Skip to main content

Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Court Interpreters and Fair Trials
  • 452 Accesses

Abstract

Pulling together each of the different threads presented in the preceding Chapters, this Chapter proceeds to examine the extent to which the identified interpreter errors may actually undermine the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings. For this discussion, the fair trial rights are broken down into three groups: those related to the production of evidence (such as the right to examine witnesses); those related to the understanding of evidence (such as the right to be present); and those generally unrelated to evidence (such as the right to appeal). Throughout the evaluation of these categories, the legal implications of interpreter error are examined by reference to international jurisprudence directly applicable to the issues, as well as by drawing analogies between cases in related areas of law. Given the findings from previous Chapters that a substantial variety of interpreter errors are not only inherent in the system, but also common and frequent occurrences, it is asserted that the impact of court interpreters on specific individual fair trial rights is quite significant indeed. Specifically, it is concluded that court interpreters, where they are tasked with interpreting for a foreign language witness, considerably impede the accurate production of evidence, which is a fundamental aspect of numerous fair trial rights. In addition, court interpreters are also found to appreciably undermine the ability of foreign language defendants to effectively participate in their proceedings, which is likewise a foundational part of the right to a fair trial. Those fair trial rights unrelated to evidence are also shown to be endangered. Ultimately, the Chapter concludes that, even where individual fair trial rights may not be infringed, the sheer volume of likely interpreter error in any given case put the overall fairness of interpreted criminal proceedings at risk.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    It is important to note in this context that Domukovsky was a death penalty case, which may play some role in the HRC’s decision.

  2. 2.

    This is not to say, of course, that an accused who speaks the language of the court would not be entitled to an interpreter for witnesses on his behalf that do not. It is likely that the accused’s right to adequate facilities to prepare defense, as well as the equality of arms, would guarantee such assistance.

Bibliography

  • Astiz, C. A. (1986). But They Don’t Speak the Language: Achieving Quality Control of Translation in Criminal Courts. The Judge’s Journal, 25, 32–35, 56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berk-Seligson, S. (1990). The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berk-Seligson, S. (2002). The Impact of Politeness in Witness Testimony: The Influence of the Court Interpreter. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The Interpreting Studies Reader (pp. 279–292). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Jongh, E. (1992). An Introduction to Court Interpreting: Theory & Practice. Lanham: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Mas, S. (2001). Translation, Interpreting & Legal Rights within the European Union: The Law & Reality. In Critical Link 3 – Interpreting in the Community: The Complexity of the Profession – Montreal [online]. Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52d566cbe4b0002632d34367/t/5347f5f0e4b0bccee306dac1/1397224944878/CL3_deMas.pdf. Accessed 21 Nov 2017.

  • González, R., Vásquez, V. F., & Mikkelson, H. (1991). Fundamentals of Court Interpretation: Theory, Policy, and Practice. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale, S. (2001). The Complexities of the Bilingual Courtroom. Law Society Journal, 39, 68–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale, S. (2002). How Faithfully Do Court Interpreters Render the Style of Non-English Speaking Witnesses’ Testimonies? A Data-Based Study of Spanish-English Bilingual Proceedings. Discourse Studies, 4(1), 25–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hale, S. (2004). The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse Practices of the Law, the Witness and the Interpreter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hale, S. (2007). Challenges of Court Interpreting: Intricacies, Responsibilities and Ramifications. Alternative Law Journal, 32, 198–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim, Z. (2007). The Interpreter as Advocate: Malaysian Court Interpreting as a Case in Point. In C. Wadensjö, B. Englund Dimitrova, & A.-L. Nilsson (Eds.), The Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of Interpreting in the Community (pp. 205–213). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen, B. (2004). Pragmatic Meaning in Court Interpreting: An Empirical Study of Additions in Consecutively Interpreted Question-Answer Dialogues. Hermes – Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 32, 237–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahaner, S. M. (2008–09). The Administration of Justice in a Multilingual Society – Open to Interpretation or Lost in Translation? Judicature, 92, 224–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, P. D. (2011). A Comparative Analysis of the Right to Appeal. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, 22, 1–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, M. (2008). Courtroom Interpreting. Lanham: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGoldrick, D. (1994). The Human Rights Committee: Its Role in the Development of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messier, F. (1999). Alien Defendants in Criminal Proceedings: Justice Shrugs. American Criminal Law Review, 36, 1395–1419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moeketsi, R. H. (1999). Redefining the Role of the South African Court Interpreter. Proteus, 8(3–4), 12–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, R. (1998). Justice in Jerusalem – Interpreting in Israeli Legal Proceedings. Meta, 43(1), 110–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, M. (2005). U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (2nd ed.). Kehl: Engel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, L. (2011). Courtroom Interpreting. In K. Malmkjær & K. Windle (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies (pp. 325–342). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trechsel, S. (2005). Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, P., & Viering, M. (2006). Right to a Fair and Public Hearing (Article 6). In P. van Dijk, F. van Hoof, A. van Rijn, & L. Zwaak (Eds.), Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights (4th ed., pp. 511–650). Antwerpen: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weissbrodt, D. (2001). The Right to a Fair Trial Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Hague: Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

Other Documents

  • Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. (1953). 213 UNTS 221, signed 4 November 1950, entered into force 3 September 1953.

    Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights Committee. (1983, September 15). Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Australia. In: Human Rights Committee. Report of the Human Rights Committee, U.N. Doc. A/38/40.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (1976). 999 UNTS 171, adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976.

    Google Scholar 

List of Cases

  • Akbarkhudzh Tolipkhuzhaev v. Uzbekistan (HRC 2009). Communication No. 1280/2004 (22 July 2009) U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/96/D/1280/2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard Lubuto v. Zambia (HRC 1995). Communication No. 390/1990 (31 October 1995) U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/55/D/390/1990/Rev.1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimitry Kharkhal v. Belarus (HRC 2007). Communication No. 1161/2003 (31 October 2007) CCPR/C/91/D/1161/2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimitry L. Gridin v. Russian Federation (HRC 2000). Communication No. 770 (20 July 2000) U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/69/D/770/1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield Peart and Andrew Peart v. Jamaica (HRC 1995). Communications Nos. 464/1991 & 482/1991 (19 July 1995) U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/54/D/464/1991 & 482/1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • José Luis García Fuenzalida v. Ecuador (HRC 1996). Communication No. 480/1991 (12 July 1996) U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/57/D/480/1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamasinski v. Austria (ECtHR 1989). Application No. 9783/82 (19 December 1989) Series A No. 168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kostovski v. The Netherlands (ECtHR 1989). Application No. 11454/85 (20 November 1989) Series A No. 166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucy Dudko v. Australia (HRC 2007). Communication No. 1347/2005 (23 July 2007) U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/90/D/1347/2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansur v. Turkey (ECtHR 1995). Application No. 16026/90 (8 June 1995) Series A No. 319-B.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael Robinson v. Jamaica (HRC 2000). Communication No. 731/1996 (29 March 2000) U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/68/D/731/1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukhammadruzi Iskandarov v. Tajikistan (HRC 2011). Communication No. 1499/2006 (30 March 2011) U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/101/D/1499/2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olimzhon Ashurov v. Tajikistan (HRC 2007). Communication No. 1348/2005 (20 March 2007) U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/89/D/1348/2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otabek Akhadov v. Kyrgyzstan (HRC 2011). Communication No. 1503/2006 (25 March 2011) U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/101/D/1503/2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peter Lumley v. Jamaica (HRC 1999). Communication No. 662/1995 (31 March 1999) U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/65/D/662/1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitkänen v. Finland (ECtHR 2004). Application No. 30508/96 (9 March 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • S. v. Switzerland (ECtHR 1991). Application Nos. 12629/87 & 13965/88 (28 November 1991) Series A No. 220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakhnovskiy v. Russia (ECtHR 2010). Application No. 21272/03 (2 November 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Valery Khostikoev v. Tajikistan (HRC 2009). Communication No. 1519/2006 (22 October 2009) U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/97/D/1519/2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Mechelen and Others v. The Netherlands (ECtHR 1997). Applications Nos. 21363/93, 21364/93, 21427/93 & 22056/93 (23 April 1997) 25 EHRR 647.

    Google Scholar 

  • Victor P. Domukovsky and others v. Georgia (HRC 1998). Communications Nos. 623/1995, 624/1995, 626/1995, 627/1995 (6 April 1998) U.N. Docs. CCPR/C/62/D/623/1995, CCPR/C/62/D/624/1995, CCPR/C/62/D/626/1995, CCPR/C/62/D/627/1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfgang Lederbauer v. Austria (HRC 2007). Communication No. 1454/2006 (13 July 2007) U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/90/D/1454/2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman and Steiner v. Switzerland (ECtHR 1983). Application No. 8737/79 (13 July 1983) Series A No. 66.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Dingfelder Stone, J.H. (2018). Analysis. In: Court Interpreters and Fair Trials. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75355-3_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75355-3_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-75354-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-75355-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics