26th February 2024
Report identifies serious issues with court interpreting in Kent
[…] Issues with interpretation in court
Issues with access to, and quality of, interpreters were a consistent problem. In the court system, interpreters were usually supplied by the private company, the Big Word. Interpreters are paid by the hour for their services. While there are a few regular and experienced interpreters that do a large portion of these cases in the Crown Court, often the interpreters allocated by the Big Word had no previous experiences in arrival cases. As one interpreter explained, “these cases are difficult and they need interpreters who have done it for a while, who have a lot of experience in criminal procedures. This is not always the case and it results in a lot of confusion [for the defendant]”
Frequently, lack of, or delays in organising, interpreters delayed proceedings. When interpreters were present, they were often unable to properly communicate with their client. Arabic interpreters, in particular, were often booked without care as to which dialect the defendant might best understand, resulting either in prolonged delays to proceedings, or in hearings continuing with the defendant only partly understanding. On several observed occasions, interpreters had to be told to make sure they were interpreting fully everything that was being discussed in court: The interpreter wasn’t good. He didn’t say literally everything that I said, maybe 40%. (Samir, Sudanese). Frequently, those supported by Captain Support UK, Humans for Rights Network, and Refugee Legal Support left court not understanding what had happened, where they were going, or for how long.
As cases moved to video link, interpreters would often appear physically in court, or via video link, a hybrid situation which resulted in high levels of confusion, discomfort and distress, and inadequate communication between the court, the defendant, and the interpreter. Having been arrested very soon after arriving, in a foreign country, and in a different language, inadequate interpretation compounds confusion and distress, with the potential for affecting their hearings adversely: Myself as well as the representative yesterday at the police station have both come to the conclusion [the defendant] is very confused. He doesn’t quite know what is happening. His instructions are not most forthcoming, all he keeps saying is that all he wanted to do is to claim asylum because his country of origin, Sudan, is at war.[…]
Problems with accessing and understanding interpreters continued in the Crown Court. For example, in one hearing observed, the wrong dialect Arabic interpreter was booked for a young man from South Sudan, and lawyer and client could not communicate effectively. The interpreter was sent away. While a full hearing was adjourned, the Judge and lawyers continued to discuss his case for half an hour in English. The young man sat alone at the back of the courtroom in the dock without any interpretation, with no understanding of what was going on, or what might happen to him. In another case, an Afghan man, who had already served two weeks longer than expected on remand, had his hearing adjourned by another two weeks because of an administrative error: the magistrates court had noted his language as Arabic rather than Pashto, meaning that the correct interpreter had not been arranged. This type of error was common. Given the backlog within the court system, the frequency of these kinds of administrative error result in hearings being delayed, often extending the period of uncertainty for those in prison. […]
No comments:
Post a Comment