This week, the Court of Appeal rebuked High Court Judge, Justice Richard Humphreys, not for faulty judgement but for his strikingly vivid writing manner in recent decisions. Rather than his usual judicious style, he used modern expressions and traditional allusions to enhance his evaluate writing, a move the appeals court did not appreciate.
“It is unquestionable that judgements have to be drafted in a comprehensible, unambiguous manner, however implementing slang or idioms (aside from quotations),” claims the appeals court. The judge’s usage of phrases such as “gaslighting” and stepping “into Mordor,” caused confusion as understanding the judgement depended on the readers’ comprehension of such literary expressions.
Certainly, court judgements are not designed for enjoyable reading. The Irish legal system is well-known for its elaborate, verbose, redundant court rulings bathed in austere prose. Nonetheless, a casual phrase or two won’t hurt, provided it is in Latin. The concept is to have these judgements understood by a specific segment, targeted at those required (students) or employed (lawyers, barristers, journalists) to decipher them.
A decline in traditional standards could have broader repercussions. One of the triumphs of our legal procedure is its linguistically challenging nature. Much of the work carried out by lawyers are, in essence, fairly mundane. Their proposed discussions are straightforward, yet the splendour of studying law empowers the professional to articulate, construct phrases and even adapt their accent in a way that differs entirely from common conversation, thereby making everything sound much more intricate and cryptic. If legal terminologies are simplified for a common understanding to make it “accessible,” as per a new-age phrase, individuals might question the exorbitant fees paid to lawyers.