific reform proposals had been procedure – a shorter process for less In relation to pre-trial procedures, the released in 2008 and 2009 and changes serious cases which were termed “lowercommission and ministry proposed to the criminal processes in the summary level” and a longer process for more serious that formal written statements should jurisdiction at Manukau and Tauranga be served on the defence before they cases, called “upper-level” cases. The District Courts had been tested. were filed in court. Applications for document suggested that the committal oral evidence would be made to the step could be eliminated and the need The commission and ministry said that trial court. If an application for an oral for an indictment to be presented could the consultation document had now been evidence order was successful, the oral prepared to present an integrated package to be removed. Offences would be divided evidence would be heard at a pre-trial stakeholders and to enable further feedback into five categories, ranging from nonhearing, before a Registrar, or before imprisonable offences to those punishable and development of the proposed reforms. a judicial officer. The paper said that it by jail terms of more than three years. This It was envisaged that the Bill Plan would was expected that oral evidence orders would mean that the previous category of provide the foundation for a new Criminal would be uncommon. summary offences would now be divided Procedure Bill, which would replace most of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. It would into two categories – summary offences punishable by imprisonment, and those not also consolidate some aspects of criminal carrying jail terms. procedure currently contained in the Crimes A Criminal Procedure Bill aimed at reducing court waiting times, increasing efficiency and making use of technological innovations will be introduced to Parliament this year.

Justice Minister Simon Power said that the reforms proposed by the Government had the potential to save thousands of court events and court sitting hours. The suggested changes aimed to ensure that cases progressed through the system far more quickly.

4

United Kingdom Civil Litigation Costs – Jackson Final Report A package of interlocking reforms aimed at controlling costs and promoting access to justice in the United Kingdom has been proposed in Lord Justice Rupert Jackson’s final report on litigation costs. The document was released on 14 January 2010, following a preliminary report published in May 2009, the collection of evidence and a review of overseas jurisdictions.

In a blunt, two-and-half line foreword to the final report, Lord Justice Jackson stated that, in some areas of civil litigation, costs were disproportionate and impeded access to justice. Coherent reform was accordingly required to remedy this.

The report concluded that conditional fee agreements – and particularly “no win, no fee” agreements – had been the major contributor to disproportionate costs in civil litigation in England and Wales.

The two key drivers of costs under such agreements were the lawyer’s success fee and the “after-the-event” insurance premium which was usually taken out when a conditional fee agreement was entered into. Both the success fee and the ATE insurance premium were presently recoverable from an unsuccessful defendant.

Lord Justice Jackson recommended that both fees should cease to be recoverable from unsuccessful defendants. He said that such a move would lead to significant cost savings, while still enabling those who needed access to justice to obtain it. It would be open to clients to enter into “no win, no fee” agreements with their lawyers, but any success fees would be borne by the client and not by the opponent.

Lord Justice Jackson said that substantial parts of the 2009 Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct, which had been introduced as a general practice direction for all types of litigation, were unsuitable as they adopted a “one size fits all” approach. This led to pre-action costs being incurred unnecessarily. Significant portions of the direction should accordingly be repealed. Costs sanctions should be applied to curb unreasonable behaviour.

The document observed that alternative dispute resolution was under-utilised.

It therefore proposed that there should be a “serious” campaign to ensure that all

Lord Justice Jackson said that “beforethe-event” insurance, also known as legal expenses insurance, was under-used in England and Wales. If used more widely, he said that it could produce benefits for small and medium enterprises as well as for individuals. He noted that lawyers were not presently permitted to act on a contingency fee basis in contentious The report said that disclosure could be business disputes, but recommended an expensive exercise and steps needed that this should in future be allowed. The to be taken to ensure that its cost in civil proviso would be that, if the unsuccessful litigation did not become disproportionate. party was ordered to pay the successful Lawyers and judges should be given party’s costs, the sum payable should training in how to conduct e-disclosure reflect a conventional amount for costs. efficiently and a “menu” of disclosure Any difference would be borne by the options should be developed for large successful party. The terms on which commercial and similar claims. contingency fee agreements could be entered into would be regulated to In order to ensure that personal injury safeguard the interests of clients. claimants were properly compensated and their damages were not substantially The report went on to make specific eroded by legal fees, the paper proposed proposals in respect of litigation relating that awards of general damages for pain, to issues such as intellectual property, suffering and loss of amenity be increased small business disputes, housing claims by 10 per cent. The maximum amount of and defamation cases. Recommendations damages that lawyers could deduct for included reforming the Patents County success fees should be capped at 25 per Court, appointing a High Court Judge cent of damages, excluding any damages to be in charge of the Mercantile Courts referable to future care or future losses. and increasing general damages in The document said that this should leave defamation and breach of privacy cases successful claimants no worse off than they by 10 per cent and introducing qualified were under the current regime, while at one ways costs shifting in those cases. the same time ensuring that unsuccessful Lord Justice Jackson said that there was defendants paid only normal and proportionate costs to successful claimants. nothing fundamentally wrong with the manner in which evidence was currently Lord Justice Jackson recommended that adduced in civil litigation, by way of lawyers should be banned from paying witness statements and expert reports. referral fees in personal injury cases to The only substantial complaint was that insurers and others to “buy” cases. “Qualified” statements and reports were unduly long. one way costs shifting should be introduced. Case management measures should This would mean that claimants would not be accordingly be used to place controls required to pay defendants’ costs if claims on the content or length of statements, were unsuccessful, but defendants would be with costs sanctions being applied required to pay claimants’ costs if the latter in appropriate cases. Judges should were successful. This would reduce the need take a more robust approach to case for ATE insurance. management. This could be done by allocating cases to judges with relevant In relation to costs in fast track litigation, expertise, ensuring that cases remained the report proposed that the costs with the same judges, standardising case recoverable for fast track personal injury management directions and ensuring that cases should be fixed. For other types interim hearings were used effectively, of cases, there should be a dual system rather than becoming formulaic hearings. whereby costs were fixed for certain types Lord Justice Jackson’s conclusion was of cases. In other cases there would be a financial limit on costs – £12,000 for pre-trial almost as short as his foreword. He ended the report with a five-line summary, stating costs, for example. The ideal should be for that his recommendations were interlocking. costs to be fixed for all types of fast track He believed that, if they were implemented, claims. The paper suggested that a Costs Council should be established to undertake they would promote access to justice for all parties at proportionate cost. regular reviews of fast track fixed costs. litigation lawyers and judges were properly informed about how it worked and the benefits that it could confer. The public and small businesses should also be made aware of the advantages of alternative dispute resolution. An authoritative handbook should be prepared and used as a standard training work for judges and lawyers.

5

Barristers’ Rules – New Zealand And Australian Developments A working group has been set up by the New Zealand Law Society to review the barristers’ intervention rule. The review is required by Rule 14.5 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. The rule provides that the society must examine and determine whether or not to keep in force the intervention requirements set out in Rule 14.4. Consultation with the Ministry of Justice, the NZBA and such other organisations, groups or persons as the society considers have an interest in the issue is required. The rule states that the society must commence the review within 18 months of the rules coming into force and must proceed with “reasonable expedition” having regard to all of the circumstances.

Rule 14.4 currently states that, subject to rules 14.6, 14.7 and 14.8, a barrister sole must not accept instructions to act for another person other than from a person who holds a practising certificate as a barrister and solicitor. Rule 14.6 sets out exceptions in cases such as barristers sole acting in judicial or quasi-judicial capacities, being appointed by the court or being instructed by the society.

Rule 14.7 provides that the society may, in consultation with the ministry and the NZBA, grant a specific or general dispensation authorising barristers sole or any category

Over 800 years of law online.

Justis is an easy-to-search online legal library of fulltext British, Irish, EU and international case law and legislation from 1163 to the present day.

Including: Ź UK Statutes (1235 - present) Ź The Law Reports (1865 - present) Ź English Reports (1220 - 1873) Ź State Trials (1163 - 1858) Ź Irish Reports and Digests (1838 - present)

For a free trial of Justis, visit www.justis.com/NZBAR0310 +44 (0)20 7284 8080

6

of barristers sole to accept instructions from persons other than those holding practising certificates. By virtue of rule 14.8, such dispensations may be subject to such terms and conditions as the society considers appropriate.

because of current differences in the titles of State legislation and in the constitutions of several Bars.

He said that the rules had been prepared on the basis that barristers – • owed their paramount duty to the administration of justice • must maintain high standards of professional conduct • must act honestly, fairly, skilfully and with competence and diligence in their roles as specialist advocates in the administration of justice • owed duties to the courts, to their clients and to their barrister and solicitor colleagues • should exercise their forensic judgments and give their advice independently and for the proper administration of justice, notwithstanding any contrary desires of their clients.

Mr Bathurst said that each Bar would now publish the proposed new rules to its members and to the wider public for comment. However, it was the ABA’s expectation that the draft national rules would be adopted by the Council of Australian Governments Taskforce and published in draft form with a proposed bill and other rules being prepared to ensure national regulation of the Australian legal profession. That was expected to The NZLS board at its December meeting occur within the next few months. In the voted to create a working group to carry out meantime, inquiries and submissions on the review of the intervention rule. The group the draft national rules for barristers could consists of NZLS President, John Marshall be made to Mr Bathurst, to the ABA or QC, president-elect Jonathan Temm, one to the NSW Bar Association’s executive large firm representative and one small firm director, Philip Selth. representative. The NZBA and the ministry The draft rules are 23 pages long. Rule 4 will be consulted on the review. states that the objects of the rules are to ensure that all barristers act in accordance Meanwhile, in Australia, the Australian Bar with the general principles of professional Association has prepared a national set conduct, act independently, recognise and of rules of conduct to apply to barristers uniformly across Australia. At present, each discharge their obligations in relation to State and Territory has its own set of rules of the administration of justice and provide conduct for barristers. ABA immediate past- services of the highest standard, unaffected by personal interest. Rule 11 provides president, Tom Bathurst QC, said that all of the Australian Bars had now accepted that a that the Bar Council shall have the power national profession should be governed by a to waive duties imposed on barristers to comply with the rules in circumstances in uniform set of conduct rules. which it considers that to be appropriate.

The general purpose of the new rules Rule 21 sets out provisions relating to the was to set out rules and standards of cab rank principle, while rules 75 to 77 deal conduct applicable to barristers and which with barristers making media comment. were appropriate in the interests of the Rules 95 to 106 deal with briefs which must administration of justice. Mr Bathurst said be refused or returned. Rule 107 sets out that the only rules that would not apply rules relating to devilling and rules 108 to nationally were a few which needed to differ 114 cover confidentiality and conflicts.

ABA’s International Delegation Visits New Zealand “I was impressed with the level of discussion concerning [emerging property] rights, as well as the complexity of the issues involved. During our roundtable discussions, our participants drew similarities with property rights’ issues facing the Native American community in the United States and the Aboriginal community in Australia. It is heartening to learn that the Government of New Zealand takes these complex issues seriously and is trying to resolve competing issues and claims in a fair and equitable manner.”

She said that the ABA hoped that NZBA members would consider joining the ABA’s Section of International Law. Lawyers did not need to have qualified in an American state in order to be eligible for membership. The association was keen to see a large contingent of New Zealand lawyers at both the section’s Spring Meeting in New York between 13 and 17 April 2010, and its Fall Meeting in Paris between November 2 and 6.

A warm invitation is being extended by the American Bar Association to NZBA members to attend some of the American association’s major 2010 gatherings. Incoming chair of the ABA’s International Law Section, Salli Swartz, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and approximately 25 American lawyers visited New Zealand and Australia in February as part of the ILEX programme.

On the morning of 12 February, delegation members attended a roundtable discussion at DLA Phillips Fox led by Court of Appeal judge, Justice David Baragwanath. Ms Swartz said that the roundtable meeting had discussed the evolving constitutional landscape in New Zealand, including disparate sources of constitutional law, the role of the New Zealand Judiciary, the 2003 Supreme Court ILEX, which stands for International Legal Act, the 2004 constitutional arrangements, “We want to keep in touch with both Exchange, was created to encourage the the creation of a republic and Maori rights. the NZBA and NZLS to identify and worldwide exchange of ideas, educate address matters of common interest delegation members about important She said that there were a number of and we will meet with the leaders of both legal issues in the jurisdictions visited and current issues of mutual interest to the organisations during the ABA’s annual strengthen ties between the ABA’s Section NZBA and ABA. Both organisations aimed meeting in San Francisco this August.” of International Law and local lawyers’ to provide the best possible continuing Ms Swartz said that section vice-chair, associations such as the NZBA and NZLS. legal education to their members.

Mike Burke, would like the section to return Ms Swartz said that the delegations often “We’re also both interested in how legal to New Zealand within the next two years. included a United States Supreme Court services are evolving – due to the impact Justice.

“We had a tremendous reception in of the global financial crisis, globalisation She said that the delegation had received a of legal practices and developments such Auckland and ABA international received great support from the NZBA (Colin tremendous welcome in Auckland from the as legal process outsourcing. Key issues NZBA, NZLS, members of the judiciary and also include the intersection of professional Carruthers and Monique Pearson) and the NZLS (John Marshall and Bronwyn Jones).” the local legal community. ethics and trans-border legal practice, “Delegation members came away with a new admission to practice (and requirements Ms Swartz made her first visit to New appreciation of New Zealand’s unique history and reciprocity of admission) in the states Zealand several years ago. She said that and key legal issues. We also strengthened our of the Unites States and New Zealand, and her only regret this time was that, apart relationship with the NZBA and NZLS – and we admission and regulation of foreign legal from a “very exciting” sailing experience very much hope ABA International will return to consultants.” on Friday afternoon, she did not have Auckland, in some way, in the near future.” time for travel or other leisure activities.

Ms Swartz said that another issue She hoped to visit New Zealand again The delegation arrived in Auckland on 11 discussed by the delegation had been in the future to enjoy all that the country February 2010 and attended a drinks function the importance of safeguarding clients’ had to offer. Some of the other delegation hosted by Chapman Tripp in conjunction interests in trans-border conduct. with the NZBA and NZLS for 100 people.

Matters relating to decisions about which members had visited Murchison, Queenstown and Rotorua.

Invitees included Attorney-General Christopher jurisdiction’s ethical standards would Finlayson, Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias, other members of the judiciary, the University of Auckland’s Professor Paul Rishworth, members of the bar and partners from large law firms.

apply to specific conduct – including the application of specific ethical standards in cross-border arbitration – had also been canvassed.

Contributors to this article include Glenn Hendrix (Section Chair), Salli Swartz (ChairElect), and Michael Burke (Vice-Chair).

7

Chapman Tripp Cocktail Evening, Thursday 11 February

The NZBA would like to thank the NZLS, Chapman Tripp and DLA Phillips Fox for their assistance in hosting Justice Scalia and the ABA ILEX delegation on their recent visit to Auckland.

8

Roundtable Discussion at DLA Phillips Fox, Friday 12 February

9

A Tribute to Pioneering English Lawyer Jean Southworth QC Retired Common Sergeant of the Old Bailey, His Honour Judge Neil Denison QC, delivered a tribute to Jean Southworth QC at her funeral service on 26 January 2010 at Gray’s Inn, London. The following is an abridged version of his address. Ms Southworth was a pioneer for women at the English Bar. Her close friend, Ann Curnow QC, said that women at the Bar owed a great debt to Ms Southworth. The picture painted by Judge Denison of the difficulties faced by female lawyers in the 1950s was “totally accurate”, said Ms Curnow.

Jean was born and spent her early years in Clitheroe in Lancashire.

She went to school in Harrogate in Yorkshire and later to St. Anne’s College in Oxford where she read law.

She was called to the Bar in 1954 by this Inn. She took Silk in1973 and became a Bencher of her Inn in 1980.

She sat as a Recorder in the Crown Court from 1972 until 1993. When we look more closely at her life both within and outside the law, we find that we are looking at a life which was truly remarkable.

When Jean became a Bencher of this Inn she was only the second woman to obtain that honour, the first being Rose Heilbron. During her later years as a Bencher and, indeed, until her death she was Dean of this Chapel. Jean’s chosen profession was the Bar and she embarked upon that profession in 1954 when she was called. The Bar in the 1950s was very different from the Bar as it is today. It was much smaller – under 2000 as opposed to over 12000 today – and it was still largely male dominated. A few women had made it to the top – Helena Normanton, Elizabeth Lane, and Rose Heilbron spring to mind – but they were very few and amongst them only Rose Heilbron had practised at the Criminal Bar. But Jean’s ambition

10

was to practise at the Criminal Bar and the difficulties she faced in achieving that ambition were formidable.

Some Chambers would not have a woman on the premises, often citing the absence of separate or suitable lavatorial accommodation as the reason.

Other sets would accept a woman as a secretary but not as a pupil, still less as a tenant. But Jean persisted and her persistence paid off when Christmas Humphreys took her on as his pupil and then kept her on as a tenant. In those days once you joined a set of Chambers, mostly, there you stayed for the rest of your professional life and so, until she retired, Jean remained a member of the Chambers which, after various changes and mergers, have become Hollis Whiteman Chambers.

“reckless” in an allegation of criminal damage and their Lordships concluded that that the Recorder had got it right.

Had Jean wanted to move up the judicial ladder, I have no doubt but that she would have done so and would have attained the higher reaches of the judiciary.

The law played a large part in Jean’s life but there was much more to her life than the law. She loved her home in Bayswater where she was a charming hostess. She enjoyed cooking and never shirked the gritty part such as plucking pheasants.

But her greatest love was people. She had a number of godchildren whom she adored and she was surrounded by friends. Her friendships were deep and, however or whenever they were formed, they lasted to the end of her life.

Once established, Jean rose quickly Jean was a warm hearted, generous and through the ranks of the Criminal Bar until loving woman. She had a deep religious in 1973 she took Silk. Her appointment faith. She lived her life to the full and, at as Queen’s Counsel was well deserved least until her last few months, she enjoyed because of her shrewd knowledge of it. All those who knew her were enriched the Criminal Law and her excellence as by the experience and will miss her terribly an advocate both in prosecution and and everyone will mourn her passing. defence. As an advocate she was quiet – she never blustered or flannelled - but incisive. She was always polite but was persistent, perceptive and persuasive.

John Rohn

Solicitors, Partners & Associates The Bar today is pretty much evenly divided between men and women and female Silks abound. The change during the last 50 years Get on top of an overload. Get research done. or so has been dramatic and that Take on an extra pair of hands for discovery. change is due in no small measure Put office systems in place. to the pioneering women who broke Get efficient in word processing & documentation. the glass ceiling. Jean was in the Recover your fees • Keep costs low forefront of those pioneers and women who are at the Bar today Get the work done owe her an enormous debt Cost effective starting at $29.50 + GST per hour of gratitude.

Hours, days or weeks to suit your need and budget

“A better plan will make you more money” The plan is to save time and money

One thing Jean never sought was judicial preferment. She enjoyed being a Recorder and she was good at the job My first appearance in the House of Lords was in an appeal that had started life as a trial in front of Miss Recorder Southworth. The issue was the meaning of the word

Graduates, solicitors, barristers and legal secretaries available Phone 09 359 9244

email:jobs@legalpersonnel.co.nz

www.legalpersonnel.co.nz

Stress at the Bar This article was first published in the January 2010 issue of Counsel and has been reproduced with the kind permission of the author and the Bar Council of the England and Wales Bar Association.

Hilary Tilby discusses the dangers of using alcohol and drugs as coping mechanisms for dealing with a stressful practice and highlights the help at hand.

When you are subject to longterm stress, the result is that you feel grim – not sleeping well; unable to think clearly; losing your joie de vivre; losing confidence in your own judgement and abilities etc. Naturally, you want to feel better, so what do you do? If you are, as is likely to be the case, the normal legal personality (unable to delegate, driven, perfectionist, the A type personality) then you look for a quick fix, because, by definition, the legal personality is too busy to wait for anything to change. It must be immediate. And what has an immediate effect? Nicotine, sugar, and more potentially damaging, alcohol and drugs.

Under pressure

Stress is totally subjective so that the pressure that one person thrives on can destroy another. However, the reality is that in practice at the Bar, the pressures are enormous – to always perform to the highest standard; of worrying when the next case will come in; of having too many cases, but not being able to turn any away because of the risk of losing an instructing solicitor; of trying to manage fees coming in as against bills going out. Quite apart from the high expectation that we each have of ourselves and the high levels we expect to achieve, the public are now very aware of what they regard as a good service and if you cannot deliver, problems will follow.

The effects of stress should not be underestimated. Sometimes, we get calls on our free and confidential helpline, LawCare, from lawyers on their way to work who just cannot face going a step further because they dread going to work so much.

People are afraid to ask for help within chambers because of the risk of becoming known as “weak” and

“unreliable”, with damaging effects on their career progress.

In 2007, 59 per cent of our calls from the Bar related to stress/depression.

The male/female split was exactly 50/50.

In 2008, those figures rose to 70 per cent and two-thirds of the callers were women. To the end of October 2009, the figure was 65 percent with, again, slightly more females contacting the helpline.

Alcohol abuse

It can become an easy habit to cope with the pressures of the day through drinking a glass of something. The problem is that, over time, the glasses become multiple and then become bottles. It takes at least 10 years for alcohol use to exhibit itself as alcohol abuse, and in women this tends to be in the mid 30s and in men in the mid 40s. Also, if there is excessive drinking over a long period, the body becomes saturated with/tolerant of the alcohol and even though organs may be being damaged, the individual can still function apparently reasonably well.

You do not have to be lying drunk in the gutter in order to have an alcohol problem. Even if those around the drinker suspect what is going on, they will tend to shy away from confronting the issue. Even if challenged, the likely immediate reaction will be denial.

Alcohol is still something that lawyers are reluctant to admit to be a problem.

This is for a variety of reasons: (i) it is still more socially acceptable to admit that you are stressed than that you are drinking too much. Therefore, whilst some callers to our helpline immediately say “I am drinking too much. Please help me stop”, many more will ring with a purported stress problem and it is only once they have been talking for some time that they will build up the confidence to admit how much they are drinking; (ii) even then, the general rule of thumb is that you multiply the admitted quantity by three to arrive at a reasonably accurate figure; (iii) chambers/ colleagues can be very judgemental in their attitude to alcohol

abuse; (iv) tackling the issue of possible alcohol abuse is very diffi cult; and (v) 80 percent of those asking for help with an alcohol problem say that they started drinking due to stress at work.

In 2007, 27 per cent of the calls LawCare received from the Bar related to alcohol (60:40 male/ female split). In 2008, the figure was 25 per cent and again, the majority of callers were men. To the end of October 2009, it was 20 per cent of calls, with again the callers mainly being men.

Overall, men are more likely to call about alcohol issues.

Drug addiction

Only a small percentage of our case files relate to drugs, because this is seen as even less socially acceptable than alcohol. There is also a worry about the legal aspects and threat to career if a user is found out. Even though our helpline is completely confidential, reluctance to admit to using still remains. Where calls do occur, there is frequently a dual addiction, ie alcohol and drugs.

Cocaine is the most commonly seen drug of choice. We suspect that there is a huge groundswell of drug addiction cases amongst members of the Bar, but that because the users are mostly young, the effects have not yet manifested themselves. But they will.

Main stress triggers • Financial difficulties • Bullying (a huge problem, ranging across the spectrum of age and gender) • Inability to balance demands of home and family with

demands of career • Being overwhelmed by work • Having poor relationships with others in chambers

11

Seeking help

Life in practice can be tough, but it is not worth wrecking your health and personal relationships because of it.

If you need help, LawCare is there 365 days a year, with nonjudgemental and confidential assistance and support. Any caller can speak, in total confi dence, to someone who understands the problems of life in the law. They will be there to talk with the callers, not at them, and to help them to see their way forward a little more clearly. The website contains very useful self help articles, tests for stress and drinking too much, as well as a direct e-mail to LawCare. You can also access the Wellbeing Portal, which will enable you to carry out a total personal and confidential assessment of the levels of stress in your personal and professional life and will highlight your danger areas, helping you to create a plan for dealing with them.

No one needs to suffer alone. Just pick up the phone.

Hilary Tilby is the Chief Executive of LawCare

Need help? Contact: LawCare 0800 018 4299 Open 365 days a year 9 am – 7.30 pm weekdays 10 am – 4 pm weekends / UK Bank Holidays www.lawcare.org.uk

12

AWLA Celebrates Success The Auckland Women Lawyers’ Association has announced its theme for 2010 – “Building your own success”. This theme is intended to build on its message for 2009, which was “Celebrating Success” as part of AWLA’s 25th anniversary.

There are many areas of common interest between the NZBA and AWLA (and the various other women lawyers’ associations around the country) and our organisations share a number of members. AWLA maintains close relations with both the Bar and the Bench, holds regular “Judges Functions” and encourages its members to apply for leadership roles within the profession, such as Queen’s Counsel or positions within the judiciary.

One recent “success” which both the NZBA and AWLA consider deserves celebration is the launch of the NZBA Equitable Briefing Policy. The Policy was launched by the Attorney-General at the NZBA Annual Conference on 12 September 2009 and is intended to serve as a reminder to those briefing the Bar to consider briefing women counsel.

The actual implementation of the Policy will develop in several stages and AWLA has indicated that it is interested in helping the NZBA to promote the Policy as it is rolled out.

AWLA membership forms for 2010 are available now and can be downloaded from awla.org.nz

Abundans cautela non nocet by Callum Mills, Ideal Systems Disaster does strike, hard drives fail, computers get stolen, documents get accidentally deleted and viruses do corrupt and delete data.

Some twenty percent of you pay some lip service to backing up your data, occasionally copying some files to a USB hard drive, memory stick or a CD, unfortunately you only do this around four times a year.

The few real sticklers, around five percent, take a backup at least once a week; the remaining seventy five percent simply don’t bother to take a backup at all.

To not take regular backups is putting your profitability and reputation at risk. The impact of being unable to produce case notes, photographs and documents when required could be very damaging. If you lost all or a large portion of your data how much unpaid time would you have to spend collecting all the data you required, some critical items would be irreplaceable.

These days backups are easy and quite painless. The recommended methods are (i) backing up to a USB hard drives that are supplied with a backup program; and (ii) performing on line backups to a data centre in New Zealand. Backups should occur without user intervention as long as the computer is switched on and, where necessary, access to the internet is available.

Whatever method you choose you should ensure that it has a version control capability, for example you may wish to resurrect a document that has been heavily edited back to its original form, or recover a mail message that you deleted several weeks ago.

An ideal USB hard drive system would be the Western Digital 1Tb My Book Elite Edition. This device has a storage capacity of 1 terabyte, that’s a staggering 1,024 gigabytes or 1,048,576 megabytes of storage. If you were backing up 7 gigabytes of data the system has the capacity to store more than 140 backup images. The RRP of this device is only $249.75 GST inclusive (10% discount for Association members).

Signing up to an on-line data storage backup offers some valuable benefits. (i) the data is held in an encrypted form at multiple data centres in New Zealand (Auckland and Wellington) so no matter what disaster strikes your data will most likely be recoverable. (ii) If someone purloins your laptop or computer they won’t also take your backup device. (iii) the system comes with some technical support to help you set up the backup and to recover data. The cost of this service is somewhat more expensive at around $40 per month for up to 10 gigabytes of storage. The recommended on-line storage partner is Datalock, have a look at their website at www.datalock.co.nz.

The good people at Western Digital have generously provided the NZBA with a 1Tb My Book Elite Edition to give away as a prize. The winner will be the first person to email callum@ideal-systems.co.nz with a translation of the title of this article.

Special thanks to Mimi Wong, APAC PR Manager at Western Digital.

13

NZBA TRAINING PROGRAMME “I commend the New Zealand Bar Association and the Criminal Bar Association on their determination to provide quality comprehensive and ongoing Continuing Legal Education and enhance professional standards for advocates on the front-line of the justice system.” Attorney General Chris Finlayson, March 2010 A list of NZBA seminars for 2010 can be found below. Programmes and registration forms are available on the events calendar page of the NZBA website www.nzbar.org.nz.

Please not that these dates are subject to change. Members are encouraged to refer to the NZBA website for updates to this schedule.

DATE

SEMINAR

VENUE

27 March

Criminal Law Update: Developments in Criminal Law, presented by Professor Warren Brookbanks

10 April

ESR: Introduction to ESR

Pioneer Women’s Hall, central Auckland 1-3pm Pioneer Women’s Hall, central Auckland 1-3pm Pioneer Women’s Hall, central Auckland 1-3pm Auckland Hamilton Pioneer Women’s Hall, central Auckland 1-3pm Leys Institute Hall, Ponsonby 1-3pm

24 April TBC May 08 May

Criminal Law Update: Human Rights, presented by Professor Kris Gledhill Professional Development Programme: Take the Lead and Shape Your Future ESR: Drugs and clan labs, presented by Melanie Snow, Senior Scientist Clandestine Laboratory

22 May

Criminal Law Update: Evidence Law, presented by Peter Sankoff

12 June

ESR: Physical Evidence, presented by Gerhard Wevers, Senior Scientist Physical Evidence and Dr Douglas Elliot, Science Leader Auckland Forensic Service Centre

19 June

Criminal Law Update: presented by Professor Warren Brookbanks

03 July

ESR: DNA Evidence (Part I), presented by Dr SallyAnn Harbison, Technical Leader Biology

24 July

Criminal Law Update: presented by Professor Warren Brookbanks

31 July

ESR: DNA Evidence (Part II), presented by Dr John Buckleton, Principal Scientist

21 August

Criminal Law Update: presented by Professor Kris Gledhill

04 September

ESR: Site visit

18 September

Criminal Law Update: Evidence Law, presented by Peter Sankoff

02 October

ESR: Toxicology Services, presented by Dr Keith Bedford, GM Forensic

16 October

Criminal Law Update: presented by Professor Warren Brookbanks

20 November

Criminal Law Update: presented by Associate Professor Scott Optican

Professional Development seminars – dates to follow

Forensic accounting and forensic technology, presented by Deloitte “The Art of Written Persuasion”, presented by Professor James C Raymond Practical tips and techniques to consider when “Finding the Facts”

14

Pioneer Women’s Hall, central Auckland 1-3pm Pioneer Women’s Hall, central Auckland 1-3pm Pioneer Women’s Hall, central Auckland 1-3pm Pioneer Women’s Hall, central Auckland 1-3pm Pioneer Women’s Hall, central Auckland 1-3pm Pioneer Women’s Hall, central Auckland 1-3pm Auckland Pioneer Women’s Hall, central Auckland 1-3pm Pioneer Women’s Hall, central Auckland 1-3pm Pioneer Women’s Hall, central Auckland 1-3pm Pioneer Women’s Hall, central Auckland 1-3pm

WHAT MEMBERS NEED TO KNOW Rules Committee: Duty to Cooperate

NZBA Insurance Plan

The Rules Committee is seeking the NZBA’s feedback on proposals for rules relating to the duty on parties to comply with the High Court Rules and the duty on Counsel to assist.

The Bar Council is delighted to report a fantastic take up from members and positive feedback on the service received by the schemes risk advisors, Marsh.

The Bar Council will be making a submission and would welcome views from members on the consultation paper and appendices. The relevant documents can be found on the website www.nzbar.org.nz

To enable Marsh to contact you prior to your renewal date, please contact Liam Pomfret at liam.pomfret@ marsh.com. This will ensure you do not miss renewing your insurance and you maintain continuity with the NZBA Insurance Plan facility.

Submissions are due to the Rules Committee by Friday, 7 May 2010. Members are asked to send their comments to the convener of the NZBA Rules sub-committee, Stephen Mills QC, at stephen.mills@shortlandchambers.co.nz by no later than Wednesday, 31 March so that they can be taken into account in preparing the NZBA’s submission.

NZBA “Find-A-Barrister” directory The on-line directory is available on the website and includes information on practising barristers, their areas of practice and contact details.

Members can update their own details or send any changes in particulars to the NZBA administrator at nzbar@nzbar.org.nz.

New Bar Association members The Bar Association welcomes the following new members to the independent bar and/or the Bar Association: AUCKLAND/NORTHLAND:

Melissa Perkin, Lisa La Mantia, Matthew Windsor, Michael Webb, Tim Herbert, Vernon Rive, John Ross

CHRISTCHURCH:

Nicola Ebert

WAIKATO/BAY OF PLENTY: Karen Quinn, Katherine Ewen,

Catherine Clarkson AUSTRALIA:

Paul Menzies QC, Stephen Smith

Annual subscriptions Subscription renewals for the period 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 will go out in April. The payment due date is 20 May 2010.

A reminder to members that services provided by the NZBA are dependent on members being financial.

Bar Council meetings and events Members should feel free to contact any of the Bar Council members – or the Bar Association – with any matters they would like raised on their behalf at future Bar Council meetings.

DATE

EVENT

VENUE

05 March

Council Meeting

Christchurch

06 May

Bench and Bar Dinner

Auckland

07 May

Council Meeting

Auckland

25 June

Council Meeting

Video Conference

27 - 29 August

Annual Conference

Millbrook in Queenstown

08 October

Council Meeting

Hamilton

03 December

Council Meeting

Auckland

15

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES AND EVENTS The World Bar Conference Sydney 1 – 5 April 2010 The 5th World Bar Conference will be held in Sydney, between Thursday, 1 April and Monday, 5 April 2010.

The conference theme will be “The New Legal Challenges: Global Warming and Financial Freeze”. It will commence with a reception at Opera Point of the Sydney Opera House overlooking Sydney Harbour. The business sessions will be held in the ballroom of the Sheraton on the Park Hotel, Sydney and will be conducted on Saturday, 3rd and Sunday, 4th April.

To find out more visit www.worldbaronline.com/images/stories/conferences/ Sydney2010/world_bar_conf_brochure.pdf

The 15th MundiAvocat Football World Cup for Lawyers Turkey 26 May – 6 June 2010 The 2010 World Football Cup for Lawyers will be held in Antalya, Turkey.

If you are interested in registering, please visit www.mundiavocat.com to download registration forms and view sports schedules, regulations, accommodation options and more.

Scholarships available for the 2010 IBA annual conference in Vancouver 3 – 8 October 2010 This year the sections and committees of the IBA’s Legal Practice Division are once again offering scholarships to young lawyers who wish to participate in the IBA annual conference, but may find financial difficulties in doing so.

If you are interested in applying for a scholarship, please visit http://www.ibanet.org/Education_and_Internships/education_and_internships.aspx for further information.

The deadline for submissions is Monday, 26 April 2010.

16

Junior Barristers’ Update Beneath the Cherry Tree

by David Bates A New Novel - Available From 2nd Week in December 2009

Dear Jubes, Happy new year! I hope it’s off to a good start.

February saw New Zealand host the American Bar Association Section of International Law at a luncheon in Auckland. A delegation from the Association, the world’s largest voluntary professional organisation with some 400,000 members, visited Australia and New Zealand as part of an International Legal Exchange. They considered a number of issues throughout the week, including the use of foreign and international law in U.S. court decisions, the internationalisation of commercial law, emerging forms of property in the global context, and current issues facing the judicial systems of Australia and New Zealand. I understand some delegates also had the chance to consider sailing, wine-tasting, and the nightlife on Ponsonby Road.

For anyone interested in doing some international visiting themselves, the International Bar Association has just released the programme for its Fifth World Bar Conference.

The conference will be held in Sydney from 1 to 4 April and will involve sessions on the evolution of barristerial practice, litigation financing, justice v efficiency, global warming and the environment, and the power of written advocacy. Please get in touch if you are interested in attending and would like a full programme or information on possible scholarships.

Closer to home, the NZBA will be co-hosting the Sentencing Advocacy Competition at the University of Auckland in association with the Ministry of Justice. The competition, an initiative of the Auckland High Court Judges’ Clerks some three years ago, attracts entrants from Auckland and Hamilton and tests students’ advocacy skills in the nuanced field of criminal sentencing. The date of the final is Monday, 22 March at the Auckland High Court and it will be open to the public. Practitioners interested in attending will be welcomed.

I look forward to seeing you there!

Julian Paul is a Wellington barrister with a gambling problem. Anthony Samuels is a remand prisoner and Julian’s client. He faces serious drug charges and is desperate for bail.

Julian undertakes to arrange this - for an exorbitant fee - by blackmailing a Judge who had a homosexual relationship many years previously.

Will Julian succeed? Will he ruin his future and destroy his family in the process? Can same sex relationships be an expression of true love?

“The story is consistent with the realities of the law and makes for a fascinating and exciting read. The characters are well drawn and their machinations reveal their true nature. The author explores issues of honesty, family responsibilities and same sex relationships in a thoughtful and gripping sequence of events as the story unfolds to its inevitable conclusion.”

David Bates was born in 1947. At age 15 he enlisted as a Seaman Boy in the Royal New Zealand Navy. At 19 he became a member of the New Zealand Police where he spent 17 years, attaining the rank of inspector. He graduated LLB from Victoria University of Wellington in 1981, resigned from the Police in 1982 to practise law full time and for the past 22 years, as a Barrister, has specialised in the practise of criminal law. He and his wife Christine live in Tauranga, New Zealand.

They have two children and three grandchildren. He is the author or co-author of five legal books. Beneath the Cherry Tree is his first novel.

ORDER YOUR COPY/IES SIGNED BY THE AUTHOR by emailing your name and mailing address to d.bates@xtra.co.nz

Price NZ$39.00 + $6.00 p&p in New Zealand. $8.00 p&p outside New Zealand. (Or as arranged) Please pay by direct deposit to the Author’s National Bank of New Zealand Account No 06-0317-0917095-00 Please include first initial and surname in bank deposit data & email author at d.bates@xtra.co.nz to confirm payment.

Your copy/ies will be dispatched when payment is confirmed.

Thank you.

Web: www.bateslaw.co.nz 17

Australian Bar Association Advanced Advocacy Course In January this year, fellow barrister Rebecca Edwards and I were very privileged to attend the Australian Bar Association Advanced Advocacy Course in Brisbane. The course has been run each year since 2007, but this was the first year New Zealand barristers had been invited to attend.

Rebecca and I had thought that one advantage of doing the course in Australia was that we could make all our mistakes under a cloak of anonymity and slink back home with no-one the wiser. This turned out to be a false hope, however, as one of the coaches was Hamilton barrister Chris Gudsell QC. In fact, he was a particularly popular and well-liked coach.

The course structure was very similar to the NZLS advocacy course, with participants’ performances being recorded on DVD and critiqued first by an in-Court judge and then by a separate reviewer. We spent around one day on each of the following: case analysis, opening submissions, examination-inchief, cross-examination, and closing submissions.

Three things in particular stood out for me.

First, the coaching staff were extraordinarily talented and experienced, and were drawn from a wide range of jurisdictions. As well as our own Chris Gudsell QC, there were silks from

18

England, Scotland South Africa and Australia, and a number of Australian judges. All of the coaches were very generous with not only their time and expertise, but also their energy, enthusiasm and warmth of spirit.

Secondly, the calibre of the other participants was astonishing and fairly intimidating. The participants included three silks, one former judge who was returning to the Bar, former partners from large Australian law firms, and one formidably experienced Crown Prosecutor. Some participants had already attended the course previously. There was a conspicuous lack of egotism, however, and the atmosphere was very supportive. The coaches gave praise where they felt it was due, and were asked to limit their criticism to one or two key points per performance.

Thirdly, the input from three performance coaches, who had backgrounds in drama, voice work, arts and communication, was extremely useful. It was useful to think about Court appearances as a form of theatre and to realise that, although it is important to be yourself, we all have many “selves” which we can tap into. No doubt most of us apply this to a certain degree already - realising intuitively, for example,

that in most circumstances our Fridaynight-drinking-with-friends-self, or our Monday-morning-yelling-at-the-kids-self are best kept out of the court room. The performance coaches encouraged us to think more consciously about how we wished to be perceived (perhaps warm, persuasive, authoritative or compelling) and then to consider whether our voice, appearance, energy, stance and gestures actually conveyed that impression.

They emphasised the need to project the desired impression right from the moment you walk into the court room. For example, is the way in which you organise your papers authoritative, if that is how you wish to appear? Is the way in which you greet your opposing counsel warm and genuine, if you want it be?

The course was challenging, thoughtprovoking and absolutely invaluable. I know I am now a much better barrister than when I arrived in Brisbane on the 17th of January, and I am very grateful to the Australian Bar Association for giving us this opportunity.

I would strongly recommend the course to anyone who was thinking about participating in future.

Jane Glover Bankside Chambers, Auckland

“The Law Report” “The Law Report” is a new and comprehensive information service offered via email and website which will be of interest to barristers who work in any area of legal practice.

The Law Report has been created

by Melissa Perkin, and is published

by Law Leader Limited. Melissa was a Judges’ Clerk for 20 years at the Auckland District Court and latterly at the Auckland District Law Society as a Regulatory Solicitor in the Professional Standards Department.

Melissa’s role also encompassed co-ordination and management of the majority of the Society’s representative committees. Whilst at the Society, Melissa also created the concept of The Law Society Bulletin, which she wrote from June 2008 to the beginning of 2010 when she resigned from ADLS Inc. The Bulletin was published and distributed weekly by the Auckland District Law Society Inc. The contributors to The Law Report comprise a team of legal information specialists and experienced lawyers (covering a broad spectrum of practice areas), to ensure that an unprecedented delivery of relevant legal information is available to the legal profession in a timely manner. The editorial team will read cases from all New Zealand court jurisdictions and provide the cases and headnotes on those that are of importance to lawyers.

There will be a substantial number of services available at no charge (see below), and practitioners will have the option, through a low-cost paid subscription, to access more comprehensive detail including the full case headnotes with copies of those cases, summaries of new legislation with access to the full text and the ability to search across the entire case summary and legislation summary database. Decisions which have publication restrictions (but which can be published in a legal publication) will only be available via paid subscription access.

The following free services will be available: • A weekly email will be sent to

subscribers (who can subscribe to the email free of charge) which will contain: • the names of the latest cases of note, listed by subject and containing a two to three line summary ; • the titles of the latest changes to

legislation of interest to practitioners; • Links via email to The Law Report

website to news stories from both New Zealand and overseas jurisdictions of interest to lawyers, with brief summaries of each item; • Links via email to The Law Report website to articles on specific topics from both New Zealand and overseas, with summaries of the content of the articles; • Links on The Law Report website to websites and materials of interest to lawyers (for example, regularly referred to legislation), ordered by subject, enabling practitioners to access material which relates only to their specific areas of practice rather than all areas of practice; • A list of current events of interest for practitioners (with a country wide focus); • Editorial/Opinion pages (contributions from practitioners will be invited); • Legal humour; • RSS feeds.

• Search facilities across both case and legislation summaries • Access to a database archive of recent important decisions • Search facilities (by subject) across news and articles The Law Report will be available at thelawreport.co.nz . Subscribers who are members of the NZBA will obtain a discounted member price for subscription via the NZBA. Law Leader Ltd is planning to have this service available by 11 April 2010 which is the week after the Easter holiday break.

Since leaving Auckland District Law Society Inc, Melissa has become a barrister specialising in providing legal research, legal opinion and submission writing services to lawyers, in all areas of practice. Practitioners who are interested in assistance of this kind are able to contact Melissa at melissa.perkin@ihug. co.nz or on 021 684 745. She is currently in chambers at Vulcan Lane in Auckland Central. Melissa is a contributing author to Brookers’ Summary Proceedings text and was also a headnote writer for the New Zealand Law Reports and the District Court Reports.

Lawyers who pay the subscription fee will be able to access the following additional services: • Headnotes of all recent cases

considered of sufficient importance to be reported • The full text of those selected cases (downloadable PDF files) • Access to decisions which have publication restrictions (where allowable) • Summaries of selected new legislation of interest to lawyers • The full text of that selected legislation (downloadable PDF files) • Access to a searchable database archive of legislation summaries (back to the beginning of 2009) relevant to lawyers

19

2010 COUNCIL CONTACT DETAILS

SENTENCING ADVOCACY Competition

COMPETITION FINALS Monday 22 March 2010 at 6:30 pm in Courtroom 1 Auckland High Court, Waterloo Quadrant Justices Courtney and Wylie presiding All welcome The competition will be followed by a function with drinks and nibbles where the winner will be announced The winner will receive $600 and the runner up $400 Prizes sponsored by the New Zealand Bar Association Competition organised by the Judges’ Clerks of the Auckland High Court and the Auckland University Law Students’ Society

20

COLIN CARRUTHERS QC - President Ph: 0064 4 471 4275 Fax: 0064 4 471 1195 P O Box 305, Wellington, 6140 crc@crcarruthers.co.nz

MIRIAM DEAN QC - President–Elect Ph: 0064 9 377 8959 Fax: 0064 9 377 8960 P O Box 4111, Shortland Street, Auckland, 1140 miriam@barrists.co.nz

STEPHEN MILLS QC - Vice-President Ph: 0064 9 307 9820 Fax: 0064 9 307 1572 P O Box 4338, Shortland Street, Auckland, 1140 stephen.mills@shortlandchambers.co.nz

CHRISTOPHER GUDSELL QC - Vice-President Ph: 0064 7 839 3290 Fax: 0064 7 834 0587 P O Box 19085, Hamilton, 3244 ctgudsell@xtra.co.nz

JONATHAN EATON - Vice-President Ph: 0064 3 471 2727 Fax: 0064 3 499 4620 P O Box 13-868, Armagh, Christchurch, 8141 j.eaton@.bridgesidechambers.co.nz

KENNETH JOHNSTON - Treasurer Ph: 0064 4 372 3466 Fax: 0064 4 365 2592 P O Box 5058, Lambton Quay, Wellington, 6145 k-johnston@clear.net.nz

TOBY FUTTER - Junior Barristers’ Representative Ph: 0064 9 308 0516 Fax: 0064 9 308 0518 Bankside Chambers, Level 22, 88 Shortland Street, Auckland toby@futter.co.nz

CATHERINE BIBBEY Ph: 0064 3 377 5589Fax: 0064 3 365 2592 P O Box 13-868, Armagh, Christchurch, 8141 c.e.bibbey@xtra.co.nz

TIM CASTLE Ph: 0064 4 471 0523 Fax: 0064 4 471 0672 P O Box 10048, Wellington tim.castle@xtra.co.nz

GERARD CURRY Ph: 0064 9 377 9783 Fax: 0064 9 377 9784 P O Box 106586, Auckland, 1143 gerard.curry@argylechambers.com

KATE DAVENPORT Ph: 0064 9 307 8787 Fax: 0064 9 307 8788 P O Box 141, Shortland Street, Auckland, 1140 kate@katedavenport.co.nz

GRAHAM KOHLER Ph: 0064 9 307 9816 Fax: 0064 9 307 1572 P O Box 4338, Shortland Street, Auckland, 1140 kohler@shortlandchambers.co.nz

ELLIOT HUDSON Ph: 0064 7 839 6644 Fax: 0064 7 839 6610 P O Box 19252, Hamilton, 3244 elliothudson@xtra.co.nz

JOHN MATTHEWS Ph: 0064 3 409 2010 Fax: 0064 3 409 2012 P O Box 1770, Queenstown, 9348 jgmatthews@xtra.co.nz

ANTHONY ROGERS Ph: 0064 9 377 4850 Fax: 0064 9 377 4850 P O Box 1771, Shortland Street, Auckland, 1140 agvr@xtra.co.nz