The Inner Temple Yearbook 2015-2016

THE INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK ���� –���6 Treasurer: The Rt Hon Lord Justice Moore-Bick

apexhotels.co.uk

IN THE HEART OF THE CITY

Apex Hotels are located in London, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee with the Apex Temple Court Hotel situated just off the City’s famous Fleet Street.

• • • • • •

Nine hotels in great city centre locations Award winning restaurant & bars Complimentary Wi-Fi and local calls Great short break rates and offers TripAdvisor Certificate of Excellence 2015 Winner New hotel opening in Bath early 2017

T 0845 365 000 | reservations@apexhotels.co.uk facebook.com/Apexhotels @apexhotels

FROM THE EDITOR’S DESK INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

From the Editor’s Desk

Inner Temple Yearbook 2015–2016 Treasurer:

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Moore-Bick Reader:

His Honour Judge Cryan (Hon) LLD Sub-Treasurer:

Patrick Maddams Treasury Office:

Inner Temple London EC4Y 7HL 020 7797 8250 Yearbook@innertemple.org.uk www.innertemple.org.uk Master of the Yearbook:

Sally Smith QC Editor:

Minka Braun Assistant Editor:

Henrietta Amodio Yearbook Manager:

Helena Vaughan Desk Editor:

Emma Hynes Archivist:

Celia Pilkington E&T Editorial Team:

Lacara Barnes-Rowe Francesca Ellis Fiona Fulton Photographs:

Garlinda Birkbeck Chris Christodoulou MPP Image Creation Abhimanyu Bose Inner Temple's photograph archive

W

hilst it has always been a pleasure to edit the Yearbook, it has been a particular honour to do so on the 800th anniversary of the sealing of the Magna Carta. This edition of the Yearbook contains an array of fascinating, insightful and thought-provoking articles, through which we commemorate an event that has become synonymous (perhaps wrongly – see Lord Neuberger's lecture, reproduced in the Yearbook) as the genesis of civil rights in the common law world.

The anniversary of the Magna Carta comes at a time when the principles it is popularly believed to enshrine have been placed under strain. There is a growing concern that access to the courts ("to no man will we sell, deny or delay justice") is being undermined by the increased issue fees for civil claims and further reduction in fees paid to criminal practitioners. The usefulness of trial by jury ("nor will we…condemn him …but by the lawful judgment of his peers") is routinely questioned by ministers.

And the proposed repeal of the Human

Rights Act strongly undermines the UK government's stated commitment to civil rights.

But, there is hope for the future, that the principles represented by the Magna Carta will not be discarded without a fight. And our profession is at the forefront of this fight. So deep is the concern about the erosion of access to justice, that many criminal barristers have taken the unprecedented step of taking 'industrial action' to protest against the damage to our criminal justice system.

We may also draw comfort from the knowledge that at least some of the barristers of the future will have had the considerable benefit of the training, mentoring and guidance provided by our superb Education & Training Department.

My thanks to the outstanding members of the Inner Temple staff (in particular, Henrietta and Helena, who have worked tirelessly), the E&T department, Emma Hynes our desk editor and all the contributors who have made this publication possible.

Minka Braun

Design:

Cantate Communications Advertising:

John Good Ltd Court Farm Barns Medcroft Road Tackley Oxford OX5 3AL Printed by:

John Good Ltd Progress Way Binley Coventry CV3 2NT

The Yearbook Editorial Team

1

2

INNER TEMPLE

Contents: From the Editor’s Desk

1

BBC World service broadcast

From the Treasurer

4

800th Anniversary of the City Charter 34

Strangeways 25 Years On

8

Minka Braun

Master Treasurer Master Woolf

32

INNER TEMPLE MAGNA CARTA

The Rt Rev & Rt Hon The Bishop of London

INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE

Master Monier-Williams

12

Mutiny

16

Vivien Percy

Master Aldous

INNER TEMPLE MAGNA CARTA

800th Anniversary Celebration 14 June 36 The Rt Rev & Rt Hon The Lord Carey of Clifton INNER TEMPLE MAGNA CARTA

Bar Guest Night

38

INNER TEMPLE MAGNA CARTA

Runnymede 15 June Master Griffiths

40

Archbishop of Canterbury, Master of the Rolls, Prime Minister

INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE

20

INNER TEMPLE LECTURE SERIES

Gandhi: Constitutionalism and the Legacy of Non-Violent Direct Action in Sub-Saharan Africa

22

The Rt Hon The Lord Boateng

INNER TEMPLE MAGNA CARTA

Runnymede 15 June

42

The Great Fire

44

Master of the Temple, US Attorney General Master Cryan

INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE

Abolitionists at the Inn

Celia Pilkington and Nicholas Griffin QC

26

The Rt Hon Lord Judge

28

The Rt Hon The Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury

46

Why Good Lawyers are Such Bad Historians

48

Dr George Garnett

INNER TEMPLE MAGNA CARTA

Lecture Series: Magna Carta and the Holy Grail

Master Christopher Nugee INNER TEMPLE LECTURE SERIES

INNER TEMPLE MAGNA CARTA

Lecture Series: Luck or Judgement

Master Nugee

30

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

Education and Training Section Library Facilities and Research

51 82

CONTENTS INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Murder in the Cathedral Anthony Speaight QC

84

INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE

86

The Liberation of the Camps

89

Master of the Temple

Professor Robert Stevenson

92

INNER TEMPLE PEGASUS SCHOLARSHIP

Pegasus Scholars

122

Master McGregor Asquith and Venetia Stanley Master Popplewell

126 128

INNER TEMPLE EVENT

INNER TEMPLE LECTURE SERIES

Contract Interpretation

Master Paget

INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE

Master Staughton

The Rt Hon The Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony

The Milner Kindergarten

94

Enchanted Garden – Inner Temple Summer Party

132

Temple Women’s Forum

134

Master Taylor

INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE

Master Brittan Law and Politics of Genocide

100 102

Family Arbitration

105

The History Society

107

Timeline

108

Master Nice and Master Bonomy Master Bennett

Celia Pilkington Celia Pilkington

INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE

Master Coward

136

Master Hudson and the Gilbert Marks Bowl

138

Raymond Asquith: One of the Best

141

The Hon Mrs Justice Thirlwall DBE

Master Lawson and Richard Parsons Bijam Omrani

INNER TEMPLE EVENT

The Temple Big Picnic

144

INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE

Master Barker

112

The Advocacy Training Council

114

The Council of the Inns of Court

115

The Race Relations Act @ 50

116

Daines Barrington

118

My Journey to the Bar

121

Master Pitchers Master Green

James Wakefield

Dr Iyiola Solanke Master Brown

Master Walker

Master James Stephen Page

146

News from the Temple Church Choir 148 Roger Sayer

Weddings and Baptisms at the Temple Church

150

Bar Liaison Committee

152 154 155 158 160

New Benchers List of Benchers in Seniority People Finder Committees

KEY LECTURE SERIES

EVENT

CELEBRATE THE LIFE

EDUCATION & TRAINING

PEGASUS SCHOLARSHIP

MAGNA CARTA

3

4

INNER TEMPLE

From the Treasurer

By Master Treasurer

I

nevitably, perhaps, the past year has been dominated by the celebrations commemorating the 800th anniversary of the sealing of Magna Carta. They began in November 2014, when the choir of the Temple Church under the direction of Roger Sayer visited Washington DC to take part in the opening ceremony of the exhibition at the Library of Congress entitled ‘Magna Carta, Muse and Mentor’. The centrepiece of the exhibition was the Lincoln Cathedral copy of Magna Carta, one of only four surviving copies of the original 1215 version, which was surrounded by other materials illustrating the particular importance of Magna Carta for the United States. At the ceremony, which was attended by our Royal Bencher, Her Royal Highness Princess Anne, the choir performed part of a newly commissioned work by the American composer Nico Muhly, entitled Our Present Charter; its performance was one of the highlights of the occasion. The choir also gave a concert at the Supreme Court as part of the celebrations there, which included a seminar to which our Treasurer, Master Tomlinson, made a contribution as one of four distinguished speakers. He thus joins the select body of those members of the Inn who have spoken in a public capacity at the Supreme Court.

Those of us who were fortunate enough to join the visit to Washington also had the pleasure of meeting two of our Honorary Benchers, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Stephen Breyer, for an informal discussion. Justice Scalia, himself a former chorister, was kind enough to spend some time talking to the choirboys, which added greatly to the sense of occasion and their enjoyment of the visit. Their singing excited enormous admiration and I think it fair to say that the visit did much to raise the profile of Inner and Middle Temple, as well as that of the choir itself.

This year is not only the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, it is also the 800th anniversary of the City’s Mayoral Charter, by which in May 1215 King John granted the City of London the right to elect its own mayor. The charter was issued from the Temple, where John had his headquarters, and the opportunity to celebrate such an important and historic occasion directly linking the City and the Temple called for a celebration in its own right. On 14 May, therefore, Inner and Middle Temple hosted a reception and dinner jointly with the City, preceded by a service of Choral Evensong in the church. The Benchers of the two Inns were pleased to welcome the Lord Mayor, Alderman Alan Yarrow, and the Lady Mayoress, together with the Sheriffs and members of the Common Council. The charter itself, bearing the magnificently preserved seal of the king, was carried in procession to the church and afterwards to the reception and dinner. In one sense it was the guest of

honour and was applauded in traditional City style as it was carried out of Hall. It was a memorable occasion, much enjoyed by all present. The atmosphere was reminiscent of an amity dinner and it is to be hoped that the Inns will have the opportunity to entertain the City again before too long.

The City Charter reception and dinner was the first in a series of events leading to the commemorative event at Runnymede on 15 June. These included a service of Choral Mattins on Sunday 14 June, at which Master Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, was the preacher, followed by a reception in the garden attended by many members of the diplomatic corps. The day had an unpromising start, with light rain and leaden skies, but the Catering Department took the brave decision to go ahead in the garden and their optimism was fully justified. By the time we left the church the rain had stopped and by early afternoon the sun was out and the garden could be enjoyed to the full.

The next day, coaches bearing the choir and a small party representing all sections of the Inn (students, staff and members of Hall as well as Benchers) left Tudor Street at 6.30 am bound for Runnymede and the national celebrations. It proved to be another day of mixed fortunes.

On arrival the weather was cold and grey and those who had come in coats were congratulating themselves. By mid-morning, however, the sun had come out and those who had brought hats were looking rather smug. The choir made a notable contribution to the national celebrations, which were followed by a rededication to the principles of Magna Carta by the American Bar Association at the newly refurbished memorial. Again the choir played a part in what was a moving ceremony. On returning to the Temple the faces of those who had been to Runnymede could be distinguished by a definite glow of pride – or was it the sun?

Running in parallel with these formal events, is the series of Magna Carta lectures organised jointly by the four Inns, each given by a distinguished speaker who has been invited to reflect on some aspect of the significance of the events of 1215. The first two lectures were given by Lord Judge and Lord Neuberger on behalf of Middle Temple and Lincoln’s Inn respectively. Baroness Hale will give the Gray’s Inn lecture in October and the series will be brought to a close in November when Master Baker delivers our own lecture. In addition, a special Magna Carta Moot will be held in October As a backdrop to these celebrations, the life of the Inn has continued its steady course. Over the last few months I have attended almost all the residential training courses organised by the Education and Training Department at Cumberland Lodge, Highgate House and Wotton House. Invariably, I have been impressed by the skill and

FROM THE TREASURER INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

dedication of the trainers, who give up so much of their valuable time, and by the innate ability and enthusiasm of the students and young practitioners who take part.

Despite all the current difficulties facing the profession, I remain confident about its future. Student numbers remain buoyant and an unusually large number of our students were graded ‘Outstanding’ in this summer’s BPTC exams.

Student societies remain strong, particularly the Debating Society, which attracted a record number of teams to compete in the Inner Temple Inter-Varsity competition.

During the course of the year, the Inn has had the good fortune to acquire a new Steinway piano, thanks to the generosity of a benefactor, Mr Hall Parke, who, although not a member of the Inn, must have enjoyed some memorable dinners here. He left the Inn a significant sum of money “to provide entertainment and the like for the Members of the Inn in memory of my wife.” My predecessor as Treasurer, Master Tomlinson, suggested that we should buy a new piano to replace our existing instrument, which at that time needed a good deal of renovation, and took a leading role in

been appointed Reader in Hugh’s place and hope that he will enjoy a long a fruitful relationship with both Inns and the wider membership of the church’s congregation.

The Bar and the Inn have both undergone many changes since I was called in November 1969, but they have adapted in ways that have enabled the profession to thrive and the Inn to provide the training and support which its members need. It seems likely that the BPTC will undergo the reform needed to allow those who wish to qualify for the Bar to do so at reasonable cost. Hand in hand with those reforms the Inns are likely to play a larger role in providing the necessary legal education of those who aspire to be called to the Bar. Whatever the future holds, however, it is essential that the Inn continue to uphold the qualities of fellowship, sound learning, and high professional standards on which its reputation depends. Difficult decisions lie ahead as we consider how best to equip ourselves for the future and enable the Inn to prepare our students and young practitioners for the challenges that will face them in their future careers. The

“ Invariably, I have been impressed by the skill and dedication of the trainers, who give up so much of their valuable time, and by the innate ability and enthusiasm of the students and young practitioners who take part.” bringing the project to fruition. We were fortunate to receive the assistance of Peter Salisbury, Senior Piano Technician at the South Bank Centre, and Philip Fowke, Emeritus Fellow of Piano at Trinity Laban Conservatoire. Between them they helped us to ensure that we chose an instrument that will suit our rooms and give us pleasure for many years to come.

My reflections on the past year would be incomplete without a mention of the Rev Hugh Mead, who retired as Reader in July after holding the office for twenty years.

Hugh has given long and distinguished service to the church and to the Temple and we are sorry to see him depart. He will be greatly missed, but I am pleased to say that he has been elected an Honorary Bencher of both Inner and Middle Temple, thus ensuring that we maintain contact with him and shall have many opportunities to enjoy his company in the future. At the same time we look forward to the arrival of the Rev Mark Hatcher, who has

Strategic Review Group led by Master Hunt, whose report was delivered earlier this year, provided us with a sound basis for the decisions we are about to make. We must ensure that we approach them in a spirit of fellowship and a commitment to furthering the best interests of the Inn. To have been elected to act as Treasurer for this year is a great honour. It has already proved to be a busy and exciting year and there is still much to come. I am fortunate to have enjoyed the support and assistance of my fellow Benchers and members of Hall, but particularly that of the staff of the Inn, for whom no praise can be too high. It has been a real privilege and pleasure to get to know them personally and I am enormously grateful for all their support.

Master Treasurer

5

6

INNER TEMPLE

Queen’s Gate School offers girls a warm, supportive environment, where individuality is nurtured, and academic standards are high. Academic, Art, Drama, Music and Sports Scholarships, and means-tested bursaries worth up to 100% of fees, are available to assist girls to join us.

See our website for details of our Open Events for entry in September 2016. For a prospectus, or to make a private visit to the School, please contact the Registrar, Miss Janette Micklewright, on 020 7594 4982 or email, registrar@queensgate.org.uk.

Queen’s Gate School, 133 Queen’s Gate, London SW7 5LE

www.queensgate.org.uk

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

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

Special Occasions

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

Unique Concierge Service

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

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.

Speak to an expert or request a brochure:

020 7593 2293 quote code XIT www.kirkerholidays.com

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.

Extensive Brochure Range

Our collection of brochures includes Italy, France and Spain, as well as Morocco, Southern Africa and the India Subcontinent.

For those who prefer to travel with a small group of likeminded companions and an expert lecturer, we also offer escorted Cultural Tours & Music Holidays.

TAX AND CULTURAL HERITAGE Works from the HENRY ROTHSCHILD COLLECTION of 20th Century British studio ceramics Negotiated by Bonhams and accepted in lieu of Inheritance Tax – retained by SHIPLEY ART GALLERY for the Henry Rothschild Study Centre

bonhams.com

Bonhams can assist clients or their professional advisors in offering an item or collection for: The Acceptance in Lieu Scheme, the Cultural Gifts Scheme, Private Treaty sales or Conditional Exemption (from IHT).

ENQUIRIES +44 (0) 20 7468 8340 mike.neill@bonhams.com

Prices shown include buyer’s premium. Details can be found at bonhams.com

8

INNER TEMPLE

Strangeways 25 Years On: Achieving Fairness and Justice in Prison

By Master Woolf Abridged text of a speech given to the Prison Reform Trust on 1 April 2015

I

t was on 1 April, 25 years ago, that the first day of the riot took place at Strangeways Prison in Manchester.

The disturbance it caused spread like a virus across the length and breadth of the prison system of England and Wales. No words of mine can describe the extent of the stress to which our prison system was subject 25 years ago and the damage that was caused. The damage was not limited to the buildings, but to people as well.

I was appointed to conduct an inquiry and make a report into six prisons. This was one of the most challenging experiences of my career.

The Inquiry and the Report

I

n a search to find best practice, I visited prisons in a number of countries including Spain where I was impressed by the relaxed atmosphere and the extent to which prisoners were able to maintain family connections.

After I returned, I met the then Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher. She asked me for an explanation of why Spanish prisons were more impressive than our own. I explained that this was possibly due to the fact that most of those who were now the politicians in charge of Catalonian prisons had experienced for themselves what it was like to be a prisoner in the Franco era. I do not think she was impressed. I was not tempted to recommend a ‘short, sharp shock’ prior to the appointment of a prison minister in this country.

The report made it clear that the criminal justice system required a new culture, which all parts of the system were prepared to endorse. This was discussed with the public at seminars held across the country. We also sent thousands of personal letters to all the staff and prisoners at each prison involved, asking them to contribute to the discussion. This produced a clear picture of the problems and a steer as to the remedies.

The three riots were not isolated incidents. They were symptomatic of underlying difficulties in the prison system.

They indicated a lack of coordination between its different parts. There was no established means of communication between the judges who were responsible for sending people to prison and the Prison Service who look after them there.

This has been described as a “geological fault”. It contributed

STRANGEWAYS 25 UEARS ON INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

to chronic overcrowding. Unless a link was established, the risk of overcrowding would continue.

The report contained general recommendations and supporting proposals, signposts, which, if followed, would enable the Prison Service to achieve the appropriate balance between security (preventing escapes), control (preventing disturbances) and justice (treating prisoners with humanity and fairness) – a balance that would mean that fairness and justice did not stop at the prison door, but instead permeated the whole system. There should be a structure based on compacts, setting out the respective responsibilities owed between headquarters and prison governors, prison governors and their prison officers and prison officers and their prisoners. These relationships would be pivotal in establishing a decent, humane penal system worthy of our aspirations as a country.

destructive effect of overcrowding, Parliament should clearly make it the responsibility of the Sentencing Council in promulgating guidelines to take into account the capacity of our prison system to house prisoners in accordance with the Prison Statement of Purpose.

The conventional view of governments is that they will ensure that anyone who is sentenced to prison will be accommodated in our prisons. This must be right. Any change in this position should be the subject of legislation.

However, legislation such as I propose could enable the Sentencing Council over time to bridge the geological fault that lies between the judiciary and the prison system.

On my recommendation, the Criminal Justice Consultative Council was established and it continues to exist and functions very much as I intended. I do not know whether it would regard concerns over overcrowding in prisons as part of its remit, however, any input it could provide would undoubtedly be useful. We are now going

“ Throughout my career as a judge, the great majority of that legislation, including minimum sentences, has been directed at increasing the use of imprisonment.”

White Paper

I

n the White Paper that followed, Custody, Care and Justice, the Government made it clear that it was accepting “the central propositions in the report”.

Considerable progress was made in implementing my report’s recommendations, particularly the recommendations on security and control. This meant that in future it would be much less likely that there would be a loss of control of a prison, at least on the scale of Strangeways, and I have no doubt this has paid dividends recently. However, the Government did not accept one of the recommendations.

It was the one designed to avoid a repetition of the overcrowding that existed in the prison system at the time of the riots.

The problem with overcrowding, is that it is very difficult to prevent. I understand the Government’s reluctance to accept the report’s recommendation of even a very mild restraint on numbers. Ministers have relied on the fact that it is the judges and not the Government who pass sentences.

But the Government cannot shift all responsibility in this way.

The reality is that sentences are passed by judges within the framework set by the laws that, in general, are introduced and steered through Parliament by the Government.

The discretion judges retain is subject to that legislation.

Throughout my career as a judge, the great majority of that legislation, including minimum sentences, has been directed at increasing the use of imprisonment. If there have been incidents of legislation that sought to reduce imprisonment, they are very rare indeed.

There is also the influence on judicial discretion of the guidance as to sentencing provided by the Court of Appeal Criminal Division and the Sentencing Council. On its website the Sentencing Council states that its aim is to “promote greater consistency in sentencing while maintaining the independence of the Judiciary and increasing public understanding of sentencing”. Faced with the continuing

through one of the most difficult periods of financial stringency and I can see no reason why sentencing policy should ignore the financial state of the country. Even the Health Service is not spared difficult decisions as to priorities and, surely, the economic consequences of the use of imprisonment should not be excluded from rigorous scrutiny.

The report attempted to achieve a limited brake on overcrowding. It recommended that “there should be a new prison rule…providing that no establishment should hold prisoners in excess of its certified normal accommodation.

Some limited qualifications should be allowed to the rule.

Any more substantial derogation should be authorised by a certificate issued by the Home Secretary and laid before Parliament.”

The only other example of the use of such a mechanism of which I am aware is the requirement placed more recently on the Governor of the Bank of England to keep within the inflation target set by the Chancellor and, if not, to write an open letter to the Chancellor explaining the failure. That mechanism seems to work satisfactorily.

This rejected recommendation would have drawn parliamentary attention to the effect of current policies and perhaps acted as a catalyst for more positive action by politicians. They needed to explain to the public the limited improvements that can be achieved by greater reliance on more, and longer, imprisonment. The temptation to repeat the contest between the political parties as to who could be the toughest on crime has to be resisted. Politicians must be persuaded to reject the idea that there are no votes in prisons and there are votes in being the toughest on crime.

We are where we are and I intend to concentrate on the future. Sadly, the picture I am receiving at the moment is uncannily similar to that at the time of Strangeways. At a time of significant change, stresses continue to occur due to overcrowding coupled with cuts in resources and staff. The consequences have included a number of near riots.

Part of the problem is illustrated by the growth in

9

INNER TEMPLE

prison numbers. At the time of my report there were 44,000 prisoners and the number was falling. There are now over 84,000 prisoners. The average annual cost of a prison place for 2012-13 was £36,808. For the following year, if a child was detained in a secure children’s home, the cost was £209,000. For secure training it was £187,000 and at a young offenders’ institution it was £60,000.

I am not alone in being worried by these huge figures.

On 6 February this year, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, Nick Hardwick, called for a frank debate about the cost of an increasing prison population and asked “whether the cost of locking up so many people was really achieving what society wanted”.

He added, “There needs to be…a proper public debate about the cost of locking up so many people. How does it fit within the list of national priorities when money is tight and is that money well spent? Does it get the results we want in terms of cutting offending and rehabilitation?”

The most recent arrival is the extensive and authoritative report published by the Justice Select Committee on Prisons: Planning and Policies, of 18 March of this year, following an extensive investigation. It gives ministers’ best estimate of prison population as 87,700 by June 2015. It also considers the implications of overcrowding and the Government’s policy to replace existing old prisons with new, much larger prisons that, while providing economies of scale, are less flexible and result in disproportionate security.

The Secretary of State for Justice’s Contribution

O

f the many ministers that have been in charge of prisons during my period of involvement, Chris Grayling, the current Secretary of State for Justice, is the most controversial. He has shown great energy in seeking and achieving change. The issue is whether his changes are the correct ones and whether they are being implemented correctly. He is to be complimented for agreeing to statutory recognition being given to restorative justice. In addition, he is entitled to be complimented for the emphasis he has placed on rehabilitation.

But he, no doubt, is disappointed to have received strong criticism from charities and representative bodies that are committed to achieving improvements in our prison system. This is because he gives the impression of either not consulting or not listening to counter arguments. There is real doubt as to whether he has been right to focus to the extent he has on cost-cutting in order to meet the need for economy. I question whether it would not have been better to concentrate his energy first on diverting from prisons people who do not have to receive custody. I am sad that he gives the impression of regarding those who try to give him constructive criticism as opposed to him personally. This is despite there being very significant evidence available from other jurisdictions that, increasing the size of the prison

“ I can see no reason why sentencing policy should ignore the financial state of the country. Even the Health Service is not spared difficult decisions as to priorities and, surely, the economic consequences of the use of imprisonment should not be excluded from rigorous crutiny.”

10

I draw attention to two revealing paragraphs of the committee’s report: “The Secretary of State himself was relatively untroubled by prison overcrowding. He said, ‘It means prisoners sharing a cell. It remains my view that, if prisoners have to share a cell in order to make sure they can go to prison, this is not a great problem.’”

“On the other hand, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons saw it as a ‘real problem’. He said there were two areas where overcrowding had negative effects: the physical conditions in which prisoners were held, and the availability of sufficient training, activity and rehabilitation programmes. In relation to the former, he observed: ‘In some places, two men are in what is essentially a large toilet designed for one, and often in very squalid conditions.’ In relation to the latter, there are more prisoners to move around to activities and healthcare appointments, for example, with implications for staffing levels, and strain can be placed in the capacity of workshops and programmes.”

The Committee also commented that the cuts in staffing are recognised as having been too drastic and could prove to be a false economy.

population, is unsustainable and unproductive. Tellingly, even in the US, California and Texas, which once were in the forefront among those promoting ever-increasing use of imprisonment, are now trying to reduce their prison populations because they are unaffordable. The Titan Prisons Programme, now launched with the building of a new prison in Wrexham, demonstrates the conflict the Grayling reforms cause.

Recently, I visited a Victorian prison – Wandsworth.

Once, it was not only grossly overcrowded but in a shocking condition, comparable to Strangeways before the riots. Now, it is doing better than Scrubs and Pentonville. Wandsworth holds a variety of convicted and unconvicted prisoners, in total 1,700 but with work only available for 350 of its offenders. I was fortunate to be able discuss the situation with the inspiring and extremely experienced Governor and was shown round by one of the senior members of his team. In their company you realise the prison service still has some excellent, totally committed staff. Though showing its age, it would no longer be right to describe Wandsworth as being in shocking condition. However, running the prison was a huge challenge for any governor. The prison was

STRANGEWAYS 25 UEARS ON INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

designed to hold less than 1,000 men and has to manage up to 32,000 transitional moves a year. It contains men of 35 different nationalities and members of at least 30 different gangs. The prison has lost 27 per cent of its budget and 25 per cent of its staff. Going into one of the cells designed for a single prisoner but occupied by two prisoners on long sentences, you realise the real difficulty of sharing extremely cramped conditions. I had spent one night locked up with my wife about 20 years ago for charity in a refurbished wing of Brixton and thought that was difficult, but being locked up in that wing of Wandsworth two to a cell could mean conditions I would regard as unacceptable.

This explains some of my concerns about Titan Prisons.

The Governor at Wandsworth is as good a manager as you can get. He is totally committed to rehabilitation. The sheer size of Wandsworth is part of his challenge. This is about the size of a Titan, but the Titan is situated where it is not needed. It is generally accepted that to achieve rehabilitation, community ties are important. It will, in most cases, be impossible to maintain those ties at Wrexham.

It is intended to offer local employment to staff that will have to be trained. There will be no established voluntary organisations experienced in running prisons locally. I do not say the task is impossible, but I do say the most detailed consultation is required.

Finally, there is a continuing scandal involving IPPs or offenders sentenced to Indeterminate Sentences for the Protection of the Public who are still languishing in custody.

Mr Blunkett, when Home Secretary, was responsible for introducing this sentence. He accepts this was a mistake and the sentence was repealed in 2012. But the repeal was not retrospective. The problem is that those detained have to prove they are safe to be discharged. It is very difficult to prove a negative, namely that they are no longer a danger, especially if the courses that might assist them to prove they have ceased to be a danger are a scarce resource.

I am proud to say their cause has been championed by my fellow Bencher, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I quote and strongly endorse Master Lloyd’s words:

“If I were allowed one last wish at the end of my swan song, it would be that all seven of the political parties should enter into manifesto commitments that will meet those people’s needs as soon as the new Government are elected.

They should do so if only on the grounds that it will save £40 million a year, but I hope that they would do so on grounds of simple humanity. These prisoners have suffered a grave injustice, and it is high time that we came to their rescue.”

Conclusion

I

n my report I was seeking to achieve a prison system imbued with justice and fairness and that is still my prime ambition.

This country is capable of having a prison system, which, like our legal system, is one that is admired around the globe for providing fairness and justice. However, to achieve this, we must ensure that our prison system uses the resources that it is allocated in the most effective way possible. This should now be determined after an examination of the justice system as a whole, involving all sections of the system and extensive consultation.

Where we are now is the result of a failure to deal with the geological flaw, which I have identified. This has to be dealt with by determining what use should be made of imprisonment. At the moment, insufficient attention is paid to the need to determine whether sentences can be changed without endangering the ability of the prison service to provide an acceptable regime. That regime needs to be fair and within the capacity of the prison system to provide, so that the prisoner will be, on release, less likely – not more likely – to offend again.

This will involve minimising the present inflation in sentencing, which increases the likelihood of overcrowding without producing any corresponding benefit. Political parties should include an undertaking to advance the cause of achieving a just system without engaging in a political contest. Let’s take politics out of prisons.

Master Woolf

11

12

INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE

Master Monier-Williams By his daughter, Vivien Piercy

S

omething I find remarkable about my father’s life is that he was only 22 when he was placed in charge of a group of field and heavy guns in Tunisia, where he took part in the Battle of the Mareth Line. The experience of death at such an early age made a lasting impression upon him.

But such was the lot of that generation of young men and women. And we their children grew up in the ‘50s with parents who, ever after, divided their lives into ‘before the war’ and ‘after the war’.

A quarter of a century before that battle, my father was born in 1920 into a legal family – his father, Roy Monier-Williams was a practising barrister and Bencher of the Inner Temple. My father grew up with his two sisters in a large, comfortable house on Camden Hill in an atmosphere he described as conservative, old fashioned and mildly xenophobic. After leaving his prep school, he spent happy years at Charterhouse where he made good friends, developed a lifelong love of books and reading and spent much time cycling about the villages of Surrey sketching churches. When he was 16, he was offered a place to read history at University College Oxford, but by the time he went up, the country was under the shadow of war and his degree was truncated to a one year war degree – something he regretted for the rest of his life. Nonetheless, while he was there he was active in the Oxford Union and although

he did not follow the family tradition of ‘rowing at Univ’, he immersed himself instead in the theosophical movement founded by Madame Blavatsky.

In October 1940, he received the devastating news that the much-loved family home had received a direct hit from an enemy bomb. The housekeeper was killed and all of his possessions were destroyed, but mercifully his family, who were away at the time, were spared.

A few days later he was called up.

My father had an active war as a field gunner officer, first in the 8th Army and then in the 50th Northumbrian Division. He saw action on many occasions – in North Africa, and in the allied invasion of Sicily. Thereafter, he fought in Normandy and finally in the bloody battle of the Reichswald and the crossing of the Rhine.

Following the ending of hostilities my father, who was a competent German speaker, was stationed in the Rhineland in Munchen-Gladbach and placed in charge of entertainment and welfare of the British troops waiting to be demobbed. They were a restless and unruly crowd and my father’s idea was to reopen the town theatre and to stage opera and concerts for the troops and local population. He set about it with typical determination – refitting the theatre, forming an orchestra, finding musicians and, in the process, he made lifelong German

MASTER MONIER-WILLIAMS INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

friends. Amongst the opera singers he engaged was my mother, a soprano by the name of Maria-Angela Oswald, who had recently fled west ahead of the Russians as they entered Berlin. Together they staged many operas, operettas and concerts and, of course, fell in love. They married in 1948 at St Dunstan’s in Fleet Street which, unlike this church, survived the London Blitz relatively unscathed.

My father always looked back on this time as the happiest in his life, and his marriage to his German opera singer as the source of greatest happiness until her death in 1983.

After nearly five years at war, my father felt that too much had happened in his life to return to Oxford and he decided instead to read for the Bar. He entered the same Chambers as his father, first in Paper Buildings and then in Francis Taylor Building. There he built up a broad common law practice with particular emphasis on personal injury work for trade unions. In his early years before he became too busy, he undertook a great many pro bono cases for what was then the NCCL and is now called Liberty. He helped people with actions against the police, and helped theatre clubs trying to get round the censorship laws which then existed. He collaborated in the writing of a handbook of citizens’ rights and drew up a report on race discrimination some 20 years before the Race Relations Act. He was also an active volunteer at what is now the Mary Ward Centre, giving free legal advice before the days of legal aid.

In 1972, he was appointed a circuit judge. In criminal cases, he was never a believer in long sentences. He did his utmost to avoid sending people to prison at all, to the extent that a colleague on the Bench claimed that defendants queued up outside his court to plead guilty. But this never worried my father, who saw prison as a perfect training ground for criminals and a rotten deal for their families, as he looked for more enlightened alternatives.

But my father was probably happiest when he sat on children cases and especially during his years at the Royal Courts of Justice. He loved his work as a judge and sat until the day of his 75th birthday, when he almost had to be prised from the Bench by the Lord Chancellor himself.

But he soon found another passion to absorb him and, over the next 15 years, threw himself into frenetic travelling to almost every country in the world.

He was elected an Inner Temple Bencher in 1967 and over the next 30 years he seldom missed a Parliament, Bench Table, Moot or Call Night. He served on nearly all of the Inn’s committees, but particularly loved his involvement with the choir of the Temple Church and with the library.

He also gave a lot of time to assisting students of the Inn and, for 14 years, he represented the Inn on the Council of Legal Education and Inns of Court School of Law. But his happiest year as a Bencher was spent as Treasurer in 1988. My father, with his usual campaigning spirit, used his year as Treasurer to achieve something which had long been his ambition. In 1888, Mahatma Gandhi was admitted as a student to the Inner Temple and was called to the Bar three years later. It was during his years here studying law that he shaped his philosophy of non-violence, studying spiritual texts and developing a passion for Equity Law. They were pivotal years in his development. But after his conviction for sedition in 1922, having become something of an embarrassment,

he was disbarred and expelled from the Inn. Now, my father was a lifelong admirer of Gandhi and so he made sure that one of the first things he did on becoming Treasurer was to persuade his fellow Benchers to make amends for unjustly disbarring the Mahatma. After 66 years, Gandhi was posthumously readmitted to the Inn and to the Bar in 1988.

Of course the description I have given of my father is not at all the way we saw him as children. My own memory was of someone I did not know terribly well when I was young. He did his best to get back from work in time to plant a prickly kiss on my cheek at bedtime.

But I do not ever remember an occasion when he played with me. I do, however, remember many eccentric outings with my father when I was small. On one such occasion we woke before dawn and walked nine miles to school, an adventure we had planned together meticulously with waypoints marking the map at every mile, to ensure we arrived punctually. On another occasion, he took us to watch the Aldermaston march in 1958, when I was five.

I remember he grabbed my small hand and we battled past the banners and the singing, through the crowds, to get to the head of the march, where he pointed out Michael Foot, Canon Collins, Pat Arrowsmith and other members of CND, firmly telling us not to forget them.

And then, of course, there were the holidays. Every year on 1 August my father underwent a transformation.

He would appear wearing a large pair of baggy Khaki shorts, sunglasses perched on top of his head, carrying an armful of maps, and the family would set off across Europe for a month under canvas – British style. I came to realise that my holidays were unlike other children’s. They did not require buckets and spades – only trenching tools. We were constantly on the move and would travel thousands of miles to the east and west of Europe, visiting palaces, cathedrals, war cemeteries, yet more palaces and cathedrals along with battlefields in France and Germany. I often returned to school a little exhausted. But then I would recall a conversation between my father and some Luftwaffe pilot over a litre of Munich beer, and I knew that I had had a rather more adventurous time than my school friends.

Many people have greatly enriched our father’s life.

After our mother died, he was helped and supported for more than 30 years by many kind friends. In recent times his four grandchildren and three great grandchildren became an absorbing interest and delight.

But, without a doubt, what helped my father most of all through the last years of his life, often in difficult circumstances, was the devoted care given by my brother Christopher, whose support was quite exceptional, and for whom nothing was ever too much trouble.

For all my father’s vehemence and non-conformity, he loved the institutions which embraced him in his immensely long and happy life – and none more than his Inn and the Temple Church. Those who sing in the wonderful choir might perhaps remember my father sitting in a pew throughout their practices, before the Sunday service, quietly listening to the singing.

Vivien Piercy

13

14

INNER TEMPLE

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

Academic, Music and Sport Scholarships are available at 11+, 13+ and 16+.

Please contact the school for further information or to book a place at an Open Afternoon.  020 7489 0291

 admissions@clsb.org.uk

www.clsb.org.uk

This book tells the enthralling, ultimately inspirational, story of Magna Carta in a concise and readable fashion and will captivate laymen and lawyers alike.

Anthony Arlidge has been a Queen’s Counsel for over 30 years. In 1990 he was called upon during a case to argue the meaning of clause 40 of Magna Carta.

Igor Judge was a judge for 25 years and retired as Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales in 2013.

Nov 2014 204pp Hbk 9781849465564 RSP: £30 20% Discount Price: £24

Order via the Hart Publishing website and quote ref: CV7 in the voucher code field to receive 20% discount. www.hartpub.co.uk

Revere it. Play it. Listen to it.

S O O T H E YO U R S O U L W I T H I T.

Pres enting the f irst high-res olution player piano wor thy of the re vered Steinway & S ons name.

T h e S t e i nw a y S p i r i o i s a m a s t e r p i e c e o f a r t i s t r y, c r a f t s m a n s h i p a n d e n g i n e e r i n g t h a t d e l i v e r s a l l t h e n u a n c e a n d p a s s i o n o f l i v e p e r f o r m a n c e s b y t o d a y ’s m o s t r e n o w n e d m u s i c i a n s f r o m c l a s s i c a l to jazz to ro ck. STEINWAYSPIRIO.COM

STEINWAY HALL LO N D O N 4 4 M A RY L E B O N E LA N E , LO N D O N W 1 U 2 D B FOR

M O R E I N F O R M A T I O N O R T O A R R A N G E A P R I VA T E

APPOINTMENT TO VISIT OUR

PLEASE CALL

LONDON

0207 487 3391

SHOWROOMS,

O R E M A I L I N F O @ S T E I N WA Y . C O . U K

16

INNER TEMPLE

Mutiny The Trial of William Muspratt of the Bounty

By Master Grahame Aldous

MUTINY INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

W

hen William Muspratt picked up a musket during the mutiny on the Bounty, his actions did not go unnoticed. He had already helped clear away a launch to cast Bligh and his followers adrift.

As Bligh drifted away from the Bounty on the warm Pacific waters, Muspratt remained behind with the mutineers.

Three years later, Muspratt stood in the great cabin of HMS Duke in Portsmouth harbour facing a court martial for his actions. The outlook was bleak. An early death hanging from the end of a ship’s yardarm beckoned. His salvation depended on a member of the Inner Temple.

“ Whoever Bligh had intended to address with his promise, ‘My lads, I’ll do you justice,’ it was Barney, not Bligh, who achieved justice for William Muspratt.”

The mutiny led by Fletcher Christian on 28 April 1789, off Tofua in the South Seas to seize HMS Bounty from her captain, William Bligh, has gone down in both naval and cinematic history. Christian and Bligh had started the voyage from England in 1787 as friends. Christian owed his place on board, and his promotion to acting lieutenant for the voyage, to Bligh. Their mission had been to collect breadfruit plants to take to the West Indies as a potential food supply for the slaves on the sugar plantations, and over the winter of 1788 they had spent happy months ashore in Tahiti collecting plants. The crew had enjoyed the pleasures of the island, which had seen Christian and a number of others added to the ship’s ‘venereal list’. By April 1789, however, Christian felt slighted by his ill-tempered friend and described himself as being “in hell”. Having initially considered deserting the ship on a raft, Christian encouraged those on watch with him in the early hours of 28 April to seize their captain. They put him and his followers adrift in a small boat, sending them, as it seemed, to almost certain death. Bligh’s astonishing seamanship and leadership to survive a journey of over 3,000 miles in an overloaded open boat became the stuff of legend.Whether the mutiny was caused by Bligh’s tyrannical behaviour, as Christian’s supporters and Hollywood were to claim, or by a treasonous desire to return to the pleasures of Tahiti, as Bligh was to assert, the actions of those involved were mutiny. But who was involved, and who should be hanged for their actions?

William Muspratt came originally from Maidenhead and had signed on, like all the crew, as a volunteer. An experienced seaman, he signed on as an able seaman but during the voyage worked as the ship’s tailor and cook’s assistant. The account given by Bligh on his return to England named Muspratt as among the mutineers. It was to be September 1792, however, before the court martial was held to try Muspratt. He and nine others had been captured by

HMS Pandora. They survived her shipwreck on the Barrier Reef to be brought back to England to face naval justice.

By that time, Bligh had been given another command and was at sea again, but it was Bligh’s account that led to the charges and which was read to the assembled court martial.

Muspratt could not fall back on his good character. He had earlier deserted in Tahiti before being recaptured and flogged

by Bligh. Aged 31 at the time of the court martial and of slender build and medium height, Muspratt nevertheless made an impressive figure in the great cabin of HMS Duke before the tribunal of 13 admirals and captains who were to try him. A strong black beard covered a still noticeably scarred chin and his dark skin displayed the tattoos that evidenced his fondness for life in Tahiti. His defence was that he had only armed himself to support a defence of Bligh and resist a return to Tahiti, but that no one had led those willing to stand by Bligh. If Muspratt’s defence was to succeed before the court martial, then he would need support from the evidence of others involved and available to give evidence.

Muspratt was represented at the court martial by Stephen Barney. A Hampshire man from a family of millers, Barney had been admitted as a member by Inner Temple on 19 November 1762, at the age of 21. Though a member of Inner Temple, he was not called to the Bar, and practised as an attorney-at-law, as was possible before the reforms introduced by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873. Based in Fareham, Hampshire, by 1769 Barney was successful enough to be a subscriber to Danby Pickering’s volume of Statutes at Large: Magna Carta to 1761. Quite how Muspratt came to enjoy any legal representation is unclear. It has been suggested that William had a brother Joseph who was a groom at Cams Hall, a Palladian mansion in Fareham overlooking Portsmouth harbour where HMS Duke lay at anchor for the court martial. Cams Hall was owned by Peter Delme, the wealthy and well connected MP for Morpeth in Northumberland, and it may have been Delme who arranged for Barney to be retained.

Portrait of Stephen Barney from Lysses House Hotel in Fareham.

17

18

INNER TEMPLE

Muspratt was one of only two of the ten defendants at the court martial to have any legal representation. The other was the midshipman Peter Heywood. Initially, a rising star at the Bar, Francis Const, had been instructed on Heywood’s behalf. A member of Middle Temple who was then 42, Const had been called nine years earlier in 1783. Although Const went on to achieve renown as a legal writer and magistrate, his services were dispensed with by Heywood’s influential family, who opted instead for a self-taught lawyer, a former admiral’s secretary and Chief Justice of the Newfoundland station, Aaron Graham. A little more is known about Graham than Barney as Graham went on to become supervisor of the convict hulks and chief magistrate at Bow Street. A shortish, neat man, Graham was regarded as an amiable and persuasive advocate with a sound knowledge of naval law.

Barney may have had less knowledge of naval law, but that was perhaps to prove an advantage as the trial unfolded.

Two witnesses, the boatswain William Cole and another midshipman, Thomas Haywood, gave evidence that Muspratt had taken up arms during the mutiny.

Cole was not cross-examined on behalf of Muspratt, and Haywood was only asked about Bligh’s final words before being cast adrift. When his small boat was in danger of

being overloaded so that no more could get into it, Bligh had declared, “My lads, I’ll do you justice.” Barney’s questions suggested that the words were addressed to men, like Muspratt, who had been unable to get into the boat and had to remain on the ship against their will.

Muspratt, in his own defence, declared his innocence and his readiness to support Bligh, having taken up a musket for that, rather than any mutinous purpose. He tried to use Cole’s evidence as corroboration. Cole had, after all, only seen Muspratt with a musket late in the events, and did not ascribe a mutinous motive to him. Cole had not, however, supported Muspratt’s innocent explanation for being armed, nor had he been pressed to do so. Muspratt damned Haywood’s evidence as lacking credibility. He also protested that he would have called the carpenter, William Purcell, in aid of his defence, but for the way that Purcell had already given evidence. Purcell had first told the court that he had no memory of Muspratt’s involvement, but had then suggested that Muspratt had been handing out liquor to the crew. Muspratt would have called the cook, Joseph Hall, as a witness to prove his innocence, but that was no longer an option. Hall, having survived the perilous journey in the open boat with Bligh, had died before reaching home.

“ …the provost marshal awaited the lowering of the bodies before ‘liberating’ souvenirs of the occasion in the form of the night caps that had covered the condemned men’s eyes at their moment of execution. Muspratt, however, was not with the men hanged from a yardarm.”

The arrest of Governor Bligh

MUTINY INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

That left two potential witnesses who Muspratt claimed would have aided his defence. They were Michael Bryn, the fiddler, and Charles Norman, a carpenter’s mate. Both were defendants before the court martial although they and two other defendants, Thomas McIntosh, another carpenter’s mate, and the ship’s armourer, Joseph Coleman, had wished to go with Bligh but had been unable to do so. Bligh’s own account had cleared them of being mutineers. There being no evidence against Byrn and Norman, Barney submitted that, in accordance with everyday practice in the Criminal Courts of Justice on land, they should be acquitted at the close of the prosecution case. Had they been acquitted at that stage of the proceedings then Muspratt would have had the opportunity to call them as witnesses. If Byrn and Norman remained as defendants, however, then they could not be called as defence witnesses by another defendant. The court ruled that it could not depart from “the usual practice of Courts Martial” and give a verdict on any particular defendant until the defences of each and all of the defendants had been heard. Although Byrn and Norman submitted written defences, they did not provide oral testimony. This left Muspratt unable to call witnesses in support of his defence.

On18 September 1792, Norman and Byrn, along with McIntosh and Coleman, were duly acquitted. Heywood and the boatswain’s mate James Morrison were convicted, but the court, which included Heywood’s cousin by marriage Captain, later Admiral, Albemarle Bertie, recommended these defendants for the King’s mercy and they soon received a royal pardon. Muspratt, along with the defendants Millward, Burkitt and Ellison, were convicted and sentenced to death.

There were no recommendations of mercy for them.

Five days later, Millward, Burkitt and Ellison were executed. Their point of departure from this life was HMS Bulwark’s cathead, the heavy beam used to hold the ship’s anchor when raised. Before being sent to meet their maker, they had to endure a sermon from Reverend William Howells based on Hebrews 13:17, “Obey them that have authority over you.” Then, as the boom of a ship’s gun echoed round Portsmouth harbour at 11.00 o’clock in the morning, they were hauled up by their mates to be hanged from a yardarm. There their bodies swung as an example to the fleet. On the deck below, the normal daily routine of naval life paused, and the provost marshal awaited the lowering of the bodies before ‘liberating’ souvenirs of the occasion in the form of the night caps that had covered the condemned men’s eyes at their moment of execution. Muspratt, however, was not with the men hanged from a yardarm.

Barney had not given up on his client and had been hard at work. As soon as the verdict was announced, Barney handed in a written objection to the court. It protested that his client had been deprived of the opportunity to call defence witnesses by the court’s ruling, which refused to release those defendants with no case to answer so that they could give evidence in support of Muspratt’s defence.

Barney did not, however, leave it there. He followed it up with a petition to the Admiralty on the same grounds. In the light of the petition, the Board of Admiralty stayed Muspratt’s execution until the opinion of the law officers had been sought. Opinions were then obtained from Thomas Broderick, counsel to the Admiralty, Sir Archibald Macdonald, Attorney General, and Sir John Scott, Solicitor General. Scott was the brother of the future renowned Admiralty judge William Scott, Lord Stowell, and was himself the future Lord Chancellor, Lord Eldon. All three men considered that the petition had merit and the Admiralty accordingly ordered that a case be prepared for submission to the judges for consideration. Before that could be done, however, King

George intervened and in response to the petition granted William Muspratt a royal pardon. Muspratt was saved.

Muspratt’s reprieve is occasionally described by historians as the result of ‘a technicality’. In truth, however, a defendant losing the opportunity to call witnesses in aid of his defence is very far from being a mere technicality. If William Muspratt had not had Stephen Barney to raise the issue on his behalf, he would have been executed. By the intervention, perseverance and skill of a member of Inner Temple, a naval tribunal used to determining its own laws and procedures had been held to account. Whoever Bligh had intended to address with his promise, “My lads, I’ll do you justice,” it was Barney, not Bligh, who achieved justice for William Muspratt.

Mutiny was to touch the Royal Navy again during the coming wars with the French and Spanish, and those involved in the Bounty story were not immune. Bligh fought with Nelson at the Battle of Copenhagen in 1801, but was taken captive in another mutiny in 1808, when the army tried to overthrow him as governor of New South Wales, Australia, in the so-called Rum Rebellion. Albemarle Bertie was also later concerned in another mutiny court martial when, as admiral in charge of the Cape station in South Africa in 1809, he presided over a court martial whitewash of the brutal tyranny imposed by Captain Robert Corbett on the crew of HMS Nereide. Corbett died in battle a year later amidst rumours that it was his own crew, rather than the French, who put an end to his life.

Francis Const, the counsel spurned by the Heywood family, went on to be chairman of the Middlesex magistrates and the Westminster Sessions. His portrait by the fashionable portrait painter Thomas Lawrence is now in the Supreme Court collection, and a portrait by the younger artist John Jackson was engraved by Charles Turner and published in 1824. Const died in 1839 aged 88, having amassed a fortune by his noted parsimony and was celebrated by an obituary in The Gentleman’s Magazine. Barney in contrast enjoyed a more parochial success. He went on to become town clerk at Portsmouth. He also sat as the Portsmouth coroner. In the latter role, he kept up an association with the Royal Navy through inquests such as that into the accidental death of Mr Leddy, the surgeon’s mate of HMS Cormorant, who drowned in Portsmouth harbour on Christmas Eve 1799. His success allowed him to build Lysses House in Fareham, overlooking Portsmouth harbour. Although he pulled down the old White Horse Inn to build his mansion, he did build a new inn, the Golden Lion, across the road. Lysses House still stands. Whilst still recognisable as a Georgian mansion, it is now a hotel.

Muspratt’s Royal pardon did not bring an end to Barney’s involvement in the history of the Bounty.

Embarrassed by the revelations about Bligh’s conduct, the Admiralty procrastinated in publishing the minutes of the court martial, thus keeping the full story from the public.

This left the public with Bligh’s own account, which he had published after his return to England. Frustrated at the delay in publication of the official minutes, Fletcher Christian’s brother Edward persuaded Barney to allow his minutes of the hearing to be published, with an appendix setting out the additional material that Edward had amassed concerning Bligh’s conduct. Although Bligh then published a response, which was in turn answered

by Edward, the public perception of Bligh and the actions of the mutineers began to change. Despite a successful, if controversial, naval career, Bligh’s ill-tempered reputation accompanied him, and the ensuing debate about the rights and wrongs of the Bounty mutiny has never gone away..

Master Grahame Aldous

19

20

INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE

Master Griffiths A

s a Law Lord and cricket and golf administrator, Hugh Griffiths had a favourite line: “Convince me that I am wrong.” It took some doing. His multifaceted career encompassed winning a Military Cross during the Second World War, but to a wider public, he was best known for his involvement in the convictions of the Oz editorial team under the Obscene Publications Act in 1971.

Griffiths established strong liberal credentials when he granted bail to Richard Neville and two other members of Oz who were in the process of appealing against convictions under the act for producing a “schoolkids’ issue” of the magazine. After stating that it was not his job to express an opinion on the correctness of the sentences, Griffiths said that they were “considerably more severe than usually imposed for this type of offence”. He agreed to release the three men after they gave an undertaking that they would not, while on bail, contribute to the publication of Oz or any other obscene material.

The son of a distinguished surgeon, William Hugh Griffiths was educated at Charterhouse and St John’s College, Cambridge, where he won blues for cricket and golf. His time at university was interrupted when he was commissioned into the Welsh Guards in 1942. Two years later he won the Military Cross with the 2nd (Tank) battalion during the advance of the Guards Armoured Division from Brussels.

While in command of the three tanks of the headquarters troop at Hechtel, he volunteered to investigate a report of four enemy “Panther” tanks threatening the battalion’s position. Taking only his own tank, he sighted one of the Panthers, manoeuvred into position 50 yards away and destroyed it. He kept on advancing until he saw the three remaining Panthers, which rapidly withdrew. Isolated, he held off the enemy, destroying two more vehicles.

Griffiths returned to Cambridge and opened the bowling at Lord’s in the Varsity matches of 1946, 1947 and 1948. In his last year, he played against Don Bradman’s

“ Throughout a judicial career that lasted more than 30 years, Griffiths was one of the English Bench’s safest pair of hands, whatever the contingency.”

Upon returning to Chambers, Griffiths was disconcerted to find a note from the Lord Chief Justice. It read: “It is not our policy to grant bail.” He repaired to the Garrick and confessed to an old judge that he thought his career was already over. The response was far from sympathetic: “You’ll be wearing beads and playing a banjo next.”

Throughout a judicial career that lasted more than 30 years, Griffiths was one of the English Bench’s safest pair of hands, whatever the contingency. His integrity received a double acknowledgement in 1985, when he became both a Law Lord and the chairman of the Security Commission.

He also enjoyed a high profile in the world of sport. A county cricketer and golfer in his younger days, Griffiths served as president of MCC from 1991 until 1992 and played a significant role in the talks that led to the readmission of South Africa to international cricket following the ending of apartheid. In 1993, when appointed captain of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club, he achieved the distinction of being the first man to have presided over both Lord’s and St Andrews.

At Lord’s, Griffiths supported the introduction of women members, although his view was that, in cricket as in golf, the membership must decide for themselves. One day, he entertained the Prime Minister in the president’s box at Lord’s. At close of play, John Major suggested they should go out for a fish and chips supper. “Not tonight,” Griffiths replied, thinking that this was not becoming of a Prime Minister’s station.

Australians at Fenner’s, being dismissed for a single, and made eight appearances for Wilf Wooller’s Glamorgan in their championship-winning year. A medium-fast bowler, he was capable of deceptive pace. On one occasion he hit the great Denis Compton in the mouth. Nonetheless, the two later became firm friends.

Griffiths was called to the Bar by Inner Temple in 1949.

He developed a wide-ranging common law practice that leaned heavily on personal injury work and took silk in 1964. But for the war, he would almost certainly have been appointed a QC before the age of 40.

In 1968, Griffiths chaired the inquiry into the Ronan Point disaster in which four people died following the collapse of a corner of a new tower block in the East End. His report concluded that the collapse, which had been triggered by a gas explosion, had only occurred because the building was structurally unsound. This, it declared, was the result of using prefabricated concrete panels bolted together like a giant Meccano set.

Having already served as a recorder in Margate and Cambridge, Griffiths was next appointed to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court in 1970. From 1973, he served under Sir John Donaldson’s presidency in the ill-fated National Industrial Relations Court (NIRC) set up to pursue Edward Heath’s Industrial Relations Act. When Slade, the lithographic union, threatened to black an advertising agency in Leeds whose artists had failed to join the union, Griffiths

To follow… denounced the attempt to apply “naked industrial power” and issued an order to ban the blacking.

In 1980, in one of his last High Court judgments, Griffiths warned trade union leaders that they would be breaking the law if they induced their members to take disruptive action in support of a TUC day of protest. While granting injunctions to Express Newspapers against the leaders of four trade unions, he also warned that individual workers who broke their contracts of employment could face actions for damages by their employers.

Following his appointment that year to the Court of Appeal, Griffiths gave the leading judgment against a plea that menstrual tensions could provide a special defence to criminal acts. He also refused to lift an injunction granted to Myra Hindley, the Moors murderer, who wanted to stop The Sun printing extracts of her plea to the parole board.

He said that he could think of nothing that would damage the parole system more than for prisoners to fear that their confidential submissions would be leaked to the press. In Lion Laboratories v Evans he established that the 'public interest' argument extended beyond overt cases of wrongdoing as grounds for the release of secret papers from hospitals in medical negligence cases.

He presided at the 1985 divorce case of Baron von Thyssen, the steel tycoon and art collector, telling his Brazilian-born wife Denise that regardless of whether her husband “may turn out to have £1,000 million rather than £400 million” she was not entitled to an even higher divorce settlement. “You win some, you lose some,” she remarked as she walked out of court chewing gum.

One month after he was promoted to the House of Lords in May 1985, he was appointed chairman of the Security Commission. He had by then served on the commission for three years and, in 1984, described the failure to identify the Ministry of Defence 'mole' who had leaked a secret memo on cruise missiles to The Guardian as “a very serious threat to national security.” It emerged that the mole was Sarah Tisdall.

In the House of Lords, Griffiths was a lone dissenter in the case brought by the Attorney General against British newspapers, including The Sunday Times and The Guardian, caught up in the Spycatcher affair in 1988. Other Law Lords,

MASTER GRIFFITHS INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

including, most notably, Lord Keith of Kinkell, argued that the media could publish extracts from the former MI5 officer Peter Wright’s memoirs as the book’s contents had already been widely disseminated. Griffiths, however, felt that a ban was needed as a deterrent against future breaches of confidentiality.

In 1990, he was appointed chairman of the Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct. It went on to play a central role in approving new rules to allow solicitors rights of audience in the higher courts. Griffiths retired from the House of Lords in 1993.

That year, as a member of the Privy Council, he gave the leading judgment in a Jamaican 'death row' appeal, Earl Pratt and Ivan Morgan v Jamaica. He found that the long delay in carrying out the execution was enough to quash the Jamaican court’s verdicts.

Never one to rest on his laurels, he launched a third career in his eighties as an international arbitrator and mediator at 20 Essex Street.

In addition to great charm he was blessed with good looks and, consequently, had many female admirers. He married Evelyn Krefting in 1949. He was escorting his sister to a party and spotted her dancing. Two years after her death in 1998, he married Baroness Brigstocke, the former high mistress of St Paul’s Girls’ School, whom he met when his daughter was a pupil.

Brigstocke, who was also a director of Times Newspapers, was killed in 2004 when she was hit by a speeding driver while on a charity mission in Athens. His third marriage was to Greta Fenston, who survives him, along with three daughters and a son from his first marriage. Anne and Carolyn are married with children; Emma became a barrister and David a solicitor. They relished his love of fast cars, but he had to sell his Aston DB6 because he kept being caught speeding. He also had a passion for skiing, hang-gliding and windsurfing. On his 90th birthday he led the dancing in Inner Temple.

Greta was the widow of Felix Fenston, the 1960s property developer. At the time of their wedding in 2009, she was one of the wealthiest women in England. “I think all my friends must have thought ‘good heavens’ when they picked up their wedding invitations, but I consider myself a very lucky man,” Griffiths said. They shared a love of claret.

The first time they had dinner he chose what he thought was a particularly fine bottle of Château Pétrus, to which Greta said: “Yes, very good Hugh, but an earlier vintage would be better.”

They spent their honeymoon in the vineyards of Burgundy, and entertained with style at their house in Ockham, Surrey, and their flat in Kensington, which was decorated with a watercolour of his beloved Lord’s, and where he kept books on his other great interests, the law and the Second World War. Lord Griffiths, MC, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, was born on 26 September 1923. He died on 30 May 2015, aged 91

Courtesy of The Telegraph

21

22

INNER TEMPLE LECTURE SERIES

Gandhi: Constitutionalism and the Legacy of Non-Violent Direct Action in Sub-Saharan Africa From a lecture by The Rt Hon The Lord Boateng

I

n South Africa on 6 June 1993, at the unveiling of a statue of the Mahatma ‘Bapu’ Gandhi in KwaZulu Natal, these words were spoken: “Today, as we strive to achieve a date for the first democratic elections in this country, the legacy of Gandhi – of Gandhiji – has an immediate relevance. The enemies that Gandhi fought – ignorance, disease, unemployment, poverty, and violence – today are commonplace. Now, more than ever, we have to pay heed to the lessons of Mahatma Gandhi”.

Those words were spoken by Nelson Mandela and they retain their resonance because the Mahatma’s work remains a work in progress.

Gandhi’s sojourn in London, whilst he read for the Bar, was to have a profound impact on his thinking and his subsequent relationship with the imperial authority –an imperial authority who famously described him as that “seditious, Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the East”. He did not even get the Inn right.

Gandhiji subsequently told this notorious imperialist, who was of course Sir Winston Churchill, “I have an alternative that I fear will be unpleasant to you: India demands complete liberty and freedom, the same liberty that Englishmen enjoy. … I want to partner with the English, not merely for mutual benefit but so that the great weight that is crushing the world to atoms may be lifted from its shoulders”. Gandhi was speaking of that poverty, of that ignorance that he so loathed, and the violence that it engendered.

Churchill did not get it at the time. But the English people certainly did. When he was here at the Inner Temple studying for the Bar, he came to form real bonds of affection with the English people he met in the vegetarian and freethinking circles that he moved in.

History, and indeed Gandhi himself, are silent as to how he negotiated the food served here, but we know that he survived it; indeed, he flourished and passed all his exams and completed his course of dinners. Gandhi said, “the Bar examinations did not require much study”. See how times have changed.

But he did use the time here to read the Bible and Sir Edwin Arnold’s translation of the Bhagavad-Gita. In this and in the Sermon of the Mount he found the moral

underpinning of his later campaigning activism. He says, “My regard for jurisprudence increased. I discovered in it religion”.

Gandhi viewed both the law and religion as a means of discerning truth in the daily challenge of trying to live a moral life. This proved problematic in his practice of the law.

At times he found the pull between his duty to the client and duty to the truth one that he found difficult to balance, and he expressed his deep frustration and alienation from the law.

Nevertheless, he persisted.

South Africa offered new opportunities for the practice of law, which he readily took up. He quickly found, however, that the Indian in South Africa was subject to a degree of personal institutional racism of a virulence hitherto completely unknown to him.

Bishop Tutu describes Gandhi’s first encounter: “Gandhi was thrown off a train because he sat in a whites only, first-class compartment, even though he had paid the fare. I am glad that he suffered this great indignity – he, a London-trained lawyer. I am glad because it aroused in him a righteous anger to develop his own Satyagraha methods of non-violent resistance. He honed those methods in South Africa as he campaigned non-violently to improve the lot of his fellow Indians”. Tutu highlights the source of the method that came to be known as ‘Satyagraha’, a term Gandhi coined himself for non-violent resistance, which meant ‘soul force’ or ‘holding onto the truth’.

He was a pragmatic and insightful political technician. He sought to prevent the further humiliation of the South African Indian, by presenting him as a loyal member of an imperial family, with rights equivalent to those enjoyed by those residing in what was at the time the jewel in the crown of Imperial Britain. This is not always easy for us in 21st Century Britain to understand, but it made sense then. In his initial call to his community not to comply with the 1907 Transvaal Registration Law, Gandhi said – and these words are not easy even to quote – “Even the half-castes and the kaffirs, who are less advanced than we, have resisted the government.

The pass law applies to them as well, but they do not take out any passes”. This grudging recognition on the part of the Mahatma sprang not just from the context of Indians in Africa, but from Africa itself.

GANDHI INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

“ …Gandhi viewed both the law and religion as a means of discerning truth in the daily challenge of trying to live a moral life. ”

Statue of Mahatma Gandhi in Parliament Square by sculptor Philip Jackson.

The Inner Temple donated towards the cost of the commission.

Photo credit: chrisdorney/shutterstock

23

24

INNER TEMPLE LECTURE SERIES

Before Gandhi returned to India in 1914, his methods were already being used by the Africans in their struggle, not least by the black women of Bloemfontein in South Africa when they made the first protest against the pass laws in 1913. Then, in turn, those same methods were used in 1919 in Johannesburg and became the forerunners to the 1952 defiance campaign, which was so important in the development of the African National Congress.

By 1924, Gandhi predicted, in relation to the Movement for Colonial Freedom generally, that if “Africans caught the spirit of the Indian movement, their progress must be rapid”.

With even greater prescience, given the impact of soul force movement in the life and work of Martin Luther King, Gandhi said, “It may be through the Negros that the unadulterated message of non-violence will be delivered to the world”.

If you think about those scenes in Selma, Alabama – black people, white people being dragged, un-protesting, silent, dignified, from the soda fountains, where they were not allowed to sit together to eat ice cream, when you think of the screaming, and the shouting, and the hatred in the faces of those who barred the way of the young students in Little Rock, Alabama, you see what Gandhi meant when he talked of the unadulterated impact of soul force, of his method of the consciousness of the world.

Kwame Nkrumah was profoundly influenced by Gandhi.

His ideas came to fruition in the strategy that Nkrumah called ‘positive action’, which he described in these terms: “These were weapons – legitimate political agitation, newspaper and educational campaigns, and as a last resort the constitutional application of strikes, boycotts, and non-cooperation based on the principle of absolute non-violence, as used by Gandhi”.

Nkrumah put an emphasis, as did Gandhi, always in seeking to exhaust all methods before resorting to direct action. He engaged with the Colonial Secretary in Ghana – Gold Coast that was – on the eve of the first positive action campaign. The local Ga chief Nii Bonne had been organising a boycott of imported goods because he felt that they were much too expensive and they were causing hardship to the people. A demonstration had ended in the death of two ex-servicemen on 28 February 1949, and the situation was tense.

In his autobiography, Nkrumah describes his meeting with the Colonial Secretary, who said, “Think seriously, Mr Nkrumah, before you take this step here. India was a very different matter. The Indian was used to suffering pains and deprivation, but the African has not that spirit of endurance.

Mark my words, my good man: within three days the people here will let you down”.

Nkrumah says, “I cut him short. ‘All we want,’ I said, ‘is a constituent assembly and a general election, letting the people decide for themselves’”. The colonial authorities refused that demand. Positive action ensued; Kwame Nkrumah went in and out of prison, but within three years – never mind within three days – Nkrumah was leader of government business and shortly after that became Prime Minister. What was demonstrated is that the Mahatma’s teaching was not culturally specific, as the Colonial Secretary predicted, but it had a universal application.

That universal application was demonstrated in Zambia by the struggle of Kenneth Kaunda and that group who came to be known as the ‘Mulungushi Club’. It was that movement that underpinned the wider struggle in Sub-Saharan Africa. It was that movement which itself took place within a political context that was best enunciated in the Bandung Declaration.

South Africa – the country last to be liberated – transitioned from a horror to a free, multiracial, democracy without the bloodbath that seemed to be inevitable. The origins of that lie directly in the teachings of the Mahatma.

The significance of Gandhi and his principles continues to be relevant, continues to be cited as a shaper of movements of liberation to this day.

Kwame Nkrumah

In her acceptance speech, Nobel Laureate Leymah Gbowee, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2011 for her work in conflict resolution and in post-conflict development in Liberia, refers to the influence of the Mahatma and of Dr King in her life. Although the vast majority of the women amongst whom she worked had never heard either of the Mahatma or Dr King, they felt a growing awareness that there had to be another way, and that was the way of soul force. She puts it this way: “We were aware that the end of war will truly only come through non-violence, as we have all seen that the use of violence was taking us and our beloved country deeper into the abyss of pain, death, and destruction”.

Gandhi shows us that better way. His soul force is love in action – not love as some soft sentiment, but love as a strategy. Gandhi the lawyer, the activist, Gandhi the great soul offers us all, not least us lawyers, an alternative path.

The question for us is whether we will have the vision and the courage not just to imagine another way, but to seek to live it, with truth as God. What ought to give us hope is that that man, who has done the most to envision this and whose effect has been truly transformatory on our world, that man, who inspired and continues to inspire, that man, the Mahatma, studied here, and the light that he possessed was not dimmed but nurtured – here in these Inns of Court.

We have but to open ourselves up to that light, to nurture it when we experience it. Each of us in our own way can make a difference, remembering that, as the South African proverb tells us, it truly is each and every feather that makes the eagle soar – different shapes, different sizes, different weights, different colours, different abilities.

Gandhi, the Mahatma, represents the ideal lawyer, activist and great soul. Let us soar; let us soar; let us soar.

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

The Rt Hon The Lord Boateng

BRITISH BESPOKE TAILORING FOR MEN AND WOMEN Individually styled and measured by Susannah Hall Built by craftsmen in British workrooms

SUITS SEPARATES SHIRTS AND ACCESSORIES VISITING SERVICE AVAILABLE

110 CLERKENWELL ROAD LONDON EC1M 5SA 0207 253 4055 susannahhall.com All UK Made

26

INNER TEMPLE

Abolitionists at the Inn By the Inner Temple Archivist, Celia Pilkington and Nicholas Gri�n ��

I

n December 2014, Anti-Slavery International commemorated “175 years against slavery” at the Inn, to mark the efforts made over nearly two centuries to eradicate the iniquitous trade in human beings. The commemoration coincided with the anniversary of the charity itself, which was founded in 1839 and is the world’s oldest international human rights organisation. One of its parent bodies, the Agency Committee of the Society for the Mitigation and Gradual Abolition of Slavery throughout the British Dominions, was an early force in the campaign against slavery. It later evolved into the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society. In 1990 it was refounded as Anti-Slavery International. It continues to combat slavery by highlighting the ever-present problem of people-trafficking and other forms of modern slavery worldwide, and by campaigning for the eradication of slavery in those countries where it remains prevalent – including the United Kingdom.

It is fitting that such an event should be held here, since the Inn is affiliated with distinguished members of the Abolitionist Movement. One of the best-known, Stephen Lushington (1782–1873), was called in 1806, served in Parliament from 1817–1841 and was Queen Caroline’s counsel during her trial. He later became a judge of the Admiralty and was created a Privy Councillor. Along with other great abolitionists, he features in the 1866 monument to emancipation near the Palace of Westminster. His name appears on the roll of honour along with those of Wilberforce, Macaulay, Buxton and Brougham.

The Anti-Slavery Campaign was at first directed at the prohibition of the trade in human beings. This was outlawed in 1807 by The Slave Trade Act. Later the campaign focused on abolishing the culture of forced or unpaid labour – slavery itself – and this effort reached legal fruition in 1833 with The Slavery Abolition Act, due in large part to the work of Lushington.

From that date, slaves below the age of six were set free. Older slaves served an apprenticeship that led to their freedom in 1838 and 1840. This resulted in a mass emancipation across many of Britain’s territorial possessions. Freedom was granted to 700,000 individuals in the West Indies, to 20,000 in Mauritius, and to 40,000 in South Africa.

Territories controlled by the East India Company and Ceylon were liberated from slavery in 1843 when they became part of the British Empire.

Anti-Slavery convention, 1840,

by Benjamin Robert Haydon

Lushington had spoken against slavery from the early years of the 19th Century and he voted for the abolition of the slave trade in 1807. He was also largely responsible for the Act of 1824, which outlawed the trade in slaves between British colonies.

He attended the World Anti-Slavery Convention, which was held here in London at Freemasons Hall on the 12 June 1840. This was organised by the British and Foreign AntiSlavery Society. It contained delegates from all over the world.

Meanwhile the struggle continued on other fronts. For many years after 1833, the trade continued under the flags of nations that lay outside British jurisdiction. Lushington played an active and important role in the campaign to suppress this trade. He presided over a committee in 1842 that drew up a code of instructions for British naval officers. He also concluded a treaty with France on this question in 1845.

In 1838, he met the American republican senator Charles Sumner, an early campaigner for abolition in America, and subsequently befriended him Others connected with the Inn who have played important roles in fighting slavery include:

ABOLITIONISTS AT THE INN INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

James Scotland (1774–1849), proprietor and

editor of The Antigua Free Press, he was admitted to the Inn in 1793 but was never called. Nauseated by the system of slavery on which the economy of Antigua relied, he altered the pro-slavery stance of The Antigua Free Press and campaigned for the emancipation of slaves, and for the political rights of the ‘free-coloureds’, or freed slaves. His persuasive articles led Henry Loving, editor of the island’s rival paper, the Weekly Press, to join the fight to establish rights for slaves. Soon, no editor on the island was representing the opinions of white plantation owners. They swiftly took their revenge. Henry Loving was publicly horse-whipped and James Scotland served a spell in prison. When slavery was abolished in 1834, Scotland resigned as editor. In 1840, he became Deputy Postmaster General of Antigua.

Sir Stephen Cave (1820–1880), a member of

this Inn, he was called in 1846 and later became a member of the Western Circuit. He served as MP for Shoreham, Paymaster General and Vice President of the Board of Trade.

He published many pamphlets criticising the slave trade. He

which once before declared itself in a voice to which no minister can be deaf, and which no man who watches the signs of the times can misunderstand.”

Less praiseworthy was William Burge, Treasurer of the Inn in 1844-5 and Jamaican Attorney General, who was described as “Jamaica’s British lobbyist who had earned the contempt of the abolitionists … with his strong defence of slavery …”

It is thanks to dedicated lawmakers, including the significant role played by our own Master Butler-Sloss in the House of Lords, and the campaigning of organisations such as Anti-Slavery International, that this country now has The Modern Slavery Act 2015. It is an important piece of legislation, which seeks to consolidate and simplify pre-existing slavery and trafficking offences, and which increases the maximum sentence in relation to those offences to life imprisonment. The Act introduces civil orders to restrict the activity of those who pose a risk and those convicted of slavery and trafficking offences and creates the role of the new Anti-Slavery Commissioner, intended to galvanise law enforcement’s efforts to tackle modern slavery. The Act is not perfect, but it is ambitious in parts, and, for example, includes provisions in relation to supply chains. It requires businesses with annual

“ It is thanks to dedicated lawmakers, including the significant role played by our own Master ButlerSloss in the House of Lords, and the campaigning of organisations such as Anti-Slavery International, that this country now has The Modern Slavery Act 2015.” illuminated the effects of the 1846 Sugar Bill, which freed up the trade in sugar and ended the tariffs that protected sugar from the West Indies. This led to cheaper imported sugar from the slave-owning societies of Cuba and Haiti.

William Wilberforce calculated that every ton of sugar harvested required one new slave. Sir Stephen Cave published a pamphlet protesting against the Sugar Bill entitled A Few Words on the Encouragement Given to Slavery and the Slave Trade by Recent Measures, and Chiefly by the Sugar Bill of 1846 (1849). In it he asked: “ What has become of that horror of slavery, which induced at one period 300,000 persons in England, to renounce the use of sugar in order to keep themselves pure from the guilt of that system of which they had so long and so earnestly sought termination. Where is that ardour in the cause of freedom, which in one session 1831, poured into Parliament, no less than 4,584 petitions on its behalf.

Let them all unite to wipe away the stain from their common country. Let them again rouse the deep and solemn feeling, the absolute and irresistible determination,

revenues of £36m or more to publish an annual slavery and human-trafficking statement setting out what steps have been taken to ensure their supply chains are slaveryfree. The Act received Royal Assent in March and important elements of the Act were brought into force on 31/7/15.

Which brings us back to the commemoration in the Hall of 175 years of Anti-Slavery International’s existence.

It is a sobering thought that the work of organisations such as this remains current and necessary so long after the ‘abolition’ of the slave trade and of slavery. As Aidan McQuade, Director of the charity, said on the night: “ Yet more work is required internationally to ensure that slavery eradication is recognised as fundamental to poverty reduction and advancing human development, and to ensure that those who are struggling for freedom across the globe are offered solidarity and meaningful support and not merely warm words and empty sentiment.”

Celia Pilkington and Nicholas Gri�n QC Further information about Anti-Slavery International can be found on its website, www.antislavery.org

27

28

INNER TEMPLE MAGNA CARTA

Magna Carta Lecture Series: Luck or Judgment?

From a lecture by The Rt Hon The Lord Judge

H

istory was being made 800 years ago in Temple Church. The area was then known as the New Temple, and in late 1214 and early 1215, it became one of King John’s two bases in London. The first was the Tower, the second, the New Temple. It was from here that the first negotiations that culminated in Magna Carta took place.

Now, the Temple is the home of barristers and judges. It is a strange but remarkable inheritance that we lawyers, with our current responsibility for maintaining the rule of law and equality before the law, should be doing so some 800 years later, in the very area of London where Magna Carta began its long journey into history and the fabric of the nation.

What we describe as Magna Carta was in fact four charters: the charter sealed by John in 1215 at Runnymede, two sealed by the Regent, William Marshal, and the Papal Legate in 1216 and in 1217, and the 1225 Charter when the infant King Henry III had reached an age when he could assume some regal powers. Magna Carta was confirmed over 50 times by English kings, until well into the 15th Century.

At each confirmation it has evolved, meaning became embedded. As continental charters withered and decayed, Magna Carta emerged as the first and the most important of all legal codes – meriting the description “living instrument”.

Gradually, Magna Carta became part of the fabric of our political thinking. As the centuries unfolded, it came to be exported to places that none of those assembled at Runnymede had ever heard of, like the future United States of America. Its ideas of the development of constitutional legal freedoms came to be encapsulated in the universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was described by Eleanor Roosevelt, one of its architects, as a Magna Carta for the modern world.

Crucially, Magna Carta was sealed at the outbreak of a civil war, as a step to avoid its horrors: the anointed king against a group of rebel barons. It can fairly be said that no one was fighting for the democratic right of each subject to vote in an election. Magna Carta did not emerge like a bright apparition, with reverberating violins playing ascending chords, from the muddy misty field at Runnymede. It was set, as all historic events are set, within its own context.

Religion and politics were enmeshed. England was placed under papal interdict by Innocent III just ten years before the charter was sealed, meaning that most of the holy sacraments were not available. By January 1209, John himself was excommunicated. In January 1213, Innocent III pronounced sentence of deposition on him, and authorised the King of France to wage Holy War against him. More bothered by the impact of this upon his ability to exercise his power on earth than he had been by the potential consequences to his soul, John submitted to the Pope in May 1213. Politically, John accepted the Pope not only as his spiritual lord, but as his feudal lord.

Pope Innocent III was never someone who knowingly undersold himself. He was generous enough to acknowledge that he was lower in status than God, but he was “greater

than man, judge of all men and judged by none”. The Pope directed the rebel barons in how they were to pay taxes required by the king, irrespective of their consent. Into this turbulent mix came the catastrophic defeat of John’s allies in France in the summer of 1214 at the Battle of Bouvines.

John needed to replenish his funds, to raise taxes.

So the toing and froing towards civil war began.

Attempts to achieve a negotiated peace took place in the Temple. John was seeking to get the church – the most powerful institution – onto his side. The next most powerful organisation locally was the City of London and he tried to do a deal with it, in May 1215, with another charter, granting the City power to have its own Lord Mayor, by contrast with the application by the City 15 years earlier, costing the City nothing at all.

The parties met at Runnymede. John’s opponents had the largest forces, and London supported them. His own supporters among the nobility were simply being true to their obligation of fealty. John had no cards to play, so his seal was attached to the charter.

Some crucial areas are addressed in the charter. First, the justice provisions: justice will not be delayed or denied or sold.

Before long, the great writ of Habeas Corpus evolved from these provisions. What is more, the punishment should fit the crime, a first step to our Sentencing Guidelines Council, and those responsible for enforcing any judgments were not to be judges, an embryonic separation of powers. Injustices would be put right.

Secondly, there was to be no aid without the consent of the Council of the Realm. The king could live off his own estates and traditional sources, but if he wanted anything extra, he could not take it without consent.

The third crucial paragraph is that the king was required to rectify any failures to abide by the new agreement, and that if he did not, his subjects were absolved from their obligations of fealty and obedience to him.

The fourth crucial provision is clause 60, which required everyone, whether clerical or civilian, to ensure that they extended the rights granted by the charter to them, to “their men”, that is their own vassals, villeins and serfs. Someone, somewhere, had a vision that was years ahead of its time.

Scribes wrote out copies of the charter, and all took an oath to keep its terms in good faith and without evil intent.

But John had not the slightest intention of abiding by the charter forced out of him and as soon as the Pope heard of it, he annulled it.

Civil war broke out in earnest. So did a French invasion.

At the invitation of the rebel barons to become King of England, Louis, (then) Prince of France, arrived in England in May 1216 and the Lord Mayor and the City opened the gates and rendered homage to him.

Then two deaths occurred: first Innocent III, and then John himself. To describe John’s death as very fortunate is the historians’ privilege. At the time, it was a catastrophe. His heir was a child, Henry III, a boy of nine. He had no uncles, born

MAGNA CARTA: LUCK OR JUDGMENT? INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

legitimately, to act as his regent. Child kings with no uncles had no future. Even with uncles, they were murdered. John had after all disposed of his nephew Arthur, the son of an older brother, and we all know what happened to the princes in the Tower some 260 years later.

William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke was elected as Regent. Being elected into office, he could be deselected.

His regency represented a serious attempt at true councillor government. With the Papal Legate, Marshal reissued a new, different Magna Carta in November 1216, using his own seal. But this reissue did not bring peace. In 1217, Marshal himself led loyal forces into battle at Lincoln.

A very heavy defeat was inflicted on French forces and the rebel barons. The French invasion floundered.

Again, Marshal reissued the charter, in yet different terms. He was in a position of strength based on victory in battle. The rebel barons were brought back into unity with the Crown. It was a remarkable achievement.

The disaster of a boy king was rescued by the right man happening to be in place at the right time.

God that the king was answerable. When Chief Justice Coke said to the king, quoting Judge Henry Bracton, that the king is “under God and under the law, because the law makes the king”, James I responded that it was “treason to affirm that the king was ‘under the law’”. Coke was dismissed and sent to the Tower. He then entered Parliament. There, with a forensic technique that made the blunderbuss seem an instrument of exquisite delicacy, he led the advance of what parliamentarians regarded as “rights” under the banner of Magna Carta. Coke challenged the use of the word “sovereign” in relation to royal power. It was no parliamentary word. It was not democracy as we know it, with a universal franchise, but Magna Carta was the banner, the trumpet call, the privileges of Parliament and its authority.

We all know how the battle between Parliament and the king ended. Charles I’s life ended on the scaffold in Whitehall. Those who condemned him to death were later to suffer the most agonising deaths as traitors who were hanged, drawn and quartered. By the end of the century, his son James had abdicated and our constitution was

“ Magna Carta did not emerge like a bright apparition, with reverberating violins playing ascending chords, from the muddy misty field at Runnymede. It was set, as all historic events are set, within its own context.”

Henry III came to full majority. He needed money and, at a council at Christmas 1224, a fifteenth of the value of all movables was sought for the king. The Great Council insisted that before it would be given, the king should issue the charter himself, and, in 1225 he did so.

Henry III was not under any compulsion of force of arms.

It simply was a trading deal. He could have tax provided he reissued the charter, and, by implication, abided by it.

The link between tax and consent provided the basis for our constitutional struggle in the 17th Century and the eventual establishment of the king in Parliament. Withholding of tax demanded by the king until the grievances were resolved is one of the major reasons why we ended up with parliamentary government while the Estates General in France and the Cortez in Spain, together with all the other promises in all the charters issued in the 12th and 13th Centuries, disappeared under absolute monarchies.

This Parliament became increasingly influential, but parliamentary sovereignty was still a long way off. Although the Tudors managed the institution, the early Stuarts simply did not. The plain fact was that when James I succeeded to the throne, he had a deep conviction that regal authority was bestowed by God on the monarch, and that it was to

irrevocably based on the sovereignty of Parliament. The ideas for which Magna Carta was the inspiration had triumphed.

We have every reason to be proud of Magna Carta. It is the banner, the symbol of our liberties. When we might be a little arrogant or patronising of newer democracies, we can be humble. Remember that the democracy in this country took hundreds of years to establish and involved the shedding of much blood. Even now, we should never assume that “right” and “justice” and “consent” can be taken for granted. There is a warning direct from the first publication of Magna Carta in the United States in 1687 by William Penn.

“It is easier to part with or give away great privileges, but hard to be gained if one’s lost.”

What William Penn called “privileges” we now call “rights”. There are still many countries in the world where what we happily call our “rights” remain “privileges”, waiting to be won and entrenched. Those of us who are blessed with them must guard them. If Magna Carta, and everything that it has meant to us, and continues to mean to us, is to survive, it is no longer a question of luck. It is our responsibility to make it so.

The Rt Hon The Lord Judge

29

30

INNER TEMPLE MAGNA CARTA

Magna Carta and the Holy Grail

From a lecture by The Rt Hon The Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury

W

ords and concepts are slippery things, and especially so if we are lawyers. A phrase, an idea, even a fact, can have a very different meaning or significance to different people, even to the same person in different contexts. When Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty famously said, “When I use a word … it means just what I choose it to mean”, he was reflecting the reality of our experience of ourselves and of others. The notion that there is very often no single right answer to an issue is difficult for some people to accept. Indeed, the possibility that there is more than one defensible view is regarded by almost everyone, at least in some circumstances, as morally wrong.

If there is room for different perceptions in the 21st Century United Kingdom, it is not surprising that virtually every fundamental belief, which most mainstream, moderate people would take for granted today, would have been rejected by most mainstream moderate people in the not-sodistant past. Consider the fundamental freedoms accorded by international instruments and treaties: rights to life, to liberty, and to a fair trial, freedoms from torture, forced labour, and discrimination, and freedoms of religion, expression, and association. If we were to go back 800 years to Runnymede in 1215, we would have to accept that the great majority of English people had virtually none of these freedoms in any recognisable form.

It requires a great leap of imaginative thought to

But it is not so much what Magna Carta meant at the time, but what it started, what it represents. As to that, there is a sharp difference of opinion, which is well illustrated by a recent discussion on the Radio 4 Today Programme.

Helena Kennedy expressed the view that Magna Carta was the basis of jury trial. David Starkey responded to her, or more accurately, hectored her, saying, “This is myth. This is lawyer myth. This is lawyer myth. This is myth”, adding “1215 doesn’t matter”.

These views represent two schools of thought. One school sees what happened at Runnymede as little more than a dramatic moment of history that has captured the public imagination, one that only has symbolic importance due to the subsequent accidents of history. The other view is the more romantic view, encapsulated by Igor Judge in a stirring speech when he called it “the banner, the symbol, of our liberties”.

Whichever view is right, in the first half of the 17th Century, Edward Coke, as unsound an historian as he was a brilliant, if ruthless, lawyer and propagandist, resurrected Magna Carta. He did so to undermine the Stuart monarchy’s notion of the Divine Right of Kings. After that, the Civil War in the 17th Century and the Enlightenment in the 18th Century encouraged a hyper-Edward Coke view of Magna Carta as the origin of English liberty, the rule of law and even of parliamentary government.

“ The music critics cannot agree about Jay-Z’s album; the historians and the lawyers cannot agree about Magna Carta; the romance poets cannot agree about the Grail.” understand what the barons and the king thought that they were doing when they met at Runnymede. None of the painfully few 13th Century records we have about what King John or the barons said, did, or thought at Runnymede comes from an eyewitness – and none is even contemporaneous or first hand.

It is inevitable that there are different views about what the Great Charter meant at the time. One view was parodically embodied by the authors of 1066 and All That, who said, “Magna Charter was the chief cause of Democracy in England, and thus a Good Thing for everyone (except the Common People).” In its skittish way, that represents the traditional view of Magna Carta.

In the 19th Century, many UK historians seemed content to be passengers on the same bandwagon. And in the past 150 years, Magna Carta has also been the basis for some pretty weird notions. Thus there is some sort of association of “freemen on the land”, who regard gaining this mythical status as a kind of legal get out of jail free card – literally.

The different perceptions of Magna Carta over time serve to reflect the Humpty Dumpty view of life: Magna Carta means just what I choose it to mean; this is both the beauty and the danger of historical ‘facts’ which become part of spurious national myth.

There is nothing wrong with myth. There is a human need for myth. Myth simplifies, it personalises, it fills in

MAGNA CARTA AND THE HOLY GRAIL INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Quest for the Holy Grail tapestries by Sir Edward Burne-Jones, William Morris and John Henry Dearle.

Panel 6 – The Attainment; The Vision of the Holy Grail to Sir Galahad, Sir Bors and Sir Percival.

Photo credit: © Sotheby's / akg-images

gaps, it justifies and it engages. Myth gives a coherence and justification for rules and events that otherwise appear random and unfair. Myth often has a patriotic, or at least a national, resonance – consider Homer, consider Virgil, consider Shakespeare. And, myth is more fun, more engaging, than dry facts.

The Holy Grail is another myth, a myth which started almost at the same time as Magna Carta, and which is still very much with us.

Like Magna Carta, the Grail has its origins around the beginning of the 13th Century. The starting point for the Grail myth is Perceval, le Conte du Graal, the final romance written by the French troubadour Chrétien de Troyes, composed shortly before King John succeeded to the English throne. To modern eyes, it is a pretty weird tale, whose weirdness is probably not helped by the fact that Chrétien never finished it. The knight Perceval is returning home when he comes across the mysterious wounded Fisher King, who invites him to stay at his castle. At the castle, Perceval witnesses a procession of men and women carrying strange objects from one chamber to another, including a bleeding lance and an elaborately decorated grail, described as “un graal” rather than “le grail”, which suggests that Chrétien did not regard it as unique. Perceval remains silent through all of this and wakes up the next morning alone. He then returns to King Arthur’s court, where a lady admonishes him for failing to ask his host whom the grail served, because, had he done so, it would have healed the wounded king.

A few years later, around the accession of King John, a grail becomes the Grail thanks to another late 12th Century French poet. In Robert de Boron’s romance in verse, Joseph d’Arimathie, Joseph takes the chalice used at the Last Supper to collect Christ’s blood before he was removed from the Cross. Joseph is then imprisoned, and is visited by Jesus, who tells him of the mysteries of the chalice. On leaving prison, Joseph travels west and founds the dynasty of the Grail, of which Perceval becomes a member. The purpose of the dynasty is to guard the Grail until King Arthur rises again. This was rather topical because in 1191 the monks of Glastonbury claimed to have discovered the tombs of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere.

During the first few decades of the 13th Century, there were further Grail romances written. But then the Grail trail appears to go cold for around 250 years, with only occasional references in romantic and quasi-religious writings. Rather like Magna Carta, it had an initial flourishing after it was first

conceived, and then died away.

After around 200 years of eclipse, the Grail romance was triumphantly revived by a remarkable man. It was Edward Coke who breathed fresh and apparently eternal life into the Magna Carta myth. Coke’s equivalent when it came to the Grail was Thomas Malory whose famous work was published

by William Caxton as Le Morte d’Arthur in 1485 – a date almost as famous in English history as 1215, because it was the year in which the Battle of Bosworth took place.

Malory’s work represents a fantastic exercise in untangling the narrative strands of the French Romance sources and reassembling them into an account that is both more detailed and more familiar than the Chrétien de Troyes or Robert Boron 12th Century versions.

Malory provides an interesting contrast with Coke.

Apart from resurrecting myths, they both had much experience of the law. Coke was a fearsomely successful advocate, Attorney General, Chief Justice, legal author and constitutionalist. Malory’s involvement with the law was of a rather different nature, and suggests that while he may have been a great author, he was not a great man. In 1451, Malory was charged with a catalogue of crimes, including rape, extortion, theft, cattle rustling, robbery, deer stealing, and attempted murder of the Duke of Buckingham before a court at Nuneaton, presided over by the Duke of Buckingham – a good illustration of how perceptions of the rule of law have changed.

Malory was bailed and then joined a horse-stealing expedition across East Anglia that resulted in another sojourn in prison in London. In 1455, when Henry VI suffered a mental collapse, Malory was granted a pardon by the Lord Protector, the Duke of York, but, as soon as Henry VI recovered, the Lord Chief Justice, the great Sir John Fortescue, a Lancastrian, quashed his pardon. But the Yorkist victory in 1461 at Towton brought Malory freedom.

However, he could not keep out of trouble and in 1468, Malory was arrested and imprisoned without formal charge in the Tower of London, probably for plotting against King Edward. It was there that he began working on Le Morte d’Arthur, the whole of which he wrote in prison, and completed in about two years by early 1470.

The story of the Grail occupies a substantial chunk of Malory’s 22-book narrative. Perhaps the best place to begin is the sudden appearance of the Grail with a crack of thunder, and in a shaft of light, miraculously providing food and drink to all present, before departing. Like Magna Carta, the Grail’s

31

32

INNER TEMPLE MAGNA CARTA

initial appearance is dramatic, but brief. Most of the knights then set out separately on a quest for the Grail. Ultimately, Galahad, Percival and Bors, as the purest knights of the court, ride to the Castle of the maimed king, where they are greeted

by Joseph of Arimathea and Jesus Christ. Galahad heals the maimed king, who has waited many years for pure knights to find the Grail.

The Grail and King Arthur are now almost as much part of our historical national identity as Magna Carta. The Holy Grail has become an expression representing the ultimate goal or prize. As with Magna Carta, books on the Holy Grail continue to be published regularly. The Grail’s equivalent of Magna Carta in 1066 And All That is perhaps the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It was this film that led to the title of this talk.

I was somewhat taken aback when my judicial assistant told me that Magna Carta Holy Grail is the title of an album by the rapper Jay-Z. Listening to the music, digesting the lyrics, and reading its Wikipedia entry leaves me little wiser as to why the album has the title that it does, but when it comes to subtle allusions, rap singers may have it over judges.

Wikipedia does suggest that Jay-Z’s Magna Carta Holy Grail “received generally mixed reviews from music critics”. That at least strikes a chord. The music critics cannot agree about JayZ’s album; the historians and the lawyers cannot agree about Magna Carta; the romance poets cannot agree about the Grail. We are in a world where, in so many cases, perceptions

THE INNER TEMPLE STORE Paperweight

Enamel Cufflinks Mr Justice Squeezy

Available from the Treasury Office and via the Inn’s website.

020 7797 8250 innertemple.org.uk/innstore

differ and there is no provably right answer. But, just as we can and should enjoy our day-to-day lives by reference to classical, Newtonian principles, without worrying about the rules of subatomic and astronomic physics, so we can and should maintain and develop the rule of law by reference to current fundamental principles, without worrying about the fact that standards and perceptions change. We must do what we believe is right today. That, one hopes, is what at least some of those who congregated at Runnymede eight centuries ago believed and tried to put into effect.

The Rt Hon The Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury

BBC WORLD SERVICE INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

The Extraordinary Legacy of Magna Carta

BBC World Service radio recording hosted by Shaimaa Khalil on Saturday 13 June in the Temple Church

I

n a worldwide broadcast to over 30 million people, BBC reporter Shaimaa Khalil was joined by a panel of legal and historical experts from around the world to examine the international legacy of Magna Carta and why it remains an icon of freedom and democracy 800 hundred years after

it was written. Panellists were Master Goldstone, former South African judge and First Chief Prosecutor at the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and for the former Yugoslavia, Professor A E Dick Howard, Professor of Law and Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, Elham Saudi, director of Lawyers for Justice in Libya and Dr Satvinder Juss, human rights expert and Professor of Law at King’s College London. Actor Julian Glover interspersed the panel discussion with readings from Magna Carta, the US Bill of Rights and Rudyard Kipling’s The Reeds of Runnymede. The broadcast opened and closed with singing by the Temple Singers.

Presenter: Shaimaa Khalil interviewing the Master of the Temple.

Actor/reader: Julian Glover CBE Temple Singers: Soprano – Cheryl Enever Alto – Aaron Burchell Tenor – James Way Bass – George Humphreys Panellists: Left to right: Elham Saudi, Master Richard Goldstone, Shaimaa Khalil, Professor A E Dick Howard, Professor Satvinder Juss

Images © BBC

33

34

INNER TEMPLE MAGNA CARTA

800th Anniversary Celebration of the London Charter Address given by the Bishop of London in the Temple Church on 14 May 2015

T

onight we celebrate a significant moment in the ascent of London, from the Roman ruin King Alfred knew, to our capital city. On 9 May 1215, King John was here at the Temple. The Master of the Temple in those days was the equivalent to Mark Carney, a central banker and representative of a sophisticated international organisation, responsible for generating the enormous resources required for military action and state-of-the-art fortifications in the remaining Crusader enclaves in the Holy Land. Serlo the Mercer was Mayor that year and it is good to be commemorating the charter in which King John granted to the barons of the city of London the right “to choose to themselves every year a mayor” in the presence of our own Lord Mayor.

The charter stipulates that the Mayor should, after election, be presented to the king “or our justice if we shall not be present”. As we all know, it is still the custom for the Lord Mayor at the beginning of his or her tenure to process to the Royal Courts to appear before the Lord Chief Justice.

It is probable that the charter was all part of King John’s plan to bemuse and divide his enemies until his new ally the Pope could enter the lists and further demoralise the opposition coalition of barons and bishops. Indeed, as the king signed the charter here in the Temple, the rebellion was faltering and his tactics of delay and concessions, which could be repudiated later, appeared to be succeeding. There were Londoners, however, who were not conciliated by the new charter and in alliance with a rebel leader, Robert Fitzwalter, Lord of Baynard’s Castle, they took over the city on 17 May and barred the gates against the royal army. By doing so they changed the military balance of power. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton, was asked to arrange a truce and the road to Runnymede was opened up.

Nevertheless, the charter represents an important milestone in the story of London’s progress from shell to shard.

It was also the prelude to the assembly at Runnymede and the sealing of Magna Carta on 15 June, 800 years ago. Once again the Master of the Temple was present, as was my predecessor William de Ste Mère Eglise.

Much work has been done in preparation for the anniversary, not least by Sir Robert Worcester and his team, cheered on by our own judiciary and the American Bar Association. Distilling the significance and legacy of the charter there are three notable principles in a mass of detailed prescriptions: There must be due process, the monarch is answerable to the law and rights language is extended to “all free men” and not just an elite group.

So deeply embedded are these ideas in our own day that they can seem self-evident. Recent research, however,

not least by Professor John Baldwin of Johns Hopkins University has illuminated the contribution made by the JudaeoChristian context in which the ideas of the charter emerged. Professor Baldwin is a contributor to the recently published book of essays edited by the present Master of the Temple and Mark Hill QC, entitled Magna Carta, Religion and the Rule of Law. As a scholar in the University of Paris, Stephen Langton, Archbishop in 1215, used the Book of Deuteronomy to argue for a written form of law that would set out the rightful activity of kings and restrain their habitual excesses.

Throughout much of the ancient world, Caesar was god and political power was hedged with divinity. Law was regarded as the expression of the will of the ruler just as in more recent times it has been seen as the servant of the Party or the revolutionary avant garde. Religion, too, has often been tempted to turn this position on its head and proclaim God as Caesar. There are many examples from the strange mediaeval delusion that if political power were to be confided to clergymen all would be well. In fact Pope Innocent III was induced by his ally King John to denounce the Archbishop of Canterbury and those who were seeking to subordinate the monarch to the rule of law as accomplices of “the disturbers of the kingdom”.

The Judaeo-Christian tradition derived from the Bible, however, not only sees royal power as limited by law but also opens up a space for secular life in which Caesar is not God and God is not Caesar. When Jesus was provocatively asked whether it was acceptable to pay taxes to the Roman occupying power, he pointed to Caesar’s head on a coin and said “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s”. This has led to a dynamic culture in which there is a perpetual and salutary negotiation about the balance and relationship between the sphere of God and that of political power.

Then again, the concept of the equality of human beings which feeds into the principle that rights belong to “all free men” has developed from one of the most explosive assertions of the Judaeo-Christian scriptures – that all human beings are created in the image and likeness of God. There is no place for a caste system and the belief that human beings are all alike and made in the image of God has proved over and over again subversive of notions of natural and inevitable hierarchy. In our own day, when the possibility of developing enhanced human beings by genetic engineering has become conceivable, we shall have

800TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION OF THE LONDON CHARTER INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Letters patent of King John confirming the City’s right to elect a mayor, 9 May 1215 Courtesy of the London Metropolitan Archives, City of London

to re-visit the foundations and the consequences of our belief in human equality. Other times and other cultures suggest that the notion of human equality is not at all self-evident.

Part of the embarrassment of admitting the JudaeoChristian foundations of much of our culture is the understandable suspicion that those who claim a hotline to God are dangerously unaccountable. We have had to re-learn in our own day what was obvious to the inhabitants of these islands in times when parts of the population had become obstinately metaphysical and religious fanaticism destroyed beauty and fuelled civil war; religion can be very dangerous. But there is another danger, that in the absence of the God and Father of us all, people begin to regard themselves as so many little gods with a diminishing sense of accountability to anything outside their own pleasure.

In the lesson read by our Lord Mayor, Solomon acknowledges that he has been chosen judge and ruler of the people yet “though a man be never so perfect among the children of men, yet if thy wisdom be not with him, he shall be nothing regarded”. Knowledge has given us power so great that more than any previous generation we could destroy our planetary home, rapidly by the power which comes from splitting the atom or slowly by losing respect for matter, seeing it as something simply to be exploited until it degrades and we leave our children a polluted and ravaged Eden. Solomon’s prayer is for the wisdom which transcends knowledge because it sets what we could do in the context of our accountability to God and other life forms as viceroys and not masters of the earth, creatures of the dust who acknowledge the limits on our monarchical power.

Jesus Christ taught that the very first step in becoming a human being is to refuse to be a little god. He came in the form of a servant and he was baptised in the river Jordan at the lowest place on earth, 1300 feet below sea level to be precise. For any civilisation to flourish; for any city to prosper, we need kings and judges and mayors and even bishops with a servant spirit, who know that, far from being entitled to special treatment, they are accountable to the Spirit who informs the Common Good and is expressed in the Law. The Rt Rev and Rt Hon Richard Chartres, Bishop of London

“ The Judaeo-Christian tradition derived from the Bible, however, not only sees royal power as limited by law but also opens up a space for secular life in which Caesar is not God and God is not Caesar.”

35

36

INNER TEMPLE MAGNA CARTA

Magna Carta Service in the Temple Church Address given by Master Carey, The Rt Rev and Rt Hon the Lord Carey of Clifton, at the Magna Carta service in the Temple Church on Sunday 14 June 2015

S

hould not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

This question from the Book of Genesis is central to this morning’s celebration. ‘To do what is right’ is now so taken for granted in this place, that it is easy to forget that in western history it has been a hard fought fight, and in many parts of the world today the battle for justice, freedom and human rights still continues.

Of course, the Judge of all the earth had a point.

Evil has to be resisted and those who do wrong must be punished and corrected. The wiping out of Sodom and Gomorrah might have seemed to good people at the time a reasonable, though regrettable, judgment. But Abraham was troubled. The idea of punishing good people along with the bad seemed to him to attack the very nature of ‘rightness’. So, just as a person in a Middle Eastern souk might barter to get a good price, so Abraham barters with the Almighty, and whittles down the figure from 50 to 10. This ancient story may suggest to us that Abraham had a greater sense of justice than the Almighty had! But the story revolves around that one profound question: Is not doing right central to what we call justice?

800 years ago, the sovereign of this country and a representative number of barons met at Runnymede to resolve a national crisis which, essentially, came to the same thing. Faced with major disputes between the king and the barons, what was the right thing to do? King John, who in the words of A A Milne’s understatement, was “not a good man”, was a man easy to offend and not easy to placate. He was greedy, squeezing as much money from the Church and nation as he could. It is very likely from this place, or very close, that King John set out with his guards to Runnymede that summer’s morning. Indeed, this morning we recognize the role of the remarkable William

“

Marshall, Earl of Pembroke, buried in this ancient Church.

It is generally acknowledged that the signing of Magna Carta was a major moment in the journey of democracy. But what is less acknowledged is that it was not out of the blue. There was already a stirring in Europe to deal with questions of power and the authority of princes, within the context of law. By the end of the 12th Century, a new breed of lawyers was working on Roman and Church law to address the needs of the age.

Indeed, from the vantage of law, Magna Carta is not primarily significant for what it was, but rather for what it was made out to be. In terms of the time, some modern commentators have mistakenly concluded that the meeting at Runnymede had the sole purpose and result of keeping a few rebellious barons happy, causing barely a ripple in the river of history and subsequently fading into the murky depths of terminal insignificance.

To be sure, Magna Carta was of little significance at the time it was sealed. It applied to only a very small group of people, as England was still a feudal society and was, in fact, temporarily, annulled only a couple of months later. It reappeared in a modified form in 1225, and weaved in and out of English history like a golden cord through to modern times, sometimes forgotten and at other times, remembered and celebrated. Would King Henry VIII have been allowed to behead two of his wives, violating articles 39 and 40 (the right to a trial by jury), and dissolve the monasteries, breaching article 1 (freedom of the Church), if he were subject to the law? Certainly not. But the problem was that the monarchy had achieved an almost untouchable status; monarchs ruled by the divine right of God and this idea was supported by the Church and accepted by the people.

However, as we move into the Stuart period, Sir

THE MAGNA CARTA SERVICE INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Edward Coke, prominent Jacobean jurist and lawyer and, indeed, a member of the Inner Temple, began to query this long-held view, reviving Magna Carta at the same time: “Magna Charta is such a fellow that he will have no sovereign.” He emphasised the superiority of the law over the king and called for greater restrictions of the monarchy to be made, interpreting the general message of Magna Carta as being a call for limitations on the king, who should be answerable to the law.

Oliver Cromwell, whose statue is somehow paradoxically placed outside our House of Commons as a symbol of democracy, dismissed the Magna Carta very crudely as a “magna farta”, and set about ridding the nation of a monarchy which he claimed had too much power. Ironically, he himself then ruled with a rod of iron doubly negating the claims of the Magna Carta.

and the 8th Amendment of the US Constitution. Magna Carta had been ‘made to be’ central to the constitution of the first wholly democratic republic in the world. To this day, Americans view Magna Carta with great respect. Unlike the English, they apply the definite article to it, and the only monument at Runnymede is one funded by Americans.

Today’s celebration of Magna Carta and the role played in its history by the Temple is a tacit recognition that the task is far from over. ‘Doing what is right’ calls for vigilance because abuse of power, corruption in public companies and wrong triumphing over good will always threaten human endeavour. A sign I saw once in an American forest read: “Do not start fires. They are hot and can run much faster than you can”. So does evil.

It should be of great concern to us all that most of the greatest challenges today facing the world span borders:

I have noted in recent days the various ways that modern commentators have referred to the Magna Carta, and the way that some have tried to dismiss its significance. From the feigned ignorance behind Tony Hancock’s amusing words: “Does Magna Carta means nothing to you? Did she die in vain?” through to Dominic Selwood’s conclusion that it was “only a peace treaty cobbled together at a time when the country was being sucked into a civil war”, and on to the conclusion that “it was a rather squalid deal”.

To the contrary, the enormous influence of the Magna Carta, as a symbol of liberty, is almost impossible to overstate. Not only has it greatly influenced the course of British history but the course of world history too. From the English Civil War and parliamentary government to the current war on terror; from the American Revolution to the Internet; from the French Declaration of the Rights of Man to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ways in which Magna Carta has been presented over the past eight centuries, is used in the present and will be used in the future, have not only been unprecedented, but often unappreciated. Magna Carta has been ‘made to be’ the greatest and most venerable charter in history.

Perhaps its most notable overseas influence has been in the USA where it was of great importance in the American Wars of Independence, 1776-1783. The American Revolutionary slogan of “no taxation without representation” resonates strongly with article 14 of Magna Carta which calls for common counsel. Even greater parallels can be seen between Magna Carta and the US Constitution, passed as law in 1789. The writ of habeas corpus is featured in both articles 39 and 40 of Magna Carta and article 1, section 9, clause 2 of the US Constitution, and the prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishments, article 20 of Magna Carta

international terrorism; environmental damage and climate change; trafficking in people, arms, drugs, human organs; financial chicanery and tax avoidance on a vast scale. Are we truly aware, for example, that half the world’s largest economies today are not states, but companies? Walmart, for example, is the 28th biggest economy in the world.

Such companies are able to transcend national law and regulatory barriers. They have the power to make or break economies so there is rarely the political will to take them on.

We have only to consider the abuse of FIFA officials who used their power and influence to line their own pockets. Indeed, FIFA, to echo a phrase, became their ‘fiefdom’. The behaviour of some senior banking officials from 2007 has shown how vigilant we all have to be. An unnamed person said two weeks ago concerning the Libor crisis that “if a dealer is not cheating, he is not working”.

The very advances in technology and communications that enable markets to function also encourage dysfunctional behaviour and black markets, hence Sir Tim Berners-Lee’s determination to create a Magna Carta for the Internet.

So, today celebration is of a charter that the originators could scarcely have imagined would have such significance 800 years later. Even though in its 1215 form the Magna Charta was greatly limited in its application, its vision has flowered into becoming one of the most iconic symbols of democracy. Far from being a squalid little deal, the genius of Magna Carta continues to inspire human endeavour and behaviour. Abraham was quite right – “the Judge of all the earth should do right”. And that is the destiny of all judges, all who prize the law, and, indeed, all of us gathered here today.

Master Carey

37

38

INNER TEMPLE  MAGNA CARTA

Magna Carta Bar Guest Night

INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Tonic and Remedy, a brilliantly contemporary take on the classic apothecary in Old Street. The cocktails are herby, innovative, potent concoctions. – The Sunday Times

Vibrant Cocktail Bar and Kitchen minutes from Old Street tube station.

Best in modern British dining with Paul Weburn.

To book: www.tonicandremedy.co.uk As featured in ES Magazine, FT How to Spend it and Marie Claire

As a leading accountancy practice, our professional reputation among barristers stems from providing a consistently high standard of financial support to members of the Bar. At Lawrence Grant, Chartered Accountants, we have a specialist team of highly dedicated personnel that barristers can rely on and trust.

Our collective knowledge and experience in advising barristers totals over 40 years.

We are also able to tailor our fixed scale of charges to fit your individual requirements, thus offering real value for money. As an incentive, discounts are offered to encourage our barrister clients to provide us with their accounting information in good time.

©iStockphoto.com/Thomas_EyeDesign

Our barrister clients are able to enjoy taking advantage of the FREE services we offer, including an initial consultation, our easy-to-access tax deductible expenses checklist or our Excel cashbook template for the preparation of VAT returns and accounting information.

www.lawrencegrant.co.uk/specialist LG Horizontal Advert Jul12.indd 1

T: 020 8861 7557

16/07/2012 11:33

marketing@lawrencegrant.co.uk 39

40

INNER TEMPLE MAGNA CARTA

Runnymede 2015 At crack of dawn on Monday 15 June 2015, members of the Inns and the Choir of the Temple Church headed off in a fleet of coaches to the field at Runnymede to join 4,000 guests in celebrating the 800th anniversary of the sealing of Magna Carta. In the presence of Her Majesty The Queen, Royal Benchers HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, HRH The Princess Royal and HRH The Duke of Cambridge, guests listened to a series of speeches by the Master of the Rolls, the Prime Minister and the Archbishop of Canterbury and to music sung by the Temple Church Choir.

By the Master of the Rolls

Y

our Majesty, your Royal Highnesses, your Grace, your Excellencies, my Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen.

We love anniversaries in this country. Of battles, the start and end of wars, the birth and death of famous people and significant events that have helped to shape our history. Any excuse for a commemoration, and we take it.

When it comes to really important anniversaries, new stamps are printed and coins minted; new music is written; and the media pull out all the stops.

The anniversary that we are celebrating today is worthy of the royal treatment that it is receiving. We are commemorating the making of a treaty, an event that has turned out to be of huge significance for the development of this country and other democratic systems throughout the world. King John and the barons would have been bemused that thousands of people from all over the world were willing to set off at the crack of dawn to come here today, in order to stand for several hours in a field without shelter and uncertain of the elements. All this to mark what they did in 1215.

They would surely have been astonished to learn that over time, Magna Carta came to be regarded as one of the most important constitutional documents in our history and that it continues to be so regarded 800 years after it was sealed on this very spot. They would not have believed

that the barons’ list of demands would become a symbol of democracy, justice, human rights and perhaps above all, the rule of law for the whole world. But that is exactly what has happened.

Magna Carta has had its ups and downs. But it was a hugely significant step on a journey that led to the building of a society where everyone has equal rights and nobody is above the law. A few clauses of Magna Carta are still part of our law, including, famously, the provision that no free man shall be taken or imprisoned except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land; and to no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice. These words still have a thrilling majesty even today.

Magna Carta was one of the English documents that inspired the US Bill of Rights. Other governments around the world have been greatly influenced by Magna Carta. The fact that visitors from far and wide are here today is eloquent testament to its continuing significance.

Lord Denning described Magna Carta as the greatest constitutional document of all time; the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.

With those ringing words in our minds, it now gives me great pleasure to invite the Prime Minister to speak.

The Rt Hon Lord Dyson

By the Prime Minister

8

00 years ago, on this day, King John put his seal to a document that would change the world. We talk about the ‘law of the land’ and this is the very land where that law – and the rights that flow from it – took root.

The limits of executive power, guaranteed access to justice, the belief that there should be something called the rule of law, that there should not be imprisonment without trial – Magna Carta introduced the idea that we should write these things down and live by them. That might sound like a small thing to us today. But back then it was revolutionary, altering forever the balance of power between the governed and the government.

What happened in these meadows eight centuries ago is as relevant today as it was then. And that relevance extends far beyond Britain. All over the world, people are still struggling to live by the rule of law and to see their governments subject to that law.

The countries that have these things tend to be the long-term successes. Those that do not, tend to be the longterm failures. And what is taken for granted here in Britain, what is sewn into the fabric of our nation, so deep we barely even question it is what others are crying out for, hoping for, praying for.

Why do people set such store by Magna Carta? Because they look to history. They see how the great charter shaped

the world for the best part of a millennium, helping to promote arguments for justice and freedom.

Did those barons know, I wonder, how its clauses would echo through the ages? Inspiring those who fought in the English Civil War, giving fuel to the Chartists, succour to the Suffragettes and ammunition to anyone challenging injustice or checking arbitrary power.

And did they know that the seeds sown here would grow throughout the world? Think of America – of the founding charters and codes of the earliest states – and you will see Magna Carta being referenced, alluded to, even copied.

Think of India, of Gandhi, when he brought more rights to his people overseas. With his Indian Relief Act, he declared he had something special: the “Magna Carta of our liberty in this land”.

Think of South Africa – of that courtroom in Rivonia – as Nelson Mandela stood in the dock, looking at a lifetime in prison; it was Magna Carta that he cited.

For him, that document was a crucial part of the British freedoms he so admired, that he so wanted for his own people, an ideal for which he was prepared to die.

Magna Carta takes on further relevance today. For centuries, it has been quoted to help promote human rights and alleviate suffering all around the world. But here in Britain, ironically, the place where those ideas were first set

RUNNYMEDE 2015 INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

“ For him, that document was a crucial part of the British freedoms he so admired, that he so wanted for his own people, an ideal for which he was prepared to die.” out, the good name of ‘human rights’ has sometimes become distorted and devalued. It falls to us in this generation to restore the reputation of those rights, and their critical underpinning of our legal system. It is our duty to safeguard the legacy, the idea, the momentous achievement of those barons. And there couldn’t be a better time to reaffirm that commitment than on an anniversary like this.

Magna Carta is something of which every person in Britain should be proud. Its remaining copies may be faded, but its principles shine as brightly as ever, in every courtroom and every classroom, from palace to Parliament to parish church.

Liberty, justice, democracy, the rule of law – we hold these things dear, and we should hold them even dearer for the fact that they took shape right here, on the banks of the Thames.

So on this historic day, let us pledge to keep those principles alight. Let us keep Magna Carta alive. Because – as those barons showed, all those years ago – what we do today will shape the world, for many, many years to come.

The Rt Hon David Cameron MP

By the Archbishop of Canterbury

A

rchbishop Stephen Langton was mediator between the King and his barons, counsellor to both, and an advocate of civil harmony, cohesion and goodwill.

His great legacy was this remarkable document, the spring from which so much of the human quest for political liberty has drawn, here and abroad, especially in the United States of America.

The vision of the dignity of the human being, however limited that vision is, in Magna Carta sets a standard for our consideration of all human beings – however important or unimportant, near or far, they may seem to be.

Langton was not alone. His was an age of giants at Canterbury. Alphege, whose love for his people led him to give his life to save them from paying a crippling ransom.

Anselm, the wise scholar and yet brave counsellor, whose advice cost him years of exile. In such self-giving and courage, Magna Carta found fertile soil to grow. It sets the bar high for all of us today.

In the centuries since, how often the Church and others have failed to uphold these most noble qualities, to be an advocate for those members of our community for whom the rights and liberties of Magna Carta have remained a distant hope. From the support for enclosures to the opposition to the Great Reform Act, to the toleration of all sorts of

abuse, with humility we recognise these failings. But I pray that today will be a moment of opportunity in which our commitment to the liberty and flourishing of one another, the bond between us that allows us to recognise our individual human dignity, is renewed and will never again fail.

There have been great moments. Bishops of Durham in the late 19th Century and later in the 20th speaking up for the miners; a church alongside the poorest, the genius of the Elizabethan settlement of religious differences, however long it took to become fixed.

As the path to Magna Carta and our history since lays bare, the relationship between the Church and the State has not always been easy. In my own Cathedral in Canterbury, at the Altar of the Sword’s Point, the site of the martyrdom of Becket, I am reminded of what happens when this relationship collapses.

Together, as critical friends, we must seek the principled and active betterment of society as a whole, ensuring that all the rights and liberties afforded to them, both in our legal system and in our inherent worth as children of God, are, in the words of Magna Carta, “enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength, forever.”

The Most Revd and Rt Hon Justin Welby

41

42

INNER TEMPLE MAGNA CARTA

Runnymede 2015

Invocation at the American Bar Association Memorial on 15 June 2015

By Master Robin Gri�th-Jones, Master of the Temple Church

T

he ground on which we stand has for 800 years to the day been sacred to the struggle for freedom and equality under the law. The struggle is endless, and demands as much wisdom, endurance and courage now as it did eight centuries ago. Ever wider and deeper grow its aims, to embrace ever more citizens in ever more countries in the world in a freedom ever more secure from tyranny and the abuse of power. For Magna Carta itself was most potent when it was most radical: even and especially those in power were to be subject to the rule of law.

Two special sites overlook the meadow here at Runnymede: the memorial to President Kennedy, a patch of land that is now forever part of America itself, a gift from England to the people of the United States; and this, the memorial to Magna Carta raised by the American Bar Association in 1957 and now beautifully repaired and restored for the century to come, a fitting testament to the role of Runnymede in the memories and hopes of humankind.

Winston Churchill said, at Fulton Missouri, 1946: “ We must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man, which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.”

As we rededicate this memorial to the service of freedom and justice, so we rededicate ourselves to the same cause in our own lands and throughout God’s world.

We pledge this place and ourselves to that time when, “ No person shall be taken or imprisoned or dispossessed or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, except by the lawful judgment of their equals or by the law of the land; when no one shall have right or justice sold, denied or delayed.”

God and Father of us all, bless this place, this memorial in the service of your whole world. Inspire all who visit it and all who hear of it with the vision of justice and liberty for all humankind. May this place strengthen our own resolve to bequeath to our children and grandchildren a legacy of freedoms so secure that the Great Charter of the Liberties of England can be rightly celebrated at its next centenary, in this same place, at this same memorial by a generation yet unborn. Amen.

Master Robin Griffith-Jones

“ Ever wider and deeper grow its aims, to embrace ever more citizens in ever more countries in the world in a freedom ever more secure from tyranny and abuse of power.”

RUNNYMEDE 2015 INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Speech delivered by the US Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, at the American Bar Association Memorial, Runnymede

8

00 years ago, on the grounds of Runnymede, King John sealed a piece of parchment – a Great Charter – that extended basic rights to individuals subject to his reign.

That Magna Carta was neither expansive nor long-lived – its rules applied to only a small group of noblemen – and it was first annulled just ten weeks after being sealed. But its adoption served as a signpost on a long and difficult march, and those who forged its compromise stood as early travelers on the road to justice. While the hands that wrote the Magna Carta have long been stilled, the principles they carved out of the struggles of their day – of the struggles of the human condition – live on.

Seven and a half centuries after that historic day, in 1957, a crowd of 5,000 people walked in storied footsteps to dedicate this memorial and to recognise its significance.

powers, due process and the rule of law; a legal system that recognises and honours the dignity of all people; and a commitment to ongoing efforts to realise these ideals in every interaction between our citizens and our institutions.

Even today, America continues to pursue these goals. We are engaged in initiatives to promote trust and understanding between law enforcement officers and the communities we serve. We are working with partners in the United States and around the world to pursue those who would deny human dignity, whether through trafficking or corruption, violence or terrorism. And we are carrying out a historic reorientation of our criminal justice practices to end an overreliance on incarceration. At every turn, we are driven by that same devotion to the rule of law whose seeds took root in this field so long ago.

“ For those who drafted the US Constitution, the significance of Magna Carta was clear. Its influence helped shape a political system that enshrines separation of powers, due process and the rule of law; a legal system that recognises and honours the dignity of all people.”

Among them was Earl Warren, the Chief Justice of America’s Supreme Court and one of our nation’s greatest jurists, who noted in an opinion a year later, that principles traced back to Magna Carta represented a concept that is “nothing less than the dignity of man”.

For Chief Justice Warren, and for the many American lawyers and jurists who gathered by his side, this monument had special meaning, because Magna Carta had come to symbolise more than a simple agreement between noblemen and their king. This social contract between a monarch and his people codified, however imperfectly, notions that would one day stand at the heart of our own system of justice: the idea that no power is unconditional, and no rule is absolute; that we are not subjugated by an infallible authority, but share authority with our fellow citizens. That all are protected by the law, just as all must answer to the law.

These fundamental, age-old principles have given hope to those who face oppression. They have given a voice to those yearning for the redress of wrongs. And they have served as the bedrock of free societies around the globe, inspiring countless women and men seeking to weave their promise into reality.

For those who drafted the US Constitution, the significance of Magna Carta was clear. Its influence helped shape a political system that enshrines separation of

Of course, our journey has not been easy, and it is far from over. Just as men and women of great conscience and strong will have, over eight centuries, worked to advance the cause that animated their forebears – in nations around the world – we too must advance and extend the promise that lies at the heart of our global community. We too must deliver on the spirit of Magna Carta. And we too must carry forward our work to new fields of equality, opportunity and justice.

On the day that this monument was dedicated in 1957, one of the former presidents of the American Bar Association called his journey to Runnymede a “devout pilgrimage to the ancestral home, to the well springs of our profession, to the fountainhead of our faith”. Today, we not only pay tribute to the source of our legal doctrine, we reaffirm our devotion to its values and recommit ourselves to the service of its most treasured ideals. As we go forward, I am proud, I am honored and I am humbled to stand shoulder to shoulder with all of you in our shared pursuit of a more just world.

Thank you all, once again, for the opportunity to take part in this commemoration. Thank you for your dedication to the ennobling ideals we are here to celebrate. I look forward to all that our nations will achieve together in the spirit of their promise in the years ahead.

US Attorney General, Loretta Lynch

43

44

INNER TEMPLE

The Great Fire of London Stopped here – the Royal Bencher Who Saved Hall and the Church The Reader, Master Donald Cryan, relates the pivotal role played by the Inn’s first Royal Bencher in saving the Temple Church and Hall from the devastation of the Great Fire of London.

I

n the early hours of Sunday 2 September 1666, a fire broke out in Pudding Lane in the east of the City of London, near London Bridge. The Temple was about a mile and a quarter to the west, but over the next three days unseasonably strong easterly winds blew the flames inexorably closer to the Inn, destroying in its path the bulk of the City.

By the time the winds and the Great Fire of London died down, seven out of every eight homes, from aldermanic mansions and counting houses to the tenements of the poor, lay in ashes. Smoldering, too, were the warehouses of the greatest port of one of the greatest seafaring nations on earth. The wholesale and retail infrastructure of the City, from the gold and silversmiths’ shops and workshops in Cheapside to the Royal Exchange and the warehouses of the Fruiterers' Company and others by the river, were no more. The majority of the Livery Halls, and the Guildhall itself, were gone. The offices of civic government were no longer there. Even the gaol at Newgate had been emptied and then consumed by the flames.

But undoubtedly the greatest loss to the City’s built environment was the destruction of nearly 90 churches and the mighty St Paul’s Cathedral itself – long past its prime, devoid of its spire, propped up by internal scaffolding, its gothic majesty defaced by a neoclassic appendage to its west front, but still dominant, still proud in its crumbling glory, atop Ludgate Hill. It burnt for days, in part because the City’s booksellers and stationers, thinking it a safe place, had deposited their goods there as the fire took hold.

Such was the scene which would have been viewed to the east from the round tower of the Temple Church, as the fire approached. Refugees headed out of the City in every direction. Fleet Street was full of people and carts heading away from the flames. Civic government, such as it was, had broken down and those still left in the Temple had kept its gates closed against the throng. The Inn’s

accounts show various payments to its servants for watching during the fire. The Inn itself was thinly populated. Not only was it the Long Vacation, but fear of a return of the Great Plague of 1665 had caused the ‘Summer Readings’ or lectures to be cancelled for the second year running.

The leading men of the Inn were nearly all gone to the country. Those remaining could only watch and wait under the dark pall of smoke blown in from the east and, as the days passed, the threatening blow at night came ever nearer. By the third day, Tuesday 4 September, the fire had arrived at Whitefriars, a poor area full of narrow streets and passageways, on the eastern boundary of the Temple.

Whilst the Lord Mayor, Sir Thomas Bludworth, had initially failed to take steps to halt or even slow the fire, one Inner Templar gained universal praise for his efforts and courage in seeking to abate its progress, albeit with limited success. However, it was he whose men, under his direction, finally saved the Church and more or less literally beat out the last flames of the Great Fire of London on the roof of Hall.

The King’s brother, James, Duke of York, had been elected the first Royal Bencher of any Inn by the Inner Temple in 1661. By the time of the Great Fire he was 33 years of age, and an experienced and energetic navel and military commander. His political ineptitude and intellectual shortcomings (which were to have such disastrous consequences for him two decades later), weighed against his courage and leadership, were irrelevant in such times as this. One of his staff said: “More of judgement is at hand in him in the middle of desperate service than at any other time.” Perhaps, being written after his inglorious deposition, histories subsequently have sometimes given him less credit than he deserved for his efforts at the time of the Great Fire. Even some modern scholars have chosen to ignore his achievement and, for example, the volume devoted to him in the Yale University Press series on English monarchs is silent as to his role in the Great Fire.

THE GREAT FIRE OF LONDON INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Portraits of Sir Thomas Tyrrell (left) and Sir Orlando Bridgeman (right ) hanging in Inner Temple Hall

In a somewhat hubristic gesture, the Lord Mayor had declined the King’s offer of troops to help, but it soon became apparent that if the King did not send help, then nothing would happen. The City’s objections were ignored, and the Duke, his courtiers, troops and sailors worked tirelessly, fighting the flames and pulling down buildings to create fire breaks, an almost futile task whilst the wind was blowing a gale. It was a dangerous one too. About noon of Tuesday 4 September 1666, the Duke and some of his men had to run for their lives when the fire o’erleapt their position to the east of the Temple near Bridewell.

From the Thames, up to and across Fleet Street was a wall of flames. The fire’s first assault on the Temple was at about six o’clock on that Tuesday. The new brick building along King’s Bench Walk gave a temporary check to the advance of the fire and, during the evening, the wind fell.

Nevertheless, before veering north on a changed and falling wind, it seems to have consumed King’s Bench Walk. The Duke worked in the area all night and, by Wednesday morning, things had quietened down sufficiently for him to return to Whitehall.

However, after only a few hours, no doubt still exhausted by the previous days’ labours, he was summoned again by the risk of panic in Moorfields. Crowds of displaced Londoners were panicking over rumours of a Dutch invasion.

From there to the south, he saw the red glow of flames from the area of the Temple. Arriving there, he found the fire had started up again, “by the carelessness of the Templars”, but the students in residence continued to bar the gates against the lawless crowd. Refusing to let any one in “unless there was a barrister present”, the Duke, however, was allowed in with his attendants.

By then, it is likely that King’s Bench Walk was lost and the Temple Church and the Hall were at risk. The Duke resolved to blow up some ‘paper buildings’, buildings in the vicinity of the Hall and Church. Military engineers and gunpowder were sent for. The Inn’s accounts after the fire show: “ To Spiers the grocer for half a barrel of powder used in the time of the fire, £1. 8s.

To 4 engineers that worked at the fire by order of the bench, £4.

To a soldier of Kingston for service done to prevent the firing of the hall, £2.”

But more intriguing than these figures was the entry relating to one Richard Rowe on 27 January 1667: “ Whereas at this parliament Richard Rowe, mariner, who had £5 formerly given him by this society for his pains taken in extinguishing the fire at the end of the Inner Temple Hall, did now petition for a further reward, whereupon it is ordered that the petitioner shall have given to him the sum of £5 more as a full and final reward from this society.”

It seems that Richard Rowe (or ‘Roe’) was a sailor, presumably in the party of the Duke who was Lord High Admiral, who had climbed onto the roof of Hall and beat out the flames. Whether he was injured in the process is unknown, but in 1668 is found in the accounts of the Inn: “ Gave Mrs Roe, the seaman’s widdy, that hope to putt out the fire at the end of the hall £2.”

Whatever the price, the Duke and his men put out the fire and, although very significant damage was done to much of the estate, they had saved the Church and Hall. Curiously, they had to act without the co-operation of at least one of the Templars present who objected to a building known as ‘the Paper House’ being blown up with gunpowder, an action “against the rules and charter of the Temple”. A contemporary account suggests that the Duke stared at him in disbelief before his Master of the Horse struck the objector with a cudgel. The explosion followed shortly after.

Today, there is no portrait of James in the Inner Temple Hall, although there is one in the Middle Temple Hall. His coat of arms is to be found in one of the south windows of the present Hall. The portraits in Hall are those of Mary, his daughter and her husband, the Duke’s nephew, William, who deposed him, and Anne, his younger daughter who supported them. It is also ironic that the last entry related directly to the Duke in the transactions of the Inn is from the last days of his reign as James II. In January 1681, he had been captured by rebels in Kent, but had returned to London very briefly at liberty. The Inn lit bonfires to celebrate and paid a wood merchant for faggots for the purpose. Whether this was from loyalty or nostalgia is unrecorded.

Master Cryan

45

46

INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE

Master Nugee

By Master Christopher Nugee

E

dward Nugee QC, who died at the age of 86, always claimed not to be a great cross-examiner,

Counsel: “What is the percentage increase if an asset increases in value from £100 to £400?”

Witness (confidently): “400 per cent.”

“And from £100 to £200?”

Witness (less confidently): “200 per cent.”

“And from £100 to £120?”

Witness (hesitantly): “120 per cent? I’m sure I’ve seen it done it that way?”

But as this exchange shows, he was quite capable of exposing the innumeracy of a witness.

Universally known as Ted, he was one of the preeminent Chancery barristers of his generation. He never retired (although as a concession to old age he latterly took Wednesdays off) and practised for over 58 years, the last 37 of them as a QC, outlasting all his contemporaries to become the most senior Chancery silk in practice. For over 30 years until 2006, he was head of his chambers during which it transformed itself from a small, well-respected but essentially traditional set of chambers, largely concerned with conveyancing and trusts, into one of the largest and most well-known of the modern Chancery Bar under the name Wilberforce Chambers.

Ted himself played no small part in building its reputation, appearing in the first cases to reach the House of Lords on rent review, capital transfer tax and commons registration, and for the successful parties in the first two modern pensions cases (Imperial Foods and Courage Group), thereby laying the foundations for Wilberforce Chambers to emerge as the dominant pensions set in the country, as pensions litigation became more and more common. He oversaw its expansion from eight juniors when he took over as Head of Chambers in 1976, to some 23 silks and 27 juniors when he stepped down, with none of the disharmony or even acrimony that sometimes accompanies such a change.

He also sat as a Deputy High Court Judge for 15 years from 1982 to 1997, and although appealed a dozen times or so, was never once reversed by the Court of Appeal.

Behind his professional success was a man who gave freely of his time and talents to a wide variety of causes, always ready to help a colleague with a difficult point, serving on many bodies connected with the law, education, the Church of England and other interests close to his heart, drafting constitutions for this and trusts for that, managing to give anyone with whom he dealt the impression that their matter was the most important outside interest that he had.

But he was also a man of strong views, sometimes surprising for one who appeared so conventional in his life and work. He was, for example, a lifelong supporter of Russia, taking his children to the Soviet Union (to visit among other things the wartime cemeteries in Leningrad) when this was not a common holiday destination. As recently as March 2014, he was writing to The Times to denounce western diplomats for their failure to understand how Russia sees the world and their folly in seeking to detach Ukraine from the Russian sphere of influence. He also decried Western policy on Syria, seeing the Assad regime, for all its faults,

as the de jure as well as de facto government and a surer protection for the members of the ancient Christian churches in Syria than any of the various factions ranged against it.

He was born in Surrey on 9 August 1928. His father, George Nugee, was a regular artillery officer who was commissioned in 1913 and served throughout both World Wars, the first on the Western Front (where, as a young officer, he witnessed the slaughter of the first day of the Somme) and the second commanding the guns on Gibraltar, retiring as Brigadier. Ted was just too young to see active service in the war and was at school, first at Brambletye (where he and his classmates watched dogfights in the skies over Sussex) and then at Radley College (which had a long association with his family and where his uncle John Nugee, previously Sub-Warden of Radley but then Headmaster of Eastbourne College, brought to Eastbourne when it was evacuated from the south coast). Ted was always very grateful to both schools for his education and later served as chairman of the board of governors of Brambletye from 1972 to 1977, and a member of Radley Council for 20 years from 1975 to 1995.

Having won an exhibition to Worcester College, Oxford, to read classics, he then embarked on two years’ National Service as a gunner (RA). He volunteered to go overseas and was sent to Singapore during the Malayan Emergency. He brought back, as well as stories of the impenetrability of the Malayan jungle, a lifelong taste for whisky (safer to drink than water in the tropics) and Indonesian style curries, and a preference for wearing sarongs, although usually only in bed. Going up to Worcester on his return, he realised he had not seen a Latin or Greek text in two years, preferring to play cards with his fellow gunners, reputedly to his considerable financial advantage, on the long troopship voyages to the Far East and back. He promptly abandoned classics and switched to law.

He left Worcester with a double first and, in 1953, was awarded the Eldon Law Scholarship, whose other holders have included Lords Denning, Radcliffe, Wilberforce and Bingham and, much to his pleasure, three other members of his chambers. He was called to the Bar by Inner Temple in 1955. He read as a pupil at 2 New Square in Lincoln’s Inn with a promising chancery junior called Sydney Templeman and a slightly less junior John Brightman. John Brightman’s next pupil was Margaret Thatcher, with whom Ted shared a room for a year: he used to say that attendance at John Brightman’s conferences doubled when Margaret Thatcher was there.

In 1955, he also met and married Rachel Makower, who had worked as a codebreaker at Bletchley. She came from a well-connected Jewish family (her cousin was Herbert Samuel, High Commissioner of Palestine and the first Jewish Governor in 2000 years), but she had converted to Christianity at Oxford and later became Central President of the Mothers’ Union. They subsequently discovered that they had not only overlapped at Oxford but had been in Colombo harbour on the same day, he on a troopship and she accompanying her father, a silk merchant, on his first post-war business trip to Australia. Ted and Rachel moved to Hampstead where they lived throughout their married life, becoming stalwarts of the parish church and having four sons together.

Ted soon moved from 5 New Square to 3 New

Square, then the chambers of Richard Wilberforce. Life as a junior chancery barrister in the 1950s was not easy: he and Rachel celebrated each brief with a walnut whip, of which there were three in the first year. He supplemented his income with teaching and devilling, and investigating titles for the Land Registry. His detailed understanding of the technicalities of land law led to his appointment as conveyancing counsel to a number of government departments, and to the court, and he was pleased to have written, as late as 2008, a learned article on the remaining impact of feudal law on the land registration system, which persuaded the Land Registry to change their practice.

His most memorable briefs as a junior were the Spanish champagne case (Bollinger v Costa Brava), the first time that a remedy in passing off was granted not to a single business but a class of producers; and travelling to Uganda to interview the Bunyoro who had a longstanding grievance against the colonial administration, where among others he met an old man who remembered hiding as a boy when the British had first arrived in the 1890s. As a junior he also found time for the Territorial Army where he spent 14 years in the Air Photography Interpretation Unit (for which he received his TD); for Lewisham CAB where he devoted 18 years to giving advice on landlord and tenant issues as what was then called a Poor Man’s Lawyer; and for the Bar Council where, as a member of the External Relations Committee, he was responsible for the suggestion that foreign judges be invited to the opening of the legal year.

On taking silk in 1977, he developed a more litigious practice, acting for example for the Bartlett family in a then unprecedented action (lasting 41 days) against a bank’s trustee department for allowing the family assets to be lost on speculative projects, and frequently appearing in cases concerning landlord and tenant disputes, trusts, charities, taxation and later pensions. The case of which he was most proud was a significant capital transfer tax case in which he acted for the Revenue in the House of Lords (IRC v Pearson). The High Court judge and all three members of the Court of Appeal had held against the Revenue, and in the Lords he faced three days of withering fire from Viscount Dilhorne, who started off by treating his argument with open contempt. But he eventually won him round, securing victory by three to two with one common lawyer, one Scots judge and one newly appointed Lord Chief Justice in the majority, and all the Chancery judges at each level against him. It is now generally accepted, even by his opponents, that Ted was right and they were wrong.

MASTER NUGEE INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

From 1982, he sat regularly as a Deputy High Court judge where he is remembered not only for the quality of his legal analysis (several of his judgments are still regularly cited) but for his kindness and courtesy, remarking that judgments should be written for the benefit not of the winning party (who usually does not care why he has won) but for that of the losing party, who cares very much why he has lost. He was, however, never offered a full-time appointment, something that caused some surprise at the time and exposes the failings of the old ‘tap on the shoulder’ system. He never expressed any regrets at this omission and it enabled him to carry on in practice long past a judge’s retirement age, and thereby have the opportunity, believed by him, no doubt correctly, to be unique, of welcoming his own son Christopher to the High Court bench on behalf of the Bar when he was appointed in 2013.

As well as his practice, he sat on many legal bodies: the Council of Legal Education (chairman of the Board of Studies 1976 to 1982), the Common Professional Examination Board (chairman 1981 to 1987), the Lord Chancellor’s Law Reform Committee and others; and in 1984 was asked to chair a Committee of Inquiry into the management of privately owned blocks of flats, which led to The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. In his final year he could be found giving evidence to a House of Lords select committee on technical aspects of trusts, reaching back into his memory for an unreported case he had appeared in some 40 years before as a junior. He also served on many committees of the Inner Temple, including acting as Chairman of the Estates Committee, and as Treasurer in 1996; and as one of the founders of the Temple Music Foundation and trustee of the Temple Music Trust. In later years he funded in a modest way the provision of music in primary schools and elsewhere.

Outside the law and education, his main interest was the church and in particular the Church of England. As well as serving as churchwarden at Hampstead Parish church, he was the QC Church Commissioner from 1990 to 2001, remaining thereafter a member of the Legal Advisory Commission of General Synod, and a patron of three parishes (Wymering and Farlington near Portsmouth and Great Oxendon in Northamptonshire), a responsibility he took very seriously. He was also a frequent correspondent on theology (where he took very much an evidence based approach) and church history. One hapless correspondent once made the mistake of suggesting to him that the Church of England had been founded under Henry VIII and that until then England had been a Roman Catholic country.

This elicited a detailed five page reply, politely but forcefully explaining, complete with quotations from Augustine and Magna Carta onwards, the unbroken continuity of the Church of England from before the reformation.

Despite his final illness, when the cancer that he had lived with for years without letting it affect his life or work became very aggressive and sapped his physical strength, mentally he remained as acute as ever, signing off his last, typically forthright, Opinion a couple of weeks before Christmas.

He is survived by Rachel, by his four sons of whom he was inordinately proud – John, a financial consultant formerly of the Bank of England, Christopher, a High Court judge, Andrew, Chief Executive of a multimedia tour company, and Richard, a Major-General – and by 11 grandchildren.

Edward George Nugee TD, QC, was born on 9 August 1928. He died on 30 December 2014 aged 86.

Master Christopher Nugee

47

48

INNER TEMPLE LECTURE SERIES

Why Good Lawyers are Such Bad Historians: the Case of Sir Edward Coke From a lecture by Dr George Garnett

S

ir Edward Coke’s importance in the history of English common law is commensurate with that of his contemporary, Shakespeare, in English literature.

Shakespeare’s role has long been recognised in the most extensive and intensive scholarship. By contrast, Coke’s most substantial and influential works – his 13 volumes of Reports of court cases from the 1570s to the early years of the 17th Century, and his later and even more substantial Institutes – have never been properly edited. Moreover, in Coke’s case, unlike Shakespeare’s, we have a wealth of surviving manuscripts in his own hand and we also, at Holkham Hall Norfolk, still have much of his library, both manuscripts and printed books. If this much material were available for Shakespeare, it is easy to imagine what literary scholars would have done with it. Yet nothing of the sort has happened in Coke’s case, despite the importance accorded to his jurisprudence.

Lawyers are not much interested in unearthing original texts; they want authoritative texts. Once a doctrine has been established, there is no point in overturning the successive layers of textual foundation on which it is built. The early 19th Century editions of Coke’s works are authoritative, and therefore definitive. In this respect the logic of the historian is antithetical to that of the lawyer, because historians want to unearth the original text, to establish its original meaning, before going on to track the subsequent course of its interpretation, or distortion. Coke made a lot of use of history, but his extensive use of history is, unsurprisingly, very lawyerly.

Coke was a vigorous reader, who scrawled all over the books he chose to gut intensively. His history books are pristine. For historical colour, he turned, for preference, to law books – to Bracton, a 13th Century compilation, or Glanvill, which he correctly dated to Henry II’s reign, or to manuscript copies of Mirror of Justices and Modus tenendi

WHY GOOD LAWYERS ARE SUCH BAD HISTORIANS INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

parliamentum. The Mirror and the Modus were both works of the early 14th Century, but they purported to date from the pre-Conquest period and Coke was determined to take this pretence at face value. All these works he categorised under the heading Lawes of England in his library catalogue, because even if they contained snippets of historical material, they were not history books. Rather, they were legal treatises, written by lawyers. Far from reading history in order to understand life in former ages, it was in Coke’s view essential to avoid history and to read law.

His legal Reports contain records of recent court proceedings, a replacement for the series of late medieval and early 16th Century Year Books, which had been extinct for almost a century. The final sentence of the preface to First Reports (1600) counsels the reader not to neglect “the reading of ould Bookes of yeeres Reported in former ages, for assuredly out of the ould fields must spring and growe the new Corne”. Coke’s Reports of important cases of the last 30

Domesday Book was still decisive in court cases involving ancient demesne, because tenants on the king’s lands in Domesday were deemed to have been ancient demesne tenants. It followed, for Coke, that privileges enjoyed by ancient demesne tenants, including exemption from contributing to the maintenance of members of Parliament, must have been enjoyed by ancient demesne tenants in Edward the Confessor’s day. Therefore, by inference, Parliament had existed in the reign of Edward the Confessor.

With all this established on the basis of sound legal authorities, it was possible to turn to history books to flesh out the picture. They could be exploited to push the history of the law back prior to King Arthur, prior even to the Romans. Coke drew on Geoffrey of Monmouth, the 12th Century Welsh fantasist, to assert that Brutus, the mythical Trojan refugee who supposedly became the first king of Britain, had compiled a book of laws in Greek.

This is a blatant example of historical tendentiousness,

“ When Coke wrote up the incident, he did not mention this surely unique attempt by an English monarch to punch one of his senior judges, or his adroit if undignified response.” or 40 years were intended to fill the gap left by the demise of the Year Books, to record in writing, and thereby preserve, the new corn which had been propagated in otherwise evanescent oral proceedings in court. He is emphatic that such new corn is rooted in the old fields of the Year Books.

Because English common law was a coherent system, defined by interlocking procedures initiated by writ, evidence in a legal source for the existence of any element of that system could be used to infer the existence of the whole, even in the absence of any other explicit evidence to that effect. Coke was a very proud owner of his manuscript copies of genuine and apocryphal Anglo-Saxon law codes, but they did not present a rounded picture of English law at the time. In the absence of contemporary evidence of court proceedings, it was necessary to extrapolate back from records of later court proceedings, in order to fill in the gaps.

This exemplifies Coke’s mode of reasoning. Legal sources were to be privileged over all others, and the most reliable legal sources are the Year Books, and, supplementing them, law books, such as Fitzherbert’s Novel Natura Brevium, first published in 1534. Coke cites Fitzherbert’s dating of Domesday Book as proof that it “was made in the raigne of Saint Edward the Confessor”. Thus dated, it could be used as evidence for the pre-Conquest status quo; this was far more useful to Coke than its true post-Conquest date, of which he was well aware, because it was recorded in history books.

deliberately and teasingly so. Yet, if Coke failed to take history very seriously, why his apparent obsession with demonstrating English law’s immemorial antiquity?

English law had for many centuries been grounded in specific antecedents. Most influentially, a doctrine of legal continuity uninterrupted by any conquest was what had prompted the fabrication of the “law of King Edward” in the aftermath of the Norman Conquest, in order to deny that the Conquest had been a conquest. Continuity was therefore already intrinsic to English law when the new procedures which constituted the original elements of what became English common law were devised in the late 12th Century. Immemoriality had come later, as an imprecise yet logical implication of continuity.

The explanation for Coke’s elaboration of English law lies in current concerns. Coke was well aware that English law had been transformed since the early 16th Century, that many of these changes and developments had happened in the courtroom rather than in statute, and that all of them were grounded in the authority of the case law recorded in the long extinct Year Books. He wanted to sum up these changes, while re-establishing in writing the connection with the past. He was concerned to stress that nothing had changed, that what he was doing was impeccably traditional.

There was an urgent and pressing aspect to Coke’s deployment of history in the service of law: the immediate

49

50

INNER TEMPLE LECTURE SERIES

“ Coke made a lot of use of history, but his extensive use of history is, unsurprisingly, very lawyerly.” prospect, and then the reality, of James VI of Scotland’s succession to Elizabeth. James already had disquieting form as a divine right theorist, prior to his accession to the English throne. His plans for Union, in particular, aroused widespread alarm, primarily because the envisaged Union would include the laws of the two kingdoms.

This was seen by Coke and many others as in effect an abolition of English common law, and its replacement by a bastardised, Romanised, amalgam. For Coke, Union would be tantamount to a conquest, a conquest such as there had never been before, because English tradition confirmed that William the Conqueror had simply endorsed the laws of his predecessor, Edward the Confessor. Coke was determined to establish that James was bound by this continuous, immemorial English law, as his subjects were.

On 13 November 1608, Coke, by then Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, ventured to tell James that the law “protected his majesty in safety and peace”, and pleaded with him “to have respect to the Common Lawes of his land”. The king was enraged: “looking and speaking fiercely with bended fist”, he tried to punch the Chief Justice, “which the lo. Cooke perceaving fell flatt on all fower”. When Coke wrote up the incident, he did not mention this surely unique attempt by an English monarch to punch one of his senior judges, or his adroit if undignified response. Instead, he said that when James had denounced his comments as tantamount to asserting that the king “was under the law, which was treason”, Coke had replied, “that Bracton saith that the king should not be under man, but under God and the law”. To point this out by reference to the most substantial authoritative written statement of the law then in existence was not treasonable, but on the contrary, loyally to remind the king of the source of both his title and his powers.

Coke sought to show that the Norman Conquest, like all earlier conquests, including the Roman conquest, had not

disrupted the continuous existence of English law. Because the law was immemorial, it was prior to and therefore superior to that of the Romans (and, by implication, any degenerate version of Roman law, such as that practised in Scotland). It was also prior to and therefore superior to any king. If it could be shown to be both literally immemorial and continuous, it would be safe from the new monarch, James.

In 1616, Coke was sacked for a series of offences which culminated in his refusal to defer to the king on the issue of whether a case should be stayed and the king consulted if the king were involved. Coke’s Reports had already aroused official hostility, and were subject to detailed official inquiry. Coke was ordered to revise them. After many months, he came up with four tiny proposed emendations to over 500 reports. This was just intended to irritate.

Then he turned from publishing law reports to producing his Institutes, the first attempt since Bracton at a systematic survey of English law. The authorities became very jittery.

Coke’s books and papers were searched repeatedly. As he lay dying in 1634, the king’s agents ransacked his study below, and removed suspect items. King Charles I ordered that all confiscated items should be brought to him in person, at Bagshot, so that he could rummage through them himself. He found the manuscript draft of Coke’s Second Institutes, which began with the longest ever commentary on Magna Carta. This was what the king feared most. All the confiscated drafts of this and the other parts of the Institutes remained in official hands until 1641, when the House of Commons ordered, on the very day of Strafford’s execution, that they should be released and published forthwith.

For Coke, history was always ruthlessly subordinated to the law. In 1628, in one of the debates prior to the Petition of Right, Coke had told the House of Commons, “It is not I Edward Coke that speaketh it. I shall say nothing. But the records shall speake”. This was artfully disingenuous, because he allowed only the records he chose to speak, and to say only what he wanted them to say. Perhaps it was the absence of that tension between the logics of authority and of evidence in Coke’s thought which helps to explain why F W Maitland, the supreme English legal historian, could never get a handle on Coke. Occasionally he spoke of Coke with the reverence common amongst lawyers: “the common law took flesh in the person of Sir Edward Coke”. Elsewhere he was quite dismissive of Coke’s shovelling “out his learning in vast, disorderly heaps”. In truth, Coke’s highly legalistic use of history rendered him incomprehensible to England’s pre-eminent legal historian; but it also played a large part in making Coke all the things Maitland nevertheless conventionally pronounced him to be.

Coke was the Shakespeare of the common law, and therefore not just the most influential Inner Templar, at least to date, but the most jurisprudentially significant member of any Inn of Court.

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

Dr George Garnett, Fellow of St Hugh’s College, Oxford and Professor of Medieval History, University of Oxford

INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Education & Training 2014– 2015

Students called to the Bar:

Pupils trained:

304

Scholarship fund:

£1.575m

Students mentored:

126

Careers guides distributed:

Hours volunteered by members: Pegasus Access and Support Scheme placements:

135

45

7,763 Miles travelled by E&T staff:

5,000

8,635

QS School students at Inn outreach events:

450

Qualifying Sessions obtained:

3,708 51

52

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

Education at the Heart of the Inn More broadly, the Inn is working together with the other Inns to respond via the Council of the Inns of Court (COIC) to the latest review of legal education and training by the Bar Standards Board (BSB). The BSB has stated that its Future Bar Training programme will: • Focus training regulation on what is demonstrably required for professional practice • Ensure that the regulatory structure does not stand in the way of candidates for the Bar from the fullest range of backgrounds • Align the regulation of education and training with the BSB’s wider targeted and proportionate approach • Maintain standards for authorisation to practise as a barrister in a changing market

I

t has been another immensely busy year for the Education & Training team, the Education & Training Committee and sub-committees as well as the significant number of members who give up their time to support the Inn’s core function of education and training. We continue to improve and enhance our training programmes to meet the needs of our members, whilst also focusing resources on making the profession accessible to able candidates from any background. The following pages outline what the Inn is already doing to support and train future members of the legal profession through outreach, scholarships, a wide variety of qualifying sessions, student schemes and societies, pupil/new practitioner advocacy and ethics training, and CPD. A survey of the 2014–2015 BPTC student cohort identified education and training opportunities as the most important factor in their decision of which Inn to join. Inner Temple has an excellent reputation for providing high-quality advocacy training for pupils and new practitioners as well as a wide variety of skills and knowledge-based qualifying sessions for students. This year has seen a re-focus on the Inn’s qualifying sessions to ensure that members, as well as those looking in from outside, fully appreciate the singular and enduring contribution they provide to the knowledge, skills and attributes that everyone would wish barristers to have at the point of authorisation and to demonstrate throughout their career. Qualifying sessions enable students to learn about law and practice, integrity, advocacy skills, along with communication and interpersonal skills from practising barristers and judges. The Inn’s Qualifying Session Sub-Committee will continue to monitor, evaluate and develop our qualifying sessions programme to provide the best training possible for our student members.

As part of its Future Bar Training programme, the BSB is consulting on a draft professional statement – which it says will define what an entrant to the profession needs to know and be competent to do at the point of authorisation – as well as the different approaches it may adopt with regards to the academic stage, BPTC and pupillage. The regulator has also issued a consultation paper on CPD in which it proposes that the current hours-based regime of CPD be abolished in favour of a new one based on the autonomy of barristers to select the type, scope and volume of their own CPD. The Inn is immensely grateful to Master Levitt for representing the Inn on the COIC Working Group responding to these consultations.

In the meantime, the Inns, via COIC, are considering how they can further support high standards in legal education and training, particularly with regard to the Inns’ area of expertise: advocacy training. The Inns of Court Advocacy College is due to launch later this year and will build upon the work of the Advocacy Training Council (ATC) by furthering its research projects, specialist advocacy training and international training and by creating a repository of advocacy training materials to influence standards here and internationally. The College’s research, on-line best practice materials and on-line training materials will also be a significant resource for the Education & Training teams of all four Inns to help them provide high-quality training courses for their members.

The Inn’s Strategic Review Group published its report in April 2015 and restated the Inn’s “commitment to its original raison d’être, as set out in the Charter of 1608, namely its educational purpose, supporting the development of outstanding advocacy skills and inculcating in barristers from the very beginning of their careers the highest professional and ethical standards.” The Inn is immensely grateful to all its members who are committed to the educational purpose of the Inn. With their ongoing support, the Inn will continue to do everything it can to meet the evolving educational needs of its members.

Fiona Fulton, Head of Education & Training

OUTREACH INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Education and Training Team

The Education & Training Team

Education & Training Department Treasury Building, Inner Temple, London EC4Y 7HL Tel: 020 7797 8208 Fax: 020 7797 8212

Policy, Student Conference Weekends and Pupil Supervisors Fiona Fulton Head of Education & Training 020 7797 8207 ffulton@innertemple.org.uk Julia Armfield Education Co-ordinator and Assistant to HET 020 7797 8207 jarmfield@innertemple.org.uk

Schools, Universities, Academics and Research

Scholarships and BPTC Student Activities

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

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

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

Paul Clark Scholarship and Students Co-ordinator 020 7797 8211 pclark@innertemple.org.uk

Call to the Bar, Pupils, New Practitioners and Established Practitioners David Miller Professional Training Manager 020 7797 8209 dmiller@innertemple.org.uk Kerry Upham Education Co-ordinator 020 7797 8213 kupham@innertemple.org.uk

53

54

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

Outreach Programme

District Judge Ikram welcomes students to the Inn

O

ver the last six years, outreach has grown into a key function of the Inner Temple. Under the chairmanship of Master Dingemans and careful management of Anthony Dursi, since 2008, more than 2,000 school students have visited the Inner Temple to learn about becoming a barrister. The Pegasus Access and Support Scheme was launched with the purpose of providing mini-pupillages to second and third year undergraduate students from backgrounds underrepresented at the Bar. Inner Temple currently works with 60 chambers to deliver the programme to students in London and on the Circuits.

Additionally, the Inner Temple initiated the Academic Fellows Scheme and there is currently a cohort of 12 Fellows participating this year. The Inn also enjoys the support of eight Associate Academic Fellows who participated in the scheme previously and wish to continue working with Inner Temple. This robust network of academics keeps growing and ensures the Inner Temple continues to connect practitioners, academics and students across the UK. Outreach at the Inn is in a transitional state. The partfunded Keele University PhD is coming to a close and there will be a report in early 2016 on the impact of the Inner Temple’s outreach activities. We have fresh input on the trajectory of outreach provision from: new chair of the Outreach Sub-Committee, Master O’Toole; new Outreach Manager, Struan Campbell, and new Outreach Coordinator, Lacara Barnes-Rowe. For those members involved in delivering our outreach programme, it is a good opportunity to reflect; to champion the achievements so far and to think about what outreach should achieve in the next five years, within an ever-changing practice environment.

As such, a small group of members of the Outreach SubCommittee have been meeting to develop a strategy for the future. The group would welcome your thoughts, so please contact Struan Campbell with your comments.

The Outreach Team has been ‘out on the road’ attending law fairs at a range of universities, arranging receptions for members and students in Newcastle,

Manchester and Southampton. Members have also been involved in delivering a number of career presentations.

The schools project continues to grow and this year the Inner Temple has worked with a new charity, Pure Potential, to attract even more school students to the schools project workshops.

“ It seems a lot friendlier and less intimidating than I first thought. The barristers were really interesting and friendly.”

Year 12, Pathways to Law workshop participant

As part of the Magna Carta 800th celebrations, the Inner Temple delivered an event entitled ‘Sovereignty, Liberty and the Legacy of Magna Carta’ – this event was delivered in partnership with Cumberland Lodge and Egham Museum.

The Inner Temple continues to work with the Social Mobility Foundation and has hosted both launches of its Aspiring Professionals Programme, a targeted programme for over 600 secondary school students.

The Inner Temple was pleased to host the Sutton Trust Pathways to Law Programme and this year also hosted a dinner for the Sutton Trust’s Pathways Plus Programme for 150 guests, including university students and mentors from the professions. The Inner Temple continues to support external projects that further social mobility and access to the profession and is pleased to continue to support the Citizenship Foundation Mock Trial project.

The Inner Temple outreach projects could not be achieved without the generosity of the Inn’s members to carry out its educational activities and to share their experience with students. We are deeply grateful to everyone that continues to support the outreach activities of the Inner Temple. If you would like to support us, then please do not hesitate to contact the Outreach Team.

OUTREACH ACTIVITIES INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Outreach Activities Outreach: Standing Events

Month

Law fairs across England and Wales

October-December 2015

Dinner for Legal Academics

November 2015

Northern Circuit Reception – Liverpool

November 2015

North Eastern Circuit Reception – Leeds

November 2015

Schools Workshops supported by National Education Trust

November 2015

Schools – Pathways to Law Skills Workshops

November 2015

Academic Fellows Reception

November 2015

Western Circuit Reception – Southampton

February 2016

Dinner for Legal Academics

February 2016

Schools – Pathways to Law Workshops

February 2016

Police Liaison Scheme Mock Trial

February 2016

Dinner to the Universities

March 2016

Schools – Pathways to Law Workshops

April 2016

Dinner for Legal Academics

April 2016

Dinner for Academic Fellows

May 2016

Question and Answer Day

June 2016

Police Liaison Scheme Reception

September 2016

Bristol Area Careers Presentation

October 2016

Cambridge Area Careers Presentation

October 2016

Oxford Area Careers Presentation

October 2016

London Area Careers Presentation

October 2016

Inner Temple Schools Project

T

he Inner Temple Schools Project was established in 2008 with the intention of widening access to the Bar. Its ethos is informed by a desire to ensure that the brightest students, irrespective of background, are able to pursue a career at the Bar should they wish to. To this end, the programme offers an insight into the requisite skills to become a barrister and gives students from non-traditional backgrounds the opportunity to work with barristers across a range of practice areas.

The Inn works collaboratively with organisations such as the National Education Trust, Pure Potential, Social Mobility Foundation and the Sutton Trust, via their Pathways to Law Programme. Pathways supports highachieving state school students with no family history of higher education into leading law faculties and the legal professions. As part of this programme, the Inn organises a number of open days with legal activities and careers information for students from co-ordinating universities.

The Schools Project also includes open days for school students from across the country and two afternoon skills workshops. These events comprise talks from members on different areas of law, presentational skills sessions, debating tournaments and opportunities to interact informally with practising barristers. Furthermore, the Inn works with other charities on one-off events.

Tours at the Inn Through the provision of tours, the Education and Training Department supports hundreds of prospective GDL and BPTC students. This year, the department has partnered with the Library to offer insight into the robust facilities available to Inner Temple’s student members and practising barristers, placing particular emphasis on the Library team’s Current Awareness blog as a resource that can be accessed remotely.

Additionally, the tours provide valuable information about becoming a member, scholarships, and what students can expect from the Inn during their BPTC year and beyond.

Question and Answer Day Question and Answer Day is run in conjunction with the Inn’s Junior Bar Association. The full-day event, on a Sunday in June, is advertised to those interested in a career at the Bar who have not yet started the BPTC or joined an Inn of Court. Information workshops are held on funding studies, legal CVs, the BPTC, life as a pupil, junior tenant and employed barrister, pupillage interview tips, and more.

This year, the Inn partnered with law blog Legal Cheek to deliver a workshop on alternative litigation careers.

55

56

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

demonstrated this by sourcing the details of a barrister she had met and successfully applying to him for a mini-pupillage, which will complement the work she undertakes via Keele University’s CLOCK scheme that she describes as providing “legal research, policy work and community legal education”.

Pegasus Access and Support Scheme

Undergraduates attend Dinner to Universities 2015

Dinner to the Universities The Inner Temple’s Dinner to the Universities presents the first opportunity for many undergraduates across England, Wales and Scotland to engage with an Inn of Court. Guests are invited via their law-related student society to enjoy an evening of fine dining, the company of their peers across a range of universities, and to network with Benchers and other distinguished guests. Keele University law undergraduate, Christine Rahman, attended Dinner to the Universities this year which led to further fruitful interactions with Inner Temple and to securing a mini-pupillage. Her experience highlights the important contributions made by Benchers in fostering a warm and welcoming atmosphere for our undergraduate guests, which can be especially useful in reassuring aspiring barristers from a range of backgrounds that the modern Bar encourages diversity.

Christine had been aware of the opportunity to attend Dinner to the Universities since her first week as a law undergraduate and hoped that the chance to network with practising barristers would nuance her perception of the profession. However, alongside this excitement, like many of our guests, she felt initial trepidation at what she might find behind the Inn’s doors: “I felt, and I think that a lot of students can find, the company of aspiring and established barristers slightly intimidating.”

Yet, as the evening progressed she found that the event reinforced her desire to become a barrister, and she emphasises the support and kindness offered by the Inn’s members as playing a significant role in putting her at ease.

Describing her encounter with one barrister in particular, Christine says: “All in all, he really encouraged me, and I was extremely honoured to have met with the barrister.”

Demystifying preconceptions that our guests may have about the Bar is one of many important facets of Dinner to the Universities, but the event also offers a context in which undergraduates can make useful contacts. Christine

Gaining relevant legal experience is a crucial step on the road to becoming a barrister. Without such experience, aspiring barristers stand little chance of gaining an Inns of Court scholarship or pupillage. The Inn’s Outreach Team often meets aspiring barristers who feel that they need contacts in chambers in order to have a realistic chance of obtaining a mini-pupillage. With a view to addressing these concerns, the Pegasus Access and Support Scheme (PASS) was established in 2012 and, with the support of more than 60 chambers, provides minipupillages to penultimate and final-year university students from backgrounds under-represented at the Bar. Since Inner Temple provides presentations and receptions for undergraduates across England and Wales, some students feel more comfortable applying for work experience through the Inn, as opposed to applying to chambers directly.

Rosie Godfrey-Lockwood participated in the programme in 2012 and will be commencing pupillage at QEB in September 2015. She offers insight into her experiences and the crucial role played by barristers in providing a motivating and challenging environment.

Rosie was introduced to the scheme while attending Dinner to the Universities. Having completed work experience at smaller provincial sets, she was keen to contrast this with glimpse of life at the London Bar: “I had yet to see a case in the RCJ, to eat lunch in the Inner Temple Hall or to see the buzz of barristers and clerks running along the Inn lanes to meet deadlines and file applications.” To this end, Rosie applied for a placement and was awarded a mini-pupillage at Cloisters.

Regarding the application process, placements are allocated, taking into account academic merit and personal circumstances. Those wishing to apply for work experience via the Pegasus Access and Support Scheme must demonstrate aptitudes such as academic ability, self-motivation and interpersonal skills, while meeting contextual criteria such as being the first in their family to access higher education, having attended a state school or having accessed free school meals.

Mini-pupillages are challenging and Rosie experienced first-hand the demanding nature of life at the Bar: “I remember attending a trial in the high court on the enforceability of a restrictive covenant in a high-value employment law case, and sitting in on a client conference at Irwin Mitchell to advise two parents on the merits of their case against a negligent hospital which had caused their child to suffer injuries at birth. I was able to see the papers in advance and was asked to look through the medical evidence to see if there were any conflicting points between experts that we could use to our advantage.”

Ultimately, the value of the scheme resides in its ability to provide practical support in refining skills and building legal experience. Rosie says: “It was really from a practical viewpoint that I found my placement assisted me most: helping me choose which area of the law I wanted to practise in, focusing my CV on work and life experience which was most relevant to the Bar and completing my pupillage application forms.”

MAGNA CARTA SCHOOLS EVENT INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Magna Carta Schools Event I

n celebration of the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta, the Education and Training Department organised a Magna Carta themed version of the schools workshop entitled ‘Sovereignty, Liberty and the Legacy of Magna Carta’. This event was delivered in partnership with Cumberland Lodge and the Egham Museum.

On the day, three local schools attended – a total of 29 Year 11 and 12 students. We invited schools who had over 30 per cent free school meals and the majority of students are currently studying A-level history or government studies.

Seven current BPTC students and one pupil volunteered to help with the day, and Leslie Thomas QC kindly gave up his time to speak to the students.

The students were welcomed by the Principal of Cumberland Lodge; they then split into small group workshops that looked at how to debate – these workshops were led by our student members and pupil. Students were invited to debate the subject of detention without charge.

Leslie then spoke to the students and really brought the debate alive through a very positive speech, helping to put the Magna Carta into a modern context. After lunch, the students tested out their newly acquired skills with a British Parliament style debate on detention without charge.

Teachers in attendance were offered a briefing on the Inner Temple and opportunities to engage with the Inn after the event.

As part of this day, the Inner Temple developed a set of new debating resources for schools, focusing on the Magna Carta but adjustable to any issue. This is gradually increasing our range of schools resources and this new resource will be published on the Egham Museum Magna Carta website, which is funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund.

Feedback from the event was very positive with 97 per cent agreeing or strongly agreeing that having attended the event they now had a greater understanding of the importance of the Magna Carta. Overall, 96 per cent of respondents said they would recommend the event to a friend.

“ I would like to thank you for helping to organise a very insightful day. It has really changed my perspective on what sort of direction I would like to take with my university choices; I am very keen on completing a history degree, a graduate law conversion course and then hopefully in the future becoming a barrister.”

Magna Carta Schools Event participant

Students work together on debating exercise

57

58

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

Academic Fellows T

he Academic Fellows Scheme was established in 2010 to build stronger ties with legal academics at universities across England and Wales. It also aims to recognise the outstanding contribution of legal teaching and research of early – to mid-career academics to the profession. The Inn currently has 12 Academic Fellows and 8 Associate Academic Fellows (that is, former Academic Fellows who maintain links with the Inn following their tenure). This year, Dr David Lowe, Dr des Eddie BruceJones, Dr Ronan McCrea and Dr Jo Braithwaite have all given insightful talks to Inner Temple BPTC students.

Dr Barbara Lauriat ran another successful IP speakeasy for members with an interest in intellectual property, and Dr Maks Del Mar kindly arranged for the Inn’s History Society to hear a lecture from Professor Quentin Skinner from Queen Mary University on judicial rhetoric in Shakespeare.

The Inner Temple has also supported the Academic Fellows and Associate Fellows in their own research endeavours, exemplified by Dr David Lowe’s debate in Liverpool on balancing the needs of national security and protecting individual rights in terrorism cases, and Dr Jo Braithwaite’s presentation on contractual estoppel to academics and judges at LSE. The Inner Temple is also supporting two 50-year anniversaries: Dr Iyiola Solanke’s Race Relations Act conference and the Modern Law Review seminar, marking the anniversary of the Law Commissions Act, for which James Lee is a member of the organising committee.

Academic Fellows 2014 – 2017 We are pleased to welcome four new Academic Fellows to the Inn:

Dr Yvonne McDermott Dr Yvonne McDermott is a Lecturer in Law at Bangor University, the School of Law’s Director of Teaching and Learning and joint Director of the Bangor Centre for International Law.

Dr McDermott’s research includes international criminal law, international criminal procedure, human rights and the law of evidence. She has a particular interest in fair-trial rights and has recently been contracted by the Organisation for Security and Co-Operation in Europe to train judges and lawyers in Tbilisi, Georgia, on the right to a fair trial.

Having co-edited The Ashgate Research Companion to International Criminal Law: Critical Perspectives and The Challenge of Human Rights: Past, Present and Future, Dr McDermott has also published a number of chapters and journal articles. Her first monograph, Fairness in International Criminal Trials, was published by Oxford University Press in early 2015.

Shazia Choudhry Shazia Choudhry is Reader in Law at Queen Mary, University of London, and is currently teaching family law.

Shazia’s research interests focus on the interface between family law and human rights. A particular area of interest is the impact of the Human Rights Act and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on forced marriage, honour-based violence and domestic violence in general.

Shazia has published two books including her monograph (with Professor Jonathan Herring), European Human Rights and Family Law, which was shortlisted for the Inner Temple Book Prize in 2011.

Shazia is a qualified solicitor and previously practised family law within the legal aid sector. She is currently Special Adviser to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Human Rights Inquiry into Violence Against Women.

Dr Colin King Dr Colin King is Senior Lecturer at the University of Sussex. Prior to that, he was a lecturer at the University of Manchester and at the University of Leeds and Director of the University of Leeds Innocence Project. His teaching focussed on criminal law, criminal evidence and financial crime. His research focuses on civil recovery (NCB forfeiture), particularly in Ireland, the UK, the EU, and with reference to the ECHR. He is co-editor of Dirty Assets: Emerging Issues in the Regulation of Criminal and Terrorist Assets (King and Walker, Ashgate, 2014). Also, with Clive Walker, Colin received funding from the AHRC to establish an international,

ACADEMIC FELLOWS INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Academic Fellows 2013 – 2016 Dr Maksymilian Del Mar, Senior Lecturer at Queen Mary, University of London Dr James Goudkamp, Lecturer and Fellow of Keble College, Oxford Dr Barbara Lauriat, Lecturer in Law at King’s College London Dr David Lowe, Principal Lecturer at Liverpool John Moores University

multi-disciplinary network entitled Dirty Assets: Experiences, Reflections, and Lessons Learnt from a Decade of Legislation on Criminal Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing. In 2013, Colin acted as National Expert (Ireland) for a study commissioned by the European Commission, entitled: ‘Study on Paving the Way for Future Policy Initiatives in the Field of the Fight Against Organised Crime – Effectiveness of Specific Criminal Law Measures Targeting Organised Crime’.

He completed his PhD – The Confiscation of Criminal Assets: Tackling Organised Crime Through a Middleground System of Justice – at the University of Limerick, Ireland.

Dr Dimitrios Giannoulopoulos Dr Dimitrios Giannoulopoulos is Associate Dean (Student Welfare) at the College of Business, Arts and Social Sciences at Brunel University London, and a Senior Lecturer and Deputy Director of the Criminal Justice Research Centre at Brunel Law School, where he teaches criminal Law, evidence, comparative criminal procedure and counter-terrorism and human rights.

Dr Giannoulopoulos’ research provides cross-cultural analysis of criminal justice systems, with a focus on indigenous cosmopolitan attitudes and local resistance to international pressures for human rights reform. His comparative research concentrates on the criminal justice systems of England, France, Greece and the United States. Key themes explored in Dr Giannoulopoulos’ research include improperly obtained evidence, electronic surveillance, police interrogation and suspects’ rights in Europe and beyond. Dimitrios is currently working on his monograph on Improperly Obtained Evidence in AngloAmerican and Continental Law (with Hart Publishing).

Dimitrios is a qualified Barrister (Athens Bar Association). He holds a PhD from the Doctoral School of Comparative Studies at the Sorbonne Law School (Paris I) and master’s degrees in Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure from the University of Athens, University of Aix-Marseille III and Brunel University London.

Dimitrios has appeared on TV and has commented on current affairs for the BBC, The Guardian and The Independent. He has also offered consultation to policy and governmental experts in the UK and abroad, including security officials from the Home Office, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministry of Defence, and to Parliamentary Committees and the Supreme Court in Greece.

Academic Fellows 2012 – 2015 Dr Jo Braithwaite, Lecturer at London School of Economics and Political Science Dr des Eddie Bruce-Jones, Lecturer at Birkbeck College School of Law Per Laleng, Lecturer at the University of Kent Dr Paul Wragg, Lecturer at the University of Leeds

Associate Academic Fellows James Lee, Senior Lecturer, King's College, London Dr Iyiola Solanke, Senior Lecturer, University of Leeds Professor Andrew Francis, Professor in Law, Keele University Dr Catherine MacKenzie, Lecturer in Law and Fellow of Selwyn College, Cambridge Dr Ronan McCrea, Lecturer in Law, University College London Joanna Miles, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Cambridge Dr Andrew Scott, Senior Lecturer, London School of Economics Professor Christian Twigg-Flesner, Professor of Commercial Law, University of Hull

59

60

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

Scholarships T

he Inn very generously made a total of £1,575,000 available for scholarships this year which was then allocated between awards for the BPTC, the CPE/GDL, internships and a few very small awards for those with a minimally funded pupillage. £1,323,875 of the fund was intended to be used for BPTC awards. In fact, we had a number of deferred and declined awards in 2014. These funds were redistributed for the 2015 BPTC year, making a total available for distribution of £1,449,650 for the BPTC awards alone.

All our awards are made strictly on merit – that is, on the basis of our judgment of a candidate’s potential to succeed at the Bar. The top seven named awards are

“ The exhibition Inner Temple awarded me will mean that I am able to study the BPTC without amassing large debts prior to commencing pupillage. The award was also a real confidence boost, even more so because the Inn was clearly very fair and thorough in its selection process. The interview was challenging but enjoyable and I came away wanting to be a barrister more, not less. It is an absolute thrill to be awarded a scholarship and I cannot thank the Inn enough for its generosity.”

Jonathon Lodwick, Exhibition Award and the Peta Fordham Scholar

“ Being awarded the Stephen Chapman Scholarship was an immense honour. As a self-funding mature student, financing the Bar course was always going to be a challenge. It is difficult to overstate how important this award will be in enabling me to realise my ambition to practise at the Bar. The interviews themselves were very well-pitched: the panel was friendly, but sufficiently challenging in its questions to probe my understanding and analysis. I am enormously grateful to the panel and to the staff at Inner Temple who dedicated so much time to ensuring the process ran smoothly.”

Michael Conway, Stephen Chapman Scholar

based on merit alone. All the other awards take financial need and resources into account in deciding the quantum of the award, once a candidate has reached the relevant ‘merit threshold’ to receive an award. This enables us to target our funds at those who most need them.

This year, we received 372 applications for BPTC awards.

We have a policy of interviewing every eligible applicant and, after allowing for withdrawals, we interviewed 314 candidates. The interviews incorporate a legal problem – candidates were given an unreported case (either family, crime or civil) to read on the day of the interview. They were then asked questions by the panels to see how well they had grasped the issues in the case and the legal arguments involved. We have found this to be an excellent tool to help us assess the ability of each candidate in an entirely fair way.

The interviews for BPTC Awards took place over two weekends in March and the interviews were conducted by ten panels, each comprising four interviewers. Seven of the

314

“ I consider being awarded a scholarship

by Inner Temple an immense privilege. It is much appreciated by those, like me, in their fledgling days at the Bar and echoes the welcoming collegiate atmosphere that distinguishes the Inn as a whole.”

Rose Fetherstonhaugh, Peter Taylor Scholar

panels were situated in the Treasury Building and three within rooms generously made available by 1 King’s Bench Walk.

We are grateful to the 48 Benchers / Members of Hall and 16 previous scholars who volunteered to assist the Inn during these weekends. Although this involved an immense amount of hard work, our policy of conducting interviews for all eligible applicants means that all are given an equal chance to present their case to the panel.

Students tell us that they very much value this opportunity.

We have awarded the Peter Taylor and Stephen Chapman Scholarships, five Princess Royal Scholarships, 20 Major Scholarships and 74 Exhibition Awards for the BPTC (a total of 101). This meant that the average award was £14,350, and we were pleased to be able to make 65 awards of more than £17,000.

The success of the policy of interviewing all eligible applicants can be seen in the increase in the number of applications we have received since introducing the policy in 2009.We are quite satisfied that this has not been at the expense of quality as we have seen a steady increase, year-onyear, in the number of candidates achieving good merit grades.

Whilst this makes it even more difficult to strike the right balance between making meaningfully sized awards and assisting every deserving candidate, it is certainly encouraging for the future of both the Bar and the Inn. For those students who must undertake the CPE/GDL before commencing the BPTC, the Inn also offers scholarship interviews to every eligible applicant, and we are grateful once again to those members who generously donate their time in order to assist. The interviews took place in June, and we have now made awards to 23 of the 62 candidates – two Princess Royal Scholarships, four Major Scholarships

SCHOLARSHIPS INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

and 17 Exhibitions. Successful candidates are guaranteed a matching award for the BPTC year so that they know that they will be supported for both years of the training process.

This has also proved very popular amongst applicants.

In addition to funding the two main vocational courses, a small number of Benefactors' Scholarships are available to assist with minimally funded pupillages. We also support a number of our young barristers to undertake internships, almost all of which take place overseas. This proves very beneficial both to those in receipt of the awards and the very deserving communities in which they work.

Scholarships play a vital role in widening access to our profession. For many candidates, a scholarship from the Inn can be the deciding factor in whether they choose to pursue the BPTC course – a fact borne out by the diverse backgrounds of our scholars.

Of the 101 successful BPTC candidates this year, 23 per cent were over the age of 25; 29 per cent were from a BAME background; 45 per cent did not have an undergraduate law degree and 65 per cent came from state education.

“ Applying for a scholarship is the best decision I ever made! And indeed it has been lifechanging. Researching the Inns two months prior to the opening of applications, I spoke to staff at Inner Temple who very kindly took time out to advise me on the process. I was invited to an interview in January, giving me enough time to mentally prepare… The panel members were very warm and welcoming, which helped ease my nerves. I will always remember opening the long-awaited envelope.

Receiving such a generous award has brought me closer to my dream of joining the Bar.” Sumaiyah Javid, Exhibition Award

29%

71%

61

62

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

Awards Named and Major BPTC Scholarship Wınners 2015 Peter Taylor Scholarship: Rose Fetherstonhaugh

Laura Hussey, Christopher Jenkins, Iain Large

Stephen Chapman Scholarship: Michael Conway

Major Scholarships: Jermel Anderson, Charlotte Baly, Natalie Cass, Stephanie Chen, Jake Cornthwaite, Joshua Crow, Katharine Geddes, Beatrice

Princess Royal Scholarships: Natalie Barnes, Ryan Ferro,

Graham, Ryan Harvey, Aaron Khan, Rabah Kherbane, Sammy Nanneh, Gabriel Olufadeji, Sarah Parker, Caitlyn Rayney, Anthony Searle, Miriam Smith, Thomas Spencer, Bhupinder Virk, Juliet Wells

BPTC Exhibition Wınners 2015 Exhibitions: Adele Akers, David Alexander, Andre Armenian, Ranjit Bains.

Antony Bartholomeusz, Sian Beaven, Charlotte Bellamy, Willin Belliard, Edward Bennett, Grace Boorer, Andrew Brown, Savannah Bullen-Manson, Richard Bunworth, Christopher Chan, Kevin Chan, Tzara Kai-Faye Cheung, Richard Collier, Kathryn Concannon, Jade Corden, Olivia Davies, Siobhan Duncan, Faidat Damilola Enifeni,

Rebecca Farrell, Hannilee Fish, James Frampton, John Franklin, Imogen Galilee, Kiran Gohal, Max Gordon, Raphael Gray, Georgia Griffiths, Khatija Hafesji, Thomas Hedderick, Francesca Heggie, Georgina Howitt, Charlotte Hughes, Turan Hursit, Sarah Jameson, Sumaiyah Javid, James Johnston, Francesca Kirby, George Lamb, Sam Lipetz-Robic, Rebecca Livesey, Jonathon Lodwick, Edward Loveday, Brooke Lyne, Reanne MacKenzie, Preetika Mathur,

Alexander Maunders, Matthew Mears, Joanna Moyers, Jessica Pham, Lisa Pirie, Kassia Pletscher, James Preece, Christopher Richards, Gayan Samarasinghe, Thomas Semple, Emile Simpson, Dominique Smith, William Sneddon, Adam Squibbs, Luke Taylor, Shyam Thakerar, Alicia Theaker, Spencer Turner, Louise Verroken- Jones, Laura Wakeford, Samuel Way, Jack Webb, Louise Whittington, Aiden Wiffen, Anzhela Yevgenyeva

CPE Scholarship Wınners 2015 Princess Royal Scholarships: Alexandra Sutton, James Kirby Major Scholarships: Ulrike Ebner, Elizabeth Grace, Anirudh Mathur, Katherine Taunton

Exhibitions: Jake Armes, Henry Ashwell, Zachary Barnett, Alexander Bunzl, Catherine Cameron, Sarah Clarke, Amelia Clegg, James Gwatkin, Oliver May,

Charles McCombe, Ned Carter Miles, Angharad Monk, Anthony O'Driscoll, Hannah Street, Joseph Thomas, Melanie Waite, Rosalind Young

INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

25% Discount for Students and Pupils Make the most of your 25% Student or Pupil discount at the Pegasus Bar. Situated in the heart of the Inn, the Pegasus Bar has something for everyone, be it delicious lunches, a much needed caffeine fix, afternoon tea or evening drinks and bar snacks to share with friends.

We have seasonal offers and regular promotional specials that are not only deliciously appetizing but discounted with you in mind!

Free WIFI @InnerTempleLDN PBar@innertemple.org.uk

020 7797 8234

Website: the-bba.com • Email: susan@the-bba.com • Tel: 020 7242 4761

VISION AND MISSION STATEMENT We exist to support, help and comfort those members of the Bar in England and Wales and their families and dependants who are in need, in distress or in difficulties. During the recent past we have helped barristers and their families in every circuit, often saving not only dignity but careers.

We help when there is a real catastrophe. Confidentiality limits our disclosure of case histories but they include the effects of severe illness or injury, accidents and other unforeseen tragedies.

Our staff are experienced, kind and practical: our Association is a last safety net for those struck down, their partners and children, where there is no income, no capital, no family back up.

63

64

INNER TEMPLE  EDUCATION & TRAINING

Internship and Sir Joseph Priestley Award Winners 2015 The Inn, with the help of a generous grant from a trust set up in memory of Sir Joseph Priestley, makes a small number of awards each year. These scholarships enable students and newly qualified barristers to pursue projects all over the world that help to widen their experience outside of the Bar and enhance skills that they can thereafter bring to their practice.

Alice Scott Amicus in Texas, USA

Samantha Godec International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Netherlands

Chloe Ashley Amicus in Texas, USA

Alex Lawson

Matthew Lawson International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Netherlands

Reprieve in Texas, USA

Pem Tshering Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands

Christopher Sykes Amicus in Missouri, USA

Kerrie Rowan Missouri Capital-Sentencing Study in Missouri, USA

Michaela Dowe-Stephenson World Service Authority in Washington DC, USA

Anushka Kangesu African Prisons Project in Uganda

Shanthi Sivakumaran Foreign Law Clerk with a Supreme Court Justice at the Constitutional Court of South Africa

QUALIFYING SESSIONS INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Qualifying Sessions Student Training and Support

I

nner Temple qualifying sessions complement students’ academic and vocational education and form a bridge to pupillage. The sessions equip students to undertake the next stage of training and ensure that they are fit and proper to serve the public as barristers by meeting and learning from practitioners the following: • Professional Integrity, Ethos and Ethics • Professional Advocacy Skills • Professional Interpersonal and Communication Skills • Professional Development All BPTC students are required to complete 12 qualifying sessions in order to be called to the Bar. There is no limit to the number of qualifying sessions a student may complete during the BPTC or in any particular term,

BPTC Advocacy Day Two BPTC Advocacy Days were held in the early part of this academic year, attended by 187 students in total. Taught by the Inn’s advocacy trainers as well as new practitioners who had recently completed the New Practitioners’ Advocacy Weekend, these qualifying sessions allowed BPTC students the opportunity to practise their advocacy skills in a supportive and informal environment. “ The feedback from trainers was very useful. I felt it highlighted areas of improvement that were not obvious at the outset. Seeing other people's submissions and their respective feedback made the session incredibly informative within a friendly and collaborative atmosphere.”

but qualifying sessions are only valid if they are completed in the five years leading up to a student’s Call Night.

Whilst historically, the emphasis was solely on learning by ‘osmosis’ and networking through social activities, such as dining with experienced members of the profession, the current focus is now firmly placed on developing the knowledge and skills necessary to practise as a barrister.

In no other profession is there such a structured and regular meeting of the most senior with the most junior of practitioners, with the former giving their time pro bono.

We recognise that our student members study the BPTC at providers across England and Wales, and endeavour to provide a wide range of qualifying sessions at weekends as well as during the week and to arrange local qualifying sessions for students at providers outside of London.

Inner Temple also provides a range of support schemes for student members and has several vibrant student societies.

Presentational Skills Course Taught by professionally trained actors and vocal coaches and attended by 253 students, the presentational skills course, worth two qualifying sessions, gave students the opportunity to develop skills such as voice projection, posture and awareness. “ It is brilliant to be a member of the only Inn which invests time and money in developing such skills.

I cannot wait to test for any improvement in my presentational skills when I next moot.”

Inner Temple Hall

65

66

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

Education Day This qualifying session is specifically tailored for students studying at providers outside London. The date is agreed in advance with the other Inns and the BPTC providers so that students can travel to London together. This year, 42 BPTC students from around the country attended a session on ethics, pupillage applications and the pitfalls of the early years of practice. “ The ethics discussion served as a wonderful opportunity to revise professional ethics issues… a really informative day!”

Lectures followed

by Dining These qualifying sessions gave students the opportunity to hear from experts on a wide variety of legal topics of relevance to students training for the Bar and to be able to discuss these topics with their fellow students and senior members of the Inn. Speakers and topics included: Challenges and Opportunities in Family Justice Speaker: Simon Hughes MP Recent Developments in Court Administration

Lecture Nights 2014–2015 These qualifying sessions allow students to hear from experts within the Inn and from academia on legal topics relevant to their studies and to a career at the Bar. Contract Interpretation: What it Says on the Tin Speaker: Professor Robert Stevens, University of Oxford

The Royal Prerogative: Then and Now Speaker: Master Sedley Why Good Lawyers are such Bad Historians: the Case of Sir Edward Coke Speaker: Dr George Garnett, University of Oxford Gandhi: Constitutionalism and the Legacy of NonViolent Direct Action in Sub-Saharan Africa Speaker: The Rt Hon The Lord Boateng Family Arbitration Speaker: Master Hugh Bennett

Speaker: Sheila Proudlock, Delivery Director, HMCTS London Miranda and Schedule 7 Terrorism Act 2000: Are Journalists Now Terrorists?

Speaker: Dr David Lowe, John Moores University, Inner Temple Academic Fellow Ten Things Worth Knowing About the Bar Speaker: Master Foster From Ships to Swaps: Transnational Contracts and National Courts Speaker: Dr Jo Braithwaite, LSE, Inner Temple Academic Fellow The Inner Temple and the Fight Against Slavery: From the 18th to the 21st Century Speaker: Nicholas Griffin QC, 5 Paper Buildings If I Can Google, Who Needs Law Reports?

Speaker: Clive Scowen, ICLR Fearless, Effective and Fair (The Essential Qualities of Advocacy) Speaker: Master Korner Advocacy: Persuasive Communication Speaker: Master Lovell-Pank

Students meet practitioners at reception

QUALIFYING SESSIONS INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Student Conference Weekends

Left to right: Master Cheryl Thomas, Simon Phillips QC, Master David Maddison, Carl Gardner

E

ach year, the Inner Temple hosts three student conference weekends, two of which take place at Cumberland Lodge in Windsor Great Park and the other at Highgate House in Northamptonshire. These weekends each focus on particular areas of law and provide students with the opportunity to meet senior members of the Inn in a relaxed and informal atmosphere, as well as to learn

more about a particular legal topic, develop their advocacy skills and benefit from the advice of experienced practitioners.

The three conferences were attended by a total of 172 students and each considered topics both at the forefront of current affairs, and closely relevant to those practising law at present.

Cumberland Lodge, December 2014

Highgate House, February 2015

Entitled ‘Who Cares? Care Proceedings and the Family Courts’, the weekend considered the approach of the courts to public law care proceedings. The weekend was organised by Master Moor, Master Judith Hughes and Paul Infield.

Entitled ‘Challenges and Opportunities – Can Our Legal System Cope With Social Media?’, the weekend considered the positive and negative impacts of social media on our legal system, for example, jurors having been found in contempt of court following the use of social media to research and contact those involved in the case. The weekend was organised by Master Mark George, Andrew Long and David Temkin.

Those in attendance were fortunate enough to hear from the following experts: Master Peter Jackson Uma Mehta, Chief Lawyer, Corporate Law and Community Services Team P J Lewis, Social Worker, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea William Tyler QC, 36 Bedford Row Dorothy Pottinger, CAFCASS Children’s Guardian

Those in attendance were fortunate enough to hear from the following experts: Master Cheryl Thomas, University College London Master Maddison Carl Gardner, Barrister and Legal Blogger Charles Parry, Pump Court Chambers Simon Phillips QC, Park Court Chambers

67

68

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

Cumberland Lodge, March 2015 Entitled ‘Preventable Deaths – Life in the Hands of the State: Does It Really Care?’, the weekend considered the issue of deaths in state custody (prisons, police custody, immigration detention centres and psychiatric detention) and the issues of negligence, failures in care for the vulnerable and human rights. The weekend was organised by Master Leslie Thomas and Master Scott Matthewson.

Those in attendance were fortunate enough to hear from the following experts: Dame Anne Owers DBE, Chair, Independent Police Complaints Commission Master Leslie Thomas, Garden Court Chambers Helen Shaw, Co-director of INQUEST Chief Superintendent Chris Bourlet, Health in the Justice System Master Casey, HM Coroner’s Office, Nottingham Professor Keith Rix, Honorary Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust

“ During the weekend there were opportunities to attend lectures with experienced and senior professionals involved in preventing and investigating deaths of prisoners in custody. On the Saturday afternoon, members of the Bar held an interactive mock trial/ advocacy Masterclass for students to observe.

Student members of the Inn also participated in advocacy exercises daily, benefiting from advice from skilled barristers and lecturers. These sessions were particularly useful for BPTC students with upcoming advocacy assessments.

The weekend was a fantastic opportunity to meet and exchange ideas with fellow BPTC students

from different course providers across the country. It was also a relaxing and pleasant atmosphere to network with senior members of the Bar and other professionals who had kindly given up their weekend to offer their expertise and support.”

Siobhan Tatum, BPTC Student

“ I attended the family law residential weekend at Cumberland Lodge in December 2014. The weekend was a brilliant experience from beginning to end.

The Benchers and practitioners who attended were extremely friendly and happy to talk with students at length. The talks were very interesting and informative.

As well as having lots of fun, I came away from the weekend having learnt a lot about care proceedings. I unhesitatingly recommend these weekends to students; I would be very sorry to have missed out on the one I attended.”

Lucy Cash, BPTC Student

Local Qualifying Sessions As well as attending qualifying sessions at the Inn – the vast majority of which are arranged on weekends in order to allow as many students to attend as possible – BPTC students on circuit are also able to hold up to three qualifying sessions in their local area.

These sessions are overseen by Masters of the Bench and senior members of the Inn who generously donate their time and expertise. The Education and Training Department supports student representatives at each provider in helping to finance and arrange these sessions, and by making contact with local practitioners who might be willing to host sessions. Thanks to enthusiastic student, barrister, judicial and Bencher volunteers, a wide variety of local qualifying sessions took place this year – including lectures, moots, pupillage workshops and advocacy training workshops.

Students prepare for training exercise

INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

69

70

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

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

The scheme has proven to be rewarding for both students and judges alike. “ Over 30 years ago, when I was still an undergraduate and a student member of the Inn, I took advantage of the Inner Temple Marshalling Scheme. I spent a week with a circuit judge sitting at the Crown Court at Teesside. The judge, His Honour Judge Angus Stroyan QC, went on to become the Recorder of Newcastle upon Tyne. He will be well known to many of the Inn’s members and those with a criminal practice on that circuit.

I only have good memories of this experience, the friendliness of the judge and the advice he was able and willing to generously provide.

Today, at Manchester Crown Court, Crown Square, the judges regularly host law students from the Inns of Court, local universities and students undertaking the Bar Professional Training Course. It enables students to see the daily work of a busy Crown Court from the perspective of the judge. As a judge, it is a privilege to play a small part in the legal education of the students through these visits, answering questions (if I can!) and I hope the students find the experience worthwhile and rewarding.”

His Honour Judge Michael Leeming, Manchester Crown Court

“ Spending the week with Judge Leeming was highly enjoyable and educational. It was an excellent opportunity to witness first-hand the decisionmaking process and what goes on ‘behind closed doors’. The experience allowed me to gain insight into the merits of numerous cases and provided me with invaluable knowledge of the deliberation process and what factors are taken into account when making a decision.

Attaining awareness of this process and the rationale behind certain decisions is tremendously useful. Viewing submissions by counsel, followed by Judge Leeming’s honest and expert commentary of them, highlighted the different effective styles of advocacy. I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to marshal with Judge Leeming as it aided my understanding of the criminal justice system.”

Lucia Filidoro, BPTC student, University of Northumbria

Mentoring Scheme This year, 135 students across England and Wales took part in the Mentoring Scheme, which aims to pair BPTC and GDL students with barristers practising in a discipline that matches each student’s interest. The Inn’s pool of generous volunteers covers nearly every area and method of practice, from crime to commercial and from self-employed to in-house counsel.

The Mentoring Scheme can be of huge benefit, particularly to those students who have little to no prior experience of the profession. Mentors are encouraged to offer general advice, guidance and encouragement either in person or by email, to offer an experienced eye in looking over students' pupillage applications and to meet with their students during the year, either at the Inn or at a mutually convenient venue.

This year, many students attended Mentors' Dining Night and Pupillage Advice Evening together with their mentors, offering students the chance to network with members of Hall and Masters of the Bench in both formal and more relaxed settings.

Mock Interview Scheme The process of gaining pupillage has become increasingly competitive in recent years. According to figures issued by the Bar Standards Board for the academic year 2013/14, 1456 people were called to the Bar, while 397 places for pupillage were available. Since the BPTC is valid for 5 years, this means that those called in an academic year are not just competing against their peers, they are also competing against those who did not secure pupillage across the previous 4 years.

Inner Temple recognises that varied legal experience and a strong academic record will be invaluable in the journey to becoming a practising barrister; however, we are very much aware that aspiring barristers are of an incredibly high calibre and so chambers are spoilt for choice. The Mock Interview Scheme aims to support our student members to develop the ability to showcase their knowledge and experience in a pupillage interview.

Under the scheme, we offer students 45 minutes to an hour with a barrister who will simulate a first or second round interview. Among the benefits of the Mock Interview Scheme is that students receive immediate feedback and can ask any questions they might have, regarding what can be a stressful and difficult process.

Unfortunately we cannot guarantee that every application for a mock interview will be fulfilled, as demand tends to be especially high after the Pupillage Gateway deadline. However, the vast majority of requests are accommodated and those who receive a mock interview find the experience invaluable as highlighted by a recent participant, “the advice and encouragement I had …was absolutely brilliant. I think it will really help me in the future.”

The value of the programme rests in the strong support provided by the barristers that volunteer, generously offering

STUDENT SCHEMES INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

their time and expertise often at short notice. This year we were lucky to expand our pool of barristers outside of London, which means we can now extend help to our student members that may find it time consuming and expensive to travel to London for a mock interview.

Police Liaison Scheme The Police Liaison Scheme enables the Inn’s student members to shadow officers on patrol, offering insight into the way in which crime is dealt with in the very first instance. Student member Intan Sarit recently participated in the scheme, supervised by police officer Michael Chattenton.

On the recommendation of a friend who had taken part in the programme, Intan applied for a placement at Lewisham Station, hoping that it would help consolidate her understanding of Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) codes of practice. The prospect of “being driven in a police car at high speed with the sirens going off” was also very appealing.

Placements last the duration of an eight-hour shift and involve a student member shadowing officers on ‘ridealongs’ and in the station, although the exact structure of the shift will depend very much on the demands placed on the police at the time. On her placement, Intan was able to see police responses to “a domestic abuse case, followed by an old lady suspecting a robber was hiding on her roof, theft of a motorbike and gang crime”. Such a multifaceted evening also highlighted the necessity for professional flexibility in interacting with witnesses to enable the police to accrue evidence.

The success of the programme is in no small part down to the hard work and support of staff facilitating it in our partner stations in Lewisham, Camden, Southwark and Islington. Police Officer Michael Chattenton oversaw Intan’s

Police in local boroughs provide student members shadowing opportunities

shift with the additional support of Constable Darby and Officer Ritchie. With more than 20 years of experience in the force and having been awarded his long service medal, Michael appreciates the chance to “to develop a mutual understanding between the police and the judiciary” via the scheme. A great deal of care is taken to ensure that those undertaking a placement are well protected, as Michael explains: “Students wear body armour during their visit. Officers will carry out dynamic risk assessments when answering calls and will not put the students in danger.”

The Police Liaison Scheme is reciprocal in that our students benefit from time spent shadowing the officers involved and, in turn, the officers receive training on giving evidence in court through participation in a mock trial. Historically, the programme has been London-based; however, under the careful leadership of Adrian Keeling QC at No 5 Chambers, the Police Liaison Scheme has been extended to Birmingham. The occasion was marked by a mock trial, which was immensely valued by the police in attendance.

71

72

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

Student Societies Drama Society President, Gareth Frow

Rawlinson Cup Debate

Debating Society President, Belize Harrison

The Debating Society has had a particularly exciting, successful and busy year. Membership has soared with well over 60 students regularly attending the weekly meetings to debate a broad range of interesting and topical motions. We are now one of the largest and most active debating societies in the UK. Students were funded to compete nearly every weekend at competitions across the UK and abroad, including those in Oxford, Austria and the World University Debating Championships in Malaysia. In the first term alone, Inner Temple students brought home four trophies!

This year’s highlight was the Inn’s Inter-Varsity Debating Competition (January), one of the most prestigious competitions in the UK. The Magna Carta-themed Grand Final was held for the first time in Temple Church and was judged by a panel of 22 distinguished members of the Bar and judiciary. It attracted a record number of participants, making it one of the largest IVs in the history of the competition.

The event was a great success with one participant commenting that “debating the constitution in Temple Church in front of the greatest legal minds in the country validated all my years of debating”. To mark the occasion, the Society created its own commemorative Magna Carta wine and produced two promotional musical videos entitled ‘The Boys at the Bar’ and ‘I’ll Never Find Another Law’, which became YouTube hits and attracted significant media coverage.

Aside from all the fantastic debating experience, the best bit about the Debating Society is the camaraderie and friendships that it has created. The Society owes a big thank you to all of the members and staff of the Inner Temple, in particular, Master Treasurer, Master Morley, the Sub-Treasurer and the Education and Training Department. Their unfailing support has made the Society and all its events such a success.

It has been another exciting year for the Drama Society, with members old and new taking part in performances in a variety of locations.

The Christmas performance was our now traditional pantomime, which this year was Aladdin. The performance, took place in the Parliament Chamber to a raucous, sold-out audience, who were wowed by song, dance and a lot of glitter! New members to the Drama Society were welcomed into a friendly and supportive environment, which has continued to flourish throughout the year.

After a successful debut in 2014, the Drama Society was pleased to be invited back to perform at the Supreme Court’s ‘Museums at Night’ event, where we performed an improvised piece loosely based on the classic 12 Angry Men. The audience was invited into the Jury Room to see how a deliberation might unfold and to meet the varied personalities that helped come to a decision. Performing in the unique surroundings of Court One was a wonderful opportunity which we are so grateful to have been given.

For the summer production, we were fortunate enough to be able to perform A Midsummer Night’s Dream outdoors in Church Court, continuing the Society’s keen focus on Shakespeare and taking advantage of the beautiful setting.

We also ran a ‘Society Social’ event for members past and present with a workshop run by Master Christie, to whom we are thankful for his time.

The committee would like to say thank you for the hard work of all the legal actors and actresses who have been involved this year, and to the Education and Training Department, Master Christie, Master Pascoe and Master Morley for their invaluable guidance and enthusiasm for the Society.

Cast of A Midsummer Night's Dream

STUDENT SOCIETIES INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Inner Temple Students' Association President, Anushka Kangesu

Inter-Varsity Moot Competition, 2015

Mooting Society President, Sharin Cockerton

One of the highlights for the Mooting Society this year was the Liberty Moot between the Inn and the English Speaking Union, which took place in October 2014. The Liberty Moot is the prelude to the ‘Olympic Mons’ of mooting, the Magna Carta Moot. The competition will see the winners of the Inner Temple Inter-Varsity Moot compete against the winners of the ESU/Essex Court Moot. The inaugural competition will be held in October 2016 as part of the Magna Carta 800 celebrations.

In addition to the Liberty Moot, the committee was responsible for hosting the annual Inner Temple Inter-Varsity Moot, sponsored by Tanfield Chambers. This year, 32 teams from universities across the country competed for the King of Bhutan Cup, a trophy donated to the Inn by the King of Bhutan. The prestige of the Lawson, an internal mooting competition open to student members of the Inn, has grown each year. This year tickets sold out within minutes.

As well as hosting both the Inter-Varsity and Lawson Moots at the Inn itself, the committee has entered a number of teams into national and international competitions.

These include the Jessup, the largest international mooting competition, and Telders, the most prestigious moot court competition in Europe.

The focus for this year’s committee was to ensure mooting is accessible for student members of the Inn. With this in mind, the committee hosted a number of mooting workshops presented by Master Hodge and Thomas Fairclough. The workshop series focused on improving key skills including drafting, research and advocacy.

The great successes of the last year must be accredited to the commitment shown by all of the Mooting Society committee members. It is also thanks to the guidance and support from senior members of the Inn, including Master Morley, Master Brougham and Alistair Hodge, as well as from Eamonn O’Reilly and the team in the Education and Training Department.

This year has been wonderfully exciting for the Inner Temple Students’ Association. Building on the success of last year’s committee, the Society has had an outstanding response from the student body and experienced record numbers of students attending events. We are fortunate that the Inn encourages and invests in creating a strong student body. The Society aims to develop this ethos by providing students with social opportunities to meet their peers and to develop relationships with the Inn. The students’ regular ‘ITSA Night’ is an opportunity to mingle and network with more senior members of the Inn over a few glasses of wine. Incredibly popular this year, the Society would like to thank all barristers and judges who joined us for a drink. ’Regional ITSA Night’ was introduced this year for those studying outside of London and our first event was held successfully in Newcastle.

Our social calendar was marked by three main events.

It began with a Christmas Drinks Evening, which had a brilliant turnout with about 70 guests attending. The Hilary term welcomed Burns Night Supper, a very special event, which has become traditional for the Society to host. With approximately 200 guests attending, the evening began with drinks, followed by a traditional three-course Burns Supper, interspersed with readings and speeches. Finally, guests took part in a ceilidh, which concluded our evening with plenty of flair! Our year concluded with a sell-out black-tie Summer Boat Party with over 150 guests. It was a wonderful summer evening spent cruising down the Thames, whilst enjoying canapés, drinks and dancing.

The Society has had a thoroughly enjoyable and busy year. The President would like to personally thank her committee for helping to make each event so spectacular and the year such a success.

73

74

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

Call to the Bar T

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

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

There are four Call to the Bar ceremonies held each year at Inner Temple.

CALL TO THE BAR INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

“ Coming for many of us at the end of a long year on the BPTC, and mere weeks after results, Trinity Term Call Night – the night at which aspiring barristers are formally called to the Bar by the Inn – is a highlight of the calendar. The ceremony took place in the beautiful surroundings of Temple Church. Under the watchful gaze of Knights Templar, forever immortalised in stone, and perhaps all the more intimidating, rows of Masters of the Bench, we filed up in gowns to receive our Call certificates from Master Treasurer. After the ceremony we gathered outside to enjoy champagne and Inner Temple’s amazing assortment of canapés with proud friends and family and the Benchers who had generously given up their time to see the next generation called to the Bar. Formal photos provided an opportunity for most of us to see ourselves in a wig for the first time, to the admiration or, in my case, amusement of family members. It was a wonderful evening which like so many occasions at the Inn would not be possible without the hard work of many people: the Education & Training Department, the catering staff, the Benchers themselves and many others to whom we are deeply grateful.”

Rachel Sullivan

75

76

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

Post Call Advocacy and Pupillage Applications Day This course was aimed at student members who had successfully completed the BPTC, were in search of pupillage, and had already had at least one pupillage interview.

Participants were required to submit an example pupillage application and legal CV in advance of the course. On the day itself, participants had the opportunity to practise their advocacy skills, take part in a mock pupillage interview and have their pupillage applications and legal CVs reviewed on a one-to-one basis. Trainers this year included current pupils, new tenants and more established practitioners.

The support and advice offered at the session was greatly appreciated by all those who attended. Thanks are due to all trainers who assisted with the session and, in particular, to Natalie Foster (Thomas More Chambers) who led the event. “ Last year I was fortunate enough to gain a place on the Advocacy and Pupillage Applications day at the Inn. In recognition of the extremely challenging nature of obtaining pupillage, the Inn ran this event to assist those who have previously been unsuccessful at interview stage. The day is an intense programme consisting of a one-to-one feedback session on your pupillage application and CV, a mock interview and a group advocacy exercise on your chosen area of law.

The first session I attended was the pupillage application and legal CV review. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the barrister who was running my session had not only given up her Saturday to assist with the event, but she had spent time going through my application and CV prior to arriving, in order to give me some really detailed and constructive criticism and feedback. The value of this was incredible. I was able to understand that as important as it is to show how passionate you are about the profession, work experience, projects and activities you have completed, it’s important that amongst the passion you highlight the facts, what you actually did or what you want to do in terms of tasks and activities and why it will make you an able lawyer.

Another useful tip I was given was with regards to really highlighting good experience. I had represented a client in the Housing Tribunal through my work as a legal advisor at a free legal clinic. I had written this entry in the work experience part of the form, in a chronological fashion, so the appearance in the tribunal was summed up in the last two lines. The barrister running my session admitted that despite reading my application in great detail, she had missed that and thought I had no real advocacy experience.

I was shocked as I had always considered advocacy to be one of the strongest elements of my experience, highlighted in my form, so this was a real wake-up call as to how important written presentation is and your approach to the application form. The advice I

was given was to include the tribunal appearance as a stand-alone entry of work experience with the job title ‘Tribunal Advocate’ and lo and behold, something that was never raised in any of my previous pupillage interviews was raised at almost every interview I had following this session.

The mock interview and advocacy sessions were brilliant in giving us more opportunity to practise techniques and become familiar with the interview process. The Inn were perceptive enough to organise this event just under a month before the Pupillage Gateway deadline. The result of this being that all of us who participated had to be organised in completing applications early and, secondly, it meant there was still plenty of time to revamp applications based on the invaluable feedback we received.

I am forever indebted to the Inn and the barristers who participated. Based on their feedback and criticism, I was able to really understand how best to present myself and my answers. Following this session, my success in the pupillage application process tripled and culminated in me obtaining pupillage that same year. For all those pursuing pupillage, I would recommend getting involved with the Inn at every opportunity because the advice you gain from members at the Bar really can make all the difference.”

Hauwa Shehu, Pupil, Crown Prosecution Service

Student and trainer undertake mock pupillage interview

PROFESSIONAL TRAINING INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Professional Training

Having successfully completed the required academic, vocational and Inn’s qualifying session stages of qualification, and having satisfied the Inn that they are fit and proper to be called to the Bar, newly called barristers must successfully complete the professional stage of training known as pupillage in order to complete their qualification as a practising barrister. Once fully qualified and on becoming a tenant in chambers or employed, practising barristers in their first three years of practice are known as ‘new practitioners’. Only on completion of three years' practice do they become ‘established practitioners’.

At each stage of the journey from pupil to established practitioner and beyond, Inner Temple members are required to undertake compulsory training. Each year, the Inn commits to at least 40 days of advocacy training, taught by the Inn’s pool of advocacy trainers, in order to meet these requirements.

Compulsory Courses for Pupils

B

efore the start of their second six months of pupillage when they are ‘on their feet’ in court, pupils must successfully complete the following compulsory advocacy training in order to obtain their practising certificate: • Pupils' Advocacy Course, provided by the Inn. • Practice Management Course, provided by the Inn. • A minimum of 20 hours training in forensic accounts (to be completed by the end of their first three years of practice). Courses are run by external providers and advertised on the Bar Standards Board website.

The Inner Temple Pupils’ Advocacy Course is run twice each academic year, commencing in mid-October and mid-January, and consists of the following elements: • Three evenings at the Inn on trial preparation as well as criminal and civil case analysis.

• One Saturday at the Inn on Interlocutory Applications.

• One evening at either the Royal Courts of Justice or the Rolls Building, conducting a mock trial.

• A three-day residential weekend held at Wotton House in Dorking. This is the core element of the advocacy course, during which the pupils will participate in a Presentational Skills course run by professional actors from LAMDA, sessions on witness handling, opening and closing speeches, and pleas in mitigation. Pupils are video-reviewed throughout the weekend to give them the opportunity to identify and correct any bad habits that may be affecting their overall advocacy performance.

“ The entire course, although undeniably demanding, crystallises key skills and bolsters confidence to stand you in good stead for life as a second six pupil and beyond. Additionally, you make a group of new friends, meet and learn from accomplished practitioners and come to realise that whilst you are on the advocacy course to learn and be tested, there are a wealth of people at Inner Temple who guide, teach and mentor you. It's the sense of camaraderie I felt most reassuring and helped me when I was feeling particularly green!”

Stephanie Mendoros, Staple Inn Chambers

Advocacy Training

77

78

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

Advocacy Training

Practice Management Course Held in January for the entire year’s intake of pupils, this one-day course offers practical guidance to assist pupils with how to run their practice, covering topics such as ethics, marketing and financial management, with a talk from experts in these fields. It also offers participants the opportunity to ask judges and new practitioners questions on what to expect from first days in court, as well as a session with clerks and solicitors advising on what they expect from pupils and how to survive in chambers. “ Pupillage is a tough and tiring 12 months where time off is a treasured commodity. With that in mind, my first reaction when faced with the prospect of giving up a Saturday to listen to the complexities of the tax system was not one of unrestrained joy. However, the Practice Management Course – like all of the courses put on by the Inn during pupillage – was informative and well run. With talks from practitioners, judges, solicitors, and clerks, there was a real chance to understand the pressures and pitfalls we would soon face as newly minted baby barristers from every perspective.”

Andrew Lomas, 1 Essex Court

New Practitioners Programme In the first three years of tenancy or employment, new practitioners are required to complete 45 hours of continuing professional development (CPD), including at least nine hours of advocacy training and three hours of ethics training.

The Inn’s New Practitioners programme, which is run twice each year in April and June, has been completely revised for 2015 and beyond, in order to provide the highest possible standard of training for barristers in their first three years of tenancy.

In previous years, the advocacy and ethics elements of the programme were combined into a single residential weekend. From this year however, the ethics session has been moved to a separate evening at the Inn, to allow for a fuller, more focused and more intensive programme of advocacy training at the residential weekend, with trainers using the new advanced Hampel method. At the core of the weekends is a case allowing new practitioners to gain experience in handling expert witnesses, which has also been revised and rewritten for the new course.

The ethics session continues to provide participants with the opportunity to discuss a range of ethical questions and related issues under the guidance of established practitioners and solicitors, and referring to the Bar Standards Board’s new Code of Conduct, launched last year. “ I learned early on in the New Practitioners Course that the division between the employed and selfemployed Bar melted away as soon as you walked through the doors at Wotton House. The weekend was not about where you practise but rather the improvement of skills central to the practice of all members of the Bar. I found the experts were more than willing to discuss the case and other general matters over tea or dinner. The trainers were eager to pass on their top tips and had bundles of feedback on offer. I found the extended speaking time and the delayed replay really useful, and also found that I learned a lot from others on their advocacy. It was a great opportunity to catch up with friends, make new acquaintances, and speak with more senior members of the Bar.” Diana Deju, Government Legal Department

PROFESSIONAL TRAINING INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Teacher Training Weekend Inner Temple also runs a course in October each year for members interested in becoming advocacy trainers. A full day on the Saturday gives potential new trainers the opportunity to learn about and put the Hampel method of advocacy training into practice on willing BPTC student volunteers, followed by a half-day on the Sunday, in which they are assessed and graded by current teacher trainers. “ The weekend of teacher training ranks amongst the most hair-raising but rewarding of experiences that can be had at the Inn. This year there was a group of (relatively) young practitioners, as well as the more experienced Counsel who might be expected. For all of us, trying to Master a new skill of not just doing advocacy, or of grumbling about the advocacy of others, but of actually teaching it was tough. After a weekend of intense practice and feedback, we parted wondering how we had fared. The arrival a week later of a letter confirming that I had been passed to teach on the pupils' advocacy course was a source of huge pride.

After that, the weekend at Wotton House was almost relaxing. Almost. I’ve been told by one pupil that it can sometimes look as if the actual delivery of training is a walk in the park for the trainers. All I can say is that noting, analysing, creating a solution to an identified fault, and then demonstrating advocacy, all in five minutes flat, whilst regretting staying in the bar until 2am and under the watchful eye of a senior member of the Inn…it isn’t as easy as it sounds.

Ultimately the support and warm welcome of Master Ayling and the rest of her trainers, the companionship in the struggle of the other new trainers, and most importantly the steady progress made by the pupils, made it all very worthwhile.”

Saul Herman, 3 Temple Gardens

Pegasus Scholarships This Scholarship Scheme offers barristers belonging to all four Inns of Court who are tenants or employed barristers with up to five years’ practice as a barrister (not including pupillage) the opportunity to travel abroad and work as lawyers in other common law jurisdictions and the European Union.

Scholarships are tenable for between six and twelve weeks. A host law firm assists the scholar to find accommodation and provides expenses. There are up to 12 scholarships annually to the following countries: Dubai, Bermuda, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Singapore, USA and countries of the EU. The Trust also welcomes the opportunity to support scholars in placements they have personally arranged. Further details may be obtained from the Scholarships and Students Manager (who is also Secretary to the Pegasus Scholarship Trust).

Closing date for applications: 30 November each year.

Paris Bar Exchange The Bar of Paris with the Paris Bar School (EFB) offers a Stage to up to four barristers, who will be based in an avocat’s offices (preferably specialising in the barrister’s field of practice) for the month of September. As well as doing their Stage with the avocat, they will participate in the EFB’s vocational courses, make court visits, meet young avocats and conduct a mock trial in the Palais de Justice before a French Judge. Candidates for the Exchange Programme (who must speak fluent French) should apply not later than the middle of May in each year by lettre de motivation in French to: Piers Gardner, c/o the Secretary to the Pegasus Trust, Inner Temple.

Pupil Supervisor Training Session The Inns each have the responsibility for recommending to the Bar Standards Board their members as pupil supervisors. At Inner Temple, prospective supervisors must submit an application to the Inn’s Pupil Supervisor Sub-Committee for review, and attend a training session specially tailored for those wishing to supervise.

In the last year, the Inn has reviewed 48 applications, and has hosted a Pupil Supervisor Training Session.

Delegates attending the session heard from a panel of speakers. The talks were interspersed with group discussions, which were led by experienced supervisors.

These sessions offered delegates the opportunity to use the information from the pre-course reading materials and the talks to discuss how they would deal with potential pupil supervision scenarios.

Thanks are due to all members of the Pupil Supervisor Sub-Committee for all their work in reviewing applications throughout the year, and to the speakers and trainers at the training session. “ I found the session to be very informative. It has made me understand the true reality of being a pupil supervisor in 2015”

Discussion Groups at Pupil Supervisor Training Session

Participant 2015

79

80

INNER TEMPLE EDUCATION & TRAINING

Junior Bar Association Natalie Foster, President

T

he JBA exists to support the Inn and is run by junior barristers in employed and self-employed practice. We have the pleasure of organising both social and educational events for our members, as well as providing support to the Inn in various other ways.

Our committee and our members regularly volunteer at events organised by the Education and Training Department and we sponsor prizes at both the Rawlinson Cup Debate and Lawson Moot. We are committed to providing, and continuing to provide, this support.

My first year as President of the JBA was an interesting and busy year to say the least. It kicked off with the highly anticipated Annual Halloween Quiz held in Temple Hall.

As has become the tradition, Master Hodge took on the role of Quiz Master. He conjured up a magical quiz, which left the 100-plus ghoulish guests mystified and satisfied.

The event was sponsored by Silver Levene for a second year in a row. Mason Bloom and his team joined us at

the quiz and I'm sure the costumes worn by the guests terrified all. Our last event in 2014 was Christmas Drinks at Daly's, in the Strand. It was another sociable event by those at the Bar and allowed us to end the year on a high!

The New Year brought a flurry of educational events for our members. As junior barristers, we are in a position to understand all too well the concerns and disquieting nature of pupillage, and also the impending tenancy decision. Therefore, we organised an event conducted under Chatham House rules that would allow a frank and open discussion about life during, and importantly after, pupillage. We were fortunate to have a panel that included Anika Jones (1MCB), Anton Eriera (29 Bedford Row) and Andrew Barnes (Senior Clerk at 6KBW College Hill). The event was very well-attended, primarily by second-six pupils, and the feedback received will ensure that this is an event that the JBA repeats in the coming years. Next we organised a free CPD event, ‘Advocacy Advice from the Bench’. With speakers and a Q&A opportunity with His Honour Judge Lafferty, Master Simler (High Court) and Master Black (Appeal Court), it's no wonder this event had over 70 subscribers. It was refreshing to hear words of advice and encouragement from those that we respect at the Bench, and the hints and tips that will prove invaluable to all those who had the opportunity to hear them. Next we arranged for the Supreme Court Judicial Assistants to take some junior barristers on a private tour of the Supreme Court. We were also fortunate enough to have Master Anthony Hughes (Justice of the Supreme Court) answer some of our burning questions. Finally, for the first time, the JBA organised, in association with Northamptonshire and Buckinghamshire Junior Lawyers, a social event in Northampton.

I would like to take this opportunity to extend warm thanks to the JBA committee who work so hard throughout the year to ensure that the show remains on the road; to all of our wonderful speakers and those who helped out at various events, and to everyone in the Education and Training and Catering Departments for their continued support and assistance. Without you all, it would not have been such a successful and rewarding year.

ADVOCACY TRAINING COUNCIL CONFERENCE INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Advocacy Training Council

Conference 2015 Daniel Sheridan, Junior Bar Association

T

his, the first International Conference on Addressing Vulnerability in the Justice System hosted by the Advocacy Training Council (ATC), underlined the need for a more sophisticated approach towards advocacy.

Master Green, Chairman of the ATC, opened the conference by describing the need for change to address vulnerability in criminal, civil and family justice systems, internationally.

The need for a revised style of advocacy, and a multidisciplinary approach towards working with vulnerable people in our justice system may be, to some in the profession, at odds with our adversarial traditions. The alternative view is that what is emerging is a nuanced way of working, which, rather than being at odds with those traditions, looks to what works better to ensure fairer access to, and participation in, justice systems for the most vulnerable in our society.

Adaptations to ensure effective communication may include use of special measures, intermediaries and forward planning of individuals’ communication needs through the use of ‘Ground Rules Hearings’. Professor Penny Cooper, Chair of the Advocate’s Gateway, characterises the ‘Ground Rules Approach’ as being central to the early identification of vulnerability in witnesses, and the making of reasonable adjustments so that the justice system is fair. This can involve multi-disciplinary input, and is underpinned by an acknowledgment that there are limits to our skills and expertise.

Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division, in the session on ‘The View from the President’s Chamber’, framed the debate by talking of the need to achieve participation in the process, and the means by which

evidence is given. The Family Court was set apart as the criminal jurisdiction’s poor relation. Despite the fact that, often, family law professionals are dealing with victims of domestic violence, people with learning disabilities and others with a variety of protected characteristics, the family jurisdiction is poorly adapted to respond to vulnerability.

Felicity Gerry QC talked of the deficits in civil and commercial proceedings where there is no focused discretion for special measures and vulnerable witnesses, and, in light of those deficits, a toolkit is now being developed for inclusion in the Advocate’s Gateway.

Whilst there is a lot that can be done to improve how the justice system responds to the vulnerable without primary legislation, the profession needs to be a driving force in highlighting the need for increased and consistent, funding of our justice system.

His Honour Judge Peter Rook QC reiterated the considerable need for training, across the profession, for those working with vulnerable witnesses. The ultimate objective being that training in dealing with vulnerable witnesses should become part of every advocate’s training.

What is clear is that the range of toolkits, developed by the Advocate’s Gateway, to enhance the advocate’s repertoire, is testament to the tremendous advances being made in vulnerable witness training. Sir James Munby spoke of the need to persuade people that something requires change, a process that “requires repetition” and clear messaging. Responding to that, Professor Cooper suggested that the message, in this context, perhaps ought to be: “The Ground Rules Approach”.

81

82

INNER TEMPLE

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

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

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

• AccessToLaw, a gateway site providing annotated links to selected UK, Commonwealth and worldwide legal websites (www.accesstolaw.com)

• Free Wi-Fi • Photocopying and printing facilities

• Current Awareness blog for legal news, changes in legislation and new case law www.innertemplelibrary.com)

• A document supply service for barristers in chambers • An enquiry service (in person, by telephone and by email)

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

• Assistance with online searching and legal research • An overnight loans scheme for barristers

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

• Legal research training for pupils

• An extensive archive of old editions of practitioners’ works

• Legal research FAQs on our website

• Specialist Commonwealth & Scottish collections

• Tours for students and pupils, plus a virtual tour on our website

• Collections which are all on-site and easily accessible

• Web access to the library catalogues of the four Inns

• A range of commercial legal research databases

• Equipment and software for users with hearing or visual impairment More information on the Library’s collections, services and contact details can be found on our website at www.innertemplelibrary.org.uk.

Opening Hours

Contacts

The Library’s opening hours are as follows:

The Honourable Society of the Inner Temple The Library Inner Temple London EC4Y 7DA Tel: 020 7797 8217 / 8218/8219 Fax: 020 7583 6030 / 020 7797 8224 Email: library@innertemple.org.uk Website: www.innertemplelibrary.org.uk

During Legal Terms: Monday – Thursday 9.00am – 8.00pm and Friday 9.00am – 7.00pm; Saturday 10.00am – 5.00pm on one Saturday in four (on a rota with the other Inn Libraries).

Outside Legal Terms: The Library closes at Bank Holiday periods and for the second half of August. For the remainder of August and the first half of September the hours are Monday – Friday 9.00am – 5.30pm.

LEGAL RESEARCH INNER TEMPLE

Legal Research

Are You ‘Ready to Hit the Ground Running’?

By Tracey Dennis, Deputy Librarian

E

ducation and training is a fundamental function of an Inn of Court. The Library contributes to this, in particular, through the development of a programme of legal research training for new pupils.

Before autumn 2013, the Library had offered one-to-one sessions for new pupils, based on their individual needs. There was a reasonable take-up and since legal research was no longer examined as part of the BPTC, we felt that there was a definite need for the Library to offer more structured training, which would be open to larger groups and which would take place close to the commencement of new pupillages. It was also apparent from conversations with students and new pupils that legal research was something of a concern.

It was clear that there was a need to offer training, but we had to devise a course that would be at the right level of knowledge to be of use to as many attendees as possible.

Looking at the areas we were being asked to cover for the individual training, there were some common themes emerging, and so much of the content of the proposed course would be based on what we learnt from these sessions and from the enquiries we were receiving from pupils at the Library Enquiry Point.

Another problem we had to resolve was finding suitable times to run the course. We knew that pupils are very busy and it would be difficult to fit a training session into their working day. So we began by offering the first session on a Saturday just before the start of pupillage in October and the other sessions on weekdays after 5.00 pm. As a pupil who attended a Saturday session said:

Photo by Abhimanyu Bose

“ A morning spent in the Inner Temple that has paid dividends during pupillage.”

The course is divided into three parts. The first session is a general overview of legal research and assists with deciphering legal abbreviations, the coverage of the major legal databases and essential facts on cases, statutes and subsidiary legislation. The second session looks at case research in more detail and includes tracking the judicial history of a case and how to find commentary on it. The third session covers researching legislation and deals with how to track different versions of legislation, finding cases that cite legislation and how to locate pre-legislative material. All the sessions cover both hard copy and online sources, since from our experience in the Library we know that hard-copy resources are often the only way to find an answer, and it is apparent that paper sources are often neglected.

At the end of each session, we ask attendees to fill in feedback forms so as to ensure that what we are offering is useful and that changes may be made if the feedback indicates this is needed. The responses have been very favourable and encourage us to continue with the programme.

The comments indicate that there is a need to hold such sessions for pupils to gain confidence in carrying out legal research. One pupil described his reasons for attending: “ Conquering my fear of legal research. Getting an idea of where to start when presented with a legal problem.”

Feedback has shown that the programme is pitched at the right level, the topics covered are useful, and that participants would recommend the sessions to other pupils. One attendee said: “ I wish I did this training in October–November 2013. It would have made my life much easier in the first six, which is research/paperbased. I feel even more comfortable having attended today.”

The Deputy Librarian and Senior Library Assistant, who present the sessions are knowledgeable, enthusiastic and friendly. Some feel that having met staff, this will encourage them to use the Library more: “ It makes the library much more accessible to have approachable and knowledgeable personnel.”

The next development has been to make the training available to pupils who cannot attend in person. We decided to record the sessions and make them available online in a webinar-style format. LexisNexis allowed us to use their studio facilities for the recording and, since the end of 2014, all three sessions can be viewed via the Legal Research Training page of the Library website, so that pupils and students can benefit from them at any time.

The next stage will be to incorporate workshops into the format, as some feedback suggested that participants would like an interactive element to the sessions. Pupils who start in autumn 2015 will take part in workshops, which we hope will reinforce the learning experience and build confidence.

The training programme has proved to be a popular and worthwhile addition to Library services. The sessions are time-consuming to prepare, update and present, but the staff involved get a great deal of satisfaction from participants’ positive feedback.

In the words of one pupil who came along, the sessions are “…essential training for all new pupils”.

Tracey Dennis

83

84

INNER TEMPLE MAGNA CARTA

Murder in the Cathedral T. S. Eliot An Inner and Middle Temple production – 30 January to 1 February 2015 Theatre review by Anthony Speaight QC

T

he great west door of the Temple Church was flung open. We heard the scrape of steel on stone. This was a remarkably apt setting in which to perform the story of four armed men bursting into Canterbury Cathedral in 1170. The Round was then already in use, and one of the swords that carried out the murder later found its way into the Temple Church.

To stage Eliot’s verse drama here had been for some time the ambition of Stephen Hockman, who used his year as Treasurer of Middle to do so. He assembled a mixed cast of 6 professional actors and 16 amateurs. The director was Joe Harmston, former Associate Director at Chichester.

The Church is not an easy space in which to stage a play, with its long ranges of seating all facing a narrow central aisle, and the middle section of each side’s stalls so high as severely to limit sight lines. Harmston displayed ingenuity in creating a raised catwalk down the middle, and cleverly switching speech and action up and down so that no spectator felt deprived of a good view for long. He tackled the problem of lighting with many small spotlights at low level, thereby achieving striking effects at the same time as solving a technical challenge.

It is the highest tribute to the amateurs that without the guidance of the biographies in the programme, no observer would have hazarded with any confidence a guess as to who was in which category. This is not a straightforward play to stage, consisting as it does of long passages of verse, much of it in the collective mouth of the Women of Canterbury, who fulfil a role reminiscent of the chorus in a Greek tragedy. On this occasion the Women, most of whom were practising barristers, were one of the highlights:

Photo credit: ImageBROKER/REX/Shutterstock

speaking sometimes singly and sometimes in unison, they succeeded in combining a sense of poetry in delivery with an immediacy of meaning as the tension of the drama mounted.

The close links between the Bar and the theatre were reflected in another way by the imaginative idea of transforming the knights into modern dress for the passage late in the play when Eliot has the murderers turn to the audience and attempt to justify what they have done. At this point the fourth knight reappeared in barrister’s robes. The arguments deployed have a worryingly contemporary echo, and made me feel a little nervous as to whether I might not have accepted a little too readily some contemporary Western justifications for what was necessary in the interests of security.

This is where the greatness of Eliot’s play lies – in the universality of its themes. At surface level it is the story of a great medieval saint. Probe a little more deeply, and amongst the discoveries are collisions between the secular and the spiritual, between pragmatism and principle, and explorations of the ambiguities of conscience. Hockman in his programme note says that he had found in the play “the tension with which every advocate is familiar between the claims of personal integrity and the pressures of the public performance”.

That programme, containing fascinating articles by Robin Griffiths-Jones, Sir John Baker QC and Professor Elisabeth van Houts, deserves an award, and will be cherished by me as a keepsake of an uplifting theatrical experience.

Anthony Speaight QC Bencher of Middle Temple

MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

“ At surface level it is the story of a great medieval saint. Probe a little more deeply, and amongst the discoveries are collisions between the secular and the spiritual, between pragmatism and principle, and explorations of the ambiguities of conscience.”

85

86

INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE

Master Staughton

By The Rt Hon The Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony

C

hristopher Stephen Thomas Jonathan Thayer Staughton was born on 24 May 1933. He was born in England, the son of Simon Thomas Samuel Staughton of Melbourne, Australia, and Edith Madeline Jones of Halifax, Nova Scotia, in Canada. His parents’ marriage ended bitterly while he was still a very young child, so bitterly that he was made a ward of court. He went to prep school when he was six.

Christopher was a person of formidable intellect. He won a scholarship to Eton in 1946 and another one to Magdalene College, Cambridge. While at Cambridge, he won the coveted George Long Prize for Roman Law. Later, he became an Honorary Fellow of the college and also held an honorary degree at the University of Hertfordshire, a county in which he lived for many years.

He did National Service with the 11th Hussars (Prince Albert’s Own), based in Germany, where he had a lucky escape when he accidentally led his troop into Russian occupied East Germany.

Again, as the girls put it, he had the most amazing repertoire of silly games to play: ‘The Prince of Wales has lost his hat, la-di-da’ on hands and knees on the floor, or ‘The Minister’s Cat’ or ‘This is a fork’ after dinner. In short, he was a great entertainer.

He loved to play the piano and, on one memorable occasion, he sang Gilbert and Sullivan’s The Judge’s Song in full robes in Sarratt Village Hall.

He was a man of great intelligence and wit. According to his daughters, the headline he enjoyed most was the Western Morning Gazette’s “Judge Off His Trolley”, which was published after he had amused himself at the expense of some barrister like me by asking him in a case involving supermarkets whether he (or perhaps she) knew that in supermarkets, you could now just point items at a screen to put them through the cash register. His daughters were astonished at this remark because, so far as they were aware, he had never been to a supermarket in his life.

He sometimes pretended to be rather stuffy but, in fact,

“ He approached all his cases with intellectual rigour but a unique sense of humour. He was a challenge to appear in front of, especially if you had not done so before.”

Having been admitted as a member of the Inner Temple in May 1954, for the princely sum of £41 2s 6d, he was called to the Bar by the Inner Temple in 1957 and became a tenant in what was 3 Essex Court, now 20 Essex Street.

He was known for his mastery of commercial law, which he applied with a rigorous logic. He took silk in 1970.

In the meantime, he had the great good fortune to meet Joanna Burgess, whom he married in 1960. Christopher and Joanna have two daughters, Catharine and Sarah, and five grandchildren.

One of his pupils in 3 Essex Court was Ken Rokison (later Rokison QC and now himself for some years a distinguished international arbitrator). Ken represented the Bar at the valedictory for Christopher in the High Court when he left the Court of Appeal. For some reason which I for one never fully understood, Christopher insisted that he had not retired but had resigned. At his valedictory, Ken memorably, and I think accurately, described him as having had a “full bottomed face” ever since he (Ken) had joined chambers.

Information from both Catharine and Sarah and Ken has persuaded me that Christopher was keen on games of one kind and another. According to Ken, he came into chambers one day with a large bruise on his forehead, which was apparently a consequence of his having applied a bath plunger to imitate a rhinoceros. The plunger had only been removed with considerable pain and effort.

he was the reverse. He famously noted that when counsel says “with respect, M’Lud” he means “you are wrong”; when he says “with great respect, M’Lud”, he means “you are utterly wrong”; and when he says “with the greatest respect M’Lud”, he means “Send for the men in white coats”. He had various ways of cutting off counsel when he thought that he or she had gone on too long. On one famous occasion, he asked David Grace, who was a member of his chambers (but sadly died many years ago), how much longer he was going to be. Grace said that he was going to refer to a number of legal authorities. Christopher said: “Very well, Mr Grace, you read the authorities and I will do the crossword.” He did precisely that.

I first got to know Christopher when he was a silk and I was a junior in 2 Essex Court, the chambers next door.

I had hardly any experience of ship collision cases and he had none. Solicitors acting for a party to a collision action in Singapore which was about to be tried could not find a QC with the relevant experience. However, they persuaded Christopher to accept the brief. I had some but very little experience of such cases but was instructed to go too.

We both went to Singapore. The case was against my old pupil master, Barry Sheen, and we lost it disastrously, but Christopher proved a most entertaining companion.

As many will recall, he was tall and distinguished.

During the case in Singapore, every day at lunch time he

MASTER STAUGHTON INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

took off his robes and wig. He retained his wing collar and replaced his bands with a tie. He put on a linen jacket and strolled across the next door cricket ground to the Singapore Cricket Club looking like a 19th Century grandee. I think that was just what he was at heart.

After that, we got to know Christopher and Joanna when their daughters were at school in Kent and they came to stay when they came down to see Catharine and Sarah.

My wife, Rosemary, and I recall an evening when Christopher and Joanna came to stay with us. We had a couple to supper.

They had left their children in a Dormobile outside our house.

When Christopher and Joanna arrived, they noticed that the children were far from asleep. The next thing that happened was that the children came in, aged about seven and five. In no time, Christopher had the older child on his knee asking him serious questions in that lugubrious voice of his. It was clear that both of them were enjoying it very much.

So, although Christopher could sometimes be an austere opponent or even an austere judge, he always had an underlying sense of fun which never deserted him.

He was a formidable advocate and was involved in many of the great commercial cases of his time, including, for example, Hong Kong Fir v Kawasaki. He was appointed a High Court Judge in 1981. He sat in the Commercial Court, where he was both a challenge and a pleasure to appear before. I remember a case called The Aliakmon, which I won before him but lost (in my opinion quite wrongly) in the House of Lords. I always enjoyed Christopher’s odd aside, one of which he included in his judgment in that case, which was in part about a booking note. He said, “There was also an addendum no 1 to the booking note. The copy with which I was supplied apparently had some important words deleted in manuscript. However, it was suggested that this was not truly a deletion but the regrettable practice known as ‘highlighting’. That is done with a coloured pencil. Its principal effect, once a photocopy is made of the highlighted document, is that everything which somebody once considered important is thereafter illegible. Occasionally, with good fortune, the highlighter omits to obliterate something which is in fact important.

A further copy of addendum no 1 was produced, without deletion or highlighting, but with a manuscript note suggesting that the document was not authentic anyway. The parties were content that I should have regard to this copy.”

In addition to commercial cases, Christopher also presided over a number of high-profile criminal cases, one of which involved a prosecution by Mrs Mary Whitehouse of the National Theatre’s show entitled The Romans in Britain.

He approached all his cases with intellectual rigour but a unique sense of humour. He was a challenge to appear in front of, especially if you had not done so before. I

recall a moment when one of my opponents objected to a question I had asked. He developed his point for a bit, then paused to draw breath. Christopher said, “Overruled”, in his stentorian way and that was the end of the objection.

Christopher went to the Court of Appeal in 1987 and (as mentioned earlier) resigned in 1997. He made a substantial contribution to the law of England and Wales while in the Court of Appeal, especially in commercial and criminal cases.

After leaving the Court of Appeal, Christopher acted as an international arbitrator for some years and also sat in the Court of Appeal in Gibraltar from 2000. He became its sixth president in 2005 and retired in 2007. He was a patron of Clarity, a body advocating the use of clear legal language. He was also a member of the Enemy Property Claims Assessment Panel, which dealt with assets seized by the British government during the Second World War. In short, Christopher had a long and distinguished career in the law and will be fondly remembered by all who had the privilege of appearing before him or sitting with him. He never lost his mischievous edge, especially after he retired and came back to sit in the Court of Appeal. I only sat with him very rarely but I recall one occasion when, in a somewhat tedious reinsurance case about reserving policy, he suddenly said to counsel, who was Julian Flaux QC, now Mr Justice Flaux, apparently just for fun, “Well Mr Flaux, reserving butters no parsnips.” I could not resist putting the exchange in a footnote in my judgment.

Finally, I recently learned the following from the President of the Supreme Court. An unnamed member of the Bar told him this story of Christopher sitting in a two-man Court of Appeal with Jerry Harman, who was about to retire from the Bench. Counsel was having a bit of trouble with the court, especially with Mr Justice Harman. He suddenly heard Lord Justice Staughton say, “For goodness sake, shut up.” Counsel said something along the lines that he was sorry if he had gone on too long, but Lord Justice Staughton said, “Not you, him”, pointing to Mr Justice Harman.

Over the years, Christopher played a prominent role in the Inner Temple, where he was Treasurer in 1997. He wrote on diverse topics including, notably, general average and the proceeds of crime. He also wrote articles on plain English in English law.

Away from the law, Christopher was a member of the Advisory Board of the British Library. Throughout his life, he was a devoted churchman, both in London and Sarratt; he was a keen grower of dahlias and roses, and no mean bridge player. When they lived in London, he and Joanna often invited us round to have dinner and play bridge. My wife, Rosemary, and I always found it daunting, but, as always with Christopher, both stimulating and amusing. In years gone by, he was a formidable but, it is said, dangerous skier.

I would like to end in the same way as his daughters did in their moving address at his funeral. I do so because I agree with it and, as they say in the Court of Appeal, there is nothing I could usefully add: “So today we remember a loving husband, father, grandfather, brother, uncle, godfather and friend, a man who was loved, respected and admired by all who knew him. The bewilderment and confusion that took his brilliant intellect from him in his declining years never robbed him of his kindness or his sense of fun and mischief. As we say goodbye, we do so in the sure and certain knowledge that he has fulfilled the exhortation of the Prophet Micah: ‘do justly, love mercy and walk humbly before your God.’”

Rt Hon The Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony

87

88

INNER TEMPLE 

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

INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Commemoration of the Liberation of the Concentration Camps

By Master Robin Griffith-Jones, Master of the Temple

O

n 15 April 1945 the British Army liberated the concentration camp at Bergen-Belsen. The BBC reporter Richard Dimbleby was among those who entered the camp. He sent his report to the BBC on the following day. The BBC in London found it so hard to believe his report that for three days they refused to broadcast it.

“I have just returned from the Belsen concentration camp where for two hours I drove slowly about the place in a jeep with the chief doctor of Second Army. I find it hard to describe adequately the horrible things I have seen and heard, but here, unadorned, are the facts.

There are 40,000 men, women and children in the camp, German and half a dozen other nationalities, thousands of them Jews. Of this total of 40,000, 4,250 are acutely ill or are dying of virulent disease. In the last few months alone, 30,000 prisoners have been killed off or allowed to die.

I wish with all my heart that everyone fighting in this war, and above all those whose duty it is to direct the war from Britain and America, could have come with me through the barbed-wire fence that leads to the inner compound of the camp.

I passed through the barrier and found myself in a nightmare. Dead bodies, some of them in decay, lay strewn about the road and along the rutted tracks. On each side of the road were brown wooden huts. There were faces at the windows, the bony emaciated faces of starving women, too weak to come outside, propping themselves against the glass to see the daylight before they died. And they were dying, every hour and every minute. I saw a man, wandering dazedly along the road, stagger and fall. Someone else looked down at him, took him by the heels and dragged him to the side of the road to join the other bodies lying unburied there. No one else took the slightest notice. They didn’t even trouble to turn their heads. Here, over an acre of ground, lay dead and dying people. You could not see which was which…The living lay with their heads against the corpses and around them moved the awful, ghostly procession of emaciated, aimless people. A mother, driven mad, screamed at a British sentry to give her milk for her child, and thrust the tiny mite into his arms, then ran off, crying terribly. He opened the bundle and found the baby had been dead for days. This day at Belsen was the most horrible of my life.”

Photograph by Chris Christodoulou

89

90

INNER TEMPLE

On 21 April this year, we gathered in the Temple Church to remember the liberation in 1945 of Belsen and the other camps. We began with Dimbleby’s own report, while we watched on a screen the heart-stopping footage of the liberation’s first hours, which the Imperial War Museum kindly made available. Even with the most dreadful minutes excised, the footage was painful to watch. Our own Temple Church Choir was joined by the West London Synagogue Choir for the evening. Rabbis Helen Freeman and Jackie Tabick were here to say the ‘Al Malai Rahamin’ and the ‘Kaddish’. And Eve Oppenheimer, survivor of Belsen, told the unadorned story of her childhood before, during and after her months in the camp. Few evenings in the church have been as poignant as this.

As we gathered, Master Feder had read out the names of some of those who had died at Belsen. (We owe particular thanks to Master Feder for his help all through the winter as we planned the evening.) Over the coming 90 minutes, Masters Lawrence and Hill – with Masters Aikens, Bartle and Mayes from Middle Temple – read extracts from contemporary communiqués, reports and stories that told how the Nazis’ ideology and genocidal aims evolved. Already in 1928, Walther Darré wrote of the necessity to breed a superior, Nordic race and to exterminate lesser races. In July 1941, Rolf-Heinz Hoeppner, SS Commander in Warthegau, wrote to Eichmann on the Solution to the Jewish Question: he speculated that the most ‘humane’ solution might be to kill, by some quick-working device, those Jews who were unfit to work. By December 1941, Hans Frank, Nazi Governor of Occupied Poland’s Government-General, made clear that “I will, on principle, approach Jewish affairs in the expectation that the Jews will disappear. We will take measures that will somehow lead to successful destruction.” In January 1942, Heydrich convened the Wannsee Conference in Berlin, to formulate “the Final Solution of the European Jewish Question”, intended to involve 11 million Jews. In October 1943, Himmler spoke to SS officers in secret meetings in Poznań, Poland, of the Jews’ extermination: “This very difficult subject should be discussed amongst us, and yet we will never speak about it in public. I am talking about the ‘Jewish evacuation’: the extermination of the Jewish people.”

Alongside these terrible words we heard some of the most poignant music from the camps and the stories behind them.

Photograph by Chris Christodoulou

‘Zog Nit Keynmol’ is sung in memorial services around the world: “Never say this is the final road for you, Thought-leadened skies may cover over days of blue.

As the hour that we longed for is so near, Our step beats out the message – we are here!”

The lyrics in Yiddish were written in 1943 by Hirsch Glick, 21 years old, a Jewish poet of the Vilna Ghetto. He was in the Vilna Ghetto in 1942 and took part in its 1942 uprising. In 1943, he was inspired by news of the uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto to write ‘Zog Nit Keynmol’ to the music of the soviet composer Dmitry Pokrass. The song became the anthem of the Jewish partisan movement.

Glick escaped from the ghetto; he is likely to have been captured and executed by the Germans in August 1944.

The Rebbe of Modzitz, Rabbi Shaul Yedidya Elazar Taub, had Hasidim throughout the major towns and cities of Poland. One of these was the singer Reb Azriel David Fastag.

Reb Azriel David was among those deported to Treblinka.

In the cattle truck there appeared before his eyes the words of the twelfth of the Thirteen Principles of Jewish Faith, Ani Ma’amin: “I believe with perfect faith in the coming of the Messiah; and even though he may tarry, nevertheless, I wait each day for his coming.” Reb Azriel David composed and sang a tune. The song spread from car to car. Thanks to the escape of one man from the cattle truck, the song reached the Rebbe of Modzitz in New York. He heard it and said, “When they sang Ani Ma’amin on the death train, the pillars of the world were shaking. The Almighty said, ‘Whenever the Jews will sing Ani Ma’amin, I will remember the six million victims and have mercy on the rest of My People’. With this melody, the Jewish people went to the gas chambers. And with this melody, the Jews will march to greet Messiah.”

As our evening in church drew towards its end, the combined choirs sang the Sanctus from Verdi’s Requiem.

In September 1943, the conductor Rafael Schächter was ordered by the SS at Theresienstadt to conduct Verdi’s Requiem, for which he assembled a choir of approximately 150 singers and 4 soloists. Shortly after the performance, almost the entire cast was deported to Auschwitz. Schächter reconstituted a choir to perform the work again, but in December was forced to recruit musicians for a third time after another transport to the East. The final group, though reduced in size, gave 15 performances. In October 1944, the SS commanded Schächter to stage Verdi’s Requiem again,

COMMEMORATION OF THE LIBERATION OF THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

“ Such an evening in the church could have been nothing but sadness chilled by anger. To hear Rabbis Helen and Jackie say the A ‘ l Malai Rahamin’ and the ‘Kaddish’ was to have those millions of victims brought back before our eyes.” this time for the Red Cross in the presence of Eichmann and other SS officers. Schächter saw in his performances a code: the Requiem evokes the end of the world and the fate of those who do evil. Even as they were facing their own destruction, the Jews in that choir were telling the Nazis how the Third Reich was destined for destruction. It was with this last choir that Rafael Schächter was finally transported to Auschwitz. All were killed on arrival.

Hitler was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg on 30 January 1933. Ludendorff, Hindenburg’s second-in-command in WWI and Hitler’s sometime ally, in the 1920s, wrote: “ You have delivered up our holy German Fatherland to one of the greatest demagogues of all time. I solemnly prophesy to you that this unholy man will cast our nation into the abyss.

Future generations will curse you in your grave for what you have done.”

The statistics of the Holocaust are almost beyond belief. Over a million men, women and children were killed at Auschwitz-Birkenau, 800,000 at Treblinka, 150,000 at each of Kulmhof and Sobibór. During May and June 1944, the Hungarian Jews alone were gassed at Birkenau at a rate of almost 10,000 a day. When the Soviets moved in to Birkenau, 29 of 35 storerooms had been burned down. In the remaining six, the liberators found part of the camp’s legacy: 368,820 men’s suits, 836,255 women’s coats and dresses, 5,525 pairs of women’s shoes, and large quantities of children’s clothes. In the tannery, the Soviet investigation commission found seven tons of hair.

More was involved than the systematic exterminations.

Auschwitz-Birkenau, for example, was an enormous industrial complex, whose workforce of slaves could be worked to death building and manning its research farms, cement factories and, above all, its rubber factories. In 1942 I G Farben had 30,000 skilled workers on hand at Auschwitz.

Richard Dimbleby

Such an evening in the church could have been nothing but sadness chilled by anger. To hear Rabbis Helen and Jackie say the ‘Al Malai Rahamin’ and the ‘Kaddish’ was to have those millions of victims brought back before our eyes. We owe an immense debt of gratitude to Eve Oppenheimer and to the Rabbis for ensuring that the evening was not just a commemoration of the dead but a celebration of life. The final anthem to be sung was the last, exultant movement of the Chichester Psalms: “ Behold how good And how pleasant it is, For brethren to dwell Together in unity.”

As we left the church in silence, Master Feder spoke again. This time he read out the names of survivors from Bergen-Belsen, while we saw on the screen the footage of men and women after the liberation: of incredulity, tentative smiles and the gradual return to human dignity; of the camp’s new clothes store, ‘Harrods’; and, above all, of the children, wide-eyed and silent, with bowls and bars of chocolate before them and, as if by a miracle, with a life before them.

We have wondered ever since if one of those children we saw was the young Eve Oppenheimer herself who, 70 years later, stood before us with such poise to speak with such clarity of the months she spent in the nightmare of Belsen. “ Guardian of Israel” sang the choirs, “ guard the remnant of Israel.

Let Israel not perish who daily says, ‘Hear, O Israel.’

Who daily declares, ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord!’”

Master Robin Griffith-Jones Master of the Temple

Eve Oppenheimer

Master Lawrence

Photo credit: Leonard McCombe/Getty Images

91

92

INNER TEMPLE LECTURE SERIES

Contract Interpretation: What it Says on the Tin From a lecture by Professor Robert Stevens

Vows

To make a vow, it is sufficient to form a resolution in one’s mind. Communication to another is unnecessary. Its meaning is similarly determined by the intention of the person at the time of making it. Whether a reasonable person would think I was making such a vow is neither here nor there. The vow is a product of my willing it into being.

Making a vow is not the same thing as promising or contracting. When we interpret a contract, or indeed any other words that are the source of rights, such as in a deed, will or statute, we should cease to talk of our searching for the intentions of the parties creating it. This has implications for our rules of construction.

Objectivity

Many writers see promises as created by the will of the promisor, or in the context of a contract, the combination of wills of the promisor and promisee together. If this were correct, the existence and content of a promise ought to be determined by the intentions of the parties, just as it is with a vow.

Both in determining whether there is a contract and in settling its content, the law adopts an objective approach, what is actually intended not being determinative of the contract’s existence or meaning. How can this be squared with the proposition that we are concerned with discovering the intentions of the parties?

Much as I try, I cannot simply will a promise into existence. Even if two parties intend precisely the same promise from one to another to exist, that alone is not a promise. Promises and contracts are actions in the world.

They are acts of communication; indeed, they are the archetypal example of speech acts. Both the existence and the content of a promise are determined objectively because the existence and content of communicated words are determined objectively.

For an act to impose obligations upon me, it must be my doing; I must be responsible for it. If a fraudster forges my signature on a contractual document, I am not bound even if the promisee believes that the promise was mine. It is not the case that I am responsible only for the consequences of my actions that I intend. If I negligently knock over a Ming vase, I am responsible for its destruction, and in law must pay for it. The same is true of words. The promise must be mine, in the sense that I am responsible for it, but it is a mistake to think that I am only responsible for those things I intend.

That we are neither searching for what was actually intended, nor what a reasonable person would think they intended, is shown by the law’s exclusion from consideration of the parties’ subsequent conduct.

Vitiating Factors

An agreement may be set aside for a number of reasons related to defects in the subjective intentions of one or both parties. Where there has been a misrepresentation, duress, or undue influence, the party whose consent was as a result defective has the power to avoid the contract. If one subscribes to the view that promises take place in, or are at least dependent upon, our subjective intention to subject ourselves to obligations, then the true position in all of these cases would be that there is no promise at all.

This does not align with the positive law. A party subject to duress, or acting under undue influence, or to whom a misrepresentation has been made by the counter party, has the power to avoid the contract. It is not the case that no promise has been made: there has been, regardless of any defects in the promisor’s subjective consent. The reason the contract can be set aside is quite separate from what a promise is.

Parol Evidence

The parol evidence rule is not dead, or even ill, but merely misunderstood. The misunderstanding probably comes from its name, which is wholly misleading. First, the evidence excluded is not limited to parol evidence but also applies to all other evidence, which may be in writing, outside of the document. Therefore it is better to speak of evidence extrinsic to the written agreement being excluded.

Second, it is not, or at least is no longer, a rule of evidence but a rule of construction. The rule as traditionally formulated states that evidence cannot be admitted to add to, vary or contradict a written instrument. Once the court has concluded that the document was agreed to contain

CONTRACT INTERPRETATION INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

all the terms of the contract proving terms that had earlier been agreed to, is neither here nor there. The rule that such extrinsic evidence is irrelevant follows as a matter of logic from what the parties have agreed to be bound by. Giving effect to different terms from those contained in the written agreement would be contrary to the agreement the parties have reached.

The rule against extrinsic evidence needs to be kept distinct from the question of whether the parties can rely upon extrinsic evidence as an aid to interpretation of a contract. If all that has been agreed is that no terms other than those embodied in the written document have been agreed to, leading extrinsic evidence to interpret such a document is not inconsistent with the agreement. Indeed such contextual evidence may be indispensable. In recent times, the courts have become much less restrictive in admitting such evidence. In principle, there is no tension between this development and the parol evidence rule.

Today, it is very common for parties to include a clause in written contracts stating that the document represents their ‘entire agreement.’ The extent of such a clause’s operation is, inevitably, a matter of construction. The time may come where the failure, in some contexts, of commercial parties to include such a clause provides sufficient evidence that the written agreement they have entered into is not intended to embody their entire agreement. This is not, yet, the world in which we live.

Rectification

If we had no parol evidence rule, we would have no need for the doctrine of rectification. Instead, the agreement that the document alone represents the parties’ agreement is rescinded. We are left with the bargain that would have been if it had not been agreed that the document alone contained their entire agreement. Much confusion is created by thinking that the doctrine of rectification exists in order to give effect to the parties’ intentions. Again, this is the error of thinking that contracts should represent what the parties’ intended.

Lord Nicholls extrajudicially suggested that the parol evidence rule could be easily circumvented by pleading rectification, thereby bringing before the court evidence of what the parties subjectively intended. This would be correct if the parol evidence rule were a rule of evidence, as this would undermine its entire purpose. But, as we have seen, it is not. Rectification seeks to avoid partially what has been objectively agreed. The evidence relevant to the question of whether one or more of the parties was making a mistake is simply not the same as the evidence relevant to the meaning of the words used. No rule is being circumvented here.

Legislative Intent

If the propositions concerning the meaning of words used by individuals is correct, then a fortiori the same should apply to legislative enactments. Courts frequently speak of the process of interpreting a statute as one of searching for the legislature’s intent. This is however a mistake.

What is intended by anyone is not determinative of meaning, and consequently of what has been done.

Legislation is enacted. The word Act of Parliament reflects that its existence and content is determined by what has been done, not by what anyone intended to be done. In this light, we may see that the rule against the admission of statements made in Parliament was not a rule of evidence at all, but rather a rule of construction.

Just as with the interpretation of a contract, the context in which legislation is passed is relevant to its meaning. This enables us to both justify the rule in Pepper v Hart and to understand its limited importance. If it were the case that our purpose is to ascertain the collective intention of the legislature, admitting statements by ministers in charge of promulgating Bills appears to be a poor method. Ministers may be the mouthpiece of government, but they are not the mouthpiece of the legislature. However, a white paper, or Law Commission report, or its preamble statements, made in the passing of legislation may be evidence of its context.

That pre-contractual negotiations are excluded as part of the background context in interpreting a contract, is inconsistent with the admissibility in interpreting a statute. Whichever approach is right, the law’s approach is inconsistent.

Conclusion

That the law as it is understood in England is not inevitable is perhaps most easily illustrated by the principles of interpretation set out in the proposed Common European Sales Law. Article 58 General rules on interpretation of contracts 1. A contract is to be interpreted according to the common intention of the parties even if this differs from the normal meaning of the expressions used in it.

2. Where one party intended an expression used in the contract to have a particular meaning, and at the time of the conclusion of the contract the other party was aware, or could be expected to have been aware, of that intention, the expression is to be interpreted in the way intended by the first party.

3. Unless otherwise provided in paragraphs 1 and 2, the contract is to be interpreted according to the meaning which a reasonable person would give to it.

This adopts an approach to interpretation that fits more closely with the civilian tradition than with that of the common law, but that is no objection to it. Rather, the objection is that this rule is inconsistent with how to interpret words in general and promises in particular. Any approach that starts with the proposition that this is to be ascertained by looking at the intentions of the parties is simply wrong.

Why then has this rule found favour? The only answer that can be given is an appeal to history. In the first half of the 19th Century the ‘will theory’ of contract pioneered

by Frederich Carl von Savigny, that promises are a product of will, and contracts the product of a meeting of minds, held sway. This theory, whilst having some influence in England, has always had a more significant hold on the law in continental Europe. If a contract were indeed a product of our combined wills, then, like a vow, its content would be similarly determined by what was intended.

Today, there are no serious subscribers to the will theory. We are bound by those agreements for which we are responsible, not just those we intend. It is not narrow partisanship to suppose that the common law rule is superior to that which is proposed to replace it.

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

Professor Robert Stevens Professor of Private Law, University of Oxford

93

94

INNER TEMPLE PEGASUS SCHOLARSHIP

New Zealand

Christopher Buckingham, Enterprise Chambers

N

ew Zealand is beautiful and a very long way away; these are the sort of vague and basic beliefs that one picks up without first-hand experience, but the truth of which was very much confirmed to me during a three month trip to the other side of the world generously facilitated by the Pegasus Trust. Rather more legally, it is, of course, almost impossible for an English lawyer to have any interest in equity, trusts and restitution without being aware of the powerful contribution made to those fields by the courts of New Zealand.

I was hosted in New Zealand by Bell Gully, one of the three large commercial firms, on a placement split between Auckland and Wellington. Much of the common law system was familiar to me, but there were lots of differences and interesting new facets to consider, for example, the wideranging implications of the Treaty of Waitangi. It was also interesting to note that High Court judges are based permanently in three locations with the Court of Appeal sitting regularly in two, although New Zealand is a far smaller jurisdiction than England and Wales.

My time in Wellington was particularly interesting, happy and productive. I was exposed to fascinating paper-based work, but also watched various appeals in court such as Skywards Aviation 2008 Ltd v Tower Insurance Ltd [2014] NZSC 185 and Kraal v Earthquake Commission [2015] NZCA 13, both of which (along with a lot of other litigation) arose out of the devastating earthquakes which struck Christchurch in 2010 and 2011.

Bell Gully made every possible effort to be both warm and hospitable; I was also struck by the kindness of the Supreme Court Justices, Attorney Generals (past and present) and lawyers from other firms towards the two other scholars and me. Wellington as a city is a fantastic place to live, with great beaches, public transport that actually works, beautiful views of sea and wooded hills, and a wonderfully relaxed atmosphere.

My weekends were a whirlwind of travel, including visits to the Coromandel, the Bay of Islands, Waiheke Island, Cambridge, Rotorua, Blenheim, the Marlborough Sounds, Christchurch and a spectacular journey across the South Island on the TranzAlpine railway. Over the course of these travels I collected many happy memories, took countless photos and acquired a resolve to return to New Zealand for as many future holidays as possible.

At the end of my time with Bell Gully I flew to Queenstown, the adventure capital of Otago and, indeed, of New Zealand. From Queenstown I travelled to see spectacular sights such as Lake Manapouri and Wanaka. However, I spent most of my time in the South Island on an intensive paragliding course; my first solo flight off the Coronet Peak (which, at other times of the year is a popular ski resort) was a particularly exhilarating highlight of the entire trip.

The Pegasus Scholarship offers a rare opportunity for members of the junior Bar to live and work overseas. I am very grateful for the experience, and enthusiastically encourage others to apply.

Christopher Buckingham

Lisa Wilson, Furnival Chambers

M

y Pegasus scholarship was split between Meredith Connell in Auckland and Crown Law in Wellington.

Meredith Connell conducts all the prosecutions in Auckland, whilst Crown Law is in charge of all of the criminal appeals. As a die-hard defender, it was with some trepidation I prepared to work on the ‘dark side’. I instantly discovered, however, that there was no need to fear becoming a ‘persecutor’ – I found myself enjoying lunch and after work drinks regularly with my colleagues, and even the coppers! My fellow scholars and I also had the privilege of spending time at the Supreme Court, and we are indebted

to HHJ McGrath for hosting us all at a drinks reception in the Supreme Court.

I attended court and conferences most days and conducted research on a whole host of interesting legal questions. In Auckland, a lot of my work was focused on a lengthy trial involving large quantities of crystal meth and prostitution. I was there to see the jury deliver 20 guilty verdicts and one of the main defendant receive 18 years imprisonment – one of the longest sentences ever passed in New Zealand. It was an eye-opening experience to watch the lawyers mitigate in front of live video cameras in court, and I

INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

was impressed that they seemed totally unfazed by it. There was no ‘playing up to the camera’, as everyone was focused on one goal only: achieving justice. It was an honour to work with some of the fairest and greatest lawyers I have ever met, particularly those who pulled off fuchsia jackets and lipstick in court!

Away from work, there was always plenty to do.

Auckland is a modern, cosmopolitan city, where locals largely spend their weekends sailing and dining – always with a fine wine in hand. As for Wellington, it is certainly not called the “coolest little city in the world” by accident – I fell in love with it as soon as the plane landed. A haven to coffee and art lovers, it is the undisputed capital of culture. Even the ferocious Wellington wind is not enough to stop the happy joggers soak up the views of the waterfront around Oriental Bay on their way to work.

I had the pleasure of spending Christmas with some newfound Kiwi friends, and then spent a few weeks travelling around both Islands on a ‘hop-on hop-off’ bus. Despite not knowing anyone when I first boarded, this experience has

blessed me with stories and friends that will last a lifetime.

A single page is not long enough to record how much New Zealand has to offer. Adopting the Kiwi “Why Not?” attitude, I learnt to say “Yes!” to (almost) everything! This meant I found myself skydiving over Abel Tasman National Park, quad biking up Ninety Mile Beach, watching ‘baby blue’ penguins bound up the rocks in the middle of the night during a rainstorm, bathing in geothermic hotpools, zip-lining in the pitch black, rafting through the magical ‘glow worm grotto’, jumping from boats into the stunning Lake Taupo, learning to surf, paddle board, hiking up (and falling down) ‘Mount Doom’ for nine hours, staying overnight at a Marae (Maori meeting house), showering under waterfalls and – my personal favourite – milking a cow at a colleague’s girlfriend’s grandfather’s farm.

I am so grateful to the Pegasus Trust, and to those who hosted me, for this amazing, life-changing, experience. Ka mate? Ka mate? Ka Ora! Ka Ora! To die? To die? To live!

To live!

Lisa Wilson

Victoria Flowers, Field Court Chambers

I

was fortunate enough to spend three months last year as a Pegasus Scholar in New Zealand, working at the Crown Law Office in Wellington (the legal advisors to the New Zealand Government). A particular bonus was jetting off to spring in New Zealand whilst London was plunging into grey, rainy autumn!

I found New Zealand as a country to be an endearing combination of reassuringly familiar, yet at the same time wonderfully remote. There is nothing like a 13 hour time difference to make you realise you are rather a long way from home!

Crown Law could not have been a more welcoming, or a more pleasant and supportive working environment.

The regular ‘morning teas’ (the New Zealand version of ‘elevenses’ complete with plentiful supplies of homemade scones and cakes, as well as such kiwi delicacies as pineapple lumps and lolly cake) became a firm favourite, and an excellent opportunity to pick my colleagues’ brains for insider travel tips.

I was based in a Public Law team, and the work I assisted with and observed varied from education and employment, to judicial review and tort. The New Zealand legal system felt less alien than I had anticipated and I found myself on a number of occasions researching points of law in different jurisdictions (including England and Wales) to aid interpretation of New Zealand law. Given the majority of my practice in London is family law, I was especially pleased to be able to help with two family law appeals, as well as

spend a morning marshalling a Family Court Judge. A further highlight came from the invite to watch a Supreme Court case, as well as to discuss it with Justice McGrath before and after the hearing. Together with the evening drinks reception organised in our honour in the architecturally striking Supreme Court building, it was a marvellous day.

Another memorable experience arose from observing part of a Waitangi Tribunal hearing. The Waitangi Tribunal is the body that makes recommendations on claims made by Māori against the Crown relating to alleged breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi (agreed in 1840 between the Māori and the British Crown). It was a day at Court quite like no other, involving evidence being given in the form of traditional song and the Claimants presenting gifts to the judges and giving them a ‘hongi’ (a traditional Māori greeting of nose pressing). We were also invited to join the lunch time ‘hākāri’ (feast) which involved watching a ‘haka’ performed by local teenagers, and even a song performed by the judges!

New Zealand is a stunning country. I expected it to be beautiful, but I was not prepared for quite how breath-taking the scenery would be. My travels around both North and South Islands revealed sandy crescent beaches, rainforests, glaciers, snow tipped mountain ranges and spectacular azure lakes. Memories of seeing a delightful little kiwi, a vast sperm whale and two species of penguin will stay with me forever.

I already look forward to my return to the land of the long white cloud one day.

Victoria Flowers

95

96

INNER TEMPLE PEGASUS SCHOLARSHIP

Sarajevo

Michael Edwards, Rachel Chisholm, 4 Paper Buildings

W

e were based in the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo, for three months between September and December 2014 working for an NGO called TRIAL (Track Impunity Always).

Once the Pegasus Trust had recovered from the shock of having its first ever joint application, and its first project in the Balkans, the Trust supported our proposed project – we are very grateful that they did.

TRIAL’s small team of five dedicated staff advocate on behalf of the victims of the conflict in Bosnia in the 1990s. They bring cases on behalf of victims before the European Court of Human Rights and UN Human Rights Committee, lobby prosecutors to bring new cases and pursue compensation for victims of war crimes. This is all carried out on a shoestring budget from a one-room office in the centre of Sarajevo.

TRIAL has a particular focus on sexual violence cases, which was a feature of the wars in the Balkans. The gulf between the number of cases and the number of prosecutions is vast, with hundreds if not thousands of perpetrators of sexual violence living with impunity in Bosnia today.

War crimes cases are increasingly being heard at a national level as the mandate of the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague draws to an end. War crimes trials take place on a daily basis at the specially established War Crimes Chamber of the State Court in Sarajevo and at local courts around the country.

The main focus of our work was to establish and develop a system of monitoring sexual violence trials. We looked at the position of the victims and witnesses to see whether their rights were protected when giving evidence. While significant progress on fair trial rights has been achieved, Bosnia continues to lag behind international standards on the treatment of victims and witnesses, particularly in the local courts. Witnesses sometimes wait to give evidence in the same corridor as the accused and their families. We heard complaints against victim support services that they exist only to offer the witness a glass of water. The aim of our project – which we are continuing to assist with from the UK – is to gather information systematically, via trial monitoring, on the treatment of victims and witnesses, to respond to serious breaches as rapidly as required and to make more farreaching recommendations for reform.

We were also able to visit some of the places which are central to TRAIL’s work. Srebrenica remains the most widely known. We made the journey through Republika Srpksa to the Srebrenica Genocide Memorial at Potocari and the town of Srebrenica. More than 8,000 men and boys were killed at Srebrenica in July 1995. In 2004, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the

former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the case of Prosecutor v. Krstić ruled that the massacre of the enclave’s male inhabitants constituted genocide.

The memorial is designed in the shape of a flower and contains over 6,000 graves. The memorial is opposite the UN headquarters in Potocari which now contains an exhibition of the history of the genocide as well as information about individuals buried in the memorial site. The area is still a place of conflict and controversy. A Serbian Orthodox church was built on a site that overlooks the memorial and is close to a mass grave site. To no avail, the US Embassy called for the suspension of the building of the church in 2013, calling it “a provocation and it does not serve the legitimate needs of the believers.”

Aside from the day job working on war crimes trials, Bosnia was a fascinating place to spend three months. Bosnia has been divided in half since the Dayton Agreement in 1995 which ended the war. The constitutional structure is incredibly complex: there are two entities – Republika Srpska and the Federation – three national presidents, another president of Republika Srpska, but not the Federation, and separate court and administrative structures. Making any kind of political or economic progress within this Byzantine system is not easy.

National elections took place in October 2014 while we were there. Turnout was low, particularly amongst the young, and the nationalist parties consolidated. Twenty years on from the war, the ruling political party continues to benefit from entrenching the divisions between ethnic groups.

But there is so much to enjoy in Sarajevo. It is known as the cultural capital of the Balkans. Although we narrowly missed the Sarajevo film festival, we were in time for the Ballet Festival, MESS Theatre Festival, the Jazz Festival and the Human Rights Film Festival. We were offered an invaluable insight into the talents and resources of this vibrant city through the many performances that these festivals had to offer.

We were also lucky enough to be able to explore much of the country during the placement. We toured the south of the country, Herzegovina, travelling to the famous bridge at Mostar, the dervish monastery at Blagaj, the waterfalls of Kravice and the UNESCO heritage site of Pocitelj. We also caught the 25 minute flight from Sarajevo to Belgrade for a long weekend.

We are very grateful to the Inner Temple and the Pegasus Trust for enabling us to live and work in Bosnia. We are also very grateful to TRIAL for making us feel so welcome and for answering all of our incessant questions. We would highly recommend future Pegasus scholars to consider projects in Bosnia and elsewhere in the Balkans – get in touch if you would like some ideas.

Michael Edwards, Rachel Chisholm

INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

United States Tom Hoskins, 9 – 12 Bell Yard

A

gainst the colourful backdrop of the Senate changing from blue to red, the White House being invaded by fence jumpers, and rioting after the deaths of black men during police arrests, two green barristers entered the Nation’s Capital as Pegasus Scholars to observe the workings of the silver-tongued advocates across the grey Atlantic.

The aim of the Pegasus Trust is to build bridges and share knowledge between the legal professions in countries sharing common law traditions. But how much commonality actually exists between countries (even those with a ‘special relationship’), in the very fundamentals of legal practice, like simply asking questions?

Take, for example, the questioning of the Justices of Supreme Court of the United States. We twice observed the arguments in a death row appeal from Texas centring on a point of appellate procedure. We first watched the appellant’s advocate test the arguments before the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown University; a moot court before subject matter experts that allows those appearing before the Supreme Court to rehearse before the case is heard for real.

Who wouldn’t appreciate that resource before making their arguments in court?

The second time, at the full argument, it was apparent that the nine judges’ questioning of the duelling advocates in fact fulfilled a dual purpose. Not only were the questions designed to test the case being presented, but also (because the Justices never discuss a case between themselves before it is argued in court) they were also designed to persuade other Justices to agree with the questioning Jurist’s point of view.

We had been told as much when observing a separate case at the Delaware Supreme Court and being hosted in fine fashion in the First State.

Questioning techniques foreign to us also occur in the US during voir dire. Although sharing the same name as our trial within a trial, voir dire in the United States denotes the stage in all civil and criminal trials where juries are selected.

The parties and judge being permitted to ask jurors questions

in a public forum and subsequently exercise their peremptory challenges to dismiss prospective jurors on the basis of their answers, offers a fascinatingly foreign insight not available on our shores. ‘Sure’, what does a juror understand it to mean? Do they harbour certain attitudes to law enforcement officers? Are they self confessedly unable to shake the spectre of suspicion or can they cast the net wider when deciding liability or guilt?

Cross-examination, a tradition so fundamental to both our adversarial systems, also played out in a decidedly different fashion stateside. While sampling a ‘piece-a’ Chicago town trial, an employment discrimination trial in the DC District Court and a criminal trial in Virginia, we watched each delicate cross-examination being executed without the constraint of defence counsel having to put their case to witnesses – a case which would be positively asserted in closing to a jury.

Without wanting to sound cheesy, in Philadelphia – st(e) aking as it does a claim to being the birthplace of America and within the peal of the Liberty Bell – we witnessed the extensive questioning process that Federal Judges embark upon, first of the prosecution, next the defence advocate and finally the defendant in their own words – before determining whether to accept a guilty plea agreement and, ultimately, removing that convict’s liberty. All of this is a process vastly more judicially inquisitorial than our own.

During our weeks in the United States, we not only travelled the country and met a colourful array of interested and engaging individuals, but we also gained a flavour of what practice is like in a system so historically related to our own but simultaneously so surprisingly different. By observing what each of us does in our role as an advocate on a daily basis being turned on its head and cast in a new light, we gained new perspectives even on the most basic things like asking a question. Who wouldn’t want the opportunity to question themselves in this way now and then?

Tom Hoskins

97

98

INNER TEMPLE PEGASUS SCHOLARSHIP

Hong Kong

Lucy Boyle, 12 King’s Bench Walk

M

y Pegasus Scholarship to Hong Kong was highly rewarding. While I was lucky to have undertaken a number of varied and interesting placements, it was also a fascinating time to be in Hong Kong. The Occupy Central or ‘Umbrella Revolution’ movement began in late September, about half way through my time there.

I started at the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (‘HKIAC’). The HKIAC is Asia’s leading international dispute resolution service provider. Each year it deals with hundreds of disputes involving parties from across the globe.

This reflects the ever growing international dimension to commercial transactions and the increasing recognition of the benefits of alternative dispute resolution over litigation.

While at the HKIAC, I focused on cases involving the use of arbitration to resolve cross-border transactional disputes.

I assisted with case management and research and wrote articles on the benefits of using the HKIAC for resolving M&A and private equity disputes. I also shadowed Neil Kaplan CBE QC SBS, one of the world’s leading arbitrators, during a lengthy and complex breach of contract dispute.

I marshalled for Mr Justice Lunn in the Court of Appeal of the High Court during the high-profile appeal of the convictions of two senior government officials, including a cabinet minister. The former Development Minister Mak Chai-kwong and former Assistant Highways Director Tsang King-man were convicted of defrauding

the government of HK$700,000. I conducted research, provided written assessments of the merits of counsels’ submissions and helped to complete the judgment.

It seemed particularly apt to be at the heart of the rule of law while the protests were escalating outside the court building. Man-made roadblocks shut down key areas of the city and the armed police presence was vast and ubiquitous.

Each day I ate my lunch with the protesters and spoke to them about their motivations and hopes for the future of democracy in Hong Kong; an experience I never thought I would have when first applying for my scholarship.

For the remainder of my time, I worked in the Emerging Markets Group of a leading international law firm where I helped to advise clients on compliance with labour law at a global and regional level, including severance requirements across different jurisdictions and tax issues arising upon executive level transfers between Mainland China and Hong Kong. Unsurprisingly, Hong Kong employment law shares many similarities with UK employment law – only, rather sensibly, it is codified!

I would strongly encourage any junior barrister to apply for a Pegasus Scholarship. The experience I had in Hong Kong was certainly everything I hoped for and more.

Lucy Boyle

INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Bermuda

James Granby, Atlantic Chambers

I

could hardly have been more excited when I was informed that I had been awarded a 2014 Pegasus Scholarship to Bermuda. I was keen to experience working in a different jurisdiction for the first time, and the offer of a placement with Appleby – one of the world’s leading offshore law firms – was everything I could have hoped for.

My flight arrived safely, Barry Manilow’s ‘angle’ on the infamous Bermuda Triangle proving misguided. The taxi journey from the airport to my accommodation near the island’s picturesque north shore gave me my first glimpse of how beautiful Bermuda is. Against a backdrop of stunning ocean vistas, the lush landscape and pretty pastel buildings were a vision of paradise.

Appleby’s offices are located in Hamilton, Bermuda’s capital city and economic centre. The town itself is delightful, with a mix of traditional architecture and more modern office buildings that accommodate the many international firms with a presence on the island. Despite its small size and a population of 65,000, Bermuda is a thriving international financial centre with particular significance in the insurance and reinsurance industries.

Bermuda’s legal system is an intriguing mix of the familiar and the exotic. While it has English common law roots, and continues in general to follow decisions of English law on common law principles, its statutory legislation has diverged significantly from that in the UK. Instead of mirroring British legislation, the Parliament of Bermuda has forged its own path, sometimes borrowing from UK legislation (Bermuda’s Companies Act 1981, for example, is based on the UK’s 1948 Act) but often taking inspiration from other common law jurisdictions around the world.

During my time at Appleby, I was assigned to work with the Litigation and Insolvency department, primarily under the supervision of Martin Ouwehand. As one of the largest firms in an internationally significant jurisdiction, Appleby is involved in a great deal of important and fascinating work.

The work that I assisted with and observed was always varied and interesting. This included everything from shareholder disputes involving major international companies to mortgage possession claims on behalf of local banks. The high quality of

work was more than matched by the quality of the lawyers, and I feel privileged to have worked with professionals of the very highest calibre.

I am also grateful to my colleagues at Appleby for taking so much time and effort to make me feel welcome and a member of the team. They helped introduce me to various aspects of island culture, including the traditional local dress code of blazer, Bermuda shorts (preferably brightly coloured), knee-length navy blue socks, shirt and (optional) tie. While I personally found the look to be both stylish and practical – the shorts being a boon in the summer heat – it remains to be seen whether it will catch on back home.

My spare time on the island flew by, whether I was visiting attractions such as the historic town of St George’s, or making the most of the endless pristine beaches. I was very fortunate to have the opportunity to spend time exploring the waters around the island by boat with my newly made friends. I also developed a taste for Bermudian specialities such as fish chowder and the rum swizzle, both of which feature the local Gosling’s Black Seal Rum (or just ‘black’, as it is affectionately known).

One of the highlights was undoubtedly Cup Match, which takes place over a double bank holiday at the end of July, marking the anniversary of emancipation. After weeks of build-up and excitement, seemingly the whole population gathers to watch the annual contest between the cricket clubs of Somerset and St George’s, which are situated on opposite sides of the island. Everyone in Bermuda has a favourite team, and in 2014 Somerset were victorious. The specially constructed stands at the ground were packed to capacity, and there was a buzzing, carnival atmosphere while we watched the match.

I had a wonderful time in Bermuda, and I am very grateful to the Pegasus Trust and to Appleby for the oncein-a-lifetime opportunity. I learned a tremendous amount from my time at Appleby, and I hope to stay in touch with the friends I made there. I would not hesitate to recommend applying for a Pegasus Scholarship to anyone reading this who is considering it. If you are lucky, as I was, it will be an unforgettable experience.

James Granby

99

100

INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE

Master Brittan L

ord Brittan of Spennithorne, who died aged 75, overcame a humiliating end to his ministerial career during the Westland crisis to become the longest-serving and most effective of Britain’s European commissioners.

Widely respected for his intellect and capacity for hard work, Leon Brittan made his reputation in the early 1980s as a formidable administrator with an unrivalled grasp of the details of his brief, a talent that had previously made him a successful QC. Suddenly brought into Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet in 1981 – promoted over the head of Nigel Lawson to Chief Secretary to the Treasury – he proved highly effective in imposing detailed control on public spending, an intellectually demanding task that his predecessor, John Biffen, had found too unpleasant (or too difficult).

As Home Secretary after the 1983 election, Brittan imported a raft of ideas for updating criminal justice, including stiffer sentences, and easing restrictions on using tape-recorded witness statements and on independent prosecutions. He produced many reforming Bills and tried to streamline Home Office bureaucracy. Senior officials considered him the only post-war Home Secretary to realise what was wrong with the department and try to remedy it.

Brittan was one of the few Cabinet members who could privately persuade Mrs Thatcher that her initial reaction on a particular issue was wrong, and his willingness to argue with No 10 contradicted the popular caricature of him as a placeman.

Yet, though he was one of the most gifted of her ministers, he was short on political judgment and sensitivity. Myopic-looking and unashamedly intellectual, Brittan’s manner was widely interpreted, especially by press commentators, as patronising, even contemptuous.

In her memoirs, Mrs Thatcher recorded: “Everybody complained about his manner on television, which was aloof and uncomfortable.”

But, where the public saw arrogance and coldness, Brittan’s friends noted precisely the opposite: a shy, humorous and exceptionally kind man and, improbable as it might have seemed to outsiders, the object of real affection. Even in a wider circle, he was notable for being completely free of malice or spite. Yet the criticism that he was too clever for his own good and short on common sense dogged his career.

These failings came to the fore in 1985 when, in response to rising Tory anger at ‘left-wing bias’ in the BBC, Brittan tried to pressure the corporation’s governors to prevent the screening of a Real Lives documentary on Northern Ireland, an effort that, since he did not succeed, left him looking simultaneously authoritarian and ineffective.

This episode prompted Mrs Thatcher to move him, against his wishes, to the Department of Trade and Industry in September 1985. She was also influenced by backbench Tory complaints that Home Office questions, in which Brittan was pitted against Labour’s Gerald Kaufman, who shared his Baltic Jewish origins, was “like being in a foreign country”.

The DTI should have been an easier billet, it was wellsuited to Brittan’s backroom talents, and his speech at the

party conference soon after brought him an unexpected standing ovation. But then came Westland.

The Westland Aircraft company of Yeovil, Britain’s only helicopter manufacturer, was in financial trouble and sought to be bailed out by Sikorsky, its American counterpart. The Sikorsky bid ran into immediate opposition from the Defence Secretary, Michael Heseltine, who claimed that the Americans would turn Westland into a “metal-bashing operation” and suggested the company look for a European buyer.

When Heseltine convened a meeting of the national armaments directors of France, Italy and Germany, as well as Britain, to agree a policy whereby they would only buy helicopters designed and built in Europe, he put himself at loggerheads not only with the Westland board but with the Prime Minister and her Trade and Industry Secretary, who felt it was wrong for the Government to prevent any particular solution to Westland’s problems.

This disagreement erupted into a political crisis, with the arguments played out in Parliament and the press, mostly to the advantage of Heseltine, lobbying frantically behind the scenes. Then extracts were leaked from a confidential letter in which the Solicitor General, Sir Patrick Mayhew, accused the Defence Secretary of “material inaccuracies” in the presentation of his case.

Following Heseltine’s dramatic resignation in mid-Cabinet on 9 January 1986, it emerged that Brittan had authorised the leak, albeit with what he thought was No 10’s consent.

On 24 January, he offered his own resignation.

Brittan’s departure at the height of the worst internal crisis of Mrs Thatcher’s premiership was the direct result of his loyalty to a Prime Minister he regarded as a friend. Inevitably, he was seen as the fall guy, a necessary sacrifice to save Mrs Thatcher herself. “He meekly accepted the role of scapegoat,” Lawson recalled. “Had he made public all he knew, she could not possibly have survived.” Perhaps in acknowledgment of this, Mrs Thatcher broke with tradition in expressing a clear desire in her reply to Brittan’s letter of resignation to have him back in Cabinet as soon as possible. But he was never rehabilitated, and in 1989 left for Brussels.

Leon Brittan was born on 25 September 1939, the younger son of Lithuanian Jews who arrived in the country as refugees in 1927, and settled in Cricklewood, where his father was a doctor. Leon’s elder brother, Sam, would become a respected columnist on the Financial Times.

From Haberdashers’ Aske’s School, Leon won a scholarship to Trinity College, Cambridge. His ambition to succeed in both law and politics was clear: he gained double firsts in English and Law and became both President of the Union and Chairman of the University Conservative Association. After a scholarship year at Yale, he was called to the Bar by Inner Temple in 1962 and became a leading libel lawyer, taking silk in 1978.

Two years before, Brittan secured a change in the law of contempt of court in a case that involved The Daily Telegraph.

Its reporter Nicholas Comfort had named a ward of court in the paper, and the Official Solicitor brought prosecutions for contempt against The Telegraph and the Slough Evening Mail, which had repeated the story.

After a three-day trial in the High Court, both papers were found guilty. The Telegraph’s counsel advised the paper to accept the conviction, but Brittan, representing the Slough Evening Mail, insisted on appealing and so both papers had to contest it. He won, convincing Lord Denning that it was ridiculous there was no permitted defence against a charge of contempt. In the interval he told Comfort, whom as a young barrister he had taught at Trinity, “I don’t think we got this far in the syllabus, did we?”

After being rejected for 14 safe Conservative seats, Brittan was elected MP for Cleveland and Whitby in February 1974. The seat disappeared in boundary changes and, in 1979, he won the far-flung Yorkshire farming constituency of Richmond, representing it until he resigned to join the Commission in 1989; the future Conservative leader William Hague took his place.

Brittan’s initial reluctance to go to Brussels owed much to his affection for his constituency. He may have been an improbable countryman but he became an enthusiastic one, with a passion for cricket. Whatever his defects as a national politician, he was a popular local MP. Within two years of entering the Commons, Brittan became Opposition spokesman on devolution, then on industrial relations, and played an important part in framing Conservative trade union reforms. In Mrs Thatcher’s first government of 1979, he became Minister of State at the Home Office under Willie Whitelaw who, with Sir Geoffrey Howe, became his main political supporter and mentor.

It was Whitelaw who recommended him to Mrs Thatcher as a suitable replacement for Biffen in 1981. His promotion as the youngest member of her Cabinet was announced at a party given by Sir Geoffrey in No 11 Downing Street to mark Brittan’s marriage to Diana Peterson, a divorcee with two teenage daughters. Lady Brittan would go on to chair the National Lottery Charities Board and be appointed DBE. Although Brittan’s appointment as a commissioner was reckoned by some of his friends a poor and belated consolation for his loyalty to Mrs Thatcher, Brussels gave full rein to his talents. Serving first as competition commissioner, he demonstrated not only a lawyer’s mastery of detail but also a steely determination to force through the principles of fair competition against entrenched national interests.

His ability to plough through and absorb mind-numbing detail won him the admiration of staff at the Commission, and his willingness to learn languages (he became fluent in French and German) earned admiration from colleagues and European politicians; the President of the Commission, Jacques Delors, rated him “one of the most brilliant men I have ever met”.

In 1993, he was appointed Vice President of the Commission and given the crucial trade portfolio, a job that

MASTER BRITTAN INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

pitched him into the centre of the tortuous Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Brittan’s mastery of detail proved crucial in reaching agreement with the Americans later that year, a personal triumph that saw his reputation as a high-powered, if aloof, intellectual transformed into that of a dealmaker on a grand scale.

Yet Brittan’s successes won him few friends; his unshakeable faith in the power of reason left him little sympathy for emotionally tinged arguments in favour of French farming. The GATT negotiations were notable for an explosive encounter with the French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé in which Brittan saw off French attempts to scupper the EC-US Blair House Accord limiting farm export subsidies.

Although this triumph kept the Uruguay round alive, the French never forgave him. “He was good,” a German official at the showdown was quoted as saying, “but maybe he was too good.”

French opposition effectively sank Brittan’s hopes of succeeding Delors, and put paid to his hopes of the crucial Eastern Europe portfolio after the installation of Jacques Santer. Santer had assured Brittan the job was his, but at the last moment voted for the Dutchman Hans van den Broek, a volte-face that caused Brittan to consider resignation.

Brittan also paid the price for growing Conservative Euroscepticism under Mrs Thatcher and her successor John Major. He sought to counter this in speeches and articles despite personal attacks in the British press, some of which bordered on the anti-Semitic, and a relationship with Major, which was no better than cool. But his support for Britain’s entry into the EMS and the Euro put him increasingly at odds with his own party and with sentiment in the country.

Brittan was among the commissioners who resigned en masse in 1999, following allegations of nepotism against their French colleague Edith Cresson. Within days of clearing his desk at the Berlaymont, he was appointed Vice Chairman of the merchant bank Warburg.

The last year of his life was overshadowed by rumours, including the allegation that as Home Secretary he had failed to act on a ‘dossier’ prepared by the Conservative MP Geoffrey Dickens, detailing alleged child abusers within the British establishment.

Brittan published two books on Britain’s role in Europe, The Europe We Need (1994) and A Diet of Brussels (2000), arguing for the nation to become more fully engaged.

Leon Brittan was sworn of the Privy Council in 1981, knighted in 1989 and created a life peer in 1999.

He is survived by his wife and his stepdaughters.

Courtesy of The Telegraph

101

102

INNER TEMPLE

Law and Politics of Genocide: 20 Years After Srebrenica

By Master Geoffrey Nice

I

n 1998, I parted from my common law practice in London for what became seven years prosecuting cases at the UN’s International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. For four years ending in 2006, I led the prosecution of Serbia’s former head of state Slobodan Miloševic’. Dr Nevenka (Nena) Tromp of the University of Amsterdam was the principal academic researcher on that case, being a member of a team in the Office of the Prosecutor dedicated to research into leaders of the former Yugoslavia who were being investigated or facing trial.

A great deal of research beyond my normal narrow experience as a practitioner in England and Wales had to be part of my preparation for this case, and not just for background purposes. Expert and other evidence from historians, demographers, genocide scholars, senior military men, politicians, political scientists, and leaders of NGOs could all serve as fundamental building blocks of a case against a political leader, especially on the issue of mens rea, something harder to prove for the person at the top of a country’s political and military structures than for the soldier with a gun.

Sonja Biserko, a Serb activist and leader of the NGO Helsinki Watch in Serbia, was someone willing to take on her own countrymen as well as the Serb nationals in neighbouring Bosnia. Nena Tromp and I worked with her during the Miloševic’ trial and have continued collaboration with her on many projects since.

The three of us – along with many others – had reservations about how much direct good the judicial processing of war crimes brings. In particular, there is no evidence that criminal trials do much for reconciliation: why

should they as reconciliation of victim and perpetrator is not the purpose of a criminal trial? But we had no doubt about the value of cross disciplinary discussion in providing a better understanding of how such awful events as the 1990s’ wars in the former Yugoslavia occurred, even of how they might have been avoided, or just possibly how the world might work to reduce such conflicts in the future.

There may be lawyers who simply find investigating and prosecuting criminals interesting and rewarding. For me, and I hope for most lawyers, causation of crime is quite as interesting and should be society’s real concern. For the causation of wars – and thereby the inevitable war crimes that will follow – few explain things as well as Field Marshall Goering did when interviewed in his cell during his 1946 trial in Nuremberg: “Why, of course, the people don’t want war.

Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.”

Our concerns – Nena’s, Sonja’s and mine – were for the citizen (the “slob”, the “common person”) of whom Goering spoke and who has no desire for war but no easy way to

Master Class students in Dubrovnik. Left to right: Edward Smith (IT), Rebecca Hadgett (LI), Rehana Popal (IT), Lauren Gomer (LI), Harriet Lodge (LI), Christopher Sykes (IT), Adeline Lee (LI), Amie Kamanda, Natasha Jackson (IT)

Master Nice with students and faculty members at the Inter-University Centre, Dubrovnik

LAW AND POLITICS OF GENOCIDE INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

By Michael Büker (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

escape being drawn into war when her or his leaders want to “drag the people along”. How could we turn our experience in the absorbing but ultimately arid territory of the criminal trial to some kind of objective that has those citizens in mind?

Nena’s idea, that she brought to reality through a Foundation generously named after me, was to enable others – students, academics and legal practitioners – to benefit in the same way we had by running a multi-disciplinary master class on the subject.

It was to be a tough course that, only by chance, found itself taking place in the tourist ‘hot-spot’ of Dubrovnik. It was not to be a holiday built around gaining a few CPD points on a leisurely summer course, of which there are so many. To make this point clear we may well run the next course in somewhere like Belgrade in November, where there will not be the tempting sun, surf and šlivovic’ of an Adriatic seaside city.

The first two courses, last year and this, demonstrated a real appetite from faculty (who all acted pro bono) and students alike for this kind of informal but structured, multidisciplined exchange of ideas that looked for initiative from students and willingness from faculty to be challenged by other disciplines, as well as to lead seminars in their own areas of expertise.

Each course had more than 30 students from about 10 different countries with faculty from about 13 countries on the two courses.

It may be that some, – or perhaps none, of the master class students to date will work in fields related to what was discussed in Dubrovnik. It may be that in future years there will other conflicts that will lend themselves to detailed consideration just as the Srebrenica genocide did this year.

Indeed, on this year’s master class there was a very valuable contribution from an expert on North Korea and Burma, where extreme human rights abuses have yet to face any judicial process, despite much pressure that they should.

With this in mind, how should we turn what we have learnt to best advantage for future courses, attracting the most appropriate students with proper funding in place?

(Faculty for this sort of course cannot be asked repeatedly to give their time free. These courses are completely different from something like advocacy training courses, where senior members of our profession hand on journeyman skills to others for the benefit of the profession as a whole). From where should the students be drawn? Should we look more to those who form political policy rather than to academics and lawyers who operate policy given by politicians, whether

in international or national courts? Happily Nena, not a lawyer reckons the Inner Temple and Lincoln’s Inn lawyers are a vital component of courses to come, even if the regional and professional target student groups may change. So the Inner Temple and Lincolns’ can continue to be a part of what we do, and we hope they will. And just maybe these two master classes, and any that follow, will be part of more significant development of the Inns that may see sense in giving up the pleasures of thinking as four, not as one, by creating a single ‘University of the Bar’ with shared resources, equal scholarships and a forceful approach to research in the law and allied subjects. The ‘Third University’ could arise and, with the charm of a four-college ‘Oxbridginn’, do many things to serve the profession (even to defend it from any predatory others) and the wider public by wide-ranging scholarly projects of the kind we enjoyed in Dubrovnik, that was itself in large part a result of the imagination to be found in the Inner Temple Treasury, for which all the faculty and students of the master class to date are indeed grateful.

Master Nice Gresham Professor of Law

103

104

INNER TEMPLE

The Lessons of War

By Master Iain Bonomy

Master Bonomy, the Rt Hon Lord Bonomy, is a retired Judge of the Court of Session and High Court in Scotland, who spent five years as a Judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), where he replaced Master (Sir Richard) May on the Trial Chamber hearing the case against Slobodan Milosevic, and later was the President of the Chamber which heard the case against six Serb political, military and police leaders arising out of the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo in 1999. He also was the Pre-Trial Judge in the case of Radovan Karadži´c. He participated as a member of the faculty of the Master Class on Law, History, Politics, and Society in the Context of Mass Atrocities in June and July 2014 and again in 2015 in Dubrovnik, organised by Doctor Nevenka (Nena) Tromp of the University of Amsterdam, under the auspices of the Geoffrey Nice Foundation.

L

ast year, as we commemorated the 100th anniversary of the start of the First World War, it seemed appropriate that we should also pay attention to the lessons to be learned from a far more recent conflict in the very area where the Great War was triggered. It is very difficult for the people of the United Kingdom, even for a Scot in the midst of post-referendum recriminations, to begin to understand fully the descent of the tensions among the peoples of the former Yugoslavia in the 1980s into armed conflict and ultimately the commission of mass atrocities in the 1990s. But it is a cautionary tale that merits attention and scrutiny.

Although the law and its application are seen as having major parts to play in addressing the causes and consequences of the various conflicts that were played out in the 1990s, experience to date suggests that the contribution of the judicial process to the promotion of peace and reconciliation among warring factions the world over is modest. Against that background, the former Yugoslavia, where at least peace has been restored, provides an excellent case study from which, it is to be hoped, lessons can be learned for addressing current and future conflicts. That is what I saw as the aim of the Master Class in Law, History, Politics, and Society in the Context of Mass Atrocities, which was convened at the Inter-University Centre in Dubrovnik under the auspices of the Geoffrey Nice Foundation between 30 June and 11 July 2014 and very successfully repeated this year. It shows every sign of becoming a fixture on the academic calendar.

Establishing the individual criminal responsibility of military and political leaders for the commission of mass atrocities is a complex problem, which requires an understanding of not only the applicable law but also the relevant history, politics and social circumstances of the region affected. This is reflected in the curriculum of the master class which fostered debate across disciplines as a means of promoting better understanding of the causes and consequences of conflicts and, most importantly, how to address them.

The very arrangements for locating the master class highlight the continuing relevance of its subject matter to the now peaceful Yugoslavia. The original plan to hold it in Zadar had to be abandoned when the Foundation was told that the attendance there of Professor Bill Schabas of Middlesex University would not be permitted on account of his perceived pro-Serb views.

An intense two week programme combines formal lectures with lively plenary discussions of the topics addressed and some practical court room exercises. All lecturers have welcomed interventions which often lead to spirited debate.

For certain aspects of the master class, the 35 or so students were divided into groups, one of which joined some of the teaching team each day around their lunch table for informal discussion of matters emerging from the programme and other topical subjects. It is a feature of the programme, that distinguished members of the teaching team, when not delivering lectures, sit in the body of the room and

engage with the students and with each other in interdisciplinary debate, at the same time sharing their experience and knowledge The programmes- last year and this – have included presentations from Master Nice, Master Korner, Rodney Dixon QC and me (all lawyers from Inner Temple, Honorary Bencher in my case) and from Doctor Nena Tromp of the University of Amsterdam, and others about the nature and purpose of international criminal tribunals and the International Criminal Court, as well as a critical but constructive assessment of the advantages and the shortcomings of the adversarial system as the dominant procedural model. Closely related to these lectures were presentations by Robert Donia, Professor of History at the University of Michigan, on the role and relevance of evidence of historical context in war crimes trials.

In both years, the programme has also drawn upon the experience and perspective of diplomats, political scientists, experts in human rights and restorative justice, politicians and campaigners from the former Yugoslavia and beyond, including Sonja Biserko, President of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia and co-founder of the master class. Their lectures have ranged over the legacy of conflict in the former Yugoslavia and the impact of the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia on relations among peoples in the region and its contribution to restorative justice. They have also extended to consideration of the problems of other regions currently experiencing , or facing the prospect of, conflict, as well as possible solutions and the scope for action by the International Criminal Court.

The programme this year also included attendance at the 20th anniversary commemoration of the Srebrenica Genocide at the Potocari Memorial in the course of which those present were close to the attempted stoning of the Serbian Prime Minister. In Srebrenica the Ambassador of Bosnia and Herzogovina in the Netherlands addressed the students who also met representatives of local NGOs to discuss Srebrenica’s post-conflict recovery.

Inner Temple is not only well represented on the teaching team but has also been particularly well represented by a number of student participant members, including a number whose attendance was supported by the Inn. All proved to be enthusiastic contributors to every element of the master class, which has attracted advanced students from a number of countries, including Russia, the Netherlands and around one third from various countries of the former Yugoslavia.

Many participants were students of disciplines other than law, such as politics, history, social sciences and genocide studies.

Their approach to issues is inevitably influenced by their studies and experience in a way that has enriched the daily discussion sessions and lecture interventions to the benefit of all. The format of the master class has already proved to be a successful means of promoting greater understanding of the causes and consequences of armed conflict, and stimulating the quest for better ways of addressing the associated problems.

Master Bonomy

FAMILY ARBITRATION INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Family Arbitration

Master Hugh Bennett discusses the advantages and perceived disadvantages of the Institute of Family Law Arbitrators scheme, in an abridged version of his lecture.

T

he Institute of Family Law Arbitrators (IFLA) scheme went live three years ago in March 2012. Despite the fact that arbitration concerning land and commercial disputes has been around in this country since about the 13th Century, there has never been, prior to the IFLA scheme, family law arbitration, by which I mean arbitration applying the secular family law of the state. Family litigation was seen to be the sole preserve of the courts. However, about ten or so years ago, a few brave souls decided to devise an arbitral scheme to resolve financial and property disputes between separated couples. After much perseverance and hard work, the scheme was launched.

The IFLA is responsible for the implementation and administration of the family law finance arbitration scheme.

The arbitrators have all been trained in arbitral techniques and have a good working knowledge of the important and relevant parts of the Arbitration Act 1996. Each must become a member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, thereby making themselves liable to its code of conduct. Solicitors, barristers, QCs and retired judges, all of whom are, or were, full-time practising family lawyers, comprise the corps of arbitrators under the scheme. They are real specialists in the field of family finance law.

The seal of approval was given by the President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, in a recent case, S v S [2014] EWHC 7 (Fam). In that case, the parties had agreed to arbitrate their financial and property disputes under the IFLA scheme. The arbitrator made his award, which the parties then presented to the court for implementation. The President gave his approval, turned the award into orders of the court and said this: “Although recognising that the judge is not a rubber stamp…it can only be in the rarest of cases that it will be appropriate for the judge to do other than approve the order. With a process as sophisticated as that embodied in the IFLA scheme it is difficult to contemplate such a case.”

One very important part of the IFLA scheme is that its rules make it mandatory for the law of England and Wales to be applied. There is no room at all for the parties to agree that the arbitrator will apply the laws of their choosing, whether secular or religious. It is essential that the law applied by the arbitrator is the same as will be applied by the court.

In agreeing to arbitrate, the parties agree that the award is binding on them. They, not just one of them but both of them, agree to ask the court to turn the award into orders of the court. Although the award will be binding on them, each recognises that the court has a statutory discretion when turning the award into an order.

Advantages Privacy and confidentiality All the proceedings before the arbitrator are private and entirely confidential. This is a real bonus for parties who do not relish their family disagreements, whether great or small, being bandied about in the national or local media.

With the family courts now travelling at a gallop towards hearings being heard completely in open court, those couples caught up in a broken relationship who want their disputes adjudicated in private now have that option.

When the award comes to the court for implementation, will not the parties lose their privacy and confidentiality?

In S v S, the President simply said that he had read the necessary papers and approved the award and consequential orders. Nobody was any the wiser as to the identity of the parties or the facts of the case. I think the courts, following the President’s lead, are going to respect the wishes of the parties, expressed in the arbitration agreement and the rules of IFLA that they opted for privacy and confidentiality throughout. I see no difficulty in the judge so framing his judgment so that it does not identify the parties.

Flexibility This arbitral scheme is able to take hold of the issues which the parties want decided without the necessity to go through the whole gamut of the process in the court system. The parties can submit for arbitration those issues which they see as the stumbling block to the resolution of their financial and property disputes, and done in a way which they want. That is the ethos of the 1996 Act. Speed The court system can be impossibly slow, particularly for those of modest means. Priority is rightly given to cases involving children. And there is a limited pool of judges. Finance cases may be adjourned almost at the last moment, because the courts are overworked, and in some courts adjourned not just once but more than once. Compare that to what can happen under the IFLA scheme. According to Resolution, who collate the statistics, the longest arbitration was one year and the shortest was seven days. I suggest that such speed is quite unattainable in our court system.

The arbitrator The arbitrator must see the arbitration through to its conclusion. There is no chopping and changing of the adjudicator as can happen in the court system. Further, the parties to an arbitration select the ‘adjudicator’. They are given the opportunity, unavailable in the court system, of choosing the person who they and their advisers consider to be the best person to decide their disputes.

Photo credit: wong yu liang/shutterstock

105

106

INNER TEMPLE

The perceived disadvantages

Arbitration in children’s matters

Expense It is said, “The judge is free, the arbitrator must be paid.” The second part is true; the first part is only partially true. Litigants must pay court fees. But the better answer to the criticism of expense is that if parties engage in arbitration and thereby get the hearing and the award through quickly, the saving in legal fees will, I suggest, more than offset the cost of employing an arbitrator.

There is, as yet, no secular scheme in operation for disputes about children to be arbitrated. However, IFLA has set up a sub-committee under the chairmanship of HH Judge Michael Horowitz QC to consider this matter.

In my view, the first question to consider is whether there ought to be, as a matter of principle, an arbitral scheme to resolve children disputes as an alternative to that provided by the court system. Subject to certain criteria, I do not see why not. Why should parents not be able to agree to resolve their differences through a secular, arbitral mechanism? Is it not patronising and paternalistic to say that parents may not have the opportunity to agree on what method of resolution they consider is best in the circumstances of the case?

The first criteria I would suggest is that the arbitrator must apply English, secular, family law.

Secondly, there will have to be areas of children law that cannot be the subject of arbitration. Perhaps the most obvious example is public law, where the state intervenes in a family, and in the end may have to remove from one or both parents one or more of their children.

Thirdly, in an appropriate case, provision ought to be made for the child to participate directly. This will need some very careful thought, but if a child may be represented in court and thus make his or her wishes directly known to the tribunal, there seems no good reason why the same should not happen in arbitral proceedings.

Fourthly, the award of the arbitrator should be final and binding. There should be a provision that both parties, not just one of them, will apply to the court to transform the award into court orders with an express recognition that the court can exercise its own discretion.

Fifthly, those who wish to become arbitrators in children matters should undergo suitable training just as the arbitrators under the current IFLA scheme underwent and, having undergone that training, should be required to become members of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.

It is so important for the success of any arbitral scheme that the public should see that the arbitrators are members of a reputable professional body.

The belief that “arbitration is only for the rich” Not so. Amongst the 185 qualified arbitrators are a large number who are prepared to take on arbitrations in cases of very modest means and tailor their fees accordingly and, indeed, who are happy to agree a fixed fee. In any event, no doubt the choice of arbitrator will be influenced by the fees he proposes to charge and the parties can shop around.

Some lawyers will not advise their client to consider arbitration They say “If I advise my client to choose X as the arbitrator but he then goes against my client in the award, I will get the blame. If, by contrast, the judge (whom I cannot choose) decides the dispute and he goes against my client, he gets the blame, not me.” I find this an extraordinary, irrational excuse.

Lawyers spend their professional lives making choices. Is it not better for the lawyer and his client to have the opportunity, together with the other side, to choose the ‘adjudicator’? But if that does not satisfy the anxieties, under the scheme, the parties can submit an agreed shortlist and ask IFLA to nominate one from that list, or ask IFLA to nominate an arbitrator from its panel.

No right of appeal Despite the restricted situations in which an award can be challenged under the Arbitration Act 1996, the reality is that in family law if an arbitrator makes an award which is ‘off the wall’, no family court is going to turn such an award into court orders if one party were to challenge the award, because the court has a discretion whether to make the orders or not.

Inconsistent decisions There is the risk of inconsistency, but it is more apparent than real. In family finance cases, the inconsistency is likely to arise not by reason of the discretion given to tribunals to determine the fair outcome, but by an arbitrator making a decision which is wholly outside the wide parameters of that discretion. That can be cured by the court.

The law cannot be developed in an arbitration The vast majority of family cases involve the application of existing principles to the facts of the particular case. The very small number of cases where the law may need developing can remain in the court system.

Conclusion We are fortunate in this country to have a good legal and judicial system. But it is under immense strain. Here for the first time is an arbitral scheme applying English law that empowers couples, suffering a terminal breakdown in their relationship, to opt to have their financial and property disputes adjudicated in the way that they consider suits them best.

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

Master Bennett

Photo credit: Peter Gudella/shutterstock

HISTORY SOCIETY INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

History Society 2014 – 2015 The Inner Temple Archivist, Celia Pilkington, reviews the first year in the life of the recently re-formed Inner Temple History Society.

T

he history of the Inn spans nearly 900 years and the institution counts many world-famous people amongst its alumni. While the buildings date from 1666, the archives contain an unbroken history of membership and chambers occupancy reaching as far back as 1505. It therefore seems fitting that the Inn should form a History Society to examine some of the key events and people in the Inn’s history. Although the History Society was inaugurated in July of last year, it has proved so successful that extra lectures have already been programmed to meet the demand from large numbers of speakers offering to inform and entertain us with their expertise. Lectures are always followed by drinks and a buffet supper where guests discuss the topic of the evening in more detail with the speaker and other members of the audience.

The inaugural lecture for the History Society was appropriately given by one of Britain’s most distinguished legal historians. Professor Sir John Baker is former Downing Professor of Laws at Cambridge, an Honorary Bencher of this Inn and Master of the Inn’s Archives Committee. His talk, which focused on Elizabethan marriage problems, had the wonderfully suggestive title, Frozen Marriage and Melting Frigidity. One such problem involved a man who was divorced for incurable impotence and promptly had a child by his second wife. Did this disprove the grounds on which the divorce was granted and thus invalidate the second marriage? Or was the finding of impotence incontrovertible so that both marriages were invalid? Or was it legally possible to be impotent in relation to one woman but not another?

The answers to these legal conundrums were explained by Master Baker.

Other lectures have included our own Reverend and Valiant Master of the Temple, Robin Griffith-Jones, on the early history of the church under the rule of the Knights Templar. Professor Quentin Skinner (Barber Beaumont Professor of the Humanities, Queen Mary College) provided

the History Society with a fascinating examination of the use of judicial rhetoric in Shakespeare. His talk centred around the famous trial scene in The Merchant of Venice and Professor Skinner explained in fresh and gripping detail why Shylock loses his case.

On 1 July, Master Popplewell discussed the amorous relationship between the Prime Minister HH Asquith, a resident of 4 Paper Buildings, and a young socialite, Venetia Stanley, during the First World War. To commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Nuremburg Trials, on 20 November we will be holding an evening looking at the contributions made by former Treasurers, Sir Geoffrey Lawrence, President of the IMT and the United Nations War Crimes Commission and Lord Wright, Chair of the United Nations War Crimes Commission. The talk is entitled 1945 Revisited – Inner Templars at the Heart of International Justice. The speakers will include Master Stephen Kay QC, Dr Dan Plesch and Professor William Schabas. The evening will be followed by a two-hour walk led by Professor Schabas.

His tour will take in the relevant wartime sites and will commemorate the days when London was at the forefront of international justice.

There is no subscription to the society, and it is open to all members of the Inn, students, barristers and Benchers, and to those employed by or friends of the Inn. We extend a warm welcome to anyone with an interest in the Inn and its history, including partners of members and employees. We hope to have one meeting each term. The subject will usually focus on the history of the Inn, distinguished past members, the legal profession and the law generally. Each talk will be followed by a two-course hot buffet supper. We do hope that you will be able to join us for one or all the events in our forthcoming programme.

Celia Pilkington

107

108

INNER TEMPLE

Timeline

By the Archivist, Celia Pilkington

500 YEARS AGO

1515

Two famous 16th Century lawyers were admitted to the Inner Temple.

Thomas Bromley, later to become Sir Thomas Bromley, was expelled from the Commons shortly after his admission in 1515 for “evilly behaving” himself. In spite of this shaky start, he rose to become Serjeant-at-Law, executor to Henry VIII and Lord Chief Justice under Mary I. Nicholas Hare was admitted to the Inner Temple in 1515.

Following his Call, he became Wolsey’s legal advisor, Master of Requests in the King’s Council, and upon the dissolution was briefly Speaker of the House of Commons, making the famous speech comparing the English Constitution “in which the king was the head, the peers the body and the Commons the rest of the machine”. Under Mary I, he was appointed Master of the Rolls. He died in office in 1557, leaving three recusant sons who all died without children. His estate therefore passed to his brother John, whose three sons were Benchers of the Inn and after whom Hare Court is named.

400 YEARS AGO

1615

The enormously successful William Browne’s Masque, performed at the Inner Temple in 1616, depicted the landing of Ulysses on Circe’s island of Aiaia. The cast included nymphs, tritons, sirens, mermaids and woodmen, played by various members of the Inn. The crowds were so vast that spectators climbed the windows of the hall to see the show going on inside. Damage ensued. George Lowe, the chief cook, was forced to claim compensation from the Inn for the repair of his chamber, a great part of which was broken down by those that climbed up at the windows of the hall.

William Browne was a member of the Inn and resided in chambers here. The first publication of the Masque appeared in 1772 with the following dedication: “To the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple GENTLEMEN I give you but your owne. If you refuse to foster it, I knowe not who will. By your meanes in may live. If it degenerate in kinde from those other the society hath produced, blame yourselves for not seeking a happier muse. I knowe it is not without faultes, yet such as your loves, or at least Poetica Licentia (the common salve) will make tolerable. What is good in it, that is yours, what bad, myne; what indifferent, both; and that will suffice, since it was done to please ourselves in private, by him that is.

All yours, William Browne The signatories to this included the following members of the Inner Temple: John Selden, Juris-C: Edward Heyward e Soc Int Templi: Fr Drynne e Soc Int Templi: Tho: Gardiner (Recorder of London): Fr Oulde e Soc IT: Thomas Wenman (Fellow of Balliol College, Oxon afterwards Wenman): Carolus Croke and Unton Croke (sons of Sir John Croke): John Morgan: Thomas Heygate: Augustus Caesar (son and heir of Sir Thomas Caesar): Edward Johnson (a Bencher): John Ouley. All these gentlemen wrote verses. In addition there are affectionate lines by Ben Johnson, Serjeant Glanvil, Michael Drayton and others.”

TIMELINE INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

400 YEARS AGO

300 YEARS AGO

1715 Welcome Library, London

1616

In this year we remember Francis Beaumont, a member of this Inn and English renaissance dramatist who died on 6 March 1616.

Although he was admitted to the Inn, he spent little time studying for the Bar and soon after his admission here became a student of the poet and playwright Ben Johnson, with his first work Salmacis and Hermaphroditus appearing in 1602.

He was chosen by the Inner Templars to write the great Masque that was performed by the Inner Templars and Gray’s Inn at Whitehall Palace in celebration of the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Count Palatine of the Rhine on St Valentine’s Day 1612.

The celebrations, which continued for several days, had also included a Masque performed by members of Lincoln’s Inn and Middle Temple. This had been received most enthusiastically by the King. The following night a great Masque was to be performed by members of Gray’s Inn and the Inner Temple. A lavish performance was contrived

by Sir Francis Bacon with Inigo Jones employed as the stage designer. The event was financed by each member of the Inns and £1,086 8s was raised. Beaumont devised the marriage of the river Thames to the Rhine as the subject of the Masque, with performers arriving by barge from Winchester Place in Southwark to Whitehall, at a cost of £300.

The details of the event were recorded in a letter from John Chamberlain to Sir Dudley Carleton dated 18 February 1612.

They were received at the privie stayres and great expectation theyre was that they shold every way exceed theyre competitors that went before them both in devise, daintiness of apparel and above all in dauncing… by what yll planet yt fell out I know not they came home as they went without doing anything; the reason whereof I cannot yet learne thoroughly but only that the hall was so full that yt was not possible to avoid yt or make room for them… the King was so wearied and sleepie with sitting up almost two whole nights before that he had no edige to yt, whereupon Sir Francis Bacon adventured to intreat his majestie that by this disgrace he wold not as yt weer bury them quick and I heare the King shold aunswere that then they must bury him quick for he could not last any longer; but withal gave them very good words and appointed them to come again on Saterday.

The event was eventually performed on the Sunday night with great success following a feast in the Banqueting Hall at Whitehall for all four Inns of Court.

Francis Beaumont is buried in Westminster Abbey.

The Inn had two kinds of Grand Days, Ordinary and Public. At an Ordinary Grand Day, no guests were invited. It differed only from the other days in that roast beef was served and wine was offered to all members.

At a public Grand Day, distinguished guests were invited and copious quantities of wine were served. The guests for Candlemas Day 1715 included the Master of the Rolls (Sir John Trevor), Chief Justice Parker, Solicitor General Aland and Mr Lutwyche, a senior Bencher, as well as two Serjeantsof-Law. After dinner, a programme of music and dance was followed by John Fletcher’s play Chances, staged at a cost of £20. Almost certainly the cast included some of the actors who had recently performed the play at Drury Lane Theatre.

Among the cast may have been the great (female) actresses Mrs Mountford, Mrs Porter and Miss Younger.

200 YEARS AGO

1815

Saw the publication of a poem by George Daniel (1789–1864). He was a frequent visitor to the Inn due to his friendship with Charles Lamb, and his work details the preoccupations and Sunday dress of a busy Inner Temple lawyer.

“Beneath a shade near Inner Temple Lane Sat fond Alexis, a despairing swain A lawyer whom cruel love in sport Had driven relentless from the Inns of Court Who since he bow’d little Cupid’s yoke Had thought no more of Littleton and Coke But tun’d his plaintive harp to grief alone And Gray’s Inn gardens answer’d to his moan Thou blithesome herald of the vernal year; To me alone, thou Prov’st a galling smart For on thy luckless day I lost my heart Fair shone the rosy morn, at six I rose, And view’d with eager eyes my Sunday clothes; Th’embroider’d vest, the pantaloons so trim The High-crown’d modish hat with narrow brim The hessian boot, the coat with taper skirt The stiff-starch’d cravat and the ruffled shirt!

Thus nattily equipp’d, a London spark I march’d with hasty step to Greenwich Park.”

109

110

INNER TEMPLE

100 YEARS AGO

1915

The disastrous Gallipoli campaign that lasted from April 1915 to January 1916 was observed by the brilliant war correspondent Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett. He was called to the Bar at the Inner Temple in 1902. As correspondent for The Daily Telegraph, he was responsible for the first eyewitness accounts of the battle. He also covered the April 1915 Anzac landing at Gallipoli. He went ashore at Anzac Cove at 9.30 pm (on the evening of the landing) wearing a non-regulation green hat. He was promptly arrested as a spy but released when the sailor who had brought him ashore vouched for him. The Australian papers published his account on 8 May, which inaugurated the ‘Anzac Legend’: “At dark all the lights were put out, and the troops rested for their ordeal at dawn. It was a beautiful calm night, with a bright, half-moon.

“By 1 o’clock in the morning the ships had reached their rendezvous, five miles from the intended landing place. The soldiers were aroused, and served with their last hot meal before landing. The Australians, who were about to go into action for the first time under trying circumstances, were cheerful, quiet, and confident, and there was no sign of nerves or excitement.

“As the moon waned, the boats were swung out. The Australians received their last instructions, and these men, who only six months ago were living peaceful, civilian lives, began to disembark on a strange, unknown shore, and in a strange land to attack an enemy of a different race.

“Each boat, which was in charge of a midshipman, was loaded with a great rapidity in absolute silence, and without a hitch, and the covering force towed ashore by the ships’ pinnaces. More of the Australian brigade were carried aboard torpedo-boat destroyers, which were to go close inshore as soon as the covering force had landed.

“At 3 o’clock it was quite dark, and a start was made towards the shore with suppressed excitement. Would the enemy be surprised, or be on the alert?

“At 4 o’clock, three battleships, line abreast and four cables apart, arrived 2,500 yards from the shore, with their guns manned and their searchlights in readiness. Very slowly, the boats in tow, like 12 great snakes, moved towards the shore. Each edged towards each other in order to reach the beach four cables apart. The battleships moved in after them until the water shallowed. Every eye was fixed on the grim line of hills in front, menacing in the gloom, and the mysteries of which those in the boats were about to solve.

“Not a sound was heard, not a light seen, and it appeared as if the enemy had been surprised. In our nervy state the stars were often mistaken for lights ashore.

“The progress of the boats was slow, and dawn was rapidly breaking at 4.50 when the enemy showed alarm for a light which had flashed for ten minutes then disappeared.

The boats appeared almost like one on the beach. Seven torpedo-boat destroyers then glided noiselessly towards the shore.

“At 4.53 came a sharp burst of rifle fire from the beach.

The sound relieved the prolonged suspense which had become almost intolerable. The rifle fire lasted a few minutes, and a faint British cheer came over the waters, telling us that the first position was won.

“At three minutes past five the fire was intensified. By the sound of the reports we could tell that our men were in action. The firing lasted for 23 minutes, and then died down somewhat.

“The boats returned, and a pinnace came alongside with two recumbent figures on deck, and a small midshipman, who cheerfully waving his hand said, ‘With shot through the stomach.’ The three had been wounded in the first burst of musketry. The boats had almost reached the beach when a party of Turks, who were entrenched on shore opened a terrible fusillade from rifles and Maxim guns. Fortunately, most of the bullets went high.

“The Australians rose to the occasion. They did not wait for orders, or for the boats to reach the beach, but sprang into the sea, formed a sort of rough line, and rushed at the enemy’s trenches. Their magazines were not charged, so they just went in with the cold steel, and it was over in a minute for the Turks in the first trench had been either bayoneted or had run away, and the Maxim guns were captured.”

Reprinted from the Hobart Mercury, 12 May 1915.

Celia Pilkington

INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016 Magna Carta_141x177_Layout 1 08/07/2015 12:47 Page 1

Commemorating 800 years of

THE AUTHENTICATED FACSIMILE OF BRITISH LIBRARY COTTON MS AUGUSTUS ii.

Limited to 480 copies, individually numbered • Parchment 12½˝ × 20˝ cut by hand • Oak frame 22˝ × 27˝ • Certificate of authentication printed letterpress and signed by an officer of the British Library

+44 (0)20 7400 4200 • limitededitions@foliosociety.com • www.foliosociety.com/magnacarta

111

112

INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE

Master Barker

By Master Pitchers

I

had the good fortune to spend my first 11 years at the Bar in the same chambers as David Barker. He showed then the characteristics which marked his career both as a junior and in silk; he had a tremendous appetite for hard work and really sound judgment. All the while, he wore his academic success lightly.

He had a first-class degree in law from UCL and a Master’s from the University of Michigan, where he went as a Fulbright Scholar. He had an extremely large practice as a junior and was busy throughout in silk. He was unstinting in his help to young members of chambers, appreciative perhaps of how tough it can be making a break into the profession.

In 1955, to pay his own way through pupillage, David signed up for three years’ National Service with the RAF, rather than the obligatory two. On finishing his pupillage, and with no room at his London chambers, he was offered a place at Leicester’s then only chambers, New Street, where he became barrister number nine. This was not unusual for the time; in the 1950s, barristers had declined to 1,800 practitioners. But in April 1960, legal aid was introduced and for a young ambitious barrister there was no better time.

David practised as a junior from the Leicester chambers from 1960–76.

I well remember his shepherding me through my first assize trial in 1966 before Stable HHJ. He was the member of chambers others would consult if they wanted careful attention and common sense applied to their problem. Of particular help to over-enthusiastic young criminal practitioners was his test for deciding whether to appeal a sentence: “Will you still think it is manifestly excessive at 6.00am on a cold station platform as you set out to argue it in front of…“ (here insert the name of the most difficult Lord Justice of the day).

David took his responsibilities seriously and came to the Bar with the firm commitment, by no means a mainstream

view in the late 1950s, that he would leave the profession if capital punishment were ever re-introduced. In 1974, he was made a Recorder and, in 1976, took silk, practising from London chambers. As a silk, David had a few notable cases not least defending Sarah Thornton for murdering her violent husband. The case became a cause célèbre for women’s groups and he achieved the dubious honour of being played by an actor in a TV drama of the case.

Running through his professional and personal life were his lifelong socialist views, acquired in childhood, in his parents’ fiercely Labour supporting home. He stood (unsuccessfully) aged 23 in a safe Conservative seat in the 1955 election having been called to the Bar the previous year.

A member of the Labour Party, he spoke at election rallies in Bosworth in the 1960s until public meetings fell out of fashion and then campaigned in Loughborough and Melton Mowbray in the 1970s and 80s. Although his politics were on the right of the Labour Party, he was never tempted to defect to the SDP in the early 1980s; his labour roots ran deep.

David had a profound belief in social justice and the right to a fair trial, and was also adversarial to the core. He was a member of the Prison Reform Trust.

David demonstrated an equally strong conviction that you do not have to wear a hair shirt to be a socialist. He enjoyed the good things in life, having a profound love of classical music, an eye for fine art and an appreciation of good wine. As well as attending the Proms every year, he was an avid supporter of the Leicestershire Chorale who performed beautifully at his funeral service. On long cases, overnights were spent with colleagues at such places as Lincoln, regaling stories of the day’s proceedings over a glass of fine claret. He appeared against John Mortimer on several occasions, with aspects of their cases later appearing in Rumpole of the Bailey.

Between 1981–84, he was a member of the Senate

MASTER BARKER INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

“ David took his responsibilities seriously and came to the Bar with the firm commitment, by no means a mainstream view in the late 1950s, that he would leave the profession if capital punishment were ever re-introduced.” of Inns of Court and Bar and, from 1985 until his death in 2013, a Bencher of Inner Temple. For a few years from 1993, he sat as a deputy High Court judge. He also saw his long membership from 1990 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, and its successor, as an opportunity to ensure a greater measure of justice for victims of crime.

He gave practical effect to his belief that the Bar should be more open to bright young people from disadvantaged backgrounds by his work on the Inn’s scholarship committee in the 1990s.

Never one to properly retire, David spent his later years as chair of his village parish council, Woodhouse Eaves in Leicestershire. He applied himself with as much enthusiasm

and commitment to this role as he had in his career, raising money for a new village playground and applying his wealth of experience and judgment to the determination of planning applications.

As many members of the Inn and of the Midland Circuit will confirm, David was a staunch and loyal friend, an engaging companion and a warm and generous host. He is survived by his wife of 56 years, Diana, their four children and ten grandchildren.

Master Pitchers

In Memoriam

The Inn mourns the loss of the following members over the past year: Ali Azhar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 August 2014 Glenford Buckle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 June 2015 William Geldart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 August 2014 Tim Hirst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 March 2015 Ghulam Hussain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 February 2015 Nicholas Jarman QC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 February 2015 Andrew Lavery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 January 2015 Her Honour Judge Ludlow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 December 2014 Michelle Powell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 March 2015 Robert Sadd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 October 2014 Colin Shaw CBE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 September 2014 The Rt Hon Jeremy Thorpe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 December 2014 Rene Wong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 December 2014

113

114

INNER TEMPLE

Report from the Advocacy Training Council Master Nicholas Green, Chairman of the Advocacy Training Council, reviews the year’s training programmes and developments here and overseas.

T

he Advocacy Training Council (ATC) is responsible for providing leadership, guidance and coordination in the pursuit of excellence in advocacy. It was established by the Council of the Inns of Court (COIC) and consists of barristers, judges and others drawn from the Inns of Court, Circuits, the Bar Council of England and Wales, Specialist Bar Associations and from other representative bodies and organisations. The ATC’s primary role is to oversee the development and delivery of advocacy training for the Bar of England and Wales and is also often asked to assist overseas.

During 2015, the ATC has been involved in the creation of training films on Appellate Advocacy and Skeleton arguments.

These have proven to be a useful resource for the Inns of Court and Circuits, where they have been used as part of the New Practitioner Advocacy Training. The Appeal Advocacy film includes talks on the principles of appeal advocacy from a judge, civil practitioner and criminal practitioner, followed by demonstrations of both civil and criminal appeals. The Skeleton Argument film similarly provides guidance on the drafting and use of Skeleton Arguments in both criminal and civil cases.

The ATC also embarked on a project to research the effective use of foreign languages in courts and the use of interpreters. This was undertaken by the Research and Development Committee. A training film was created to raise awareness of the communication challenges for an advocate working through an interpreter. The scenario used a Romanian language speaker witnessing a crime and subsequently summoned to court to give evidence. The film details the three-way process of using an interpreter and provides

guidance surrounding the techniques of examining a witness through such a medium. The film conveys some key messages as to how advocates can work effectively with interpreters in court, from maintaining eye contact to putting your case in a straightforward manor avoiding the use of acronyms. The ATC incorporated the training film as part of a pilot training day.

The day provided participants with the opportunity to practice the examination, cross-examination and re-examination of the foreign language speakers, using three newly developed exercises: Family with a Turkish Witness, Criminal with a Polish Witness and Civil with a Mandarin Witness. The foreign language speakers were played by bilingual interpreters under the supervision of experienced advocacy and interpreting trainers. The day was deemed to be a great success.

The Advocate’s Gateway success has continued as it carries on its work in researching the skills required to address the needs of a vulnerable person in the justice system. The Advocate’s Gateway website provides free access to practical, evidence-based guidance on vulnerable witnesses and defendants. There are now 16 toolkits readily available to all on the website, which identify common issues encountered when examining vulnerable witnesses and defendants together with proposed solutions. Other toolkits are in the process of being drafted and the ATC has been working with family law practitioners and judges on developing toolkits for use in the family courts.

During the 2015 Review on Efficiency in Criminal Proceedings, The Rt Hon Sir Brian Leveson, President of the Queen’s Bench Division, referred to the “excellent work of the Advocacy Training Council” and “the importance of the Advocate’s Gateway”. In addition, the work of the ATC and the Advocate’s Gateway has also been endorsed by the

Foreign languages in court and the effective use of interpreters; www.advocacytrainingcouncil.org/interpreters

ATC & COIC INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Advocacy Training in Islamabad.

Left to right: Mrs Justice Maura McGowan, Sarah Clarke and Amber Darr ASC

Court of Appeal and in the Criminal Practice Directions. This confirms the instrumental success of the Gateway.

The Advocate’s Gateway inaugural International Conference on Addressing Vulnerability in Justice Systems was held at the Law Society on Saturday 20 June. About 150 individuals attended from various professional backgrounds, including: members of the judiciary, legal practitioners and advocates, academics, police, intermediaries and charity workers. Delegates came from various jurisdictions including Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Ireland and Scotland.

The Conference facilitated the exchange of perspectives, ideas and strategies between countries, regions and sectors, and focused on defining vulnerability case management, principles for planning and questioning vulnerable adults and children and using technology to create a fairer justice system.

During the course of the day, a variety of keynote addresses, panel sessions and breakout sessions discussed the importance of the topic of vulnerability. Key speakers included Sir James Munby (President of the Family Division), Professor Penny Cooper (Chairman of the Advocate’s Gateway Committee), HHJ Peter Rook QC, Professor David Omerod and Mr Justice Green (Chairman of the Advocacy Training Council).

The ATC is committed to assisting overseas Bars, particularly in the developing worlds, where improving standards of advocacy training help to maintain the rule of law. The ATC adopts a ‘seed corn’ approach, whereby Inn and Circuit accredited trainers work alongside local members of the legal profession to develop and implement their own advocacy training provision. A great example is that of Zimbabwe. The ATC has a long-standing relationship with the Law Society of Zimbabwe, and has delivered five rounds of training in the country between 2011 and 2015. The series of training, consisting of a programme of advocacy training followed by training the trainer, reflects the success of international training. During the initial rounds of training, local practitioners were selected, based on their enthusiasm, skills and natural flare for advocacy, to become suitable candidates to assist the UK trainers in the delivery of the later rounds of training. The most recent round of training delivered in Zimbabwe in 2015 completes the success story of the jurisdiction. The Law Society of Zimbabwe now has its own pool of trainers as a result of the training programme delivered by the ATC. It was agreed that moving forward only two ATC trainers would need to attend to oversee and monitor the training, as the training there is effectively now self-sufficient.

This year, the ATC is delivering training in such varied jurisdictions as Trinidad, Ghana and the Hague, Singapore, Pakistan, Ireland and Poland.

The ATC looks forward to expanding and evolving into the Inns of Court Advocacy College (ICAC).

Master Green

Pupillage Matched Funding Scheme

By James Wakefield, Director of the Council of the Inns of Court

T

he Pupillage Matched Funding Scheme was set up in 2013 and has been very successful in helping an increased number of students to qualify as barristers. The scheme encourages the provision of additional pupillages in those chambers (and other approved training organisations), where work is predominantly publicly funded.

Under the scheme, the Inns will match the funding already provided by chambers for a first six pupillage with a 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 two additional pupillages (i e four pupillages in total), and so on, hence matched funding.

Applications for a grant of £3,000 will also be considered from 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.

In 2014, the first year of operation, an additional 14 pupillages were funded; 41 grants have been agreed for pupillages commencing in 2015 and, so far, 31 for pupillages commencing in 2016. The Inns will continue to fund the scheme into 2017 and 2018. The scheme is advertised on the Inns’ websites and in-house newsletters and in Counsel magazine. Applications for grants are invited between 1 September and 1 December by way of an online application on the COIC Matched Funding website: www.innsofcourt. org.uk. A Grants Committee considers the applications on behalf of the Inns and decides which applicants are to benefit from a grant.

Whilst it is not possible to say precisely how many tenancies have arisen out of the funded pupillages, because of the way the scheme was set up, it has certainly been successful in what it set out to do: provide an increased number of students with the means of qualifying.

James Wakefield

115

116

INNER TEMPLE

The Race Relations Act @ 50 Conference

By Dr Iyiola Solanke

T

he British Academy Conference on The Race Relations Act @ 50 was held on 9-10 July 2015, convened by Dr Iyiola Solanke, Associate Academic Fellow of the Inner Temple and Senior Lecturer at the University of Leeds, and Inner Temple. Each year the British Academy holds up to six such conferences – these competitive awards are given to convene pivotal events of lasting significance, at which research of the highest calibre is presented and discussed. Held over two days, these meetings provide opportunities for multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary perspectives. In this case, the conference was also international, attracting speakers and participants from the USA, Hawaii, Australia, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland and Germany. To be there was therefore to savour an international intellectual feast.

The London Underground strike on 9 July provided only a minor interruption – most speakers and delegates arrived punctually, some leaving home at 7.00 am to arrive on time. The commitment and determination to be there was an indicatation of the importance of the conference.

Commitment and determination lie at the heart of the Race Relations Act 1965. Albeit more symbol than substance, it stands as a landmark in British law because it was the very first incorporation of a legal prohibition of discrimination. Anti-discrimination became integral to British law and democratic values. From these humble beginnings, this legal principle was transferred to the antidiscrimination statutes covering sex, disability, sexual orientation, age, gender reassignment, religion and belief that were brought together in the Equality Act 2010. The origins of this statute thus lie in the struggle for racial justice.

The efforts of one woman in particular stand out: Dame Jocelyn Barrow came to the UK from Trinidad as a trainee teacher, became the first black woman Governor of the BBC, Deputy Chair of the Broadcasting Standards Council and Chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission. She mesmerised the conference with her stories of racism in post-war and post-colonial Britain and the action that she undertook to address it. Hers was a lifelong commitment to education, both in the classroom and in society in general. When asked by Britons, who knew little of their history, how long she had been British, her response was simple: “since before you were born.” As a founder member and General Secretary of CARD, the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination, she lobbied for the Race Relations Act 1965. She described it as her mission; fortunately it was one shared with equally committed individuals such as Sir Geoffrey Bindman who worked with a group of labour lawyers to the same end. Home Secretary Frank Soskice listened and the Labour Party introduced the Act in 1965. As the first legal secretary to the Race Relations Board (RRB), Sir Geoffrey shared his frustrations working within the limitations of this first anti-discrimination law. Nonetheless, he described his job with the RRB as the best thing that ever happened to him – it gave him the opportunity to make a difference in society.

We therefore wanted the conference to celebrate the legal entrenchment of this principle, as well as critically evaluate its impact in an inter-disciplinary way. For it cannot be denied that problems remain even if there have been improvements – no politician would now dare to use the campaign slogan “If you want a N***** for a neighbour vote Liberal or Labour”. But right wing

parties remain popular with the electorate and the government runs a public campaign telling ‘immigrants’ to “Go Home or face arrest”. Signs saying “No Coloured, no Irish, no dogs” may never be seen again in house windows, but the newly introduced ‘right to rent’ may have the same impact on BME citizens and residents. Job centres do not accept discriminatory instructions from employers specifying that no Blacks or Jews should apply, but unemployment rates of black workers (17% male and 13% female) are more than double that of white workers (6% male and 5% female). And stop and search statistics reveal that a black man is up to 28 times more likely to be stopped than a white man and black deaths in custody suggest a state contempt for the lives of black people. The language and systems of overt white supremacy may be gone, but their spirit seems to live on. We therefore thought it an appropriate juncture to broach the pertinent question of why racial inequality endures in the 21st Century, not only in Britain but also in places that have similar (the USA) and different (Germany) experiences with this type of law. The rostrum of speakers therefore included leaders from legal practice and philosophy, political science and history, sociology and psychology as well as social activists and journalists.

There was no shortage of discussion points: Professor Charles Lawrence highlighted the predictability of racial injustice in the USA, where more is spent on incarceration than education, while Guardian editor Joseph Harker spoke of the unexpected value of social media which has become an increasingly effective tool in the fight for racial justice. Nonetheless, he pointed out a key problem: the denial of space in mainstream media means that discussion of race is relegated to sensational stories on Twitter and Facebook.

Thus racism endures partly because the real issues are absent from the media pages and so out of the public mind.

In thinking about the impact of the Race Relations Act, historian Dr Ama Biney drew attention to the ‘chameleonic’ character of racism. It has become covert and indirect, such that we now live in a world of ‘racism without racists’, as succinctly put by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva. She concluded that racism is now manifested in ways that are not necessarily captured by the concepts and remedies in the Act. Sociologist Dr Shirley Tate provided an example of more covert racism by drawing attention to a ‘dismissiveness’ at all levels of higher education, including amongst students who fail to read or cite African authors when even writing on topics such as gender in Africa. This approach to the production of knowledge continues the racial bias of the past and covertly contributes to enduring inequality. Dr Tate also stressed the life-impacting trauma of racial discrimination and asked how this could be addressed by anti-racial discrimination law.

Yet, when we think comparatively about the Race Relations Act, its value becomes more apparent. As pointed out by German lawyer Dr Cengiz Barskanmaz, at least Britain has an anti-racism discourse unlike Germany, which sees only the Holocaust. As a consequence, systems of slavery and colonialism are absent from the culture of racial equality in Germany – the current discourse focuses on removing the word race from the constitution rather than promoting anti-racism in society. Councillor Paul Abbey from Finland illustrated another advantage of the British discourse – the collection of racial data: the statistics collected in Britain act as a

Photo credit: Junial Enterprises/shutterstock

Dr Iyiola Solanke with Professor Charles Lawrence and Professor Mari Matsuda, University of Hawaii.

THE RACE RELATIONS ACT @ 50 INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Dame Jocelyn Barrow.

useful guide to equality policy. In Finland, equality is a central policy, but in the absence of clear data, the wrong goals and objectives may be set.

In thinking about the structure of the RRA, Professor Diamond Ashiagbor continued the theme of inappropriate structures: she too noted that the remedies designed for the 1st generation of discrimination (direct and overt discrimination) are inadequate to address the current manifestations of discrimination described by Dr Biney and Dr Tate. Goals and techniques need to be updated for the 21st Century, as in the absence of effective law, the state effectively leaves regulation to those who have economic power. Professor O’Cinneide echoed this: discrimination is now more complex and enforcement cannot be left to bodies weakened by budgetary cuts.

He also explained the different priorities: where the Race Relations Board and Commission for Racial Equality had an enforcement role, the current Equalities and Human Rights Commission adopts a more promotional stance across all strands of equality. Professor Aileen McColgan caught the mood in the room when she asked whether the RRA was at all fit for purpose. She posed a number of thoughtprovoking questions that remain to be answered – is the paucity of race discrimination cases being brought to court and successfully argued due to the legislation itself or those applying it? How well suited is the idea of a comparator to racial discrimination? Why is it possible to bring a case for equal pay on the grounds of sex but not race? Ultimately, it is not enough to gain rights – people must also be able to use them.

Two panels highlighted provisions of the Equality Act that emphasise collective pro-action rather then individual reaction and are irregularly used – the public sector equality duty (PSED) and positive action. The PSED provision obliges public authorities to give ‘due regard’ to actions and decisions that may undermine race relations. Taking the Home Office ‘Go Home’ vans (‘Operation Vaken’) as a starting point, Louise Whitfield and Rita Chaddha explained how RAMFEL worked together with other campaign groups and law firm Deighton Pierce Glynn to remind the Home Office of this duty. Although Operation Vraxen was a pilot scheme, when faced with the threat of legal action, the Home Office gave an undertaking that it would not be expanded without proper consultation. ‘Due regard’ is however just one strand of the PSED – there is also a duty to ‘foster good relations’: Louise Whitfield wondered whether the ‘right to rent’ checks do this.

Judge Stephen Keevash and Guardian editor Joseph Harker discussed positive action in their respective fields. Since 2010, the Judicial Office has appointed ‘District and Community Relations Judges’ (DCRJ) actively to promote diversity in the judiciary. However the impact of the DCRJs and other initiatives are hard to measure.

Outreach activities do not produce immediate results but over the long-term may change the way lawyers see the judiciary and themselves within it. The presence of Lady Hale in the Supreme Court suggests that it has been a little easier to make changes in relation to gender. Yet long term progress will be undermined by the rising costs of and decreasing access to legal education. It was asked why, if the Supreme Court must have one Scottish and one Welsh judge, why not also one BME judge?

It soon became apparent that newspaper organisations suffer the same problem of BME under-representation. Joseph Harker explained that The Guardian started to take BME representation

Master Prashar with Geoffrey Bindman QC

seriously after the MacPherson Report in 1997, but only appointed one journalist. In 2000, it then instituted a trainee scheme for aspiring BME journalists. In the last 15 years, this scheme has made a significant difference not only at The Guardian but also elsewhere.

Such a scheme could be a model for the judiciary, but Harker noted that while there may be more BME journalists at the lower levels, the higher echelons of journalism – like the senior judiciary is dominated by white men. There are no magic bullets to address enduring racial inequality.

The final panel identified new problems and future solutions.

Professor Mari Matsuda urged action by sharing her fear that equality will end up in tatters if nothing is done to protect and defend it. She set out a beautiful vision for equality in the future, including a society where police were trained like social workers to care for all in their community rather than monitor and incarcerate them. Who would not support that? Like Dr Tate, Professor Kumea Shorter-Gooden promoted a focus on the psychological harm of racism, including those harms passed across the generations.

Michael Bates of the Central England Law Centre drew attention to the need for race equality law to protect a particular group of third generation Black Britons from destitution – citizens excluded from access to benefits because they are born to non-EU parents whose right of residence arises only due to the EU citizenship of their child (so-called ‘Zambrano Carers’). Finally Claude Moraes MEP drew the thread from the RRA to the EU Race Directive and stressed the need to keep the topic of racial equality on the EU agenda. The Race Directive introduced in 2000 did not create a structure to sustain this debate, thus a future goal is to rejuvenate it. A sophisticated commentary on racism is as essential in the EU as in the UK. Despite its shortcomings, the Race Relations Act 1965 is a national treasure. It has been transformative, even if that transformation remains incomplete. It retains an important role but cannot work alone. Racial justice is a social as well as legal goal. As racial lines harden in battles across the globe for public space and resources, whether in relation to policing, immigration, employment, housing or education, there is an urgent need for development of international and interdisciplinary alliances that can lobby effectively for racial equality. The need is not only for better laws and remedies but also initiatives beyond law in fields such as media and education. These are both important forums, yet race continues to be ‘dangerous territory’ in newspapers as well as in universities. Unlike sex or disability, there are few journalistic investigations and campaigns, research centres and educational programmes on race. These and other institutions – such as financial and banking institutions – can create and support spaces for the sustained development of sophisticated narratives to combat racism in society. If we are to create a world where racial discrimination is eradicated by 2065, it behoves in particular senior leaders across society to demonstrate now the institutional commitment and determination to anti-racist action seen in the past.

Leeds University School of Law will host a political panel and a legal panel reflecting upon RRA 1965 on 8th October and 8 December 2015.

For further information please contact Dr Iyiola Solanke at i.solanke@leeds.ac.uk.

117

118

INNER TEMPLE

Daines Barrington: a Georgian Dilettante Abridged text of an article by Master Simon Brown, past Master of the Garden, about the transformation of the ‘Picturesque’ Great Garden under the direction of Baines Barrington, when the second embankment was built in the 18th Century.

T

he Enlightenment during the 18th Century produced numerous books, essays, inventions, scientific discoveries, laws, wars and revolutions. It was an intellectual movement that advocated reason as a means to obtain objective truth about the whole of reality.

In his essay What Is Enlightenment? (1784), philosopher Immanuel Kant summed up the era’s motto: “Dare to know! Have courage to use your own reason!” Intellectually minded amateurs, known as virtuosi or dilettante, followed this rubric by feverishly investigating everything in order to back up their myriad ideas for earnest discussion with their peers in clubs and societies.

Daines Barrington was such a man. He was an important figure in Georgian society and in the natural world but his enduring legacy is far greater: the ‘Picturesque’ Great Garden of the Inner Temple.

The Honourable Daines Barrington (1727-1800) had a classical education at Harrow School and matriculated at the Queen’s College, Oxford in 1745. He left immediately, without studying or graduating, to be admitted, like his father, to the Inner Temple and was called on 9 February 1750. He practised only briefly on the Oxford Circuit and was junior counsel for the prosecution in the infamous patricide case of Mary Blandy: she poisoned her father with arsenic at the behest of her disapproved lover.

His eldest brother, William, was a powerful government minister for 25 continuous years from 1746 to 1782. His patronage provided his younger brother with a number of offices. In 1785, Barrington resigned all except the valuable sinecure, Commissary General of Stores in Gibraltar which paid him over £507 10s a year until his death. It was not a distinguished judicial career; a lack of ambition and his

interest in a wide variety of other things prevented his advancement in the law. Utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham viewed Barrington as an indifferent judge; a quiet good sort of a man – not proud but liberal.

Barrington’s reputation lies outside the law.

In 1767, he was elected a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. He achieved a somewhat notorious reputation as an antiquarian. He was over credulous in his enthusiastic use of anecdotal research spread too thinly over too wide a range of subjects: Welsh castles, archery, gardening, cardplaying, Caesar’s invasion of Britain, and the history of the Cornish language. Both Horace Walpole and Thomas James Mathias ridiculed his papers and he was reported by Baron Mendip to have accepted a 17th Century watch as having belonged to Robert the Bruce.

Nevertheless, he served as a Vice President of the Society and exhibited numerous curious items at its meetings.

In 1767, Barrington was also elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, which had a close association with the Inn; it used to dine in the Hall on occasions and make use of its kitchens. The door had opened into a network of wealthy active amateur patrons, virtuosi or dilettantes, eager to explore all areas of the natural world on the planet.

The Inner Temple was his home. A bachelor, he was called to the Bench in January 1777 and purchased a life interest for £400 in chambers in 6 King’s Bench Walk.

Barrington was keen to devote his life to the Inn; the Calendar shows that he often gave books and manuscripts to the library and acted in a quasi role of one of two Masters of the Estate viewing Chambers as they became vacant and available for sale.

Photo credit: Mary Evans Picture Library

DAINES BARRINGTON INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Barrington’s main interest was the Great Garden of the Inn. The bird’s eye view of the Temple in 1720 depicts the early Georgian formal garden still in the Dutch manner brought over by William and Mary. Created in 1703, it had four main walks down to the river besides three grassed areas, each with paths and three sets of topiarised circles within them. At the bottom, the embankment cut in from the east and then out again to Temple Stairs where the boats to take lawyers to work in Westminster Hall would be plying their trade. The exquisite Gray’s Inn Amity Great Gate was added in 1730. By Barrington’s time, increasing colonial trade and the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution led to the building of a third bridge over the Thames at Blackfriars.

Construction was completed in 1771, with the Inn eventually paying the City £1,150 in 1780 towards the embankment and for the additional land which was then handed over to

Barrington’s appointment coincided with a national mania for botany and gardening. London was its capital fostered by the King, Sir Joseph Banks, Erasmus Darwin, Kew, the Royal Society and ubiquitous nurseries in and around the City providing the plants brought back from the colonies as specimens or seeds in numerous daring expeditions. The number of nurseries in and around the City increased from 15 to 200 by the end of the century, with many of the trees and plants coming from expeditions.

At the time of his appointment, Barrington read a letter to the Society of Antiquaries ‘On the progress of Gardening’, published in Archaeologica in 1785: “As the progress in architecture from the earliest and rudest times hath frequently been the subject of dissertation, perhaps it may not be uninteresting to trace the gradual improvements in both fruit and pleasure gardens”. The antiquarian traced

“The true test of perfection in a modern garden is that a landscape painter would choose it for composition.” the Inn. The size of the Great Garden was almost doubled, with the boundary just short of the mound that now accommodates the tube. In 1775, the employed surveyor, Mr Gorham had been instructed by the Benchers to draw up an estimate for the landscaping of the garden and, in 1782, Masters Annesley and Barrington were appointed as its Superintendents with authority to give orders to the gardener, Mr Allen. The gardener was paid an extra £5 a year and his wife was engaged to clean the new summer houses at each end of the walk by the river and the garden seats. A watering machine costing £30 was procured.

the history of gardening from classical times. He demanded greater relationship between literature, painting and gardening: “the true test of perfection in a modern garden is that a landscape painter would choose it for composition.

Kent has been succeeded by Brown who hath undoubtedly great merit in laying out pleasure grounds”.

William Kent (1685-1748) “was a painter, an architect, and the father of modern gardening. In the first character he was below mediocrity; in the second, he was a restorer of the science; in the last, an original, and the inventor of an art that realises painting and improves nature. He leaped the fence,

View of the Temple as it appeared in 1671

119

120

INNER TEMPLE

and saw that all nature was a garden” (Horace Walpole). His style was known as the ‘Picturesque’.

Edmund Burke’s treatise, A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origins of Our Ideas for the Sublime and Beautiful (1757), had moved the landscape to the fore in philosophy and art. For landscape artists, the sublime was essentially the evocation of awe and terror, the beautiful meant soft and aesthetically pleasing, while the ‘picturesque’ – literally ‘in the manner of a picture’ – was defined as irregular, ragged and asymmetrical.

The garden was transformed during Barrington’s 18-year tenure as Superintendent. In 1800, Samuel Ireland (17441800), author and engraver, published Picturesque views with an historical account of the Inns of Court. He eulogises about the outward unhindered views: the fine prospect of uninhibited view over the Thames to the Surrey hills, all that is upon it, the river, its bridges of Blackfriars and Westminster – “two of the finest bridges in the world” – and the “richest specimens” of Gothic architecture of Westminster and Lambeth to the west and the “paragon of modern edifices” of St Paul’s to the east. He waxes lyrically about “the remaining parts of the picture beautified by an extensive range of towers and spires of churches that show at once the immense size and consequence of this great city, the envy and emporium of the world”. From the new embankment, you can sense the “genius of the place”; its power, and of those who adorn it, between church and state whilst overlooking the unceasing river – the major thoroughfare of London.

The transformation led to the garden being opened to the public during Barrington’s time. At a meeting of Members of the Society at Devil Tavern on 15 June 1784, they demanded keys to the garden. The Sub-Treasurer responded “that the Treasurer and Masters are extremely desirous that every member may enjoy the use of the garden … and have ordered that the gardener shall at all seasonable times admit every member at the gate next to Harcourt’s Buildings or at the great gate next the hall at the usual times attending there”. In May 1789, an order was made that the garden should be open to strangers, in summer on the week days from 10.00 am to noon and from 3.00 pm to dusk in the evenings, and on Sundays from 1.00 pm to 2.00 pm in the afternoon and from 6.00 pm to dusk in the evenings, and no admittance during divine service. The onset of war with France in 1798, led members and inhabitants to enroll themselves by the name of the Temple Association and they were given the use of the garden at all times convenient for their military exercises. This indulgence was later given to the Fleet Street Association who had joined the Guildhall Volunteer Association in 1799.

Barrington’s dedication to his beloved Inn was recognised by his fellow Benchers; he was elected Treasurer in 1785.

However, his fine reputation was besmirched by Charles Lamb (1775-1834), the essayist who was born in Crown Office Row. His Essay, The Old Benchers of Inner Temple caricatured the Benchers pacing around the garden undertaking their “walking exercise” whilst in deep conversation. He described them as dressed in long black coats “pacing the terrace with

the roguish eye”; Thomas Coventry, “of the elephantine step, the scarecrow of inferiors, the browbeater of equals, who made a solitude of children wherever he came, who took snuff by palmfuls”; Peter Pierson “perambulating the terrace with hands folded behind him”; and finally Daines Barrington as “a burly, square man”.

This is a bygone age and Barrington lies in the vault in the Temple church. Gardens are ephemeral but Barrington’s still exists behind the Victorian embankment between it and the river. If you want to sense this era, picture yourself in the garden on a quiet early sunny morning in mid April and stand in the dark green shadows of the three giant plane trees near the pool and look to the left and to your right.

Imagine a group of figures in elegant conversation by the Thames, another couple huddled together in the summer house at the end of the walk, a gardener scything the lawn, and a burly figure dressed in a long black coat pacing towards you along the 18th Century embankment of the river with a record book in hand, looking for a glimpse of the first swooping swallow of the season. Then put your hand on the large healthy tree besides you; it was planted by Barrington’s gardener, Mr Allen.

You are touching history.

Master Brown

MY JOURNEY TO THE BAR INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

My Journey to the Bar Master Walker recalls his early years at the Bar.

I

read law at Oxford because from my early days I wanted to be a barrister. (Although, I have to confess that I was pointed in this direction by my father, who was a solicitor.)

I applied to University College (Univ), having been told at school that it was the best college for law, which indeed it proved to be.

My tutors at Univ were Lennie Hoffmann (who, of course, subsequently became a law lord) and Tony Guest, a distinguished academic lawyer who was at that time the general editor of the civil practitioners’ bible, Chitty on Contracts.

Lennie was the law tutor in overall charge of the lawyers, and he ran a very happy ship.

In my second year at Univ, I asked Lennie which Inn I should join, to which he replied immediately, “Tim, you should join Inner. It has the largest car park.” This was sound advice, and when I was able to afford a car, I would park it in the Temple after driving back from some inaccessible magistrates’ court or county court.

I came to the Bar long before the days of pupillage committees. You were introduced to a potential pupil master, and he alone decided whether he would take you. Unless you were given a ‘pupil studentship’ by your Inn, you had to pay him 100 guineas. I was introduced by Tony Guest to Tom Bingham, who was at that time one of the sub-editors of Chitty. Tom produced the chapter in Chitty on Guarantees and Indemnities.

I went to see Tom Bingham at 2 Crown Office Row and, after a short interview, he took me on as his pupil.

It is impossible to imagine a better pupil master than Tom. He was an intellectual giant, and yet at the same time modest and unassuming, and always kind. After about a month, he began to pay me £10 a week (a significant sum in those days) out of his own pocket, with the proviso that I should declare it to the Revenue, as he was going to claim it

as a practice expense! With no income coming in apart from my wife’s pay as a secretary, this was a fantastic boon, and totally unexpected.

Subsequently, I was given a tenancy at 2 Crown Office Row (from where we later moved to Fountain Court). Even after I became a tenant, Tom continued his £10 a week banker’s order for a time, on the basis that I “did the odd set of papers” for him. This was a welcome addition to the very modest fees to be had from trudging round the county courts and magistrates’ courts.

The Inn was less than user friendly in those days. There was no training of any kind, and the Benchers were only to be seen by hoi polloi while dining in remote isolation on high table, when one had to attend in Hall to eat the prescribed number of dinners. Dining was a duty, not a pleasurable experience. This was not merely because the food the Inn then produced was very moderate. All who participated seemed to regard it as a pointless waste of time, with no interaction between those dining, the very objective of the system.

There was at that time absolutely no sense of being part of a collegiate entity, which we all now have the privilege of enjoying. In this context, I have one specific example in mind.

The Inn now conducts several advocacy training weekends a year, at which young barristers mix freely with the Inn’s Advocacy Trainers, whether they are senior juniors, silks or Benchers. These weekends are held at conference centres, where the food is good, and the wine (in the evenings!) plentiful. We all eat together at breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Such an arrangement would have been inconceivable in the Inner Temple I joined in the late 60s.

The effect is that our Inn is an incomparably better institution now than it was then.

Master Walker

121

122

INNER TEMPLE

The Milner Kindergarten and their Moots Master Paget explores the reconstruction work in South Africa at the end of the Boer War and the contribution of members of Inner Temple to the Milner Kindergarten.

Viscount Milner, by Hugh de Twenebrokes Glazebrook, 1901. Image from John Buchan and his World by Janet Adam Smith. Thames & Hudson Limited

“ I cannot foresee the shape of the new administration, and you will have to find out what you think of the country and its prospects. The whole thing, as I told you, is a ‘gamble’ for you.

But personally, I believe it is a good chance.”

THE MILNER KINDERGARTEN INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Herbert Baker with Milner’s Kindergarten. Back row: Lionel Curtis, Nel Hitchens, Peter Perry, Hugh Wyndham, Herbert Baker, Geoffrey Dawson.

Sitting: Lord Selborne, Robert Brand, Patrick Duncan, Lady Selborne, Lord Long, Richard Feetham. Front row: Philip Kerr, John Dove, Dougal Malcolm Image from Herbert Baker, Architecture and Idealism 1892 – 1913, The South African Years by Michael Keath, Ashanti Publishing Limited.

A

t the end of the Boer War in 1902, Lord Milner, British High Commissioner in South Africa, was appointed Governor of the Orange River Colony and of the Transvaal. His chief concern was reconstruction with responsibility for the restoration of the country after the war. This included the revival of industry and the establishment of new systems of local and provincial government, which essentially remained in force until the collapse of apartheid. In March 1901, he moved into Sunnyside, a house in Parktown, Johannesburg. The house had belonged to an American mining engineer, but had been abandoned when the Boer War began.

Sunnyside remained his residence and headquarters until 1905, with one break from May to August 1901, when he returned to England on leave. It was at this time that he began to recruit a dozen or so young men to help him in his work of reconstruction. They became known as the Kindergarten. All were exceptionally able young men, mostly from Oxford. Milner himself had been at Balliol and was a Fellow of New College. It is difficult to make a completely accurate list because they came and went, and some were more prominent than others, but those who were with Milner during this period of reconstruction, between 1901 and April 1905, included, in alphabetical order: Leo Amery (Balliol and All Souls) Lord Basil Blackwood (Balliol) Robert Brand (New College and All Souls) (later Lord Brand) John Buchan (Brasenose) (later Lord Tweedsmuir) Gerard Craig-Sellar (Balliol) Lionel Curtis (New College and All Souls) John Dove (New College) Patrick Duncan (Balliol) (later Sir Patrick Duncan) Richard Feetham (New College) (later Mr. Justice) Lionel Hichens (New College) Philip Kerr (New College) (later Lord Lothian) J F ‘Peter’ Perry (Magdalen and All Souls) Geoffrey Robinson (later Dawson) (Magdalen and All Souls) Basil Williams (New College and All Souls) Hugh Wyndham (New College) Sir Herbert Baker, the architect, although a good deal older, is often included as a member of the Kindergarten.

He was certainly very closely associated with them and

Milner had asked for his help in the work of reconstruction.

Two of Baker’s most notable public buildings were Government House (now the Presidency) and the Union Buildings, both in Pretoria and both still in use.

Seven of those listed above were also members of the Inns of Court and five were members of Inner Temple, as was Milner himself. Milner had been called to the Bar in January 1881 and had practised for a very short time before he gave it up for journalism and politics. The five members of Inner Temple were Robert Brand, Lionel Curtis, John Dove, Patrick Duncan and Richard Feetham.

In March 1901, John Buchan received an invitation from Lord Milner in these terms: “ A certain sum has been put at my disposal to enable me to provide myself with extra secretarial assistance during the exceptionally heavy work immediately before me. Any men, whose services I may secure, will not be salaried officials, or members of the official hierarchy, but will be, individually, working exclusively for me and directly under me. As between themselves they will have no rank or seniority, and I am making an independent arrangement with each of them, the terms of which I should prefer not to have divulged.

I am prepared to pay you £1,200 to secure your whole time for a twelvemonth from the date of your leaving England. You will have to pay your own way out – about £60 tout compris. Future arrangements must be made during the twelvemonth. I cannot foresee the shape of the new administration, and you will have to find out what you think of the country and its prospects. The whole thing, as I told you, is a ‘gamble’ for you. But personally, I believe it is a good chance.”

Terence O’Brien, in his biography Milner, published in 1979, says, “Since the Kindergarten met at Feetham’s Johannesburg house called ‘ The Moot’ they chose this name for their discussions.” I doubt whether this is correct.

The discussions must have begun well before ‘the Moot House’, designed for Feetham by Baker, was completed in

123

124

INNER TEMPLE

1906. In addition, it seems that there was more than one ‘Moot House’. The term ‘moot’ is, of course, well known in the Inns of Court, where it has been used for centuries to describe the formal debates, or mock trials, in which difficult (moot) points of law are argued between students and judged by Benchers or other senior members of each Inn after dinner in hall. I suspect that those Kindergarten members who were lawyers coined the term for their discussions on the future of South Africa and that the house name was chosen because they called their discussions moots.

Michael Keath, in Herbert Baker, Architecture and Idealism, 1892–1913: the South African Years, says that ‘ Stonehouse’, also designed by Baker and completed in 1903 for himself and Curtis, was the first ‘Moot House’, “the intellectual and social meeting place of Milner’s young Kindergarten. The group was the core of an almost exclusively male fraternity which administered the Transvaal and Johannesburg. They were bound together by their common purpose and the fact that all 11members had been educated at Oxford, and all but two at New College.”

Unfortunately, Keath does not say who these 11 were.

He continues: “At first their lives were filled with official duties which left little time for leisure. What recreation time they had tended towards vigorous outdoor activity such as riding, hunting trips and long treks into the interior.

From the ridge they rode their horses each morning into the valley, cantering among the blue gums, before their long office hours began. In the evenings they often met at leisurely dinners, the erudite conversation spiced with classical quotations. Despite Baker’s deficiencies in the classics and his lack of a university education, not to mention his age – he would turn 40 in June (1903) – he

was the close friend of several members of the group.

When completed the house which he and Lionel Curtis were building would become for a time a centre for their activities. In the meantime Curtis was staying at the home of J F Perry who held the post of Imperial Secretary to the High Commissioner and was the first of the Kindergarten to have arrived in South Africa. It was thus through Curtis that Baker usually stayed with Perry and his wife when he visited Johannesburg before moving into ‘Stonehouse’.

Apart from Lionel Curtis, who affectionately christened him ‘Grandpa’, the other members of the group who lived with Baker in ‘Stonehouse’ were Lionel Hichens, Richard Feetham and John Dove. ‘Living with and being able to share the enthusiasm of these young men’ wrote Baker ‘was a great enjoyment to me as well as an education in the broader issues of political and social affairs.’” Keath also mentions another house built by Baker at Muckleneuk, Pretoria, for Lionel Curtis, “now called ‘The White House’ or the ‘Pretoria Moot House’ as it was called then”.

Whether my theory about the name is right or not, there can be no doubt that Feetham called his house ‘the Moot House’ and there is no reason to doubt that moots took place there from 1906 onwards. ‘The Moot House’ still exists and has been declared a National Monument because of its historical importance.

In April 1905, Lord Milner was succeeded by the Earl of Selborne. He too became High Commissioner and Governor of the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal, and he, like Milner, lived at Sunnyside. His term of office, from 1905 to 1910, was an important one. In 1907, both the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal were granted self-government and, in 1910, the Union of South Africa

Clockwise from top left: Portrait of Sir Herbert Baker by Charles H Thompson. Feetham’s Moot House. Union Buildings, Pretoria. Design from September 1909 showing Baker’s full scheme which included the never-to-be built Temple of Peace. All Images (Except Moot House) from Herbert Baker, Architecture and Idealism 1892 – 1913, The South African Years by Michael Keath, Ashanti Publishing Limited.

THE MILNER KINDERGARTEN INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Union Buildings, Pretoria.

came into being as a self-governing Dominion. O’Brien’s account of this period continues: “ Lionel Curtis (‘the Prophet’) supplied the main driving force. Financed in part by the Rhodes Trust he left the High Commissioner’s staff, toured the four colonies and drafted a memo (called the ‘ Egg’) for his colleagues’ discussion.” After scrutiny by the four colonies, the Cape, Natal, the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal, it was eventually published, in July 1907, as a Review of the Present Mutual Relations of the South African Colonies (known as the Selborne Memorandum) and became a first draft for the new constitution of the Union of South Africa. Brand and Duncan did conspicuous work for the Transvaal at the National Convention, which undertook the task of drafting the constitution. (One of those closely concerned with drafting the constitution was General Smuts. After a dazzling career at Cambridge, he had been called to the Bar by the Middle Temple and had become State Attorney of the Transvaal under President Kruger before becoming famous as a Boer general in the Boer War.) Curtis travelled widely founding ‘Closer Union’ societies and established a monthly journal, The State, with Kerr as editor, to promote the cause of Union. Brand, Dawson and others wrote to Milner with optimistic hopes of a future South Africa, part British and part Dutch. There were formidable difficulties and any hope of extending the African or ‘ Coloured’ franchise was dismissed by the Convention. When the South Africa Act was passed by the House of Commons in 1909, Asquith called the problem of adapting free institutions in a white–black society “a modern one which remains unsolved”. It remained unsolved until the collapse of apartheid in 1994.

After Union in 1910, their work in South Africa complete, Lord Selborne and most of the Kindergarten returned to England. Of the best known members, only Duncan and Feetham decided to stay. Duncan served as a Cabinet Minister under Smuts. He was knighted and became Governor General from 1937 to 1943. He played an important role with Smuts in taking South Africa into the Second World War and he died in office. Feetham became a distinguished judge of the Supreme Court. He was appointed to the bench in 1923, became Judge President of the Natal Provincial Division in 1930 and a Judge of Appeal from 1939 until his retirement in 1944.

On his return to England, Curtis proposed a scheme to use the methods which had proved so successful in South Africa to form, in every Dominion, groups of men, like themselves, dedicated to unifying the Empire. Those who joined, without having previously served under Milner, included Frederick Oliver, a Cambridge historian and author of a book, The Federalist, a biography of the American statesman Alexander Hamilton, which had profoundly

Government House, Pretoria.

influenced the Kindergarten when they were trying to draft a constitution for South Africa and now, as they tried to devise a constitution for the whole Empire.

Milner was still looked on as their chief. He presided regularly at their moots and did more than anyone else to procure and supervise their funds. But it was harder in London than in Johannesburg to get members to do “ regular mooting work”. Curtis was the driving force.

Kerr, the first editor of their quarterly The Round Table, which appeared in 1910, in part financed by the Rhodes Trust, was his chief colleague. They organized, in each Dominion, small groups of influential people who favoured ‘organic union’ within the Empire. Curtis would collate their views in another ‘ Egg’. He would send this to all groups for comment and redraft the replies into what he called ‘ omelettes’, or a set of agreed conclusions which would one day be published and could, in his own words, “ be used by those that adopt them as a guide in practical political affairs”. Most group members in the Dominions were academics and Curtis himself became Beit Lecturer in Colonial History at Oxford. The Kindergarten members were now often called Round Tablers and were active in recruiting younger members. But Milner, Selborne and the older members were less optimistic than Curtis about the early achievement of any formal imperial union.

During the Great War, moots were held on the future of Ireland, on the conduct of the war and on imperial unity.

In 1923, there was a moot, possibly the last presided over by Milner, to discuss the Imperial Conference.

The very idea of imperial union now sounds hopelessly antediluvian, but it is pleasant to end with the reflection that Curtis and the Round Tablers lent their support to the Imperial Conference of 1926, which, by defining the dominions as: “autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations” effectively transformed the Empire into the Commonwealth.

The Conference resulted in the Statute of Westminster 1931. (Once again, General Smuts played an important part.) There is still a publication called The Round Table: the Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs, which, as can be seen from the website, advertises what are still called moots, some of them at Cumberland Lodge.

Master Paget

125

126

INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE

Master McGregor H

arvey McGregor’s legacy will be the legal tome on which any serious lawyer must rely when preparing a case involving damages. Regularly republished, McGregor on Damages became a bible in its field and was never more timely. “The idea of damages depends on a litigating society,” said McGregor. “We are following America … suing more than we used to.”

When, last year, the 19th edition went on sale, priced at £536 a copy, it sold 100 copies on the first day, going on to reach thousands across the world, in printed form and online.

McGregor insisted on faultless accuracy; his publishers offered him £50,000 to advance the date for the 20th edition, but he refused, on the grounds that he believed it might undermine the quality on which he insisted.

He was an energetic and exuberant figure; his legal reputation was matched by his skills as a pianist, support of the arts and inveterate love of parties. As a QC, and later as Warden of New College, Oxford, he staged regular concerts, playing serious pieces himself, as well as the songs of Noël Coward and Cole Porter, which delighted his audiences; for instance, his rendition of Coward’s Love Came to Mrs Wentworth-Brewster during which he relished delivering the rhyming couplet about the Italian sailors who “goosed her”.

learnt Mandarin, before being drafted to Singapore, where, unfortunately, they tended to speak Cantonese. His language skills were not, however, wasted. Some years later, he was involved in a legal case where evidence turned on some script written in Chinese. McGregor was able to decipher it, and informed the court that it translated as “turn left to unscrew”.

At Oxford, where he began by reading history, before switching to law, he had the good fortune to study under Sir Zelman Cowen, Fellow of Oriel College and later Governor General of Australia, who became the greatest early influence in his life.

A brief foray into advertising was not to his taste, though he was involved with the Campbell’s Soup contract. He also met his lifelong companion, John Davy, who worked in advertising. They were to be partners for 50 years. He was later called to the Bar of the Inner Temple, taking silk in 1978.

It was during McGregor’s early years at the Bar, when work was not easy to find, that he came across an out-ofdate work from 1856 called Mayne on Damages, which a colleague had been asked to revise. McGregor offered to take on what looked a laborious and unrewarding task, and rewrote the book from beginning to end. The legal publishers, Sweet & Maxwell, were initially reluctant to call it

“ McGregor insisted on faultless accuracy; his publishers offered him £50,000 to advance the date for the 20th edition, but he refused, on the grounds that he believed it might undermine the quality on which he insisted.”

His rapid progress at the English Bar, after a teaching career in Chicago and at Harvard, would be considered unusual at the best of times. For a young Scot, born and brought up in the small industrial town of Inverurie in Aberdeenshire, it was exceptional.

Both his parents – Agnes Reid and William George Guthrie McGregor – were from the area, and since Agnes had been given a substantial house as a wedding present, young Harvey, who went to school at Inverurie Academy, grew up in some style, taking music lessons from an early age. However, the family finances took a downturn forcing them to move south to Scarborough, where his father ran a dry-cleaning business, and Harvey attended Scarborough Boys’ High School, before applying for entry to Queen’s College, Oxford.

The war intervened, and McGregor joined the RAF. Not greatly endowed with mechanical skills, he was sent to the School of Oriental and African Studies, where he

simply McGregor on Damages, so he agreed to incorporate the name Mayne, with the proviso that if it were to prove a success it could bear his own name alone; it was, and it does.

McGregor ensured that he got suitable royalties, which he earned from both on the printed and online editions. It was, he said modestly, a “breadwinner”.

His early specialisation was tax, and he was involved in drafting the tax laws that have so bolstered the economy of the Cayman Islands. However, he said that he always preferred the ‘rough and tumble’ of the common law, and after taking silk, he joined Hailsham Chambers in the Inner Temple. Apart from his work on damages, he wrote books on contract law and comparative law, as well as contributing to legal journals.

He had continued his association with Oxford by teaching contract law at Wadham College, and later at New College, where he became a senior fellow; he was elected Warden

in 1985. Apart from the social and academic duties that went with the post, he introduced the musical evenings that were to become celebrated among dons and students alike.

He realised early on that he would need someone to help with the entertaining, and was introduced to the lively and intelligent Pippa Irwin, then in her seventies, newly divorced and running a jewellery shop in Knightsbridge. She joined him and John Davy, becoming what McGregor called his “gouvernante”. The unlikely trio became a sparkling addition to Oxford’s social life. He was, said one contemporary, “the merriest head of college ever”.

He converted the rather dowdy lodgings and invited students to lunches at which he would produce famous guests such as Iris Murdoch and Bernard Levin. His concerts, in the warden’s drawing room, involved two grand pianos, back-to-back, at one of which he played a duet with Sir Claus Moser, Warden of Wadham College. He was a memorable Malvolio in an undergraduate production of Twelfth Night and sang gustily in Guys and Dolls. “I think I was regarded as the head of house who was nearest to the young,” he recalled.

On retirement, taking Pippa and John, he returned to Scotland, where he staged concerts in the drawing room of his house in Howard Place in Edinburgh; players from the Scottish Conservatoire, St Mary’s Music School and Napier College were among the regular performers. His also took parties of his friends to evenings at Garsington and Glyndebourne.

He would fill the dining hall at the Inner Temple to celebrate birthdays and anniversaries, wearing the loudest of Highland dress, with a jabot, green velvet jacket and resplendent tartan trousers.

MASTER McGREGOR INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

As well as lodgings in Gray’s Inn and a house in Edinburgh, he owned a house in the south of France.

Swimming one day off the beach at Monte Carlo, wearing somewhat skimpy trunks, he was spotted by a female colleague. “Harvey,” she said, “you’re remarkably chic for someone who is wearing so little.”

A month before his death, he was playing a duet from Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring, one of the most difficult piano pieces for four hands in the repertoire.

As Britain became an increasingly litigious society, he acknowledged that his magnum opus would remain in demand long after he was gone. However, he was glad that the culture of damages remained still relatively restrained when compared with the US. “We are moving in the American direction,” he said, “but we are still under control.”

Harvey McGregor ��, lawyer, Warden of New College, Oxford, musician, entertainer, was born on 25 February 1926.

He died on 27 June 2015, aged 89.

Courtesy of The Times

127

128

INNER TEMPLE

Prime Minister Asquith and Venetia Stanley Master Oliver Popplewell examines Asquith’s passionate love affair with Venetia Stanley and his sharing of political information and wartime secrets through his prolific letters.

PRIME MINISTER ASQUITH AND VENETIA STANLEY INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

B

etween 1912 and May 1915, 60-year-old Prime Minister Asquith wrote over 550 of the most passionate love letters to 25-year-old Venetia Stanley.

Most of those from him to her have survived and were published in 1982. Her letters to him no longer exist though from his letters it is possible, occasionally, to know what she was thinking.

Asquith was born in1852, the day that Wellington died.

His father worked in the woollen trade in Yorkshire. He died at the age of 32. Asquith was sent to the City of London School and from there, he won one of only two classical scholarships to Balliol College, Oxford.

At Oxford he got a first in Mods and Greats. After becoming a Fellow, he decided to come to the Bar and became a pupil of Charles Bowen. Asquith was not offered tenancy at the end of pupillage. Instead, he sat in Fig Tree Court without briefs. He lectured, wrote articles, taught, and marked exam papers.

Meanwhile his political career took off. He was elected MP for East Fife in 1886 and, in June 1892, he was appointed Home Secretary by Gladstone. In 1895, the Conservatives, firstly under Salisbury and then under Balfour, took office.

It was not until 1906 that a Liberal government under Campbell-Bannerman came back to power. Asquith took office as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

As a peacetime Prime Minister, Asquith deservedly has a very high reputation. He was an eloquent speaker and a first rate debater. He managed to control a reforming cabinet with a number of dominating personalities and large egos – Lloyd George, Grey, Churchill and Haldane among them.

In wartime, his skills were less successful. When Venetia came on the scene, his attention to the affairs of the nation faltered. In 1914, government business was conducted in a much more leisured way. Duff Cooper, a young man at the Foreign Office, described how he would go down to the office at about 11.00 am, read and sign a few papers, go off

“ It was suggested that Venetia was lacking in seductive charm. However, given the number of lovers that she subsequently acquired, she must have had something going for her.”

In August 1887, he married Helen. While she was still alive, Asquith started an affair with Margot Tennant. Helen died in 1891. In 1894 he married Margot.

After six or seven years in Fig Tree Court, Asquith moved to 1 Paper Buildings where his name still appears on the Chambers' board. In 1888, as junior counsel to Sir Charles Russell QC, he appeared for Parnell, the leader of the Irish nationalists. This was at the inquiry about the letters published by The Times, alleged to have been written

by Parnell, in support of terrorism. MacDonald, The Times manager, was called to give evidence. Being a principal witness, it would have fallen to Russell to cross-examine MacDonald. Asquith described what happened at the end of evidence in chief: “Just before the court rose for lunch, Russell turned to me and said ‘I am tired. You must take charge of this fellow’. I protested but in vain. It was a task made all the more formidable because my leader, the greatest cross-examiner at the English Bar, sat there throughout and listened”.

Asquith subsequently said, “In the space of a couple of hours I made the largest step in advance that I ever took in my entire forensic career”.

Other well-known cases in which he appeared were on behalf of the unsuccessful defendants in the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company case and in the notorious Royal baccarat scandal involving the Prince of Wales. At the age of 37 he took silk.

to lunch at one of the great houses, return about 4.00 pm and sign a few more papers. Thereafter he would go out to a dinner and a ball. This would be repeated weekly.

Nor even during the war did Asquith himself feel obligated to spend his spare time reading papers. At the end of a day, he would go out to a dinner or play bridge, write letters to Venetia, or take her out for romantic drives.

We come now to the arrival of Venetia in the story. She was born in 1887. Venetia and Violet, Asquith’s daughter, had known each other from childhood and wrote lots of gushing girlie letters to each other. Venetia was a constant visitor to Number 10.

The earliest extant letter from Asquith to her is dated 10 September 1910. He was 58 and she was 24.

Correspondence thereafter was sporadic. But in January 1912, Venetia and Violet went on holiday to Sicily with Asquith and Montagu who was Asquith’s private secretary.

On their return, Asquith and Venetia went to stay together in the New Forest.

Venetia Stanley was an intelligent and well-read woman with a good knowledge of English literature and much interested in politics. Pictures of her at the time show her dark-haired, lively and, though she was no beauty, she was not unattractive. Indeed, it was suggested that Venetia was lacking in seductive charm. However, given the number of lovers that she subsequently acquired, she must have had something going for her.

129

130

INNER TEMPLE

The Letters Asquith wrote to Venetia almost every day, sometimes twice a day, sometimes three times and occasionally four times.

Even during the war Asquith would write from his room at Number 10, during debates in the Commons, during meetings of the Cabinet, during meetings of the War Council and of the Committee of Defence and from houses where he was staying.

An historian described it in this way: “A messenger would come into the Cabinet room with a letter from Venetia and Asquith would read it with great concentration. He would then settle down to write a reply at length ringing for the messenger – other members of the Cabinet, particularly Lloyd George were dismayed at the time he spent on his personal correspondence”.

What was he writing to her about? In January 1915, he wrote, “You know how I value your judgement. I put it quite first among women and there are only two or three men to my mind in the same class.”

He confided in her the most confidential political information, both before and during the war. He also forwarded to her private letters he had received from others without the knowledge or consent of the writer.

On 14 April 1915, he wrote, “I send you to keep secret or destroy, as you think best, a letter I got about noon from Kitchener [who was in charge of the War Office]. It records his private interview this morning with Sir John French who commanded the British Expeditionary Force in France.”

The appointment of a Chief Whip was the subject of much discussion and debate with Venetia. Asquith also sought her advice about replacing Hardinge as Viceroy of India.

In peacetime, it was perhaps not a hanging offence to give her confidential political information but to confide secrets in wartime was quite different.

As early as 22 August 1914, he had forwarded to her a telegram marked “secret” sent by French to Kitchener setting out the details of the BEF’s retreat and the precise lines of defence, adding, “I wish we had something like a code that we could use. I longed to let you know before anyone else what had happened and was happening.” In December 1914, he wrote, “I have been looking through the foreign office telegrams to see if there is now anything of interest to tell you. But I can find nothing worth repeating”. Imagine what the press would have made of all this if they had known.

An attack on Turkey through the Dardanelles was conceived as a speedier way of winning the war. On this, he wrote, “The situation in the near east may be transformed if the bombardment of the Dardanelles by our ships next week (secret) goes well – this is supposed to be secret and I believe it isn’t known to some members of the cabinet – naturally I shall tell you everything”. The word “naturally” leaves me gasping with astonishment.

Apart from confidential information and soughtafter advice, his letters are full of his passionate love for Venetia. One of his final letters says it all. “I shall live on in the thought of what you have been to me, and are to me, and of what you are in yourself – the one incarnation of all that I worship… – and above all and beyond all, in the intimacy of perfect confidence and understanding for two years past, the pole star and the lodestar of my life”.

The day after writing this letter he received the news from Venetia that she was going to marry Montagu. Asquith tried to persuade her to change her mind and behaved bravely though heartbroken.

PRIME MINISTER ASQUITH AND VENETIA STANLEY INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

The nature of the relationship between Asquith and Venetia Before the letters were published, Roy Jenkins wrote in his biography of Asquith that the relationship was merely an epistolary one. However after reading the letters he seems to have changed his mind. He wrote, “Compared with today when the existence of even the most minor and boring scandals is shrieked out from every tabloid, pre-1914 England was full of hidden sexual reefs”.

Angela Lambert, a close friend of both Venetia and Asquith wrote, “Asquith had not the temperament for unconsummated love – certainly not platonic love. He was too fullblooded to be a Balfour, palely loitering, especially as Margot became disinclined for sex. As women found out, to be left alone with him, was to invite immediate and bold approaches – admittedly playful to begin with – he was simply an importunate lecher – if he found no resistance to his advances – or even active encouragement, he would take the relationship to its fullest conclusion.” Lady Churchill disliked Asquith’s predilection for peering down Pennsylvania Avenue (the contemporary expression for a lady’s cleavage.) whenever he was seated next to a pretty woman. Duff Cooper described him as “the old lecher”.

What of Venetia’s subsequent behaviour? Her marriage to Edwin was less than a success. She found him physically unattractive. By 1918, Diana was writing that Venetia “had

already started a liaison with Beaverbrook and became one of his mistresses”. At the peace conference, Diana described meeting them: “Beaverbrook and Venetia turned up. It’s a disgusting case – her face lights up when that animated little deformity so much as turns to her. They are living in open sin at the Ritz – while poor Edwin is sardined into the Majestic”.

“ In peacetime, it was perhaps not a hanging offence to give her confidential political information but to confide secrets in wartime was quite different.”

A daughter, Judith, was born to Venetia in1923.

She was not Edwin’s child. According to Venetia, the father was the Earl of Dudley who was her lover for a while. She had a number of other lovers, Sir Mathew Wilson aka Scatters, Charles Hope and Sidney Herbert.

You may ask why, if she was happy as a married woman to have a number of lovers, it should be thought surprising that she should have a sexual relationship a few years earlier with Asquith when she was single and not constrained by the ties of marriage: the conspiracy of silence.

In 1932, the authorised biography of Asquith written by J A Aspender and Cyril Asquith, was published in two volumes.

They ran in all to some 720 pages. There are just two references to Venetia: that he used to write letters to women including Venetia, and that on one occasion he played a round of golf with her.

Asquith himself had been no more forthcoming. Two volumes of Memoirs and Recollections ran to some 450 pages in all without any mention of Venetia, as did Fifty Years in Parliament running to 520 pages. Margot was just as silent.

I am sure you will have your own ideas.

Master Popplewell The Prime Minister and his Mistress by Sir Oliver Popplewell can be purchased online from the Inner Temple Store www.innertemple.org.uk/innstore or from the Treasury Office

131

132

INNER TEMPLE  EVENT

Enchanted Garden Summer Party Photos

SUMMER PARTY PHOTOS INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

133

134

INNER TEMPLE

The Temple Women’s Forum

Master Deborah Taylor reviews the aims and work of the Temple Women’s Forum.

I

n 2011, the Temple Women’s Forum was founded

by Middle Temple to encourage and support women throughout their careers, so as to increase retention within the profession. Master Hallett gave the inaugural speech to a full Middle Temple Hall in March 2012, endorsing the need for role models and encouragement which had not been available to her and others at the Criminal Bar. The event was so well received that it was followed in October 2012 by a similarly successful evening when Master Gloster spoke of her experience at the Commercial Bar. In April 2013, Frances Oldham QC’s subject was life for women practitioners at the publicly-funded Bar, and Master Sumption spoke about judicial diversity. It was clear that Inner Temple, having provided such distinguished speakers, should become involved. And so we did.

For the last two years I have co-chaired the forum with Rachel Langdale QC of Middle Temple. The Inn, and in particular Henrietta Amodio, has provided unstinting support and flawless organisation. There have been two main events and a number of workshops. Although aimed at women practitioners, men are certainly not excluded. At the April forum this year, two male barristers independently told me that it was the best career development event they had

attended. One said “men would not be so generous and honest”. Harsh, perhaps, but it has undoubtedly been the candid contributions and quality of the range of speakers and panellists taking part which have made these events successful.

In 2014, at the Crossing Boundaries forum, we heard from those who had taken paths away from the Bar. Mrs Justice Vivien Rose spoke of her experiences of leaving the Bar for the Government Legal Service, advising in increasingly complex areas of law, and then returning to the Bench in the Chancery Division via the Competition Tribunal. A varied panel from outside the Bar included Nicky Oppenheimer, a legal headhunter and Margaret Caseley-Hayford, previously a planning barrister, solicitor and then head of legal at John Lewis plc. All had practical and encouraging advice for those who either wanted to, or were compelled by circumstance to leave the Bar, leaving open the possibility of return or later judicial appointment. Last year’s workshop on Taking Silk had not only a panel of recently appointed women silks who talked with great honesty and generosity about their own experiences, but helpful advice from Lord Carlile from QC Appointments and a psychologist who encouraged women to be more confident and apply, like men, when 60% sure

Left to right: The Rt Hon The Baroness Hale of Richmond. Master Taylor and Master Foster with The Rt Hon The Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. Rachel Langdale QC

THE TEMPLE WOMEN'S FORUM INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

“ …it has undoubtedly been the candid contributions and quality of the range of speakers and panellists taking part which have made these events successful.” of success, rather than 90%, as research shows women do.

At this year’s April forum A Survivor’s Guide to Staying at the Bar, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, spoke about improving diversity at the Bar and in the Judiciary, before a distinguished panel of women barristers from different areas of practice. They provided invaluable advice on coping with the ups and downs of a long career, in some cases balancing illness and family problems.

The forum continues to innovate. The Temple North Women’s Forum was set up in 2013 in Leeds by Dr Iyiola Solanke, Academic Fellow of the Inn. On 8 June, we held the first Cross-Profession Networking Party, when over 400 women solicitors, academics, barristers and judges met in the Inner Temple Garden, providing a unique opportunity for women in all areas of the law to meet. Baroness Hale gave a

typically uplifting welcome before the rain came. Undeterred, and thanks to the smoothest of transfers by the Inn’s staff, the party continued in the Hall. It was so successful that it will be repeated next year, rain or shine. Preferably shine.

In addition, next year’s spring forum will provide practical advice about problems currently affecting retention and progression, such as self-confidence, cash flow, harassment and discrimination. Economics plays a significant part in the exodus of women, and cuts in fees at the publicly funded Bar impact on the high percentage of women practising in these areas. It may not be possible to alter economic realities, but the aim of the Temple Women’s Forum is to provide advice and support on how to deal with them… and another party.

Come to both in pursuit of work-life balance.

Master Taylor

135

136

INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE

Master Coward

By The Hon Mrs Justice Thirlwall ���

T

hat Stephen was loved, admired and respected by many was reflected in the large numbers at a packedout crematorium for his funeral and at his memorial service and in the huge pile of letters and cards that Ann and the girls have received in the weeks following his death.

He was born to Kathleen and Frank Coward, she a corsetiere and he an engineer. His roots were, and remained, central to who he was and indeed to who he became.

Huddersfield is an unpretentious sort of place; one of its most famous sons was, throughout his glittering career, completely without pretention. In every aspect of his life he was never pompous, and always true to himself. And so when he became successful and was listed in Who’s Who, he wrote as his recreation, “Trying to grow a decent row of peas.”.

He went to the grammar school in Huddersfield and then to London where he read law at UCL. He did his national service in the RAF and later taught Law and the Constitution at the National Police College. There could have been no better preparation for a young man who was destined to spend a fair proportion of his early career cross-examining

said, “This is… er, I’m sorry love, I’ve forgotten your name.”

She did, however, marry him and they had four daughters. Each was very different from the other, each as lovely and captivating as you would expect when you mix the genes of Stephen and Ann and the rich experience of life in the Coward household; first in Rose Cottage and then in The Grange, Scaldwell. But could he remember her name? Well, I am not sure he could. Suffice it to say, Ann is convinced that’s why he always called her ‘love’. You can’t go wrong with that.

He was a great dad; he adored his daughters, even when they were less than grateful for being dragged around Venice when it was hot, or through the streets of Dubrovnik when they wanted to be at the beach. Each holiday was an adventure: four girls and provisions for the journey stuffed into the back seat of the car along with the tent, camping stove and all the rest of the kit you need for a camping holiday en famille. However, he always left room for the acquisition of more than a few bottles of something delicious from Bordeaux or Burgundy or indeed from the Rhône.

“ When he stood up to make a closing speech he had to put the jigsaw together. He had thought through every angle of the case and each time he stood up he looked them in the eye and he knew that what he was saying to them was true.” police officers. He turned his back on academic life and was called to the Bar in 1964 by Inner Temple. This career change was to bring him enormous challenges and huge personal and professional fulfilment, as well as sacrifice. He joined the set of chambers then known as, and situated at, 2 Crown Office Row. His pupil master was Leonard Halpern. His practice was mixed common law on the Midland Circuit.

As a young barrister, he soon established himself as one of the most sought-after criminal advocates on the circuit.

A grateful and impressed fraudster client at Peterborough Crown Court said of Stephen to his solicitor, “If only I could bottle that, I’d be a rich man” – which tells you two things: firstly, that Stephen had a very satisfied client and, secondly, that the fraudster was a very good judge of advocates.

That may have been of course because he had had plenty of experience.

Whilst building his practice, there was another equally important part of his life, which was just beginning. He met Ann, a young nurse at St Thomas’. What a good-looking couple they were. Stephen knew early on when they stepped out together, that she was the one. He introduced her to a friend of his at a party and for probably the only time in his life he was flustered and overcome. He turned to Ann and

In Scaldwell, he was a stalwart of SWIG – Scaldwell Wine Investigation Group – which met once a month to try new, or indeed old, wines. They held an annual Christmas bash and, best of all, a rival group was set up: SLOB – Scaldwell Lovers of Booze. This was much better than the Archers.

Stephen’s practice at the Bar was huge and he was in great demand. He was junior counsel in the prosecution of the soviet spy, Geoffrey Prime, and later became a recorder.

I appeared before him at Lincoln Crown Court. I was very junior and quite terrified. I was speaking, no doubt, far too quickly when I had a truly startling realisation: the judge was staring straight at me. I remember thinking, “goodness, I think the judge is listening”. I almost stopped speaking. I can’t remember what happened next, except that I remember the overwhelming gratitude I felt that someone was listening to what I had to say. This was a wonderful moment for a young, inexperienced advocate; one I have never forgotten.

He was generous and patient with all new advocates.

Stephen took silk in 1984 and I was led by him several times in Birmingham and in Nottingham. All who have been led by him will have this same memory: sitting in the car with the back window open while Stephen puffed away at his cigarette, driving at breakneck speed through the

Northamptonshire countryside and home to the lively dinner table with wonderful food and delicious wine.

Each evening we would go to Stephen’s enormous study with the case papers and sit at his vast desk, he on one side and me on the other. Stephen would always have a whisky at his right hand, and a pen. We would sit there for hours in silence. He would come up with ideas about the shape of the case, areas for cross-examination, and we would then test them. We talked about tactics. It was wonderful to feel part of the case and to learn from the master.

When we went into court and I sat behind him. The first thing that struck me, and indeed it is my abiding memory of Stephen as an advocate, was that he could stay completely still. I know he got irritated by advocates who could not keep still and waved their arms about. I don’t think he ever realised how hard it is for most of us to remain motionless. I think he could do it because it reflected the stillness within him.

I don’t think he ever stood up before a jury thinking to himself, “Let’s see if I can get away with this”. When he stood up to make a closing speech he had to put the jigsaw together. He had thought through every angle of the case and each time he stood up he looked them in the eye and he knew that what he was saying to them was true. Sometimes when he finished speaking on behalf of a defendant against whom the case was overwhelming, he would sit down. I would look at the jury. I felt sorry for them. They had gone from being spellbound by Stephen’s advocacy to being shell shocked. They had thought this was going to be easy but it was not. They had been nudged, cajoled and, in the end, downright forced to look at the case carefully, to decide on the evidence.

In silk, he defended the young seaman who was charged with manslaughter arising out of the sinking of the MS Herald of Free Enterprise. He was acquitted.

He defended the Oxford student who murdered his girlfriend and hid her body in his flat.

Stephen was in all the best cases. When he retired after 40 years, he said he wanted to stop before people looked across the robing room and whispered, “He used to be really good you know”. So he bowed out leaving us wanting more.

He turned down the opportunity of becoming a judge.

He knew he would miss the cut and thrust, the taking part, the ability to shape the case.

MASTER COWARD INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

That evening, he told Ann that he had turned down the offer of an appointment. However, not for the first time and certainly not for the last, she did understand why he had said no – living, as she did, with the highs and lows of a silk at the top of his game, the all-consuming job, the troughs of despair and the exhilaration when things go well, particularly when justice is done. He knew he would not have enjoyed being a judge.

Stephen never changed. He was the same modest, plainspeaking person when a colossus of the criminal Bar as he’d been all those years ago. He just exuded kindness, generosity, wisdom and understanding. He was a very special man.

Stephen was Head of Chambers for far longer than we had a right to expect. These were the days before emails – there were relentless phone calls and letters, all of which he kept. He did it all without complaint. He continued the tradition established, I think, by Desmond Fennell, of putting at the top of every missive the saint of the day. I felt that he tried particularly hard to find the most obscure saints of the day. I am grateful to Philip Head for the information that Stephen died on St Willibrord of Utrecht’s day. The day of his memorial service was the feast day of at least a dozen saints – as I know from extensive research on Catholics Online.

I have looked at them all with a view to selecting the name of the Saint that Stephen would have most liked to mark the day of the celebration of his life. St Valeria of Limoges caught my eye. I think Stephen might have enjoyed what is written on the website. According to Catholics Online, she was a “Maiden converted to Christianity by St Martial of Limoges and martyred by beheading. There is a strong probability that she never lived.” Stephen would have liked that – just the sort of saint of whom he would have approved, one who never lived at all.

For me, the enduring memory is his stillness. When so much was taken from him first with the aneurysm and then the stroke, he was still able to remain completely absorbed in the moment. Stillness was the essential Stephen Coward.

Watching the cricket, watching the Tour de France, watching his children, his grandchildren, absolutely riveted, utterly focused on them.

And I think that stillness defined him throughout his life, in the darkest and most joyous of times, of which there were very many. And I hope that stillness meant that he could reflect on his life with contentment, notwithstanding the frustrations that beset him in the later years because this Huddersfield boy had achieved everything – a glittering career, a full and rich family life, a huge circle of interesting and interested friends and, above all of these things, nearly 50 years spent with the woman he loved and who loved him – whatever her name was.

The Hon Mrs Justice Thirlwall ��� Presiding Judge of the Midland Circuit

137

138

INNER TEMPLE

Alfred Arthur Hudson and the Marks Cup Master Michael Lawson explores the life and work of Master Hudson, architect and barrister, who donated the Marks Cup to the Inn in 1926.

T

he Inner Temple is very fortunate in owning a fine collection of silver stretching from the mid-16th Century to the present day, the majority of which is the result of the generosity of past and current members of the Inn, many of whom were Benchers and past Treasurers.

Most of the pieces are items of great beauty and fine examples of the silversmith’s craft. We are immensely grateful to the immediate past Master of the Silver, Donald Cryan, now Master Reader, for commissioning the display cabinets, which allow part of the collection to be enjoyed by a greater number. Those of us who have the enviable task of checking that all the items are safe and in good condition see other pieces and, inevitably, each of us has his own favourite.

Richard Parsons, the fourth generation of his family to advise and guide us, is an immensely knowledgeable silversmith. He favours a rose bowl for its beauty and craftsmanship and has written about it, and its maker, below. It was given to the Inn in 1926 by Master Hudson. It is unlikely that we shall ever know definitively why he gave it to the Inn, although Richard Parsons has his own ideas. For my part, I wondered who he was. As with many members of the Inn, he turned out to be a man of varied interests and considerable talent.

Alfred Arthur Hudson was born in 1852, in Southsea, Portsmouth. His obituary records that he was “educated privately and in Switzerland” (Morat College) and that he died in Vevey, on the shores of Lake Garda, after a short illness at the age of 78. He was admitted to the Inner Temple in 1880, aged 28, but not called until 1885. There was a reason for that. He had earlier qualified as an architect and, in 1881, had been commissioned to build a church on land donated to the Church in St Peter’s Park, Southsea. The previous, temporary church described as being for “the poorer classes” of the area, had seating for 350 and had proved inadequate. Alfred Hudson agreed to complete the construction in one year and made good his promise. The church of St Peter the Apostle was consecrated on 20 May 1883, one year to the day after the laying of the foundation stone. Local records reveal that the Church Councillors considered that the project was one of some urgency “because of the possibility of the Non-conformists beginning to build if the neighbourhood were left unoccupied.”

The church still stands as a fine Victorian Gothic church, in red brick with stone detailing, but was clearly too big for the recent Church of England congregations, who now worship in a sister parish nearby. There is a certain irony in that it is currently occupied by the King’s Church. The Nonconformists were obviously prepared to bide their time!

We know little of Alfred Hudson’s early career at the Bar but it probably involved the areas of engineering, building and technical litigation with which he had been involved as an architect. Later, he spent much time as an arbitrator.

In 1891, he published the first and only comprehensive textbook on building and engineering contracts – known to generations as Hudson on The Law of Building and Engineering Contracts. The current edition was published December 2014. He also wrote, or contributed to, three other text books. Such was his contribution to the subject of construction law that, in 1988, the Society of Construction Law named an annual prize in his name, describing him as “virtually the founding father of the subject” as well as the author of the principal text on construction law.

His entry in Who’s Who evokes a past age and records that he sat as a Commissioner under the Boiler Explosions Acts; a Referee under the Safeguarding of Industries Act 1921 and under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927. He Chaired the Joint District Board for South Derbyshire under the Coal Mines (Minimum Wages) Act and, by 1906, was President of the Tribunal of Appeal under the London Building Acts. It is unsurprising that he was made King’s Counsel in 1910 and elected a Bencher of the Inn in 1921.

Although he had a private address at one time in Mount Street, W1, he is shown as giving 5 Paper Buildings as his address by 1902, and was there at least until 1920. His encyclopaedic knowledge of construction and building law, his skill as an architect, were leavened not only by his love of forestry and country pursuits but by a keen eye for the beautiful. I am sure he would have been a very interesting companion over dinner.

Bench Table minutes record that in June 1926, he donated the silver rose bowl to the Inn “for which he was thanked.” I hope that the thanks were more effusive than the record suggests. Curiously his name appears for a second time that year. In November he was thanked by the Bench for assisting in the refurbishment of the Bencher’s Rooms, and the Inn gave him a piece of silver plate in thanks. I have no doubt that the Inn had the better of that exchange of silver! Filled with roses from the Garden it is a truly beautiful sight – a fusion of Gilbert Marks’ supreme skill and Nature’s own beauty.

Master Lawson

ALFRED ARTHUR HUDSON AND THE MARKS CUP INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

“ His encyclopaedic knowledge of construction and building law, his skill as an architect, were leavened not only by his love of forestry and country pursuits but by a keen eye for the beautiful.”

I

have written a number of articles about the Inn’s silver and, even though I have seen the collection many times, the ‘life’ of an object only becomes apparent on preparing these articles. In 1926, Master Hudson gave the Inn a large silver bowl decorated with five repoussé panels of rose stalks and flowers. Having a diameter of 13 inches and weighing 70.5 oz, this magnificent object was for many years actively used for floral displays in the Hall.

The bowl is London-hallmarked for 1897-8 and was created by one of the most celebrated art nouveau silver-work artist craftsmen of the age, Gilbert Leigh Marks. Marks was born on 1 April 1861 in Croydon, South London, to a family of artists, although his father was an author and manager working for a sherry shipper. His uncles included the painters Henry Stacy Marks RA and Frederick Walker ARA, RWS. Marks is recorded as having made only 700 to 800 silver items in a relatively short period of time, all of which are different in design; I have been fortunate to have owned a number of Marks’ works, amongst them a very fine royal bowl repoussé with leaping fish, also, perhaps an exception to the comment above, an exact pair of dishes, but with different floral repoussé. After leaving school, in 1878, Marks was employed as a clerk in a firm of silversmiths believed to be Holland, Aldwinckle & Slater, although he is not recorded as being an apprentice silversmith for the firm. Around 1885, he went to work at Masurel & Fils, a wool brokers, who still

trade today as Segard Masurel. When he married Florence Elizabeth Ford in 1888, his profession is recorded as ‘wool broker’s manager’. It is quite possible that he developed his silversmithing skills as a spare-time hobby. It was not until 1895, when he registered his mark at Goldsmiths’ Hall in the City of London, that he held his first solo exhibition at the showrooms of the City jewellers Messrs Johnson, Walker and Tolhurst. It is interesting to note that Holland, Aldwinckle & Slater were at the time one of their suppliers.

He held a number of further exhibitions with Johnson, Walker and Tolhurst, ceasing in 1901. Also, between 1897 and 1903, he exhibited at the Royal Academy in London; the Walker Art Gallery in Liverpool; Glasgow Institute of the Fine Arts; the Leeds City Art Gallery and, in 1899, the Fine Art Society in London.

In 1901, Harry Spielmann wrote in British Sculpture and Sculptors Today in an article titled Mr Gilbert Marks: “Mr Marks is a good type of the artistsilversmith who manufactures his own work, and refuses to entrust the execution of it to another craftsman who may have neither seen nor known aught of the original designer and his aims. He has made cups and bowls for the King and a box for the Queen; but the cliiet (sic) work near the beginning of his career were the mace

139

140

INNER TEMPLE

for the Corporation of Croydon and the steel and gold key for the dedication ceremony by the Prince of Wales. Caskets, silver services, bowls, memorial tablets, Freedom-of-the-City boxes and so forth, need not be specified. The characteristic of Mr Marks’ work is the beauty of the design (commonly of flowers and fishes treated with a good deal of realism) and the intelligent and individual character of the repoussé work.”

And so it is with the Inner Temple Bowl, being made of higher assay Britannia silver, the distortion of the metal forming the rose heads is quite remarkable with no splitting to the metal. The design has a contemporary appearance and could be mistaken for work produced today by a skilled silversmith, the form being both functional and pleasing to the eye. The bowl is also signed under the base ‘Gilbert Marks 97’ as an artist would sign his work of art.

In an interview in 1898 that Marks gave to The London Art Journal, he was reported as saying: “The man who buys the stock plate is buying useful articles but not unique ones, whereas he who commissions an original work upon which the craftsman has bestowed his best personal labour is buying a work of art, the money value of which increases with an increase of reputation that may come to the artist.”

Sadly, Marks had suffered from ill health for a number of years and died a relatively young man in 1905, his estate being probated for £3,120 14s 7d.

Bearing in mind Marks’ 1898 interview, what is the significance in Master Hudson’s 1926 gift? Alfred Arthur Hudson KC was born in 1852 in Southsea, Hampshire, and died in 1930 at Vevey, Switzerland. He studied as an architect and was admitted to the Inner Temple in 1880, being called to the Bar in 1885. In 1902, the Royal Institute of British Architects records his address as being 5 Paper Buildings, Temple, E.G. Would Marks have made silver for a special commission?

I have already mentioned another large Gilbert Marks bowl decorated with leaping fish, with a diameter of 11.1/4 inches and weighing 65.3 oz. This bowl was hallmarked London 1897-8 and signed ‘Gilbert Marks 1898’. The inside of the bowl is engraved: ‘Solent, One Design Class Special Prize Presented by Commodore H R H The Prince of Wales Cowes August 5th 1898, Won by Captain J D Barry’s Tangerine’.

Was this bowl a special commission placed by the Prince of Wales or purchased off-the-shelf at one of Marks’ solo exhibitions? Harry Spielmann had reported in his article that Marks had made a key for the dedication of the Prince of Wales and it is possible to speculate, because of the large size of the work, that this bowl might possibly have been made as a commission.

Similarly, was the Hudson bowl a commission placed directly with the silversmith, a rose bowl being a reference to the Inner Temple Rose Garden, or a chance purchase (the

bowl has an attendant metal liner divided by a series of 29 tubes for individual stalks)? There are records to a garden, on what was to become Inner Temple land, pre-dating the founding of the Inn. Mediaeval records describe there being an orchard on this land; by the 14th Century there are several mentions of its roses and Shakespeare used it as a setting for the meeting between Richard Plantagenet and John Beaufort, (Henry VI part one, Act 2), which sparked the Wars of the Roses.

‘This brawl today, Grown to this faction in the Temple-garden, Shall send, between the red rose and the white, A thousand souls to death and deadly night’ Whether this meeting happened or not, it is an interesting thought that Master Hudson might have commissioned a silver bowl, with reference to the Inner Temple Rose Garden, which once sat before him within 5 Paper Buildings containing a fine display of roses, eventually making it his gift to the Inn.

Richard Parsons

RAYMOND ASQUITH INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Raymond Asquith: One of the Best

Bijan Omrani profiles the life of Raymond Asquith, the Prime Minister’s son and Inner Temple Barrister who exchanged high society life in London for the trenches of the Somme.

U

nlike recent conflicts, the First World War was not one which spared the children of its politicians. Raymond Asquith was the eldest son of H H Asquith, the Prime Minister who led Britain into the war in 1914. A member of Inner Temple, he gave up his practice at the Bar to fight in some of the bloodiest engagements on the Western Front.

He was not known, however, simply on account of his father. In the words of his friend John Buchan, Asquith was one of those people “whose brilliance in boyhood and early manhood dazzles their contemporaries and becomes a legend”. One of the finest scholars of his generation at Oxford, he was a leading light in Lady Diana Cooper’s ‘corrupt coterie’ before the war, numbering literary and high-society figures such as Duff Cooper, Maurice Baring and Patrick Shaw-Stewart amongst his close friends. It was a circle whose destruction by the war epitomised the end of a gilded age.

Raymond Asquith’s family was not originally of the aristocratic circles in which Asquith himself moved. H H Asquith was from a line of Congregationalist Yorkshire mill owners. He made his name through a scholarship to Baliol and his presidency of the Oxford Union, before joining the Bar and taking a seat in Parliament. By the time that Asquith was 14 in 1892, H H Asquith was Home Secretary,

and for Raymond, acquaintance with and gossip about senior politicians such as Lord Haldane, Lord Rosebery and Sir Edward Grey was an ordinary part of life.

Even as a schoolboy at Winchester, Asquith was known for his detachment and brilliant wit. The shibboleths of the Victorian public school and muscular Christianity were frequent foils for his amusement. After an outbreak of “unconventional forms of vice”, he described in a letter to a friend how the headmaster, speaking in hushed accents, “exhorted us with passionate fervour to prefer every known form of prostitution and bestiality to the sin of Sodom”.

He was no respecter of conventional moralities. Confessing himself a pagan, he would block his ears in chapel so as to read the Greek Anthology without disturbance. He preferred to hold his own divine services with close friends late at night, where they poured libations to a small statue of Apollo smuggled into the chapel and placed on the altar.

His contemporaries remarked on his cold aloofness, his contempt for popularity, and his intolerance of mediocrity.

Buchan wrote that at times he could almost be inhuman: “He would destroy some piece of honest sentiment with a jest, and he had no respect for the sacred places of dull men.” Shortly after going up to Oxford, Asquith was invited on a country-house weekend and was horrified to

Photo credit: Mary Evans/Robert Hunt Collection

141

142

INNER TEMPLE

find that the owner had invited a group of lower-middleclass Londoners as part of his charitable good works: “The house is reeking”, he complained, “with the gross and human odours which ever cling around the skirts of philanthropy: one sits down to dinner with a rabble of small shopkeepers from Balham and Battersea…when I want to look at the sea or the sky, some grocer or ironmonger has anticipated me and ruined the foreground irretrievably.”

But this aloofness may have been a reflex of self-defence following the early death of his mother, Helen Melland, who died when Asquith was 13. And to such, commented Buchan, “as were admitted to his friendship he would deny nothing. I have never known a friend more considerate, and tender, and painstaking, and unfalteringly loyal…”

Nonetheless, it was perhaps this public combination of aloofness, wit and effortless ability (“couldn’t I do eight hours work a day instead of four…” complained the authorities

rooms as a bus does to the Parthenon, books which bear the same relation to real books as beetles bear to butterflies.

I take one out of the shelf and the binding crumbles in my hand like a mummy, musty odours of decay exhale from the leaves and clouds of noxious and ancient dust choke my eyes. The window panes are covered with the dung of London pigeons, and from the room above I can sometimes hear the clerks spitting onto the pavement. Once a month or so I have something to do; but the rest of the time I stare with sightless eyes and unregarding brain at books which ought to be burned for dullness by the common hangman.

It is the best way ever found out of rotting one’s brain.”

Despite the hard grind of the early years at the Bar, Asquith’s aloofness was somewhat mollified by his courtship and marriage in the summer of 1907. His bride was Katharine Horner, whose family, famed in the nursery rhyme of Little Jack Horner, had owned the ancient house of Mells in

“ Typically making light of it, he wrote to Lady Diana Cooper shortly beforehand saying that he feared he would soon be ending up with a peerage or in Westminster Abbey.” at Baliol to him, “…frittering away life in the company of leisured exquisites and elegant debauchees…”) which made him such a figure of fascination. He won a clutch of scholarships and a fellowship to All Souls, whilst indulging fully in the sporting and club life of the University. He was also elected President of the Union, although many remarked that his politics, such as they were, owed more to heredity than conviction. His attitude to political life at the time is best summed up by his account of his father riding a merrygo-round in his constituency: “The scene quite reminds one of Walpurgis nacht: the throng of half-naked lascivious women, and drunk men like monkeys whirling wildly through space, under the great yellow splashes of gas…and shooting galleries and little dirty boys eating ices and fried fish and every sort of horror. And my grave and statesmanlike father… hurtling to and fro on a painted oscillating horse with a lofty smile of liberal satisfaction in the pleasures of the people, a true apostle of democracy if ever there was one…”

Asquith was not unusual amongst his Oxford peers in deprecating a concern for paid employment, or refusing to see such as the goal of education. Yet, despite his possession of the All Souls fellowship, he felt at last compelled to settle in London “and begin in someone’s chambers, or whatever one does in the early stages of law…”. It was not a change he found immediately congenial. “The Law School is fitter for galley-slaves than gentlemen,” he remarked, although his easy academic brilliance followed him from the Classics.

When in a mood, the Bar was the recipient of his withering scorn. Writing from 1 Paper Buildings to his friend the adventurer Aubery Herbert, who was then in Damascus, Asquith was unrestrained: “…If you knew what the address at the head of this sheet meant it would give a double zest to your pleasures. It means hundreds of dull men sitting in hundreds of dull rooms with hundreds of dull books – men who bear the same relation to real men as a pianola does to a piano, rooms which bear the same relation to real

Somerset since the Reformation. Only Asquith’s letters to her survive, but they are known to have deep shared interests in literature and the liberal arts. His letters show an ardent and genuine love, but often mediated by the same language of wit and detachment with which he would treat life more generally. On one occasion when she failed to reply to him, he berated her: “O Katharine, Katharine, how can you be so hard and wicked and unkind to me?

You are completely wicked all through in your head and in your heart from your magical hair down to the silver buckle on your contemptuous instep…It is monstrous that your eyes should be full of tenderness and imagination and that your lips should have the exquisite curve of sensibility and that your brow should be low and white and wonderfully moulded into a radiant promise of simplicity and sweetness – and then that it should all be an empty and deceitful symbolism and nothing behind it but the loving kindness of a tigress and the warmth of newts and adders…”

By 1910, there were two daughters from the union, and Asquith’s legal career was developing rapidly. He was junior counsel in the inquiry into the sinking of the Titanic, and he also appeared representing the British government in the Newfoundland Fisheries Arbitration in The Hague. The latter case detained him on the Continent for several months, and in letters home to Katharine he was merciless in his depiction of opposing counsel: “The first of the American speakers who had promised to finish tomorrow has now announced that he will probably continue through all next week. His accent, which I wrongly took to be that of New England, turns out on the contrary to belong to the Pacific coast, where he was for many years engaged as a porter on the Canadian-Pacific railway. His speech has so far been confined entirely to an analysis of certain doctrines of the Roman Law – It seems to our notions a strange function to assign to a porter; but he manfully proclaims his propositions in the voice of a man accustomed to announce the names of railway stations

RAYMOND ASQUITH: ONE OF THE BEST INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

and his Latinity would drown the noise of buffers…”

By August 1914, Asquith had been selected as a Liberal parliamentary candidate for Derby. However, the war put any prospect of an election on hold. The air was thick, he commented, with the feeling that “England expects everyone to make a fuss”. His first notion was to join the new London Volunteer Defence Force, “an organisation… [for] promoting drilling middle-aged breadwinners out of school hours.” He observed the advantage of joining was that it was unlikely even to be formed within several months, and hence that no member “can possibly be killed until Goodwood 1915 at the earliest.” Yet, by December he had enlisted in the Queen’s Westminster Rifles with many other Londoners inexperienced in war. Having passed several months in training but still unlikely to reach the front that year, in July 1915 he transferred to the 3rd Battalion of the Grenadiers – a strange thing “for a middle-aged middle-class chap” to do, but “the best (and last) chance one is likely to have of being killed on a fairly warm day”. His desire to see active service was not blunted by the death of several of his friends, and indeed the prospect of death moved him little: “…So far as my personal crust is concerned it is not broken by anybody’s death in the war, and will not be even by my own. To that extent I nail my crust to the mast; or support it upon the inverted egg-cup of invincible pride and a stiff indifference to the brutal muddle of the universe. I will not catch at God’s skirts and pray. I will merely send him to Coventry (where by the way he will find himself represented in Parliament by Ramsay Macdonald…).”

Asquith spent the winter of 1915 in the trenches and, despite the conditions, he maintained his detachment, although sparing none of the detail in letters home: “An unpleasant feature is the vast number of rats which gnaw the dead bodies and then run about on one’s face making obscene noises and gestures. Lately a certain number of cats have taken to nesting in the corpses but I think the rats will get them under in the end; though like all wars it will doubtless be a war of attrition.”

Despite being at the front, his skills in advocacy were still in demand. He was called to represent brother officers at two courts martial. One was Sir Iain Colquhoun, charged for allowing a 45-minute truce on Christmas Day to permit the collection of the dead. Another unnamed officer he unsuccessfully defended on five charges of ‘homosexualism’.

The trial gave full rein to his sense of the absurd: “…

It was easy to make fools of most of the witnesses…and I wound up by making a speech of considerable length in which I wavered between being a blunt soldier and a cynical barrister…I can tell you it takes some nerve to say to a bevy of flint-faced brigadiers ‘When one contemplates the picture of — (chief witness for prosecution) padding down the duck-boards in the twilight with muffled feet and gimlet eyes to spy upon the privacy of a brother officer, one asks oneself whether even the missionary spirit has ever exhibited itself in a more repulsive and ridiculous guise.’”

At the beginning of 1916, Asquith found himself under pressure to take up a staff posting away from the front. His father was in the shadows behind it, and Asquith agreed only with reluctance. He found the office work a tedious experience. He wrote to his wife in March 1916: “…If the war goes on much longer everyone will be petrified into a permanent lethargy and we shall all have to pinch ourselves once a week to be sure that we are still alive.” He pressed for a return to the front, which happened shortly after the birth of his third child, a son, in April. After some time in Ypres, his unit was transferred to the Somme. On 15 September,

as part of the Battle of the Somme, his unit was ordered to advance from the village of Ginchy to Lesboeufs. Military historians have commented that the manoeuvre was tactically unsound; of the 22 officers of the Battalion who took part, there were 17 casualties. Asquith himself was aware that his chances of survival were slim. Typically making light of it, he wrote to Lady Diana Cooper shortly beforehand saying that he feared he would soon be ending up with a peerage or in Westminster Abbey. Lady Diana, petrified on receiving the letter, although not religious spent two days in prayer for his safety. It was not answered. Asquith was shot through the chest at the start of the attack. To conceal the gravity of his injury from his men, he lit a cigarette after he fell, before being given morphia by a medical officer. He died shortly afterwards and was buried nearby.

There were many tributes paid to him. One of the most eloquent was written by Winston Churchill, a friend of Asquith’s, to H H Asquith: “His was a character of singular charm and distinction – so gifted and yet so devoid of personal ambition, so critically detached from ordinary affairs yet capable of the utmost willing sacrifice. Altogether he seemed to be above the worldly sum of things, yet so full of enjoyment of them and purpose in them…He was so brave and true that nothing less than the most dangerous and intensely personal service would content him.” To Katharine Asquith, he went further: “He was one of the best.”

Bijan Omrani Bijan Omrani is the author of several books. He co-curated the recent Temple Church exhibition Winter of the World on the involvement of the Inner and Middle Temple in World War I, and is currently reading for the Bar.

Memorial to Raymond Asquith in Amiens Cathedral

143

144

INNER TEMPLE  EVENT

Temple Big Picnic

TEMPLE BIG PICNIC INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

145

INNER TEMPLE CELEBRATE THE LIFE

Master James

By Stephen Page

Photo: Ulla Montan

T

146

he memorial to P D James bore witness to the extraordinary range and fullness of the life of P D James. Her life contained a multitude of strands, through her family, the church, her role as a peer, her numerous charitable works, and, of course, her writing. Her honours, including her life peerage and many fellowships, and her international awards are genuinely too numerous to mention. As her publisher I am going to talk about her as one of Britain’s finest, most celebrated and widely read writers since the Second World War. In the book world it remains a mystery that Phyllis had any time for anything beyond the demands of being such an accomplished writer. Perhaps those who knew her in the other parts of her life might have wondered when she had time to write those books. In truth, the way she lived is one key to her brilliance as a writer, as she participated so fully in the world, knowing about life’s struggle, about work, family, loss, desire, love and death.

Hers was a long writing career of over fifty years that began surprisingly late. She embarked on Cover Her Face in her midthirties. In her autobiography, Time to Be in Earnest, she admitted some regret that she didn’t start earlier, saying that “a streak of indolence … made it more agreeable to contemplate the first book rather than actually write it”. Yes, the well-known indolence of P D James!

Despite a later start, she leaves an impressive body of work comprising 19 brilliant and original novels and three works of non-fiction, all of which continue to be read throughout the world.

To her, the choice of detective fiction was simply obvious, but she made it her own and stamped an originality and literary quality upon the genre like no other writer before her. She said that she wrote detective novels for the reasons readers are fascinated by them, for what she called “the catharsis of carefully controlled terror” and the bringing of order out of disorder. Her success in this won her a large, loyal audience. The sense of anticipation among booksellers, critics and readers for each new book grew to fever pitch over her career, with publishers around the world and in many languages taking pride in the excellence of the work, along with relishing the prospect of such certain success. Her publishers will all talk about the joy of publishing her, be it Faber, Knopf in New York and Toronto, the Penguin companies, or her many foreign language publishers. She even conquered that most Anglophobe of markets, France! Working with her was so pleasurable, and those who were particularly close – her agent Carol Heaton, Joyce McClennan her wonderful assistant, Rosemary Goad her editor at Faber for all the books – all tell joyous stories that recount her energy, humour and clarity of mind.

The story of her arrival at Faber is well known. At a dinner at All Souls, Elaine Greene, Phyllis’s newly acquired agent, sat next to Charles Monteith, a director from Faber. He said that Faber was looking for a new detective-fiction writer since the recent death of Cyril Hare, and Elaine replied, “I think I have what you are looking for.” Faber took on Cover Her Face in 1960, prompting the marvellous image of Phyllis, in her own words, “prancing up and down the hall” on hearing the news. A treasure in the Faber Archive is the first

book report, written by Rosemary Goad. The beady-eyed and mischievous Rosemary spotted early Phyllis’s talent, and also perhaps one of the less discussed keys to the success of the Dalgliesh books. She commented that maybe it required a male editor’s opinion, and I quote, “I … got rather carried away by the inspector’s compelling blue eyes.”

Inspector Dalgliesh was never far from Phyllis’s thoughts, and not, I think, for his blue eyes. He is a good man, a poet, and he stands and speaks for Phyllis’s humanity, a humanity that meant she could imagine what it was to be so overrun by desire or envy or anger or vengefulness that a person would commit a terrible crime. This gives the books their toughness and believability, and makes the reader’s feeling for Dalgliesh all the greater as he seeks to To follow… restore order. Phyllis’s compassion and love is visible both in and for Dalgliesh. Her kindness to her hero in the last three books, with his marriage to Emma – with more than a nod to her beloved Jane Austen – is so moving, and gives her readers the most encouraging and deeply affecting portrait of love’s healing power. It is a gift to us all, as also are the final pages of Death Comes to Pemberley where Darcy and Elizabeth survey their world kindly despite the preceding traumatic events. The belief that good can prevail in a difficult world remains Phyllis’s central message.

MASTER JAMES INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

books were published she was as unstinting in her support of publication as she was about the writing process, and tired out many a youthful publicist with her energy and willingness.

The book world is a sociable one, and Phyllis loved a party, more especially a lunch. There were marvellous birthday parties every half-decade with writers and people from the book world alongside family. She also enjoyed tea or sherry at her beautiful home in Holland Park, so exquisitely furnished, a tranquil retreat for many guests over the years. I was fortunate to visit regularly and, accompanied by a lavish plate of delicious snacks provided by Joyce, we would talk about books, politics, life and family, all punctuated with so much laughter. I occasionally felt like a prep-school boarder visiting his indulgent aunt, with the insistence that I “eat, eat, eat”, though I might have said the same of her hunger for news from the book world!

In times of hardship she was especially kind. At Faber we suffered a tragedy in 2011 when one of our colleagues was murdered. Phyllis was the first to call me, to suggest that I visit, and to support me through a harrowing period.

The simplicity with which she gave advice and love was remarkable and sustaining and I know from others that we are not alone at Faber in experiencing her natural kindness.

She was especially supportive of fellow writers, not least in

“ Phyllis was a good person and a great writer. She was an inspiration to readers, publishers and to our nation’s literary culture.”

Faber is a literary publishing house, with a community of poets, novelists, artists and dramatists, and it was in this literary context that Phyllis’s work shone so exceptionally.

She was a detective novelist of great literary standing and was loved by readers as much for the quality of her prose, for her characters and extraordinary evocation of place, as for her ingenious plots. New novels were scrutinised by the TLS as much as the more popular book press. And literary standards mattered greatly to her. With each of the last three books she took me – and others – to one side, and said with a wicked sparkle in her eye, “You must not allow me to publish something substandard. The sentence I dread more than any other is, ‘Given Baroness James’ age, this book is not bad.’ ”Of course, she couldn’t write a bad book, or a bad sentence, and never did.

She worked strenuously to research and write each novel.

In fact, the research for A Certain Justice brought her here often, to Middle Temple and this church. She loved to come here and she would be so pleased that we are gathered here today, so I would like to thank all those who have worked hard to make that possible. When researching and writing she worked closely with Joyce and Rosemary to produce near perfect manuscripts. Rosemary remembers that the editing would often take place in the semi-darkness of Phyllis’s dining room where she took an almost ghoulish delight in refining the murder scenes, often quite terrifying Rosemary. Once the book was complete she had a trusted group of readers among family and friends who would be invited to read with rigour and comment honestly. It was such a singular and humble way to go about perfecting the work. When the

her presidency of the Society of Authors. Faber is built on its writers, and P D James was the firmest of foundations, through her books, her success, but also her company and great loyalty and thoughtfulness over half a century.

Phyllis was a good person and a great writer. She was an inspiration to readers, publishers and to our nation’s literary culture. In Time to Be in Earnest she refers to W H Auden’s essay on detective fiction from 1946 in which he says, “The phantasy, then, which the detective story addict indulges is the phantasy of being restored to the Garden of Eden, to a state of innocence, where he may know love as love and not as the law.” The Private Patient, her final Dalgliesh novel, ends, “The world is a beautiful and terrible place … If the screams of all earth’s living creatures were one scream of pain, surely it would shake the stars. But we have love … we must hold fast and believe in it, for it is all that we have.”

Phyllis knew love as love, and was able to give it, both in her life and in her fiction. We will all miss that; her beloved family, her friends, those she worked with, and her readers. But the joy is that her love remains in the lives of those who knew her and, more lastingly even, in her books, which will continue to thrill, nourish and entertain each new generation of readers, as is the gift of all great literature and great writers.

Courtesy of Stephen Page, Chief Executive of Faber & Faber

147

148

INNER TEMPLE

News from the Temple Church Choir

By Roger Sayer, Director of Music and Organist

Performing in the auditorium at the Library of Congress, © John Harrington

I

write this whilst on tour with the Temple Church Choir in Holland. Our aspiration here in the choir is to provide the very best music making and experience for our choristers, as well as for the Inns and far beyond. Choral singing is a team activity which, rather like a sport, requires each individual to be reliable and consistent, skilled and focussed. Singing is a physical activity where the whole body needs to be engaged and energised but relaxed and free. We often say, “Ice in the head, fire in the belly”. Building these skills takes time and patience, especially with a choir of ‘day’ boys. Extra activities help enormously to bind and blend the team. Recordings, concerts and tours are essentials beyond the weekly routine. Apart from the long term benefits to the choir, they promote the excellence associated with the Temple and the Inns – a sort of ‘Temple Brand’ that people know and come to expect.

Since I was 18, I have been involved in choir tours, and time and again it provides a musical stimulus for the choir as well as giving a wider profile for the organisation it represents. Rather like a shop window, it gives the public a glimpse of where we come from and the organisation that we represent.

Last October, the Temple Church Choir headed for Washington DC. When my musical friends and colleagues knew of our plans, they assumed we would be singing in the National Cathedral or Smithsonian Concert Hall, but no – nothing of the sort! 18 choristers, 12 men and 4 valiant Chaperones (not to mention The Reverend and Valiant Master) headed for the Supreme Court and the Library of Congress where the choir performed at major events in the presence of the Inn’s Royal Bencher, HRH the Princess Royal, Master Scalia and many others of our own great.

With repertoire from Handel and Haydn to Tippett and ‘Take Five’, it quickly became apparent that the music we could

offer comfortably weaved its way into the celebrations for the exhibition of the Lincoln Cathedral Magna Carta. There were musical highlights everywhere, from a concert at St Paul’s Church K Street to the singing of Zadok the Priest with orchestra at the opening ceremony in the LOC. One personal highlight was seeing the Treasurers of Inner and Middle Temple enjoying time with the choristers in a local burger bar!

With Washington completed and the 2015 Magna Carta events accomplished, we turned our minds to a tour to The Netherlands. The British choral tradition is respected throughout the world and nowhere more so than in Holland.

The great churches are imposing, and have some of the finest historical organs, with acoustics to match. The Dutch adore our tradition, and they came in their hundreds to hear the choir. Each concert was packed. On one occasion 150 were turned away as the huge church was at capacity with people sitting in the pulpit, and standing in every corner. At each concert we received a standing ovation.

In one week we sang five concerts with repertoire ranging from Victoria to Whitacre. Greg Morris miraculously adapted to the different and complex organs and provided three organ solos within the programme. At Delft we were honoured to have the British and Irish ambassadors attending our concert.

It has been a wonderful opportunity to show off our choir to a wide and appreciative public. It is with gratitude that I thank the Inns for supporting the choir and enabling us to carry out this work. The amazing Liz Clarke spends hours on the minutiae to ensure the smooth running and safety of the children at all times. Behind the scenes we had four chaperones (including John Shearer, our Verger) who constantly looked after the daily needs of the choristers. I felt it fitting that I should end this article with a few reflections from the choristers on an amazing (if often soggy) week.

TEMPLE CHURCH CHOIR INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

“ Midnight and the Temple Church Choir entered Holland, eating ice-creams and ready for action.

We all slept like logs as we had just been on a twelve-hour journey. Deep inside, we all knew that it was going to be worth it. Breakfast was delicious, fresh slices of salami and different cheese alongside croissants and pain au chocolat. After fun and a competitive bowling game, it was time to get focused. As tired as we were, we were on fine form for the concert. We sang in front of a crowd of 1000 and raised 3,000 euros. After a refreshing burger we arrived back at the house.

Despite being tired we still managed to have a good conversation about how we thought the concert was amazing and a brilliant start to the tour” “Great acoustic” “Concert went great – applause almost too loud” “ We played pool in the house for a bit, before we had a nice long swim in the pool, splashing each other and having a great time” “ We had a go on the epic air trampoline and then went to get changed for the concert” “ We had a brilliant rehearsal with Mr Sayer expertly helping us adapt to the new acoustic” “ Once again the performance was capped with a rendition of Zadok the Priest and a standing ovation from the most enthusiastic crowd we have had all week”

Left to right: The Library of Congress. Concert at the Grote Kerk, Haarlem.

Performing for HRH The Princess Royal at the Library of Congress, Washington DC. Rehearsing at the Bovenkerk, Kampen. Greg Morris showing choristers the Miller organ, once played by G F Handel and W A Mozart, in the Grote Kerk, Haarlem. Supper in Haarlem. The Library of Congress. The Supreme Court building, Washington DC. In the foyer of the Library of Congress.

149

150

INNER TEMPLE 

Weddings and Baptisms at the Temple Church Andrew and Payal Birch, Blessing on 27 Feb 2015

Anna Bugden and Phillip Souta, married 6 June 2015

Alice Loynes and Matthew Dawson, married 16 May 2015

Dave Wa Photographer

tts

Hannah Newing and Andy Newman, married 27 June 2015

Thea Wilson and Robert Holford, married 30 May 2015

WEDDINGS AND BAPTISMS INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Baptism of Milo Lamont, 19 July 2015

Baptism of Henrietta Holt, 22 February 2015

Baptism of James Norton, 31 May 2015

Baptism of Elio Clive Gnoni, 24 May 2015

Baptism of Xavier William Gisler-Doyle, 3 May 2015

151

152

INNER TEMPLE

Bar Liaison Committee

Simon Baker (Chairman)

Christopher Bond

Executive Committee; Car Park

Estates Committee; Pictures

Nicholas Craig

Adrian Eissa

Estates Committee; Moots

Saul Herman

Zachary Bredemear Education & Training Committee; Silver

Natalie Foster

Advocacy Training Committee; Pegasus Scholarship Trust

Junior Bar Representative; Student Societies Sub-Committee; Temple Women’s Forum

Student Societies SubCommittee; Qualifying Sessions Sub-Committee

Scholarships Committee; Outreach Sub-Committee

Sarah Martin

Tom Mitcheson QC

Timothy Petts (Vice Chairman)

Saira Kabir Sheikh QC

Jason Sugarman

Executive Committee; Archives

Executive Committee; Estates Committee

Advocacy Training Committee; Marshalling

Scholarships Committee; Debates

Sa�irse Cowley Employed Bar Rep

Nicholas Griffin QC Education & Training Committee; Mentoring

Simon Murray Library Committee; House; Cellar

Thea Wilson

Advocacy Training Committee; Student Societies SubCommittee; Drama

BAR LIAISON COMMITTEE INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Aidan Briggs

Staff & Remuneration; Student Societies SubCommittee

Tim Penny

Dr Anton van Dellen

Outreach Sub-Committee; Garden

Alex Foster

Simon Gurney

Richard Wheeler Western Circuit

Scholarships Committee

Can Yeginsu

Qualifying Sessions SubCommittee; Library Committee

North Eastern Circuit

Hefin Rees QC

Library Committee; Education & Training Committee; Bar Council rep

Northern Circuit

Sonia Nolten

Executive Committee Finance Sub-Committee; Investment Sub-Committee

Kieron Beal QC

Andrew Warnock QC Magna Carta Steering Group; Advocacy Training Committee

David Elias

European Circuit

Wales and Chester

Jason Hadden MBE

Jason Sugarman

Midland Circuit

Jocelin Gale

Executive Committee: Finance Sub- Committee: Magna Carta Open Weekend

South Eastern Circuit

Minka Braun Yearbook Editor

KEY

Patrick Maddams Sub-Treasurer

Elected

Ex-Officio Members

Co-opted

Secretary

Circuit Representatives

Henrietta Amodio Head of Treasury Office; Secretary

153

154

INNER TEMPLE 

New Benchers

Paul Infield

Stuart Denney QC

Barrister Governing Bencher

Barrister Governing Bencher

Sara Lawson

Christopher Quinlan Qc

Anne Richardson

Barrister Governing Bencher

Camilla Bingham QC

Simon Davenport QC

Barrister Governing Bencher

Anneliese Day Qc

Leslie Thomas Qc

Barrister Governing Bencher

Scott Matthewson

Barrister Governing Bencher

Barrister Governing Bencher

Barrister Governing Bencher

Barrister Governing Bencher

Kelyn Bacon Qc

Rachel Spearing

The Rt Hon The Lord Hunt Of Wirral MBE

The Hon Philip Remnant CBE ACA

Professor Roger Scruton

Robert Buckland Esq QC MP

Professor Spyridon Flogaitis

The Hon Mr Justice Nasir-Ul-Mulk

Photo: News Syndication

Barrister Governing Bencher

Barrister Governing Bencher

Barrister Governing Bencher

The Rev Hugh Mead

Andrew Cayley Esq CMG QC

Honorary Bencher

Other Governing Bencher

Honorary Bencher

Other Governing Bencher

Honorary Bencher

Legal Academic

Honorary Bencher

Overseas Bencher

MASTERS OF THE BENCH INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Masters of the Bench In Seniority Order (as of 31 July 2015) Treasurer 2015

Neville Thomas Esq QC (U)

Paul Purnell Esq QC (U)

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Moore-Bick (J)

The Rt Hon the Lord Richard of Ammanford QC (U)

His Honour Jonathan Playford QC (S)

Royal Benchers

Anthony Smith Esq QC (U)

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

Sir Christopher Holland (S)

HRH The Princess Royal (R)

The Rt Hon the Lord Irvine of Lairg (S)

Reader 2015

Her Honour Shirley Anwyl QC (S)

His Honour Judge Cryan (Hon) LLD (J)

Masters of the Bench (Ex-Treasurers) The Rt Hon Sir Stephen Brown GBE (S) The Rt Hon the Baroness Butler-Sloss GBE (S) The Rt Hon the Lord Lloyd of Berwick DL (S) Stanley Brodie Esq QC (S) The Rt Hon Sir Swinton Thomas (S) Richard Southwell Esq QC (S) The Rt Hon Sir Konrad Schiemann (O) The Rt Hon Sir John Chadwick (O) The Rt Hon Sir Bernard Rix (O) The Rt Hon Sir David Keene (O) Stephen Williamson Esq QC (S) The Rt Hon Sir Anthony May (O) Vivian Robinson Esq QC (O) The Rt Hon Lord Justice Laws (J) The Rt Hon Lady Justice Hallett DBE (J) Jonathan Hirst Esq QC (B) Simon Thorley Esq QC (B)

Sir Edward Evans-Lombe (S) Evan Stone Esq QC (S) Eben Hamilton Esq QC (S) His Honour John Previte QC (U) The Rt Hon the Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover KG (H) Richard Clegg Esq QC (U) Michael Lyndon-Stanford Esq QC (U) The Rt Hon Sir Jonathan Parker (S) John Beveridge Esq QC (U)

The Rt Hon Sir Brian Neill (S) The Rt Hon Sir Andrew Leggatt (S) His Honour George Dobry CBE QC (U) William Glover Esq QC (U) The Rt Hon Sir Roy Beldam (S) Sir Oliver Popplewell (O) Sir William Macpherson of Cluny TD (U) The Hon Sir Charles Morrison QC (U) The Rt Hon the Lord Mackay of Clashfern KT (H) Professor Francis Reynolds DCL FBA QC (H) Sir Michael Morland (O) Sir John Drinkwater QC (S) Michael Worsley Esq QC (U) Sir John Alliott (U) Sir Michael Turner (U) Nigel Inglis-Jones Esq QC (U) The Rt Hon the Lord Scott of Foscote (S) David Sullivan Esq QC (U) Sir Thomas Legg KCB QC (S) Mark Tennant Esq (O) Sir Richard Curtis (U) Sir Allan Green KCB QC (U) The Rt Hon Sir William Aldous (U) Sir Anthony Hidden (S)

The Rt Hon Lady Justice Gloster DBE (J) Anthony Anderson Esq QC (U) Harry Turcan Esq (S) Gerald Angel Esq (S) The Rt Hon Sir Richard Buxton (S) Professor Sir Royston Goode CBE FBA QC (H) The Rt Hon Viscount Runciman of Doxford CBE FBA (H) John Swift Esq QC (U) His Honour James Stewart QC (U)

His Honour Jeremy Roberts QC (O)

The Rt Hon Sir Mathew Thorpe (S) William Crowther Esq QC (U)

Sir David Clarke (O)

Roger Henderson Esq QC (O)

Sir Peter Singer (S)

John Deby Esq QC (O) His Honour Anthony Thompson QC (S) The Rt Hon the Lord Armstrong of Ilminster GCB CVO (H) The Honourable Justice Antonin Scalia (H) Ian Hunter Esq QC (B) The Rt Hon Sir Henry Brooke (S) Sir Peter North CBE DCL FBA QC (H)

David Vaughan Esq CBE QC (B)

The Rt Hon The Lord Harry Woolf CH (S)

The Baroness Mallalieu QC (U)

Sir Edward Cazalet (S)

Masters of the Bench

John Willmer Esq QC (S)

Murray Pickering Esq QC (O)

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

Sir Martin Jacomb (H)

The Rt Hon the Lord Goff of Chieveley (S)

Sir Brian Jenkins GBE (H)

His Honour Humphrey LLoyd QC (S)

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Tomlinson (J)

David Widdicombe Esq QC (U)

Sir Thayne Forbes (O)

Patrick Ground Esq QC (B) Professor Sir John Baker LLD FBA QC (H) The Rt Hon the Lord Hutton of Bresagh (H) David Robson Esq QC (S) His Honour James Wadsworth QC (U) Jules Sher Esq QC (U) Eldred Tabachnik Esq QC (U) Sir Michael Tugendhat (J) John Crowley Esq QC (S) The Rt Hon Sir Stephen Sedley (O) Dame Rosalyn Higgins DBE JSD FBA QC (S) His Honour David Elfer QC (S) Raymond Potter Esq CB (S) Nigel Hamilton Esq QC (U) Sir Sydney Lipworth QC (H) The Rt Hon the Lord Sumption OBE (J) Leonard Woodley Esq QC (U) Nicholas Wood Esq (O) The Hon Mrs Justice Slade DBE (J) Henry Knorpel Esq CB QC (S) The Rt Rev and Rt Hon the Lord Carey of Clifton (H)

Sir Neil Butterfield (S) His Honour Judge Lawson QC (J) The Reverend Roger ter Haar QC (B) Stephen Bickford-Smith Esq (B) Mrs Margaret Bickford-Smith QC (B) The Rt Hon Lord Justice Sullivan (J) Sir David Penry-Davey (O) The Rt Hon the Lord Wilson of Culworth (J) Giles Wingate-Saul Esq QC (O) Gerard Elias Esq QC (S) The Rt Hon Lord Justice Beatson FBA (J) Anthony Hacking Esq QC (S) Sir Hugh Bennett (O) Dermod O’Brien Esq QC (S) The Rt Hon Sir Anthony Hooper (O) Bruce Mauleverer Esq QC (O) His Honour Neil Butter CBE QC (S) His Honour Duncan Matheson QC (O) Her Honour Christian Bevington (O) Miss Caroline Willbourne (B) Her Honour Judge Hughes QC (J) Michael Sayers Esq QC (U) Sir Richard Henriques (O) Martin Bowley Esq QC (O) The Honourable Justice Stephen Breyer (H) The Honourable Justice Anthony Kennedy (H) His Honour John Gower QC (S) The Rt Hon the Lord Toulson (J) Tom Shields Esq QC (O) His Honour Judge Havelock-Allan QC (J) His Honour Judge Simon Brown QC (J) Jonathan Acton Davis Esq QC (B)

Judge Martin Feldman (H)

Anthony Temple Esq QC (B)

Sir Ivan Lawrence QC (B)

Richard Rampton Esq QC (S)

James Goudie Esq QC (S)

Sir Robert Owen (S)

Christopher Lockhart-Mummery Esq QC (B)

Gary Flather Esq OBE QC (S)

Richard Salter Esq QC (B)

Christopher Purchas Esq QC (B)

Sir David Steel (O)

Miss Pamela Scriven QC (B)

Neil Kaplan Esq CBE QC SC (HK) (S)

Nicholas Padfield Esq QC (B)

The Rt Hon Sir William Gage (S)

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Elias (J)

155

156

INNER TEMPLE

Anthony Glass Esq QC (S) Michael Shorrock Esq QC (B) Sir Gordon Langley (O) Sir Christopher Pitchers (S) Nigel Pascoe Esq QC (S) Her Honour Judge Korner CMG QC (J) Oliver Sells Esq QC (B) Kenneth Aylett Esq (B) Andrew Tidbury Esq (B) Sir Timothy Walker (O) Nicholas Merriman Esq QC (O) Robin De Wilde Esq QC (B) Peter Birkett Esq QC (B) Robin Purchas Esq QC (B) Sir Geoffrey Nice QC (B) Sir Frederick Crawford DL FR Eng (H) The Baroness Deech of Cumnor DBE QC (Hon) (O) Professor Sir Ian Kennedy QC FBA (H) Sir Brian Keith (S) His Honour John Weeks QC (U) Michael Spencer Esq QC (B) His Honour Judge Denyer QC (J) Victor Temple Esq QC (O) Sir Richard Plender (U) The Hon Mr Justice Akenhead (J) Dame Caroline Swift DBE (O) Justin Fenwick Esq QC (B) Thomas Baxendale Esq (S) Kevin de Haan Esq QC (B) His Honour Jeffrey Burke QC (U) Ian Glick Esq QC (B) The Rt Hon the Lord Falconer of Thoroton (O) The Rt Hon Jack Straw (O) Chief Justice Yong Pung How (H) Judge Richard Posner (H) Professor Andrew Ashworth PhD DCL FBA (A) The Rt Hon the Lord Hughes (J) His Honour John Adams (S) Sibghatullah Kadri Esq QC (S) Robert Webb Esq QC FRAeS (O) Nicholas Davidson Esq QC (B) Miss Rosamund Horwood-Smart QC (O) Stuart Brown Esq QC (B) His Honour Judge Everall QC (J) David Pittaway Esq QC (B) His Honour Judge Milford QC (J) Stephen Solley Esq QC (B) Dorian Lovell-Pank Esq QC (B) The Hon Mr Justice Field (J) Sir Hayden Phillips GCB DL (H) His Honour Denis Orde (O) The Rt Hon Sir John MacDermott (H) The Hon Dr Justice Adarsh Anand (V) Sir Jeffery Bowman FCA (H) Justice Richard Goldstone (H) His Honour Michael Fysh QC (S) David Friedman Esq QC (S) Nicholas Stewart Esq QC (B) Timothy Raggatt Esq QC (B) The Hon Mrs Justice Cox DBE (J) The Rt Hon Lady Justice Black DBE (J) The Rt Rev and Rt Hon Lord Habgood of Calverton (H) Sir Richard Gibbs (U)

The Rt Hon The Lord Collins of Mapesbury LLD FBA (O) The Rt Hon The Baroness Clark of Calton QC (O) His Eminence Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor (H) George Staple Esq CB QC (H) Michael de Navarro Esq QC (S) Godfrey Carey Esq QC (O) Rex Tedd Esq QC (B) Johnny Veeder Esq QC (B) His Honour Judge Hooper QC (J) James Guthrie Esq QC (B) Sir Raymond Jack (U) His Honour David Hodson (S) His Honour Judge McGregor-Johnson (J) Dr Pehr Gyllenhammar (H) The Hon Mr Justice Wilkie (J) Peter Joyce Esq QC (B) Christopher Moger Esq QC (B) The Hon Philip Havers QC (B) His Honour Judge Iain Hughes QC (J) Tim Charlton Esq QC (B) The Rt Hon Lord Justice Floyd (J) The Hon Mr Justice Patrick Chan (H) The Honourable Justice McGrath (H) The Rt Hon The Lord Sacks of Aldgate (H) Professor Sir Alan Dashwood KCMG CBE QC (B) Nigel Pleming Esq QC (B) His Honour Judge Owen Davies QC (J) Charles George Esq QC (O) The Rt Hon the Lord Cullen of Whitekirk KT (H) M Jean-Paul Costa (H) M Luzius Wildhaber (H) Michael Austin-Smith Esq QC (S) His Honour Judge Peter Collier QC (J) Michael Redfern Esq QC (B) Robert Smith Esq QC (B) Andrew Trollope Esq QC (B) Iain Milligan Esq QC (U) Sir Robert Francis Esq QC (B) Miss Elizabeth-Anne Gumbel QC (B) John Marrin Esq QC (B) Richard Drabble Esq QC (B) Gavin Kealey Esq QC (B) His Honour Judge Burrell QC (J) The Hon Mr Justice Flaux (J) Edward Fitzgerald Esq CBE QC (B) His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman QC (J) The Hon Mr Justice Green (J) Sir Stuart Lipton (H)

Mrs Gay Martin (O) Philip Sapsford Esq QC (U) His Honour Judge Bourne-Arton QC (J) The Hon Mr Justice Nugee (J) The Rt Hon Justice Gault DCNZM (H) Professor Dr Jürgen Schwarze (H) His Honour David Paget QC (O) Her Honour Elisabeth Fisher (O) The Hon Mr Justice Openshaw QC (J) His Honour Judge Critchlow (J) The Rt Hon the Lord Macdonald of River Glaven QC (O) The Rt Hon Sir Dennis Byron (V) Terence Coghlan Esq QC (B) Andrew Caldecott Esq QC (B) Jonathan Gaisman Esq QC (B) The Hon Mr Justice Popplewell (J) The Hon Mr Justice Moor (J) Sir Alex Allan KCB (H) Sir Edward Caldwell KCB QC(Hon) (H) Ian Laing Esq CBE DL (H) Sir Ian McKellen CH CBE (H) David Spens Esq QC (B) His Honour Judge Ford QC (J) His Honour Judge Hammerton (J) His Honour Thomas Crowther QC (U) Sir David Maddison (O) His Honour Judge Coleman (J) Brigadier Peter Little CBE (H) Sir Brian Williamson CBE (H) Dr Stephen Cretney (A) The Rt Hon Lord Hamilton (H) The Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG (H) Philip Mott Esq QC (B) Thomas Seymour Esq (B) Sir Nicholas Stadlen (O) David Streatfeild-James Esq QC (B) The Hon Mr Justice Dingemans (J) The Hon Mrs Justice Carr DBE (J) Dr Mary Malecka (O) The Reverend and Valiant Master of the Temple (H) Adrian Brunner Esq QC (O) Nicholas Asprey Esq (O) Augustus Ullstein Esq QC (B) John Ross Esq QC (B) Professor Michael Lerego QC (O) Jeremy Storey Esq QC (B) James Turner Esq QC (B) The Hon Mrs Justice Lang DBE (J)

Anthony Porten Esq QC (U)

The Hon Justice Salihu Moddibo Alfa Belgore (V) (J)

His Honour Judge Nicholas Browne QC (J)

Deputy Senior District Judge Arbuthnot (J)

His Honour Judge Pegden QC (J)

His Excellency Judge Kenneth Keith ONZ KBE (H)

David Wilby Esq QC (B) The Hon Mr Justice Goss (J) His Honour Judge Leonard QC (J) Miss Alison Foster QC (B) Roger Stewart Esq QC (B) The Hon Mr Justice Ribeiro (H) Professor Christopher Forsyth (A) Professor John Gardner (A) Dr Mads Andenas PhD MA DPhil (A) Professor John Spencer QC (A) The Rt Rev and Rt Hon Dr the Lord Williams of Oystermouth (H) Malcolm Bishop Esq QC (B)

The Hon Mr Justice Wyn Williams (J) The Hon Mr Justice Moylan (J) His Honour Mervyn Roberts (O) Robert Rhodes Esq QC (B) His Honour David Tyzack QC (O) Patrick Upward Esq QC (B) His Honour Judge Melville QC (B) Miss Sally Smith QC (B) His Honour Judge Jeremy Richardson QC (J) Nigel Giffin Esq QC (B) Jonathan Swift Esq QC (B) Christopher Brougham Esq QC (B)

MASTERS OF THE BENCH INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Nicholas Atkinson Esq QC (B)

Simon O’Toole Esq (B)

Martin Griffiths Esq QC (B)

Miss Susanna FitzGerald QC (B)

The Hon Mr Justice Cobb (J)

Richard Heaton Esq CB (O)

Orlando Pownall Esq QC (B)

The Hon Sir Peter Caruana KCMG QC (V)

Adam Hiddleston Esq (B)

Sir Bernard Eder (O)

Dr Navinchandra Ramgoolam GCSK FRCP (V)

Tim Lord Esq QC (B)

The Hon Mr Justice Davis (J)

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

Daniel Toledano Esq QC (B)

Richard Lissack Esq QC (B) Abbas Lakha Esq QC (B) Her Honour Frances Kirkham CBE (H) The Rt Hon Lady Justice King DBE (J) Michael Soole Esq QC (B) His Honour Judge Grainger (J) Miss Margaret Bowron QC (B) His Honour Judge Seed QC (J) Charles Gibson Esq QC (B)

His Honour Judge Wait (J) His Honour Judge Philip Waller CBE (J) The Rt Hon Francis Maude (O) Michael Pooles Esq QC (B) Martin Spencer Esq QC (B) Her Honour Judge Patricia Lynch QC (J) Miss Susan Jacklin QC (B) Aftab Jafferjee Esq QC (B)

Miss Sarah Clarke (B) Adam Constable Esq QC (B) Dr Vanessa Davies (O) The Rt Hon Lord Menzies (H) The Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis (H) The Hon Chief Justice of Bhutan (H) Philip Punwar Esq (V) Professor the Hon George Hampel QC AM (A)

Richard Barraclough Esq QC (B)

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

Peter Village Esq QC (B)

The Hon Mr Reginald Rhoda QC (V)

Ian Stern Esq QC (B)

S Matjeraie (V)

Miss Raquel Agnello QC (B)

Mrs Alison Saunders CB (O)

Professor the Worshipful Mark Hill QC (B)

Ami Feder Esq (B)

Ms Patricia Robertson QC (B)

His Honour Judge Mitchell (J)

Sam Stein Esq QC (B)

John Ryder Esq QC (B)

Professor Nicola Lacey FBA (H)

Mark Wyeth Esq QC (B)

The Rt Hon the Baroness Prashar (H)

Jeremy Hill-Baker Esq (B)

The Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia LVO (H)

Crispin Aylett Esq QC (B)

Professor Timothy Endicott (A)

Richard Humphreys Esq QC (B)

Professor Timothy Macklem (A)

The Hon Mrs Justice Roberts DBE (J)

Professor Julian Webb (A)

Miss Máirín Casey (O)

The Rt Hon Lord Reed (J)

Miss Eleanor Laws QC (B)

His Honour Inigo Bing (O)

Martin Goudie Esq (B)

Charles Parsley Esq (B)

Alastair Hodge Esq (B)

Miss Julia Dias QC (B)

Graham Chapman Esq QC (B)

Ms Finola O’Farrell QC (B)

Ms Desiree Artesi (B)

His Honour Judge Blair QC (J)

Miss Fiona Jackson (B)

Guy Beringer Esq QC (H)

Alistair Schaff Esq QC (B)

Professor David D Caron (O)

David Yale Esq FBA QC (A)

His Honour Judge Neil Clark (J)

Andrew Cayley Esq CMG QC (O)

Nigel Lithman Esq QC (B)

Harry Matovu Esq QC (B)

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

Her Honour Judge Hildyard QC (J)

Miss Christina Lambert QC (B)

The Hon Philip Remnant CBE ACA (H)

Andrew Goodman Esq (B)

Miss Taryn Lee QC (B)

Robert Buckland Esq QC MP (O)

Grahame Aldous Esq QC (B)

Philip Moser Esq QC (B)

Professor Roger Scruton (H)

Guy Fetherstonhaugh Esq QC (B)

Michael Simon Esq (B)

Professor Spyridon Flogaitis (A)

Matthew Reeve Esq (B)

Alexander Hall Taylor Esq (B)

Paul Infield Esq (B)

Russell Coleman Esq SC (V)

Professor Cheryl Thomas (A)

Stuart Denney Esq QC (B)

His Eminence Cardinal Vincent Nichols MA MEd STL (H)

John Griffith-Jones Esq (H)

Miss Anne Richardson (B)

Michael Payton Esq QC (H)

Simon Davenport Esq QC (B)

Ms Libby Purves OBE (H)

Leslie Thomas Esq QC (B)

Judge Paul Mahoney (V)

Miss Sara Lawson (B)

Justice Sundaresh Menon (H)

Christopher Quinlan Esq QC (B)

Nigel Aiken Esq QC SC (V)

Miss Camilla Bingham QC (B)

The Most Revd and Rt Hon Justin Welby (H)

Ms Anneliese Day QC (B)

Richard Benson Esq QC (B)

Scott Matthewson Esq (B)

Mark George Esq QC (B)

Miss Kelyn Bacon QC (B)

His Honour Judge Roger Thomas QC (J)

Miss Rachel Spearing (B)

Michael Burrows Esq QC (B)

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

Jonathan Laidlaw Esq QC (B)

The Rev Hugh Mead (H)

The Hon Mrs Justice Simler DBE (J) Stuart Catchpole Esq QC (B) Iain Christie Esq (O) His Honour Giles Forrester (O) His Honour Judge McCreath (J) His Honour Gregory Stone QC (O) Patrick O’Connor Esq QC (B) James Corbett Esq QC (O) His Honour Judge Bayliss QC (J) Steven Kay Esq QC (B) David Green Esq CB QC (O) Peter Wright Esq QC (B) Miss Deborah Eaton QC (B) Nicholas Lavender Esq QC (B) His Honour Judge Charles Harris QC (J) His Honour Judge Mark Brown (J) The Rt Hon Lady Justice Sharp DBE (J) The Honourable Tan Sri Dato’ James Foong Cheng Yuen (V)

Her Honour Judge Deborah Taylor (J) Michael Humphries Esq QC (B) Miss Alison Levitt QC (O) His Honour Stephen Oliver-Jones QC (O) His Honour Judge Wide QC (J) Thomas Woodcock Esq CVO DL FSA (O) Professor Barry Rider OBE (A) Her Honour Judge May QC (J) Professor Robert Walsh (A) The Honourable Justice Baragwanath KNZM QC (V) The Hon Mr Justice Peter Jackson (J)

Rory Phillips Esq QC (B)

Miss Tracy Ayling QC (B) The Hon Mr Justice Dove (J) Iain Morley Esq QC (B) Dr Colin Ong (V) Miss Helen Davies QC (B) The Rt Hon Lord Bonomy LLD (H) Judge Koen Lenaerts (H) His Honour Simon Tonking (O) Paul Bleasdale Esq QC (B) Andrew Tait Esq QC (B)

KEY (A) Legal Academic Bencher

(O) Other Governing Bencher

(B) Barrister Governing Bencher

(S) Senior Bencher

(H) Honorary Bencher

(U) sUpernumerary Bencher

(J) Judicial Governing Bencher

(V) oVerseas Bencher

157

158

INNER TEMPLE

People Finder Title

Name

Telephone

Email

TREASURY OFFICE

020 7797 8250

enquiries@innertemple.org.uk

Sub-Treasurer

Patrick Maddams

020 7797 8177

subtreasurer@innertemple.org.uk

Executive Assistant to the Sub-Treasurer

Jennie Collis

020 7797 8177

jcollis@innertemple.org.uk

Head of Treasury Office

Henrietta Amodio

020 7797 8182

hamodio@innertemple.org.uk

Assistant to the Head of Treasury Office

Helena Vaughan

020 7797 8182

hvaughan@innertemple.org.uk

Events & Administration Manager

Kate Peters

020 7797 8183

kpeters@innertemple.org.uk

Membership Registrar

Jude Hodgson

020 7797 8206

jhodgson@innertemple.org.uk

Records & Membership Assistant

Jacqueline Fenton

020 7797 8241

jfenton@innertemple.org.uk

Archivist (Wednesday – Friday)

Celia Pilkington

020 7797 8251

cpilkington@innertemple.org.uk

Magna Carta Project Manager

Alice Pearson

020 7797 8179

apearson@innertemple.org.uk

EDUCATION & TRAINING

020 7797 8208

E&T@innertemple.org.uk

Head of Education & Training

Fiona Fulton

020 7797 8171

ffulton@innertemple.org.uk

Education Co-ordinator and Assistant to the Head of Education & Training

Julia Armfield

020 7797 8207

jarmfield@innertemple.org.uk

Professional Training Manager

David Miller

020 7797 8209

dmiller@innertemple.org.uk

Education Co-ordinator

Kerry Upham

020 7797 8213

kupham@innertemple.org.uk

Scholarships & Students Manager

Eamonn O’Reilly

020 7797 8210

eoreilly@innertemple.org.uk

Scholarships & Students Co-ordinator

Paul Clark

020 7797 8211

pclark@innertemple.org.uk

Outreach Manager

Struan Campbell

020 7797 8214

scampbell@innertemple.org.uk

Outreach Co-ordinator

Lacara Barnes-Rowe

020 7797 8262

lbarnes@innertemple.org.uk

COLLECTOR’S DEPARTMENT

collectors@innertemple.org.uk

Collector

David Bartlett

020 7797 8185

dbartlett@innertemple.org.uk

Financial Controller

Ania Johnson

020 7797 8242

ajohnson@innertemple.org.uk

Assistant Collector

Emma Prayer

020 7797 8186

eprayer@innertemple.org.uk

Accounts Assistant

Joanna Zawada

020 7797 8187

jzawada@innertemple.org.uk

LIBRARY

library@innertemple.org.uk

Librarian & Keeper of Manuscripts

Margaret Clay

020 7797 8215

mclay@innertemple.org.uk

Deputy Librarian

Tracey Dennis

020 7797 8218

tdennis@innertemple.org.uk

Systems Librarian / Network Administrator

Peter Higgins

020 7797 8220

phiggins@innertemple.org.uk

Assistant Network Administrator

Jonathan Delaney

020 7797 8285

jdelaney@innertemple.org.uk

Library Administrator

Tina Williams

020 7797 8216

twilliams@innertemple.org.uk

Assistant Librarian (enquiries & cataloguing)

Michael Frost

020 7797 8218

mfrost@innertemple.org.uk

Assistant Librarian (enquiries & acquisitions)

Sally McLaren

020 7797 8221

smclaren@innertemple.org.uk

Senior Library Assistant / Network Support

Simon Hindley

020 7797 8222

shindley@innertemple.org.uk

Library Assistant

Mark Leonard

020 7797 8218

mleonard@innertemple.org.uk

Library Assistant

Verity Parkinson

020 7797 8218

vparkinson@innertemple.org.uk

SURVEYOR’S DEPARTMENT

020 7797 8200

surveyors@innertemple.org.uk

Director of Properties & Surveyor

Richard Snowdon

020 7797 8203

rsnowdon@innertemple.org.uk

Capital Programme Manager

Nicholas Waring

020 7797 8192

nwaring@innertemple.org.uk

Procurement Manager

Nick Green

020 7797 8199

ngreen@innertemple.org.uk

Office Manager (job share) Rene Hicks & Anne Mason 020 7797 8173

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

Estates Officer

Albena Ahjem

020 7797 8202

aahjem@innertemple.org.uk

Mechanical & Electrical Engineer

Darren Readings

020 7797 8198

dreadings@innertemple.org.uk

Works Supervisor

Paul Simmonds

020 7797 8190

psimmonds@innertemple.org.uk

Foreman

Delbert Brooks (Julius Rutherford)

020 7797 8195

dbrooks@innertemple.org.uk

PEOPLE FINDER INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK 2015–2016

Electrical Foreman

Ian Ward

020 7797 8197

iward@innertemple.org.uk

Plumber & Mechanical Foreman

Tony Baca

020 7797 8196

tbaca@innertemple.org.uk

Carpentry Foreman

Steve Hanks

020 7797 8275

shanks@innertemple.org.uk

CATERING

020 7797 8230

catering@innertemple.org.uk

Head of Catering

Vicky Portinari

020 7797 8231

vportinari@innertemple.org.uk

Deputy Head of Catering

Priya Patel

020 7797 8233

ppatel@innertemple.org.uk

Functions Manager

Jack Breedon

020 7797 8260

jbreeden@innertemple.org.uk

Sales & Marketing Manager

Stefani Goodrem

020 7797 8230

sgoodrem@innertemple.org.uk

Sales & Events Co-ordinator

Niamh McCarthy

020 7797 8193

nmccarthy@innertemple.org.uk

Catering Administrator

Rosy Gotelee

020 7797 8179

rgotelee@innertemple.org.uk

Head Chef

Martin Cheesman

020 7797 8232

mcheesman@innertemple.org.uk

Pegasus Bar Manager

Elcio Mendonca

020 7797 8234

emendonca@innertemple.org.uk

GARDEN Head Gardener

Andrea Brunsendorf

020 7797 8243

abrunsendorf@innertemple.org.uk

Gardener

Amanda Dennis

020 7797 8243

pottingshed@innertemple.org.uk

PORTERS (including weekends & silent hours)

020 7797 8255

porters@innertemple.org.uk

Head Porter

Roger Ward

020 7797 8255

rward@innertemple.org.uk

Under Porter 1

Dennis Moffat

020 7797 8255

dmoffat@innertemple.org.uk

Under Porter 2

David McLeary

020 7797 8255

dmcleary@innertemple.org.uk

020 7797 8268

tgate@innertemple.org.uk

Tudor Street Gate and Night Security

TEMPLE CHURCH Master of the Temple

The Rev Robin Griffith-Jones

020 7427 5642

master@templechurch.com

Reader

The Rev Mark Hatcher

020 7353 8559

Verger

John Shearer

020 7353 3470

verger@templechurch.com

General Administrator

Catherine de Satgé

020 7353 8559

catherine@templechurch.com

MUSIC OFFICE Director of Music

Roger Sayer

020 7427 5650

liz@templechurch.com

Associate Organist

Greg Morris

020 7427 5650

greg@templechurch.com

Music Administrator

Liz Clarke

020 7427 5650

liz@templechurch.com

TEMPLE MUSIC FOUNDATION (TMF) Fundraising Consultant, Temple Music Foundation

Rachel Pearson

020 7427 5640

rachel@templechurch.com

Box Office

Carol Butler

020 7427 5641

carol@temple.church.com

Administrative Assistant, Temple Music Foundation

Dan Hall

020 7427 5641

dan@templechurch.com

COUNCIL OF THE INNS OF COURT (COIC)

020 7822 0760

Director

James Wakefield

020 7822 0761

jwakefield@coic.org.uk

Secretary

Julia Hawkins

020 7822 0762

jhawkins@coic.org.uk

BAR TRIBUNALS & ADJUDICATION SERVICE (BTAS) (at Gray’s Inn) 020 3432 7350

info@tbtas.org.uk

Registrar

Andy Russell

020 3432 7346

andy.russell@tbtas.org.uk

Tribunals Administrator

Margaret Hilson

020 3432 7348

margaret.hilson@tbtas.org.uk

Inns’ Conduct Committee Administrator

Hayley Addison

020 3432 7347

hayley.addison@tbtas.org.uk

ADVOCACY TRAINING COUNCIL (ATC)

0207 822 0763

Executive Secretary

Beth Phillips

020 7822 0764

bphillips@advocacytrainingcouncil.org

Research & Development Committee & The Advocate’s Gateway

Linda Hunting

020 7822 0765

lhunting@advocacytrainingcouncil.org

Administrator & Secretary

Hayley Dawes

020 7822 0766

hdawes@advocacytrainingcouncil.org

159

160

INNER TEMPLE COMMITTEES

Chairmen of Bench Committees & Sub-Committees

Circuits Committee

Executive Committee Master Treasurer (Master Moore-Bick)

North Eastern Circuit: Master Stuart Brown

Bar Council Master Fetherstonhaugh

Finance Sub-Committee Master Roger Stewart (Senior Bench Auditor)

Master Robert Smith

Master Rhodes

Master Lee

Hefin Rees QC

Wales & Chester: Master Gerard Elias

Inns Of Court And Bar Educational Trust Master Eder (Chairman)

Investment Sub-Committee Master Henderson Estates Committee Master Fetherstonhaugh Library Committee Master Sharp Education & Training Committee Master Carr

Northern Circuit: Master Birkett Master Wright

Master Parsley Western: Master Pascoe Master Ford Master Hiddleston Midland: Master Raggatt Master Bleasdale (Chairman of Circuits Committee)

Advocacy Training Committee Master Ayling

South Eastern: Master Bowron

Scholarships Committee Master Taylor

Master Jackson

Qualifying Sessions Sub-Committee Master Juliet May Student Societies Committee Master Morley Outreach Sub-Committee Master O’Toole Pupil Supervisors Sub-Committee Master Glick Pegasus Scholarship Trust Master Guthrie Benchers’ Selection Committee Master Reader (Master Cryan) Archives Committee Master Baker Temple Women’s Forum Master Taylor (Co-Convenor) Employed Bar Forum Master Robinson Marshall Hall Trust Master Shields Magna Carta Open House Master Reader (Master Cryan)

European: Master Rhodes Master Nicholas Green

The Temple Church Committee Master Treasurer Master Bevington

Inner Temple Representatives on External Bodies

Master Rory Phillips Inns of Court Libraries Liaison Committee Master Sharp Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (IALS) Master Korner Advocacy Training Council (ATC) Master Nicholas Green (Chairman) Master Soole Council of the Inns of Court Master Pittaway Sub-Treasurer Incorporated Council of Law Reporting Master Patrick Elias Master Sally Smith Education and Training Committee (Bar Council) Master Fetherstonhaugh Inns’ Conduct Committee Heather Rogers QC (Interim Chair)

Master Moger (Treasurer)

Master Streatfeild-James

Ian Mayes QC (Chairman, Middle Temple)

Daniel Matovu

Master Mark Hill

Karon Monaghan QC Simon Russell Flint QC

Master Griffiths

Choir Committee Master Hooper (Chairman) Master Beringer The Rt Hon Lord Justice Christopher Clarke (Middle Temple) Ian Mayes QC (Chairman, Church Committee, Middle Temple) Master of the Temple Roger Sayer (Director of Music & Organist)

Tribunal Appointments Board Master Willbourne Master Ayling COIC Funded Pupillage Scheme Master Scriven Bar Council Bar Nursery Sub-Committee Master Fiona Jackson Barristers’ Benevolent Association Master Fisher Master Toledano

THE ICLR PUPIL AWARD 2 0 1 6

The ICLR is a not for profit charity established in 1865 and we publish the most authoritative reports of cases decided in England and Wales. Many of us at ICLR are barristers and we know that the hunt for a pupillage is not easy. We can’t help you find a pupillage, but we would like to lend a hand when you have one secured.

If you are taking up pupillage in Autumn 2016, at a set of chambers whose work is predominantly publicly funded, paid a pupillage award of no more than £14,000, you could receive our top-up award of a further £12,000. We will be making the award to one pupil every year.

Applications will open in early Spring 2016 and the award will be made in September 2016.

To find out more visit iclr.co.uk/pupilaward or email us at sponsorships@iclr.co.uk to register your interest.

THE INNER TEMPLE YEARBOOK