Interview with Philip Havers QC

16 October 2018 by

Philip-Havers-QC- cropped.pngAfter 12 years as Head of Chambers at One Crown Office Row, during which Chambers grew steadily and the number of silks almost doubled, Philip Havers QC this month handed over the reins to his successor, Richard Booth QC.

Philip’s career so far has ranged over a great breadth of work, encompassing public and human rights law, clinical negligence, public inquiries and high profile inquests.

He regularly appears in landmark cases in the appellate courts. He recently acted as counsel to a prisoner who tried to persuade the Supreme Court that the prison authorities had to enforce the ban on smoking in public places, successfully defended the Crown Prosecution Service in the Supreme Court against a claim that a decision to prosecute a Somalian asylum seeker had been a breach of her Article 8 rights, and last week the Supreme Court gave judgment in a case of his involving an A&E receptionist who gave negligent advice to a patient about how long he would have to wait to be seen by a nurse (covered on this Blog here). He also appeared this summer in the Privy Council representing the Chief Justice of Trinidad and Tobago in a case concerning whether the constitution prevented the Law Bar Association of Trinidad and Tobago from inquiring into allegations of misconduct made against him.

Outside court he is a music lover, with a particular devotion to Tom Petty and the Traveling Wilburys. He is also a tennis fan, a wine connoisseur, and a keen gardener.

He sat down to answer a few of our questions about his career at the Bar and what he has learned.

Why did you decide to become a barrister?

I come from a legal family.  My father was a barrister and Attorney General under Mrs Thatcher for eight years, (and then, very briefly, Lord Chancellor) my grandfather was a High Court Judge and my Great Grandfather was a solicitor in Norwich.  So when I left university and had to think about a career, it seemed like the obvious choice. (My brother chose to become an actor which isn’t very different).

What is your favourite aspect of the job?

Two things stand out for me: the support and camaraderie of fellow members of Chambers and all our wonderful staff, and winning cases for deserving clients.

Who has inspired you over the course of your career?

My father (who died, all too young), my two pupil supervisors, Philip Otton and Harry Woolf, and my former client, Diane Pretty, who fought for the right to die all the way to the European Court of Human Rights.

What is the best decision you have ever taken as a barrister?

To accept an invitation to join these Chambers and, some years later, to apply to join the Treasury Solicitor Panel (there was only one in those days).  The work was usually of great interest, for example, I remember a judicial review arising out of the escape of the spy, George Blake.  But it had its hairy moments, especially the late returns from John Laws which usually arrived sometime after 6.00pm the evening before the hearing.

What is the strangest thing that has ever happened to you in your career?

I was representing the Royal College of Surgeons against whom judicial review proceedings were brought by a disgruntled surgeon.  Unusually, the Judge, Harry Ognall (whom my father had led in the prosecution of the Yorkshire Ripper), indicated that he wanted to hear evidence from our primary witness, the President of the College.  About half an hour into his evidence, the Judge very visibly wrote out a note, tapped on the shoulder of the associate below him and asked him to give it to me which he did in the full view of everyone in court.  I had little option but to read the note which stated: “Don’t you think this witness looks just like Alastair Sim?” (Alastair Sim was a well-known Scottish character actor).  And he did.

As someone who has been in practice since 1974, how would you say that the profession has developed over this time?

The most obvious change has been in relation to how we now all work, namely with computers and by email. When I began, everything was in hard copy and we used to exchange Lists of Authorities with our opponents (often on the morning of the hearing) and the Clerks would then have to take the bound hard copy reports over to court.

I also think we worked less hard. Certainly, when I began, we would regularly stop off for a pint at the Cheshire Cheese on our way home (usually leaving Chambers at around 6.00pm).

The profession is also, of course, now much larger than it was as indeed is Chambers but one thing that has not changed in Chambers is the happy and congenial atmosphere and the extremely good working relationships between us all.

The profile of the Bar has changed so much. When I started, there were very few women barristers and even fewer who were openly gay or from an ethnic or minority or disadvantaged background.  Thankfully, all that has changed although it still has a long way to go.

Finally, what we wear has become much less formal. When I started, many male barristers still wore a black jacket and waistcoat and striped trousers (rather like the staff at Fortnum and Masons) together with a bowler hat and if you were one of those and you passed a Judge in the street, you would tip your hat to him.  (I would have liked to have said that you would tip your hat to her also but then there were very few women judges.)

You were Head of Chambers from 2006 until last week. What are the particular challenges of that role?

Not as many, I suspect, as in other chambers because we are and always have been such a happy ship.  Overall, it is a little like herding cats.  Since Chambers has continued to thrive whilst I was Head of Chambers and we have all continued to get on very well, the challenge was simply to keep the show on the road.

And finally, what advice would you give to your younger self when you were first starting out?

Don’t forget the work/life balance.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: