https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-court-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2023
Criminal court statistics quarterly: January to March 2023
29 June 2023
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-court-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2023
Clause 11 - Guidance on code awareness and reviewing compliance
Victims and Prisoners Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 2:45 pm on 29 June 2023.
Sarah Champion Chair, International Development Committee, Chair, International Development Committee
[…] Victim Support has also raised concerns about the need to implement the right to be understood. One woman, Angela—both her name and the languages have been changed—was wrongly arrested when she attempted to seek help from the police after experiencing domestic abuse. Despite taking regular English classes, Angela struggles with language skills in pressured or stressful situations. When she contacted the police to report the abuse, her partner at the time, who was fluent in English, managed to convince the police officers that he was the victim. Angela said:
“They cuffed me, put me in a police car, so I said, why? I was being treated like a criminal, so I was in great shock.”
At no point did the police ask Angela if she understood what was happening or if she needed a translator, even when she started speaking in Romanian. She said:
“They were just saying, ‘speak English, speak English!’”
Angela was arrested and held in police custody. She only got an interpreter at 8 pm, despite asking for one at 2 pm. After explaining what had happened through the interpreter, Angela was, thankfully, released and her partner was later charged. Eventually, the case went to court and the perpetrator was found guilty and issued with a restraining order. However, a copy of the court ruling was only sent in English, and Angela had to pay to have it translated.
It must be on the face of the Bill that the Secretary of State must take all practical steps to ensure that victims who are deaf, disabled or visually impaired, or who do not speak English as their first language are able to understand their entitlements under the code. We cannot allow anyone, in particular vulnerable women such as Angela, to be wrongfully treated and unaware of their rights do to these language barriers. […]
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmwomeq/93/report.html
27 June 2023
Equality and the UK asylum process
This is a House of Commons Committee report, with recommendations to government.
Biased or prejudiced interpreters and interviewers
71. We heard allegations that people claiming asylum based on sexual orientation can be disadvantaged by biased or prejudiced interpreters in substantive interviews and appeal hearings. The SOGICA Project cited academic research that found LGBT asylum claimants may be “wary of interpreters from their own ethnic communities as they may fear they share the homophobia or transphobia they have fled or will put them at risk by disclosure.” Rainbow Migration reported instances of interpreters deliberately providing a poor service because of their own prejudice, “for example, by mistranslating, rebuking or judging people, or being dismissive of their fears such as the death penalty.” Some claimants were inhibited from talking openly about their claims in front of an interpreter from their country of origin. Rainbow Migration also emphasised that relevant concepts and behaviours “can be hard to translate across cultures and languages, particularly where they are not usually discussed or are considered taboo.”
72. Humanists UK expressed similar concerns about interpreters’ biases in relation to asylum claims made by non-religious people and apostates in highly religious or theocratic countries. Its 2019 survey of 40 such claimants found around a quarter reported experiencing “difficulties with prejudiced translators”, including problems “finding independent translators willing to translate criticisms of religious beliefs”.
73. Some witnesses noted that Home Office interviewers were not immune to biases and applying harmful stereotypes, which they believed contributed to the culture of disbelief. The SOGICA project reported its research had found the interviewers:
[…] often fail to understand the individual [LGBT] claimant, because of assumptions and prejudices. These include, among others, expectations that claimants have a partner or are sexually active, take part in LGBTIQ+ activism, provide a “coming out” narrative, and have difficulty reconciling their [sexuality or gender identity] with their religious beliefs.
Researchers at University College London found the interview process disadvantages LGBT claimants “based on a set of stereotypes about how those characteristics should present themselves (i.e., in speech, appearance, behaviour).”
74. Biased or prejudiced interpreters can adversely affect a person’s asylum claim, particularly in cases where claims are based on sexual orientation or gender identity and religion or renunciation of religious belief. No interpreter contracted by the Home Office should be able to influence the determination of any claim, particularly where this is motivated by their own beliefs, prejudices or stereotyping.
75. We recommend the Home Office establish a programme of religious impartiality and LGBT sensitivity training for all language interpreters on its approved list. We further recommend the Department review and enhance its training of asylum interviewers on avoiding application of stereotypes to asylum claimants in sexual orientation and gender identity-based claims.
