Hon Sir Mark Cooper KC shares his decision to return to practice and join Bankside Chambers, the most memorable cases he heard as a judge, the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission, the importance of tikanga education in law schools, and more.
Following your retirement from the judiciary, what led to the decision that joining Bankside Chambers was the right move for you at this stage of your life and career?
I retired in November 2024 having reached the compulsory retirement age of 70. After some time off, I started to think that rather than reflecting on the past I should find something else to do. Arbitration appealed as a way of using the talents and experience I had developed over the years.
You’ve had a long and illustrious tenure on the bench – what has it been like to return to practice?
I’ve been excited by it. Lawyers who litigate are lucky because there are a number of recognised progressions in their career. In my case: young solicitor, partner in Simpson Grierson, barrister, Queen’s Counsel, judge, and now back to work as an arbitrator. It’s a good feeling, that there is another phase after the judiciary.
Going into chambers most days, enjoying the commute on the harbour, reconnecting with people I knew from my days as a practising lawyer and judge and meeting the younger lawyers at Bankside has been stimulating. I have loved getting back to work. It turns out I wasn’t ready to retire!
What for you was the most memorable matter you heard as a judge, and why?
Well “most memorable” is an interesting expression. It’s really hard to choose, because of the variety of cases. Most murder trials are memorable and so are the trials of other serious crimes, where the victim has lived through it.
They are memorable because of the graphic recounting of extreme violence and the need to remain calm and objective to ensure the issues are left to the jury after a fair trial. It’s best not to mention names, but some of them will always stay with me, particularly trials I presided at in New Plymouth (the murder of a young German backpacker), in Whanganui where I grew up (the murder of an elderly lady in her home and her children, many grandchildren and great grandchildren were present throughout a three week trial) and in Timaru, a trial in which there were six defendants blaming each other for a death resulting from a fatal group attack.
At the other end of the spectrum, but definitely memorable in its own way, was a long civil trial about the alleged under-performance of a boiler at the Kinleith paper mill. There was a vast amount of technical evidence with experts from all around the world. It went for 153 sitting days before it settled. We were only part way through the first defendant’s case, and Rolls Royce was the second defendant! It settled at 9.30 one morning. The court’s scheduler, Corrina MacDonald, congratulated me on the good news, then asked if I could do the bails at 11.30. For some reason I have always remembered that.
In the Court of Appeal I wrote the judgment in the Lundy case, which involved a very close examination of scientific and forensic evidence. And more recently there were some difficult cases involving Treaty issues, the Waitangi Tribunal and others involving the New Zealand Bill of Rights, sentencing and police powers of search. These cases were memorable because of the importance of the issues they raised, and sometimes the tensions around them.
You’ve chaired a Royal Commission and presided over the Court of Appeal – what is one initiative you’ve led that you felt was particularly meaningful to you, and why?
I don’t think I will be remembered as a great innovator. However, I was proud of the way in which the Royal Commission approached its work in Christchurch, which I think was to some extent innovative. Many had died in the earthquake of 22 February 2011, and many had been injured. Some had lost limbs. We had to conduct an inquiry in which we needed to investigate the causes of building failures, and in the course of which we would need to explain as best we could why those failures occurred.
There was a need to preserve our objectivity and conduct a fair process in which people who might have reputations at stake could rely on the Commission’s impartiality. Yet as I saw it, that did not need to be done by keeping the bereaved at arm’s length; they should not be treated as if involved in an adversarial process. Assisted by some magnificent people on the staff of the Royal Commission, I met with anyone who wanted to talk to us about their experiences on the day of the earthquake and the following days during the ongoing search and recovery process. Many did. It was often very moving. We had a lawyer, Marcus Elliott (now a coroner), who was appointed to represent the interests of the bereaved and kept in touch with them throughout the process.
I think it was important to ensure that people felt there was a thorough investigation into what had led to significant loss of life. I was pleased that the Royal Commission was able to function in this way while respecting the need to comply fully with the rules of natural justice.
Last year, you were given the KNZM distinction – what does this accolade mean to you?
It’s reassuring that others have decided that I should be recognised for my service to the judiciary and it also reflects in part the work that all the judges do supporting the rule of law in our country. You try to do the job as well as you can, but you don’t really know how you are going. It’s a kind of validation. My wife and wider family were very pleased by it, and my parents would have been too.
You’ve broken quite a few barriers as a Māori lawyer – what in your opinion is the most significant way in which your career has impacted the community?
This is an interesting question. I was not brought up to be Māori and went to a private school where the emphasis was really on English and European history. No-one spoke te reo, nor was it taught. My Māori heritage was rarely discussed at home, and not even mentioned until I was eighteen. Looking back I think my father thought it would be better not referred to and I know he thought he would have gone further in his career had he looked less Māori. Not only that, like many he had lost his connection to his iwi. This was partly as a result of intertribal fighting that led to his tupuna being taken in slavery from Whatawhata by Ngāpuhi, followed by marriage to an Englishman and a period of time spent in Australia.
It was not until many years after my father had died that I discovered this heritage. I went to university, qualified as a lawyer, and commenced practice. I put my head down and worked hard. I don’t think of myself having “broken barriers as a Māori lawyer” as your question puts it.
I have had a good career, eventually becoming president of the Court of Appeal, and I am proud of and have acknowledged my Māori ancestry. It is possible that by doing that I have helped or encouraged other Māori lawyers. If that is so, I am glad. That would be a significant impact on the community. But there are now many Māori judges, and of course Sir Joe Williams sits in the Supreme Court and Justice Christian Whata in the Court of Appeal.
More generally, I have done my best to adhere to the terms of the judicial oath, to “do right to all manner of people according to the laws and usages of New Zealand, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.” And I think that is the most significant thing. In that, I will be like the other judges whose work is the maintenance of the rule of law.
You played a key role in introducing tikanga education into law schools – why is this initiative so important to legal education?
Others know much more about Tikanga than I do. I conceive of it as a set of customary relational rules that governed the behaviour of Māori interactions prior to the imposition of English law in the 1840s, and which continue to be practised today.
The status of Māori as the first inhabitants of the country and the terms of Te Tiriti o Waitangi make it appropriate for what the Supreme Court referred to as the first law of New Zealand to be taught to and understood by law students. That is underlined by the fact that it is now referred to in many statutes.
The members of the New Zealand Council of Legal Education, which is broadly representative of the profession and the law schools, were unanimously of the view that tikanga should be one of the core compulsory courses for the law degree, and the relevant Parliamentary committee has since endorsed that approach.
Over time the result should be a better understanding of tikanga and the circumstances in which it can appropriately be applied. I think this is an important recognition of something that is very important to Māori, their mana and sense of belonging in what is, after all, their own home.
What are you looking forward to in 2026?
Doing well in my new career, trying to be a useful member of Bankside Chambers. And doing what I can to help the younger lawyers there.
This interview was originally published by Jacqueline So for NZ Lawyer in three parts: Bankside Chambers’ Mark Cooper realised he ‘wasn’t ready to retire’, Bankside Chambers’ Mark Cooper talks leading the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission, Bankside Chambers’ Mark Cooper on tikanga education and his Māori heritage.
Comment