11 April 2013
Court interpreter in the dock
“No use”
having interpreters there on only 98% of occasions when they are required
The
President of the Queen’s Bench Division, Sir John Thomas has expressed surprise
at Capita Translation and Interpreting Ltd’s argument that it need only supply
court interpreters on time and in the right place 98% of the time to fulfil its
contractual obligations.
Capita,
formerly known as Applied Language Solutions, disputed a costs order for £23.25
imposed on it after a Slovakian interpreter arrived late at Sheffield Crown
Court due to a communications mix-up.
In the
ensuing case, R v Applied Language Solutions [2013] EWCA Crim 326, the
court looked at the role of Capita and the extent of its obligations as set out
in its agreement. The monitoring schedule to the agreement set out, as one of
the “key performance indicators”, “evidence that 98% of all assignments
requested were fulfilled”.
Delivering
his judgment, Sir John said: “We cannot accept this argument...without [an
interpreter] a case cannot proceed. It seems to us inconceivable that the
Ministry of Justice would have entered into a contract where the obligation...
was framed in any terms other than an absolute obligation. It is simply no use
to a court having an interpreter there on 98% of occasions when interpreters
are required, because if an interpreter is required justice cannot be done
without one and a case cannot proceed.”
However,
Sir John found in Capita’s favour, holding that a single failure did not amount
to serious misconduct.
He added
that a failure to remedy the cause of a failure or repeated failures might
constitute serious misconduct.
He said:
A contractor cannot be allowed to maximise its profit or reduce its loss in the
context of court proceedings by not having in place the best systems and the
best interpreters.”
Capita’s
interpreting contract began in January 2012. It has been criticised in three
Parliamentary and auditing reports for failing to meet targets.
No comments:
Post a Comment