My Grammar and helping Uncle Jack

My grandmother was the eldest of three children, the other two being a boy (Jack) and a girl (Mary). So we have one of those rare cases where my blog contains a kernel of truth. For clarity, I'll say that a colonel of truth is quite a different matter and involves an especially honest military officer and if my blog contained one he would be called Colonel Bailey, but I digress.


You see the kernel of truth is that I did actually once help my Uncle Jack off a horse. This is not especially remarkable I suppose, but just imagine if I told you that I once helped my uncle jack off a horse. Just two capital letters between me and charges of bestiality [1] in the Supreme Court of NSW.

Grammar can be quite important in the law and an article I saw this week brought that to light in a quite resounding way. A chap in the USA had pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and in considering the sentence, the court was directed by legislation that ordered a minimum sentence of 10 years where there were previous convictions; "relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward."

Before you continue, read that sentence and consider what it means.

The defendant had previously been found guilty of sexual abuse of his girlfriend, an adult woman, and the state contended that this triggered the statutory minimum. The state contended that the legislation should properly be read as including

1. aggravated sexual abuse, 
2. sexual abuse, or 
3. abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward

The defence contended that the legislation should properly be read as;

1. aggravated sexual abuse, 
2. sexual abuse, or 
3. abusive sexual conduct 

• involving a minor or ward

The court decided in favour of the state, meaning that the defendant was subject to a minimum sentence of ten years, based on the legal "rule of the last antecedent". That rule says that a limiting clause, in this case the phrase "involving a minor or a ward" should only apply to the noun or phrase immediately preceding it.

If the defendant had not committed the previous offence, the sentence would have been around 6-8 years, so the difference in interpretation meant an additional 2-4 years in jail for this chappy.

So if you are one of those who complain about the grammar nazis and their insistence that good grammar is essential for clarity of meaning, you will have no cause for complaint if you serve an extra 2-4 years in jail for helping your uncle jack off a horse.

---



[1] CRIMES ACT 1900 Sect 79. This once was the section that outlawed homosexuality and read "Whosoever commits the abominable crime of buggery, or bestiality, with mankind, or with any animal, shall be liable to imprisonment for fourteen years."

It was amended by the Crimes Amendment Act in 1984 to read

"Any person who commits an act of bestiality with any animal shall be liable to imprisonment for fourteen years."

So we have stopped discriminating against homosexuals in this particular area, but the outrageous discrimination against New Zealanders continues unabated.

Photo courtesy Walter Baxter available at http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4291299 and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence