Is the second "there" a typo in "that there was there insufficient evidence"?

Question

A lawyer has filed a court document listing issues to be determined in an upcoming trial. He has phrased one issue as follows:

Did Judge <X> err in not accepting the "new evidence" following the
delivery of his decision that there was there insufficient evidence to
justify a trial in accordance with s 26(2) of the Criminal Procedure
Act 2011;

(Judge's name redacted, bold emphasis added)
At first I thought that the second "there" was just a typo. But I decided to search the web for exactly the same phrase and found two other occurrences in similar context. Which has made me think: what if this is not a typo but rather some weird legalese?
So, is it a typo or not?

Greybeard · Accepted Answer

In

that there was there insufficient evidence to justify a trial

There is an adverb in both cases.
The first there is the existential "there" as in "There is a cat in the garden." It is used only as an emphatic confirmation of the existence of a cat. "There is a cat in the garden." = A cat is in the garden.
(Note that "there" is not the subject of "There is a cat in the garden." because we also say "There are cats in the garden." (This is an example of the subject and verb being inverted after a fronting adverb/adjective: it was commoner in earlier English e.g. "Dearly did I love her and deep was my sorrow.")
The second there is the locative "there" = at that place: e.g. "I lived there when I was a child."
that there was there insufficient evidence to justify a trial =
that insufficient evidence to justify a trial was at or in the place or thing indicated.

Is the second "there" a typo in "that there was there insufficient evidence"?

One Answer

Add your own answers!

Ask a Question