Problematic pronouns
Series: Estates Gazette ; (0223) 8 June 2002, 114-115(2)Publication details: 2002Subject(s): Summary: A "mainly for students" article examines the problematic use of pronouns in legal documents and highlights legal texts which achieve elegance and those which fail. In particular, discusses the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Considers the situation if delegated legislation, such as the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1971, cannot be read in a way compatible with the ECHR as illustrated in the case R (on the application of Bono) v Harlow DC" (2002). It was held that the pronoun 'which' referred only to the primary legislation (Social Security Act 1998) and therefore Harlow DC had no defence to the Bonos' claim that their rights had been infringed under Article 6 of the ECHR.| Item type | Current library | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | 1 | Available | 118874-1001 |
A "mainly for students" article examines the problematic use of pronouns in legal documents and highlights legal texts which achieve elegance and those which fail. In particular, discusses the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Considers the situation if delegated legislation, such as the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1971, cannot be read in a way compatible with the ECHR as illustrated in the case R (on the application of Bono) v Harlow DC" (2002). It was held that the pronoun 'which' referred only to the primary legislation (Social Security Act 1998) and therefore Harlow DC had no defence to the Bonos' claim that their rights had been infringed under Article 6 of the ECHR.