Justice Young's tribute to Sir Robert Chambers

Tribute to Justice Sir Robert Chambers by Supreme Court Justice Sir Willie Young

“In this brief tribute I will discuss Rob as an appellate judge.

With his intelligence, knowledge of the law, and experience, Rob was as well-equipped as anyone could be for life as an appellate judge.  But he had two particular characteristics which marked him out as different and made him both a wonderful colleague and, as well, an extremely influential judge. 

One of these – his passion for logic and order – will prove to be fundamental to what I am sure will be the lasting legacy of his judicial career.  The other, which I will discuss more briefly, is Rob’s sunny nature. 

Rob was cheerful, sociable, hospitable and warm.  He was great fun when things were going well and a staunch, empathetic and supportive friend when things were not so good.  He had a huge zest for life.  He made any situation better by simply being there.  Anyone who met him was distinctly at risk of becoming a friend for life.

One of the things that made Rob such fun to be around was his wonderful turn of phrase – his great ability of being able to make amusing and wry but also gentle comments about the task at hand.  These remarks were very much centred on the occasion and thus things of the moment and for these reasons are not easy to reproduce here. 

But I am going to give it a go with this example.  Rob was presiding over a court hearing a sentence appeal.  The comparator case the Crown relied on involved very similar offending but a much older offender.  One of Rob’s colleagues – who was given to allusive language – put it to the prosecutor that there was a world of difference between the adult offender in the other case and “this spotty-faced boy”, a rather florid reference to the appellant being 18.  Rob leant forward and, with the mock seriousness he did so well, asked the prosecutor to take him to the evidence as to the appellant’s unfortunate complexion, as he had not noticed it when reading the papers.

Rob’s thinking was characterised by logic and order.  You can see this just by reading his judgments. They were always beautifully organised.  At an early stage in the judgment, he would identify the issue to be decided and he would then set about addressing it in a logical and comprehensible way.  He had an elegant and conversational writing style. 

A judgment written by Rob was always a good read.  It sounds simple but in practice and particularly when there are pressures of time and other work, it is not that easy.  But Rob never let his standards slip.  Even in the most minor and least memorable of cases, his judgments were carefully organised and expressed. 

In this respect his passion for order was very purposive. In difficult or complex cases, his structured and very logical approach was fundamental to the development of his own thinking.  It also meant that any reader of a judgment written by Rob would have no difficulty working out what had been decided and why.

For Rob, logic and order were not just for him. Things that were illogical or disorderly really bugged him and he would work away at them with great determination and pertinacity until logic and order prevailed.  He was indeed something of an evangelist for logic and order and, as it turned out, his appointment to the Court of Appeal provided considerable scope for his proselytising tendency.

In February 2004 – when Rob joined the Court of Appeal – that Court was in the throes of change. The flood of new judges into, and the changing role of, the Court of Appeal meant that all aspects of the way it operated could be reconsidered. This provided opportunities for innovation of a kind which is usually not possible on collegial courts with stable membership. 
In this unusual environment Rob was in his element.

A good deal of his efforts were internal in their focus and of only limited interest to anyone who did not work there. But here, nonetheless, are a few illustrations.  Infelicities in the Court of Appeal Rules were quickly identified and sorted out.

He was very influential in the development of the format of judgments, for instance, putting the formal orders of the court at the start, which is after all the logical place, and in making sure that judgments had the right banners.  He was the primary driver of the Style Guide.  He was also always a great advocate for the establishment in Auckland of a base for the Court of Appeal.

Of more interest are the external manifestations of his sense of order. The best way of discussing is by reference to Rob’s role in the improvement in the way in which criminal cases are dealt with by the courts.

When Rob came to the Court of Appeal, the principles and practice of sentencing where characterised by an indeterminacy which was, predictably, an anathema to Rob.  His response was to take an extremely active role in developing the principles of structured sentencing. 

These principles are based on consistency of sentencing methodology and they promote, although they cannot ensure, consistency of sentencing outcome.  Their prescriptive nature meant that they were not warmly embraced by all sentencing judges and indeed there was some push back from the Supreme Court. 

But Rob’s ideas have largely prevailed. The result is that the serious sentencing exercises that occur every day in New Zealand (in regrettably large numbers) are all conducted on the basis of an approach which Rob had a key role in formulating.

Rob put a huge amount of effort into improving the way judges sum up to juries.  This was an extension of his approach to judgment writing and a further example of his love of logic and order.  Just as he would always identify in a judgment the issues which had to be determined, so too should judges when summing up to juries.  Written issues sheets and questions trails are at the heart of his preferred methodology.

The whole idea is to better equip juries for their decision-making role by presenting cases to them in the most logical and orderly way.  His methodology is not only premised on principles of logic and order but is well-supported by research.

Rob promoted this methodology not only in his judgments but also in his enthusiastic involvement in judicial education.  He was a wonderful educator – indeed quite a showman.  His presentations were always fresh and energetic. And to give himself additional credibility when talking to trial judges he went back to the High Court and heard a criminal trial.

Ever the evangelist, Rob promoted the same approach to our Australian colleagues, with considerable effect as the Parliament of Victoria has recently enacted legislation which owes a good deal to Rob.  This is the Jury Directions Act 2013.  Sections 17 – 19 of this Act could have come out of a seminar given by Rob – and probably did.   Section 19 in particular seems to me to have Rob’s handwriting all over it. 

It is a great tribute to Rob that two senior Victorian judges have come across for today’s ceremony.

The way serious crime is dealt with in New Zealand has changed radically over the last ten years and much for the better – and the changes are very much to Rob’s credit.  For my money he is the most influential criminal judge in New Zealand’s legal history.

Before I depart from Rob’s contribution to the criminal law and indeed finish this tribute, I am going to mention a judgment to which Rob contributed. 

It was not important legally but it was to the appellant, a man called Aaron Farmer who had been convicted of rape and sentenced to eight years imprisonment. The court comprised Rob, John Hansen and John Priestley. 

The details of the case don’t matter much but the judgment for which John Priestley had primary responsibility contains a meticulous review of the facts and reveals some obvious concern as to the correctness of the verdict. 

The appeal was allowed.  I re-read the judgment over the weekend. 

All involved plainly put much work into it. 

The concerns about the verdict and the meticulous care which the court took over the case were later shown to have been entirely appropriate when a report prepared by Robert Fisher QC demonstrated very clearly that Aaron Farmer was innocent.”