Obiter Issue 3 2012 (PDF 12.0MB) - School of Law

1
CANTERBURY’S LLM PROGRAMME
EDITORIAL:
Do you have an LLB?
How’s it goin?
Would you like to enhance your future employment opportunities?
Greg and I have put together what we think is the best Obiter yet this year! There are a
number of exciting reasons for this opinion which include; an interview with Greg King (the
defence lawyer for Ewen Macdonald - omg omg omg), a great assortment of articles which we
hope will provide some valuable distraction time from that boring Law study you should be
doing, and information about the upcoming LAWSOC elections! Whoopee!
The School of Law at the University of Canterbury offers an excellent postgraduate programme.
The academic strength of the School and the flexibility of the degrees make the programme an attractive
option for students wanting to develop their research skills and to gain a valuable postgraduate
qualification in any area of legal study.
Do you think bigger is better? So do we... Which is why this issue of Obiter has been expanded
from the usual 24, to a MASSIVE 28 pages. Well not really massive, but bigger nonetheless.
We couldn’t have done this without our wonderful contributors, so if you want to get involved
with Obiter, flick us a message (our deets are below).
In 2008, the United Kingdom overhauled its immigration law and implemented a points based system for
non-European Union migrants wishing to come to the UK to work, study and learn.
If you are not an EU passport holder you may need to have a postgraduate qualification to work in the UK.
Oh man isn’t it great to have the Foundry back?... JOKES IT’S FUCKED! Too good to be true
anyway. Plus, we don’t need the Foundry now the Olympics is on telly, we can watch the New
Zealand team compete in the Gumboot Toss, and the 250m Beer Chug.
Postgraduate study in law gives you the opportunity to:
• Gain a highly-regarded postgraduate law qualification
• Develop in-depth expertise in particular fields of legal specialisation
• Broaden your knowledge in a range of legal subjects including some not taken at undergraduate level
• Combine legal study with other disciplines
• Acquire an international perspective on law or gain the ability to work in an international legal
environment
• Undertake further study as part of professional development search
I have to make a special mention of the fact that our much beloved Obiter editor, Greg BeltonBrown, is heading over to England for a study exchange. He beat the level he is currently on,
so is heading over to the other side of the world to level up. Mate, it’s been an honor working
with you for the last year on Obiter, and I wish you all the success in the world while you are
away. No doubt in my mind you will have an absolute blast and defeat the Elite Four! Go hard
buddy!
Peace out from the Obiter boys, Ricky and Greg.
CONTENTS:
04 President’s Report
05 Social Report
06 Competition Report/ Law
Revue
08 ALSA Report
10 Greg King Interview
12 LawSoc Elections
14 Law Ball Photo’s
16 Communal Justice?
19 Hungover Pie Review
20 Fashion Feature
22 [Sea] Steading
24 TP
26 Lecturers Inquisition
Disclaimer:
2
Want to become a world famous
author? Clearly Obiter is the place to
start. Contributors get shouted a bottle
of wine or a box of beer, just because
we love you guys... naww. Got to be in
it to win it, so get in touch!
Editors:
Greg Belton-Brown
027 308 7883
[email protected]
Ricky Jordan
027 256 3266
[email protected]
Supporters:
A massive thanks to
everyone who got
involved with this issue;
IPLS, Lane Neave, Bell
Gully, University of
Canterbury Law School,
Te Putairiki, The College
of Law, Andrew Puller,
Greg King, Emma Moore
and Hemma Vara.
The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors, the
faculty of law, or LAWSOC. This magazine is intended merely to educate and entertain. The
editors accept no responsibility whatsoever for offensive or inaccurate material.
3
SOCIAL
PRESIDENT’S REPORT
It follows
that the New
Zealand Law
Students’
Association
(NZLSA) has
begun to look
into whether
the mental
health of law
students is
an issue here;
after all, we
surely can’t be
that different
to our Australian cousins?
The utility of
gathering such
information
cannot be
overstated – if
indeed New
Zealand’s
law students
are suffering
disproportionately from depression and
anxiety, then
this must be
addressed, and
bodies such
as the NZLSA
must lead the
charge in raising awareness
and establishing avenues of
help.
O
ne of the highlights of this role
is representing Canterbury
University law students at the
Australian Law Students’ Association
(ALSA) Conference, which was held in
Melbourne this year. During the Conference, ALSA launched a new booklet
called Defending Your Sanity, a handbook aimed at helping law students
navigate their way through law school
without succumbing to mental health
issues, namely depression and anxiety. This represented the culmination
of ALSA’s flagship education policy
responding to an apparently very high
prevalence of mental health problems
amongst Australian law students. There
is also a belief that similar mental health
issues subsist within the Australian
profession.
So, is there a
hidden tide of
mental illness amongst Godzone’s legal
learners? The first observation I would
make is that, in actual fact, Australian
law students exhibit quite a different
culture to their Kiwi counterparts. It
doesn’t take a particularly observant
person or a long time at ALSA to
notice that Australian law students are
extremely competitive, in a way that
far transcends the competitive nature
of entry to second year from LAWS101
that we have here. They are highly
competitive within law competitions
(e.g. mooting), student politics, their
grades at all levels and the quality of
the job they get after university. Of
course, there is little doubt that these
all exist here too, but, in my experience,
nowhere near to the same extent – and
nowhere near as cut-throat. All this is to
E
say that it would be pay to be cautious
about simply extrapolating the Australian experience without any direct
evidence here.
llo poppets,
Term 3 already, well, well, well.
That pretty much means that we
are almost through all of our delightful
events for the year. What, what? I hear
you say. Yes, you heard correctly our
time is almost up and all our wonderful
events are almost done.
And why law in particular? Our brothers (and sisters?) in Engineering could
quite legitimately point out that their
workload in 1st, 2nd and 3rd Pro is possibly larger and certainly more constant,
and yet you don’t hear them complaining. Of course, maybe we should hear
them complaining, which is a whole
new story for a whole new day – but
the question remains, what is it about
legal study that has got ALSA, and now
the NZLSA, moving? One suggestion in
Defending Your Sanity is that the types
of people that are drawn to the law are
generally more prone to depression:
“the business of law rewards being right
above all else, and therefore attracts
unrelenting perfectionists.” Really? Elsewhere, ALSA’s Education Vice President
puts it more down to the subject matter
itself: “as a law student, we are trained
to obsess and stress about every full
stop and capital letter that we type on
the page” etc – which eventually pervades our personalities. Either of these
makes for a toxic mix with a highly competitive culture and in a subject where
it is harder to get the good grades. But
are either of them true?
Therefore, it is time to reminisce of
the enjoyable times we had together
in earlier times, a time for reflection, a
time for consideration, a time for laughing and crying, a time.............
Anyway, so term 2 was super sweet.
Kicking off term 2 was our mid sessional party being Flashback: Childhood
Idol at Joe’s Garage. Heaps of people
were there including Buck Shelford, the
Karate Kid, some Japanese Idols, Cavell
Leitch, the Foodstuffs man, ooooo a
Teletubby (shit yea). A special mention to Super Woman and Bat Woman
who took out best dressed and had
a romantic date with a Joe’s Garage
voucher, after fighting some sweet as
crime. It should be noted that there
was no crime at the actual mid sessional party itself, just outside where the
Foodstuffs man lay in wait committing
the crime of sexiness. Sweet? Sweet!
Did you say Race Night?!!! Ye what
now?? Did you say there was an open
bar?? Did you say there was an amazing
buffet? Did you say the buffet needed
another special mention? Oooooo, did
you mention the squid? Did you say
horses? Did you say cute little jockey’s
that you could just put in your pocket
and take home? Did you said Leg
en....................................................DARY!!!!
Did you say you won?? Haha, funny you
should ask all those questions.................
YES. The answer is yes. Even DLA Philips
Fox came down for it too and even they
said yes. I employ you to say yes, the
answer is yes. I don’t think there are any
other options provided other than yes,
except for A, B, C or D and they don’t
tell you anything about the event. So as
a sort of synopsis of the above paragraph Race Night was awesome!!!
Now, at this present point in time we
meet at a cross roads you might say.
It is a good cross roads because at the
point of writing this article The Great
Gatsby Law Ball is on Saturday, Whoop,
whoop!! Yes it did sell out in like 2
hours, no biggy. I will stop writing like
a dick. The Lane Neave Law Ball is this
Saturday, exceptionally exciting with
an open Bar, three course meal, The
Possums, a DJ and even a ride home.
Ooooo my. Thankfully, this fine literature is after the Ball so massive kudos
and thanks to the Ball Committee consisting of; Ashleigh May, Jenni Jones,
Rachael Walsh and Simon Inder who
helped us throughout this process. It is
going to be an amazing night and the
standard would have been unachievable without their help.
Finally, looking past Law Ball, I know
it is difficult, we have our wonderful
AGM which is important to attend
as it is the reflection and election of
the Lawsoc Exec (holy shit was that
assonance?) but more importantly we
have Quiz Night in the days following
the AGM which is always an epic night,
testing your knowledge and determining supremacy within the members of
Lawsoc.
Lucy and Andy
Graduating in law?
Do you think there is a mental health
problem amongst New Zealand
students? Are students just stressed,
or are they genuinely depressed or
anxious? If the latter, why? If it is a matter of personality, should more be done
to make sure that the “wrong” people
don’t enter the subject? Is it simply a
matter of those people “hardening up”,
or is that the very same attitude that
marginalised mental health issues for
so long in the past? Most critically, if
there is an issue, is it prevalent enough
that immediate action must be taken at
both a regional and national level?
TAKE THE NEXT STEP IN YOUR LEGAL CAREER
Acquire the practical skills you need to begin your
career in the legal profession through The College of
Law Professional Legal Studies Course. The College
is the most preferred provider of both students and
employers and is the provider to all major law firms.
The course will teach you the skills needed to
practise as a lawyer, through training focussed in
three areas:
Core practice areas:
 Civil Litigation Practice
 Corporate and Commercial Practice
 Property Practice
I would love to hear your thoughts
on the matter. Email me on sww29@
uclive.ac.nz or come and find me in the
LAWSOC Office, Room 119.
Elective practice areas:
 Acting for the Corporate Client, or
 Acting for the Private Client
Professional areas:
 Professional Responsibility
 Professional Skills
- Communicating Effectively
- Writing and Drafting
- Problem Solving and Work Management
Seamus Woods
4
- Interviewing Clients
- Negotiation and Early Dispute Resolution
- Representing a Client in Court
 Trust and Office Accounting
You will learn these skills through a combination
of a structured online learning programme and an
onsite programme that includes skills workshops
and performance assessments.
Create your own course timetable
The College offers maximum flexibility in course
options through:
 Interchangeable modules
 Online start dates throughout the year
 Onsites in Auckland, Christchurch, Dunedin,
Hamilton and Wellington
 Flexibility with your changing circumstances
Go to www.collaw.ac.nz/plsc to see how you can
create a course timetable to suit your needs.
For further information:
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 0800 894 172
5
THE END
COMPETITIONS
T
erm two was stacked up like a game
of Jenga for competitions and luckily
neither of us competitions officers had
parkinsons so we made it through okay.
Term two saw the Buddle Findlay Negotiations Competition and the final of the Bell
Gully Mooting competition take place.
The negotiations competition was initiated
with one of our trademark demos, which
was met with much interest. There was a full
field of competitors, which was great to see
for the preliminary round. Then, on to the
semi final and final rounds which were held
on the same night with a nail biting finale
between Mike Vanner,
Jimmy Harris and Tom
Nation and James
Lester. The judges really struggled to find
a winner as both the
teams were of such
high calibre, but Mike
Vanner and Jimmy
Harris negotiated
their way to the top
spot with the slightest victory of one
mark. We were very
pleased with the way
this competition ran
and are grateful for
the help we received
from Simon Dorset,
Andrew Pullar - Mooting winner
the judges for our big preliminary round
and especially, David Round and Susan
Rowe (Buddle Findlay) for judging both the
Semi and the Final round. A special thanks
goes out to the team at Buddle Findlay for
all their help and support!
Last, but by no means least, we had the
semi final and final rounds of the Bell Gully
Mooting Competition. It is possible to go
as far as saying that the Mooting final is like
the Olympics of all competitions. It is what
we, as competitions officers aspire to, with
the help of our coach, Simon Dorset and
the winner will have their name engraved
on the Judges Cup as a medal of honour.
The Final round saw Andrew Pullar, Jeremy
Bell-Connell, Sean Maskill and Francesca
Chapman fight it out for king/queen of
Mooting. Andrew Pullar took the gold as the
best mooter and was awarded the Judges
Cup. This holds the names of some of the
most prestigious names in law including,
many judges, top academics and very
notable lawyers. The team named for ALSA
were Andrew Pullar, Jeremy Bell- Conell and
Sean Maskill. Unfortunately, Jeremy had
other commitments, so Francesca was taken
from her reserve position to compete in
Melbourne.
teams got up to in Melbourne) and we
would like to wish them all the best of luck
for NZLSA competition later this year.
OF THE
Competitions Spot Prizes for 2012:
WORLD
Best Judge – Grant Tyrell, a fantastic judge
over many competitions this year and who
stepped in at the last minute to judge the final of the Witness Examination competition
Best all round competitor – Thomas Nation.
A fantastic competitor across numerous
competitions someone with a clear mind,
who can think quickly on his feet and
excel in many circumstances.
Kenzo and Watty
We are extremely proud of all the teams
that competed in ALSA (keep reading for
a more in depth commentary of what the
Jimmy Harris and Mike Vanner - Negotiation winners
LAW REVUE
August 8,9 and 10
7.30 pm – Bar open from
7pm
Jack Mann Theatre –
Teachers College
I
f you’re a first year or maybe you’ve
been living under a rock, Law Revue
is an all singing, all dancing comedy
show starring students and featuring the Law faculty. If you have ever
thought middle class New Zealanders
do not get enough of a chance to laugh
at the misfortunes of those less attractive or financially well off, then Law
Revue is for you. Back for another year
ready to make you laugh and cringe all
at once, Law Revue guarantees to provide the sort of humour that points out
what only a few will say out loud.
Whether you want to see white people rapping or laugh at New Zealand’s
bad boy Ewen MacDonald. Law Revue
has something for you. So come and
follow the story of a depressed lunatic
God wanting to bring about the 2012
apocalypse, all while enjoying the skits,
the dancing, the singing, the rapping,
and the male striptease that has made
Law Revue the most successful show on
campus for 21 years (suck it MUSOC).
August 8,9 and 10 are the dates for you
to vivid into your diary and underline.
The show starts at 7.30pm but doors
open at 7 so come and makes the most
of the CASH ONLY bar while you can.
By the time this comes out tickets will
be available. Be sure to hit up the event
page on facebook for the link NOW! $15
for members $20 for non members is
such a cheap way to enjoy your night.
Tickets are limited so get in quick and
don’t miss you chance.
Remember....Last one in has to sit on
the aisle...
Peace out.
Josh Morgan
Law Revue Producer.
6
8-10TH AUGUST, 7.30PM
JACK MANN THEATRE
DASHTICKETS.CO.NZ
7
ALSA Conference
2012
B
y dongle what a cracker trip. 8
days in the thriving metropolis
which is home to landmarks such
as (FL)Inders St Station, Spearmint
Rhino and the glorious lakes of Albert
Park – its fair to say we felt more than at
home in Melbourne.
MS LANYON
A key figure on this trip was Ms Victoria
Lanyon, convenor for the 2012 conference. We, as a Canterbury delegation,
were not aware of the aura which surrounded Ms Lanyon, but soon found
out what an extraordinary, charismatic,
disco ball like figure she was. Heir to the
Lanyard empire, we were quickly given
our identification lanyards (‘lanyons’)
upon arrival at the Sebel Suites Hotel.
These would remain with us at all times,
and would remind us constantly of the
woman in charge of the conference –
none other than Ms Lanyon.
tration we were slightly perplexed. The
urban dictionary would suggest that
we had every right to be confused, with
the first two definitions being;
1. A large penis. In this sense
it is meant to be the bigger
version of a medium penis (a
dangle which is in turn bigger
than a small penis (a dingle)
and 2. Getting head behind
the shed at a party. (I got a
dongle from that girl the other
night.). And while some of the
contingent did get a dongle or
two that week, we soon found
that it was definition 3. A piece
of computer hardware that is
provided with software. This
hardware has to be attached to
the computer (example: Printer
port) to allow the software to
work. So, with dongles in hand,
we were ready to take the
Australians.
and Megan hastily decided to pop
the champagne and spray everyone.
But the next day it was all business
and while initially intimidated by her
dreamy South Australian opponent,
Megan pulled herself together and
gave an admirable performance in
the courtroom on Thursday 12th July.
Unfortunately, in a split decision, she
did not progress to the semi’s but as the
only member of the Canterbury delegation to break to the quarters, we are
very proud of her. Megan was rewarded
each and every one of them for their
undying support. All the delegation’s
hard work was paid off, with Megan
the final 24 hours of the trip.
his 700th test wicket as well as that
unforgettable underarm incident of
1981. The pub crawl was the largest
night, with the delegation treated to
four of St Kildas best
MELBOURNE FASHION
“an after party which pubs before an after
As well as the competisaw chef de mission party which saw chef
tions the Canterbury delmission Seamus
Seamus Woods kicked de
egation made sure they
Woods kicked out and
made the most of all that
out”
being told not to dress
Melbourne had to offer
like he is from the jun– aka the salty fashion. The boys learnt
gle in Melbourne, Simon devouring
what chino’s were under the guidance
20 chicken nuggets in one sitting and
of Jimmy Harris who had purchased a
Ashleigh losing her iPhone. The sports
pair prior to the trip. A full
and frat party themed nights were also
colour range of chino’s
highlights, as were confrontations with
were purchased from
Melbourne’s bouncers and taxi drivers.
Chapel St tan, to camel,
The closing gala was held at the Crown
to the very bold ‘greeno’s’
Casino Complex where the Lanyon
purchased by Mr Maskill.
disco ball featured again. Drinks flowed
It would be fair to say that
consistently throughout the dinner with
the Canterbury Law School an after party in the Crown complex to
has never seen such a
follow and a dabble on the pokies in
salty entrance of fashionthe Crown Casino.
able young lads after the
The team also kept themselves occuMelbourne trip. While the
pied in their down time, exploring the
boys were pleased with
their single shopping bags Italian eateries of Lygon Street, the roofin tow, the girls too did not top bars of Swanston and, thirsting for
more action act the MCG, attending an
go short, shopping up a
AFL match between last years finalists
storm and donning entire
Geelong and Collingwood along with
new outfits by the end of
60,000 other punters.
the trip.
SOCIAL EVENTS
Despite the small problem of
COMPETITIONS
still having to find 300 judges
The Australian Law Students Associathe night before round 1,
tion (ALSA) conference this year saw
thanks to the extraordinary ef500 law students from both New
forts of Ms Lanyon in co-opting
Zealand and Australia descend on
Seamus Woods into judging
Melbourne to compete in various law
the mooting, the competitions
competitions and indulge in a variety of ran almost without a hitch
social activities including two gala din(cough). Each day we would
ners, pub crawls and a cocktail evening
take the tram (courtesy of our
at the shrine of Australian Cricket; the
week long tram passes from
MCG. The Canterbury Law CompetiNZLSA) from our Albert Park Hotel into
tions delegation this year comprised
one of the four campuses/ law firms in
of Seamus Woods (Chef de Mission),
the city to compete. We quickly learnt
Megan Lynch (Witness Examination),
how competitive
Ashleigh May and Simon Inder
“Despite the small the Australians were
(Client Interviewing), Mike Vanproblem of still hav- and how much they
ner and Jimmy Harris (Negotiathe appeals
ing to find 300 judg- liked
tion) and Andrew Pullar, Sean
system. Each team
Maskill and Fran Chapman
es the night before gained a great deal
(Mooooooooting).
from the experience
round 1.......”
and received very
positive feedback
Competition was fierce. But we were
which bodes well for the New Zealand
aided in our research and preparation
competition in late August. At all times,
by our dongles. The dongle is worth
the friends and families back home
elaborating on. When the team were
were at the forefront of the delegations
told we were receiving dongles at regisminds and they would like to thank
Canterbury’s ALSA delegates
Lynch (and only Megan
Lynch) breaking to the
quarter-finals, in the Witness Examination.
for her efforts by being
appointed to the coveted
position of deputy Chef de mission for
Apart from the competitions, the week was filled
with numerous social
events. The team was
hosted on the first night at
Government House, and
then onto an opening gala
dinner at the docklands.
The break night cocktail
party at the Melbourne
Cricket Ground was a
highlight, the boys in awe of their surroundings, knowing that this was the
pitch where Murali was no-balled for
throwing, where Shane Warne took
Special thanks to honorary Canterbury
members Almo and Macca from Dunedin who provided some great banter
the whole week, and between them
scored more than Geelong at the AFL.
That’s all for now but look out for part
two following the NZLSA Conference
in Auckland in August where we look
forward to being joined by our junior
moot champions.
Karl Filange
Megan’s journey
A true Canterbury stalwart, Megan
attended the prestigious St Margaret’s College, where, at an early age, it
was clear that she would shine in the
courtroom. The whole delegations joy
at the announcement that Megan had
progressed to the quarters was evident
to the whole crowd in the Olympic
Room at the Melbourne Cricket ground,
8
9
Greg King:
Lawyer
Greg chats to Greg King about Ewen MacDonald and the life
and times of being a top defence lawyer....................
Q: What led you to choose to practice primarily criminal law?
A: I grew up in Turangi, where my father
was a prison officer. He was on duty the
day Arthur Allan Thomas was released,
so I suppose crime was always a hot
topic of conversation around the dinner
table. Just before my tenth birthday my
rugby coach was murdered. That really
rocked us all to the core. So I suppose
it was those influences that led me into
criminal law as a career. It was only
quite late in my studies that I settled on
defence, originally I had wanted to be a
prosecutor!
Q: There is a common perception
that criminal lawyers work harder
and are paid less than those who
practice commercial law, in your
experience, is this true?
A: Crime definitely pays less than any
other branch of law I can think of. The
top rate for a senior defence lawyer representing a client on a murder charge
on legal aid is $159 per hour. The same
tax payer pays Crown Prosecutors $198
an hour. Compare this with conveyancing and the disparity is huge. Some law
firms charge out their legal executives
at more than $300 an hour! If money is
your motivator crime is not for you!
Q: What can a career in criminal
law offer, that say a career in commercial law cannot?
A: It is horses for courses. Crime is
where my interest is and so it suits me.
I like the excitement of the court room
and I like helping people. The wonderful thing about the law is that there is
a niche for everyone, it is just a case of
finding it.
Q: I note that you served an 'apprenticeship' with Judith AblettKerr QC in Dunedin before commencing practice as a Barrister
sole in 1996 – at a relatively young
age. Is this a path that you would
recommend prospective criminal
lawyers follow; or in hindsight
would you do things differently?
A: In the UK they have a pupillage
system, whereby young graduates get
to learn from experienced counsel. My 3
year ‘apprenticeship’ with Judith AblettKerr QC was just that. She taught me
the skills, qualities and ethics required
of a criminal defence lawyer. It was an
invaluable experience and we remain
close confidantes. I would not have
done things differently.
Q: A criminal lawyer is required to
defend many clients who the public at large would consider 'unpalatable' – some may even question
their right to a defence. How does
this sit with your moral beliefs and
view of the justice system?
A: This is of course the thing that most
people don’t get. The first thing to
understand is that most people we
represent actually plead guilty. In this
situation the challenge is to negotiate
the correct charge and advocate for an
appropriate sentence. As for the client
who pleads Not Guilty, it is here that
many see us as the ‘hired guns’ who
strive to win at all costs. The reality
could not be more different. A lawyer
is an Officer of the Court and his or her
primary obligation is to the Court not
to the client. There are strict laws, rules
and ethics that surround the conduct of
a criminal defence at all stages. Certainly a lawyer must never mislead or
deceive the Court. This means that if the
client has told you they did it, you cannot adduce evidence suggesting that
they did not.
A: Nothing too serious! I have had a few
unpleasant experiences in Court, but
only to be expected in highly charged
emotional situations. Threats don’t
scare me.
Q: You have dealt with some of
the most high profile criminal law
cases in recent times (not least of
which the MacDonald trial). Has
any particular case stood out as
being more difficult to deal with
than the others?
A: All cases are different and many are
memorable for different reasons. It is
really hard to single out one case, but
in 2004 I defended a professional man
in Nelson on a charge of murdering his
severely disabled 5 month old baby
daughter on the very day he learned of
the horrific extent of her disabilities. It
was just the most terrible situation for
everyone. He was acquitted at trial on
both murder and manslaughter charges
and granted final name suppression.
Had he been convicted he would have
been sentenced to life imprisonment
with a minimum term of about 17 years!
In my view that would have been a terrible injustice.
Another case I will always remember involved a 90 year old man charged with
murdering his very ill wife. They had
been married for 68 wonderful years
and wanted to ‘go out’ together, but his
attempt at taking his own life failed. He
was resuscitated and charged with murder. It was a really sad case, but what a
privilege getting to know this wonderful man and hearing about his incredible life and his love for his wife. The
charge was eventually ‘stayed’ (meaning
that it was stopped from proceeding)
and he died in his sleep a free man.
Q: I note in previous interviews you
have been reluctant to comment
on the MacDonald trial. Is there
anything concerning the trial that
you would like to share?
A: I think the media coverage of the
case was generally very bad (with some
exceptions). These peoples’ lives were
turned into a soap opera and played
out for the entertainment of the nation.
It is pretty distasteful in my view.
Q: During your career you have
appeared before both the Privy
Council and the Supreme Court on
numerous occasions. Given your
experience, do you believe New
Zealand's final court of appeal
should sit in New Zealand and
were we right to do away with the
Privy Council?
A: Appearing before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Downing
Street, London is an incredible experience. I have been lucky enough to do so
on 5 occasions (in three double murder
cases; Scott Watson in 2003; Bruce
Howse in 2004 and 2005 and John Barlow in 2008 and 2009). It is like nothing
you can experience in NZ. Having said
that I think the Supreme Court is doing
a great job (I have argued more than 10
full appeals in the Supreme Court). The
reality was that so few criminal cases
from NZ ever made it to the Privy Council (only 13 cases were ever granted
leave – in more than 160 years!). The
Supreme Court hears more than 20
criminal appeals each year. So I think it
was a good move.
Q: How do you see your career
progressing in the future? If the
opportunity presented itself, would
you consider becoming a Judge?
A: At this stage of my life, 42 with
young children, I am just happy doing
more of the same. I have no ambitions
to be a judge, which is probably a good
thing as I doubt they would have me
anyway!
My conduct of a criminal defence does
not change because I may like or dislike a client, just as a surgeon does not
let such trivialities influence his or her
patient care and treatment.
Finally, I am a firm believer that a strong
and fearless defence bar is really at the
heart of any democracy. The defence
lawyer stands between the state, the
police and the citizen. The role is a critical check and balance.
Q: Have there been instances
where you have received threats,
or you or your family have been
put in danger because of your
work?
10
11
LAWSOC AGM
On Wednesday the 15th, come on down and run for the exec, best call you’ll make all year............
Details of the AGM :
Wednesday 15 August at
1pm
Law 108,
Members only.
Nominations for positions
will open on Wednesday
8 August, again members
only
President
The role of President essentially comes
in three parts: oversight, external relations/sponsorship, and being the “face”
of LAWSOC. The oversight part of the
job means that the President must liaise
with every other portfolio on the Executive to ensure that they are doing their
jobs well; after all, everything that happens with LAWSOC ultimately falls back
on its President. It also denotes that the
President is responsible for setting the
overall direction, policies and tone of
LAWSOC for the year. External relations/
sponsorship is a big part of the role, and
involves maintaining relations with the
Law Faculty and the Dean, the UCSA,
law firms, the New Zealand Law Students’ Association, the Australian Law
Students’ Association, the New Zealand
Law Society etc. It is also the President’s
job to secure sponsorship for all of
LAWSOC events and initiatives. Competence (and patience!) when it comes to
email traffic is a must. Finally, being the
face of the organisation means fronting up to every event, speaking at most
of them (largely thanking sponsors
plus a couple of gags) and again being
responsible if things go belly up.
A wonderful experience and one I
would strongly encourage people to
run for.
Vice President
The role of Vice-President is pretty
damn easy to describe to those of
you out there contemplating running
at the upcoming elections. AMAZE-
BALLS. AMAZZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEBALLLSSSSSSSS. If you are umming and
ahhhing over whether to run for VP
or not, two words: DOOOOO IT. It is a
wonderfully fulfilling job. Well, actually. I lie. It is two wonderfully fulfilling
jobs! For the person who becomes VP
for Lawsoc in 2013, they are officially
titled Vice-President/Secretary! The
broad role of the VicePresident/Secretary is to
provide support for the
other Executive Officers, and in particular the
President, in the pursuit
of the objectives of the
society. The VP in their
capacity as secretary gets
to take minutes at all
weekly meetings, send
out weekly agendas and
be a top gent or lady
who can assist other Exec
Officers in their duties
and roles. The VP has the
ridiculously fun task of
being in charge of events
such as Law Camp, the
annual Lawsoc Secondhand Book Sale and
Leavers’ Dinner. It is often
a job where you are busy
behind the scenes but is
oh so rewarding with the
relationships that you will
establish with your fellow
Exec mates. Being your
VP for 2012 has absolutely been the best experience. So please do me a
favour. Pretty please run for VP no matter who you are or where you’re from. I
want you to have this overwhelmingly
positive experience too!
Treasurer
The central role of the Treasurer is to
control the finances of LAWSOC, and to
account for every last cent that comes
into and goes out of LAWSOC. The
Treasurer is expected to liaise with the
other LAWSOC Executive officers with
regard to LAWSOC expenditure, so that
the level of any subsidy for LAWSOC
events can be budgeted for, and also so
that any other proposed expenditure
can be assessed in light of LAWSOC ‘s
current financial situation. This means
that the treasurer has an important
role in the decision making process for
planning events. The treasurer must
also prepare and send out invoices to
sponsors.
The Treasurer is expected, at the end
Education
The Academic Officer essentially operates on two levels. The first requires
you to engage with students directly,
overseeing Lawsoc services such as the
buddy system, the prison visit and the
Lawsoc tutorials. In recent years, Lawsoc
has expanded its tutorial offering to include tutorials for all of the compulsory
courses before all major assessments,
and there is a strong expectation that
subsequent Academic Officers will continue these offerings. The second level
requires you to work behind the scenes,
assisting with recruitment evenings and
owners to sponsors, as well as scoring
you some sweet bulk alcohol contacts.
There are two positions for Social Officer on Lawsoc so if you girls have a
longing to recreate a law school version
of big fat gypsy wedding or you fellas
want a chance to score more bitches,
then why not run? Yell out to Andy or
Lucy if you have any questions and
remember the wise words of S Club 7 “there aint no party like a Lawsoc party”.
Competitions
The role of competitions officer is one
that is very rewarding, but also something that you need to put a
lot of effort into during the first
semester. It is a great role for
someone who has good communications skill and is organised.
The main duties will include
liaising with the current Moot
Master at Canterbury (Simon
Dorset) who will help you to organise judges and book rooms.
It will be your responsibility to
organise a demo session and
obtain entries. You will also run
each of the competitions when
they are held which means
setting up rooms, organising a
small spread for the judges, tea
and coffee etc through to discussion with the judges as to who is
going through to further rounds
of competition.
LAWSOC’s 2012 Exec
of his/her term, to produce financial
statements detailing the financial
performance and financial position of
LAWSOC for the year, which are then
presented to the Annual General Meeting. The Treasurer is responsible for
ensuring that LAWSOC meets its taxation obligations. LAWSOC has an IRD
number, and is now registered for GST.
Income tax and GST laws and regulations must be complied with.
The Treasurer also needs to keep track
of LAWSOC’ s eligibility for UCSA Club
grants.
attending Faculty meetings alongside
the President. Where required, you will
also attend NZLSA meetings.
Social
Do you fancy yourself as a bit of a hot
shot in the party planning scene? Got
some big ideas to get your fellow law
amigos mingling and tingling? Social
Officer is not just about getting pissed
and getting rowdy, but taking charge
on the other side of the picture. This
role teaches you the invaluable skills
of event management, dealing with a
range of different people from venue
The role is fantastic because you
get to meet a lot of people from
the legal profession who will be
judges and you also have a lot of
communication with each of the
firms that sponsor the separate
competitions. This role is challenging
but very rewarding and you learn a
great deal from it.
You have plenty of support from the
LAWSOC executive throughout the
year and you will have the guidance of
one of this years competition officers
(Michael Kensington) who will still be
at University in 2013 as well as one of
the 2011 competition officers (Simon
Inder) who will also still be at University
in 2013.
Promotions
Why should you run for Lawsoc executive 2013? Well, you will be at the helm
of the society that brings fun into the
lives of UC law students! Meeting fabulous people, voicing your opinions and
helping with some of the best events
on campus is kinda fun. As promotions
manager you get to design and organise the membership bags for clubs day
– sorting sponsors, tees, bags, membership cards – and advertising all the
events throughout the year, so everyone knows exactly what Lawsoc is up
to. And as you’ll know, it’s good. If you
are creative and love getting the word
out – then go for it! Good luck!
Obiter
Chances are if you’re reading this you already know a bit about Obiter. We are of
course lawsoc’s quarterly magazine that
keeps you up with what’s happening
around the law school and keeps you
entertained during those long equity
lectures. We manage the production
of this fine magazine from sorting out
advertising to cover its costs, organising
articles to fill its pages and formating
it to make it look snazzy. In addition to
Obiter you’ll also be helping out your
fellow exec members with events and
general exec activities The fruits of your
labour are the people you meet and the
good times had. (and the free alcohol
you drink). Do it!
Juniors
J
U
N
I
enny and Liora learnt a lot of things
this year
nlike the other portfolios, we are on
hand to have our fingers in every
pie as required
otable pies include mince pies at
the competition after-functions...
which we made
n all seriousness, we have been involved in every aspect of Lawsoc, and
gained a lot of hands on experience
with a great group of people
O
R
ffice cleaning, snow shovelling and
keg lifting are our specialties
unning for Lawsoc was the best
thing we’ve done
S
IGN UP!
Lane Neave
Law Ball 2012
14
15
COMMUNA
L JUSTI
CE?
Rorschach takes a look at our
jury system...............
[
Peter enters the house and confronts
his family]
Peter: Wait a second. Y-You're saying
that everyone is asked to do jury duty?
Peter: Everyone, guess what.
Lois: Yes, Peter.
Stewie: What?
Peter: So then, I'm not special?
Peter: I have been selected.
Man: [off-screen] Everyone's special,
Peter.
Brian: For what?
Peter: Oh, nothing too important, just
jury duty! They have summoned me. I
am part of an elite group of individuals
deemed intelligent enough to decide
the fate of a fellow citizen.
Meg: [laughs]
Peter: Ah, the amused laughter of the
envious. You
know, they don't
just pick anybody
for this job.
[the camera zooms out revealing
Tommy Lee]
Peter: Rock drummer Tommy Lee?!
Tommy Lee: And if your wife ever tells
you that you're not special, punch her
really hard right in her hepatitis.
Peter: Thanks, Rock Drummer Tommy
Peter: What the hell is fecal matter?
Joe: Waste.
Peter: Huh?
Joe: Doody.
Peter: Ha-ha!
Joe: Peter, jury duty is an important
cornerstone in our democratic society.
Jury trials have been a key feature
of common law justice systems for
hundreds of years. They mainly took off
after 1215 when the Church withdrew
its backing for trial by ordeal; without
religious legitimacy, that line of dispute
resolution was abandoned and the
emerging practice of jury trials
filled the void. As Jeremy Finn
will tell you, that is a complete
over-simplification of the history.
The Ancient Greeks actually
started the practice. Standard
from them. But it is interesting
when considering why we have
jury trials to look back at why
they came about. If it was the
need for an alternative to trial
by ordeal, you can see why they
took off. As much as the ordeals
might have been entertaining for
some people to watch, I doubt
too many with any interest in the
concept of justice could have
kidded themselves it was the
best way to separate the guilty
from the innocent.
Quagmire: Yeah, that's what separates
us from the monkeys. That and the
armed guards at the zoo.[quietly] Man,
they got some sexy monkeys down
there.
Peter: I don't care,
jury duty sounds
boring. I'm gonna
get myself kicked
out. Just like I got
kicked out of Coldplay.
Brian: Yeah they
do.
Peter: Brian,
perhaps I have
not made myself
clear. I have been
entrusted to pass
judgment upon
others.
[cut to Peter practicing with Coldplay]
Peter: Guys, guys,
I got an idea! How
'bout we do a song
that's not whiny
bull crap?
Brian: Everybody
gets called for
jury duty, you
stupid idiot! I've
been called!
The only reason
you've never
been called is
that they use the
voter registration list, and this past election is the first time you ever voted.
Lee!
Peter: I voted before. I stuffed the ballot
box at the Oscars.
Tommy: Hey, and you know what else is
cool? Having sex with sunglasses on.
[cut to the Oscars]
Peter: I've got a lot of things to try now!
Anne Hathaway: And the nominees for
Best Actor in a Leading Role are: Grover,
Bluto from Popeye, a red guy, a boob,
and Daniel Day Lewis. And the Oscar
goes to...a red guy.
[at the Drunken Clam, Peter is talking
with Quagmire and Joe]
[everybody cheers and the orchestra
starts playing as the red guy runs up to
get his award and jump up and down in
celebration]
volved?
- from Family Guy 'April in Quahog' ep
16 s8.
Peter: I don't want to go to jury duty.
Turns out it's not a special honor at all.
It's lame. And the worst part is, they try
and trick you into getting excited by
putting "duty" in the title.
Joe: So, you were excited when you
thought there was fecal matter in-
E
ntirely unoriginal humour
is probably
one of the better ways to start off an
article. But is trial by jury the best way
to decide criminal trials?
Any system of justice needs, for the
sake of its own legitimacy, an accurate
mechanism to sort the innocent from
the guilty. We all tend to agree innocent
people shouldn't be punished for what
they haven't done. The importance of
this role is obvious. Whether someone
is allowed to go free or is convicted
will have a huge impact on their life. It
could mean their liberty is taken away,
potentially for a number of years. It
could mean it is restricted in a number
of other ways. It will potentially prevent
them being able to travel, and it will
definitely make it significantly harder
for that individual to get a job, whatever it is they have done. The impact
could also go the other way - allowing
guilty people to go free may mean that
person offends again and causes more
harm. Deciding whether someone is
guilty necessitates objective, rational
weighing of evidence that will often be
complex. So, who do we trust to perform this significant and delicate task?
Well, anyone really.
16
bit scary. Put bluntly, what i'm saying
is that people can be stupid. We are
not all equally capable of processing
information calmly and objectively and
weighing issues as accurately as each
other. We all have different prejudices.
Unfortunately, some people will not be
very good at this.
that people from all walks of life would
be on that jury; with different experiences, perspectives and sense. Their collective common sense, he argued, was
the real strength of the jury system.
But these defences have their limits. The
communal justice ideal doesn't necessarily stand to reality.
“we are more inclined to People can defer
The main justification for this is that
trust people who speak con- jury service and get
juries are meant to be
of it entirely,
fidently, and find it harder out
representative of the
based on work or
to believe people who are other commitments.
community. The very
idea behind them is
nervous and less assured.” Unfortunately those
communal justice - the
who are more prone
notion that we are tried by our peers.
to get out of service are those in more
This is particularly appropriate because
skilled jobs, whose absence cannot be
the matters that are put to juries are
covered by just anyone else. A simple
most often criminal - offences deemed
google search has failed to provide
to be wrongs against society rather
me with any stats to back this up, but
than just the individuals to whom they
I know this is true because my teacher
relate and which are therefore tried
told me so in high school. Point being, if
by the state. Also, there is the diversity
the community doesn't even really take
argument. On TV the other night, John
part, can we even say the jury system
Campbell was hanging around outside
delivers communal justice? As for the
point about different experiences of different people
bringing a collective common sense, I'm not so sure
about how this is beneficial.
Where different perspectives based on experiences
in life are meant to come
into entirely objective judgments, I don't know.
Regardless of how much better
they are than trial by ordeal, are
jury trials the best way of separating the
innocent and guilty? Call me pessimistic the court building where the Scott
Guy jury had just retired. In true John
[go on, it wouldn't be unjustified] but I
can't help but feel “There is absolutely no quali- Campbell fashion he
asked a representative
the system is somefrom the Law Socification
to
ensure
people
who
what flawed.
ety one masterfully
sit on juries are, to borrow insightful question. I
First, there is the
Peter Griffin issue. Family Guy’s wording, ‘intel- cannot remember the
Anyone can be
ligent enough to decide the exact way he worded
on a jury. There
it, but I believe it was
fate of a fellow citizen.’ This is something like this:
is absolutely no
qualification to
"Wouldn't it be really
a wee bit scary.”
ensure people who
hard for that jury havsit on juries are, to borrow Family Guy's
ing to decide?" The Law Society reprewording, 'intelligent enough to decide
sentative replied that it obviously was,
the fate of a fellow citizen.' This is a wee
but the benefit of the jury system was
Second, the impartiality factor. There are a vast number
of studies that conclude
(which I will not provide,
but that does not mean
they do not exist) juries can
be easily swayed by factors
extraneous to the evidence
directly relevant to the
case. One side of this is the
fact we are more inclined
to trust people who speak
confidently, and find it harder to believe
people who are nervous and less assured. That's why nervous con-men
don't tend to do as well for themselves. In a jury context however, this
is problematic. If I've been accused of
a crime, and I want to give evidence in
my own defense, I may be understandably nervous, more so if my liberty is on
the line. If I absolutely dread speaking
in public, which some people apparently fear worse than death, I may be
even more shaky when presenting my
story. Yet people on the jury may well
be automatically less inclined to trust
me. Further to this, lawyers will ma-
17
lawyers will manipulate juries to make
consistency in the application of justice
their case more believable than the oth- is obviously important for determiner. Anyone who saw The Social Network ing the whether the system provides a
may remember Rashida Jones' characreasonable level of impartiality, but it is
ter (the woman from 'I Love You Man'
hard to ensure when different people
and a number of other more recent Paul make the call each time.
Rudd/Jason Segel movies) tell 'Mark
John Campbell is right. Being on a jury,
Zuckerberg' her job was to analyse how particularly for a controversial case like
quickly a jury could be turned against a
the Scott Guy or Bain trials, is hard. The
client, and so whether to pursue a setquestion therefore becomes whether
tlement rather than face litigation. Then
this is the most
there is the issue
“Arguably, the difficulties in- appropriate and
of whether a juror
volved in the jury process are accurate way
brings in their own
of determining
predisposition to
to a large degree caused and peoples guilt.
their judgement. An
exacerbated by the adversarial Of course, the
article by a reporter
accuracy of the
who had sat through Westminster style of court pro- jury system itself
the whole Bain trial cedure we have adopted in New is not the only
commented there
factor affecting
Zealand. “
were two jurors who
its effectiveness.
refused to look at parts of the evidence, Arguably, the difficulties involved in
and who then later celebrated with
the jury process are to a large degree
Bain after they returned their not guilty
caused and exacerbated by the adververdict. But even worse is the fact that
sarial Westminster style of court procesometimes juries get it wrong. The Bain
dure we have adopted in New Zealand.
trial will likely continue to be contenAn inquisitorial system as implemented
tious, and it seems the Scott Guy verdict across civil law systems may well
is similarly controversial. Other issues
achieve impartiality better, with its foinclude the fact that what one jury con- cus on fact finding over argument and
siders to be a reasonable doubt may be
cross-examination to gain concessions.
entirely different to another. Achieving
The previous Minister for Justice Simon
Power indicated he was investigating whether more inquisitorial based
methods could be implemented in New
Zealand. Unfortunately, his retirement
from politics at the last election seems
to have stymied this for now. Another
pertinent question is if not juries, what
is the alternative? Trial by judge alone
is used for a range of cases, particularly
where the evidence is more complex,
and can be elected over trial by jury.
We generally respect the decisions our
judges make. They may well be more
practiced at being impartial and using
them over juries is more likely to mean
the standard for a reasonable doubt
applied in each case is more consistent.
But we only need to look as far as decisions such as Alcock and Brown from
the House of Lords to know that judges
even at the highest levels are capable
of making bad decisions and importing their own prejudices. But at the end
of the day, who would you be more
inclined to think is better at impartially
and objectively deciding peoples fate Tipping J, or Peter Griffin?
Rorschach
2012 IPLS Scholarship now open
In support of a community in crisis, IPLS is offering a final year law student
from Canterbury University Law School a scholarship to cover the cost of its
Professional Legal Studies Course - $4,260.15
Entry Requirements:
• Open to local Canterbury residents who are also University of Canterbury
final year law students
Selection Criteria:
• Academic performance in LLB
• 500 word written submission on “What personal values do you believe are
essential for today’s lawyer?
Important Dates:
• July 16
Submissions open
• September 7 Submissions close
• October 12
Winner announced
The Annual Drunken Pie Review!
{HUNGOVER}
S
o the initial plan was to wake up,
smash a box of beer, head into uni,
and review some pies. I was going
to get a mate to come along for the lulz,
but also to stop me smashing my laptop
or getting into too much ruckus. The
plan went out the window when I woke
up this morning, my head about to
cave in, the echoes of a thousand beers
banging loudly inside my skull. Last
night was the weekly Law Revue party,
and the 40 strong cast bombed almost
3 kegs… I wasn’t unordinarily drunk
when I left, and even vaguely remember the walk home (a weak effort on THE BACON AND EGG PIE FROM LAW CAFE
my part?) So then, the mega-hangover
uite dry, pastry has a nice texture
wasn’t purely due to the amount I’d
to it, but not overly crispy. Pasdrunk. Whether it was the lack of water I
try is very buttery, has a yellowy
ever drink; the sugar content of that rank appearance.
ice-breaker (beer all day errday thanks),
or the combined hangovers from drinkngredients – the egg/yoke is whole
ing every night in Re-O week catching
which is how I like my B&E pies. Bacon
up to me, I.FeLt.ShIt.
pieces are those little square bits, nothing spectacular.
hat established, the plan changed
from drunken pie review, to hunum yum yum
gover pie review. It’s now 1pm and
time to get up and at ‘em. I glance at the
verall, ok
tub of Powerade powder I want so badly,
pie for a
but eventually convince myself I have a
hungover
duty to Obiter readers
person, but very
to not do anything
dry, accompanying
that would decrease
drink is recommy hangover, and
mended. Wouldn’t
damage the legitimarecommend to
cy of this review. Ugh,
your mum. 5/10
crawl out of bed like a dried out worm,
bang bang – who’s at the door? No one,
afé 101 pie:
it’s my headache.
T
Q
I
y
O
“Do dried out worms
L
E
xpecting a selection of pies,
there was only bacon and egg
left, not a good start. Beggers
can’t be choosers. I would like a coffee too but they don’t have filter coffee
(wat?) , and the last flat white I got here
was half foam.
C
P
astry a lot fluffier than the 101
pie. Big piece of chicken in
first bite – score. Ingredients
nice and juicy but pastry is not wet- great
this is a very pleasant pie experience.
Pie is starting to fall apart in 2nd half of
eating. Ugly appearance reflects lack of
structural integrity in pie. Pastry on top
is very fluffy- lots of crumbs all over my
front and laptop - a big blob of cranberry squishes out one of the defects in
the side structure of the pie, going onto
my thumb.
C
W
AI
M
A
M
really crawl out of
bed??”
aw Café Pie:
THE CHICKEN CRANBERRY AND BREE PIE
FROM 101
offee- stoked
nd…?
was thinking of venturing to
café 1894, but we all know Law
students don’t journey that far
for pie.
y blood pressure rising, the
afternoon closing in, there was
hen I ask their opinion
only one thing for it. I take the
the staff recommend the
long way home and pick up a butter
chicken cranberry and
bree. When I ask about the chicken satay chicken pie from BP… dammm son that’s
the banger.
they stick to their word – good service.
There is other basic pies but no one
wants a report on a mince and cheese
unless it’s fuckin insane.
uch love, Sharn.
ppearance, pretty ugly looking pie
really.
Email your written submission to [email protected]
0800 776 376
www.ipls.org.nz18
19
20
21
First, what kind of people are prepared
to uplift their lives to live on the ocean?
For a seasteading society to work,
it needs to be a society made up of
diverse individuals. But most people
are tied to their current lives because of
jobs, homes and families. It seems likely
that people with the kind of skills you’d
need on a floating city (e.g. engineering, medicine, language translating) are
going to be quite happy with living on
land, and unwilling to take the huge risk
involved in seasteading. There’s a huge
potential for what economists call “adverse selection”; the kind of people who
would be prepared to go seasteading
are likely to be those who aren’t doing
so well on land. Plus wealthy libertarians, of course, but they’re unlikely
to have the practical skills needed to
sustain a community on the ocean.
OPERATION PARADISE
AT SEA [steading]
U
nhappy with the direction New
Zealand is heading? Finding
yourself dissatisfied with the
supposed “democracy” where we get to
“choose” between two politically central
and almost indistinguishable parties?
Wishing you didn’t have to pay tax, or
that you lived in an environmentally
friendly country, or that healthcare was
free for everyone?
Well, you could always try seasteading.
That is, setting your own government
up on the ocean.
Sounds crazy? The founder of Paypal,
and the grandson of economist Milton
Friedman don’t think so. The former has
funded the Seasteading Institute, an
organisation set up by the latter in 2008
to (according to its website) “further the
establishment and growth of permanent, autonomous ocean communities,
enabling innovation with new political
and social systems”.
I thought seasteading seemed completely crazy when I first heard about
it. Then I read a paper on it, included
as a required reading for an economics course. (If you’re interested: Patri
Friedman and Brad Taylor “Seasteading: Competitive Governments on the
Ocean” (2011) 62(2) Kyklos 218.)
Don’t get me wrong, I still think seasteading is a crazy idea, and I think there
are some fundamental and possibly insurmountable problems, but craziness
alone isn’t a reason to discount an idea.
A lot of great ideas were described as
crazy or sure to fail when they were first
suggested; for example, human flight,
the lightbulb, personal computers,
cars, and television. Most crazy ideas
stay crazy ideas, but some eventually
change the world.
The potentially world changing idea
behind seasteading is the idea of voting
with your feet. This is something that
isn’t really an option in the governance market right now. It’s an option in
other markets; for example, if you don’t
like a restaurant (maybe it costs too
much, or the food is bad, or the waiters are snobby), you can go to another
restaurant. This makes all restaurants
better because they have to compete
with other restaurants for customers.
If they want you to keep coming back,
they have to try and provide acceptable
food, prices, and service.
But you can’t do this if you don’t like the
government. You can move to another
country, of course, but it’s not an easy
process or one you would want to do
often. You have to sell your house, find
a new job, comply with immigration
requirements, move all your stuff... the
process can take months. And what are
the chances you would find a government that fits all your requirements?
Most countries have their own problems. The Australian government might
offer lower tax rates, but it’s also kind
of racist. The United States government
might promise to protect your freedom,
but good luck with your massive medical bills. If you want limited government, check out Somalia, but I’d advise
you not to. Keep in mind, too, that if you
want to live in a democracy, you’ve only
got about 25 countries to choose from.
Most people, if given the choice, would
rather improve the government in
the country they live in than move
somewhere else. But this is nearly
impossible for any single individual.
Voting and lobbying give us a limited
democratic voice, but the government
doesn’t have to listen when there’s a
two party system and voters have short
memories. People talk about the need
for constitutional reform, but we can’t
rely on flawed institutions to reform
themselves when they don’t have any
incentives to do so.
Second, there are engineering challenges. Some people do live on the
ocean for extended periods of time (on
oil rigs or in submarines, for example).
But those people are trained to live in
cramped and sparse conditions. If we
want seasteading to be a viable and
competitive option, the living facilities
need to be at least as comfortable as
land. Cruise ships are a good start, but
Supporters of seasteading argue that
if we want to improve government
performance, the only way to do that
is to change the governance market.
Setting up autonomous communities
on the ocean would open up competition in the governance market. Allowing people to have better choice would
lead to better constitutional design
and, in turn, better policies. Whether
“better” means more libertarian, more
socialist, more communist, or something else—well, we’d find out, because
good governments would survive and
prosper, while bad governments would
fail (with minimal bloodshed).
don’t provide the ease of exit necessary for people to move freely between
seasteads.
Besides, societies floating on the ocean
are going to be reasonably vulnerable
to, say... storms? And hurricanes. And
big waves. And volcanoes. And pirates.
Pirates who will probably be interested
in raiding big unmovable floating structures filled with wealthy Westerners.
Even if those dangers could be avoided,
engineers still have to deal with issues
like energy production and sanitation
and food. And building dance floors
that can handle people dancing (or
is that just a problem for engineers in
Christchurch?).
Finally, and most damningly, existing governments won’t be that happy
about new entrants to the market. Land
governments could harm seasteading
governments by making it illegal for
people on land to trade with them, or
by more violent means. Can you imagine how the United States government
would react to news that a competing
government had been set up on the
Atlantic Ocean? I can. It would probably involve accusations of terrorism,
money laundering or drug trafficking,
and eventually the army would get sent
in to shut things down. I don’t think the
United States would be stopped by arguments as trivial as “these are international waters”, given that they haven’t in
the past been stopped by arguments as
trivial as “this is not your country”.
So even if the seasteaders can overcome the engineering challenges,
and even if they do manage to attract
skilled labour, they’ll then have to defend themselves from existing governments. Various business models have
been floated to deal with this problem.
For example, setting up seasteads
providing cheap hip replacements to
elderly American citizens, who’d be up
in arms if the US government tried to
shut them down.
But at the moment, most of these ideas
are purely theoretical, and it’s possible
these challenges will be simply too
great for seasteading to overcome. We’ll
have to wait and see whether seasteading becomes a reality, or remains a
crazy idea.
Emma Moore.
Proud sponsor of the Law Ball 2012 - “The Great Gatsby”.
See the photospread page for more of this great event!
Seasteading governments are forced
by their environment to compete with
each other and with land-based states
for residents. Unlike land, the ocean
has flexibility of movement. You aren’t
happy with your current seastead?
That’s fine, just move your house or
business onto the next. The best part is
that the greater possibility of exit puts
pressure on existing governments to do
better. So even if the idea of living on
the ocean doesn’t appeal to you, you’d
still enjoy the benefits of increased
competition. Everyone wins!
Break a leg!
Congratulations to Lucy
on being the lucky winner
of the Lane Neave 2012
Mt. Hutt ski pass.
But don’t go buying lifejackets and
learning to sail just yet. Despite these
advantages, seasteading faces some
incredible difficulties.
22
CHRISTCHURCH
QUEENSTOWN
Tel +64 3 379 3720
Fax +64 3 379 8370
Eml [email protected]
Tel +64 3 409 0321
Fax +64 3 409 0322
Eml [email protected]
NEW ZEALAND LAW AWARDS MULTIPLE AWARD WINNERS
www.laneneave.co.nz
23
Wine Fundraiser
Another fundraiser Te Putairiki ran recently was the selling wine from Sileni Estates. Thank you to all those who
participated in this very successful (and easy) fundraiser! We made $640. Further, we were gratified to see so many
members of the law faculty demonstrating impeccable taste and ordering these fantastic wines by the case.
Te Kawepūrongo Ture
Want to hear more about what Te
Putairiki is up to? Our quarterly
newsletter contains more
information about the various
events TP are running and what our
society is about. New editions are
emailed out to our members, and
archived editions are available at
http://www.laws.canterbury.ac.nz/
teputairiki/
Te Putairiki
Tena koutou katoa!
Welcome back for another Semester @ UC Law. I hope that you all had a restful break, and if not restful, I hope it
was at least productive. Te Putairiki has been busy with some serious fundraising missions lately! These have been
really successful, and this is due in no small way to our amazing Fundraising Officer Rebekah Jordan. You’ll find a
run-down of all the juicy details below. Also, note that we have a number of exciting events coming up fast, notably the Maori Law Seminar Series beginning in August and the Te Hunga Roia conference in September.
What’s been happening
Te Putairiki Online Shop
TP Quiz Night
Te Putairiki has created an online store! TP receives a small profit from each item sold. There are t-shirts, singlets,
hoodies and bags available in a range of styles and colours. See http://teputairiki.printmighty.co.nz/ to check out
the range.
On 22nd May Te Putairiki held a quiz night at Robbie’s Riccarton. This was to raise money to help send a delegation
of 12 members to the World Indigenous Lawyers’ Conference in Hamilton in September. It was a brilliant night,
with some great competition and some rowdy smack talk. There were great raffle prizes up for grabs, as well as an
auction of uber-cool Tiki Taane merchandise. The night was a big success and over $2000 was raised.
Waiata Practice
Law in Schools
On Monday at 6pm (beginning 23 July) TP will be running waiata practice/refreshers for members. Come
along and learn some waiata and also bring a few $$ for the communal Fish and Chip kai. Venue: Room
118.
We are lucky to have had three of our Executive,
Tumuaki/President Aja Trinder, Tumuaki Tuarua/
Vice-President Josh Hubbard, and Academic Officer
Hannah Reuben selected to be volunteers for the
Law in Schools program for 2012. The purpose of
Law in Schools is to educate senior secondary school
students about New Zealand’s legal system and about
legal topics of practical interest. Volunteer tutors are
sent into High Schools to teach senior students about
these topics. Aja had her first appearance before 100
Aranui students recently, and was really impressed by
their level of engagement and thoughtful questions.
Some students even expressed an interest in studying
law after the seminar! Josh and Hannah are looking
forward to delivering their modules soon. See www.
lawinschools.org.nz for more details.
Coming up…
Te Hunga Roia o Aotearoa Conference
Te Hunga Roia o Aotearoa is the Maori Law Society. Each year, they hold a conference to which distinguished
speakers (including speakers currently in practice, from the judiciary, or from academia) are invited to present a
seminar on an aspect of Maori Law. This year, the conference is especially significant, as it is a World Indigenous
Lawyers’ Conference with the topic being “Law as a tool for indigenous peoples’ development: worldwide strategies and international perspectives.”
We are fundraising hard to send a delegation of 12 members to the conference being held from 4 -9
September this year. This is by far the largest delegation we have ever sent. The conference presents a
great opportunity for our members to learn from those on the cutting edge of Maori and Indigenous
Law, as well as giving our members a chance to form connections with practitioners, judges, academics
and also other Maori law students. See http://www.maorilawsociety.co.nz/world-indigenous-lawyers-conference-2012.cfm for more information.
Te Hunga Roia Fundraising Dinner
2012 Seminar Series
On Tuesday July 17 we held a fund-raising dinner at Winnie Bagoes Ferrymead. For $25, ticket-holders were treated
to a delicious meal comprising a selection of pizzas, salad, garlic bread and wedges. We were also lucky to have
had Christchurch comedian Justin White along to provide us with some ‘observational, misanthropic’ stand-up as
well as a bit of musical comedy. It was a great night: full of good food, raffles and a lot of laughs. Thanks to all our
friends and family who came along to support this event.
Each year, Te Putairiki holds a Maori Law Seminar Series, to which three distinguished guests are invited to speak
on an aspect of Maori Law. In the past we have been lucky enough to have had the Right Honourable Sir Andrew
Tipping, Hon. Tariana Turia, Hon. Hone Harawira, Annette Sykes and Dr Robert Joseph (Waikato).
Our first speaker this year is the Attorney-General, Minister of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations (inter alia) the Hon.
Christopher Finlayson. He will be speaking at 9am on Thursday 9 August, venue: TBC. Check our website http://
ucsa.org.nz/clubs/faculty/te-putairiki-2/ for more details.
24
25
Entertain me?!?!
The Lecturer’s, (AND Cafe’s...) Inquisition:
Some quick facts about our favourite
puzzle:
3) My favourite case is a case of beer…haha...sorry. I’d
probably say it’s the German Sirius case, where a man
convinced a woman in a club that he is from the paradisical
planet Sirius and that he can show her how to get there…
she just had to pay him $10.000. He scammed her out of a lot
of money that way, somehow (God knows why she believed
him), until he told her that the way to get to Sirius was to take
a bath and throw in a running hair dryer. So she does that,
but nothing happens – apparently it’s harder to kill yourself
that way than we’re led to believe. So she calls the guy back
and asks what to do next… Real life is better than Hollywood,
I tells ya.
Interestingly enough, we also have an interview with the
law cafe, which was asked the same questions as above...
4) We used to get drunk a lot and only studied for exams 48
hours beforehand…so basically the same, right? Having said
that, YOU should study 10 hours a day for the whole semester, or I won’t pass you!
1) What is your favourite pastime/hobby?
2) Do you do much travelling, and what is your favourite
country?
3) What is your favourite case, and why?
4) Can you give us an insight into your time at University,
and how things were different? Any antics you used to get
up to?
5) What is the most memorable moment in your legal
career?
6) Do you have any advice for those striving to become
great lawyers?
Sudoku became a world hit in 2005.
It is the biggest phenomenon of its sort
since Rubik’s Cube in the ‘80s.
Sudoku isn’t originally Japanese, but
an American game. Modern Sudoku
was invented in America under the
name “Number Place” ( C- for creativity
here?) in 1979 and later popularized as
“Sudoku” by Japanese publisher Nikoli.
“Number Place” creator Howard Garns
died in 1989, before the game reached
its world popularity (bit stink).
Sascha Mueller
Studies show Sudoku to be very
beneficial for our brains, possibly
helping prevent the onset of dementia
and other shitty old people-illnesses.
So.... PLAY AWAY!
Jokes
Fuck Batman. I feel bad for all those viewers who
Obiter asked two lovely lecturers...
Optical illusion
1) Relaxing on the couch and watching re-runs of Futurama.
I also occasionally yell along to songs I play on the guitar
(my singing voice is atrocious), but I haven’t done that in a
while.
5) Seeing the smiles of our graduates on graduation day… or
the time when I worked for the prosecution and busted that
old lady for denting that car and not admitting to it; that was
wicked, mwahaha.
2) New Zealand, obviously, why else would I be here (I hear
the shakes are legendary – bom-tish!)? The less obvious
answer is maybe Croatia. Lovely beaches, sunny Mediterranean whether, and I understand the locals, because my
mum is from there. In short: no, I don’t get around much.
6) I’ve never been one myself (haven’t been a lawyer…obviously I’m great), so I probably shouldn’t give advice.
Ursula Cheer
went to see the whole movie at the premier and
only got clips.
1) Reading newspapers either in bed or on the sofa.
What do you get when you put a sheep on a
trampoline?
A woolly jumper!
2) No. Not a very good traveller unfortunately. Travelling
is boring and tiring. Exploring when you get there is great
though! I lived in the UK for five years and travelled in Europe a bit then.
My favourite country at the moment, is Rarotonga. So laid
back, warm, beautiful. And you can ride motorbikes without
helmets. Imagine all these babyboomers recapturing their
youth, grey hair flying in the wind….
What did the left leg say to the right leg?
“Don’t talk to the guy in the middle, he’s a dick!”
3) Hosking v Runting, because the Court of Appeal recognised a privacy tort for New Zealand. They needed to think
a bit more about the position of children.....though.
I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my
grandfather.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
4) Well, women made up only a third of law students then,
so the reverse of the student body now. Only a few Honours students. The Law School was on the 6th floor of the
James Hight building and the Law Library was one corner of
the fourth floor. No computers – we still used pens and paper. No essays and all closed book exams. No Power Point.
Lecturers just used ‘a pencil and a head full of knowledge’
as John Burrows used to say. No electricity. Women wore
crinolines and men came to work on horseback. The wheel
had not been invented and students lived in caves….
I was compulsively good, however Judge Raoul Neave and
Professor Peter Watts of Auckland University seem to think I
was known for talking in the library, but I have no memory
of this. I did once answer an Equity exam in the form of a
poem, since the question was based on a poem by Ogden
Nash. I passed the exam and the poem was published...
Why do Cows wear cow-bells?
Because their horns don’t work!
Riddles and Mindfucks
What goes round the house and in the house but never touches the house?
What gets wet when drying?
What comes once in a minute, twice in a moment, but never in a thousand years?
What always runs but never walks, often murmurs, never talks, has a bed but never sleeps, has a mouth
but never eats?
26
Thanks Sascha! Great answers there!
... around the world I understand.
5) Getting my PhD and being made Professor – with the assistance and support of all my colleagues and mentors.
6) Stay grounded, treat others fairly and honestly, work to
live, don’t live to work.
Wonderful Ursula, I’m sure the readers will enjoy reading your
responses while they avoid studying.
Law Cafe?
1) Netball and drinking wine.
2) I love to travel to the lakes, I spend all my summer at the
lakes- behind a boat, water-skiing. I am a café.
3) My suit-case, because it takes my clothes with me everywhere.
4) Making coffees and bossing people around, it’s what I do
5) Being put on the stand.
6) Stop playing bloody music at 12 O’clock at night when I’m
trying to sleep!
Lastly, an additional question that just needed to be asked:
7) What is the law café’s favourite coffee?
Filter coffee. Of course.
27
REAL
www.bellgully.com/graduates
WORLD
You’re given a lot of opportunity
here. The scope of work is broad
and the problems are complex
but you are surrounded by people
who give you the confidence
to make the leap. In the end
it’s the combination of teamwork
and the space to build confidence
that make it unique.
28