Skip to Content
Last modified by Lizzie Bruce on 2020/01/11 23:49
From version Icon 2.2 Icon
edited by Lizzie Bruce
on 2019/04/24 13:55
Change comment: Added LSE blog link
To version Icon 2.3 Icon
edited by Lizzie Bruce
on 2019/04/24 14:01
Change comment: Added LSE blog link

Summary

Details

Icon Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -127,10 +127,12 @@
127 127  
128 128  [['The public speaks: an empirical study of legal communication'>>https://works.bepress.com/christopher_trudeau/4/]], Christopher Trudeau, study includes solicitor case studies, 2017
129 129  
130 -[['Parliamentary language and immigration'>>http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/parliamentary-language-and-immigration/]], London School of Economics blog post
130 +[['Legislative language and judicial politics: The effects of changing parliamentary language on UK immigration disputes'>>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1369148117705272]], Matthew Williams, 2017. Locked
131 131  
132 -[[Richmond vs HRA>>url:http://www.alltrials.net/news/judgment-in-richmond-v-hra-judicial-review/]] A pharmaceutical company called Richmond took the Health Regulatory Authority to court because the website was confusing. A high court judge deemed the site 'unlawful' and ruled against the government. The site was cleared through a legal department. This set a precedent in the UK. You could still be sued even with all the legal language is there, if the information is not clear.
132 +[['How Parliament’s failure to clearly articulate immigration policy forces judges to take control'>>https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/parliamentary-language-and-immigration/]], Matthew Williams 'Legislative language and judicial politics' 2017 summarised in London School of Economics blog post
133 133  
134 +[[Richmond vs HRA>>url:http://www.alltrials.net/news/judgment-in-richmond-v-hra-judicial-review/]] Richmond pharmaceutical company took the Health Regulatory Authority to court because the website was confusing. A high court judge decided the site was 'unlawful' and ruled against the government. The site was cleared through a legal department. This set a precedent in the UK. You can still be sued even with all the legal language there, if the information is not clear.
135 +
134 134  [[Plain English Campaign>>url:http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/campaigning/past-campaigns/legal/drafting-in-plain-english.html]] believes legalese is unnecessary and does not do what it was intended to. "The argument that clarity should be sacrificed for a document to be comprehensive does not stand up."
135 135  
136 136  [[Guide to medical information>>http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/files/medicalguide.pdf]] from Plain English Campaign.