“Whimsy” columnist CLIVE WILLIAMS  reveals that English takes on a different meaning in the hands of the legal profession.  

“I fought the law and the law won” –Bobby Fuller Four (1966).

I HOPE the lyrics above don’t apply in my case. I was due to appear in court on April 8 to dispute an alleged “did-park-contrary-to-a-no-stopping-sign” offence in Manuka on April 23 last year. 

My wife says I should pay the $276 fine and be done with it –  on the basis that I had no doubt transgressed at other times and not been detected – but it’s a matter of principle. 

I don’t see why I should pay into Barr’s coffers for something I didn’t do or, for that matter, contribute financially to Rattenbury’s environmentally damaging tram to Woden. 

For the record, my legal situation remains unresolved because two magistrates were off sick on April 8 and the hearing has been postponed to November 11.

Like many of those appearing at the magistrates court, I was wearing a suit that had not been worn in a while and was disconcerted when a cockroach appeared out of my sleeve and walked up my arm. 

Poor timing because it happened while I was standing in front of the listing magistrate (not listing in an inebriated sense, but listing of the cases to be heard that day). Anyway, the cockroach escaped and is now presumably residing in the court premises.

Turning to “Legal English”, which was intended to be the main subject of my article: this is the type of English used in legal writing. It has traditionally been used by lawyers from English-speaking countries that have similar common law traditions (especially Australia, Canada, Ireland, NZ, South Africa, the UK, the US, as well as former British colonies such as Hong Kong, Kenya and Singapore). Legal English is now widely used in global commerce. 

Legal English may be dramatic: for example, a subpoena compelling a witness to appear in court may end with the threat: “Fail not, at your peril”. 

The “peril” threat may have a stronger influence on a recipient of a subpoena than the possibility of police coming calling (assuming they are able to drag themselves away from reading emailed pleas for help). 

One needs to be aware that English words used by the legal profession often have a different legal meaning to the common general meaning – as shown below:

• Consideration – (legal meaning) promise by one party to a contract / (general meaning) careful thought. 
• Construction – (legal meaning) interpretation (as in putting a construction on the facts) / (general meaning) a built structure.
• Find – (legal meaning) judge’s final decision / (general meaning) discover.
• Furnish – (legal meaning) to provide information / (general meaning) to furnish as with a room.
• Hold – (legal meaning) decision on the evidence / (general meaning) grasp.
• Prefer – (legal meaning) formal bringing of charges / (general meaning) to like better. 
• Redemption – (legal meaning) repossession of property / (general meaning) salvation.
• Tender – (legal meaning) an offer to supply / (general meaning) gentle or affectionate.

So, read carefully anything written by lawyers, bearing in mind the legal meaning of words can differ from common usage.

To close on a lighter note:

What’s the difference between a good barrister and a great barrister? A good barrister knows the law; a great barrister knows the judge.

Clive Williams is a Canberra columnist