I'm becoming a fan to The Times published in the UK. The English is sooooooooo much better than any of the crap English newspapers you get here. In particular, I'm becoming a fan to the columnist, David Pannick QC. I'd like to have a chance to work with him and see what he's really like. Here's another great article he had written recently.

************************************

Law

The Times December 13, 2005

And the winners are...
By David Pannick, QC
Foolish judges, noisy counsel and wacky law suits - the howlers and humours of 2005

AT A preliminary hearing of his trial in Baghdad, Saddam Hussein refused to obey a request to state his full name, asking the court “Are you judges?” There were a large number of candidates this year for the award for the judge who least looked the part.
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, allowed an appeal from an immigration decision by Judge Nathan Gordon which it described as “literally incomprehensible” and appearing to be “an unedited version of a badly transcribed, rambling set of oral observations”. The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal decided that the decision of Mr Justice Yam after a 172-day trial of a dispute about the will of billionaire Teddy Wang was “blatantly wrong”, and “unbalanced and unjudicial”. Counsel described one aspect of the trial as “a cock-up”. Lord Scott of Foscote (one of the judges) commented that this was “a description from which I do not dissent”. But the winner of the award for least judicious judge is Franklin Jones, of New Hampshire, who resigned after groping five women at a conference on sexual assault and domestic violence.

Most unusual sentence of 2005 was imposed by Judge Lauri Blake in Dallas, Texas. As a condition of probation for an offence of drug possession, the judge ordered Christina Brazier, 17, not to have sex so long as she lived with her parents and attended school. Judicial question of 2005 was from Judge Seddon Cripps at St Albans Crown Court. Puzzled by the concept of a “sofa bed”, he asked a witness: “How can a bed be turned into a sofa?” Flexible judge of the year was Caroline Ludlow, sitting at Ipswich Crown Court, who sentenced a defendant, Aftab Ahmed, to 140 hours of community service by mobile phone when a traffic jam delayed his appearance in court.

Most embarrassing apology by a barrister was from Hong Kong counsel Roderick Murray, for his false statements to the press outside the District Court that he had sex on two occasions with the female judge before whom he had just made a drunken appearance. He was suspended from practice for six months. Most acrimonious dispute of the year between judge and lawyer was at Harrow Crown Court, where Judge Sanders asked Justin Bearman, counsel for the Crown in the case of a man cleared of rape, how long he had been a barrister. When Bearman replied “long enough”, the judge responded, “but everything you say is utter rubbish”.

Oddest defendant of this year (and any year) was Michael Jackson, who a California jury found not guilty on charges of child molestation. During the trial he brought his “personal magician”, Majestic Magnificent, to sit with him. After the verdict, Jackson sent each juror an armband inscribed “Love Always”.

The Jackson trial also resulted in other awards. Witness of the year was television chat-show host Jay Leno, testifying for Jackson. At the conclusion of his evidence he turned to the jury and said, “I have Renée Zellweger on the show tonight”. The prize for inaccurate legal scoop of 2005 goes to the Daily Star for reporting (almost credibly in the context of such legal lunacy) that Jackson would call as his star witness Bubbles, his pet chimpanzee, with California’s famous ape, Koko, a sign-talking gorilla, acting as interpreter.

The Jackson trial was also commended in the category of enthusiastic prosecutor of the year after Tom “Mad Dog” Sneddon began his opening statement by shouting so loudly that the court’s sound system malfunctioned. But the winner of the award was the Arkansas prosecutor hoping for a useful witness who subpoenaed everyone to whom a defendant in prison awaiting trial for murder had sent letters. Including his dog.

Least persuasive testimonial for a judicial appointee was President George W. Bush’s comment that his personal lawyer, Harriet Miers, is “plenty bright” and so was being nominated by him to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. When it became obvious that the Senate would not confirm her as bright enough, Miers wisely asked for her nomination to be withdrawn. A special award this year for the provision of too much information by a Supreme Court nominee: it goes to John Roberts, the new Chief Justice of the United States, who jokingly told the Senate Judiciary Committee, in response to criticism that he was not forthcoming in answer to questions, that his favourite films are Doctor Zhivago and North by Northwest.

Most foolish judicial decision of the year was the injunction granted by a court in British Columbia, Canada, after a bookshop inadvertently broke the embargo on the sale of the latest Harry Potter novel by a few days. Customers who had already bought the book were prohibited from reading their copies until after the official publication date. Least credible interpretation of the Human Rights Act was the ruling by managers at Calderdale Royal Hospital in Halifax, West Yorkshire, that visitors to the maternity wing should not fawn over newborn babies because of their right to privacy.

Among the important civil claims this year, the £850 million misfeasance claim brought by the liquidators of BCCI against the Bank of England collapsed after 256 days in court. The European Court of Human Rights stated that you have the right to marry your former mother-in-law, that a general ban on voting by all prisoners breaches their human rights and that two campaigners who distributed a leaflet libelling the McDonald’s fast food chain were denied their rights to free speech and to a fair hearing.

The Michael Howard-David Blunkett award for the Home Secretary with the coldest relationship with the legal profession goes to Charles Clarke, who told the House of Commons that he had “spent decades of my life being patronised by lawyers, and I do not appreciate it”. Lord Woolf retired as Lord Chief Justice. His successor, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, commented that politicians should realise that judges “are all trying to do our jobs to the best of our abilities”. A former Home Secretary, Lord Hurd of Westwell, wisely observed that “obnoxious people of all descriptions tend to have good lawyers”.

A new category of award this year, for the client with the largest number of lawyers. The European Court of Human Rights rejected the complaint by Carlos the Jackal, once the most infamous terrorist in the world, about his prison conditions in France, pointing out that he had “received very frequent visits from his 58 lawyers”.

Cartoon of the year was by Pat Byrnes in The New Yorker. One lawyer says to another, “Remember, we can only afford to do all this pro bono because of how much anti bono pays”. Best legal headline was in The Sun. After Saddam Hussein threatened to sue the newspaper for printing pictures of him in his Y-fronts, The Sun responded with a threat of a counterclaim, under the headline: “We’ll sue the pants off you.”

As always, there were many contenders for most absurd lawsuit of the year. Pop star Bono successfully sued his former stylist in a Dublin court for the return of a pair of trousers and a hat that he said had “iconic status”. A prisoner in Romania is suing God for failing to save him from the Devil, in breach of the contract made at the time of his baptism. A woman in Brazil is claiming damages from her partner for failing to give her orgasms. And a special mention for the ridiculous legal dispute in which the radical preacher Abu Hamza refused to leave his cell to attend a preliminary hearing of criminal charges because of a disagreement over the length of his toenails.

But the winner of absurd lawsuit of 2005 is Marina Bai, an astrologer, who is suing the US space agency, Nasa, in a Moscow court for £172 million for launching a space probe into a comet, thereby, she alleges, “distorting my horoscopes”. No doubt she already knows the result of this, and all other lawsuits to be heard in 2006.

My friend Emily is going to NZ in Jan 2006 and asked for my advice on itinerary, motels, and so on. She only had a week, flying from Sydney. She wanted more to do with nature, rather than shopping. I recommended the south island and I gave her a summary of where we went and stayed in south island. Here is the email I sent her today. It's repeated here because it serves as a good summary.

*************************************************

The costal scenic route in south island I had in mind is this: http://www.newzealand.com/travel/destinations/themed-highways/southern-scenic-route/southern-scenic-route_home.cfm We really wanted to go, but we didn't have enough time. We said if we go back, we'll do that route.

We stayed at the following motels in the South island:

Dunedin - Portobello. We like this very much and ranked this as the best of all motels we stayed in NZ. We didn't think the photos on its website have done them justice.

Queenstown - Colonial Village. This is a definite *no* ! We didn't like it at all and were glad to get out.

Franz Josef - Alpine Glacier. This is pretty good. The units are recently renovated. The owners were very nice and friendly, the best we have met in NZ. They gave us good tips as to which heli-hike tour offered best guide that we should join.

Christchurch - Milano. This is very nice and the owners were friendly too. There wasn't much to do at Christchurch and we did a day trip to Kaikoura for whale watching, which was great !

The owners at Alpine Glacier told us that they also travelled within NZ. Their advice is not to stay with motels with the Bella Vista chain as the rooms/units are small. Our own observation is that you should try to avoid big chains including Scenic Circle, especially if you are going in January, which I think is high season for NZ. We saw many Asian tours/coaches and they all stay with the big chains, presumably because they would have enough units to accomodate the entire tour !

Similarly for Milford Sound. We went on a cruise with a smaller "boat" than the large ones and we were glad we did. The large one (e.g. The Red Cruise which is fairly well-known) was packed with tour groups!

As for the car, we got it from Ezi-rent.

Do you or your friend have an ipod? We got a Tune Cast Auto for iPod which worked great and gave us many hours of pleasurable music!

It fell on afternoon/evening of 17th Dec, the second day we were in Franz Josef after our heli-hike ...

It was disappointing and bb was saying "how inconvenient!" As it turned out, it was good as it's all cleared on the last evening we were in Rotorua and we shared a jacuzzi ...

Another example that humans are too foolish to understand God's plan!

It's the third day we returned from NZ. (returned on 24th Dec late afternoon). For the last two days, I stayed with her. Christmas mah. should be spent together. I wanted it to be so, although there are the usual tons to do after a two-week holiday - laundry in particular.

As bb said in her post, we shot tons of pictures. More than 2800 in all. Got a few videos with my camera too. We are both writing up about our trip so they will be posted later. Just be patient, and more patience for my bit please, as bb has already started writing and sorting photos, and she is the efficent one. Always!

I said I'll visit my brother and his family today. But my tummy hasn't been too good. no pain, but just uncomfortable. may bve I had too uch for hte last 2 weeks. that's an excuse in a way. I got up a bit later today, 7:30am. Got up, started washing machine for my laundry, and went back to bed hoping to sleep a bit more but couldn't. So I got up and caught up the tv program while I was away. Done that by 4:30pm. Yes, in other words, I spent today in front of a tv today. What really changed my mind was my state of mind. I was emotional. The tv program was about a solicitors' firm, not really one of those what bb calls emotionally-manipulating programs. but from time to time, I couldn't help sobbing away. I don't know if I'm fraid of tomorrow (because I need to return to work) or I simply miss my sis which I've been doing so for the last week. When I attended mass on Sunday morning, I was listening to what Father had to say to us, but at one stage, tears filled my eyes and I was sniffing. I wanted to run to the washroom to cry. I missed my sis so much! the memory of going to masses with her in Christmas was flooding in my head. I had to really control myself. We still have to sing the hymes.

Then came the part where we wished everyone "Peace be with you." I kept a low key, as I have always done in Sunday church. I smiled and still wished people peace as everyone does. But the smile on my face must be odd.

Yesterday, I went to the church's x'mas party. I don't know that many people, and am still struggling to memorise my Sunday church group. I kept smiling. In fact, I was starting to feel tired because of jet lag. It went well. The performance by the kids who attend Sunday church was really good. It was very sweet. But somehow, I didn't feel part of them. I didn't feel I fit in wel.. May be that's because I still don't know them well. It takes time. May be I'll feel more comfortable later.

Here's the link to weather in New Zealand- very good site. If you place your cursor above the name of the town, it gives you the weather in that town.

Partners' meeting this year will be held tonight at 5 p.m., so I was told. I'm not entirely bothered about whether I'll be made up or not, as I don't even think I've been put forward for this year. As I said to sf, it's a matter of time for me to leave this firm, whether they are going to make me up or not.

Strangely, throughout the whole of last night, I have this hymn in my heart, ringing in my ears:

"If you pass the raging water in the sea, you will not drown. If you passed the ... you will not be harmed. If you stand in barren land all because of me. Know that I am with you through it all.

(Chorus) Be not afraid. I go before you always. Come, follow me, and I will give you rest."

Really, the whole of last night, this morning, and even now! It's one of my favourite hymns. It reminds me I'm not alone and that I should have faith in God. We are too stupid to know the meaning of the current situation. It may dawn to us one day, it may never do.

I sent an sms to sf at lunch time, told him that partners' meeting is at 5pm and asked if he would be interested to go and get his ipod then. Yes, he said he wanted one that he can bring with him when he exercises in the gym. Still waiting for his reply.

He asked me what I want for Christmas this year. I said (in an sms last night): "You! Pls put a nice bow on it, n that has to be pink. n I won't settle for anything less :P " ha haa haaa!!

***********************************

sf called at around 2:30pm - I thought he'll call this evening and said he was in a meeting or something. We discussed the various models of ipods, and I (being mc) made enquiries with Apple Centres. It turned out the mini ipod is not made anymore, and all 4GB nano are sold out. sf wanted a 4GB so I called the shop back, left my name and phone number. They have no date as to when they would next receive nanos, but they said we were looking at Jan 2006. I left my name and number nevertheless. But sf was a little short. I feel he was just disposing a matter, and responded to my sms as a matter of courtesy. Oh well, may be he's offended by my sms last night about the bow in pink??

**********************************

My supervising partner came into my office this evening. He confirmed what I always suspected - I wasn't even put forward for this year. He said the issue was my billing. He asked me focus on that this year and I'll be put forward for next year. He said 3 were put forward for this year: 2 corporate finance and 1 from insurance litigation. They had outstanding billing and were of similar seniority to me, if not more senior. There's also political issue. He said everyone has their own people to protect and everyone wants to broaden their own base. Fair enough. I asked if my billing, although better than Richard, is the only issue. He said that's the most important issue. I told him it's not been entirely easy to work with that idiot partner and that's an understatement. May be that's because the case we are working together got so personal. I told him the opposite side is probably going after me next, in light of what the other side's partner said to me the life in Court today. I said that idiot partner has been making unfounded allegations against me e.g. he's concern about timing and quality of my work. The truth is that timing became an issue when he sat on the matter, and quality is stylistic changes he would like to make. My supervising partner however gave me an impression that if I have the requisite billing next year, he could deal with the others.

My supervising partner said he'll try to get a good salary increment for me this Thursday when the matter is discussed. He said that's another ground for putting forward for promotion.

I had work to do but I had no motivation after that chat. I'm and I'm not disappointed. To me, it's a matter of time when I'll move on, as I don't like this firm. As I said to sf before and repeated this evening, I'll move on when there's something better, even if they make me up this year.

THe above is the second time I'm typing this mail. When I was typing the previous paragraph for the first time, when I'm close to the end, the screen flicked and all gone. May be that's an indication that there's enough moan and groan.

I told sf and bb the above. Both of them were very, very supportive. I told sf that I had enough of politics and that's why I wanted to be a magistrate. That said, I've been reflecting on his words about his objection to the idea: Am I running from life?? sf said it's politics that made him made up his mind to have his own chamber. At the time, he had enough too. sf said again may be I should have stayed with my old firm. I reminded him how badly was my previous partner was behaving. I went into his office with a file in my hand one evening and he asked if I'm handing in my notice! Lucky I was. What if I wasn't? That would be unthinkable. sf said he could have brought enough pressure for me to stay until the end of the case. I said yes, but there may not be a place where I can go then.

It's easy with hindsight, but with this kind of things, not even hindsight can assist. (11:07pm)

Read bb's post re PB1. Sorry bb, that she has a lot of bills and wants new toys and I can't afford the two of us. sf has repeated today that he won't be my referee for permanent magistrate post. He's very supportive and has the highest regard for my ability. I'm not sure now. One thing he said right is that being a magistrte is very much running from reality. Do I want to be runner?? Would I regret it later, if I do?? The benefit of staying in private pratice is really a chance to earn enough so bb can stay home. May be she can write a book?? I only what her to do what she wants and enjoys doing, then I'm happy.

Personally, I feel I'm at a crossroad - confused and don't know what to do. I should pray more and have more faith in God. sf and I agreed today that God has everything planned. What seemed depressed when we lost soooo many times in that litigation we now have a miracle!

I'm a really happy person today. A few good things have happened:

1. bb's back (and she got me panda (sp) cake :) )
2. the charge against my client was dropped.
3. my best friend here told me where she's going - that's a very good city firm! (although I'll miss her ... )
4. sf called today. he said he's going to suggest to my client that I be instructed on some of the files on her other litigation! I was thrilled and flattered! That may not happen in due course, because it very much depend on my client, and she's against this firm because of the bad experience in the past - of ocurse, before I joined here lah. At the same time, I asked sf to do me a favour - to act as my referee re my character for my application as a magistrate. I'd expect him to say ok, but he said "no" ! no matter what I said, he said no. he even said if I put his name down and he's asked, he'll say I'm such a bad person that I'm unfit to be a magistrate! He said he disagree because I'm such a good litigator. I thanked him for that and said I want to get out of here asap, and there is an exit. I said I want a happy life. He said I'll be bored out of my mind. I said if that's the case, I can re-join the private practice or what not. We agreed to meet tomorrow and discuss. Question is : would we really meet?? :D

I've been thinking of bb a lot this week. much more than the last occasions when she's away. I kept looking at the clock today waiting for her plane to touch ground, and I would call her. But she called before I did - yes, she beat me again! well, nothing new. :)

Just had my dinner. seafood and spagetti in white cheese sauce. got it from Canteen downstairs. taste ok, a bit rich. As I'm soooo happy, I rewarded myself with a hot Korean juice. It costed me an extra $10. I usually just have tea that's available in the office (andI'm still here working) I'm so mean. :P

Dinner was a takeaway. I got 2 spoons for my spagetti and no fork! I used a pair of chopsticks :D

On my way back from Canteen to the office with my din din, I think of bb again. There was an urge to see her. It's already 8:40pm. I'll see her soon. :)