Sunday 30^th October 2011 

My colleague and I arrived at Dubai international airport, looking forward to the week ahead and keen to see the bustling city that has sprung up from the sandy desert in a fraction of the time it takes to build some UK football stadiums. After a tiresome wait at passport control we were spotted within mere moments by other English barristers who were also en route to the conference.

We were transported from the airport into the bright lights of the distance, which appeared to us to be a futuristic sprawl of buildings, within which an ex-member of chambers now lived and with whom we were to stay for the forthcoming conference. After initial greetings and a traditional meal at a local restaurant we retired to our home for the week. The view was sensational: a panorama including the Sheikh’s racecourse, a visible edging of sandy beaches, and a dazzling array of skyscrapers. A world away from home, I felt optimistic and excited about the experience ahead.

Monday 31^st October 2011

Today was the first day of the conference. Having found the conference centre, close to Dubai’s World Trade Centre, the first task was registration. Striking, large blue satchels brimming with conference materials were handed over to us and we were left to peruse the programme and build our own timetables for the week ahead.

In the main conference hall the Bar Council maintain a presence, both to welcome Bar delegates and to inform other jurisdictions about the system in the UK. We heard stories of the previous day’s opening ceremony; apparently not as good as last year because of the stifling hours spent on hot buses and the unfortunate space hired for the event. On the positive side, there were fire-eaters, belly dancers and fireworks. Not items one might have expected if the event were held in the Temple or anywhere within the city.

The first lecture we attended was on the ‘Use of Investigator services in prosecuting and defending criminal offences’. Speakers included private investigators, litigators from the US, solicitors from the UK and academics from South America. Those in attendance were invited to introduce themselves to the room and it was apparent that there was a worldwide interest in the topic. The panellists were encouraged to share their best and worst experiences of using private investigators. There was a real contrast between the approaches of the inquisitorial and adversarial systems, and the availability of legal aid was undoubtedly a deciding factor in whether investigators were going to become a common feature of court cases. One American lawyer for example explained that she would use private investigators to do mini-investigations on their own clients before taking on their cases to see if they were “telling the truth”; this was a suggestion met with some amusement by those English barristers and solicitors in the room.

For my own part I felt that there was little room for investigators in keeping with the US model, however the flowing debate was informative about the emphasis now being placed on their utility in jurisdictions beyond our own, and the uses to which such investigators can be put. For all of those on the panel, except the UK members, it seems that private investigators are now viewed as an important aspect of case preparation. If the “devil is in the detail” then it undoubtedly pays to ensure the lawyer has as much information at their disposal as possible. One could not fail to acknowledge the US viewpoint that such background research is also able to guide the development of a thorough case theory.

Copious coffee was provided during the day. One thing that became increasingly apparent, and which became a point of irritation, is the different etiquette demonstrated by delegates so far as mobile phones are concerned. Whereas in the UK the shrill ring of a mobile phone fills one with fear that it is one’s own, and then latent paranoia about whether one’s own phone is turned off or to silent, the same does not apply to others. It continues to amaze me that phones are rarely switched off, are left to ring out, and are used to excuse people from rooms to answer calls when senior experts are giving up their time to speak. One English panellist remarked that he was going to hold a competition for the best ring tone at the end of one session. Perhaps my views are overly-sensitive, but I cannot help to cast my mind back to the UK and consider the likely response of members of the judiciary for example if counsel took such a relaxed attitude at a Bar Council or Circuit event.

Following lunch I attended a lecture on the use of capital punishment. The line-up of panellists read as a “who’s who” of the international human rights world. The session was introduced by the IBA President, Akira Kawamura, and his catchy foreword set the scene for the debate that followed .The golden thread of the lecture was the question: is the continued use of the death penalty across the world a challenge to so-called civilised society? The majority of those in attendance at the lecture were vehemently against capital punishment in any circumstances. However there remained those that felt it should be used in some circumstances, all citing the ‘victims’ arguments for its retention. Attention was drawn to the main countries who regularly sentence people to death, for example China had in excess of 2000 known executions in 2010.

The senior reporter at the IBA lead a “devil’s advocate” style debate after the general speeches were delivered by the panel. Delegates were challenged to argue against pro-death penalty views and to provide counter reasons for the usual type of submissions made in favour of the punishment, which many regard as more final than any other. Whilst in theory this was an excellent idea, there were unfortunate digressions by attendees who used the opportunity to make ten-minute political speeches on aspects of their own character and experiences.

It was quite clear by the end of the session that the abolition of the death penalty remains an aspiration that is light-years away. That said, the panel were optimistic about the progress that has already been made. I was left wondering whether this optimism was misplaced and a luxury of the liberal elite in the room, or whether it was something that the international community could genuinely achieve notwithstanding the histories in the diverse tapestry of countries across the world.

Post-conference there was a Young Lawyers social event at ‘Palms Gardens’. The event was supposed to be an event aimed at educating first-time delegates about how best to approach the conference and how to get the most from it. In fact, the event was a short drinks party swarming with fresh-faced lawyers of all nationalities, each ebbing with sanguinity about the event. A pity perhaps, but it may not come as any surprise that there were no complaints from those in attendance that found themselves stood in the dewy haze of the evening, holding a cold beer after a mentally stimulating day.

1^st November 2011

Day 2 of the conference and another array of lecture/ showcase/ discussion groups were on offer. We began the day hearing from an expert panel on the progress made by the International Criminal Court (‘ICC’) in Kenya. It may be well-known by the readers of this blog, that in Kenya’s 2007 elections mass atrocities were committed, resulting in the death of between 1300 and 1400 people and the displacement of many more thousands. Hans Correll provided the contextual background to this violence and detailed how the international community brought these events into the spotlight for scrutiny. Juan Mendez (UN Special Rapporteur for torture, inhumane and degrading treatment) followed, explaining what the early issues were for the ICC, and Greg Kehoe then provided an insight into the proceedings currently before the court and the jurisdictional and procedural matters being wrestled with before the substantive trials of the six defendants begin. Next Mr Akide, the President of the Kenyan Law Society, sought to detail the Kenyan perspective on the intervention of the ICC and the compatibility of international and national law in moving forward. Mr Akide’s outlook stirred the views of the attending delegates and stimulated much debate in the discussion that followed.

In the lunchtime adjournment further networking opportunities were available. Mirroring yesterday’s set-up, a buffet-style selection of food was eaten at large round tables and lawyers from every nation mingled together sharing war stories and discussing the problems facing their legal systems at present. Those that I spoke to were astounded by the legal aid cuts being made to our own system, which many had considered to be one of the best and most effective in the world. We had been told to take business cards along with us, but nobody could have prepared me for the frantic exchange of cardboard that almost all delegates were guilty of, imposing their personal and professional details on anyone who wished to read them. Those in the Temple who have before uttered the words “targeted marketing” would have been horrified to see the indiscriminate swathes of business cards being distributed.

The 2.30pm session was a whirlwind tour of cross-border investigation of corruption. The distinguished panel detailed the theoretical and practical issues that arise in the investigation and prosecution of corporate organisation corruption, and set out with clarity the responsibilities for advisors when providing legal advice to those tackling corruption within their midst. It was emphasised that there is a need for uniformity if the international community is to successfully tackle corruption’s prevalence, with each panellist in principle agreement, even if not in the manner this was described or how it was brought about.

The panel encouraged early interaction with respective State governments, the use of “document hold” processes to ensure the integrity and preservation of important evidence, and the need to ‘reasonably scope’ investigations before embarking upon them (the field of data protection appears to provide a particular minefield given the varying national norms). The international panellist chair, Mr Monty Raphael QC, followed with a perspective on the practical considerations for a criminal lawyer in advising a company on corruption/ bribery laws where there are multi-jurisdiction issues in play. He hoped in the future for a unified international approach to corruption, in order to allow companies to find harmonious corporate policies within their organisation, independent of geography, and furthermore to assist lawyers in providing sound and reliable advice in the field.

This evening the Bar Council of England and Wales held a cocktail party at the Emirates twin-towers, hosted by the current Chairman Peter Lodder QC. More of this tomorrow…..

2^nd November 2011

From conversations, and the look of most people this morning, last night’s Bar Council event was a resounding success. The view from the rooftop terrace that had been hired for the event was phenomenal, and barristers and solicitors from England and Wales were out in force, circulating amidst other selected guests until the close of the evening. Fantastic canapés and an enticing cocktail selection were available, and Peter Lodder QC gave a short warm welcome speech; delivered in a manner which makes one pleased to be associated with the English bar. More business cards and contacts were made, and one could be forgiven for thinking that the clocks had been turned forward when the end of the event was signalled.

From the twin towers many guests, including my colleague and I, were whisked to the Armani hotel. The real Armani I hear you say? Quite so. The reason for our onward travel was the fact that we had received invites to the Norton Rose cocktail party, where there was further networking to do. Quite happily the venue for the affair stood in the shadow of the Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world, and at the edge of the dancing fountains, which are in front of the infamous Dubai mall (a building which has to be experienced to be believed given its unashamed extravagance). After doing a polite round of greetings we retired for the evening, keen to make sure that tomorrow’s lectures were as useful.

I should, before ending, write something about ‘work’. So, an anti-corruption update!

I attended a session on global enforcement of anti-corruption offences, chaired by the head of the OECD. On the panel were defence lawyers, academics and public policy specialists from various jurisdictions. Some highlights were:

• The South African Supreme Court has upheld a constitutional challenge to the country’s anti-corruption taskforce (known as ‘The Hawks’). The court agreed that the Hawks were not sufficiently independent of the executive branch of government. Their future remains uncertain.
• An anonymous attendee overheard in conversation on BAE: “Everyone knows them…how lavish they are with presents”.
• How do you measure damages in corruption cases? A fascinating scientific study into earthquakes concluded that 86% of victims came from countries with high levels of corruption. How do we reflect this in judgments? What damage is too remote?
• The OECD Foreign Bribery Impact Study concluded that 46% (so basically half) of corrupt payments were paid in developed or emerging markets. Corruption is as much a problem in ‘The West’ as for anyone else.
• For those readers with a UK interest, Nick Benwell of Simmons & Simmons noted that, whilst the guidance from the M.O.J. on the UK Bribery Act had expanded, its legal status was uncertain.
• And what good is a bribery act when most senior staff at the S.F.O. are moving to U.S. law firms?

It was a fascinating and fast-paced introduction to corruption worldwide.

I’m off to a cocktail party on the 122^nd floor of the world’s tallest building now. More tomorrow….

3^rd November 2011

Last night’s event was another lavish affair, hosted by a local firm, whose managing partner took the time to greet every guest. There were some raised eyebrows at the hour-and-a-half queue to get into the venue and the predictable “dry” policy, however the firm’s marketing team had clearly thought this through because in practical terms the impressive venue meant this meant swathes of guests, who stayed for one drink and then left. Our presence at this event was relatively short-lived since we had a further invitation at the other side of Dubai to attend. Nevertheless we can again report plentiful food and drink and an excellent turn out from the English bar.

My colleague and I had decided to attend a presentation session this morning entitled New Rights and Reversals: The development of legal frameworks to include and exclude participation of vulnerable groups. Unfortunately almost all of the original panel of experts had pulled out of the event, but host Ross Ashcroft did an excellent job of bringing in others (including a bemused intellectual property expert) and substituting the original event for a scenario-based debate, an essential aspect to which was the forced contribution of audience members.

Robert Bernstein began the session by presenting the paper of an Oxford University Dean, which provided an analysis of socio-economic rights and their perceived second tier status as compared to the civil and political variety. Zou (author) argued that equality of rights should be provided in a way that recognised disadvantaged groups. To quote one of Neelam Sultan’s contributions to the debate: “Equal consideration for all may involve very unequal treatment in favour of disadvantaged groups.” Regardless of one’s own views on the point, it certainly stimulated debate. The session went on to deal with the obvious conflicts of rights, and I raised the issue of prioritisation of rights by individual states depending upon the stage reached in their development. Thereafter the panel posed provocative scenarios for the audience to deal with: is there a right for a refugee to have their new sex recognised when having gender replacement surgery? Should there in fact be a right for citizens to have such surgery paid for by the State? Is there a right to revolution? What are the boundaries between revolution and freedom of assembly and expression?

I left the session with a feeling of frustration. It seemed naïve for lawyers to sit and debate rights in such an expansive way when the adherence given to rights and the nature of those rights differs so much depending upon the stage a nation has reached in it’s development. I shuddered to consider the reaction of certain delegates from African nations when the right to gender replacement surgery was discussed; in their countries gender replacement and homosexuality were illegal, therefore a suggestion that the government should pay for any surgery that may stem from the former was a laughable proposition. It seems to me that there is a real risk that in extending human rights discourse to such broad boundaries, we consequently devalue those rights which are truly important and which we should see as fundamental to all human beings, regardless of geography or jurisdiction.

Thankfully I was saved from my own conundrum by the lunchtime adjournment. ‘Too-much-lunch’ later we embarked upon the afternoon session: “International response and pragmatic initiatives to counter corruption”. This was undoubtedly one of the best sessions so far. The panel consisted of the host Homer Moyer Jr, a UAE partner at Simmons and Simmons, Jack Greenwald and Khalid Al Hamrani from the Dubai firm Al Tamimi and Co. The lecture provided an excellent overview of the methods being developed to tackle the worldwide problem of corruption. It was interesting to hear that the estimated cost to the world of corruption is 1.2 trillion dollars, with Russia and China rated as top in the Bribe Payer’s Index in a study undertaken by Transparency International. Clearly then there are high stakes and it was agreed by all that an international response was required to tackle this endemic problem. In brisk fashion the host took us through the options available: the use of international Conventions, a legislative peer review process, the use of national law, voluntary disclosure mechanisms, the incentivisation of whistleblowers, collateral consequences (sanctions to you and I), debarment, consequent litigation and the use of corporate compliance programmes. In summary this was a thoroughly useful and interesting working group.

Today’s lectures were undermined slightly by the political murmurings from the organisers of the event. We were all informed by email that a number of the events had been cancelled and that the titles of events had been changed upon the request of security agencies. The Times have apparently written an excellent article on the speech at the IBA being stifled (a Times newspaper internet search for international bar association should bring this up), however unfortunately this appears to be inaccessible to me as I write. Perhaps I can write more about this when I return.

The evening’s social programme was again a full affair. Bin Shabib hosted a wonderful party at The Address Dubai Mall. This was a poolside event with great music, panoramic views over the sparkling city and the perfect number of delegates. I overheard my colleague discussing the merits of “death by chocolate cheesecake”, though apart from this specific risk, a good time seemed to be had by all. We moved from here to the Young Lawyer’s night out, held at the Barasti beach bar at Le Meridian hotel. Delegates circulated here over a barbeque buffet and below the beachside skyscrapers. Personally I felt that the title “Young Lawyer’s night out” was a little misleading, but without wanting to offend I shall leave it here for another day.

4^th November 2011

Today was the final day of conference, and the much-anticipated day of the Rule of Law symposium. At the outset the IBA President presented the annual human rights award to Dr Ivan Gomez for his outstanding contribution to this area. The panel included the President of the American Bar Association, William Robinson, together with other esteemed experts in the area of Women’s Inequality and the Rule of Law. The contributions of the panel ensured attendees had coverage of the situation regarding women across the globe.

One panellist, Ms Kasbekah, offered a fascinating insight into the position in India. India has a population of 1.2 billion people, of which 48% are women. India is the country with the longest constitution in the world, and a preamble to it specifically referring to equality of status and opportunity. Women in India hold some of the most prestigious positions in government and in corporations. However equality remains the privilege of an educated elite with the vast majority of women treated as subordinate to men. She described at length the causes of this and how we as lawyers could ensure that “might does not overtake the right” (to be treated equal). Others on the panel highlighted the root causes of inequality; social conditioning, lack of enforcement of equality, corruption, political interference and poor record keeping are just some of the factors that received a mention.

Nothing I say in this blog can adequately recognise those on the panel who spoke so passionately about this area. They work on it tirelessly, both on the ground and in raising awareness through their literature. In the Q & A session that followed, Hans Correll offered his own reflections on the rule of law and inequality. He made it clear that the West and the East both had their own problems in achieving true equality for women across the globe. He closed by saying that in his view “peace and security for the future are directly linked to the empowerment of women”.

From 14.30 to 17.30 the rule of law session moved on to consider how the rule of law was relevant to economic sustainability. One panelist had been prevented from leaving his home country in order to attend the event, but Dr Che Soon Juan was able to deliver a pre-recorded presentation in which he outlined the threats to the rule of law in Singapore. Stephen Zack (a former American Bar Association President) drew attention to the difference between “rule by law” and “rule of law”, only the latter of which was able to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Zack went on to say that for him economic sustainability and the rule of law were two sides to the same coin. The elephant in the room it seemed to me was the extent to which one could explain the successful boom in the Chinese economy in circumstances where it is widely accepted that the country have a poor rule of law record. Professor He Wafang of the Peking University of China dealt thoroughly with this issue. For him there was an ignorance of social justice in his home State and no laws protecting safety of trade. He felt that in the long run this would result in a negative impact on the Chinese economy. Once again, the debate was followed by an opportunity to ask questions, and this was informative as to the rule of law in Middle and Far East countries.

This lecture brought the IBA conference 2011 to a close. Next year’s IBA annual conference will be held in Dublin, and already people are talking about the issues worthy of inclusion in the programme. Dublin may not have aquariums in its shopping malls, the world’s tallest building, ski slopes within a desert or a camel racing course, but I remain confident that it will be an excellent place for the event and be one where delegates are able to speak uninhibited about the issues the legal profession are seeking to draw attention to. This conference has been a great success; I have enjoyed the educative, discursive and social aspects, and I have been provided with much information that I hope to share with colleagues and friends upon my return to the UK.

I conclude with the tongue-in-cheek words of farewell used by the Chinese delegate Professor Wafang “goodbye and good-Dubai”.