John Batt

I wanted to say, I didn’t have Norval Morris, I had Sandford H. Kadish from somewhere in America, I can’t remember where it was, but he was the first person from whom I had the case book method and, well, it took a while to get the principles that way, I thought.

Clive Tadgell

One had to do unaccustomed reading beforehand which took us a couple of years to master, I think.

JD Phillips

And you had to answer questions in class, and what they were just starting to introduce, as I recall it, were questions from the lecturer. In our first couple of years, all we did was sit there and write down what he was saying. But in the last couple of years it started to change a bit and Zelman Cowen particularly was very keen on asking questions. And I remember him asking me a question once, and he said, “What’s your opinion on this?” I said “None”. He said “What, you have no opinion?” And I still remember these ringing tones – “no opinion at all?!”

Bill Ormiston

That’s right - even at a very early stage, I can’t remember with legal history, but we were given a lot of paper to read by Harold Ford, and in crime we had a case book which was Kenny’s Cases on Crime, and in torts, we had Morison’s Case Book on Torts and we certainly had to read that in advance.

JD Phillips

Yes, we did. But it wasn’t taught by reference.

Bill Ormiston

It wasn’t taught as much, but there were questions put.

John Batt

We had (Geoffrey) Sawer’s case book on constitutional law.

JD Phillips

As I recall, the difference was - we had principles, we always had the principles taught and the cases were used as illustrative of the principles. Where now, I suspect, they’re given the cases and taught about the cases and asked to learn directly from the cases, which I think is weaker.

Juliette Brodsky

Why do you think that?

JD Phillips

Well, I think certainly for a barrister - a barrister is, I think, more persuasive if he’s got the principle behind him rather than the example, because the example is always a bit different and if you understand why the case comes out like that, I think you’re the stronger for it.

Juliette Brodsky

Yes, in terms of advocacy.

JD Phillips

And knowledge and correctness. Judicially I think it is.

John Batt

Can I just mention, (to) go back to David Derham, I thought he was a great lecturer and he introduced me - so far as I’ve ever gone really - to logical positivism and Wittgenstein’s philosophy, in jurisprudence.

Juliette Brodsky

And what bearing did those philosophies have as far as your thinking was concerned?

John Batt

Well, it made you think, it made you understand words and ideas.

Clive Tadgell

To use Derham’s phrase, he used to leave tracks in the sand which you found in after ages.

James Merralls

He was a very sophisticated lecturer. Some of the others I thought were more pass-undergraduate lecturers. David Derham never tried to be that and I think he lost some of the pass people.

Juliette Brodsky

So, he made it clear that it was up to you to follow him, and if you didn’t, it was all the same to him?

James Merralls

No, I don’t think so. He just was what he was, but …

JD Phillips

He connected.

Bill Ormiston

Yes, he was good in explaining principles, but he took you further especially in jurisprudence, I think. Because he’d written a textbook, I think.

James Merralls

Edited.

Bill Ormiston

No – oh, I’m sorry - that’s right, it was Paton who’d written the first edition, I think.

John Batt

And he’d written a leading article on legal personality.

Juliette Brodsky

So, a very fruitful number of years at the university by all your accounts?

All

Yes. We were very lucky. Extremely lucky. Well taught.