Presentation of the Oar Mace to the Auckland High Court
Friday 29 November 2002
JENNIFER SUTTON
(Chair of the New Zealand Branch of the Maritime Law Association of Australia and New Zealand and Vice-President of the Federal Association)
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:
1. I am privileged to be asked on this occasion to speak on behalf of the Association and to present to the Court the Oar Mace in memory of Bradley Harle Giles.
2. When the Association first considered how best to mark the contribution of His Honour to admiralty law the ideas mooted included a scholarship or the presentation of an Oar Mace. After consulting with Pru Giles it was determined that an Oar Mace was the appropriate way in which to acknowledge the significant role His Honour played in maritime and admiralty law in New Zealand, both as an advocate and as a Judge of this Court.
3. On behalf of the Association I extend a warm welcome to Pru Giles, and the other family members here today.
4. I am also delighted that we have in our presence several members of the judiciary of this Court and of the Australian Courts. This reflects the role of the Association on both sides of the Tasman. I wish to acknowledge the members of the Australian judiciary; Chief Justice Black and Justice Cooper of the Federal Court (Justice Cooper being a former Vice-President of the Association), and of course the Association's Federal President Justice Philippides of the Supreme Court of Queensland.
The Admiralty Jurisdiction in New Zealand
5. The admiralty jurisdiction is in some respects unusual. By some it may be described as an eccentric area of law. I beg to differ. The reality is that it is a field where the Court is confronted with disputes which by their nature often involve black letter law principles and the need to have regard to practical 21st Century commercial realities. The manner in which counsel and Judges grapple with admiralty disputes, calls upon a careful weighing of these sometimes conflicting considerations. More often than not the substantial admiralty cases (for example Turners & Growers Exports Ltd v. The Ship "Cornelis Verolme" [1997] 2 NZLR 110) concern situations involving a plethora of domestic and international legal issues, numerous parties with diverse interests, related proceedings in overseas jurisdictions, and substantial sums. The pragmatic manner in which cases in the admiralty jurisdiction are managed by the Court is an excellent example of the expeditious conduct of proceedings. In this regard it is important to acknowledge the fundamental "hands on deck" role of the Registrar in admiralty proceedings. I am pleased to see past and present Registars here today.
6. The admiralty jurisdiction in New Zealand has a somewhat unique history. This was recently the subject of an article published by Paul David in the New Zealand Law Journal. Many of you may not be aware that up until 1863 the New Zealand Court had no jurisdiction in admiralty; this is despite the fact that prior to that it sought to exercise such a jurisdiction. After opinions from many and various English office bearers, it was determined that it was necessary for specific legislation to be introduced to remedy the unfortunate position. The result was the Vice Admiralty Courts Act 1863, which bestowed the necessary jurisdiction upon the New Zealand Court.
Bradley Harle Giles
7. The contribution Justice Bradley Giles made to admiralty law in New Zealand, as both a practitioner and a Judge, cannot be underestimated. This is not a memorial sitting. (That took place in 1999 after His Honour's untimely passing.) However it is appropriate on this occasion to recall His Honour's contribution. He was a partner at Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartleet & Co. until he joined the independent Bar in 1991 and took Silk in 1995. His time on the Bench was all too short. He was appointed a Judge in 1997 and passed away only two years later at the young age of 55 while still in office, and after suffering a period of illness. I will say that as counsel appearing before His Honour in a large admiralty case which ran for a period up until his passing all counsel involved felt a deep feeling of sadness that we were losing a Judge who had a tremendous depth of knowledge and experience to bring to maritime law in New Zealand.
8. His Honour was a founding member of the New Zealand Branch of the Association and was a mentor to, or colleague of, many in the Association. I do not wish to run the risk of excluding anyone. However particular reference should be made to Paul David who led the admiralty practice at Russell McVeagh after His Honour joined the independent Bar.
9. The role of the judiciary in the Association is important and valued by our members. I am grateful to Justice Williams for his involvement in the New Zealand Branch in recent years since our loss of Bradley Giles.
The Oar Mace
10. It is no easy feat to bring an occasion such as this together. There are certain individuals I wish to thank. Tom Broadmore, the Immediate Past President of the Association, for his sterling efforts in co-ordinating the commission of the Oar Mace. Your Honours Justice Robertson and Justice Williams, who have been instrumental in making the necessary arrangements for this sitting of the Court. I also wish to specifically acknowledge the assistance provided by Pauline Barratt and Paul David.
11. Let me now give you some insight into the Oar Mace and its tradition.
12. The Oar Mace to be presented today has been crafted by Thorkild Hansen of Nelson. (As an aside, it is he who brought us "the" ring in the Lord of the Rings.) The blade has the admiralty pattern of the foul anchor and the national Coat of Arms on one side and, on the other, an inscription which reads -
"This Oar Mace, symbolising the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court of New Zealand, was presented to the Auckland Registry of the Court on 29 November 2002 by the Maritime Law Association of Australia and New Zealand and colleagues and friends of the late Bradley Harle Giles, 6 March 1944 - 23 April 1999. Its presentation honours the contribution he made to New Zealand maritime law, both as an advocate and as a Judge of the High Court from 6 March 1997 to 23 April 1999."
13. This Oar Mace differs from the few that exist around the world today, in two main respects. The first is the wooden shaft turned from our native Rata; others are made entirely of silver. The second is the Seal of the High Court which is on the base of the Mace. (This technique was first used for the Melbourne Oar Mace.)
14. It became evident from my research that the exact origin of admiralty oars is far from certain. What information there is discloses a fascinating history behind oar maces. This has been canvassed in a few articles, and highlights the fearsome environment in which the silver oar was originally used many centuries ago. (By way of illustration, the historical summaries record that it was carried by the Deputy-Marshal in England as a symbol of the Admiralty Court's authority as he led sombre processions of those pirates or condemned sailors to be executed at the water's edge.)
15. What is clear is that by 1360 a silver oar was used as a symbol of authority of the High Court of Admiralty in England when maritime actions were judged. The silver oar in the form of a mace dates from at least 1559, when Queen Elizabeth I was crowned. It has been suggested that the idea of a mace was derived from the experience the English gained on the Continent during the Crusades. At that time relatively few people were literate. The mace proved to be a means of verification of authority. The staff of the mace was hollow, to allow for papers to be carried within.
16. Articles also record that there was a belief that no person could be arrested on board ship, or a ship itself detained, unless the Admiralty Marshal's Deputy produced a silver miniature of the Admiralty Court mace as proof of his authority.
17. Turning to the present day, oar maces can now be found in various courts around the globe, including those in Melbourne, Sydney, Cape Town, Boston, and Ottawa. Their purpose is solely to symbolise the admiralty jurisdiction. It is for that purpose that this Oar Mace is to be presented to this Court. It is hoped that it will be before the Court during substantive hearings in admiralty proceedings, and at the discretion of the Judge presiding.
Presentation
18. I now have the honour to present to the High Court of New Zealand sitting in its Admiralty jurisdiction, an Oar Mace of Admiralty which has been subscribed to by members of the Maritime Law Association of Australia and New Zealand and others, in memory of His Honour the late Justice Bradley Harle Giles.
THE HON M E J BLACK
(Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia)
Chief Justice, on behalf of the Australian judges, thank you for your gracious invitation to join you and other members of your Court on the bench today. We are honoured by your invitation and delighted to be here.
I have had the privilege of being at the presentation of four of the oar maces of admiralty of recent times: in Sydney in 1994, in Ottawa in 1996, in Melbourne in 1999 and now here in Auckland in 2002.
Each of the Courts to which the maces have been presented - the Federal Court of Australia, the Federal Court of Canada and the High Court of New Zealand - are connected by a shared heritage of admiralty jurisprudence. That shared heritage includes the writings of Justice Giles of the High Court of New Zealand, in whose memory the New Zealand oar mace of admiralty has been commissioned.
It is of course well known that the silver oar mace has been associated with the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction since at least the time of the first Elizabeth and that its symbolism has reached far beyond England's shores. By the beginning of the 18th century the tradition of oar maces of admiralty was established in North America, and there were notable oar maces in New York and Boston. By the 19th century there were oar maces in the southern hemisphere - in Cape Town, in Colombo and, later, in Sydney and Melbourne.
The four modern oar maces to which I have referred were fashioned according to the ancient traditions, but with important evolutions. Each of them bears the arms of the nation from whose parliament the authority of their admiralty courts is now derived.
The oar mace presented to the Federal Court of Australia in Sydney in 1994 was presented in memory of the late William Caldwell QC, an admiralty lawyer of the Sydney Bar and a member of the Maritime Law Association of Australia and New Zealand. The President of that distinguished association spoke at the sitting of the Court at which the mace was presented.
The presentation of the Federal Court's mace in Sydney occurred when there were in that city many maritime lawyers for a meeting of the Comité Maritime International. It was the circumstance of an international gathering for maritime lawyers, and the presence of many of them at the ceremonial sitting of our Court at which the mace was presented, that led to the Sydney mace being the inspiration for the creation of the oar mace of admiralty of the Federal Court of Canada. The mace of the Federal Court of Canada was presented to that Court on its 25th anniversary - also the 120th anniversary of the Exchequer Court of Canada - at a ceremony in the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa. The continuity and connection between courts of admiralty was emphasised on that occasion by the President of the Canadian Maritime Law Association. In his speech, the President made reference to the Sydney mace of the Federal Court of Australia, and also to the presentation of a silver oar by the English Crown to the Vice Admiralty Court in New York in the year 1737 and to the Vice Admiralty Court in Boston in 1750. Present here in Auckland today, and symbolising yet another admiralty connection, is Judge Doug Woodlock of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, who recently presided at a ceremonial sitting of his court in Boston at which the Boston oar mace of 1750 was used.
And so to Melbourne in 1999. The Melbourne mace is a companion to the Sydney mace, but it has a particular connection with New Zealand. It was presented to the Court by the Maritime Law Association of Australia and New Zealand in memory of the late Donald Brooker, a distinguished admiralty lawyer and officer of the naval reserve, whose origins were in New Zealand and whose connections and affection for his country of birth remained with him. The President of the Association, Mr Thomas Broadmore of Wellington, addressed the Court. Outside the Court, the naval ensigns of both our countries flew aloft beside our national flags.
At each of the ceremonies for the presentation of oar maces of admiralty which I have had the privilege of attending, the richness of the admiralty jurisdiction and the connection between admiralty courts throughout the common law world has been an underlying theme. It is, if I may say so, particularly the case today when Australian judges have been accorded the honour of speaking at a ceremonial sitting in admiralty of the High Court of New Zealand.
Auckland
29 November 2002
(Chair of the New Zealand Branch of the Maritime Law Association of Australia and New Zealand and Vice-President of the Federal Association)
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:
1. I am privileged to be asked on this occasion to speak on behalf of the Association and to present to the Court the Oar Mace in memory of Bradley Harle Giles.
2. When the Association first considered how best to mark the contribution of His Honour to admiralty law the ideas mooted included a scholarship or the presentation of an Oar Mace. After consulting with Pru Giles it was determined that an Oar Mace was the appropriate way in which to acknowledge the significant role His Honour played in maritime and admiralty law in New Zealand, both as an advocate and as a Judge of this Court.
3. On behalf of the Association I extend a warm welcome to Pru Giles, and the other family members here today.
4. I am also delighted that we have in our presence several members of the judiciary of this Court and of the Australian Courts. This reflects the role of the Association on both sides of the Tasman. I wish to acknowledge the members of the Australian judiciary; Chief Justice Black and Justice Cooper of the Federal Court (Justice Cooper being a former Vice-President of the Association), and of course the Association's Federal President Justice Philippides of the Supreme Court of Queensland.
The Admiralty Jurisdiction in New Zealand
5. The admiralty jurisdiction is in some respects unusual. By some it may be described as an eccentric area of law. I beg to differ. The reality is that it is a field where the Court is confronted with disputes which by their nature often involve black letter law principles and the need to have regard to practical 21st Century commercial realities. The manner in which counsel and Judges grapple with admiralty disputes, calls upon a careful weighing of these sometimes conflicting considerations. More often than not the substantial admiralty cases (for example Turners & Growers Exports Ltd v. The Ship "Cornelis Verolme" [1997] 2 NZLR 110) concern situations involving a plethora of domestic and international legal issues, numerous parties with diverse interests, related proceedings in overseas jurisdictions, and substantial sums. The pragmatic manner in which cases in the admiralty jurisdiction are managed by the Court is an excellent example of the expeditious conduct of proceedings. In this regard it is important to acknowledge the fundamental "hands on deck" role of the Registrar in admiralty proceedings. I am pleased to see past and present Registars here today.
6. The admiralty jurisdiction in New Zealand has a somewhat unique history. This was recently the subject of an article published by Paul David in the New Zealand Law Journal. Many of you may not be aware that up until 1863 the New Zealand Court had no jurisdiction in admiralty; this is despite the fact that prior to that it sought to exercise such a jurisdiction. After opinions from many and various English office bearers, it was determined that it was necessary for specific legislation to be introduced to remedy the unfortunate position. The result was the Vice Admiralty Courts Act 1863, which bestowed the necessary jurisdiction upon the New Zealand Court.
Bradley Harle Giles
7. The contribution Justice Bradley Giles made to admiralty law in New Zealand, as both a practitioner and a Judge, cannot be underestimated. This is not a memorial sitting. (That took place in 1999 after His Honour's untimely passing.) However it is appropriate on this occasion to recall His Honour's contribution. He was a partner at Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartleet & Co. until he joined the independent Bar in 1991 and took Silk in 1995. His time on the Bench was all too short. He was appointed a Judge in 1997 and passed away only two years later at the young age of 55 while still in office, and after suffering a period of illness. I will say that as counsel appearing before His Honour in a large admiralty case which ran for a period up until his passing all counsel involved felt a deep feeling of sadness that we were losing a Judge who had a tremendous depth of knowledge and experience to bring to maritime law in New Zealand.
8. His Honour was a founding member of the New Zealand Branch of the Association and was a mentor to, or colleague of, many in the Association. I do not wish to run the risk of excluding anyone. However particular reference should be made to Paul David who led the admiralty practice at Russell McVeagh after His Honour joined the independent Bar.
9. The role of the judiciary in the Association is important and valued by our members. I am grateful to Justice Williams for his involvement in the New Zealand Branch in recent years since our loss of Bradley Giles.
The Oar Mace
10. It is no easy feat to bring an occasion such as this together. There are certain individuals I wish to thank. Tom Broadmore, the Immediate Past President of the Association, for his sterling efforts in co-ordinating the commission of the Oar Mace. Your Honours Justice Robertson and Justice Williams, who have been instrumental in making the necessary arrangements for this sitting of the Court. I also wish to specifically acknowledge the assistance provided by Pauline Barratt and Paul David.
11. Let me now give you some insight into the Oar Mace and its tradition.
12. The Oar Mace to be presented today has been crafted by Thorkild Hansen of Nelson. (As an aside, it is he who brought us "the" ring in the Lord of the Rings.) The blade has the admiralty pattern of the foul anchor and the national Coat of Arms on one side and, on the other, an inscription which reads -
"This Oar Mace, symbolising the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court of New Zealand, was presented to the Auckland Registry of the Court on 29 November 2002 by the Maritime Law Association of Australia and New Zealand and colleagues and friends of the late Bradley Harle Giles, 6 March 1944 - 23 April 1999. Its presentation honours the contribution he made to New Zealand maritime law, both as an advocate and as a Judge of the High Court from 6 March 1997 to 23 April 1999."
13. This Oar Mace differs from the few that exist around the world today, in two main respects. The first is the wooden shaft turned from our native Rata; others are made entirely of silver. The second is the Seal of the High Court which is on the base of the Mace. (This technique was first used for the Melbourne Oar Mace.)
14. It became evident from my research that the exact origin of admiralty oars is far from certain. What information there is discloses a fascinating history behind oar maces. This has been canvassed in a few articles, and highlights the fearsome environment in which the silver oar was originally used many centuries ago. (By way of illustration, the historical summaries record that it was carried by the Deputy-Marshal in England as a symbol of the Admiralty Court's authority as he led sombre processions of those pirates or condemned sailors to be executed at the water's edge.)
15. What is clear is that by 1360 a silver oar was used as a symbol of authority of the High Court of Admiralty in England when maritime actions were judged. The silver oar in the form of a mace dates from at least 1559, when Queen Elizabeth I was crowned. It has been suggested that the idea of a mace was derived from the experience the English gained on the Continent during the Crusades. At that time relatively few people were literate. The mace proved to be a means of verification of authority. The staff of the mace was hollow, to allow for papers to be carried within.
16. Articles also record that there was a belief that no person could be arrested on board ship, or a ship itself detained, unless the Admiralty Marshal's Deputy produced a silver miniature of the Admiralty Court mace as proof of his authority.
17. Turning to the present day, oar maces can now be found in various courts around the globe, including those in Melbourne, Sydney, Cape Town, Boston, and Ottawa. Their purpose is solely to symbolise the admiralty jurisdiction. It is for that purpose that this Oar Mace is to be presented to this Court. It is hoped that it will be before the Court during substantive hearings in admiralty proceedings, and at the discretion of the Judge presiding.
Presentation
18. I now have the honour to present to the High Court of New Zealand sitting in its Admiralty jurisdiction, an Oar Mace of Admiralty which has been subscribed to by members of the Maritime Law Association of Australia and New Zealand and others, in memory of His Honour the late Justice Bradley Harle Giles.
THE HON M E J BLACK
(Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia)
Chief Justice, on behalf of the Australian judges, thank you for your gracious invitation to join you and other members of your Court on the bench today. We are honoured by your invitation and delighted to be here.
I have had the privilege of being at the presentation of four of the oar maces of admiralty of recent times: in Sydney in 1994, in Ottawa in 1996, in Melbourne in 1999 and now here in Auckland in 2002.
Each of the Courts to which the maces have been presented - the Federal Court of Australia, the Federal Court of Canada and the High Court of New Zealand - are connected by a shared heritage of admiralty jurisprudence. That shared heritage includes the writings of Justice Giles of the High Court of New Zealand, in whose memory the New Zealand oar mace of admiralty has been commissioned.
It is of course well known that the silver oar mace has been associated with the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction since at least the time of the first Elizabeth and that its symbolism has reached far beyond England's shores. By the beginning of the 18th century the tradition of oar maces of admiralty was established in North America, and there were notable oar maces in New York and Boston. By the 19th century there were oar maces in the southern hemisphere - in Cape Town, in Colombo and, later, in Sydney and Melbourne.
The four modern oar maces to which I have referred were fashioned according to the ancient traditions, but with important evolutions. Each of them bears the arms of the nation from whose parliament the authority of their admiralty courts is now derived.
The oar mace presented to the Federal Court of Australia in Sydney in 1994 was presented in memory of the late William Caldwell QC, an admiralty lawyer of the Sydney Bar and a member of the Maritime Law Association of Australia and New Zealand. The President of that distinguished association spoke at the sitting of the Court at which the mace was presented.
The presentation of the Federal Court's mace in Sydney occurred when there were in that city many maritime lawyers for a meeting of the Comité Maritime International. It was the circumstance of an international gathering for maritime lawyers, and the presence of many of them at the ceremonial sitting of our Court at which the mace was presented, that led to the Sydney mace being the inspiration for the creation of the oar mace of admiralty of the Federal Court of Canada. The mace of the Federal Court of Canada was presented to that Court on its 25th anniversary - also the 120th anniversary of the Exchequer Court of Canada - at a ceremony in the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa. The continuity and connection between courts of admiralty was emphasised on that occasion by the President of the Canadian Maritime Law Association. In his speech, the President made reference to the Sydney mace of the Federal Court of Australia, and also to the presentation of a silver oar by the English Crown to the Vice Admiralty Court in New York in the year 1737 and to the Vice Admiralty Court in Boston in 1750. Present here in Auckland today, and symbolising yet another admiralty connection, is Judge Doug Woodlock of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, who recently presided at a ceremonial sitting of his court in Boston at which the Boston oar mace of 1750 was used.
And so to Melbourne in 1999. The Melbourne mace is a companion to the Sydney mace, but it has a particular connection with New Zealand. It was presented to the Court by the Maritime Law Association of Australia and New Zealand in memory of the late Donald Brooker, a distinguished admiralty lawyer and officer of the naval reserve, whose origins were in New Zealand and whose connections and affection for his country of birth remained with him. The President of the Association, Mr Thomas Broadmore of Wellington, addressed the Court. Outside the Court, the naval ensigns of both our countries flew aloft beside our national flags.
At each of the ceremonies for the presentation of oar maces of admiralty which I have had the privilege of attending, the richness of the admiralty jurisdiction and the connection between admiralty courts throughout the common law world has been an underlying theme. It is, if I may say so, particularly the case today when Australian judges have been accorded the honour of speaking at a ceremonial sitting in admiralty of the High Court of New Zealand.
Auckland
29 November 2002
|
|
