The Critical Importance of Using Impartial Interpreters in Public Services: Lessons from High-Profile Cases

In an increasingly multicultural and multilingual society, clear communication is essential—especially in sensitive situations such as healthcare, legal proceedings, social services, and child protection. A simple but crucial rule of thumb must always be followed: never allow friends, family members, or unqualified individuals to act as interpreters.

A Matter of Equity and Safety

In the UK, the Equality Act 2010 ensures that public services are accessible to all. This includes the legal obligation that individuals who do not speak English as their first language must be provided with an interpreter when accessing public services. Crucially, this interpreter should be a qualified, professional, and impartial interpreter—not a friend, relative, or untrained individual. The right "to be provided with" appropriate language support is a matter of both equity and safety.

Why Impartiality Matters

When an interpreter lacks neutrality, accuracy, or professional ethics, the consequences can be devastating. Impartial interpreters serve as unbiased facilitators of communication, ensuring every party’s voice is heard clearly, honestly, and confidentially. Without impartiality, key information can be misunderstood, withheld, or distorted, leading to serious misunderstandings or even harm.

Professional interpreters are trained to maintain boundaries, respect confidentiality, and convey meaning with accuracy and cultural sensitivity. Friends or relatives, however well-meaning, often lack the skills, objectivity, and ethical grounding necessary for high-stakes interpreting.

The Victoria Climbié Tragedy: A Harsh Lesson

One of the most tragic examples illustrating the dangers of inadequate interpreting is the Victoria Climbié case. Victoria was an eight-year-old girl who came to the UK from the Ivory Coast in search of a better life. She came to live with her great aunt, Marie-Thérèse Kouao. Victoria’s first language was French, and because she did not attend school in the UK, she did not speak English.

Tragically, Victoria was subjected to severe abuse by her great aunt and her partner. Alarmingly, her great aunt—who was also her abuser—acted as the interpreter during crucial interactions with social workers, healthcare professionals, and other authorities. This created a direct and dangerous conflict of interest. With no independent interpreter present, Victoria was unable to speak for herself, and professionals were forced to rely on someone actively concealing the abuse.

The Laming Inquiry, conducted after her death in 2000, concluded that this failure to provide an impartial, qualified interpreter was a contributing factor in the breakdown of safeguarding. The inquiry led to major reforms in the UK’s child protection system, including clearer inter-agency responsibilities and better information sharing.

Importantly, one of the key changes was a new emphasis on the provision of professional, impartial interpreters across all public services—particularly in cases involving vulnerable individuals, children, or safeguarding concerns. The case became a landmark example of why relying on family members or untrained individuals to interpret is wholly inappropriate and can have devastating consequences.

Other Cases Highlighting the Risks

The risks extend beyond child protection. In healthcare, numerous cases have shown how unqualified interpreters—often relatives—can unintentionally (or deliberately) alter messages. For instance, there are documented instances where patients were misdiagnosed because family members either omitted symptoms due to fear or misunderstood medical terminology (Karliner et al., 2007).

In legal settings, unqualified interpreters may lack the vocabulary, neutrality, or understanding of courtroom protocols. One well-known case involved a defendant whose family member acted as an interpreter but failed to accurately convey the nuances of legal discussions, contributing to a wrongful outcome (Angelelli, 2004).

In each of these scenarios, the consequences could have been avoided by ensuring that individuals were provided with professional interpreters, in accordance with legal standards.

Police and Safeguarding Contexts: When Family Members Are the Perpetrators

The dangers of using unqualified interpreters are especially severe in police and safeguarding environments. There have been documented cases in which perpetrators of abuse were allowed to act as interpreters for their victims—compromising the victims’ safety and silencing their voices.

The Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) 2019 report, Everyone’s Business: Improving the Police Response to Domestic Abuse, warns explicitly against such practices. It states that allowing friends or family members to interpret during police interviews, especially in cases involving domestic abuse or trafficking, can severely undermine investigations and endanger victims.

Victims in such situations must be provided with an independent, professional interpreter—someone trained to interpret accurately, confidentially, and without influence from the people involved in the case.

The Legal and Ethical Standard

Providing a professional interpreter is not just best practice—it is a legal requirement under the Equality Act 2010. Public services must anticipate and remove barriers to access for individuals with limited English proficiency. This includes ensuring that the interpreter:

• Is professionally trained and qualified in both language and sector-specific terminology

• Maintains strict impartiality and confidentiality

• Has no personal relationship to any party involved

• Understands the legal and ethical responsibilities of their role

Failing to meet this standard risks not only miscommunication, but legal challenges, safeguarding failures, and loss of trust in public institutions.

Final Thoughts

Impartial interpreting is not optional—it is a legal and ethical necessity. The lessons from the Victoria Climbié case and many others serve as stark reminders of the risks involved when friends, family, or unqualified individuals are used in place of professional interpreters.

The public has the right to be provided with a qualified interpreter when engaging with healthcare, legal, or social services. This is essential to protecting vulnerable individuals, ensuring fairness, and maintaining the integrity of decisions and outcomes.

References

Angelelli, C. (2004). Medical Interpreting and Cross-cultural Communication. Cambridge University Press.

HMICFRS (2019). Everyone’s Business: Improving the Police Response to Domestic Abuse. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services.

Karliner, L. S., Jacobs, E. A., Chen, A. H., & Mutha, S. (2007). Do professional interpreters improve clinical care for patients with limited English proficiency? A systematic review of the literature. Health Services Research, 42(2), 727–754.

Laming, Lord (2003). The Victoria Climbié Inquiry Report. The Stationery Office.

Equality Act 2010.