PhD defence Geerke van der Bruggen: The importance of plain language in the judiciary

On Thursday 18 December, Geerke van der Bruggen will defend her PhD thesis ‘Conveying judgments’. She examines what judges can do to make their decisions easier to understand and more acceptable to the people affected by them. 

The purposes of judgments

If you’re wondering whether a text can be improved, you should first look at its purpose, Van der Bruggen says. For judicial decisions, those purposes can be derived from statute. Judges must explain (‘motivate’) their decisions so that they can be reviewed. Their decisions are also public, because everyone must be able to scrutinise the courts. 

This means that readers must be able to form an opinion about the decision. That is the first purpose of a judgment. The second purpose is persuasion. Ideally, readers will conclude that justice has been done. If the text is convincing, the people directly involved (‘process parties’) are more likey to accept the outcome. This is also important for maintaining public trust in the judiciary.

Clear and convincing

In her research, Van der Bruggen found that parties who view the wording of a judgment positively more likely to agree with the decision. At the same time, people without legal expertise tend to be less satisfied with the texts than professionals. That group could therefore be served better, Van der Bruggen says.

The language used in judgments is too difficult for many, she writes. Readers without a legal background understand judgments better when judges use plainer language and provide extra explanations, Van der Bruggen shows. This can be done simply by replacing difficult words and using shorter sentences. It is also important that judges use legal terms only when necessary, and briefly explain them when they do. Ultimately, simpler language makes judgments not only easier to understand, but also more persuasive.

What plain language looks like

A difficult sentence from a judgment, for example, is: ‘Article 6.4 of the general terms and conditions states that when the car park is exited without prior payment of the required parking fee by means of what is known as “tailgating”, the driver is liable to pay the “lost ticket” fee of €150, plus an additional damages payment of €300.’

For Van der Bruggen’s research, this sentence was rewritten to make it easier to understand: ‘Article 6.4 of the general terms and conditions says that customers who tailgate must pay €150 for a “lost ticket”, plus €300 in damages.’