ABSTRACT
This chapter presents innovations in drafting techniques have disturbed the continuity of language used by those who produce and those who interpret legislation. It aims to prove that recent innovations in drafting techniques have disturbed the continuity of language used by those who produce and those who interpret legislation. The language choices of drafters seem to clash with the expectation of judges, who continue to interpret legislation by use of the ‘ordinary meaning of words’ as used by ‘the average man’. This division in the perceived usage of language by legislative users creates a schism between the linguistic choices of drafters and their interpretation by the courts. The UK’s Good Law initiative has proven empirically that legislation is read mainly by lay users. The collectiveness of the task requires fluid and uninhibited homogeneity in the drafting of legislation. Legislation aims to communicate the regulatory message to its users as a means of imposing and inciting implementation.
