Sir, – Further to your editorial “The Irish Times view on legal language: judging with a sense of style” (September 27th), it seems that the first objection by the Court of Appeal to a recent High Court judgment related to the use of “slang”, referring to the word “gaslighting” used in the judgment.
“Gaslighting” entered the Oxford English Dictionary as far back as 2018 and cannot these days be legitimately considered as slang.
The second complaint related to the “colloquialism” used – walking “into Mordor”.
Literary references abound in the judgments of our courts.
Garry Ringrose enjoying the increased support for the Ireland team since successful All Blacks tour
The camera eats first: The impact of TikTok on Ireland’s restaurant scene
Conrad Smith says limiting player workload is critical to reducing head injuries in rugby
Why are we getting condensation on our new triple-glazed windows?
A search of judgments on the Courts.ie website reveals, for example, that Humpty Dumpty gets a mention in nine judgments of the Irish superior courts, Walter Mitty scores three, Alice in Wonderland 12, Catch-22 reaches 391, Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice three, and there are many more such examples.
Such references are common in judgments throughout the common law world.
All of these references have one thing in common – and that is that once upon a time one judge used such a colloquialism or allusion for the first time, presumably prompting further references in later cases. Why should a High Court judge be taken to task for using a word contained in the Oxford English Dictionary in a judgment, or in making a reference to JRR Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings? – Yours, etc,
PAUL O’SHEA,
Dublin 18.
Sir, – All too often, the legal profession combines an insistence on use of drab, boring writing employing arcane and archaic language with a demand that all of us, including those for whom such writing is unapproachable, obey its commands.
In doing so, lawyers invite the suspicion and animosity that have long plagued them.
Cultural references, language from this century, and levity, such as were employed by Mr Justice Richard Humphreys, are like specks of gold dust in legal writing.
To lawyers and students, such additions provide a little spark of joy, a spot of colour in an otherwise achromatic trudge through dense legal reasoning. A reminder that the courts and the justice system are made up of individuals, some of whom might even be normal people, is surely to be welcomed.
Perhaps Ms Justice Caroline Costello simply has a greater command of the language than I. On the other hand, perhaps the Court of Appeal needs a dictionary, a cultural glossary, and personnel from this century. – Yours, etc,
SARAH MOLLOY,
Julianstown,
Co Meath.
Sir, – Even with this rebuke from the Court of Appeal, I do not fear that the High Court (or Supreme Court for that matter) judges will abandon their proud common law literary traditions. For as Tolkien said, “deeds will not be less valiant because they are unpraised”. – Yours, etc,
NIKO KAWONCZYK,
Dublin 3.