Interpreters
Introduction
The right to an interpreter is an integral part of the right to a fair trial. It is a principle
of English common law that the Defendant must be able to understand the charges
made against them and be able to properly defend themselves. The right is also
enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.
Translation services are currently being provided within police stations and the
Courts by 'The Big Word', who are contracted by the Ministry of Justice. Sign
language interpretation is provided by Clarion UK.
Interpreters working within the Criminal Justice System should be registered on the
National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI). NRPSI are an independent,
voluntary public interest body and their core role is to ensure that standards within
the profession are maintained for the benefit of the public and interpreters.
Interpreters at the Police Station
The role of the interpreter at the Police Station is governed by Code C of the Police
and Criminal Evidence (PACE) 1984. If a suspect or a witness requires an
interpreter for interview or the taking of a statement, the police must arrange for one
to be present.
The interpretation arrangements must comply with the minimum requirements set
out in Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament: “the quality of the
interpretation and translation provided shall be sufficient to safeguard the fairness of
the proceedings, in particular by ensuring that suspected or accused persons have
knowledge of the cases against them and are able to exercise their rights of
defence.”
13.2 dictates that a suspect must not be interviewed unless arrangements are made
for a person capable of interpreting to assist the suspect to understand and
communicate.
In the case of a person making a statement under caution, 13.4 states that “the
interpreter shall record the statement in the language it is made, the person shall be
invited to sign it and official English translation shall be made in due course.”
Code C also applies to suspects who are hard of hearing or have speech
impediments and require interpreters or other appropriate assistance to enable
effective communication.
Code F deals with the interview of suspects who are deaf, blind or have a speech
impediment. It states that it might be appropriate to make a visual recording of the
interview if the suspect is deaf, blind or in the case of a speech impaired person who
uses sign language to communicate.
Any witness statement taken from a person who has difficulty in speaking or
understanding English should be recorded in the foreign language and signed by the
witness. It should include the declaration prescribed in Section 9(2)(b) Criminal
Justice Act 1967. Witness statements for the purpose of Section 5A(3)(a) and 5B of
the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, must be the statement of the witness and not a
translation of what was said by the interpreter – R v Raynor, Times Law Reports, 19
September 2000.
Where an interpreter is required to translate at the interview between the police and
a witness to record the witness’s statement, a Superintendent may authorise an
extension to the period of detention to enable the transcript to be prepared before
charging – R (on the application of Wiles) v Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire
Constabulary [2002] All ER (D) 263 Feb.
Any potential breaches of PACE or the Codes may mean the evidence could be
excluded under Section 78 of PACE – see Confession, Unfairly Obtained Evidence
and Breaches of Pace.
The interpreter is bound by a duty of confidentiality not to disclose what was said in
consultation between the suspect and their legal representative. In the case of
Bozkurt v South Thames Magistrates’ Court [2002] R.T.R.15, the Divisional Court
held that “legal professional privilege attached to an interpreter who was present
between a client and his solicitor.”
Court Papers
When preparing papers for court, the foreign language statement should be placed
in the bundle of witness statements either immediately before or after the translation.
Interpreter as a Witness in Court
If a defendant has been interviewed through an interpreter and there is any
contention as to what was said during that interview, evidence will be required from
interpreter. Evidence from the Police Officer in this regard amounts to hearsay –
Attard [Link].R.90. If the interpreter used at the Police Station is to be called as
a prosecution witness, a separate interpreter is to be used for court.
If an interpreter is required to give evidence, he or she should be given an
opportunity to confirm the accuracy of any record of interview at which they were
present.
The CPS is responsible for the payment of expenses of an interpreter who attends
court to give evidence about what took place at the defendant's interview.
Interpreter for a Witness at Court
A witness who has difficulty in speaking or understanding English may give evidence
at court through an interpreter. It is the responsibility of the prosecution and defence
to arrange interpreters for their own witnesses at court.
The decision as to whether an interpreter should be allowed to assist a witness is a
matter of discretion for the judge. They are not bound by the witness asserting that
they require an interpreter, nor does the judge need to conduct specific inquiries as
to their command of English – R v Sharma [2006] 2 [Link].R.(S.) 63, CA.
If an interpreter is required for a trial within the magistrates’ court then this should be
noted on the Preparation of Effective Trial form at case management. In the Crown
Court, this should be recorded on the PTPH form on the CCDCS system.
If the question of competence of the interpreter is raised, the hearing should be
adjourned, so that it can be resolved. In R (on the application of Gashi) v Chief
Adjudicator [2001] All ER (D) 262 (Nov), the Administrative Court held that “the
failure to provide G with a competent interpreter had constituted a procedural error,
given that it was related to the means by which evidence might be communicated.”
The interpreter must be someone who is impartial. In Mitchell (1970) 114 S.J. 86,
the Court of Appeal held that the employment of an interpreter who was a waiter at
the restaurant where offences were alleged to have taken place was inappropriate.
The CPS is responsible for ensuring that the interpreter is appropriately qualified to
carry out the assignment and that terms and conditions have been agreed before the
assignment is undertaken.
Interpreter for a Defendant at Court
The Defendant’s right to an interpreter at Court is enshrined within Article 6 of the
European Convention on Human Right: “(3) everyone charged with a criminal
offence has the following minimum rights - (e) to have the free assistance of an
interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.” The right is
not subject to qualification.
Article 6(3)(e) applies only where the accused does not understand or speak the
language used in court. It does not provide the defendant the right to conduct
proceedings in the language of their choosing - K v France (1984) 35 DR 203 at [8]
— applicant who understood French wanted to conduct his defence in the Breton
language.
If a defendant requires an interpreter to interpret the proceedings, it is the
responsibility of the court to arrange for the attendance and payment of an
independent interpreter. Where there is more than one defendant, each should have
a separate interpreter.
It is important that the CPS liaise with the court and the police to ensure that the
court is aware of the need for an independent interpreter and any other relevant
information, in order that an appropriate interpreter can be selected. When a
defendant is remanded in custody from the police station to the Magistrates’ Court, it
is the police who are responsible for organising an interpreter.
It is important that the interpreter used at the police station or in the course of
investigations by other investigating agencies is not engaged to interpret in the
courtroom for the same case. If, however, it is not possible to find another interpreter
(for example, where the language is rare) the Court and all parties must be notified
of the intention to use the same interpreter for the court proceedings, (see Note for
Guidance C13 A in PACE Code C) See also: Regina (Bozturk) v Thames
Magistrates' Court, Times Law Reports 26 June 2001.
‘Double translation’ is permissible at both interview and trial, where it proves
impossible to find an interpreter who is fluent in both English and the language in
which the Defendant is fluent. Both interpreters must be suitably skilled in the
interpretation of their particular part of the process. Each must be fluent in their
common language as well as the language used by the Defendant or in English – R
v West London Youth Court, ex p. N. [2000] 1 W.L.R. 2368, DC
Special Provision in Wales for the Welsh Language
Section 22(1) of the Welsh Language Act 1993 states that any party, witness or other
person has the right to speak Welsh in a court in Wales. A Welsh-speaking
prosecutor should be provided in such cases. Where this cannot be done, a short
adjournment should be sought to enable a Welsh-speaking prosecutor to attend or a
court interpreter should be used. As soon as it becomes known that the Welsh
language is likely to be used, the court should be informed, in compliance with the
Practice Direction of Lord Bingham, (1995 1 All ER. 575). Failure to comply with the
Practice Direction may result in a wasted costs order being made against the
defaulting party.
Witnesses who are Deaf or have a Speech Impairment
A witness who is deaf or hard of hearing may require the services of a qualified Sign
Language Interpreter or, for those who do not know or use sign language, a
Lipspeaker, in order to give their evidence at court. Only registered Sign Language
Interpreters or Lipspeakers should be used. The Council for the advancement of
Communication with Deaf people (CACDP) is the national examining and registration
body for sign language interpreters and details of qualified Sign Language
The true record of the original statement of a witness or Defendant who uses sign
language is a video recording, not the interpreter's written or oral version of what
they say the defendant or witness conveyed. See R v Raynor, Times Law Reports 19
September 2000 and Regina v Govenor of Brixton Prison and Another Ex Parte Safi,
Times Law Reports 24 January 2001.
A witness who has a speech impairment may be permitted to write down his or her
evidence at court.
