any witness the accused believes is able to

[cubezero3]

If the defence statement discloses an alibi, the accused must give particulars of that alibi in the statement; this must include the name and address of any witness the accused believes is able to give evidence in support of the alibi.
The Longman Dictionary of Law, Seventh Edition, L.B. Curzon and P.H. Richards, Law Press China, Page 24

Is it necessary to add "who" in a structure like this? I've seen many similar sentences with "someone thinks", or "someone believes" inserted between the relative pronoun and the main verb in a clause. But in all the cases I can remember the relative pronoun is not omitted. This sentence really baffles me.

 

[5jj]

Is it necessary to add "who" in a structure like this?

No. It's fine as it is.

 

[emsr2d2]

In general, I would discourage you from questioning the language used in a dictionary of law. Legalese has very strict rules and constructions, some of which are very old-fashioned and many of which are pretty hard to wade through unless you're a lawyer.

 

[Rover_KE]

Members of the legal professions are noticeably slow to allow their beloved legalese to evolve or be updated.

Can you think why, cubezero3?

 

[cubezero3]

If I'm allowed to be honest, I have to say my answer will be somewhat cynical. It is true legalese, as a technical language, has to be very precise. But this doesn't explain why words or phrases like "thereinafter" or "alias distus" cannot be replaced by plain language. I fear the true reason has something to do with the fact that people are only willing to pay, and pay dearly for a service they cannot do themselves.

 

[5jj]

"alias distus"

alias dictus

 

[probus]

I used to earn my living advising the wealthy on how to minimize their taxes. For reasons that still baffle me, we here in Canada have insisted on writing our income tax law in accordance with legal tradition. This has led to enormous sentences, running to hundreds of words, and containing layer upon layer of subordinate clauses. The USA, in contrast, has chosen to write its Internal Revenue Code in plain English. By that I mean in short simple sentences embellished with many numerical examples and some algebraic formulas. The American approach is obviously far superior in my opinion.

 

[Skrej]

The Plain Writing Act is a relatively new law (2010) that requires US federal agencies to write “clear government communication that the public can understand and use.”
However, it only applies to publications regarding things like benefits, taxes, and services, along with corresponding educational documents.

According to the IRS (links to a PDF download), individual income tax laws average about an 8th grade reading level, while corporate tax law averages about a 10th grade level. If anyone is interested in things like readability scores, the download is kind of interesting. It also has some comparisons of tax codes against well-known US historical documents and other federal legislation.