How a Quality-Conscious Interpreting Agency Can Help You Avoid a Potential Disaster.
The right to an interpreter for public-service users
In public services in the UK, non-native English speakers often rely on interpreters to communicate. The police have a duty to provide an interpreter to suspects and witnesses if they require one during an interview or to make a statement. Furthermore, the Crown Prosecution Service guidance states that the right to an interpreter is an integral part of the right to a fair trial. Therefore, hundreds of interpreters work across legal, government and medical settings every day to enable vital dialogue to take place, dialogue that forms the basis of life-changing decisions.
“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.” (CPS Prosecution guidance).
The need for quality interpretation
To get their message across accurately, your client needs a high-quality interpreter. Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament sets the standards for interpreters, stipulating that “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.” In theory, to work in certain official settings, such as criminal justice, interpreters must have specific qualifications and be registered with certain professional bodies. In practice, unfortunately, for various reasons, this isn’t always the case. It raises the question, what if your client doesn’t understand the interpreter?
Checking that your client and the interpreter understand each other
The authority figure in the room will check that your client and interpreter understand each other.
“Can you please check that the appellant understands you?” or “Can we check that the appellant and interpreter understand each other?” the Home Office interviewing officer may say.
With over 12 years’ experience of interpreting in court, our director provides some specific examples:
Judge: To check if you and the appellant understand each other, can you please ask the appellant how she arrived at court today.
Interpreter: The judge would like to check that you understand the interpreter and has asked me to ask you how you arrived at court today.
Appellant: I came by bus/taxi/ my friend brought me in the car etc.
[Interpreter interprets the response.]
Here’s another one:
Judge: Can you please have a few words with the appellant to ensure you understand each other.
In this scenario the interpreter would say something to the effect of “Hello, my name is X. I am your interpreter today. The judge would like us to exchange a few words to check we understand each other. Do you understand me?” The response is always affirmative.
Both parties have confirmed that they understand each other, so what’s the issue?
Having received confirmation that your client and the interpreter understand each other, the judge is satisfied. The box can be ticked. Backs are covered. Now arguments such as “the interpreter didn’t interpret my answer correctly” or “that’s not what I said” won’t wash when it comes to appealing against Home Office decisions or court verdicts.
However, it’s not as simple as that. Firstly, the judge, policeman etc. usually asks the question to ascertain the parties’ comprehension at the very beginning of the interaction, always within the first 5 minutes, when not much has been said (and therefore interpreted), other than simple introductions.
The “test” often demands little more than GCSE-level language skills, the “how did you arrive in court today” being a perfect example.
Secondly, your client may be conscious of offending the interpreter, and therefore refuse to divulge any doubts as to their competence. They may be worried that raising such concerns could have an adverse effect on their case.
Thirdly, your client may, understandably just want to “get it over with” and put the whole experience behind them. They don’t realise that their future lies in what they are saying to the police/court/Home Office, and therefore, accurate interpreting.
Solutions to the problem
At GMYW, we have come up with some solutions to ensure that if your client doesn’t understand their interpreter, they can make it known, and potential disasters can be averted.
1. Check understanding periodically
You or your representative who is attending with your client must check that the parties understand each other periodically, throughout the session, not just at the very beginning. At Home Office asylum interviews, the interviewing officer asks if the applicant is still feeling “fit and well and happy to continue” at various points. So it is perfectly fine to ask your client “Do you still understand the interpreter?” at regular intervals. Nevertheless, you still have the issue of them wanting to get to the end of the session as quickly as possible, and being reluctant to offend the interpreter.
2. Feedback forms in your client’s native language
Why not provide your client with a feedback form in their native language to take home and complete away from the interpreter and return at a later date? Any comments can then be followed up. This would be a good way to monitor quality but, as mentioned above, raising issues after the session has taken place is often too late. It really does need to be done there and then, and, to avoid any awkwardness, not in front of the interpreter. It has to be done when we are past the schoolboy French and into the nitty gritty of the meeting, when the nature of the crime is being dissected or your client is explaining the horrific details of
their imprisonment in their home country for supporting the opposition.
3. “Tick this box immediately if you don’t understand the interpreter” forms
Before the session starts, before your client meets the interpreter, you could give them a printed statement, in English and their own language, saying something to the effect of “if at any time you do not understand the interpreter or you are concerned that the interpreter has misinterpreted what you are saying please tick this box and hand the paper to an English-speaking party in the room. The session will then be paused while we source another interpreter. You must not wait until the end of the meeting to raise any concerns with the interpreter as it will be too late.”
4. Insist on booking two interpreters for certain settings
By the time a court hearing, asylum interview or appeal comes round, your client will have reached a certain level of English, perhaps enough to be able to recognise if their words are being misinterpreted. But what if your client is “fresh off the boat” with no English at all? They will be putting all of their trust into the interpreter. We know you appreciate this issue as our solicitor clients often book interpreters not to interpret but to keep tabs on the court interpreter (who is booked by the court through its contracted agency), to check they’re not
making any mistakes. Our director has done this herself many a time. However, it’s ineffective as the interpreter is normally asked to sit at the back of the room where they can’t always hear properly. Also, it’s awkward to call the quality of a colleague into question.
We suggest you always book two interpreters for official and legal settings. They can each interpret half of the session and are professional enough to be willing to raise any quality concerns. If this was to be made standard procedure, interpreters would simply have to accept it as part of the course.
5. Use a quality language service provider
The link between fair rates and terms for interpreters and quality service is undeniable. Think back to 2012 when the government put out a tender for the supply of court interpreting services. In a privatisation described as “shambolic”, trials collapsed and suspects were remanded unnecessarily in custody. Hundreds of professional interpreters boycotted the agency that was awarded the contract over what they said were low fees.
At GMYW we only work with experienced interpreters who have the Diploma in Public Service Interpreting (law option). The DPSI has been the benchmark qualification for public service interpreting for over 30 years. This is our quality stamp. We are also fiercely proud to have a fair-trade policy for our linguists, which in turn guarantees the best possible service to our clients. By entrusting us with sourcing your interpreters, you will minimise the chance of having to even ask the question raised in the title of this article.
We also provide written translations through our global network of Master’s-qualified (or equivalent) translators who translate only into their mother tongue in their respective specialist areas. So, why not let us create the feedback forms and/or standard statement referred to above, and translate them into your clients’ native languages to empower them to speak out if they don’t understand the interpreter?
You work hard to prepare your client’s case. Don’t risk it all collapsing simply because they didn’t understand the interpreter. In a country where the right to a fair trial is fundamental to the rule of law and democracy, let GMYW help you minimise this risk.
