Plain Language in Legislative Drafting: An Achievable Objective or a Laudable Ideal?

Brian Hunt¹

"They were so excited that they hadn't eaten a thing for almost two days. Then they broke more than a dozen laces trying to have themselves laced up tightly enough to give them a fine slender shape. They were continually in front of their looking glass. At last the happy day came."²

1. Introduction

At the outset, let me state that I am moderately in favour of the use of plain language in legislative drafting, but only in so far as it does not alter the meaning and does not give rise to ambiguity in the legislation. Professor Butt once said that "A dose of healthy scepticism never goes astray.".³ However, this afternoon, I hope to do more than play the role of a sceptic. In fact, what I would really like to do is present some convincing arguments as to why plain language is not entirely suitable in legislative drafting.

Plain language - when used appropriately and sensibly - is a very effective tool. In our attempt to ensure that as few words as possible and the most simple words possible are used to express a concept, we must not be blinkered. By this I mean, we must recognise that plain language is not the answer to all our problems. And in particular, it is not the answer to the problem of turgid and inaccessible legislation. Rather than just pouring cold water on the arguments of plain language proponents, I will present a realistic and operable alternative to plain language legislative drafting.