Well said, sir if perhaps a little more pungently than I would put it. I made a conscious choice not to belong to NZLS and will be making an oral submission on Treaty Principles on Thursday. I intend to dissociate myself from the NZLS submissions.
Be interesting to see the election results from the last Law Society elections? I personally think that lawyers, or the few that I know, simply want to get on with their work and I doubt that any would have the courage to stand up to the Law Society.
I do like your ‘pungency’, it’s a breath of air and it cuts through all of the waffle to get to the bits that count.
As a law clerk with Chapman Tripp in 1962 I observed Robin Cooke at close quarters and was astonished to realise he was unusually susceptible to female flattery; this led me to wonder whether he was easily led. Anyway,I think his use of the word "akin" was careless and surprisingly ignorant ,historically I also consider David Seymour is correct in his approach to this issue.
I couldn't agree with you more! I chose to discontinue my membership of NZLS last year as I felt that they did not represent my interests as a practicing lawyer and in particular a largely legal aid funded criminal defence lawyer. Their function appears to primarily be to make unmanaged 'pro bono' (funded by its members of course) submissions to select committees and the appellate courts and to levy exorbitant costs against wayward practitioners following disciplinary rulings (where do the regulatory fees members are all levied annually disappear to)?
Thank you John, and David Halfling, for your rational and reasoned thinking. Is the NZLS truely democratic? Do all its members avail themselves of the opportunity to vote for the executive ? If so, do the current coterie at the top actually represent the majority of the members' views?
As I understand it, where a vote is called for, the President of the NZLS is not elected directly by the lawyers that make up the national membership of the NZLS, rather he/she is elected by the elected representatives of the branches that make up the society (ie Waikato Bay of Plenty Branch).
Do you advocate for the reintroduction of a law against sedition?
It seemed such a useful concept that could cover a variety of circumstances, without needing to be specifically defined in advance. For example, a sedition law could have been used to prosecute the Urewera 19, who so obviously were planning some form of insurrection against the established regime in Wellington. The so-called terrorism law was found to be fraught with definitional difficulties, and therefore was ineffective. Consequently only a small number of the conspirators were charged with merely misusing firearms, - though a number of years later made a purportedly fictional movie with all the same context, and showing a group that was deliberately planning revolutionary overthrow of government, -
On balance I don't favour recriminalizing sedition. Rather let the seditionists reveal themselves with their free speech. I recall quite well the cluster f**ks of those Urewera raids. Solicitor General David Collins sending in the cops under the aegis of the Terrorism Suppression laws and then, when the arrests were made, about turning and claiming that those laws were too flimsy to use for prosecutions. Idiot. Tame Iti, the mad American woman and all the rest were mainly grandiose fantasists. I suppose they were potentially dangerous, but the chances of them getting their crazy shit together enough to stage any sort of insurrection or terrorism was virtually nil, in my view. They should've all been (just) done for the obvious firearms offences, plus - for good measure - for the pounds of Urewera weed.
Once again on the money, bravo! The NZLS submission also reminds us that lawyers may know a bit about the law, but it does not make them smart. (No offence to present company...) I had the same with a bunch of doctor colleagues who in lunchroom discussions about COVID maintained an air of 'well, we know more because we are doctors'. Yet most of the key COVID arguments were moral and economic, not clinical. Equally, the TP Bill, whilst legal in nature, is actually a moral and social statement. The Supreme Court & woke NZLS can try to twist the law (in a lame manner tbh) but they miss the point that as a society, most of us actually do want equal rights and Parliamentary Sovereignty.
Your point re 'not polling its members' is also valid. The head of NZNO is also appearing to speak, yet nurses were not asked for any input. Typical left-wing unions using other people's money to front their own political agendas.
I thought of your nurses point when doing my most recent (NZLS) Substack. I distinctly recall the majority of nurses telling the NZ Nurses Org...your "official" view on COVID doesn't represent us, thanks v much. Dicey for industry bodies to purport to express the views of their members, on controversial subjects
It is interesting that presently in the Law Schools, students hear the names Justice Williams, Lord Cooke and Justice Glazebrook on repeat (with reverence.) The new graduates will know no different. A tidal wave of misconception is on the rise from behind.
I too have long lost confidence in the NZLS. I think two elected presidents have now been stood down or stood aside in recent years, Mr Barton being the second of them. Not a great record.
You refer to Lord Cooke. He has been lionised by the profession and the judiciary over many years. In the interests of fairness I set out the following, which is taken from the Preface written by: R P Meagher, J D Heydon, and M J Leeming to the fourth edition of the Australian text book, Meagher Gummow & Lehane: Equity, Doctrines & Remedies (2002, Butterworth LexisNexis):
"....
The position is otherwise where that inquiry has been stifled. In New Zealand, the prospect of any principled development of equitable principle seems remote short of a revolution on the Court of Appeal. The blame is largely attributable to Lord Cooke's misguided endeavours. That one man could, in a few years, cause such destruction exposes the fragility of contemporary legal systems and the need for vigilant exposure and rooting out of error." p.xi
The authors (two of whom were Judges of the NSW Court of Appeal and Heydon was a Judge of the High Court of Australia) go on to dismiss New Zealand as a jurisdiction that has been "lost".
Thanks Peter, my father Wah McLean, no legal slouch and a deceptively complex thinker, regarded Lord Cooke as a dangerous legal sophistrist, pretty much a judicial conman and fabricator. Cooke was constantly advancing outlandish theories in favour of the Courts being able to override Parliamentary sovereignty. For quite a few years at the end of his time as a judge, he was obviously demented, with a vacant thousand yard stare, sucking on his hanky
The advantage your Father had over him was that your Dad practiced law in the real world, and thus was forced to apply the law practically and pragmatically so as to procure the commercial outcomes desired by the clients.
Well said, sir if perhaps a little more pungently than I would put it. I made a conscious choice not to belong to NZLS and will be making an oral submission on Treaty Principles on Thursday. I intend to dissociate myself from the NZLS submissions.
It was a great submission thanks David.
Thanks Frank
Be interesting to see the election results from the last Law Society elections? I personally think that lawyers, or the few that I know, simply want to get on with their work and I doubt that any would have the courage to stand up to the Law Society.
I do like your ‘pungency’, it’s a breath of air and it cuts through all of the waffle to get to the bits that count.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
As a law clerk with Chapman Tripp in 1962 I observed Robin Cooke at close quarters and was astonished to realise he was unusually susceptible to female flattery; this led me to wonder whether he was easily led. Anyway,I think his use of the word "akin" was careless and surprisingly ignorant ,historically I also consider David Seymour is correct in his approach to this issue.
Vale John!
I couldn't agree with you more! I chose to discontinue my membership of NZLS last year as I felt that they did not represent my interests as a practicing lawyer and in particular a largely legal aid funded criminal defence lawyer. Their function appears to primarily be to make unmanaged 'pro bono' (funded by its members of course) submissions to select committees and the appellate courts and to levy exorbitant costs against wayward practitioners following disciplinary rulings (where do the regulatory fees members are all levied annually disappear to)?
Keep up the fight!
Thank you John, and David Halfling, for your rational and reasoned thinking. Is the NZLS truely democratic? Do all its members avail themselves of the opportunity to vote for the executive ? If so, do the current coterie at the top actually represent the majority of the members' views?
As I understand it, where a vote is called for, the President of the NZLS is not elected directly by the lawyers that make up the national membership of the NZLS, rather he/she is elected by the elected representatives of the branches that make up the society (ie Waikato Bay of Plenty Branch).
Do you advocate for the reintroduction of a law against sedition?
It seemed such a useful concept that could cover a variety of circumstances, without needing to be specifically defined in advance. For example, a sedition law could have been used to prosecute the Urewera 19, who so obviously were planning some form of insurrection against the established regime in Wellington. The so-called terrorism law was found to be fraught with definitional difficulties, and therefore was ineffective. Consequently only a small number of the conspirators were charged with merely misusing firearms, - though a number of years later made a purportedly fictional movie with all the same context, and showing a group that was deliberately planning revolutionary overthrow of government, -
On balance I don't favour recriminalizing sedition. Rather let the seditionists reveal themselves with their free speech. I recall quite well the cluster f**ks of those Urewera raids. Solicitor General David Collins sending in the cops under the aegis of the Terrorism Suppression laws and then, when the arrests were made, about turning and claiming that those laws were too flimsy to use for prosecutions. Idiot. Tame Iti, the mad American woman and all the rest were mainly grandiose fantasists. I suppose they were potentially dangerous, but the chances of them getting their crazy shit together enough to stage any sort of insurrection or terrorism was virtually nil, in my view. They should've all been (just) done for the obvious firearms offences, plus - for good measure - for the pounds of Urewera weed.
Once again on the money, bravo! The NZLS submission also reminds us that lawyers may know a bit about the law, but it does not make them smart. (No offence to present company...) I had the same with a bunch of doctor colleagues who in lunchroom discussions about COVID maintained an air of 'well, we know more because we are doctors'. Yet most of the key COVID arguments were moral and economic, not clinical. Equally, the TP Bill, whilst legal in nature, is actually a moral and social statement. The Supreme Court & woke NZLS can try to twist the law (in a lame manner tbh) but they miss the point that as a society, most of us actually do want equal rights and Parliamentary Sovereignty.
Your point re 'not polling its members' is also valid. The head of NZNO is also appearing to speak, yet nurses were not asked for any input. Typical left-wing unions using other people's money to front their own political agendas.
I thought of your nurses point when doing my most recent (NZLS) Substack. I distinctly recall the majority of nurses telling the NZ Nurses Org...your "official" view on COVID doesn't represent us, thanks v much. Dicey for industry bodies to purport to express the views of their members, on controversial subjects
Thank you again John. I get the feeling we need a Javier Milei in the nation and fast.
I'm a lawyer and the Law Society doesn't represent me on this matter.
It is interesting that presently in the Law Schools, students hear the names Justice Williams, Lord Cooke and Justice Glazebrook on repeat (with reverence.) The new graduates will know no different. A tidal wave of misconception is on the rise from behind.
Dear John,
I too have long lost confidence in the NZLS. I think two elected presidents have now been stood down or stood aside in recent years, Mr Barton being the second of them. Not a great record.
You refer to Lord Cooke. He has been lionised by the profession and the judiciary over many years. In the interests of fairness I set out the following, which is taken from the Preface written by: R P Meagher, J D Heydon, and M J Leeming to the fourth edition of the Australian text book, Meagher Gummow & Lehane: Equity, Doctrines & Remedies (2002, Butterworth LexisNexis):
"....
The position is otherwise where that inquiry has been stifled. In New Zealand, the prospect of any principled development of equitable principle seems remote short of a revolution on the Court of Appeal. The blame is largely attributable to Lord Cooke's misguided endeavours. That one man could, in a few years, cause such destruction exposes the fragility of contemporary legal systems and the need for vigilant exposure and rooting out of error." p.xi
The authors (two of whom were Judges of the NSW Court of Appeal and Heydon was a Judge of the High Court of Australia) go on to dismiss New Zealand as a jurisdiction that has been "lost".
Thanks Peter, my father Wah McLean, no legal slouch and a deceptively complex thinker, regarded Lord Cooke as a dangerous legal sophistrist, pretty much a judicial conman and fabricator. Cooke was constantly advancing outlandish theories in favour of the Courts being able to override Parliamentary sovereignty. For quite a few years at the end of his time as a judge, he was obviously demented, with a vacant thousand yard stare, sucking on his hanky
The advantage your Father had over him was that your Dad practiced law in the real world, and thus was forced to apply the law practically and pragmatically so as to procure the commercial outcomes desired by the clients.
I'm a lawyer and the Law Society doesn't represent me on this matter.