C OUNCIL B RIEF Council Brief Advertising [email protected]Reynolds Advertising ISSUE 423 APRIL 2013 The monthly newspaper of the Wellington Branch NZ Law Society ❑ President’s Column Welcome and assistance to new members By Mark Wilton President, Wellington Branch, NZLS THE work of the Wellington Branch Ethics Committee is not particularly well known and its members would like to let lawyers know how the committee may help them. The Committee’s principal objectives are to guide lawyers towards: • achieving the highest ethical standards required by the legal profession • suggesting when those standards may not have been achieved. The ethical standards required of lawyers apply to their dealings with clients, fellow lawyers, the Court and society generally. Lawyers must comply with the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act, the Codes promulgated pursuant to that Act and guidelines published by the Law Society on various aspects of practice e.g. e-dealing in Landonline. Ethical standards and the legal profession DURING the past month the Wellington Branch has connected with new and prospective members of the profession. Along with a number of members of the legal profession we attended the 2013 Victoria University Commerce and Law Careers Expo. Our stall was busy all day and it was a great opportunity for law students to engage with the Branch to obtain an insight of the role of the Society and the support we can provide new members of the profession. March also saw another round of admission ceremonies in the Wellington High Court. We hosted a function to congratulate the candidates’ admission to the bar. We were fortunate to have a number of staff from the national office of the New Zealand Law Society attend together with members of the Young Lawyers Committee. This was an excellent opportunity to meet and engage with our newest members of the profession. Hutt Valley District Court As you are aware both the Upper Hutt and Lower Hutt district courts have been disestablished and replaced with the establishment of a newly constituted Hutt Valley District Court based at the former Lower Hutt courthouse site. I attended and spoke on behalf of the Branch at the opening and special sitting of the new court on Monday 25th March. The sitting was presided over by Judge Mill with Hon Chester Borrows, the Minister for Courts also in attendance. The closure of the Upper Hutt courthouse has caused pain and upset for many in the profession and our community. Access to justice in Upper Hutt has significantly altered and has now permanently changed. Many members of the profession voiced their concerns when participating in discussions with the Ministry of Justice on the establishment of the new court. Courthouses are an important component of every community; they play a pivotal role in providing justice services in New Zealand. The profession has a fundamental interest in the operation of all courthouses. The profession demonstrated in the Hutt Valley discussions that we have a voice and wish to be consulted early. We want to contribute and play an active role in any changes to our courthouses because we share a common goal with the Ministry to provide first class justice services. Once again I thank those members of the profession who contributed to our engagement with the Ministry of Justice on this matter. Their contribution has resulted in a number of concessions from the initial proposals. Ethics is an area that can be difficult to define but we tend to intrinsically know when our ethics are being challenged. To facilitate discussion in and around ethics for the modern-day professional, the Ethics Committee will hold their inaugural panel discussion in an open forum style. A panel of experts will focus on topics and scenarios relevant to practitioners from throughout the profession. Speakers: • Dr Duncan Webb (Partner, Lane Neave) • Sir David Gascoigne (Judicial Conduct Commissioner) • Jock Nicolson (Minter Ellison Rudd Watts, Senior Consultant) • Beith Atkinson (Manager, Legal Operations, Department of Corrections / Director of Institute of Public Administration of NZ) Moderator: • Kenneth Johnston (Wellington Branch Ethics Committee) When: Tuesday 21 May, 4.30-5.30pm Where: Minter Ellison Rudd Watts, Level 18, 125 The Terrace. Bookings are essential and can be made through: https://bookwhen.com/wellington- branch – there is no cost to attend as the event is kindly sponsored and hosted by Minter Ellison Rudd Watts. Standards of lawyers’ ethical behaviour, however, go beyond what is contained in those publications and are also derived from case law and from discussions in many learned articles. Lawyers may wish to refer ethical issues to the Committee for consideration – please contact the Branch Manager Catherine Harris, phone 463 2921, email [email protected] in the first instance. The Committee will be happy to consider any issues or behaviour submitted to it and express a view on any ethical questions raised. However, it is important to understand that any views expressed by the Committee do not have any status in any proceeding or complaint, and are no more than views designed to assist practitioners. CULLEN-The Employment Law Firm entered a team of four in Wellington’s Round the Bays race recently and raised $500 for Canteen, a charity supporting young people living with cancer. Solicitors Fred Hills and Jeremy Ansell and law clerk Alastair Espie ran in the Round the Bays half-marathon for the first time. Each team member’s results exceeded expectations, beginning with Fred crossing the finish line in an impressive 1 hour 29 minutes. Solicitor Sarah Cates completed the 7km fun run in a great time of 27 minutes 57 seconds, after sustaining a knee injury during training. Fred said the event was not only for a good cause but great for team morale and bonding: “When you’re wearing the Cullen singlet and gasping for air with 5km to go it’s incredibly encouraging to know there are three other workmates out there in the same boat, and that in the office and on the side-lines you’ve got the support of the whole firm.” More details can be found on the team’s blog: http://amiroundthebaysfundraising.co.nz/cullen_the_employment_law_firm_team Team Cullen: from left: Jeremy Ansell, Alastair Espie, Sarah Cates and Fred Hills. Running for charity Panel discussion on ethical issues Kapiti members’ dinner - 5 April See page 2 • Shirley Smith address 3 • Young Lawyers 4 & 8 • Legal market change 5 • Constitutional change 6 In this issue: Council Brief Advertising [email protected]
The monthly newspaper of theWellington Branch NZ Law Society
❑ President’s Column
Welcome and assistance to new membersBy Mark Wilton
President, Wellington Branch, NZLS
THE work of the Wellington Branch Ethics Committeeis not particularly well known and its members wouldlike to let lawyers know how the committee may helpthem.
The Committee’s principal objectives are to guidelawyers towards:• achieving the highest ethical standards required by
the legal profession• suggesting when those standards may not have been
achieved.The ethical standards required of lawyers apply to
their dealings with clients, fellow lawyers, the Courtand society generally. Lawyers must comply with theLawyers and Conveyancers Act, the Codespromulgated pursuant to that Act and guidelinespublished by the Law Society on various aspects ofpractice e.g. e-dealing in Landonline.
Ethical standards and the legal profession
DURING the past month theWellington Branch has connectedwith new and prospectivemembers of the profession.
Along with a number ofmembers of the legal professionwe attended the 2013 VictoriaUniversity Commerce and Law
Careers Expo. Ourstall was busy allday and it was agreat opportunityfor law students toengage with theBranch to obtainan insight of the
role of the Society and the supportwe can provide new members ofthe profession.
March also saw another roundof admission ceremonies in theWellington High Court. We hosteda function to congratulate thecandidates’ admission to the bar.We were fortunate to have anumber of staff from the nationaloffice of the New Zealand LawSociety attend together with
members of the Young LawyersCommittee. This was an excellentopportunity to meet and engagewith our newest members of theprofession.
Hutt Valley District Court
As you are aware both the UpperHutt and Lower Hutt district courtshave been disestablished andreplaced with the establishment of anewly constituted Hutt ValleyDistrict Court based at the formerLower Hutt courthouse site.
I attended and spoke on behalf ofthe Branch at the opening andspecial sitting of the new court onMonday 25th March. The sittingwas presided over by Judge Millwith Hon Chester Borrows, theMinister for Courts also inattendance.
The closure of the Upper Huttcourthouse has caused pain andupset for many in the professionand our community.
Access to justice in Upper Hutthas significantly altered and has
now permanently changed. Manymembers of the profession voicedtheir concerns when participatingin discussions with the Ministry ofJustice on the establishment of thenew court. Courthouses are animportant component of everycommunity; they play a pivotal rolein providing justice services in NewZealand. The profession has afundamental interest in theoperation of all courthouses. Theprofession demonstrated in the HuttValley discussions that we have avoice and wish to be consultedearly. We want to contribute andplay an active role in any changesto our courthouses because weshare a common goal with theMinistry to provide first classjustice services.
Once again I thank thosemembers of the profession whocontributed to our engagement withthe Ministry of Justice on thismatter. Their contribution hasresulted in a number of concessionsfrom the initial proposals.
Ethics is an area that can be difficult to define but we tend to intrinsically knowwhen our ethics are being challenged. To facilitate discussion in and around ethicsfor the modern-day professional, the Ethics Committee will hold their inauguralpanel discussion in an open forum style. A panel of experts will focus on topicsand scenarios relevant to practitioners from throughout the profession.
Speakers:• Dr Duncan Webb (Partner, Lane Neave)• Sir David Gascoigne (Judicial Conduct Commissioner)• Jock Nicolson (Minter Ellison Rudd Watts, Senior Consultant)• Beith Atkinson (Manager, Legal Operations, Department of Corrections / Director
Where: Minter Ellison Rudd Watts, Level 18, 125 The Terrace.Bookings are essential and can be made through: https://bookwhen.com/wellington-branch – there is no cost to attend as the event is kindly sponsored and hosted byMinter Ellison Rudd Watts.
Standards of lawyers’ ethical behaviour, however,go beyond what is contained in those publications andare also derived from case law and from discussions inmany learned articles.
Lawyers may wish to refer ethical issues to theCommittee for consideration – please contact theBranch Manager Catherine Harris, phone 463 2921,email [email protected] in the firstinstance.
The Committee will be happy to consider any issuesor behaviour submitted to it and express a view on anyethical questions raised. However, it is important tounderstand that any views expressed by the Committeedo not have any status in any proceeding or complaint,and are no more than views designed to assistpractitioners.
CULLEN-The Employment Law Firm entered a team of four inWellington’s Round the Bays race recently and raised $500 forCanteen, a charity supporting young people living with cancer.
Solicitors Fred Hills and Jeremy Ansell and law clerk AlastairEspie ran in the Round the Bays half-marathon for the first time.Each team member’s results exceeded expectations, beginning withFred crossing the finish line in an impressive 1 hour 29 minutes.Solicitor Sarah Cates completed the 7km fun run in a great time of 27minutes 57 seconds, after sustaining a knee injury during training.
Fred said the event was not only for a good cause but great forteam morale and bonding: “When you’re wearing the Cullen singletand gasping for air with 5km to go it’s incredibly encouraging toknow there are three other workmates out there in the same boat, andthat in the office and on the side-lines you’ve got the support of thewhole firm.”
More details can be found on the team’s blog:http://amiroundthebaysfundraising.co.nz/cullen_the_employment_law_firm_team
Team Cullen: from left: Jeremy Ansell, Alastair Espie, Sarah Catesand Fred Hills.
April 8 2013 – Legal Research FoundationInternational Litigation Conference,Auckland. www.legalresearch.org.nzApril 14-18 2013 – Commonwealth LawConference, Cape Town, South Africa.Commonwealth Lawyers Association.www.componwealthlaw2013.orgApril 16-17 2013 – Environmental Law andRegulation, Amora Hotel, Wellington.www.conferenz.co.nzApril 23-24 2013 – ‘Recalibrating Behaviour:Smarter Regulation in a Global World’, VUWLaw Faculty, using research from NZ LawFoundation Regulatory Reform [email protected] 29-30 2013 – IBA 24th AnnualCommunication and Competition Conference,Rio de Janeiro. www.ibanet.orgMay 14 2013 – 2013 Shirley Smith Address.See page 3 in this issue.May 16-17 2013 – CLANZ 26th AnnualConference, ‘Agents of Influence’, Napier.www.clanzonline.orgMay 24-25 2013 – 8th LAWASIAEmployment Law Conference, Siem Reap,Cambodia. www.lawasia.asn.auMay 28 2013 – FutureGov Forum NZ, Te Papa.www.futuregov.asia/events/guturegov-new-zealand-2013/
Conferences
You can use this diagram for either the Quick or Cryptic Clues, but the answersin each case are different. This month’s solutions are on page 2.
Cryptic CluesDOWN1. Descriptive of a medical preparation -
variety of paste, I see! (7)2. Simon is disturbed by the errand (7)3. Bread supplied for the meal? No, just
the reverse (5)4. Were they made by the first P.O.? (7)5. The directors sound unimpressed (5)6. And 14 Down. Not at any time in the
minority, in spite of what has been said(12)
9. Produces teenagers in trouble (9)14. See 6 Down15. He takes a plane from Moldavia to
Rome (7)16. Use an iron to pitch lower (7)19. Hands seen waving on tropical islands
(5)20. The place for the winner (5)21. Make up for a faulty note (5)
ACROSS7. Photographs used by whisky producers
(6)8. There’s nothing in the little wood but a
furrow (6)10. A street intersects unspoilt grazing land
(7)11. Smith uses it to make money (5)12. The image is not working, we hear (4)13. A comfortable position for a new life,
by the sound of it (5)17. He may be found in a deceitful act! (5)18. Wicked demon beheaded (4)22. Tempestuous character? (5)23. This competitor is obviously no outsider
(7)24. Is coming in to contemplate ill-
treatment (6)25. Call for a replay (6)
COUNCIL BRIEF CROSSWORD
Quick CluesDOWN1. Pare (7)2. Clothing (7)3. Started (5)4. Idolize (7)5. Dull (5)6. Pier (5)9. Hopeless (9)14. Upbraid (7)15. Very old (7)16. Sparkle (7)19. Consecrate (5)20. Throng (5)21. Revoke (5)
July 1-4 2013 – International Association ofConsumer Law Conference, Sydney.www.iaclsydney2013.comAugust 19-20 2013 – NZ Legal ExecutivesConference, ‘Look ahead – beprepared’. Rydges Hotel, [email protected] 29-30 2013 – New Zealand’sConstitutional Traditions, NZ Centre forPublic Law, Faculty of Law, VictoriaUniversity of Wellington. [email protected] 26-29 2013 – ResourceManagement Law Association of NewZealand: ‘Black, White, Gold – does it allglitter?’, Queenstown.www.rmla.org.nz/annual-conferenceOctober 6-11 2013 – IBA Annual Conference,Boston, USA. www.ibanet.org/ConferencesOctober 16-18 2013 – Australia and NewZealand Sports Law Association: 23rdANZSLA Annual Conference, Brisbane.www.anzsla.com.auNovember 15 2013 – Mental Health LawConference 2013, Claro and ANZ Associationof Psychatry Psychology and Law(ANZAPPL)[email protected]
Will Notices page 8
in this issue
PRACTISING WELL
Chaplain, Julia Coleman, 027 285 9115
Hart v Auckland Standards Committee 1 ofNew Zealand Law Society – [2013] NZHC83 – 5 February 2013 – Winkelmann andLang JJLAW PRACTITIONERS – PROFESSIONALDISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGSUnsuccessful appeal against decision of NewZealand Lawyers and ConveyancersDisciplinary Tribunal (Tribunal) on liabilityand penalty – Tribunal found appellantbarrister guilty of three charges of misconductin professional capacity under Lawyers andConveyancers Act 2006 (the Act) and Conductand Client Care Rules 2008 – charges relatedto: - (i) failure to inform private investigator, Dthat payment of fees was subject to approval ofLegal Services Agency (charge 1); - (ii)refusal to disclose file relating to former clientduring investigation of complaint (charge 3); -(iii) gross overcharging of family of youngman facing serious criminal charges onmatters of bail and interim name suppression(charge 4) – in further penalty decision,Tribunal ordered that appellant: - (i) be struckoff the roll of barristers and solicitors: - (ii) paycosts of just over $116,000; - (iii) pay sum of$20,000 to complainants in relation to charge 4– grounds of appeal included that Tribunalerred: – (A) (liability) (i) in refusingapplication to adjourn the hearing of thecharges on grounds he was medically unfit toattend and decision to proceed in his absenceresulted in miscarriage of justice; – (ii) inconsidering charge 3 which was insufficientlyserious for referral to the Tribunal and should
have been dealt with by the StandardsCommittee; - (iii) in finding charge 1 proven inhis absence and failing to request appellant’switnesses appear; – (iv) in rejecting expertevidence on appellant’s behalf on charge 4; –(B) (penalty) (v) decision to strike off wasdisproportionate response; – (vi) changes inappellant’s financial position had made orderto pay costs manifestly excessive – generalappeal by way of rehearing under s253 of theAct – principles relating to trial in absence ofdefendant in R v Hayward approved by HL inR v Jones and applied in New Zealandincluding in R v Chatha and Tait v RoyalCollege of Veterinary Surgeons – Tribunalapproach approved notwithstanding incorrectstatement it was required to balance right tofair process against public interest in hearingproceeding
HELD: (A)(1) Tribunal made no error indeclining adjournment and deciding toproceed to hear charges in appellant’s absence– Tribunal addressed itself to correct questionsand was entitled to conclude that appellant haddeliberately chosen not to participate as part ofstrategy to delay and obstruct disciplinaryproceedings – Tribunal applied correctprinciples in determining it could provideappellant with fair hearing in his absence - nomiscarriage of justice flowed from decision toproceed; – (2) Tribunal had jurisdiction to hearthe third charge and Standards Committee wasentitled to refer that charge to the Tribunal –complainant need not be of sufficient gravityto warrant consideration of striking of or
suspension for referral; – (3) it was forappellant to arrange for his witnesses to attendhearing if he wished them to give evidence andnon attendance was result of his failure to doso – no miscarriage of justice caused by nonattendance in any event – evidence not ofassistance to appellant in any material respect;– (4) respondent’s expert evidence concerningreasonableness of fees preferred for goodreason – appropriate weight given to relevantexpertise of each witness and Tribunal entitledto reject opinions of appellant’s experts thatfees were reasonable – tasks undertaken byappellant could and should have been achievedat far lower cost having regard to what workwas worth and appellant made no attempt tomanage those costs; – (B) (5) strikingappellant off the roll was proportionateresponse in light of the nature and seriousnessof charges, disciplinary history, decision todisengage from proceedings and lack ofevidence to suggest insight into conduct; – (6)inappropriate to revisit award of costs whenappellant’s counsel advised Tribunal that itshould proceed on basis appellant could meetfinancial obligations and conceded that if hecould not, “logical consequences” wouldfollow – appeals dismissed – orderssuppressing names and identifying particularsof complainants and extracts in judgment –directions regarding costs (initial view thatrespondent should be entitled to single awardof costs on category 2B basis withdisbursements as fixed by Registrar).
1 Solve the following riddles:(a) without a feather in sight, I
sleep by day and fly by night(b) without taking up space,
I can fill any place(c) without using any strength,
I can break free in a shortlength
(d) without asking a question,I get answers in quicksuccession
2 It is white’s turn to move. Whatshould white do?
KAPITI practitioners can lookforward to a convivial evening onFriday 5 April.
A dinner is planned for membersliving and/or based in the Kapitiarea. It is to be held at the SopranoRistorante, 7 Seaview Road,Paraparaumu. The cost of $50 perperson includes a three-course setmenu with choices for the maincourse; there will also be a cash bar.Reservations close at noon 29March unless booked out before.http://bookwhen.com/wellington-branch
Kapiti members’dinner
Wellington Branch Diary AprilFriday 5 AprilKapiti Practitioners’ dinner. For details see further down this page.
Monday 8 AprilHow to double your productivity and work satisfaction, NZCLE Workshop,James Cook Hotel, 9am-4.30pm
Wednesday 10 AprilConflict, Governance and Professionalism, NZLS CLE Seminar,NZICA, 1pm-5pm
Thursday 11 AprilCourts and Tribunals CommitteeFamily Law CommitteePublic Law Committee
Friday 12 AprilLast Resort Golf Tournament, Masterton. See page 1
Wednesday 17 AprilBuilding Profitability: Leverage, Leadership and Management,NZLS CLE workshop, NZICA, 9am-4pmWellington Branch Council meeting
THE annual Shirley Smith Addressis a tribute to Shirley Smith, atrailblazing woman lawyer whowas a strong advocate for equalityand women’s involvement in thelegal profession. Continuing thetheme of women’s rights ininternational law — the topic of lastyear’s speaker, Professor HilaryCharlesworth — Justice Dohertywill speak on the development ofthe prosecution of sexual violencein international tribunals. Thisarticle provides some backgroundabout Justice Doherty, her work inthe Special Court and comments onher progressive judgments in thatCourt.
From Northern Ireland to SierraLeone
Justice Doherty’s legal careerhas taken her from Northern Irelandto Papua New Guinea to SierraLeone. She began practising law inNorthern Ireland in the 1970sbefore moving to Papua NewGuinea where she was the firstwoman to hold high judicial office,having been appointed as aprincipal magistrate andsubsequently as a judge of the
Women in warfare: a view from Sierra Leone
Supreme and National Courts ofthere. From 2003 to 2005, sheserved as a judge of the High Courtand Court of Appeal of SierraLeone following the civil warthere.** In 2005, she was appointedby the United Nations Secretary-General to the Special Court.
By way of background, SierraLeone is a small country in WestAfrica, bordered by the AtlanticOcean, Liberia and Guinea. Fromaround 1991 to 2002 the countrywas devastated by a brutal civil warmarked by sexual violence and theabduction of children as “childsoldiers”. Following a declarationof peace in January 2002, the UNSecurity Council, at the request of,and in agreement with, thegovernment of Sierra Leone, set upa war crimes tribunal to try thoseresponsible for war crimescommitted during the conflict. Thattribunal was the Special Court.
The Special Court is known forseveral landmark decisions ininternational law includingdecisions involving gender-relatedcrimes in conflict. This articlediscusses two minority decisions inwhich Justice Doherty took anuanced approach to understandingparticular categories of sexualviolence in international law. Thesedecisions relate first to sexualslavery, and second to forcedmarriage.
Sexual slaveryIn a case brought by the
prosecution against individualsassociated with the Armed ForcesRevolutionary Council (AFRC),the evidence showed that during thecivil war, two of the rebel groups,
the Revolutionary United Front(RUF) and the AFRC, hadabducted civilians and used themfor forced labour such as mining,domestic work, carrying of loadsand, in particular, had kidnappedwomen for sexual purposes. Therewas evidence of sick, pregnantwomen who were forced to marchfrom one army base to another.
The prosecution charged thedefendants with “sexual slaveryand any other form of sexualviolence”, among other war crimes.
The defence objected, arguingthat the pleading of “sexual slaveryand any other form of sexualviolence” was “duplicitous”because the prosecution had notdistinguished between sexualslavery and other forms of sexualviolence.
A majority of the trial chamberagreed with the defence, holdingthat this count was “bad forduplicity” and dismissed this countentirely. In a dissenting judgment,Justice Doherty considered that thedefence should have been estopped
from raising duplicity as an issueand that this count should havebeen severed. Her view was upheldby the appeals chamber, which heldthat while the rule against duplicitywas applicable, the trial chambershould have proceeded with thecount as “sexual slavery” given thatthe offence of sexual slavery hadbeen properly charged, but shouldhave struck out the charge of “anyother form of sexual violence”.
Forced marriageIn the same case, there was
evidence that abducted women andgirls had been coerced intomarriage. There was evidence thatwomen who were taken as “wives”were stigmatised as “bush wives”or “rebel wives”. These “tainted”women were often refused re-entryinto their village communities orfamily homes. These women alsohad children and often sufferedmiscarriages, with HIV/AIDscommon amongst them. Thewomen were also punishedseverely for any transgressions anda “husband”, tired of his “wife”,could replace her and send her tothe frontline as a fighter.
A majority of the trial chamberdecided that the crime of forcedmarriage was subsumed into thecrime of sexual slavery. In adissenting decision, JusticeDoherty would have held thatforced marriage ought not to beclassified with “sexual violence”.Marriage was founded on themutual consent of both spouses: ina forced marriage, there was nosuch consent by the victim.Although a forced marriage maynot involve physical violence suchas abduction, enslavement or rape,many “wives” simply “acceptedtheir lot and remained with their“husbands” because they had noother choice”. Justice Dohertybelieved that the lack of any realchoice for the victim did not turn aforced marriage into a consensualsituation.
Vindicated on appeal, the appealchamber decided that forcedmarriage should not be subsumedinto the crime of sexual slavery. Itdecided that forced marriage coulditself constitute a “crime againsthumanity” as serious as othercrimes including enslavement,torture, rape, sexual slavery andsexual violence.
ConclusionThe way that the prosecution
bring charges is important becauseit can shape the way that a trial isconducted, including the evidencethat is adduced and the argumentsthat are advanced. It is clear fromthe two examples given above inrelation to sexual slavery andforced marriage that JusticeDoherty has a nuanced approach tounderstanding particular categoriesof sexual violence in internationallaw. For example, in relation toforced marriage, she emphasisedthat the perpetrator is undermininga victim’s right to choose their ownspouse. Such violence can be asserious as someone who isphysically harmed. Through herwork on the Special Court, JusticeDoherty has contributed tojurisprudence on the nature ofgender-based sexual violenceduring conflict and how suchviolence should be adjudged byinternational tribunals.
Justice Doherty will speakfurther on the prosecution of sexualviolence in international law at theShirley Smith Address. TheWomen in Law Committee thanksthe New Zealand Law Foundation,Thorndon Chambers and theWellington Branch of the NewZealand Law Society for theirsupport for the 2013 Shirley SmithAddress.
* Elizabeth Chan is a member of theWomen in Law Committee. Thisarticle was based on Teresa Doherty“Jurisprudential DevelopmentsRelating to Sexual Violence: theLegacy of the Special Court forSierra Leone” in Anne-Marie deBrouwer, Charlotte Ku, RenéeRömkens and Larissa van den Herik(eds) Sexual Violence as anInternational Crime: InterdisciplinaryApproaches (Intersentia, 2013) 157.
** This was at the request of theCommonwealth to assist thejudiciary in the post-conflictsituation and was described by JaneStromseth, David Wippman andRosa Brooks in Can Might MakeRights?: Building the Rule of LawAfter Military Interventions(Cambridge University Press, 2006)as an example of an internationaljudge who could make an “enormouspositive contribution to domesticjustice systems” (at 237).
Justice Teresa Doherty
By Elizabeth Chan*
THE Women in Law
Committee is delighted to
announce that Justice
Teresa Doherty, a Judge of
the Special Court for Sierra
Leone, will deliver the 2013
Shirley Smith Address on
Tuesday 14 May at
Rutherford House Lecture
Theatre 2 at 5.30pm
A NEW course looking at mentalhealth issues in the legal workplacehas been established.
‘Understanding Resilience’ isbeing offered by the College ofLaw New Zealand.
This first-of-its-kind course istargeted at the legal profession, andaddresses mental health issues inthe workplace and providesstrategies to assist management andstaff. The half-day programmebuilds on the module ‘Well-beingand Resilience for Lawyers’ whichis delivered as part of the practicallegal training programme run byThe College of Law in Australia.
The first UnderstandingResilience programme was run on7 March 2013 with Minter EllisonRudd Watts Lawyers, andfacilitated by experiencedpsychotherapist, coach andfacilitator Steven Colligan.
It is intended that participants inthe course will gain a betterunderstanding of themselves andwhat triggers stress within them,
how to recognise the symptoms ofstress and how to improve theircoping mechanisms before thingsget out of hand.
Jo Stevenson, professionaldevelopment manager at MinterEllison, says it is important forlawyers to learn what resilience isso that they may begin armingthemselves with the knowledge andskills to keep themselves well.
“Working in the legal professionis like an endurance sport. It can belong, challenging and sometimesdemand more of a person than maybe sustainable over time. Learninghow to manage yourself so that youstay well is essential to having asuccessful and fulfilling legalcareer. Our participants on thecourse thought it was veryengaging, useful and relevant, andthe feedback was unanimouslypositive.”
Facilitator Steven Colligan, saidthat more organisations arerecognising the importance ofworkplace wellbeing.
New mental health course aimed at New Zealand lawyers“Courses like [this one] are
really important, and preferablyshould be part of the inductionprogramme and then run as anannual follow up, as workplacehealth and resilience is vital fororganisational productivity. If wehave healthy engaged employeeswe have a healthy workforce.
“In the past, organisations havetraditionally viewed resilience assomething to be addressed onlywhen an individual is in distress.The focus is thankfully shifting tobe much more proactive. By payingattention to how we are resourcedfrom a physical, cognitive andemotional health perspective thenhopefully we can sustainengagement, happiness and focusover the long distance.”
For more information about theCollege of Law NZ and the newUnderstanding Resilience coursesee: http://www.collaw.ac.nz/R e s e a r c h - a n d - R e s o u r c e s /Resilience-at-Law/
Page 4 – COUNCIL BRIEF, APRIL 2013
ADMISSIONS
Applicant Patricia Yee, second from right, with family membersMatthew Yee, Dorry Yee and Christina Yee.
Applicant Erica Devine, second from right, with KateDevine, Pete Devine and Kieran Devine.
Applicant Shona Walton with Phil Walton andDeborah Batcher.
Wellington Branch President Mark Wilton with GlendaMacdonald who is the NZLS General ManagerRepresentative and Auckland Branch Manager.
NZLS Executive Director Christine Grice speaks with visitorsat the event.
Candidates admitted to the Bar on 1 March 2013Adrien Prochnow La GrowHue Tung Elizabeth ChanSarah Charlotte DeebleIsmail DemirciJulia Stephanie HendersonYilun JiangSamuel James Kelleher
Kimberley Jane LewisChanny MaoShona Elizabeth WalterSam Nima MeymandShaun Nicol RaumatiLukas Clemens SchroterZoe Olivia Stapleton
Erica Joyce DevineCatherine Anne EdmondsSara-Jayne Gwenyth Dunseath FisherSteven Paul GrahamShani Lianne GraySophie Rebekah KinsellaJenny Islay Lackey
Applicant Channy Mao, centre, with He Seng and Kear Mao.
The pictures on this page were taken at theWellington Branch social function held to
welcome newly admitted members and theirfamilies on Friday 1 March.
Phillippa Alison Le FevreRachel Jane McMasterFiona Mary PringleTimothy Campbell Thomas WilliamsWilson Alexander von BatenburgPatricia Margaret Yee
A great time was had by all who attended the annual Wellington Young
Lawyers’ Committee “Meet the Grads” Boat Cruise on Thursday 21
March 2013. There was a full turnout on the Sweet Georgia from law
clerks, new grads, and others new in town. The weather cooperated and
the wind dropped to allow everyone to appreciate the views of Wellington
from the water. Everyone enjoyed mixing, mingling and meeting new
people, with the party carrying on to nearby bars after the boat docked.
The Young Lawyers’ Committee is grateful to the Institute of Professional
Legal Studies and the skipper and crew of the Sweet Georgia for making
the evening possible.
YOUNG LAWYERS HARBOUR CRUISE
Young Lawyers convenor Jamie (Leonardo) Grant (left).
THE first ever World Lawyers Games will takeplace in Umag, Croatia, from 7 to 16 June 2013under the auspices of the Croation Bar Association.
This is an international multi-sport event forlawyers from all over the world. The main sportsinclude football, tennis, golf, beach football,beach volleyball, basketball, badminton and tabletennis as well as poker, darts and chess.
Umag is a small town and port on the north-
west coast of Istria, called Croatia’s ‘gateway toEurope’. Umag is 40 kms from Trieste and 50nautical miles from Venice.
As well as sports there will be an extensivesocial programme with opportunities forsightseeing and networking.
For more information go towww.worldlawyersgames.com or [email protected]
International multi-sport event for lawyers
COUNCIL BRIEF, APRIL 2013 – Page 5
ANALYSIS
Recalibrating Behaviour:
Smarter Regulation in a Global World
Tuesday 23 April 2013 Wednesday 24 April 2013
Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington, Lecture Theatre 1,
Old Government Buildings, 55 Lambton Quay
Wellington, New Zealand
By Ron Pol
The future of law: unbundling, pricinginnovation and the new client perspective
A NEW book, Youth Justice inNew Zealand, by VictoriaUniversity’s Dr Nessa Lynch,explores the New Zealand youthjustice system.
The book analyses theoperation of the youth justicesystem, including areas such asthe age of criminal responsibilitythrough to interactions with theadult criminal justice system.
It also discusses recent majorreforms to the youth justicesystem, including the changes toprosecution powers for children,and the new and expanded YouthCourt orders.
Dr Lynch, a senior lecturer in Victoria’s Faculty of Law whereshe teaches criminal law and criminal justice, says New Zealand is aworld leader in its approach to offending by children and youth,“…but there has been an absence of commentary from a legalperspective.”
The book is likely to be a valuable resource for lawyers, police,policy-makers and students of the law, as well those working inrelated fields such as criminology and public policy. It is also likelyto be of interest to international readers, given New Zealand’sconsiderable influence in the area of youth justice policy.
Youth Justice in New Zealand was published by ThomsonReuters NZ Ltd.
For more information, contact Dr Nessa Lynch on (04) 4636394 or [email protected].
New book explores youthjustice in New Zealand
The future is already hereWe’ve been involved with some
tremendous successes byinnovative lawyers, even as othersstruggle to maintain their practices,affirming William Gibson’sobservation that “the future isalready here – it’s just not evenlydistributed”.
At one end of the spectrumcolleagues report lawyersstruggling with the impact of veryrapid change in a constrainedmarket, and those experiencingwhole areas of work evaporating –typically legal aid and governmentwork.
But this is only part of a complexand rapidly evolving market.Certainly, many lawyers’ practices
have been hard hit, yet we’veworked with others that haveidentified how best to adapt –admittedly often sometimes inchallenging ways – and are provingextremely successful. For example,one well known firm, previouslyperceived as being expensive, istransitioning towards deliveringmore client value and cost-effectiveness, whilst profitabilityand revenue have increased.
These “perfect confluences” areachievable; especially in achanging market. The combinationof more value for clients andimproved profitability provides asustainable framework for mutuallyprofitable relationships; yet theframeworks and systems that helpdeliver these results remain“unevenly distributed” as many ofour colleagues struggle to maintaintraditional models.
Unbundle to meet marketpressures
In other areas the ‘unevendistribution’ is global in nature.Legal aid constraints are commonin many jurisdictions, yetanecdotally the New Zealandprofession seems not to havedeveloped some of the morenuanced approaches developingelsewhere.
Lawyers are one of the lastremaining businesses typicallyproviding a full service, so whenlegal aid cuts mean that lawyerscan’t profitably provide the usual
complete “charge to acquittal orsentence” service, many respondedsimply by dropping the service –sometimes accompanied bypassionate protestations about theprocess or its impact on lawyers’businesses and access to justice.
Yet this has not been a universalresponse. For example, Englishlawyers facing similar cuts havebeen encouraged to maintainsustainable practices by“unbundling” legal work. Insteadof conducting all of a case or noneof it, they agree with the clientwhich parts the client or otherspecialist providers shouldperform, and lawyers conductelements where they add mostvalue to the client. Although thisraises some regulatory andinsurance issues, the English LawSociety is supporting andencouraging lawyers to adaptpractices to meet the changingenvironment.
Much like the win-win clientdevelopment experiences we’veseen in New Zealand, Englishlawyers can benefit from focusingon areas to which they add mostvalue, and the opportunity toexpand their market even indifficult times.
Tellingly, the English professiondidn’t adopt a “circle the wagons”or “fight on the beaches” approachseeking to preserve traditionalbusiness models. They invested ininnovative thinking to identify newopportunities for sustainablesolutions in a new environment; theresult is that legal advice maybecome increasingly affordable andaccessible to more clients even aslegal aid falls.
Innovation decline?Although it is too early to
confirm a trend, at the legal servicedelivery level in New Zealand asurge of innovation seems to haveabated even as innovativeapproaches have opened uptremendous opportunities forlawyers and clients elsewhere.
A few years ago, general counselembraced international bestpractices with programmes thataimed at improving theeffectiveness of the legal function.Law firms responded by offeringmore innovative solutions,including fixed and value pricingmodels and innovative partneringarrangements. Some of thesesucceeded, but others hit earlyshoals which seem to have had achilling effect.
Some firms’ “new” pricingmodels were in reality hourly ratesdressed differently. Thisdisillusioned some general counsel.And when firms offered genuinelyinnovative options withdemonstrable benefits, rejection by‘safety conscious’ clients (oftengovernment agencies) furtherdisillusioned many firms. Several
have since quietly resolved only tooffer better value frameworks forclients actively seeking them,further entrenching traditionalmodels unchanged for decadeseven as the value proposition ischanging elsewhere. This puts NewZealand increasingly out of stepwith international best practices.
We’ve observed mixedmessages from clients too. The pastfew years have seen a wave ofcompanies create new in-houselegal functions, yet others havequietly disestablished anddowngraded general counselpositions. The implication fromthese corporate and governmentleaders is that lawyers are regardedless as legal strategists who activelyhelp grow businesses and more asmere responsive legal techniciansdocumenting transactions.
Again it’s too early to identifytrends, but anecdotal evidence ismounting. Most recently, one ofNew Zealand’s most experiencedand senior chief executives – with along history of dealing withlawyers from the biggest firms andwell resourced legal departments –observed that “lawyers dotransactional work, and the best dothis exceptionally well... [but] I’venever actually known a lawyer to bestrategic in the sense of proactivelyhelping grow or improve ourbusiness in any material way”.
If this view is more widely heldit serves as a chilling propositionfor the future of legal services inNew Zealand, yet that futureremains largely in the profession’sown hands. Lawyers are capable ofdelivering enormous value to theirclients, and many do so. But if wefail to innovate, and don’teffectively demonstrate value in
ways meaningful to emergingclient needs and changingenvironments, or if New Zeal-and’s regulatory environmentinadvertently constrains lawyersfrom delivering the most valuableservices to corporate, governmentand personal clients alike, thebusiness of law will continue to beincreasingly constrictive for manylawyers, irrespective ofinternational advances.
Personally, I’m optimistic thatthe law firms and legal departmentswe know that are quietly buildingand implementing genuinelyinnovative solutions to modernmarket conditions, will ultimatelyhelp lead the way to a brighter futurefor the legal profession and clients.
❑ About the author: Team Factors’ RonPol participates in the legal marketfrom all sides, with fresh insights froma unique multi-faceted perspective. Heworks with corporate and governmentagencies on the client side of theequation to help improve theeffectiveness of the legal function, andperforms acting general counsel rolesin the public and private sectors. Healso works with firms coming to gripswith innovative service delivery andpricing models. And his internationalwork provides a global context forareas in which New Zealand lawyerslead international best practices, andareas in which the local professioncurrently lags - exposing opportunitiesfor innovative lawyers. Mr Pol can becontacted at [email protected].
The success of the PublicDefence Service, increasingconstraints on legal aid and
continuing economicpressures have reportedly
forced some lawyers to leavethe market or move away
from the main centresbecause of reduced
workloads. Council Briefasked legal services
consultant and legal futuristRon Pol to share observations
Lifeline Counselling has a team of qualified professional counsellorsexperienced in working with clients across a broad range of issues.
Our high-quality confidential service can help with day-to-day issues suchas: stress, anxiety, burnout, depression, relationship issues, grief, traumaand addiction.
All our Counsellors are qualified to Masters level and are members of the NZAssociation of Counsellors.
For New Zealand Law Society members and families we are offering adiscounted rate:
$110 based on a normal 60min session
Currently this Face-to-Face service is only available in person in the Aucklandregion. Other regions will be introduced throughout 2013.
Skype Face-to-Face counselling applies throughout New Zealand.
During April and May, the NZ Centre for Public Law (with generoussupport and funding from the NZ Law Foundation) will host a series ofdebates on issues raised by the Government’s review of the New Zealandconstitution. The debates will be broadcast on Radio NZ National. Youcan be part of the live public audience on the VUW Kelburn campus.
Moderator: Steven Price, barrister
What’s the problem? Monday 8 April, Hunter Council Chamber, 6:30pmSpeakers: Professor Bruce Harris, Moana Jackson,
Dame Claudia Orange, Dr Matthew Palmer
An examination of the origins of the constitutional review, and the process set upto support it. Should we be cynical about its political motives, embrace it as anopportunity for public engagement, neither or both? Do its terms of referencemake sense? Is a process like this necessary or desirable? Has the process beenset up in a way that could support real change?
Reforming our democratic institutions Monday 15 April,Hunter Council Chamber, 6:30pm
Speakers: Dr Maria Bargh, Colin James, Professor Elizabeth McLeay,Sir Geoffrey Palmer QC
The constitutional review’s terms of reference include the term of Parliament(and whether it should be fixed), the size of Parliament, the size and number ofelectorates, and issues relating to Maori electoral representation. The debateeswill cover these issues and others that they consider important to the quality andeffectiveness of our democratic system.
Maori aspirations for constitutional change Monday 22 April,Te Herenga Waka Marae, 6:30pm
Speakers: Tai Ahu, Dr Rawinia Higgins, Veronica Tawhai, Valmaine Toki
Four newer voices from the Maori community discuss the nature of Maoriaspirations for constitutional change, broadly conceived. The discussion willmove well beyond the status of the Treaty of Waitangi, and include considerationof alternative models of Maori-Crown relationships, the development of akaupapa Maori or tikanga-based constitution, and Maori constitutionalaspirations in the context of indigenous peoples’ rights at the international level.
Human rights in the constitution Monday 29 April,Hunter Council Chamber, 6:30pm
Speakers: Professor Andrew Geddis, Jack Hodder QC, StephenWhittington, Professor Margaret Wilson
New Zealand has no formal written constitution and its bill of rights is anordinary law that cannot be used to strike down other laws. Should our Bill ofRights be entrenched and supreme law, or not? Should we have one at all? If so,what other rights should it include? Or not include? In broader terms, what stepsought to be taken to protect the human rights of New Zealanders?
Time to be a Republic? Monday 6 May, Hunter Council Chamber, 6:30pmSpeakers: Jim Bolger, Professor Janet McLean, Michael Mabbitt
Is it time to replace the Queen as our head of state and become a republic? Ifnot, will it ever be? What would that involve, and what will be the major issuesconfronting us if and when we do so?
The NZ Centre for Public Law wishes to acknowledge the generousfinancial support of the NZ Law Foundation for this event.
Debating the Constitution
-
-
--
-
-
WHEN the United Kingdom joinedthe European Common Market inthe early 1970s, its principal impactso far as New Zealanders were
concerned wasthe blow thatthe change dealtto our economicinter-relations.We had todiversify andto find newmarkets for ourproducts, anddo so quickly.
As the common market hasmetamorphosed over the years intoan altogether more complex anddifferent constitutional entity – theEuropean Union – its impact on theUnited Kingdom’s common lawlegal system has been having aslow but discernible impact.European Law is also British lawwhether directly applicable orindirectly. In some areas such asbasic principles of the substantivecriminal law, the impact has beenminimal. But it is undoubtedly thecase that different methods andmodes of thinking are necessary toan understanding of European law,and some of these are graduallymigrating into the common lawway of thinking.
For example, the style oflegislative drafting is different, andthe practices of interpretation varyaccordingly. Whereas the commonlaw draftsman values certaintyand precision, and adoptsa correspondingly detailedlegislative style, the Europeancounterpart is more content to paintwith a relatively broad brush,leaving the detail to be supplied byothers, including the courts.European courts adopt a contextualand purposive approach tointerpretation, and are much lessconcerned than the common lawcounterparts with what thelegislature may have intended.
Attitudes to precedent aredifferent. The common law is builton a strict system of precedent andjudgments are binding or otherwisein accordance with the system ofstare decisis. In European law,there is no such system – in theory,the same point may be decided
differently in later cases. Whereasin common law there may beseveral different judgments in acase decided by the appellatecourts, some concurring and othersdissenting (making the ratiodecidendi difficult to ascertain onoccasion), the European Courts byand large speak with a unifiedsingle voice.
Another way in which thecommon law can be affected by itsinteraction with the European Unionis through the importation of certainconcepts that are familiar to civillawyers who make up the bulk of themembers of the European Union.Some of this was brought home tome quite forcefully by the concernsof two of the distinguished visitorsto the Law Faculty in the course ofthis month, both of whom choseto discuss the concept of“proportionality”. Dame MaryArden, who delivered the RobinCooke Lecture this year, discussed itin the context of privacy and pressfreedom. Sir Paul Walker, whovisits the Faculty this year as thesecond Ian Borrin Visiting Fellow,has already given two Facultyseminars on different aspects ofproportionality, and will deliveranother on Monday 25 March on athird dimension. Sir Paul will beknown to some of my readers, sincehe was a member of the Faculty fortwo years, and the first director ofthe New Zealand Centre for PublicLaw here at Victoria.
Proportionality is also a familiarconcept to many of the jurisdictionsthat have subscribed to theEuropean Convention on HumanRights, overseen by the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights andoperating in Strasbourg. When theUnited Kingdom adopted theEuropean Convention in the HumanRights Act 1998, it opened up afurther avenue down which theprinciples of proportionality mightmarch into the common law.
At the grave risk of caricaturethrough brevity, the principle ofproportionality should be explained.It can be seen in the context ofjudicial review, where the courtsmight be seen to reviewadministrative action on the groundsthat it represents a disproportionate
exercise of power – the executive hasused a sledgehammer to crack a nut.To the eyes of the common lawyer,this looks suspiciously like a meritsreview, which the common law hastraditionally eschewed. The groundsfor review are historically located inWednesbury unreasonableness,illegality and procedural impropriety.When first offered proportionality asa further ground for review inCouncil of Civil Servants Union vMinister of State for the Civil Service[1985] the House of Lords declinedto accept it, although it indicated that,over time, it may develop alongsidethe standard grounds. In her lecture,Dame Mary Arden argued thatproportionality is a principle whosetime had now come. Sir Paul, I thinkit would be fair to say, has no doubtabout that.
What is the significance of thesedevelopments for the law of NewZealand? The index to Philip Joseph’sexcellent treatise Constitutional andAdministrative Law in New Zealand(2007) does not contain an entry forproportionality, and that might besome indication that it is not yet atopic that has greatly troubled ourcourts. Some New Zealand scholarshave considered ways in whichproportionality and Wednesburyunreasonableness are comparableways of thinking, and it really is adifference in the terminologyemployed rather than a matter ofsubstance if we use the language ofproportionality. More cautious soulscould argue, to the contrary, that ifthis were so, there would be no needfor the United Kingdom to develop afourth leg of review. They can arguefurther that, because the conceptclearly has its origins in the twoEuropean legal systems in which NewZealand plays absolutely no legalpart, we have no need to considerwhether or not the concept should beapplicable here, even if the concept isnow employed in the UnitedKingdom in situations and caseshaving absolutely no Europeandimension.
If that is the approach that isultimately adopted, the sort ofparting of the ways that was initiatedwhen the United Kingdom joinedthe Common Market becomes morereal and more visible.
BranchTHE Wellington BranchNZLS holds the CVs oflawyers and peoplepreparing for admissionwho are looking foremployment. Contact theBranch to see whetherwe can match up acandidate with the skillsyou are looking for.
COUNCIL BRIEFThe monthly newspaper of theWellington Branch NZ Law Society
Advertising Rates: casual or contract rates on application. Telephone Robin
Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the NZ Law Society Wellington Branch or the Editor.
Council Brief is published for the NZ Law Society Wellington Branch
by Chris Ryan, and printed by APN Print, Wanganui.
MADESIGNm
Answers for puzzles from page 2
1 (a) bat(b) light(c) breath(d) phone
2 1 Nf6+ (forks black’s king andqueen): if 1…Kh8 then 2 NxQd5;if 1…gxNf6 then 2 QxRf8+KxQf8 3 Bh6+ Kg8 4 Re8#
EVERY year New Zealand accepts750 refugees from around the worldthrough the United Nations HighCommissioner for Refugees(UNHCR) quota system. Of these750, a portion settle as residents ofthe Wellington region. Once settledin New Zealand, former refugeesmay apply through Immigration NewZealand’s (INZ) refugee familyreunification category, or throughgeneral immigration categories, tobring family members to NewZealand. That’s where our Refugeeand Immigration Legal AdviceService (RILAS) comes in.
The recent history of RILASWellington Community Law
Centre established RILAS in 1998.RILAS has consisted of a Tuesdayevening drop-in advice session inWellington for people withimmigration questions and aprogramme of ongoing legalassistance for former refugees withfamily reunification applications.
In July 2012, when WellingtonCommunity Law Centre mergedwith the Hutt Valley CommunityLaw Centre to become CommunityLaw Wellington and Hutt Valley(CLWHV), we extended ourWellington RILAS system to HuttValley clients. We introduced aWednesday lunchtime advice sessionand employed a new RILAS lawyerto work in the Hutt Valley.
In terms of our legal team, thatmeans we now have two RILASlawyers: Inna Zadorozhnaya, whoworks full-time out of our Wellingtonoffice, and Megan Williams, whoworks part-time out of our Te AwaKairangi (Hutt Valley) office.Around 40 volunteer lawyers andadvocates assist Inna and Megan bothat the advice sessions and withongoing case work.
Changes to our refugee and immigration legal advice service (RILAS)
RILAS advice sessions areconsistently the busiest advicesessions at our offices. RILAS alsohas the highest volume of ongoingcase work. This is partly because ofthe nature of the work, but alsobecause of the high needs of theclients. RILAS cases often continueover a number of years. Our staff andvolunteers are truly committed to theservice, but after some recentanalysis, we have come to realise thatthe huge amount of time and energyexpended might not be getting thebest results. For reasons out of ourcontrol, and often out of our clients’control, too many applications aredeclined. We would also like toincrease our focus on preventativework: on legal and policy reform inthe immigration arena, and onproviding high quality education andinformation to empower refugeecommunities. Our goal is to have thecapacity to pick up urgent, high-needcases without having to puteverything else to the side.
So in October 2012, we decided toput a hold on taking on more ongoingclients, and to re-examine the kindsof cases we do take on. We arelooking to begin taking on newclients again at the end of April 2013.
Partnership applicationsOver the years, we have assisted
many clients wanting to bring theirpartners to New Zealand. Generally,there are three types of partnershipapplication:a) “Family-linked” partnerships –
for a declared partner of aUNHCR-mandated refugee livingin New Zealand. For example, afamily was separated during aconflict and one partner wasaccepted for resettlement in NewZealand. The resettled partnerdeclared the missing partner
through the resettlement process.If the missing partner is laterlocated, the partner in NewZealand can apply to INZ for theirpartner to be resettled in NewZealand.
b) New partnerships – once settled inNew Zealand, a former refugeeenters into a partnership with aperson from another country.
c) Non-declared partnerships – anexisting partnership where theNew Zealand partner did notdeclare the relationship on theirown application for residence.The process of bringing a partner
to New Zealand is not alwaysstraightforward and couples canremain separated for up to a decadewhile they wait out a lengthyimmigration process. This isparticularly hard when children areinvolved, who have sometimes nevermet one of their parents.
Immigration NZ declines manypartnership applications, mainlybecause couples are unable to provethat their relationship is “genuine andstable”. Relationships are difficulteven in the best of times! But giventhe cultural and socio-politicalbackgrounds of our clients, thisrequirement becomes even harder toprove. Some couples may have livedtogether for only a few months aftermarriage, if at all. If they have livedtogether, they often won’t haveshared bank accounts or tenancyagreements as evidence. In somecircumstances, the overseas partnermay not have easy access to theinternet or a phone, making it hard tomaintain (let alone prove) ongoingcommunication.
There is also the reality ofrelationship break-ups. After years ofseparation (and years into apartnership application), couples can
find they no longer wish to betogether.
The most challenging partnershipapplications are when the person inNew Zealand did not declare theirpartner to the UNHCR or INZ whencoming into New Zealand. To bringan undeclared partner to NewZealand you have to prove that thenon-declaration was not a deliberateattempt to mislead INZ. These casesare complex and time consuming andhave about a 50 per-cent decline rate– either because of non-declaration orlack of evidence.
For all of these reasons, we havemade the difficult decision that wecan no longer provide on-goingassistance for partnershipapplications. We simply don’t havethe capacity to give theseapplications the attention that theyrequire. To try and fill the gap, wewill be creating accessible, high-quality information explaining whatevidence is needed to prove a“genuine and stable” relationship.We will also work on providingeducation in refugee communitiesemphasising the importance ofdeclaring all family members and theserious ramifications of non-declaration.
We will continue to assist formerrefugees with their partnershipapplications if they come within thecategory of “family-linked”partnerships, as described above.
New RILAS eligibility criteriaWe want to provide our service to
those who need it most and we wantthat service to be of a high standard.In order to do this we have developednew eligibility criteria to assesswhether clients will be eligible forongoing assistance from us. We willmake an holistic assessment of aclient’s level of need, based on a
range of factors, including theirimmigration status in New Zealand,their family situation, theirrelationship to the person they wouldlike to bring to New Zealand, and thisperson’s current situation. If clientsare eligible, they will be added to awaitlist for ongoing support.
Conclusion/FutureWe realise that the changes
outlined above will have an impacton the refugee community and we arelooking at ways in which we canwork together with refugee supportgroups in the Wellington region toaddress the need in the refugeefamily reunification area.
We have begun the process ofconsulting with various groups toestablish the level of support andeducation we can provide. We areworking towards covering a widerrange of issues and at the same timeincreasing the efficiency and qualityof our service.
The RILAS eligibility criteria willcome into effect on 1 April 2013. Wehope the criteria will help us toaddress the most vulnerable refugeesin need of being reunited with theirfamilies. We see the criteria as anefficient tool when assessingpotential clients’ need for ongoingsupport.
The free legal advice sessions inour Wellington and Hutt Valleyoffices are still available for one-offmatters.
We look forward to working withrefugee support groups and refugeecommunities in the Wellingtonregion to provide a better, moreefficient and more effective servicefor our refugee community.
For more information pleasecontact our RILAS lawyers:
Zoe Heine, Community Law Wellington and Hutt Valley
Members of the Wellington legal fraternity attendedthe Victoria University ‘Careers Expo’ recently
Jonathon Scragg, Oliver Lee and JessStone from Duncan Cotterill.
Michael Quigg, Chris Thomas andNick Logan from Quigg Partners.
Bernadette Wilson, LindsayDavis, Julia Weir and Roman
Jewell from Institute ofProfessional Legal Studies.
Olivia Eaton, Ministry of PrimaryIndustries, Rama Chadwick, Te Puni
Kokiri, and Graham Beever, MBIE, all ofthe Government Legal Network.
Nadine Warbrick and TuiDunlop from Community LawWellington and Hutt Valley.
Briar Wood from the WellingtonBranch office speaking with a student.
COUNCIL BRIEF, APRIL 2013 – Page 8
The Young Lawyers Committee took on the YoungAccountants in netball and rugby recently, at Evans Bay
Intermediate School. The netball tournament gotunderway first, with four qualifying games before the final.The Russell McVeagh team won three of their games, butjust missed out to NZICA when qualifying. The YLC andMinter Ellison teams were pooled with a very slick PWC
team, who were the eventual winners, but both teams gotwins under their respective belts / bibs. Unfortunately, theLawyers’ rugby team struggled for numbers – through the
help of a large number of ring-ins, the team did get upover the accountants, but there were some legitimate
queries from the accountants regarding 'player eligibility'.A BBQ was run throughout the day which was appreciated
by players and supporters. The after-match function atthe Poneke clubrooms was positively received, with a bigmeal of pizza and beer going down a treat. This was the
first time that the YLC haveattempted a sports event withthe Young Accountants, next
time we look forward to enjoyingsuccess in both sports, withoutany questions surrounding thelegitimacy of our talent pool!
Wellington Librarian Robin Anderson using the new research computerkiosk in the Wellington District Court lawyers’ room. The research
computer allows practitioners to access all databases and collectionsavailable through the Wellington Library. You do not need to log intothe kiosk as this is done automatically, and as most online collections
require no passwords they can be accessed immediately. You mayprint documents (please bring your own paper), but USB deviceconnectivity has been disabled and saving to local drives is not
possible. For any assistance with the research computer please contactstaff at the Wellington Research Library.
KEEN, Gerard JohnLate of 1/23 Trafalgar Street,Johnsonville, Wellington.Security Guard. Aged 48.Date of birth 12 April 1964.Died on 26 November 2012.Buchanan Gray (Annette Gray)PO Box 24057, Wellington 6142Tel 04 472 8269 Fax 04 472 [email protected]
LIDDLE, Christina DonFormerly of Miramar, Wellington.Late of Village at the Park, 130 RintoullStreet, Newtown, Wellington.Died on 21 October 2012.Maude & Miller (Siri Nicholas)PO Box 5259, Wellington 6145.DX SP 23503Tel 04 473 7121 Fax 04 471 [email protected]
NUNNS, John WilliamLate of Wellington.Died at Wellington on 21 February 2013.Please contact Jamie Nunns orVirginia NelsonMorrison Kent LawyersPO Box 10035, Wellington 6143.DX SP 20203Tel 04 472 0020 Fax 04 472 [email protected]
TE TAU, EllenLate of 18 Miro Street, Levin.Beneficiary. Widowed. Aged 64.Date of birth 8 September 1946.Died at Levin on 4 September 2011.Public Trust (Elvie Mooney)PO Box 4549, ChristchurchDX WP20327Tel 03 977 3918 Fax 03 977 [email protected]
WARD, Vicky WikitoriaLate of 3 Havelock Street, Mornington,Wellington. Social Worker. Aged 73.Date of birth 4 July 1939.Died on 22 February 2013.Buchanan Gray (Annette Gray)PO Box 24057, Wellington 6142Tel 04 472 8269 Fax 04 472 [email protected]
WILEY, Peter JohnLate of 6/4 Kaikoura Street,Maupuia, Wellington 6022.Consultant. Single.Date of birth 8 January 1951.Died on 4 March 2013.Halliwells (Preston Bulfin)PO Box 422, Hawera 4640Tel 06 278 5114 Fax 06 278 [email protected]
Please contact the solicitorsconcerned if you are holding a will
for any of the following:
FOR URGENT ACTION
WILLENQUIRIES
■ The cost of a will notices is $57.50 (GSTinclusive). Please send payment with yournotice.
■ Will notices should be sent to the BranchManager, NZ Law Society WellingtonBranch, PO Box 494, Wellington.
An after-work drinks function at Chicago Bar on the waterfront kickedoff the year for the Wellington Young Lawyers Committee recently.
The event was designed to welcome recent law graduates and solicitorsto the Wellington legal scene and catch up with some familiar faces
after the summer.
It was a free and casual event with the YLC contributing money towardsdrinks and finger food largely thanks to our main sponsors, MAS and
Simply Legal. There was a great turnout peaking at around 150. Thankyou to those who attended.
The YLC has many more great events lined up this year.For those who would like to be included on the YLC
mailing list please email [email protected], or ‘like’The Young Lawyers’ Committee Wellington on Facebook.
THE scheme to assist lawgraduates into work is stillbeing operated by theWellington Branch.
Law graduates seeking workleave their CVs at the Society.These are available to potentialemployers needing staff whocan refer to the CVs and chooseappropriate graduates.
The work offered need notbe permanent. Any work in alaw office will give graduatesvaluable experience that maybe helpful to them next timethey make job applications.
