Sex is better in Latin, says former judge

For hundreds of years judges have been able to protect the dignity of their office by using Latin to tackle the tricky subject of sex.

But now a former judge warns that the banishment of Latin from the courtroom may force the judiciary to fall upon the Anglo-Saxon vernacular. The alternative English terms to such phrases as "in flagrante delicto", "coitus interruptus" and "fellatio" are enough to make even the most worldly-wise judge blush.

Former judge John Gray, in a new book which seeks to overturn a ban on legal Latin, identifies the terms which have become indispensable. Mr Gray, a recorder for 10 years, writes in Lawyers' Latin that to dispense with in flagrante delicto would have catastrophic, embarrassing consequences. He says: "If this Latin be forbidden in the courts the available substitutes are hideously indelicate or are not exactly synonymous: fornicating, copulating, having intercourse, making love, bonking, engaged in coition, having sex, in congress, being intimate, fucking."

But he warns: "Since comprehension at any cost by the man in the street of courtroom language seems to be the order of the day, the last mentioned word, a universally understood colloquialism, should find favour." The former judge prefers his first offering. "With its delictual connotation, however, fornicating must be the hot favourite, with others as no more than also-rans."

Three years ago Lord Woolf, the then Master of the Rolls, introduced court rules which ushered in a new era of plain-speaking by abolishing some legal Latin. Since then Lord Woolf has identified other Latin words which he wants removed from the legal lexicon, including "pro bono publicus" and "amicus curiae".

But Mr Gray argues: "Latin was the language of the official documents and maxims that were derived from Roman law or invented by medieval jurists, so that many expressions are deeply woven into the fabric of the law." He says it will be "intolerable" if lawyers are to be admonished every time a piece of legal Latin slips out.

"To attempt the suppression of Latin in a civilised country is, in the scale of cultural atrocities, on a par with burning books. To change the label serves no practical purpose, particularly when the name on the label is known already to so many and the new label means nothing to the layman."

Lord Deedes of Aldington, writing a foreword to Mr Gray's book, said that when he was editing The Daily Telegraph in the 1980s the leader writers were still "free to use Latin" if it helped them to convey their intended meaning.

Lord Deedes said: "Sadly, however, there has developed a view among people who think correctly and govern our lives that far from inculcating humility, even a frail grasp and occasional use of Latin conveys superiority." And he concludes that now even a "well-worn phrase such as pro bono publicus smacks of toffdom".

When he reformed civil justice, Lord Woolf replaced "writ" with "claim form", "pleading" with "statement of case", "plaintiff" with "claimant", "minor/infant" with "child", and "in camera" with "in private". "Ex parte" became "without notice", and "inter partes" became "with notice".

John Lister of the Plain English Campaign said: "It is good that Lord Woolf is pressing on with his efforts to rid the courts of Latin and legalese so that the language used is the type that is understood by the people who use the courts."

What gets lost in translation

Latin: In flagrante delicto

Legal: While the crime is blazing

On the street: Caught with your trousers down

Latin: Coitus

Legal: Going together

On the street: Bonking

Latin: Coitus interruptus

Legal: Interrupted sexual intercourse

On the street: Stopped bonking

Latin: Illegitimi

Legal: Illegitimate ones

On the street: Bastards

Latin: Fellatio

Legal: A sucking

On the street: Blowjob

Latin: In vino veritas

Legal: In wine truth

On the street: Too pissed to lie