Canterbury Tales - New Zealand Law Society

Canterbury tales
Canterbury tales
Canterbury Westland Branch New Zealand Law Society
February 2013, Vol. 19, No. 1
Quake heroes honoured
By Shonagh Burnhill
Late last year Christchurch’s mayor
awarded the second, and final,
round of awards to honour people
who undertook acts of kindness,
service or heroism during the 22
February 2011 earthquakes.
Five of the award recipients, Vanessa Clements,
Toby Giles, David Lang, Andrew Riches and
Richard Rodden, were my former work
colleagues. At the time of the earthquake we
were working for the law firm Saunders & Co
in the Ernst & Young building, beside the PGC
building in Cambridge Terrace.
On the day of the earthquake, just before
lunchtime, our building started to shake. I was
standing in the open-plan part of the office and
realised I had to quickly find somewhere safe
to shelter. I ran into Vanessa’s office, and was
knocked to the ground with the force of the
earthquake.
The next thing I remember is crawling on the
ground, but not getting any traction. Vanessa
scrabbled out from under her desk, grabbed
me under the shoulders and hauled me under
Congratulations
Congratulations to Andrew McRae on his
appointment as Crown Solicitor for Timaru.
Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson
announced the appointment of Andrew as
Crown Solicitor for Timaru. The appointment
took effect on 1 February 2013.
Andrew, who is a partner at the law firm
Gresson Dorman & Co, takes over the role
from another Gresson Dorman & Co
partner, Tim Gresson.
Mr Gresson has retired as Crown Solicitor but
remains a partner of Gresson Dorman & Co.
Earthquake heroes Andrew Riches, David Lang, Richard Rodden, Toby Giles and Vanessa
Clements.
her desk. This happened just in time as shortly
afterwards two metal filing cabinets came
crashing down in the spot where I had been.
After the shaking stopped we evacuated the
building. The scene outside was surreal. The
road and footpath outside our building were
carpeted with papers and files. This did not
make any sense until I looked to my left and
saw that the PGC building had collapsed and
appeared to me to still be collapsing. Some
people were hysterical; others were wandering
around in shock.
Richard and David worked on the side of our
building which looked out onto the PGC
building. They saw the PGC building collapse,
checked to make sure work colleagues were
safe, bolted down the stairs and ran to the PGC.
A man was trapped on the intact ground floor
of the PGC. David threw a large bit of rubble
through the glass window to smash it to enable
the man to get out.
Richard, Toby, Andrew and Vanessa heard a
female voice calling for help. They traced the
sound from the back of the building and
eventually a hand appeared, and then a person,
who told them she had another person with
her. They had been on the third floor, which
had then collapsed to around the first floor level.
Whilst Vanessa talked to the woman, David,
Andrew, Toby, Richard and two other men
improvised a ladder out of a railing and some
concrete rubble.
Continued Page 11
22
Canterbury
Canterburytales
tales
Vino Fino
Photo Caption
Each month we have a photo caption
competition where we invite you to submit a
caption. The winner will receive two bottles of
wine sponsored by Vino Fino (www.vinifinoco.nz,
188 Durham Street).
Send your entry to the Canterbury Westland
Branch New Zealand Law Society, P. O. Box
565, Christchurch. Or email to canterburywestland@lawsociety.org..nz. All entries must
be received by March 9 2013. The winner will
be announced in the next edition of Canterbury
Tales.
The winning entry for last month’s picture
(below) was submitted by Andrew Riches.
“I have been told that if you swallow
coins you can have another two!”
By Shonagh Burnhill
President’s Column
Of all the possessions I longed
to retrieve from my office in
the Clarendon Tower, my
three-volume set of Cassell’s
Lawyer was at the top of the
list.
The set is around 100 years old, but if such an
informative, entertaining and readable book on
the law was available today, it would be a best
seller. As its author says, “what the average man
wants, is to know what the law is on everyday
matters”. He also takes on the duty of pointing
out the “very many things that are not law”
and considers that this may be just as useful
as the former.
Now I have it back in my hands I can once
again enjoy dipping into its fresh, anecdotal style
of writing. For example, on hire purchase, he
says, “it is illegal to do what very often has been
done, and, I daresay, will very often be done
again, notwithstanding my warning. But I shall
give the warning, to the end that they who are
wise may take heed... It is very hard to convince
the average man, and still harder the average
woman, that when such furniture is nearly paid
for there is anything to prevent the hirer from
selling it or exchanging it... Let me say again,
at the risk of wearisome reiteration, that until
you have paid the last farthing of the agreed
amount, the furniture belongs to the furniture
dealer and not to you.”
In discussing grounds for instant dismissal of a
servant he lists, as a ground, “habitual neglect
of work”, but qualifies this saying “Understand,
I say habitual. For a mere temporary fit of
laziness — a day or two, for instance — will not
entitle a mistress to take such a stern measure.”
Another ground for instant dismissal is
“incompetency to do the work”, but he cautions
“this rule must be applied very carefully and if
you hire a general servant at low wages and
afterwards find her incompetent, you must put
up with her blunders or else give her the usual
notice... The law looks at the contract
reasonably, and asks, ‘Did you really expect to
hire a skilled servant for £5 a year?’”
The writer does not mince words. On the
question of obstruction of views by new houses,
or “those gigantic hoardings devoted to extolling
the extraordinary efficacy of Thingamy’s pills”,
he says, “much as I sympathise with you, I must
tell you that you have no legal remedy
whatever... you must sit down quietly and bear
it with what fortitude you are capable of”.
His book does not dwell on the criminal law,
saying, “I do not consider that disquisitions on
murder, manslaughter, burglary, housebreaking,
false pretences, theft, and so on, would be of
the slightest use to the average man. And it is
for the average man that I write.”
His love of the law, and of translating it for
everyday use, shines through. He says “we are
all acquainted with the proverbial expression
about “the dry bones of the law”. This is a libel.
The bones of the law are not anymore dry than
any other bones, and the law in itself is not all
bones. How can it be, when it deals entirely
with human beings and their conduct one
towards another?”
While I know of no Cassell’s Lawyer for the
21st century, it is the kind of work that should
make each of us reflect on how we practise
the law.
Do we enjoy seeing how the law adapts and
responds to the myriad of situations which arise
in business and personal life? Do we take
pleasure in distilling the law for our clients so
they have clear, simple answers to their
problems? Do we ensure that when hard advice
needs to be given, we give it without flinching
or fudging?
One hundred years later these are still things
which a good lawyer should aspire to do, even
if the legal advice that is given today would be
quite different from Mr Cassell’s advice.
Rachel Dunningham
Canterbury Tales is the official newsletter of
the Canterbury Westland Branch New
Zealand Law Society.
Publications Committee: Karen Feltham
(editor), Brendan Callaghan, Aliza Eveleigh,
Summer Pringle, Zylpha Kovacs and Kate
Dougherty.
All correspondence and photographs should
be forwarded to: The Branch Manager,
Canterbury-Westland Branch New Zealand
Law Society, Unit 1, 8 Homersham Place,
Russley, Christchurch. P. O. Box 565
Christchurch.
Phone 358-3147, fax 358-3148. email
canterbury-westland@lawsociety.org.nz.
Canterbury Tales is published 11 times per
year. The deadline for editorial and
photographs is the 8th of the month.
Disclaimer: Canterbury Tales is published by
the Canterbury Westland Branch New
Zealand Law Society. The opinions expressed
herein may not necessarily be those of the
Branch and have not been expressly
authorised. The Branch accepts no
responsibility whatsoever for any error,
omission or statement.
Canterbury tales
3
Pistols at dusk for legal rivals
By Zylpha Kovacs
The following story, was discovered
by a research team at Victoria
University’s Faculty of Law and
illustrates the benefits of following
the ‘Conduct and Client Care Rules’
and treating other lawyers with
“respect and courtesy” rather than
having serious disagreements with
your colleagues!!
The story is about two Wellington barristers who
had quarrelled over a case in the Wellington
County Court in 1844. Hugh Cokeley Ross, a
Wellington barrister challenged William Brewer,
a fellow lawyer, to a duel on the evening of
February 26 1844.
The men met near Primbles brickyard in
Honeyman’s Gully in Thorndon, near what is
now Andersons Park.
Records show that Brewer deloped (this is the
practice of throwing away the first fire in a dual
in an attempt to abort the conflict) by firing
into the air. Unfortunately for him Ross did not
Unclaimed trust
account funds
Two firms have had funds deposited into their
trust accounts that they are confident are not
attributable to any client or matter that they
have handled.
The first amount of approximately $300 had
payer details/reference of 312180-5.
The second firm has been paid in three
instalments and the total is in excess of
$10,000. The payment references for this one
is Scott. The second series of payments were
made in mid 2012.
If the client can prove identifying details such
as dates and quantum of the deposits the
monies can be released.
If these and other such monies are not able to
be resolved after some holding time (usually
six months) Philip Strang (Inspector) advises
firms when trying to locate the owners to check
with credit agencies such as Veda Advantage
or Baycom before paying the monies to IRD
as unclaimed monies or the Crown (Treasury)
as Bona Vacantia.
Should the owner of the monies be located, of
course an invoice for such costs involved in
the search for the owners would be rendered
in the usual fashion but cannot be taken until
authorised by the funds owner.
Any enquiries to Philip Strang, mobile, 021 209
2223; email, Philip.strang@lawsociety.org.nz.
follow suit and the bullet from his pistol hit
Brewer in the groin.
The paper of the day The New Zealand
Gazette and Wellington Spectator wrote:
“Brewer was immediately conveyed to a friend’s
house. During the first few days it was hoped
that his life was safe, but appearances
afterwards became unfavourable, and on
Monday last, about six in the evening Mr Brewer
breathed his last”.
There were several witnesses to the duel,
however, the coroner’s inquest concluded that
the evidence did not prove who inflicted the
wound. Apparently the witnesses could not
remember all the details!
The survivor of a duel could be charged with
murder which may be why ‘what happened
on the duelling field stayed on the duelling field”
Duelling for civilians had always been illegal so
every effort was made to conceal the identity
of the duellists.
This was not William Brewers first involvement
in a duel. In 1840 he was teased about a young
lady and threatened to “call out” the next man
who spoke of this issue.
John Kelly, a surveyor, continued the taunting
and a duel was held on Oneroa Beach. Brewer
had a close call there when part of his wig was
shot away. He maybe should have hung up
his duelling pistol when he was ahead!
In New Zealand there were 30 duels recorded
prior to 1877, however, the Ross-Brewer duel
was the first that resulted in a death. This death
prompted The New Zealand Gazette and
Wellington Spectator to publish an article that
“Condemned duelling and exhorted the
Legislature to deal with this barbarous custom”
It has to be assumed that the custom has gone
out of favour as we do not hear of too many
lawyers settling their grievances via a duel today.
The New Zealand Law Society Complaints
service may be less painful!
24
Canterbury
Canterburytales
tales
Case summaries (60)
Nuku v R, Glazebrook, Ellen France
& White JJ, Court of Appeal, CA
113—2012, [2012] NZCA 584, 13
December 2012 (reasons)
SENTENCE
Unsuccessful appeal against sentence of 3
years imprisonment - wounding with intent to
injure under s188(2) Crimes Act 1961;
escaping lawful custody under s120(1)(c) guilty plea - judgment of permanent Court application of sentencing guidelines in R v
Taueki to offences involving infliction of violence
other than under s188(1) relating to grievous
bodily harm - offending against appellant’s
former partner shortly after she separated from
him - appellant arrested for threatening
partner’s father convicted in DC the following
day - in early hours of next morning appellant
gained entry to victim’s address by climbing
onto external heat pump and entering window
approx 3m above ground - victim had phoned
police after hearing him trying to gain entry and
finding text messages on her phone - DCJ noted
aggravating factors of harm to victim (physical
and emotional), vulnerability, extreme violence
and kicks to head and unlawful presence in
dwelling house - Judge emphasised offending
occurred within 36 hours of sentence for other
offending relating to victim when appellant was
ordered to come up for sentence if called upon
- starting point of 3 years imprisonment
determined on basis of bands in Taueki and R
v Harris and offending “in the middle of the
full sentencing range that is available” - uplift
of 3 months for charge of escaping lawful
custody and further 5 months for prior violent
offending - discount of 15% allowed for late
guilty plea (8 months) - final sentence of 3
years imprisonment adopted in terms of totality
of offending with concurrent term of 3 months
for escaping lawful custody - grounds for
appeal: - (i) starting point too high on basis of
offending in band 2 of Harris and comparison
with injuries in Harris assessed as moderate to
serious; - (ii) uplift of 5 months for prior
convictions too high; - (iii) 5% credit for
remorse ought to have been allowed - full
consideration by permanent Court of Taueki
and Harris and application of Harris to offences
falling below offences of grievous bodily harm
identified in Taueki, namely those under
s189(1) (injuring with intent to cause grievous
bodily harm), s188(2) (wounding with intent
to injure or with reckless disregard) and
s191(2) (aggravated injury) - Crown argued: (i) offence of injuring with intent to injure dealt
with in Harris should be considered separately
from offences in s189(1), s188(2) and
s191(2) on basis it was not “a serious violent
offence” under three strikes provisions of
Sentencing Act 2002 and definition in s2(1)
of the Crimes Act nor was it a qualifying violent
offence for preventive detention under s87
Sentencing Act; - (ii) potential for inconsistency
in exercise of prosecutorial discretion in
selection of charges and possibility of
overcharging could be met within Taueki
methodology of overlapping bands and ability
to depart from guidelines in cases involving
lesser culpability; - (iii) Taueki guidelines should
be adjusted down for offences other than those
covered in Harris rather than Harris adjusted
upwards to reflect lower maximum penalties appellant argued: - (i) desire to achieve
consistency in sentencing by structured band
of sentences based on maximum penalty could
result in excessive sentences due to
discretionary selection of charge; - (ii) grouping
of offences on basis of intent was sound basis
on which to assess adaptation of Taueki
guidelines for other violent offending; - (iii)
bands specified in Harris were appropriate for
guideline decision relating to s188(2) and
s189(2) save for increase at top end of band
3 for s188(2) offences or creation of fourth
band to cover excessive harm - CA noted
crucial conceptual difference relating to intent
between offences to which Taueki guidelines
applied and violent offending provisions under
s189(2), s191(2) and s188(2) - aspects of
Taueki decision did not sit comfortably with
those offences where intent merely to cause
injury - CA noted difficulties with approach in
Harris where there was no congruence
between intent and injury -preferred approach
consistent with other modern guideline
judgments where aggravating and mitigating
factors of offending were built into banding
decision rather than considered afterwards as
approach in Harris would suggest - starting point
bands not to be set by reference to seriousness
New Zealand’s legal research tool
of injury as in Harris - seriousness of offending
to be assessed by weighing all relevant
aggravating factors consistent with Taueki seriousness of injury to be taken into account
as aggravating factor with care where there was
significant disparity between extent of injury and
level of violence - three overlapping bands
provided as guidance on adaptation of Taueki
to lesser charges rather than separate guideline
judgment in own right - HELD: (A) general
sentencing guidelines: - (1) Harris replaced with
following guidance applicable to offending
under s189(2, s188(2) and s191(2) where
offending involved intent to injure: - (i) band 1
- few aggravating factors, level of violence
relatively low and culpability at level that might
have been better reflected in less serious
charge - sentence less than imprisonment
might be appropriate; - (ii) band 2 - starting
point of 3 years imprisonment appropriate
where three or fewer of Taueki aggravating
factors present; - (iii) band 3 - starting point of
2 years up to statutory maximum of 5 or 7
years where three or more of Taueki aggravating
factors present and combination of factors was
particularly serious - presence of high level of
or prolonged violence was aggravating factor
of such gravity as generally to require starting
point within band 3 even if there were few
other aggravating factors; - (2) degree of
flexibility provided and evaluative nature of
sentencing exercise recognised by overlapping
bands as in Taueki - aggravating factors in Taueki
applicable and sentencing Judge required to
evaluate seriousness of particular aggravating
factor as well as identify factor - guidance not
to be applied in formulaic or mechanistic
manner; - (3) approach to be applied to all
sentencing for offences under s189(2),
s188(2) and s191(2) from day after judgment
delivered - exceptions for sentence indications
given and relied on and appeals filed in respect
of sentences imposed prior to release of
judgment - process in R v AM to be followed; (B) (N’s appeal) assuming applicable guideline
was Harris, no error in Judge placing offending
squarely within band 3 on basis of moderate
physical injuries but significant emotional harm
- Judge right to see home invasion as
significantly aggravating seriousness of
offending - nothing wrong with taking account
of maximum sentence when assessing
culpability which was always relevant factor - 5
month uplift for previous convictions fully
justified in particular because of immediacy of
offending after that relating to victim’s father far from type of remorse that would justify extra
allowance over and above allowance for guilty
plea - generous reduction for late guilty plea sentence well within range - RESULT: - (i)
general sentencing guidelines applying Taueki
to offences under s189(2), s188(2) and
s191(2); - (ii) N’s appeal against sentence
dismissed.
Canterbury tales
Library News
By Julia de Friez
Librarian
Until recently, work was well
underway for the return of the
Library to the Courts Building
scheduled for April 2013.
Unfortunately progress came to a sudden halt
when Mainzeal Property and Construction Ltd
went into receivership on Waitangi Day.
Mainzeal had the contract for the remediation
and refit of the river side of the Courts complex
(adjacent to the Tower) known as the Link and
Law Library building. This area still has restricted
access under s45 Canterbury Earthquake
Recovery Act 2011, so the Library is unable to
return to the building until all the remedial work
is complete.
As part of the redesign of this part of the
complex, the Ministry advised that some Library
floor space was required for Ministry use. Until
recently we were working on the basis of
relinquishing 56m of Library floor space,
however this has now be reduced to 34m
which is the alcove area just inside the afterhours entrance door.
5
You will notice many changes when the Library
is operational once again from the Courts
building. Due to loss of some shelf space, the
layout of shelving has had to be completely
revised. We hope lawyers find the new layout
is an improvement and that it’s easier to find
your way around the collection.
Creating suitable computer and quiet study
areas for lawyers has also been an important
aspect of the redesign of the Library space.
Probably the most significant change will be
access to the Library. The main entrance to the
Library will be what was previously the afterhours door (near the alcove). Access to the
Library from within the main Courts building
will be quite different.
Swipe card access to the Library during business
hours will be via an internal entrance near a
new “Customer Service Centre” desk on Level
2 of the Courts building. 24/7 swipe card
access will still be available via the Chester
Street West door. An alternative arrangement
will be set up for those who come to the Library
without a swipe card.
We understand the Library is included in plans
for the new Justice and Emergency Services
Precinct as per the Christchurch Central
Recovery Plan. This has yet to be approved by
Cabinet at the time of writing.
The photos on this page will give some idea of
what is been happening in the Library of late!
We hope to be able to give some information
about our return date in the next issue of
Canterbury Tales. In the meantime feel free
to contact the Library if you would like to know
more.
Contact us
For further information about the Library
collection or for research or document delivery
requests, please contact us by email —
canterbury@nzlslibrary.org.nz or phone 3771852.
Top, reconfigured shelving in main part of the Library. Below, major changes
underway. Right, new wall will close off alcove area.
26
Canterbury
Canterburytales
tales
Another accolade
for Philip Joseph
University of Canterbury law professor, Philip
Joseph, received the 2012 Research Medal
at the University of Canterbury’s graduation
ceremony in December 2012.
Professor Joseph has an international
reputation in the fields of constitutional and
administrative law, also known as public law.
He was promoted to the rank of Professor in
2001 and has produced approximately 150
publications during his academic career.
His most influential publication is his sole
authored text Constitutional and
Administrative Law in New Zealand. The
first edition, published in 1993, took six years
to complete. The second edition was
published in 2001 and the third edition,
published in 2007, runs to more than 1300
pages. A fourth edition is being prepared.
This text on constitutional and administrative
law is relied upon by the legal profession and
the courts in New Zealand, and is regularly
cited in the courts in all common law
countries especially Australia, Canada, the
United Kingdom and the Pacific Islands.
Professor Joseph has won the JF Northey
Memorial Book Award and the Sir Ian Barker
Published Article Award - both of these
awards are for the best article or text
published by a New Zealand-based legal
academic. He has been awarded a Rutherford
Visiting Scholarship at Trinity College,
Cambridge, and in 2004 was conferred the
higher degree Doctor of Laws by the
University of Canterbury.
Justice John Fogarty of the High Court said
Professor Joseph was regarded as “not only
Professor Joseph.......in world class.
the author of the authoritative textbook but
also as the leading scholar in New Zealand
on Public Law”.
The Dean of Law at the University of Otago,
Professor Mark Henaghan, said Professor
Joseph’s research covers every aspect of how
New Zealand is governed in Parliament, the
Courts and all other branches of Government.
“His work analyses the really important debate
about the nature of the Treaty of Waitangi
and where it fits in our constitutional
framework. It is the breadth and depth of this
work that makes it unique. It is a massive
contribution to the wellbeing of New
Zealand’s legal system.”
Professor Sir Jeffrey Jowell, Director of the
Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law in
London, said Professor Joseph was one of
the leading public law scholars in the
common law world today. — Kip Brook
ACC help
after fatality
When someone dies from an injury, ACC may
be able to provide a range of financial help.
This can include a contribution towards funeral
expenses as well as one-off grants and on-going
assistance for the deceased person’s partner
and dependants.
ACC has noted that in some cases, during the
interaction between clients and their lawyer in
as far as deceased estates are concerned there
is not always a discussion or direction given to
the client regarding ACC entitlements available
to the surviving partner and dependants.
ACC cover and assistance may be available if
death was caused by an accident, a workrelated disease or infection, suicide or medical
treatment.
The help ACC may provide applies regardless
of any life, funeral or other insurance the person
had. It also may apply regardless of how old
they were, what they were doing when injury
occurred, whether it was something they did
or someone else’s actions that led to their injury
or where the injury happened. Families of
visitors to New Zealand who get injured here
may also qualify for help.
Making a Claim
To find out if a person is eligible a claim must
first be made. The claim can be made by calling
0800 101 996.
See table next page to see what help is
available.
Canterbury tales
7
What type of help can ACC provide?
Help available
Amount payable
Information we need
Please note: if you’re applying for more
than one type of help ACC only require
one copy of the document
Funeral grant
•
a one-off non-taxable payment towards
burial, cremation and related ceremonies
• paid-for funerals in New Zealand or
overseas
• payment made to the estate of the
deceased person or to the funeral director
Survivor’s grant
•
a one-off non-taxable payment to the
partner, children and anyone dependent on
the deceased person because of a disability
Current maximum:
• $5,879.81
• Advice of Accidental death (ACC21)
• Funeral invoice
• Funeral grant payment authority (ACC136)
• Receipt of payment if funeral invoice has
been paid
Current maximum:
• $6,303.91 (spouse), or
• $3,151.97 (child under 18 or other
dependant)
For partner
• Marriage certificate/civil union certificate; or
statutory declaration confirming de facto
relationship
• Bank account deposit slip
For children
•
Full birth certificate/adoption papers; or
statutory declaration confirming parent-like
relationship
• Bank account deposit slip (parent’s account
if under 16)
For other dependant
•
Full birth certificate/adoption papers; or
statutory declaration confirming parent-like
relationship or other relationship
• Bank account deposit slip
Childcare payments
• weekly non-taxable payments to the child’s
caregiver
• paid for up to five years or until child turns
14 (unless child has a disability - in this case
we can reassess to see if payments can
continue for longer)
Weekly compensation
• paid to dependants who relied on financial
support from the deceased person
(dependants include the partner, children and
anyone dependent on the deceased person
because of a disability)
Payments to partner continue until latest of:
• end of five consecutive years from the date
payments started
• date the youngest child cared for, who is
also a dependant of the deceased person,
turns 18
Payments to children stop at the end of the
year they turn 18, unless they’re in full-time
study, in which case payments can continue
until they:
• complete full-time study, or
• turn 21
Payments to ‘other dependants’ continue until
they earn more than the minimum full-time
earner rate.
Note: NZ Superannuation may affect your
payments.
Per week:
•
$80.42 for each
child)
• $187.67 (for three or more children, divided
evenly)
Full birth certificate/adoption papers; or
statutory declaration confirming parent-like
relationship
• Bank account deposit slip
• Written confirmation of who the childcare
arranger is
Amount paid is generally based on 80% of
the deceased person’s earnings.
• Marriage certificate/civil union certificate; or
• $134.05 (for one child)
• $160.84 (for two children,
Payments divided amongst survivors:
• a partner receives up to 60% of the amount
paid
• children under 18 receive up to 20% of the
amount paid (paid to caregiver if child under
16)
• other dependants receive up to 20% of the
amount paid.
Total payable to all survivors cannot exceed
80% of the deceased person’s earnings.
For partner
statutory declaration confirming de facto
relationship
• IRD number (in writing)
• Tax code (in writing)
• Bank account deposit slip
For children
•
Full birth certificate/adoption papers; or
statutory declaration confirming parent-like
relationship
• IRD number (in writing)
• Tax code (in writing)
• Bank account deposit slip (parent’s account
if under 16)
For other dependant
•
Full birth certificate/adoption papers; or
statutory declaration confirming parent-like
relationship or other relationship
• IRD number (in writing)
• Tax code (in writing)
• Bank account deposit slip
ACC are offering training sessions to Law firms on Fatal Entitlements and there is the opportunity for Q&A. The sessions take approximately 30
minutes. If you are interested you can contact Jayden McCullough, Relationship Manager—Intermediaries, ACC, Insurance and Prevention Services
on phone 0800 101 996.
28
Canterbury
Canterburytales
tales
Libraries under threat
Libraries — we have all used them
at some point in our lives. Many of
us still use them and some of us
are lucky enough to spend our
working days in one. In one form
or another they are ubiquitous.
Always were and always will be.
Well maybe not.
The Law Library at the University of Canterbury
is no more. Though some of our readers will
remember further back, my first memory of
the Law Library is as a small glassed-in section
of level 4 of the Central Library at the University.
From there it ascended 2 floors to become a
recognised library with books — double shelved
for lack of space, dedicated library staff, no
seating room for first-years and not much for
anyone else, but it worked.
Then in 1973 the law library was moved to the
two floors of the new law schoolbuilding, where
it was the venue for the official opening by Sir
Ivor Richardson.
It was an exciting time. To begin with there was
a sense of spaciousness, a re-invigoration and
inspiration. After the cramped sixth floor,
shelving the book collection was a dream — all
that space (that wasn’t to last).
There was room for all Law Students to study,
staff had decent workspace and at the
beginning of the academic year the Law Library
was in business. The Law Librarian, Margaret
Greville and Deputy Law Librarian Theresa
Graham led an initial team of six, all responsible
By
Mary
Cain
Research
Librarian
for ensuring a dedicated law library service
for staff, researchers and undergraduates.
Many current practitioners passed through as
student assistants and as a result of their
experience more than one made a career
swerve away from the practice of the law to
librarianship.
It was also the beginning of digital technology
and the law library was at the forefront of
running training sessions on the use of
computers and the accessing of databases. In
those days training sessions began with “this
is a mouse”.
Over the years the number of staff increased,
the range of training sessions increased and
included not only the accessing of technology
but more in-depth subject-based tutorials. The
university in the last decade of the twentieth
century was still a managerialist-free zone.
The academic pursuit was seen as a good in
itself. Well-stocked academic libraries were still
seen as integral to scholarship and the
professional skills of academic librarians were
held in high regard.
The Law Library book collection was built up to
become one of the best in the country. Strong
collegial ties with other law librarians, and law
school staff as well as continuing professional
development, ensured that staff kept up-to-date
with all that was good in law librarianship.
The Law Library developed into a thriving centre
of support for legal scholarship. University life
went on but organisationally things began to
change. A more corporate-managerialist culture
started its creep.
Staff were no longer staff but a resource — and
it became necessary to add the qualifier human
to distinguish them from other resources. It was
no longer unusual to hear people refer to the
university as a business and thus began the
application of business models to the
university’s administration.
In 2010 there ensued what can only be called
a decimation of library staff within the university.
Redundancies were enforced, collections
dismantled, highly specialised staff teams were
scattered. The Law stacks had to be weeded
to make room for the commerce collection.
Then there were the earthquakes...and damage
to university buildings.
And now February 2013 the Law Building is
closed for extensive repair. The law books have
been moved to the Central Library and are
shelved with the main sequence of books. The
law book and serial budgets have been slashed.
The staff have also been removed to the Central
Library and the Law Library is no more.
University libraries were often cited as being
the heart of a university. You may well still hear
it, though I do wonder. Libraries in general are
thought of as being at the heart of a literate
culture. Unfortunately, like the organic object
they tend to be ignored, accepted as being vital
perhaps with no real thought given as to their
state of health until it is too late.
It is too late for the Law Library at the university.
It is dead. But it is not the only library in trouble.
Libraries are international institutions;
librarianship is an international profession.
Public libraries are under enormous stress. In
the United Kingdom over 200 public libraries
have been recently closed. Funders are wanting
to staff libraries with volunteers. (And to stock
shelves with donated books?)
In the United States, the birthplace of the
modern public library, libraries are being forced
to close. In New Zealand libraries are under
pressure “to perform” hence the rise inadd ons
such cafes and in some cases library charges.
The challenges to the library culture cannot be
discussed in a short article but they are real
and if the measures that are currently applied
to libraries are allowed to continue we will see
a further decline of libraries and library service
and, at some point more library closures.
Libraries are key signifiers of a vibrant literate
culture and a healthy body politic. Use them!
Canterbury tales
9
Comings & Goings
Joined firm/organisation
Jennifer Acker (Buddle Findlay) Simon Barr
(Dept of Conservation, from Dept Conservation
Dunedin) Charlotte Becker (Geddes &
Maciaszek), Kylie Campbell (Airways
Corporation of New Zealand Ltd), Christina
Clarke (Cooney Silva Evatt Ltd) Vanessa
Clements (Goodman Tavendale Reid), Anna
Kissick (Brandts-Giesen McCormick), John La
(A.B. Lawyers Ltd), Ami Lee (Alpers & Co,
Northwest Law Office) Cheuk Ying Lee (Cherry
Kannangara Thomson), Nathan Lines
(Cuningham Taylor), Hannah Marks
(Greenwood Roche Chisnall, Christchurch
Branch), Anne Montgomery-Lee (Layburn
Hodgins Ltd), Rachel Morrison (Kearney & Co),
Kiran Paima (MOJ - Public Defence, from MOJ
- Public Defence Service Wellington), Lauren
Semple (Greenwood Roche Chisnall,
Christchurch Branch), Caitlin Stack (nee
Graham, Corcoran French), Sarah Townsend
(Duncan Cotterill) Janice Williams (Petrie
Mayman Clark), Kirstie Wyss (Wynn Williams
Lawyers).
Moved
Moana Cole (MOJ - Ministry of Public Defence,
was barrister).
David Hayward (Suburban Law, was barrister).
Tania Reid (Duncan Cotterill to Tomlinson Law).
Change of Status
Jeremy Johnson, partner with Wynn Williams
Lawyers as from 1.1.13
Catherine Muir, partner with Malley & Co
Lawyers as from 8.2.13.
Margaret Smyth, partner with Papprills as from
20.12.12.
Dean Palmer, retired from partnership of
Anderson Lloyd, to remain as a consultant.
New barrister/sole practitioner/firm
John Craw, lawyer, commenced as a sole
practitioner as from 17.1.13, previously with
White Fox & Jones), 41 Wharf Road, RD2,
Diamond Harbour 8972, phone (03) 3294279.
Dean van Mierlo, commenced as barrister as
from 19.12.12, previously with Department of
Conservation), CMB 45, RD 1, Runanga 7873,
ph 021 023 21903.
Teng Fong Pang, recommenced as barrister as
from 7.1.13, (previously with Purnell Creighton)
3 Constable Place, Halswell, Christchurch 8025,
phone 322-7374.
Greenwood Roche Chisnall have opened a
branch office in Christchurch, PO Box 139
Christchurch 8140, phone 365-0800.
Change of details
Cavell Leitch Pringle & Boyle now known as
Cavell Leitch.
Cavell Leitch has opened a branch office in
Queenstown, Level 2 Mountaineering Building,
32 Rees Street, PO Box 1513, Queenstown
9348. Phone (03) 409-2006, fax (03) 4092007,
Barry Ching, cell phone 027 283 2322, no
landline or fax.
Tim Fournier, barrister, Unit 4, 45 Chester Street
West, phone 930-4131.
Austin Forbes QC, new email address,
office@austinforbesqc.co.nz.
Anthony Wilding, barrister, phone (03) 3515962, 021 595 599, fax number now
deleted.
2
10
Canterbury
Canterburytales
tales
FBI turns to Canterbury-Westland
boimetrics to Branch/NZLS
get their man Education
The US Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) has started
using its new $1 billion biometric
Next Generation Identification
System (NGI).
Biometrics refers to the identification of
humans by their characteristics or traits,
generally, biological characteristics such as
facial features, DNA, voice and eyes.
NGI is a database that consists of photos,
iris scans, DNA records, voice samples and
other biometrics that will help identify
wanted persons, however some privacy
advocates are questioning how this
biometric data is gathered as, at this stage,
it is collated in America through nationwide
networks of cameras and photo databases.
The pilot test of the facial recognition
system in NGI will soon extend into other
areas of biometrics such as DNA and iris
scans.
While this may all seem to be very futuristic,
New Scientist has written that facial
recognition systems can now match a single
face from a library of 1.6 million photos
with 92% accuracy in 1.2 seconds. If these
recognition systems have a well-lit face and
photo the accuracy approaches 100%.
Historically FBI has used the Integrated
Automated Fingerprint Identification System
(IAFIS) to identify wanted persons.
However, this system will soon be outdated.
It must been noted that fingerprinting is not
completely reliable as a form of recognition
as the equipment used cannot differentiate
between an original fingerprint and a “lifted”
one, hence, the scenes in well-known
movies where entry is gained to buildings
by using a fingerprint lifted off a glass is not
complete fiction.
However as the “run of the mill” wanted
person would probably not have had the
know-how to substitute their fingerprints for
those of another person lifted off a glass, it
has been a system that has worked quite
well.
While biometrics is not new science as New
Zealand passports have been utilising it
since 2005 it is of course being improved
and it will most likely be part of daily police
work here in New Zealand if and when a
complete database is available.
Something for all of us to bear in mind for
the future.
Programme
Proudly sponsored by
9 — Conflict, governance and professionalism.
15 — Building profitability leverage leadership
and management.
May
13 — Privacy Seminar.
21 — Trusts for Family Lawyers.
22 — Criminal Procedure Act Intensive.
28-29 — Lawyer as negotiator.
June
6-7 June — Introduction to Company Law.
10 — Tricky issues in the life of a lawyer.
13,14,15 — Stepping up, foundation for
practising on own account.
18 — Secrets of Success workshop.
25 — Torts update.
August
15 — Employment Law Conference, held by
Employment Law Committee. Watch out for
notice.
Out of Christchurch
NZLS Continuing Legal
Education (CLE Limited)
To register and for other information check
the CLE website,
www.lawyerseducation.co.nz
Christchurch
March
4 — Ethics, framing costs and managing client
expectations, webinar.
8 — Duty Solicitor training programme.
11 — Dealing with Difficult People.
19 — Takeovers Code, an overview, webinar.
21 — Trust Account Administrators 2013.
22 — Getting the information you need to
win your case, Webinar.
April
5 — How to double your productivity and
work enjoyment.
9 — Equitable remedies.
Mediation for Lawyers Part B Family Law
2013, Wellington 1-3 March, Auckland 1214 April.
AIJA, The pursuit of excellence and innovation
in courts and tribunals, Auckland 7-9 March.
Introduction to Criminal Law Practice, 18-19
April Wellington, 22-23 April Auckland.
Unit Titles Intensive, Wellington 29 April,
Auckland 30 April.
Public Sector Governance Intensive, 29 May,
Wellington.
Trusts conference best practice in 2013,
Wellington 6-7 June, Auckland 13-14 June.
Advanced litigation skills for criminal and civil
litigators, Wellington June 9-13.
.
Social
Trackside dining at Addington Raceway — a
function for all practitioners. Enter in your
diaries, Friday 3 May 2013, organised by the
Family Law Committee Canterbury Westland
Branch.
Hunter Cup golf, Friday 12 April at Waitikiri.
Watch for flyer for Junior Practitioners
Boardroom Bash.
Canterbury tales
Situation Vacant
11
Quake heroes
honoured
Continued from Page 1
The ladder was too short, so the men formed
a human ladder, with each man holding the
man above him around the top of his thighs
and waist. They then persuaded the women
to jump about a metre across to the person at
the top of the human ladder.
Whilst rescuing these people there were many
aftershocks, which caused the building to rain
rubble down on them. Before the second
woman was rescued a large 5.9 aftershock
struck. It looked like the external stairs might
come down on them but they continued to
persevere. Vanessa, together with a doctor
called Mark, who worked in our building as a
researcher, set up a triage station and
administered first aid to survivors.
Vanessa and Mark assisted many people, at
least 10-15, before medical professionals
arrived.
They dealt with survivors with horrendous
injuries including crush and traumatic injuries
and assisted with whatever was at hand.
Others ran to get ice from a shop and first aid
kits. After the medics arrived they stayed on
to assist.
After rescuing people from the PGC, David,
Richard, Andrew and Toby then set about
finding jacks from cars and assisting with the
rescue by carrying survivors on stretchers
fashioned from a door and blankets to the
triage station.
Throughout all of this there were many
aftershocks, sirens wailing and general anarchy.
My colleagues managed to keep their heads
together, to remain calm and to treat the
survivors with dignity. I have huge admiration
for the work they did that day. They were so
courageous and really did step up to the
challenge, putting thoughts of their own safety
to one side.
2
12
Canterbury
Canterburytales
tales
JP’s final outing for 2012
(From the better late than
never department)
The Junior Practitioners held
their final Boardroom Bash for
2012 on Friday 23 November
in the DB Breweries/Young
Hunter Boardroom in Wrights
Road.
Another successful evening
was enjoyed by all that
attended and thanks must go
to Stephanie Grieve for her
organisation skills.
2013 Junior Practitioners Committee
The Junior Practitioners held their AGM on Tuesday 9th February and
the 2013 Committee was elected. Stephanie Grieve has been appointed
the convenor and other roles on the committee will be appointed at the
first meeting.
The Junior Practitioners Committee for 2013 is made up as follows:
Madeleine Thwaites, Cooney Silva Evatt, Robbie McCrea, Lane Neave,
Ben Brown, Lane Neave, Sophie Goodwin, Lane Neave, James Pullar,
SB LAW, Allanah Shaw, Wynn Williams, Charlotte Webber, Wynn Williams,
Christopher Newman, Raymond Donnelly & Co, Stephanie Grieve, Young
Hunter, Lauren Adams, Chapman Tripp, David Dingwall, Mortlock
McCormack, Letitia Stenberg, Harmans Lawyers.
If there are any issues you would like to see put on the committee
agenda please contact Sandy Hopkin at the Law Society office on email
sandy.hopkin@lawsociety.org.nz or phone 357-5304.
Also watch out for further notices of up and coming events and monthly
bulletins from the committee.