Report comment

Fundamentally this sort of case arises because of poor quality drafting. Coulston even points out an elementary typographical error involving the obvious omission of a word in the headings of the very rules the court was required to interpret.

The most appalling part of it is that it happens so often. As someone who regularly delivers training on CPR updates, it's patently obvious where the bust-ups are going to be because of vague or sloppy drafting. And low and behold, a couple of years later the Court of Appeal is having to adjudicate on an issue easily spotted in the draft rules before they were even in force.

Can't they at least employ a copy editor to spot the typos? Or maybe, you know, like, a lawyer or something to point out the obvious lacuna?