We pride ourselves on speaking in plain English to our clients
– after all, lawyers are often guilty of appearing to speak
in tongues – forgetting that everyone else doesn't
necessarily understand the terminology specific to our sector
(aren't most professions guilty of the same thing?). One UK
High Court Judge has taken speaking plain English to a whole new
level in a recent family matter.
In a sign of the times, and an admirable effort to make the
facts of the case understandable for the children it involved,
Justice Peter Jackson, took a novel approach in passing down his
judgment– replacing dry legalese with layman's terms and
online, the ruling is thought to be the first in English legal
history to use a symbol – specifically a smiley face –
to breakdown the relevant points.
The 17-page document outlines complex issues including domestic
abuse, religious fundamentalism and terrorism.
Justice Jackson hopes that the children involved in the matter,
aged 10 and 12, will read the judgment themselves. The language
used aims to explain in terms that the children can easily
comprehend, why they are to have limited contact with their father
who allegedly wanted to remove them from the country.
Comments regarding the parents' personalities and testimony
from others in the case were included, with the Judge stressing to
the children that "The only reason to take children away is
because they need protecting from harm."
Justice Jackson elaborated; "If children are taken away,
judges will always try to return them if that is safe.
"Another thing is that children are not taken away from
their parents simply because the parents have lied about something.
Even if they do tell lies they can still be good enough
"People can tell lies about some things and still tell the
truth about other things.
"Also, children are not taken away because parents are rude
or difficult or because they have strange views, even if those
views offend people."
The ruling outlines the father's troubled history including
conversions to different religions and examples of extremism,
objections to his children's education and vaccinations (he has
since been convicted for trying to purchase guns and
Although a novel approach, it has certainly attracted praise
from many online. With an increasing focus on plain English by the
legal sector, are we likely to see emojis appearing in rulings
here? Time will tell... :)
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The route to the Amendment Act has been a rather arduous.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).