Choosing Subjects, Actions, and Structure

Part of CRLP Guidance and Training for Drafters

Once the legal effect is clear, the next task is to express it honestly in the sentence.

For classic normative drafting, that usually means identifying the right subject and the right action.

The subject should be capable of bearing the rule

In a provision that can be complied with or contravened, the subject normally needs legal personality.

That is why subjects such as a person, the Minister, the registrar, or a corporation make sense in ordinary normative drafting. They can bear duties, prohibitions, permissions, and powers.

By contrast, subjects such as an appeal, a notice, a consignment, or a dog often signal that the clause may not really be a classic conduct rule at all. Those things may be regulated, but they are not usually the true bearers of the legal obligation.

If a drafter finds a non-personal subject inside a must clause, it is worth pausing. The provision may really be about validity, timing, or another legal consequence.

The predicate should tell the reader what counts as compliance

The legal action is not just the tail end of the sentence. It is the part that lets the reader understand what must, must not, or may be done.

That action may be:

• a positive act
• a failure to act
• a power exercised by taking a defined step

The key is that the reader can tell what conduct the provision is regulating.

Omissions matter here. A person may fail to do what the law requires just as clearly as a person may do what the law forbids. The drafter does not need a wholly separate conceptual scheme for omissions, but the wording must still make the relevant conduct intelligible.

Prefer real actions over disguised states

Classic normative drafting is often clearer when it tells a person what to do rather than what to be.

If a provision says that a person must be registered, the reader may be left asking:

• who is supposed to secure that result?
• at what moment does the duty bite?
• is the real point the person’s conduct, or the legal consequence of lacking registration?

Often the clearer structure is to regulate the conduct directly or to state the linked legal consequence more openly.

The second version states the prohibited conduct and the qualifying condition more clearly.

Use ordinary verbs unless a specialised verb is doing real work

Words such as do, act, and other ordinary action verbs are often enough.

More elaborate terms such as activity, conduct, carry out, or perform are not automatically wrong, but they should not be used just to sound more formal. They may carry added meaning, such as suggesting a course of behaviour over time rather than a single act.

The question is simple: does the chosen verb help the reader understand the rule more precisely, or does it add unnecessary fog?

Structure should reveal the legal effect

Subject choice and action choice are connected. When both are wrong, the clause starts to hide its real legal work.

That is why drafting review should include questions like:

• is this really the person or body on whom the rule operates?
• is the action the true legal action, or only a surface description?
• would the rule be clearer if it stated the conduct, the condition, or the consequence differently?