26 September 2013
Man's conviction quashed after interpreter not provided for witness
A van driver who tried to assault a police officer
and resisted arrest has had his convictions quashed - because a court would not
provide an interpreter for his girlfriend.
Czech
Martin Kroupa, 37, was arrested during a struggle with police who wanted to
give him a breath test outside his home in Johnstone, Renfrewshire.
They
claimed he had tried to punch one constable on the head, resisted four officers
in the execution of their duty had behaved in a threatening manner while they
were investigating reports of a driver under the influence of drink.
Mr
Kroupa, of Maple Drive, denied the charges against him and claimed police
grabbed him and began "interrogating" him about an alleged theft of
metal and bogus insurance claims.
He said
his partner, Jarmila Kapustova, also from the Czech Republic, was abused by
police and when he protested one of the constables punched him, knocking his
spectacles to the ground.
He
claimed was brought down by the police and repeatedly assaulted as he lay there
on July 14 2011.
As the
case proceeded through Paisley Sheriff Court, Mr Kroupa was left without a
solicitor because his application for legal aid was refused.
He was
left to try to defend himself at the trial which followed. Mr Kroupa relied on
Ms Kapustova to back his version of events, but her English was poor.
At the
Justiciary Appeal Court in Edinburgh, Lord Eassie - sitting with Lady Paton and
Lord Wheatley - heard that Mr Kroupa was provided with an interpreter, because
he was the accused.
But he
was told if he wanted an interpreter to help his witness - Ms Kapustova - he
would have to pay the costs himself.
Mr Kroupa
complained that was something he could not afford. Sheriff David Pender was
told by his clerk that the court-appointed interpreter would not help the
defence.
The
sheriff told appeal judges that Mr Kroupa gave his evidence in English, but an
interpreter helped when he was cross-examined by the prosecutor.
The
sheriff agreed that Ms Kapustova's command of English was "poor" and
he asked for questions to be put to her in a simple straightforward way.
But, the
appeal judges heard, Sheriff Pender thought Ms Kapustova understood all the
questions put to her.
None of
her answers was "nonsensical". Although she had difficulty, she was
able to respond to questions, given time to think.
But, Lord
Eassie noted, the questioning appeared to have been restricted with each side
asking no more than a dozen or so questions.
Defence
advocate Ann Ogg argued that the absence of an interpreter for Ms Kapustova
made the trial unfair and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Although,
normally, it was up to the defence to provide an interpreter when needed,
courts had the ultimate responsibility for ensuring fairness.
Advocate
depute Andrew Brown QC, for the Crown, said that although Miss Kapustova's
English was "very limited" she had been able to support her partner's
story. Lord Eassie, in his ruling, backed Ms Ogg.
He said:
"If it appears necessary or desirable that the giving of evidence by a
witness with limited command of spoken English be done with the assistance of
an interpreter, the judge should take such steps as he can to enable that to be
achieved.”
Sheriff
Pender could have ordered the interpreter to help Miss Kapustova, Lord Eassie
suggested.
Mr
Kroupa's partner was a key witness, he continued.
He added
"The importance of Ms Kapustova's giving evidence uninhibited by her
obviously defective command of English was, in out view, clear."
Mr
Kroupa's convictions, which had resulted in fines totalling £500, were quashed.
