Rename: f-Statute of Limitations in Rape. Now: Verbosity of Legalese

WesternNight

Hi, as the title suggests, I'm wondering what the statute of limitations for rape is in Ireland, if any? I'm hoping there's none, as we'd be talking something that happened 40ish years ago at this stage.

Thanks in advance.

murrayp4

For criminal offenses there is no statute of limitations.

dats_right

murrayp4 wrote: »

For criminal offenses there is no statute of limitations.

That is not correct at all. This area can be quite complicated.

For summary matters i.e. minor matters triable by Judge alone there is usually a six month time limit. For indictable offences i.e. more serious offences triable by jury there is no definitive statutory limit for initiating proceedings. However, constitutional principles such as right to fair trial, etc become applicable. Unquestionably excessively long delays in prosecuting offences can result in certain difficulties. That said if this is a real matter, I would serioulsy advise against relying on internet forums such as this and would recommend that a complaint should be reported the to the Gardai, who will investigate the matter and probably refer the matter to the DPP for guidance and direction as to whether a criminal trial is likely to succeed.

Croc

dats_right wrote: »

That is not correct at all. This area can be quite complicated.

For summary matters i.e. minor matters triable by Judge alone there is usually a six month time limit. For indictable offences i.e. more serious offences triable by jury there is no definitive statutory limit for initiating proceedings. However, constitutional principles such as right to fair trial, etc become applicable. Unquestionably excessively long delays in prosecuting offences can result in certain difficulties. That said if this is a real matter, I would serioulsy advise against relying on internet forums such as this and would recommend that a complaint should be reported the to the Gardai, who will investigate the matter and probably refer the matter to the DPP for guidance and direction as to whether a criminal trial is likely to succeed.

Could'ent have put it better myself

murrayp4

I completely agree with the above posts. My answer while in the strictest sense is true, is also over simplistic and not even close to a true reflection of the issues that would need to be considered in a matter as serious as that the OP asked about
As was said above, an internet forum is not the way to sound out advice on a matter as serious as this and I regret replying in the first instance.

WesternNight

Thanks for the replies.

And for the record, there was never any intention of relying solely on an internet forum for information.

ChrisSullivan

. . but very useful for somebody writing a novel.

pirelli

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

murrayp4 wrote: »

I completely agree with the above posts. My answer while in the strictest sense is true, is also over simplistic and not even close to a true reflection of the issues that would need to be considered in a matter as serious as that the OP asked about
As was said above, an internet forum is not the way to sound out advice on a matter as serious as this and I regret replying in the first instance.

:rolleyes: hmmm

Glad you regret... at least by now you have grasped the importance of the matter.3rd time lucky oops 2nd time.

ChrisSullivan

I suppose he regrets getting involved in the first place as he was right in what he said but then a few people chimed in; there is no statute of limitations in any civilised country for murder and rape and, in the UK, for robbing a train.

murrayp4

pirelli wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

:rolleyes: hmmm

Glad you regret... at least by now you have grasped the importance of the matter.3rd time lucky oops 2nd time.

????

MagicSean

ChrisSullivan wrote: »

I suppose he regrets getting involved in the first place as he was right in what he said but then a few people chimed in; there is no statute of limitations in any civilised country for murder and rape and, in the UK, for robbing a train.

Don't some US states have a three year limit from when the offence was committed or when the victim turns 18?

drkpower

This short thread highlights one of the problems the legal profession has.

In the context of the OPs question Murrayp4 gave the effective correct answer, succinctly and to the point. Sure, he didnt explain that there are summary offnces where his answer doesnt strictly apply, but the topic was rape and, in essence, he gave the right answer. That is what people & clients want; the answer, straight and to the point; they usually dont care about whether there are some minor exceptions to the rule as long as it doesnt affect them.

And then you get the usual 'legal profession' answer, which takes about 5 times as much time and space, and only serves to muddy the answer for the 'client', who in this case wants to know about any limitation periods applicable to rape; not that there is anything technically incorrect about the 'legal profession' answer, but it is answering a question that wasnt asked and isnt especially relevenet; and clients hate that.

So Murrayp4 gives the short snappy client focussed answer, and then gets slagged for it - ah, will the legal profession ever change?

ChrisSullivan

k_mac wrote: »

Don't some US states have a three year limit from when the offence was committed or when the victim turns 18?

I live in America and I did say civilised countries!!!! I jest of course but I don't know.
The Baptist Church Bombings in Alabama in 1963 is a case in point; it was bombed by 4 members of a splinter group of the Ku Klix Klan; 2 of them died and the other 2 were arrested; 1 was tried and convicted since 2000.

johnnyskeleton

drkpower wrote: »

This short thread highlights one of the problems the legal profession has.

In the context of the OPs question Murrayp4 gave the effective correct answer, succinctly and to the point. Sure, he didnt explain that there are summary offnces where his answer doesnt strictly apply, but the topic was rape and, in essence, he gave the right answer. That is what people & clients want; the answer, straight and to the point; they usually dont care about whether there are some minor exceptions to the rule as long as it doesnt affect them.

And then you get the usual 'legal profession' answer, which takes about 5 times as much time and space, and only serves to muddy the answer for the 'client', who in this case wants to know about any limitation periods applicable to rape; not that there is anything technically incorrect about the 'legal profession' answer, but it is answering a question that wasnt asked and isnt especially relevenet; and clients hate that.

So Murrayp4 gives the short snappy client focussed answer, and then gets slagged for it - ah, will the legal profession ever change?

That's kinda like saying that surgeons spend too much time preparing for an operation, they should just slice em open and pull out whatever seems to be the problem.

drkpower

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's kinda like saying that surgeons spend too much time preparing for an operation, they should just slice em open and pull out whatever seems to be the problem.

Nah, its nothing like that.

johnnyskeleton

drkpower wrote: »

Nah, its nothing like that.

You want lawyers to oversimplify complex issues, so yes, it is just like that.

drkpower

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You want lawyers to oversimplify complex issues, so yes, it is just like that.

Afraid not. Read it again. People want short simple straightforward answers to the question they asked. They dont want to know the various exceptions that are very unlikley to be relevent to their own situation.

But your post is very telling, though. The job of a lawyer IS to simplify complex issues, and yes, sometimes even to the point of oversimplification. That is not to say that pertinent issues should be ignored, but it does not mean that detailed explanations should be given to non-relevant exceptions. So, in the context of a question on limitation periods for rape, the answer 'there are no statutory periods for criminal offences (in this context)' is the answer someone needs. They do not need to know about potential limitation periods for summary criminal offences, as that, while being perfectly correct, is not relevent to heir situation. Its the difference between law as an academic interest and the actual real-life practice of law and interaction with clients. Clients do not care, do not want and should not be charged for answering wider legal questions not relevent to their actual situation.

If you want to use a surgical analogy, it would be like a surgeon giving a detailed explanation, to a patient (with a normal liver) undergoing gall bladder surgery, of how the removal of a gall bladder may affect someone who has co-existing liver disease. It is very interesting information, it is all correct information, but it is not what a patient needs or wants to know. They simply need to know how the removal of their gall bladder will affect them.

ChrisSullivan

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's kinda like saying that surgeons spend too much time preparing for an operation, they should just slice em open and pull out whatever seems to be the problem.

A surgeon looks at the patient's problems and fixes it - a lawyer doesn't know what the problem is till the client tells them or even if something is wrong. For example what is 'is'?

@ drkpower: The original post was about 40 words long. What any lawyer, be they solicitor or barrister, would do if they were asked this exact question in real life is not give a 10 word answer, they would ask for more information.

The OP is not a lawyer and while they classify the alleged offence as rape, what sort of rape is it? Was it rape or was it sexual assault? The case is 40 years old so the first thing that would jump to my mind is how old was the victim at the time of the incident as that opens an entirely new avenue of advice.

Professional legal advice is given in the detail which you dislike for a number of reasons but mostly because:

1. Most of the time the client doesn't know the right question, so giving the right answer isn't really a possibility. Getting all the facts is the first port of call for any legal professional.

2. Giving short and definitive answers is great until you come across someone who DOES fall into one of the rare exceptions and you get sued by them for your faulty advice.

3. The law, generally, does not lend itself to simple answers to individual questions. The eccentricities of every situation make it different and offering blanket answers to very short and broad questions involving matters of the most serious criminal offences would be negligent, irresponsible and dangerous.


In a shorter answer: I disagree with you totally.

ChrisSullivan

Deleted User wrote: »

@ drkpower: The original post was about 40 words long. What any lawyer, be they solicitor or barrister, would do if they were asked this exact question in real life is not give a 10 word answer, they would ask for more information.

The OP is not a lawyer and while they classify the alleged offence as rape, what sort of rape is it? Was it rape or was it sexual assault? The case is 40 years old so the first thing that would jump to my mind is how old was the victim at the time of the incident as that opens an entirely new avenue of advice.

Professional legal advice is given in the detail which you dislike for a number of reasons but mostly because:

1. Most of the time the client doesn't know the right question, so giving the right answer isn't really a possibility. Getting all the facts is the first port of call for any legal professional.

2. Giving short and definitive answers is great until you come across someone who DOES fall into one of the rare exceptions and you get sued by them for your faulty advice.

3. The law, generally, does not lend itself to simple answers to individual questions. The eccentricities of every situation make it different and offering blanket answers to very short and broad questions involving matters of the most serious criminal offences would be negligent, irresponsible and dangerous.


In a shorter answer: I disagree with you totally.

That's very eloquent but you didn't sum up clearly so I don't know what, or even who, you disagree with.

ChrisSullivan

ChrisSullivan wrote: »

That's very eloquent but you didn't sum up clearly so I don't know what, or even who, you disagree with.

The very first line states "@drkpower", thereby implying that I disagree with his general position, stated in the preceding post, that elaborate legal advice is not what the clients need or want.

johnnyskeleton

drkpower wrote: »

Afraid not. Read it again. People want short simple straightforward answers to the question they asked. They dont want to know the various exceptions that are very unlikley to be relevent to their own situation.

Ok - people want a surgeon to take a quick look at them, slice em open quickly and have them on their feet in an hour ready to go about their business, does that mean that surgeons should perform such negligent operations because it is requested by the client?

drkpower wrote: »

But your post is very telling, though. The job of a lawyer IS to simplify complex issues, and yes, sometimes even to the point of oversimplification.

No it is not, and I wonder what you use as the basis to suggest this. A lawyer's job is to advise and represent a client, and part of this advisory role is to explain the law. Obviously they will frame their explanations based on the client's ability to comprehend it, but even still they cannot oversimplify the law just because that would make it neater for the client.

drkpower wrote: »

That is not to say that pertinent issues should be ignored, but it does not mean that detailed explanations should be given to non-relevant exceptions. So, in the context of a question on limitation periods for rape, the answer 'there are no statutory periods for criminal offences (in this context)' is the answer someone needs

That answer is wrong though, and if a solicitor gave it to a client they would be negligent. The reality is, as dats right points out, much more complex than that as issues can arise as to the prohibition of a trial on the basis of delay. So to say that there is no statute of limitations is a very cavalier way to advise a client.

ChrisSullivan

Deleted User wrote: »

The very first line states "@drkpower", thereby implying that I disagree with his general position, stated in the preceding post, that elaborate legal advice is not what the clients need or want.

Well there we go; you are right, of course, but the lawyer has to tell the client everything when giving legal advice or they could be sued afterwards for witholding it. The client doesn't want to hear mumbo jumbo but they don't have a choice.
The problem with legal speak is that they have to repeat themselves and refer back to previous arguements to prove a point and cover everything.
Bill Clintion could answer his accusers when he was impeached by arguing about a tense because they didn't get the wording right in their accusations..

Victor

drkpower wrote: »

If you want to use a surgical analogy, it would be like a surgeon giving a detailed explanation, to a patient (with a normal liver) undergoing gall bladder surgery, of how the removal of a gall bladder may affect someone who has co-existing liver disease. It is very interesting information, it is all correct information, but it is not what a patient needs or wants to know. They simply need to know how the removal of their gall bladder will affect them.

Actually, you are over simplifying things. The greatest problem with lay clients is that they don't know the questions to ask. Therefore, while one can give an answer to the question asked, based on the facts / other information given, a qualification doesn't go astray.

And make a better conversation.

drkpower

Deleted User wrote: »

@ drkpower: The original post was about 40 words long. What any lawyer, be they solicitor or barrister, would do if they were asked this exact question in real life is not give a 10 word answer, they would ask for more information.

The OP is not a lawyer and while they classify the alleged offence as rape, what sort of rape is it? Was it rape or was it sexual assault? The case is 40 years old so the first thing that would jump to my mind is how old was the victim at the time of the incident as that opens an entirely new avenue of advice.

Professional legal advice is given in the detail which you dislike for a number of reasons but mostly because:

1. Most of the time the client doesn't know the right question, so giving the right answer isn't really a possibility. Getting all the facts is the first port of call for any legal professional.

2. Giving short and definitive answers is great until you come across someone who DOES fall into one of the rare exceptions and you get sued by them for your faulty advice.

3. The law, generally, does not lend itself to simple answers to individual questions. The eccentricities of every situation make it different and offering blanket answers to very short and broad questions involving matters of the most serious criminal offences would be negligent, irresponsible and dangerous.


In a shorter answer: I disagree with you totally.

Dont get me wrong, I am not suggesting that, when faced with a client with a seemingly simple question, that you simply answer it in one sentence with no other form of inquiry.

Of course, the key relevent issues should be ascertained through careful questioning (so yes, clarifying what a client means by 'rape' is an important issue). Once that is done, and a judgment is made as to what legal position a client is in, the advice given must be specific and tailored to that individuals need; it should not cover every possible, but fantastically unlikely sutuation.

On your 3 points:
1. I agree.

2. By engaging in 1, you should know if they do fall (or are likely to fall) within such a rare exception. If it is higly unlikely they do, they should not be advised as if they do. A solicitor has to have the confidence to judge the situation, and advise accordingly, rather than to advise on every single possibility that may face their client. That is simply defensive practice, that costs the lawyer and the client far more than it need. It isnt prof. negligence to not advise of every possible rare exception that your client may fall within.

3. Many many profesions & disciplines do not lend itself to simple answers. Medicine is a good example, and in most ways it is far far more complex than law. It is a job of a doctor to explain difficult concepts, conditions and treatments to a patient in a simple and digestable form. A doctor who insists on advising, in detaill, a patient of every possible, but very unlikely consequence of a particular course of action, is not doing his job properly. There is no reason a lawyer should be any different.

Reloc8

This is an internet forum. The first answer given was sufficient for the OP's specific purposes.

It however was correctly added to in order that a second or subsequent person (or the OP themselves) would not be under a misapprehension that there are never time limits within which criminal prosecutions must be brought. I say nothing about the manner and style in which the correction was offered.

The rest of this is just lawyers bickering.

drkpower

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ok - people want a surgeon to take a quick look at them, slice em open quickly and have them on their feet in an hour ready to go about their business, does that mean that surgeons should perform such negligent operations because it is requested by the client?.

Dont be silly.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No it is not, and I wonder what you use as the basis to suggest this. A lawyer's job is to advise and represent a client, and part of this advisory role is to explain the law. Obviously they will frame their explanations based on the client's ability to comprehend it, but even still they cannot oversimplify the law just because that would make it neater for the client.

A client wants advice in the most simple & digestable form. A lawyers job is to fulfill that need. Most clients want 'an explanation of the law' (in the widest sense) like a hole in the head. They only care what impact the law has on their specific situation.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That answer is wrong though, and if a solicitor gave it to a client they would be negligent. The reality is, as dats right points out, much more complex than that as issues can arise as to the prohibition of a trial on the basis of delay. So to say that there is no statute of limitations is a very cavalier way to advise a client.

Sigh; the standard required on a internet froum is a little different to that is a solr-client relationship....:rolleyes: Of course, I was using the reaction (of some) to the first answer to the OPs question to raise the wider issue of the manner in which many lawyers advise clients. I wasnt suggesting that if a real-life client walked into my office with that question, I would simply give them a one-liner and send him on his way!!

johnnyskeleton

drkpower wrote: »

Dont be silly.

...

A client wants advice in the most simple & digestable form. A lawyers job is to fulfill that need. Most clients want 'an explanation of the law' (in the widest sense) like a hole in the head.

[/quote]

I fail to see how I am being silly and you are not. Your argument is that because a client wants a simple answer they should get it, and if a legal adivser feels the need to explain the complexities of the area then they are failing their client.

Professional services are a customer industry in a way - if you do not provide the service the client wants they can go to someone else. However, in another way, it is not the case that the customer is always right and always gets what they want. For example, if a customer wants to sue someone but has a completely unstateable case (e.g. they want to sue God), then a solicitor can refuse to act on their behalf. Likewise, if a client wants a simple answer to a simple issue they should get it. But if they want a simple answer to a complex issue (and perhaps the difficulties in this thread arise because you do not realise how complex it actually is) then no matter how much they want a simple answer it would be negligent of the solicitor to do so and it would be doing a disservice to the client, even if they did not appreciate it.

drkpower wrote: »

They only care what impact the law has on their specific situation.

1) dats right mentioned summary proceedings, which seems to be your big bugbear in this thread, purely because a previous poster stated that there was no statute of limitations for criminal matters at all. So he was addressing a wrong.

2) the main part of what he said does have an impact on the question asked by the OP because sex delay prohibition cases are a large and complex area of the law that gives rise to no simple answers. So again even if the previous answer could be read to say that there is no statute of limitations for rape that is still not a complete answer.

drkpower wrote: »

Sigh; the standard required on a internet froum is a little different to that is a solr-client relationship....:rolleyes:

Lol. You were the one who suggested that it was when you said "This short thread highlights one of the problems the legal profession has" and concluded "So Murrayp4 gives the short snappy client focussed answer, and then gets slagged for it - ah, will the legal profession ever change?". You can't make a general argument about the legal profession based on an internet forum and then pretend that it is me who is conflating the two.

drkpower wrote: »

Of course, I was using the reaction (of some) to the first answer to the OPs question to raise the wider issue of the manner in which many lawyers advise clients.I wasnt suggesting that if a real-life client walked into my office with that question, I would simply give them a one-liner and send him on his way!!

So do you accept then that my analogy has some merit - that a solicitor giving a short answer to a complex issue becuase that's what the client wants is like a doctor doing quick and dirty surgery on a patient because that's what the patient wants?

More importantly, if you weren't suggesting that you would give a one liner to such a client and send him on his way, then why did you say earlier that "the answer 'there are no statutory periods for criminal offences (in this context)' is the answer someone needs. "?

drkpower

Johnny, I think you might be confused as to the point I am making. I was using the reaction to the first reply to the OP as an illustration of how many lawyers seek to over analyse rather than tailor an answer specific to their client's needs. Perhaps that should have been done as part of a different thread, as I am less concerned with this specific set of facts, than in the more general application of my point.

When I used the proviso '(in this context)' I meant the context of someone asking a question about statutory limitation periods for rape on an internet forum (where, of course, actual legal advice is not permitted......;)). AS I have said, if someone actually went to a solicitors office and raised this particular question, of course there would be a need to ask a number of questions to find out why the advice was needed, and in what context, and then it may or may not be pertinent to talk about summary offences or the potential for delay affecting proceedings.

As for 'a doctor doing quick and dirty surgery on a patient because that's what the patient wants'...... First, most surgery is dirty, and often quick, but I dont see what point you are making, or how it is an appropriate analogy. What I would say is that a doctor should explain the pertinent and relevent (to the patient) aspects of a procedure to a patient, and the pertinent risks, before engaging in any surgery. But they should not get into excessive detail as to the procedure, or excessive details as to certain highly remote risks, as to do so is not what the patient wants or needs. That is the appropriate analogy, and that is the same point I am making vis-a-vis solicitors.

Victor

drkpower wrote: »

3. Many many profesions & disciplines do not lend itself to simple answers. Medicine is a good example, and in most ways it is far far more complex than law. It is a job of a doctor to explain difficult concepts, conditions and treatments to a patient in a simple and digestable form. A doctor who insists on advising, in detaill, a patient of every possible, but very unlikely consequence of a particular course of action, is not doing his job properly. There is no reason a lawyer should be any different.

Well, let me tell you a little story. I fell on the ice on Christmas morning last year, banging my head and right shoulder, suffering a pinched nerve in my shoulder and concussion. The pinched nerve manifested itself in severe pain in the shoulder and upper arm and a tingling sensation in my fingers - all on the right side. Pain killers took care of a lot of it, but after a few trips to the doctor and physiotherapist, I still had a tingling sensation in my fingers several weeks later, but most of the pain was gone.

I was at the doctor for something else and mentioned the tingling and asked "isn't a finger tingle sometimes related to a heart condition" (I'm overweight, so its a potential concern).

He said "No, no, its nothing like that." Then he stopped, blanched and said "Its your right hand, isn't it?"

I said "yes".

He looked relieved and said "Heart conditions would be related to tingling in the left hand".

"There, but for the grace of God, go I." comes to mind.

drkpower

Victor wrote: »

Well, let me tell you a little story.

Im not sure what the point of your story or its relevance to my post?

A tingling in the fingers (as a solitary symptom) would be such an atypical manifestation of a heart condition that it certainly wouldnt warrant any action on foot of it. The practise of extra-ordinarily defensive medicine might result in someone with such a solitary symptom undergoing cardiological investigations but to do so would be inappropriate.

But analogies aside, i think we are departing from the topic (which in fairness, i am already guilty of;)).

Tom Young

Anyone got a suggestion on what we should rename this thread?

OP request was dealt with per Reloc8's remark, above. At post number 2.

We have now entered into a 'whinge-fest' over length of instructions/advices.

Tom

Victor

My point is that simplistic, even glib answers can be ignoring pertinent issues. While extreme results are rare, they need to be considered because of the adverse effect they can have on a client.

Tom Young

Yes, there are also the hypersensitive sorts, who think they are lawyers and frankly should go off and study law.

Wikipedia, Google and certain bloggers have a lot to answer for in giving advice/s, in relation to law, medicine, etc. ....

"I read on Google that I might have a galloping dose of [Insert infection]", "I read on wikipedia that I can sue for [Insert tort] and make €x amount."

Short remarks/advices can neutralise such matters from most professionals.

In the information age, many think they are experts in matters which they are not.

Tom

johnnyskeleton

Tom Young wrote: »

Anyone got a suggestion on what we should rename this thread?

Since the main issue is the verbosity of legalese, how about "On the potential merits, and, for the purposes of completeness, the weaknesses, of a legal profession and/or a legal system which, in providing advice to a client gives a fulsome and complete analysis of the area of law in question c.f. the need for clients to have a short answer to any potential question in langugage which they can understand and without unnecessary complication (semble: whether there is, by virtue of the of the most recent case law in H v DPP, PoC v DPP and DC v DPP (to name but a few), a de facto statute of limitations in rape cases)"

Butch Cassidy

This article might be of relevance:
(Browne's a trained barrister as far as I know)
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0526/1224271139290.html

Time to reclaim law from legal priesthood
In this section


VINCENT BROWNE

The way in which the people’s laws are framed makes them a plaything of the legal classes

THE VERY last Act passed by the Oireachtas, which is available on the Irish Statute website, is the Petroleum (Exploration and Extraction) Safety Act 2010.

Section 3 of this Act states (please bear with me, for there is a point to this excruciation):

“The Act of 1999 is amended (a) in section 2(1) by inserting the following definition after the definition of “natural gas undertaking”: “ ‘petroleum undertaking’ has the meaning given to it by section 13A(1);” (b) in section 6 by inserting the following after subsection (2): “(3) Proceedings for an offence under Part IIA of this Act committed in any part of – (a) the licensed area (within the meaning of section 13A) to which subparagraph (i) or (ii), or both, of paragraph (a) of the definition of ‘licensed area’ relates, or( b) a designated area, may be taken, and the offence may for all incidental purposes be treated, as having been committed in any place in the State.”, (c) by inserting the following section after section 9K: “Functions of Commission under Part IIA relating to petroleum safety. 9L. – In addition to the functions conferred on it by section 9, the Commission has the functions specified in Part IIA relating to petroleum safety.”, (d) by inserting the following Part after Part II: (and more of the same)”.

Could any normal person understand this? Even someone afflicted with a qualification in law? It is not intended to be intelligible to anybody but legal nerds, who have a vested interest in such intelligibility, for it provides them with an income and a status.

Isn’t there something odd that the laws, by which we govern ourselves, are largely incomprehensible to us, the people, in whose name the laws are enacted? Actually it is even worse than that, for many (most?) of the laws are incomprehensible to the elected representatives who enact them and to whom we subcontract our self-government. Worse still, we have a legal priesthood who divine what it is we have meant by the Acts passed in our name, and what it is our grandfathers and grandmothers meant by the Constitution, enacted 73 years ago. And this priesthood expresses itself in language and at such length that the majority of the self-governing people could not possibly understand.

We supposedly live in a democratic society, in which the people are the sovereign power. Not the government, not the President, not any monarch, nor any priest or cardinal, nor any of the legal priesthood dressed up in Gilbert and Sullivan costumes, or even the ones not so dressed up (the latter are called solicitors and wear dark suits and waistcoats, often with a silk handkerchief flopping out of their top pocket, as a status accessory).

Ten years ago the Law Reform Commission published Report on Statutory Drafting and Interpretation: Plain Language and the Law. It recommended the use of plain language in Acts of the Oireachtas (“sentences should be as close to common English usage as possible”), no sentences being longer than 23 words, and avoidance of Latin or French phrases and words and of other obscure formulations.

They might also have insisted that when a previous Act is being amended, the wording of the previous section is published followed the wording of the proposed amendment, so that any normal person (in this instance “normal person” includes judges and lawyers) can understand clearly what is being done.

Which brings us to judgments of the High Court, and particularly of the Supreme Court. In literary terms, these judgments have got worse since the invention and use of dictation devices. It is obvious that many judgments are dictated, and little effort is made subsequently to edit and make sense of the resultant transcripts.

With regard to the surgeon analysis, doctors are required to explain to a patient their medical situation in a clear understandable language and good bedside manner is favourable.

ChrisSullivan

Victor wrote: »

Well, let me tell you a little story. I fell on the ice on Christmas morning last year, banging my head and right shoulder, suffering a pinched nerve in my shoulder and concussion. The pinched nerve manifested itself in severe pain in the shoulder and upper arm and a tingling sensation in my fingers - all on the right side. Pain killers took care of a lot of it, but after a few trips to the doctor and physiotherapist, I still had a tingling sensation in my fingers several weeks later, but most of the pain was gone.

I was at the doctor for something else and mentioned the tingling and asked "isn't a finger tingle sometimes related to a heart condition" (I'm overweight, so its a potential concern).

He said "No, no, its nothing like that." Then he stopped, blanched and said "Its your right hand, isn't it?"

I said "yes".

He looked relieved and said "Heart conditions would be related to tingling in the left hand".

"There, but for the grace of God, go I." comes to mind.

Nice story and as they say these days - lol

johnnyskeleton

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

This article might be of relevance:
(Browne's a trained barrister as far as I know)
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0526/1224271139290.html

Leaving aside the tone of righteous indignation Vincent digs up on a weekly basis, there are a few points in there.

1) When a section is amended in parts rather than simply replaced in total, it is hard to read it. However, it is just as hard for a legally trained person to read it as it is a non legally trained perion I would imagine. This is because to read it in isolation (as VB wants to do) is meaningless for everyone. It only has meaning if you look at the original section, make the amendments and then read it as one.

2) Piecemeal legislation is a bad thing - I agree with him, but surely it is just as bad for lawyers as it is for joe public? After all, a lawyer's job at the end of the day, has very little to do with specific sections etc and when it does, it is usually becuase a specific dispute arises in respect of same. Codification would make lawyers lives easier, as well as non lawyers.

3) Lawyers are some how planning this so that they get increased fees or some other nonsense - if anyone is to blame, it is government. They are the ones who pass all these technical and illegible laws, not lawyers. If anything, some lawyers write books which are usually available through a good library, which sets out consolidated legislation. So the lawyers make it easier for anyone to understand, anyone that is who takes the time to read the law.

4) Often, people are simply not bothered to find out about the law and they pay lawyers to look into this for them. But it is not a chicken and egg type of situation - complex laws came first, then came the need for lawyers. Not the other way around.

Vincent Browne Article

Vincent Browne Article wrote:

Ten years ago the Law Reform Commission published Report on Statutory Drafting and Interpretation: Plain Language and the Law. It recommended the use of plain language in Acts of the Oireachtas (“sentences should be as close to common English usage as possible”), no sentences being longer than 23 words, and avoidance of Latin or French phrases and words and of other obscure formulations.

They might also have insisted that when a previous Act is being amended, the wording of the previous section is published followed the wording of the proposed amendment, so that any normal person (in this instance “normal person” includes judges and lawyers) can understand clearly what is being done.

You have to hand it to Vincent. In one paragraph he underlines the need for brevity and specifically cites 23 words as the appropriate maximum length for any sentence and then in the very next paragraph his sentence is 50 words in length and yet seems perfectly clear to me.

What Vincent knows perfectly well is that simple laws don't make simple law. If we enact a law "Any person who hits another is guilty of an offence", then we have to ask, what do we mean by "hit"? A basic example but still, it demonstrates my point reasonably well.

What is even more important in law than brevity is accuracy and being as certain as possible. Yes, this inevitably leads to what may, at first, appear to be almost incomprehensible language but in the long run it allows legislators to enact the laws they intend to enact and not accidentally leave a law so ambiguous as to leave it open to perverse interpretations.

Also, Vincent pulled a similar trick in that article as he did on his television programme recently. He chose a highly technical act and then chose an amending provision within it to illustrate his point. Vincent knows the tricks of the trade well enough to present only the information which is most beneficial to his own case but his opinion, while always happily self-righteous, does not properly reflect the complexities of the situation. It is those very complexities that render the more difficult language necessary so as to be right rather than easy.

Butch Cassidy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

4) Often, people are simply not bothered to find out about the law and they pay lawyers to look into this for them. But it is not a chicken and egg type of situation - complex laws came first, then came the need for lawyers. Not the other way around.

The point about the article was that even if a person was to try and find out about a law they'd get bogged down in the language and not understand it. Sites like the Citizen's Information site are useful in some cases though.

And I think Browne might be arguing that with lawyers come the complex laws. With people like Michael McDowell in positions of power it is hard to disagree and separate the govt. making laws and the lawyers writing them.

Victor

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

1) When a section is amended in parts rather than simply replaced in total, it is hard to read it. However, it is just as hard for a legally trained person to read it as it is a non legally trained perion I would imagine. This is because to read it in isolation (as VB wants to do) is meaningless for everyone. It only has meaning if you look at the original section, make the amendments and then read it as one.

Lawyers get to have to put up with it all day every day. Lay people have to learn it each time the look at it. It is difficult for each, just in different ways.

Aren't parlimentary draftsmen typically lawyers?