If you’ve wondered why the occasion of the call to the Bar is more akin to a funeral devoid of any “joie de vivre” or excitement, you may find my draft written submission prepared for a charge of murder against the State Bar Committees of the call to the Bar of vague interest. The Buggles’ “Video Killed the Radio Star” is recommended listening as you read the draft. Please ignore the stage directions. Thanks.
In my earlier submissions to this somewhat Honourable Court titled, A Meditation about Moving from an Occasional Mover I dealt with how and why speeches to the call to the Bar can be improved.
In this hearing, I shall submit that the State Committee Bars, such as the Selangor and Kuala Lumpur Bar Committees along with their other State Bar conspirators, have murdered the sense of ceremony and occasion of the call to the Bar. That’s right, murder, M’lurd. Pre-meditation and all that. The big three-oh-two. It will also become clear during the course of my submission that the killing is not a culpable homicide not amounting to murder (under section 304 of the Penal Code). (Pause and survey the room imperiously)
Yes, M’lurd, that means the victim is dead. Yes, murder is a nasty business. M’lurd is undoubtedly correct and brilliant as well. May I proceed? Okay, one more before we do. M’lurd is quite dashing this morning as well. I’m obliged.
M’lurd, this is a murder most foul for it is against their very own charges – our fellow brothers and sisters at law. If they were in laws, M’lurd, there would be ample room for the introduction of the other customary defences such as provocation or insanity. But in this case there is none! (Thump fist hard on table or rostrum here, work up outraged look, try to make nostrils look angry)
Allow me to proceed directly to the evidence.
Exhibit P-1 is the Format of “Call to Bar” speech to the Master of the pupil. This Format was included in a letter notifying him of the hearing of the pupil’s application for admission to the Bar. The letter is exhibit P-2, M’lurd. In the last paragraph of exhibit P-2, the accused purports to explain the necessity of the Format:
Kindly be also informed that the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee has streamlined and standardised the format of Call speeches with a view to ensuring some form of consistency in the conduct of call proceedings. Enclosed is a copy of the format for you to bring to the attention of the Counsel moving your pupil’s call.
(Pause for effect)
It is submitted that exhibit P-1 and P-2 sufficiently prove the murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
Let us consider P-1 more generally first. (Hold it up like prize trophy) This evidence proves that most new lawyers will get streamlined and standardised call speeches to ensure a dogged consistency to their mover’s speech. The accused fails to understand that a new lawyer is not simply a product and a call to the Bar is not simply the end of a factory line.
M’Lurd, contrary to popular belief, a lawyer is merely a human being who has chosen to dedicate his career to the law. It is hoped that they in the process also dedicate themselves to justice. (Glare angrily if anybody in the court should chuckle) The call to the Bar is an occasion when this person is introduced to his fellow members of the profession and declared as a lawyer before his family, friends and other members of the public.
In short, M’lurd, the call to the Bar is a milestone event. It is akin to a birth, a marriage or when a politician say something sensible. The call to the Bar cannot be and is not like a condom vending machine where a new lawyer is called every time someone drones through a standardised, streamlined call speech in 3 minutes. (If there is laughter, allow it to subside before proceeding)
Let us now consider exhibit P-1, the murder weapon, more closely. (Serious look on)
The accused explained that in the 1st paragraph you introduce the representatives of the Attorney General’s Chambers, Bar Council and relevant State Bar Committee. In the 2nd paragraph the mover is to state (i) the Petitioner’s name (ii) the university they graduated from (ii) their post degree qualifications and (iv) the chambers they underwent pupilage. In the 3rd paragraph, the mover is advised to “thank certain people on behalf of the petitioner (e.g. parents, spouse, master)” before delivering what the State Bar Committees seem to think is the climax to the entire tedious affair – declaring that the petitioner is a fit and proper person to be admitted and enrolled as an Advocate and Solicitor, that his papers are in order and there are no objections by the other representatives. Finally the mover is “to pray that the petitioner be admitted and enrolled as an Advocate and Solicitor.”
I can see M’lurd is almost falling asleep already! (Try and time it so he is yawning at the time) My mere recitals of the expected content of the speech has already subdued M’lurd, is it any wonder the call to the Bar has become so interminably boring, tedious, and forgettable, or to put it another way, dead?
What the accused has done by exhibit P-1 is to advise the mover to reduce his call speech to reciting the petitioner’s educational history and thanking his parents, master, and whoever. That is about as interesting as the mover reading the ingredients from a tin of food. There are some freshly painted walls that are even more exciting to watch dry than sit through a call to the Bar session which involves at least 10 calls at one go.
Here we have the actus reus (the criminal act) proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, your Lurdship could even take judicial notice of this fact if M’lurd has presided over such an event.
The sorry part about that speech is that the mover states that the petitioner “is a fit and proper person” to be called to the Bar but the Format does not offer up any fact that supports this submission. So what if someone passes his SPM, got a law degree and completed his chambering? M’urd, every lawyer that gets called has done this (unless they’re from the Judicial Legal Service)! (Lean forward and increase volume)
Therefore, to focus the speech on what is obvious, documented, and irrelevant is not simply a waste of the courts, the public, the movers and the pupil’s time but it is a waste of everybody’s effort. It is akin to calling for a press conference to announce the ingredients of cornflakes which has been printed on the box for the last 10 years. (If brought cornflakes along, wave box about)
M’lurd, as I have argued earlier, the call speech should deal with what is not obvious from the accompanying documentation, i.e. the character and qualities of the petitioner.
The two defences raised as to why the Format was proposed are (i) movers sometimes end up talking a lot about the Master, the Format focuses them (ii) it is hard to find movers, and sometimes those found could not bothered to draft the speech so the pupil has to draft it.
What utter rubbish M’lurd! With respect to (i), the accused should emphasise that to the Master in their letter. With respect to (ii), the Master should take care to ensure that they procure a mover with enough pride and respect for his profession to move the call. What should not be done by way of defence is to “streamline and standardise” all the call speeches that are to be submitted in court. This is the typical punish-everybody-because-of-a-few-recalcitrant-persons-policy that the Barisan National government is so fond of. That the accused did not resort to these same measures is not remotely civil but unforgivably criminal.
I now turn to the mens rea (the requisite intention, because murder needs intention to be proved). This was manifested in exhibit P-2 and particularly in the passage I have quoted earlier. The murder of the call to the Bar was pre-meditated because all those letters sent by the accused are standard and prepared prior to the event. (Pause for effect and consider raising right arm aesthetically above head during the pause)
Though the accused may argue that there was no mention of any murder in exhibit P-2, it is submitted that if exhibits P-1 and P-2 are taken together and its effects realised (as it is every week), clearly the intention of the accused was to murder the call to the Bar.
M’lurd, I humbly submit that the ingredients of the offence of murder has been proved against the accused. They have not disputed exhibit P-1 and P-2 and the fact that it was issued by their own hand. I therefore pray that the accused be found guilty and that the punishment of death by hanging be carried out immediately to save future calls to the Bar.
If M’lurd does not require any further clarification on any area of my submissions, I shall end my submission here. I’m obliged.
(It is envisaged that the gallery goes wild after I conclude and chant “Death! Death! Death!” I would of course try to feign ignorance, remain aloof, and try not to stare at the wild cheering by the bikini cheerleading squad in the gallery, assuming one turns up at the hearing. I shall try my best.)