s1 - introduction to copy-editing and proofreading legal texts, lorraine slipper (sfep 27th...

Introduction to copy-editing and proofreading legal texts

Lorraine Slipper

Let’s Talk about TextSfEP Conference

Aston University, Birmingham10–12 September 2016

Overview

• Types of work and clients• Differences between legal and non-legal editing• Brief look at English legal system• Jargon• References to court cases and legislation• Resources• Practical exercise

What is legal editing/proofreading?

• Work carried out on a text with a legal subject matter

• Work on texts that contains references to law

What type of legal texts?• Books – from academic text books and monographs to popular self-help

books for the layperson

• Journal articles

• Online law analysis, e.g. LexisNexis, Westlaw

• International legislation and protocols

• Theses and dissertations

• Courts/court processes, e.g. affidavits, statements, expert witness statements, translations

Texts that may contain references to law

• Business o HRo insuranceo investmento company documentso international trade

• Politicso especially trade/foreign aid

Texts that may contain references to law• History

• Medicineo rights of health care professionals and patients

• Professional handbookso policeo heath serviceo social services

• Social services publications o advice on benefits etc.

Types of client• Traditional publishers – commercial and university presses

• Journal publishers

• Online content providers

• National and international businesses

• National and international political organisations (e.g. EU, UN)

• Courts and people involved in court processes

How much work is there?

Law is always changing – so there’s always the need to analyse it or provide legal advice

What’s different about it?• Jargon – a lot of it in Latin

• Styles – in particular use of italic

• Referencing:o court caseso legislation

• Tables of cases and tables of legislation in academic books

• Some words may have a different meaning in a legal context to their more common meaning or even between different legal systems

• But you still have to look out for the same issues of spelling, grammar, punctuation and style as in any other subject area.

Do I need to be a trained lawyer?

• Formal legal training not necessary

• Work experience in a legal environment invaluable

• Lawyers specialise in certain areas, while you will be given texts on a variety of areas to work on, so formal training not always an advantage

Background knowledge

• English and EU court system and hierarchy

• English and EU parliaments and legislation

• Legal jargon and legal referencing systems

• Knowledge of other legal systems (e.g. US) can be helpful but not essential

Why no UK law?

There are three law systems in the UK:

• England and Wales• Northern Ireland• Scotland

Different law systems

• Common law – the system found in the UK, former UK colonies (e.g. Australia, Canada) and the USA

• Civil law – the system found in Europe

Common law vs civil lawCivil law

• Based on Roman law

• Codified – comprehensive legal codes that are continually updated

• Only the legislature should make law

• Court decisions less influential in shaping the law than the legislators and scholars who draft and interpret the codes

Common law vs civil lawCommon law

• Originally based on local custom and tradition

• After 1066 developed by the courts to apply to the whole country rather than local areas

• Generally uncodified – there is no comprehensive compilation of legal rules and statues

• Largely based on precedent – judgments can be used as authority for reaching the same decision in later cases

How law is made in the UK

Statute law• The body of law contained in Acts of Parliament or

legislation

Case law• The body of law set out in judicial decisions

• Embodies the principle of precedent – judgments can be used as authority for reaching the same decision in later cases.

Jargon alert!

Jargon

Judgment

Always spelled without an ‘e’ when referring to court case decisions.

Act Usually capitalised, but check your style guide.

Criminal law vs civil law

Criminal lawOED: the branch of law concerned with defining crimes and with prosecuting and punishing offenders; the body of law relating to crime.

Civil lawOED: The branch of law concerned with private relations between individuals, as opposed to criminal proceedings. Also: the body of law relating to the community of ordinary citizens and the rules that govern them, as distinguished from military law, ecclesiastical law, commercial law.

UK court structure

Supreme Court

Criminal

Court of Appeal

Crown Court

Magistrates Courts

Civil

Court of Appeal

High Court of Justice

County Courts/Tribun

als

European Court of Justice

European Court of

Human Rights

Constitutional Reform Act 2005

Established the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

This court took over the judicial functions of the House of Lords, as exercised by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary – more commonly called the Law Lords.

Civil Procedure Rules 1998

Also known as the Woolf Reforms.

Came into force on 26 April 1999.

Made changes to the legal system to improve access to justice by making legal proceedings cheaper, quicker, and easier to understand for non-lawyers.

Citing UK statutes

Human Rights Act 1998

www.legislation.gov.uk

Citing UK statutes

Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998

HRA 1998

UK statutes

Human Rights Act 1998, s 15(1)(b)

Citing UK statutes


section 15

Citing UK statutes


section 15 subsection (1)

Citing UK statutes


section 15subsection 1paragraph (b)

Citing UK statutes

Human Rights Act 1998, s.15(1)(b)

Citing EU treaties

Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) [2016] OJ C202/01

http://eur-lex.europa.eu

Citing EU treaties


title

Citing EU treaties


titleabbreviated title

Citing EU treaties



[year]

Citing EU treaties



[year]Official Journal

Citing EU treaties




series and issue number

C series contains reports and announcements including the judgments of the European Court of Justice and the General Court

Citing EU treaties




series and issue numbernumber of first page

Citing EU treaties

The TEU allows that: ‘Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.’1

1 TEU [2016] OJ C202/01, Article 50(1).

Citing EU treaties

Article 50(1) TEU allows that: ‘Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.’

Citing EU DirectivesCouncil Directive 2002/60/EC of 27 June 2002 laying down specific provisions for the control of African swine fever and amending Directive 92/119/EEC as regards Teschen disease and African swine fever [2002] OJ L192/27


type


typenumber


typenumber

title

Citing EU DirectivesCouncil Directive 2002/60/EC of 27 June 2002 laying down specific provisions for the control of African swine fever and amending Directive 92/119/EEC as regards Teschen disease and African swine fever [2002] OJ L192/27 (African Swine Fever Directive)


typenumber

title[year]


typenumber

title[year]

Official Journal


typenumber

title[year]

Official JournalIssue number

L series contains legislation


typenumber

title[year]

Official Journalissue number

number of first page

Citing EU RegulationsCouncil Regulation (EC) 1984/2003 of 8 April 2003 introducing a system for the statistical monitoring of trade in bluefin tuna, swordfish and big eye tuna within the Community [2003] OJ L295/1


type


typenumber


typenumber

title

Citing EU RegulationsCouncil Regulation (EC) 1984/2003 of 8 April 2003 introducing a system for the statistical monitoring of trade in bluefin tuna, swordfish and big eye tuna within the Community [2003] OJ L295/1 (Regulation for monitoring of trade in fish stocks)


typenumber

title[year]


typenumber

title[year]

Official Journal


typenumber

title[year]


Citing international treaties

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 10 December 1984 (entered into force in 26 June 1987) 1465 UNTS 85


Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 10 December 1984 (entered into force in 26 June 1987) 1465 UNTS 85 (CAT)

title

or Convention against Torture



titledate opened for signature




date treaty in force




date treaty in forcevolume number





United Nations Treaty Seriesavailable at: https://treaties.un.org/

Citing international treatiesConvention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 10 December 1984 (entered into force in 26 June 1987) 1465 UNTS 85



United Nations Treaty Seriesavailable at: https://treaties.un.org/


Citing international treaties1984 Convention against TortureArticle 10 of the 1984 UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) emphasises the need to educate ‘law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment’ on the prohibition of torture. The Convention further urges States Parties to have under systematic review ‘interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction’, with a view to ‘preventing any cases of torture’ (Article 11).

Similar to the ICCPR, the CAT is applicable to custodial centres, mental health institutions, as well as military detention centres, as long as they are under the state’s jurisdiction.

Taken from: Stuart Casey-Maslen (ed.), Weapons under International Human Rights Law, CUP (2014).

Citing international treaties1984 Convention against TortureArticle 10 of the 1984 UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT)1 emphasises the need to educate ‘law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment’ on the prohibition of torture. The Convention further urges States Parties to have under systematic review ‘interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction’, with a view to ‘preventing any cases of torture’ (Article 11).


1 10 December 1984 (entered into force in 26 June 1987) 1465 UNTS 85



International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Table of legislation

Citing cases from England and Wales

• Neutral citationso Introduced in 2001 to identify the judgments of

the High Court or above independently of any published reports.

o Transcripts generally freely available on British and Irish Legal Information Institute website www.bailii.org.


Lucasfilm v Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39, [2012] 1 AC 208



Lucasfilm – claimant versus



Lucasfilm – claimantAinsworth – defendant

Jargon alert!

Jargon alert!

• ClaimantThe legal person bringing a civil legal case against another legal person.

• Legal personA natural person (human being) or a juristic person (an entity, e.g. a company, that has legal rights and obligations)

• DefendantThe legal person against whom court proceedings are brought.

Jargon complications

Before 26 April 1999, when the 1998 Civil Procedure Rules came into force, the person instigating a case was called the

Petitioner

In an appeals case, the person requesting the appeal is called the

Appellant

Case title style

• Case names always in italic

• Check your style guide for how to style ‘v’

Lucasfilm v AinsworthLucasfilm v. AinsworthLucasfilm v AinsworthLucasfilm v. Ainsworth



Lucasfilm – claimantAinsworth – defendant[2011] – year of case



Lucasfilm – claimantAinsworth – defendant[2011] – date of caseUKSC – neutral citation – UK Supreme Court



Lucasfilm – claimantAinsworth – defendant[2011] – date of caseUKSC – neutral citation – UK Supreme Court39 = 39th judgment in 2011



Lucasfilm – claimantAinsworth – defendant[2011] – date of caseUKSC – neutral citation – UK Supreme Court39 = 39th judgment in 2011Report found in volume 1 of the Appeals Cases series of the Law Reports of [2012] starting on page 208

Cases with numbers

• AG v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No. 1); AG v Observer Ltd; AG v Times Newspapers Ltd [1987] UKHL 13, [1987] 1 WLR 1248

• AG v Guardian Newspapers (No. 2) [1998] UKHL 6, [1990] 1 AC 109

Cases with numbers

• AG v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No. 1); AG v Observer Ltd; AG v Times Newspapers Ltd [1987] UKHL 13, [1987] 1 WLR 1248Weekly Law Reports

• AG v Guardian Newspapers (No. 2) [1988] UKHL 6, [1990] 1 AC 109Law Reports: Appeals Cases Series

Short titles and ‘nicknames’

• AG v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No. 1); AG v Observer Ltd; AG v Times Newspapers Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 1248 (‘Spycatcher No. 1’)

• AG v Guardian Newspapers (No. 2) [1988] UKHL 6, [1990] 1 AC 109 (‘Spycatcher No. 2’)

R v.?

• Used in criminal cases, where the Crown prosecutes someone who has committed a crime

• Used for judicial review cases

Jargon alert!

Jargon alert!

R stands for Regina (or Rex)

i.e. the Queen (or King)

Judicial review case

R v Lord Chancellor, ex p Witham [1998] QB 575 (QB)

The case is brought by the Crown (R) on behalf of Witham against the Lord Chancellor

Jargon alert!

Jargon alert!

ex p or ex parte

used to indicate someone who has an interest in the case but is not directly involved

Judicial review case

R v Lord Chancellor, ex p Witham [1998] QB 575 (QB)

The case is brought by the Crown (R) on behalf of Witham against the Lord Chancellor

How to refer to judges

Looking at the judgment by Tugendhat J in LNS , it appears that the

general approach by the courts in the granting (or continuation) of

superinjunctions tends to be ‘exceedingly slow’, by making an

interim restraint order where the applicant has not satisfied the

court that he would probably succeed at trial.

Taken from Ursula Smartt, Media and Entertainment Law, 2nd edn, Routledge (2014), p. 78.


Looking at the judgment by Tugendhat J in LNS , it appears that the general approach by the courts in the granting (or continuation) of superinjunctions tends to be ‘exceedingly slow’, by making an interim restraint order where the applicant has not satisfied the court that he would probably succeed at trial.

Mr Justice Tugendhat


Looking at the judgment by Tugendhat J in LNS , it appears that the general approach by the courts in the granting (or continuation) of superinjunctions tends to be ‘exceedingly slow’, by making an interim restraint order where the applicant has not satisfied the court that he would probably succeed at trial. 216

216 Ibid., at 120 (Tugendhat J).


Youssoupoff v MGM Pictures Ltd (1934) 50 TLR 581 at 587 (Slesser LJ).

Lord Justice Slesser

Rimer and Pill LJJ were of the opinion that …

Lord Justices Rimer and Pill


In deciding what meaning that reader would attribute to the words complained of the court applied the well-known test, cited more recently by Sir Anthony Clarke MR in Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd (2008) 24 as ...

Master of the Rolls

Jargon alert!

Jargon – what judges sayRatio decidendiThe reason for the decision. The part of the judgment that creates law and a binding precedent.

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163‘The terms of the offer are contained in the notice placed on or near the machine stating what is offered for the money. The customer is bound by those terms so long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice before-hand but not otherwise’ (Lord Denning at 169).

Jargon – what judges say

Obiter dictum/dictaRemarks said in passing. The part of the judgment that is more general comment and observation. Not binding but may be persuasive.

Jargon – what judges say

Dismissing appeals in both Mirza and Connor, the House of Lords stated that

common and statutory provision of contempt of court was well established in the

area of jury deliberations. However, their Lordships commented obiter that this law

may not be altogether well suited towards the ‘modern’ jury member today and

that the courts may have attached undue weight to the confidentiality of jury

deliberations in the past.

Taken from Ursula Smartt, Media and Entertainment Law, 2nd edn, Routledge (2014), p. 238.

European Court of Justice cases

Case C-58/08 Vodafone and Others [2010] ECR I-4999



case number



case numberC = European Court of Justice



case number58th case



case number2008



case numbertitle



case numbertitle

[year]



case numbertitle

[year]European Court Reports

NB. ECR-II indicates a case from the General Court



case numbertitle

[year]official report abbreviation


International court/tribunal cases

Tadic Case (Judgment) ICTY-94-1 (26 January 2000)

International Criminal Tribunal for the former YugoslaviaYearCase number

Anatomy of a US Supreme Court ref

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)


DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989) DeShaney = petitioner


DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989) DeShaney = petitionerWinnebago = respondent


DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989) DeShaney = petitionerWinnebago = respondent489 = volume number


DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989) DeShaney = petitionerWinnebago = respondent489 = volume numberU.S. = publication in which the opinion was printed, in this case United States Reports


DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989) DeShaney = petitionerWinnebago = respondent489 = volume numberU.S. = publication in which the opinion was printed, in this case United States Reports189 = page on which the opinion begins


DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989) DeShaney = petitionerWinnebago = respondent489 = volume numberU.S. = publication in which opinion was printed, in this case United States Reports189 = page on which opinion begins(1989) = year the opinion was published

US Supreme Court reports

Supreme Court opinions can also be published in:• Lawyer’s Edition, Second Series: L.Ed.2d• Supreme Court Reporter: S.Ct.

Lower US court case references

St. Johnsbury Academy v. D.H., 20 F.Supp.2d 675 (DVT 1998)


St. Johnsbury Academy v. D.H., 20 F.Supp.2d 675 (DVT 1998) • 20 = volume number


St. Johnsbury Academy v. D.H., 20 F.Supp.2d 675 (DVT 1998) • 20 = volume number• F.Supp.2d = Federal Supplement, Second Series


St. Johnsbury Academy v. D.H., 20 F.Supp.2d 675 (DVT 1998) • 20 = volume number• F.Supp.2d = Federal Supplement, Second

Series• 675 – starting page


St. Johnsbury Academy v. D.H., 20 F.Supp.2d 675 (DVT 1998) • 20 = volume number• F.Supp.2d = Federal Supplement, Second Series• 675 = starting page• (DVT 1998) = District Court of the District of

Vermont in 1998 – the court that heard the case

More jargon alert!

UK law jargon-fest!

• actus reus• mens rea• de minimis• ex post facto• quantum meruit• ultra vires

But it’s not italic!

• decree nisi

• habeas corpus

• post mortem

• Hansard

Make your mind up!

• de facto

• de jure

What does that mean?

• passing off

• tort/tortious/tortfeasor

• chattel

• time immemorial

Jargonfest – the international edition

• acquis communautaire: the body of Community legislation by which all EU members are bound

• jus cogens

• travaux préparatoires

Watch your abbreviations!

• ECHR European Convention ON Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

• ECtHREuropean Court of Human Rights

Be careful with case names

Resources

• Oscola:https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/publications/oscola

• Jonathan Law (ed.), A Dictionary of Law. Oxford University Press, 2015.

Resources

• British and Irish Legal Information Institute: http://www.bailii.org/

• UK legislation: http://www.legislation.gov.uk

• Hansard: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com

Resources

• Mentoring – either formal or informal

• SfEP Legal Forum

Parting thought

Ignorantia juris non excusat!