The Captain’s Log

Pontifications of The Great and Terrible Captain Cucamunga.

Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:32:09 EST

Consider This Sentence

The following sentence occurs in The Toronto Star on Apple News. “A Toronto judge has blasted a Crown attorney for his ‘inaction’ in getting a serious shooting case to trial, as he failed to respond to multiple requests for evidence from the defence in a matter that ended up being tossed for delay.”

To nitpick, as is a coordinating conjuntion. The convention is to not use a comma to separate a modifying clause from the clause it modifies unless the modifying clause occurs first.

Blasted is too informal for me. I see no reason why the single word, inaction, should be quoted. Multiple requests is redundant. The plural by itself will do. The modifier serious is unnecessary. All shooting cases are serious.

…in getting a serious shooting case to trial, is clumsy because of the present participle. The clause can be removed and matter replaced with case: …for inaction as he failed…in a case that…

The last restrictive clause in the sentence separates the judge from the dismissal of the case. The actor and action should be unambiguously close together. The judge is subsequently named in the article. I will use the name in the first mention of the judge. The nature of the case is subsequently described in the article. I will better describe the case in the initial sentence.

My rewrite: “In dismissing a firearm assault case for undue delay of trial, Justice Katrina Mulligan severely criticized the Crown attorney for his failure to respond to discovery requests from the defence.”