Sydney Templeman, Baron Templeman

Templeman is famous for paving the way for later judges to combat tax avoidance. He is famous for the concept of "Sham Transactions" introduced in the case of Black Nominees Ltd v Nicol (Inspector of Taxes). This case (which concerned an avoidance scheme adopted by the advisers of the actress Julie Christie) was groundbreaking as for the first time, judges were able to depart from the controversial Duke of Westminster Doctrine. Consequently, the business/commercial motive of a transaction conducted by a taxpayer would be considered. Notwithstanding this he was also famous for being a supporter of the Ramsay Doctrine and was notable for writing a scathing public letter (in retirement) to Lord Hoffman for wanting to move away from the Ramsay Principle in the Ramsay case. Ironically, during his time at the bar he had been active in advising on tax mitigation schemes for his clients, although this may have helped formulate his later views on the bench.[1]

Templeman also handed down a number of judgments which were very socially conservative. In R v Brown [1993] UKHL 19 when considering whether injuries inflicted during sadomasochistic sex with the consent of all parties was legal, he said: "Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilised." Templeman was also one of the dissenting judges in the famous case of Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA [1986] AC 112, arguing, inter alia, that sub-16-year-old girls should not be having sex and, therefore, cannot legally consent to being prescribed contraceptives by a physician (thus necessitating parental consent to obtain prescription contraceptives).[4]

Other significant cases, in which Lord Templeman appeared, were the Spycatcher case (relating to the duty of confidentiality and the Official Secrecy Act)[5] and dismissing the claims of the mother of Jacqueline Hill, the last victim of the Peter Sutcliffe (the "Yorkshire Ripper"), against the police for failing to apprehend the killer before he murdered her.[6][7]

During his time on the bench, Lord Templeman was known to be short with counsel who persisted with a line of argument after he had made up his mind, which earned him the affectionate sobriquet, "Syd Vicious".[1]

Lord Templeman was also renowned for his colourful language. In Borden (UK) Ltd v Scottish Timber Products Ltd [1979] 3 WLR 672 at 686 he remarked:

"At some distant date, when the court has unearthed the unearthable, traced the untraceable and calculated the incalculable, there will emerge the sum, which it is said belongs to the plaintiffs in equity. This sum, which is immune from the claims of Crown and mortgagee, debenture holder and creditor, a sum secured to the plaintiffs by a simple retention of title clause, which referred only to resin but was pregnant with all the consequences alleged in the statement of claim and hidden from the gaze of all other persons who dealt with the defendants."

When he expressed judicial opinions - either on legal or social issues - he often did so in strident tones. In A-G for Hong Kong v Reid [1993] UKPC 36, he referred to bribery as an "evil practice which threatens the foundations of any civilised society". In Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [1992] 2 AC 1 when counsel tried to rely upon the decision in Sutton's Hospital Case (1612) 10 Co Rep 1 he said: "This argument strikes me as being not so much arcane as absurd."

However, he was also capable of striking a deeply compassionate note. Whilst dismissing the claim of Anita Hill's mother for the murder of her daughter, he said: "The appellant, Mrs. Hill, is tormented with the unshakeable belief that her daughter would be alive today if the respondent the West Yorkshire police force had been more efficient. That belief is entitled to respect and understanding. Damages cannot compensate for the brutal extinction of a young life."[8]