English Not Plain Enough?
The Coroners Reform Bill was published in the last week having been flagged in advance as being the start of a new method of bill publication. For the first time the Bill was to be accompanied by a plain text explanation. See the BBC story dated 7 June which heralded the changes and how useful they would be: "Unparliamentary language"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/magazine/5054940.stm
The Bill was duly published on 12 June:
http://www.dca.gov.uk/legist/coronersreform.htm#b
with a misleading fanfare from the government: Press Release:
Government Publishes Coroner Reform Bill - New Focus on the Bereaved First Bill to Be Written in Plain English (it was the explanation which was in plain English, not the Bill)
Unfortunately, the press release and the plain English explanation fail to mention that one of the most important provisions of the Bill - the new power for inquests to be heard in private - is completely new and revolutionary and has profound implications for the Coroner's Service. Fortunately, a few coroners have noticed the problem and have been quick to attack this provision: " Coroners' leader condemns secret inquests as the end of justice" in the Sunday Telegraph is clear enough:
I am not a particular fan of the Campaign for Plain English mainly because many of the documents approved by it (like the legal aid forms I used to have to fill out) appeared to me to be so simplistic as to be patronising. The English was not "plain" it was "simple" which are two entirely different things. Much was lost in the translation of legalistic English into plain English, because the simple words used were not sophisticated enough. The important thing about the language of the legal system is that it should be right even if it has to be complicated to succeed in this aim. Complex laws require complex language and, let's face it, most laws are complex when you get down to it, otherwise they would not be necessary.
The new power under clause 41 of the Coroners Reform Bill to exclude the public from proceedings which have always been public before is so important that you would have thought that the explanatory statement would have clarified this.
The Clause reads:
"Subject to section 44 and to any provision made by the Coroners Rules inquests are to be held in public"
the explanation says:
"This clause makes clear that inquests should be held in public unless there are exceptional reasons for excluding the public; the Coroners rules (to be made under clause 67) will set out the grounds on which the public may be excluded from inquests. The 1984 Rules only require inquests to be held in private where this is necessary to safeguard national security (rule 17)."
The rules have not yet been made and could be far-reaching.
Wouldn't it have been better if the government had given us a plain explanation of what they intend and isn't their failure to do so an example of the misuse of explanatory information, whether in plain English or not?
This week's newswire is late because of pressure of work (I have been up to my neck in my last and largest PI case as well as other critical matters) and because I have to prepare for my holiday next week. I'll be back.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/magazine/5054940.stm
The Bill was duly published on 12 June:
http://www.dca.gov.uk/legist/coronersreform.htm#b
with a misleading fanfare from the government: Press Release:
Government Publishes Coroner Reform Bill - New Focus on the Bereaved First Bill to Be Written in Plain English (it was the explanation which was in plain English, not the Bill)
Unfortunately, the press release and the plain English explanation fail to mention that one of the most important provisions of the Bill - the new power for inquests to be heard in private - is completely new and revolutionary and has profound implications for the Coroner's Service. Fortunately, a few coroners have noticed the problem and have been quick to attack this provision: " Coroners' leader condemns secret inquests as the end of justice" in the Sunday Telegraph is clear enough:
I am not a particular fan of the Campaign for Plain English mainly because many of the documents approved by it (like the legal aid forms I used to have to fill out) appeared to me to be so simplistic as to be patronising. The English was not "plain" it was "simple" which are two entirely different things. Much was lost in the translation of legalistic English into plain English, because the simple words used were not sophisticated enough. The important thing about the language of the legal system is that it should be right even if it has to be complicated to succeed in this aim. Complex laws require complex language and, let's face it, most laws are complex when you get down to it, otherwise they would not be necessary.
The new power under clause 41 of the Coroners Reform Bill to exclude the public from proceedings which have always been public before is so important that you would have thought that the explanatory statement would have clarified this.
The Clause reads:
"Subject to section 44 and to any provision made by the Coroners Rules inquests are to be held in public"
the explanation says:
"This clause makes clear that inquests should be held in public unless there are exceptional reasons for excluding the public; the Coroners rules (to be made under clause 67) will set out the grounds on which the public may be excluded from inquests. The 1984 Rules only require inquests to be held in private where this is necessary to safeguard national security (rule 17)."
The rules have not yet been made and could be far-reaching.
Wouldn't it have been better if the government had given us a plain explanation of what they intend and isn't their failure to do so an example of the misuse of explanatory information, whether in plain English or not?
This week's newswire is late because of pressure of work (I have been up to my neck in my last and largest PI case as well as other critical matters) and because I have to prepare for my holiday next week. I'll be back.
posted by Steve Butler, UKlawyers | 10:53 am
|
1 comments
