A Singapore judge criticised a lawyer's confusing, error-filled mitigation plea that included a 176-word opening sentence, highlighting the importance of clear writing in court.
KEY POINTS
IN SIMPLE TERMS
A judge got frustrated with a lawyer's written court document because it was hard to understand — it had very long, confusing sentences and lots of grammar mistakes. The judge said lawyers should write in plain, simple English so everyone can easily understand what they are saying in court.
WHY IT MATTERS
WHERE DO YOU STAND?
Should courts enforce mandatory standards for clear, plain-language legal writing to ensure fair proceedings?
👍 👎 Vote ↓A Singapore judge’s frustration with a poorly written legal document highlights the importance of clear language in court.
According to The Straits Times, a Singapore judge expressed strong dissatisfaction with a written mitigation plea on 11 Nov 2024.
District Judge Lim Tse Haw found the document hard to understand.
The plea was submitted by criminal lawyer Mr A. Revi Shanker.
It was for his client, Jeremy Francis Cruez, who admitted to cheating his former employer.
The judge said the plea was “convoluted and verbose and filled with grammatical errors”.
He had trouble understanding what the lawyer was trying to say.
| Issue | Example |
|---|---|
| Length | First paragraph had a 176-word sentence |
| Clarity | Judge had difficulty understanding the submission |
| Grammar | Multiple grammatical errors throughout |
District Judge Lim Tse Haw offered guidance for future legal submissions.
He stressed the need for clear, simple language in court documents.
Acccording to The ST, the judge stated, “Lawyers and prosecutors would do well to prepare their written submissions in plain English and (an) easy-to-read manner.”
The case involved Jeremy Francis Cruez, a 60-year-old Sri Lankan national.
Cruez admitted to cheating his former employer, Majors Pest Management Services.
He submitted fake invoices totalling S$190,455.60 for fumigation supplies.
This fraudulent activity happened between 13 April 2017 and 22 October 2019.
Cruez marked up prices by 5% to pocket the difference.
The court sentenced Cruez to six months in jail in October 2024.
This was less than the 14 to 16 months initially sought by the prosecution.
District Judge Lim explained his decision on the sentence.
According to The Straits Times, he said, “Had the accused pocketed the entire sum of S$190,455.60 and left the company in a lurch by not carrying out any of the fumigation works, then perhaps a sentence of 14 to 16 months imprisonment as sought for by the prosecution would be appropriate.”
The judge considered that Cruez did perform the fumigation work.
After his arrest, Cruez offered to make full restitution of S$12,953.73.
This amount represented his personal gains from the offence.
However, Majors Pest Management Services declined this offer.
Do you think clear, simple language should be mandatory in all legal proceedings?
Should courts enforce mandatory standards for clear, plain-language legal writing to ensure fair proceedings?
Be the first to weigh in.
