142 THE ADVOCATE
VOL. 80 PART 1 JANUARY 2022
I have an appointment tomorrow at 3:00 with Sir Ian Sinclair and John
Freeland and I propose to tackle them and tackle them as hard as I can
with propriety, with the Provincial argument, which they have never
heard, with a view to trying to divide them. I suspect I’ll fail. I haven’t
made up my mind but I’m more or less decided that I will not go on to
the Lord Chancellor’s bureaucracy—it probably would be improper and I
don’t want to risk any improprieties.11
THE TOP MAN
I remained somewhat pessimistic about getting my arguments heard. I
made several phone calls to the man I considered my equal within the
Attorney General’s office, James Nursaw, and none were returned. One
evening I returned to my hotel after a day of my “official” meetings—with
the police commissioner and the director of public prosecutions—to find
several “URGENT” messages from James Nursaw. I returned his call immediately
and for the first time was connected immediately. He said, “Hello,
Mr. Vogel, the Attorney General would like to meet you.” After some shock
as I struggled to make sense of this information, I managed to choke out:
“Of course, when?” To which he replied, “Would now be convenient?” Sam
Silkin had come through.
Nursaw decided they’d come to my hotel on St. James’s Place. This presented
a problem. My room was so small that I could stand in the centre and
touch both walls, and I realized I had to act fast. I rushed down to the
concierge and explained my plight. After confirming absolutely that I really
did mean the Attorney General, Sir Michael Havers, himself, he said simply,
“Of course, sir. We’ll clear the bar.” And at that he unsettled a room full
of posh Londoners enjoying a drink. Fifteen minutes later a Daimler
appeared—so large it could not fit into the courtyard of the hotel—and out
of it appeared Sir Michael Havers and James Nursaw. “Vogel,” he said, “they
tell me you’re to be trusted. I want you to know that if it became known that
I met with you, it could mean my job.” I assured him I would tell no one
other than the Attorney General of British Columbia and Mel Smith, who
was also in London and on his way to join the meeting. Havers listened to
our arguments closely and seemed sympathetic. He explained the difficulty
of his position with respect to Hailsham, the Lord Chancellor. Unlike the
Lord Chancellor, the Attorney General is not a member of the Cabinet. The
Attorney General is responsible for legal opinions, but only when asked.
Hailsham, a powerful lawyer in his own respect, had no compunction about
coming to his own conclusions. Nonetheless, he promised to take the arguments
into consideration.
I must say the meeting was one of the most dramatic events in my career
as a public servant. Years later, when this was all just a memory, Stephen