What is the situation in your Member State – covering both national law and national practice - with respect to the quality of interpretation and translation regarding:
(a) whether the quality is sufficient to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings?
Austria
If the prosecutor or the court appoints the interpreter, they have to appoint a person which is made available by the ministry of justice (Justizbetreuungsagentur) (§ 126(2a) StPO). The interpreter should be enrolled in the list of court interpreters (§ 126(2) StPO).
The police has to appoint a person which is made available by the ministry of the interior (§ 126(2) StPO).
The problem is that any other “suitable person” may be appointed if a person as mentioned above is not readily available. This happens very often at police interrogations. I am aware of cases where (i) a gas station attendant or (ii) somebody of the family of the victim or (iii) a firefighter or (iv) any other person somehow speaking the language of the suspect was called to interpret for the suspect. Often, the case is “closed” due to police interrogations so that the situation is not acceptable from the point of view of defence rights.
Belgium
Yes, in the most case, since they are sworn translators. If the quality would not be sufficient, the concerned authority may change for an other translator.
Bulgaria
Before the transposing amendment to CPC, it was generally agreed that the quality was not always sufficient to safeguard the fairness of proceedings. Because of the importance of the issue of quality, qualified interpreters and translators having experience in criminal matters participated in the discussions on the ways to transpose the requirements of the Directive. This helped a lot.
Now we can say there is some progress but I, as well as some other lawyers, share the view that the transposing amendments to CPC are not fully adequate. After the amendment, CPC requires that interpretation and translation should only be “accurate” but accuracy does not always mean quality, especially in specific legal terminology.
There are no normative criteria for qualification, experience, periodical attestations, etc., of the experts provided by the translation agency. Despite the fact that a specific Ordinance on the judicial translators and interpreters was adopted following the transposing amendments to CPC (Ordinance No. H-1/16 May 2014 of the Ministry of Justice), it still did not contain efficient provisions, which could guarantee the compliance with the requirements for quality of the interpretation/translation as set forth by the Directive. The Ordinance sets some vague principles for accuracy and completeness of the translation, a single requirement for Certificate of level of command C 1 or C 2 according to the Common European Language Frame and introduces no requirements for specific qualification in legal terminology, previous experience and periodical attestation. The Ordinance does not provide adequate procedures for control of the work of translators and interpreters, for assessment of their level of competence and for exclusion from the list of interpreters and translators in case of breach of the law and the duties of the expert.
Croatia
Mostly yes, but If the quality would not be sufficient, the concerned authority may change for other translator.
Cyprus
According to the Law that provides for the Interpretation and Translation during the Criminal Proceedings (L. 18(I)/2014), the interpretation and written or/and oral translation or/and oral summary shall be of a quality sufficient in order to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings, in particular by ensuring that the suspect, accused or fugitive have knowledge of the case against him/her and he/she and is able to exercise his/her right to defense. (Article 4(6)), (Article 5(7))
It is also worth noting that according to the Police Standing Order 5/48, the Police has a list with the names of interpreters, which has been approved by the Chief of Police. The registration of an interpreter on the list is only allowed after the approval of the Chief of Police. This is reviewed at the end of each year or whenever it is required. All members of the Police are obliged to use only this list, which is published on the intranet of Police (PORTAL) together with other relevant forms mentioned in Police Standing Order 5/48 (Police Order 5/48, paragraph 2 (1)). It is worth noting that the Police Standing Order is currently being amended.
In the above mentioned list, interpreters for 37 different languages are registered and all members of the Police have access to it. In case that an interpreter for a particular language is not registered, the Police may apply either to the Press and Information Office of the Republic of Cyprus either to the Court in order to find an interpreter. The interpreters have to fulfill certain criteria in order to be registered on the list. These criteria include a certification that the interpreter does not have a criminal record and that he/she has a degree from a university that he/she has very good knowledge of the language that you want to interpret.
From my experience we never had an issue with the quality of the interpretation.
Czech Republic
The interpretation is in principle secured only by interpreters registered in the register of experts and interpreters who have to fulfil set conditions to be registered (the interpreters who are not registered may be used only under special circumstances). However, see below comments to these conditions.
The standard of the interpretation is generally at a relatively good level. The deficiencies lie in particularly in insufficient knowledge of the specialized legal terminology or criminal slang. Yet it is difficult to determine that e.g. some legal terms were misinterpreted, if you are not familiar with the language that the interpreter is using.
Estonia
It is possible that two types of interpreters/translators take part in the proceedings -- sworn translators and other translators.
Sworn translator is a regulated profession covered by Sworn Translators Act, and such translators are subject to specific requirements, incl education, examination, registration, evaluation (once every 3 years), etc.
Other translators are simply defined as persons who are proficient in language for specific purposes or a person interpreting for a deaf or dumb person (§ 161(2) of CCP). Such translators are not subject to any specific quality control measures, except those which may be applied by his/her employer on non-statutory basis.
There is no requirement in CCP to use sworn translators whenever possible, i.e. the police, prosecutor, or judge can always use other translators.
In practice, sworn translators are not used very often, and the quality of interpretation provided by other translators varies a lot.
Finland
The provisions in law only state: “A person who has the skills required for the task, is honest and is otherwise suitable for the task may serve as interpreter.” It is also possible for the suspect/defendant to ask that the interpreter be changed, if the quality of the interpretation is not good enough – this is stated in the Government Bill but not in a provision of law. However, it is stated in law that the investigative authority and especially at the court stage the court must ensure that the quality is sufficient and that another interpreter be assigned if needed to safeguard the legal protection of the party. This is, however, done on a case-by-case basis and especially when more unusual languages are interpreted it may be impossible for the authorities to ensure the quality. In such cases it is up to the suspect/defendnat and his/her counsel to try to react if the quality is not sufficient. Change of interpreter is in the discretion of the authorities.
France
Pursuant to article 594-11, Interpreters are either appointed on a specific list made available by the ministry of justice (national list of judiciary experts), or as to take oath the serve justice during his or her translation s long as the interpreter is not a police member, a judge, a party or a witness.
Germany
Greece
In practice, the Greek Police puts a great effort in order to safeguard the quality of translation and interpretation. The quality is sufficient in any case regarding the “well known” languages (e.g. English, French and Russian). Sufficient quality also exists regarding the Pakistani and Afghan languages due to the large number of immigrants from these countries. Problems are presented as to some “not so known” languages in Greece, such as the African.
Hungary
Usually quality is sufficient to safeguard fairness of the proceedings, but interpreters usually have problem with legal terminology, since they are mainly interpreters but not legal expert interpreters.
Ireland
There are real concerns about the quality of the translation services. The police select the translators for Garda stations. It is economically driven. It is done as a national contract with no input from defence lawyers with regard to quality for instance.
The defence do not have the right to bring a private translator publicly funded to a police station. The situation would be different if the client could afford a translator themselves. Translators routinely volunteer their services for languages which they are not expert in. A Russian speaker might for instance indicate that they could satisfactorily translate for Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians.
Italy
None
Latvia
Yes.
Lithuania
The quality of interpretation and translation is quite a complicated matter in Lithuania because, firstly, there is no prevailing opinion that a direct connection between the quality of translation/interpretation and the fairness of the proceedings do exist; secondly, there are no safeguards in the law to guarantee the quality of translation/interpretation. In practise, it happens that translations/interpretations are being provided by persons who do not have the appropriate education to render such kind of services, despite the fact that they are working at translation bureau. Consequently, the quality of translation/interpretation is not sufficient, especially when the matter concerns translation/interpretation from/to the language that is not usually spoken foreign language (e.g. English, French, German, Russian, etc.)
Luxembourg
This depends on the quality of the translator
Malta
No information
Poland
In the Polish Code of Criminal Proceedings of 1997 there is no provision directly addressed to the issue of quality of the interpretation or translation. The general standard concerning the right to defence and the right to a fair trial demands that the quality of translation should be at level ensuring the fulfillment of the aforementioned standard. In practice there appear opinions that sometimes the standard of interpretations or translations isn’t high and a quality of such interpretations or interpretations could be dangerous in some situations to the sufficient fulfillment of the right to defence and the right to a fair trial. It’s worthy to add that according to the research report devoted to the quality of the interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, prepared in December, 2011 by Anna Mendel from the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution in Poland, the quality of interpretation and translation into Polish in criminal proceedings in opinions of representatives of Polish criminal justice administration was estimated as good by 61% of answerers, as very good by 22% of answerers, as satisfactory by 14% of answerers an as weak by 3% of answerers. In turn, the quality of interpretation and translation into foreign language in criminal proceedings in opinions of aforementioned persons was estimated as good by 40% of answerers, as very good by 16% of answerers, as satisfactory by 31% and as weak by 3% (see: A. Mendel, Raport z badania ankietowego na temat jakości tłumaczenia w postępowaniu karnym, 2011, http://www.tepis.org.pl/pdf-doc/home//r-jtpk.pdf, pp. 15 - 16). In opinions of interpreters, the quality of interpretations in criminal proceedings was estimated as very good by 38% of answerers to the research questionnaire, as good by 45% of such answerers and as satisfactory by 13% of answerers. 4% answerers claimed that it’s quite difficult to estimate the quality of interpretation (see: A. Mendel, op. cit., p. 27).
Portugal
In general the quality of interpretation and translation is sufficient to safeguard the fairness of proceedings; if this is not the case, in which concerns national practice I’m keen to believe it is very difficult a claim presented can be considered.
Romania
Slovakia
Quality is in principle sufficient.
Slovenia
The quality of the interpretation is generally sufficient to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings.
Spain
No. This is the main problem. The quality, generally speaking, is very poor.
Sweden
The directive has led to amendments on the quality of interpretation during the criminal process. According to the new rules, the investigative authorities and the court shall, at all stages of the proceedings, preferably assign an authorized interpreter to assist in the matter.
Authorization is awarded by the Swedish Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency - Kammarkollegiet. When awarded authorization the interpreter can seek for specialist qualification as a court interpreter.
A main concern regarding the quality of interpretation is the access to qualified interpreters and translators. Access varies depending on the language needed and where in Sweden the proceedings are carried out. At present, there is a shortage of authorized interpreters/translators and authorization has been awarded only in a limited number of languages.
The Netherlands
In general one can say that the quality of the interpreters is adequate, although in some cases the work is not up to the mark.
UK
England and Wales
There have been serious concerns about the quality of interpretation services in England and Wales since the Ministry of Justice signed a four-year Framework Agreement for the provision of interpreting and translating services to the Courts and Tribunals Service with Applied Language Solutions (ALS) (now Capita Translating and Interpreting) in August 2011 (‘the National Agreement’, supra). In 2013, the House of Commons Justice Committee found that “from 30th January 2012 when ALS subsequently began delivering interpreting and translation services to HM Courts and Tribunals Service it faced immediate operational difficulties. ALS and more recently Capita have been unable to recruit qualified and experienced interpreters in sufficient numbers, leading to an inadequate volume and quality of interpreting services being available to courts and tribunals. This has resulted in numerous hearings being adjourned or severely delayed and, in criminal cases, unnecessary remands into custody, with potential implications for the interests of justice”.
The National Agreement states that the minimum standard required of an interpreter at court or at the police station is to have completed the relevant qualification (Diploma in Police interpreting for police station work and Diploma in Public Service Interpreting for Court work) and to have been registered on either an interim or full basis upon the National Register of Public Service Interpreters. Interim status requires a relevant qualification and the DPI or DPSI, full status requires a minimum 400 hours of public service interpreting.
In the case of rare languages the National Agreement recognises that there might not be interpreters who meet the minimum standards. In such circumstances interpreters can be used who are not qualified or registered but who have proven academic qualifications or relevant experience. Such interpreters should not be used for the “broad range of evidential purposes”
Anecdotal evidence from magistrates and higher courts suggests that the situation has improved since the introduction of the Framework Agreement, but there remain real difficulties in ensuring the supply of properly qualified, and on occasion, even competent interpretation services from Capita. These problems are particularly acute in metropolitan areas, where there is a high demand for services, and defendants and witnesses often do not speak English as their mother tongue. Whilst the provision of interpretation services for foreign languages commonly spoken in metropolitan areas (for example, Polish, Lithuanian, Arabic, Urdu, Punjabi) is generally good, the standard of less common languages (Farsi, Kinyarwandan) is patchy, and often found wanting.
In 2015 a universal jurisdiction trial of a Nepalese Colonel accused of torture during the 2005 Civil War was halted after concerns were raised about the quality of interpretation. It transpired that contrary to the national agreement none of the interpreters supplied were qualified. A re-trial was listed but this too was abandoned as no competent interpreter could be found. The trial judge is currently considering whether to stay the trial as an abuse of process.
This outcome is not unusual. In R v Foronda [2014] NICA 17 the Court of Criminal Appeal had the following to say about the provision of interpretation services by Capita (per Coghlin LJ):
“Interpreters must be suitably qualified and expert for, otherwise, there would be a real possibility of inaccuracy creeping into the translation of questions and answers which, in turn, might lead to a jury hearing an answer which neither reflected the actual question nor the actual answer. An interpreter should be suitably qualified and aware of his/her responsibilities to ensure accuracy and objectivity in the provision of interpretation services. Accordingly, if a witness does not understand a question and requires assistance in relation to translation of that question the interpreter must provide that translation openly and clearly. The court recording will record what is said so that, if at a later stage a question arises as to whether a mistake has arisen in the translation of the question and/or the answer, it will be on the record and can be the subject of subsequent investigation…[16] Article 6 also requires the provision of the “free assistance of an interpreter” if a suspect cannot understand or speak the language used in the relevant court. In February 2010 the Court Service issued a consultation paper on the Provision of In-Court Interpretation Services in the course of which the Court Service confirmed that it requires interpreters in more complex cases who are registered with NRPSI and possess a DPSI diploma….. [17] the judiciary require an interpreter in a Crown Court trial to be registered with NRPSI and that such a requirement should be set out on the booking form under ‘Additional Information.’ That appears to have been totally ineffective in this case. We have been shown the booking form which did not include any such requirement and no effective cross-check or supervision appears to have been carried out”.
Scotland
COPFS is one of the main users of the Scottish Government’s collaborative framework agreement for the provision of interpretation, translation and transcription services. As part of the tender process for this contract, tenderers had to provide details of how they would ensure a consistency in the level of services delivered and provide training opportunities and support to achieve relevant qualifications in order to increase the pool of suitably qualified interpreters in Scotland. In addition, the weighting attributed to quality far outweighs that given to price.
The Working Group on Interpreting and Translating (WGIT) also organises practical training events for interpreters and prosecution staff in order to promote best practice in court room settings to support victims, witnesses and accused persons who have a language need.
