23 May 2014
"The
hearing on 7 May 2014
9.
The hearing before me on 7 May 2014 was unable to proceed. Despite the order
made by Judge Murdoch, and although HMCTS had, as was subsequently conceded by
it, gone through the appropriate procedures with Capita Translation and
Interpreting Limited (Capita) to book two interpreters, no interpreter was
present at court. I had no choice but to adjourn the hearing. How could I do
otherwise? It would have been unjust, indeed inhumane, to continue with the final
hearing of applications as significant as those before me – this, after all,
was their final opportunity to prevent the adoption of their children – if the
parents were unable to understand what was being said. Anyone tempted to
suggest that an adjournment was not necessary might care to consider what our
reaction would be if an English parent before a foreign court in similar
circumstances was not provided with an interpreter.
10.
I accordingly adjourned the hearing until 15 May 2014. I directed that HMCTS
was to provide two interpreters for that hearing. I directed that Capita’s
Relationship Director, Sonia Facchini, file a written statement (with statement
of truth) explaining the circumstances in which and the reasons why no
interpreters had been provided by Capita for the hearing on 7 May 2014. I gave
Capita permission to apply to vary or discharge this order. It chose not to. I
reserved the costs of the hearing on 7 May 2014 to the hearing on 15 May 2014
“for consideration of, inter alia, whether Capita should pay such costs.”
Capita
11.
Ms Facchini’s statement is dated 14 May 2014. I need not go into the full
details. That is a matter for a future occasion. For immediate purposes there
are three points demanding notice. The first is that, according to Ms Facchini,
the contractual arrangements between Capita and the interpreters it provides do
not give Capita the ability to require that any particular interpreter accepts
any particular assignment, or even to honour any engagement which the interpreter
has accepted. The consequence, apparently, was that in this case the two
interpreters who had accepted the assignment (one on 14 and the other on 17
April 2014) later cancelled (on 5 and 1 May 2014 respectively). The second is
that it is only at 2pm on the day before the hearing that Capita notifies the
court that there is no interpreter assigned. The third is the revelation that
on 7 May 2014 Capita had only 29 suitably qualified Slovak language
interpreters on its books (only 13 within a 100 miles radius of the Royal
Courts of Justice) whereas it was requested to provide 39 such interpreters for
court hearings that day. This is on any view a concerning state of affairs. If
the consequence is that a hearing such as that before me on 7 May 2014 has to be
abandoned then that is an unacceptable state of affairs. It might be thought
that something needs to be done.
12.
Whether the underlying causes are to be found in the nature of the contract
between the Ministry of Justice and HMCTS or whoever and Capita, or in the
nature of the contract between Capita and the interpreters it retains, or in
the sums paid respectively to Capita and its interpreters, or in an inadequate
supply of interpreters (unlikely one might have thought in a language such as
Slovak), I do not know. We need to find out."
No comments:
Post a Comment