M20803 Forensic Linguistics (2021 - 22) Assignment 2 - Essay (worth 50%)

M20803 Forensic Linguistics (2021–22)

Assignment 2 – Essay

WEIGHTING: This assessment is worth 50% of your final mark for this module.

It will address Learning Outcome 1.

LENGTH: The length of this assignment is 2,000 words, with the usual tolerance of 10%

above or below without deduction to marks.

This means you can write about 1,800 to 2,200 words.

DEADLINE: The submission deadline is Friday 4th February 2022, 12 noon.

SUBMISSION: You must submit this assignment online via Turn-It-In within the Moodle

page for the module. You do not need to submit a

physical copy.

FEEDBACK: Feedback on the coursework will be made available to you

electronically and twenty working days after the date of

submission.

NOTES: This is designated as the final assessment for this module. This means that you

must attempt it in order to be eligible for a

second attempt in the summer or to have the credits

 compensated – in the case that you fail the module.

M20803 Forensic Linguistics (2021 - 22) Assignment 2 - Essay (worth 50%)

4) To what extent are miscarriages of justice possible due to the use of an interpreter in

court?

In courtrooms, there are many situations that can occur. These include cases where

one of the persons concerned does not know the official language of the place or has

insufficient knowledge to express everything clearly. According to Aliverti (2017)

“Interpreting has emerged as a public service necessity as successive waves of migration

have vastly increased the amount of non-native English speakers in the United Kingdom”.

In these circumstances, an interpreter is needed, who, as the word indicates, will not only

translate but also interpret what the person concerned testifies. In other words, the

interpreter will try to reproduce exactly what the person involved does in order to convey

the message correctly. In fact, as Berk-Seligson (2017) says “Court interpreting, in its

broadest sense, involves the conversion of source language material into its closest target
 language equivalent in a legal context. In fact, ‘court interpreting’ itself is used

interchangeably with labels such as ‘judiciary interpreting’ and ‘legal interpreting’”.

However, sometimes the intervention of an interpreter causes a change in the speech of the

person concerned.

One of the reasons why the work of interpreters is causing misunderstandings in the

courts is ‘outsourcing’. This term means “To obtain (goods, a service, etc.) by contract from an

outside source; to contract (work) out.” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2021), and what it

produced in England and Wales is the reduction in pay, and, therefore, the loss of many skilled

interpreters who were flexible with their hours and worked out of court on weekends if

necessary, as stated in the article written by Joel Sharples (2013). In that text, it is also

mentioned that not only many cases cannot take place because of the lack of an interpreter, but

sometimes the interpreter is inadequate and does not have the necessary knowledge. One of the

consequences of low pay has been that the English courts have started to have interpreters with

low education and poor or even bad interpreting. According to Judge Ticehurst (2012), “Since

ALS took over the contract, the courts have been plagued by a failure of interpreters to turn up,

and not be as good at English as they should be”. Therefore, due to the reduction in salary, it

has become a less sought-after job with a lower level of qualification, which is not conducive to

the smooth running of the courts and may be one of the factors in the court rulings.

An important point to bear in mind when considering an interpreter is that there are

times when non-migrants do not ask for one, even though they may not have full control of the

language. This is because in the UK, as demonstrated in polls conducted a few years ago,

speaking English is very important for a person to be considered properly “truly British” (Kiss

& Park, 2014). This is why "Some defendants try to hide their accent or linguistic difficulties",

as "Immigration may put further pressure on the public purse" (OECD 2013). According to

Dawar (2015), one of the reasons why interpreters' salaries were reduced was Davies claimed:

''We are constantly being told that the largescale immigration that is going on has economic

benefits. But it also has economic costs. These court interpreting figures are one more
example'', so the reason that gave them work was the same as the reason that reduced their pay.

Therefore, the pride of "being English" (Commission on Integration and Cohesion, 2007) has

affected immigrants in the courts, and also interpreters as they have been less sought after and

have suffered a decrease in salary.

In order to carry out the role of interpreter, a number of measures must be followed. As

indicated in the ICCA videos (2020), there are a series of behaviours that do not go unnoticed

and that reflect whether the work is being done correctly or not. Firstly, the interpreter cannot

select the information he or she translates in court, nor can he or she modify it, either

lengthening or shortening it; he or she must translate literally everything the witness says.

Secondly, since the interpreter must reproduce exactly what the person involved says, the

translation must not be in the third person, but as if the interpreter himself were reflecting the

voice of the speaker. Thirdly, as in the previous case, the interpreter must reproduce the exact

intonation of the person, he/she cannot change the tone as he/she pleases. Fourthly, the

interpreter cannot have a private conversation with the person involved, he/she must only

interpret. Fifthly, he or she cannot act subjectively or intervene because of a personal doubt.

Therefore, the interpreter must follow the instructions required by his or her profession. If he

fails to do so and carries out any of the above points, this could lead to a failure of the

courtrooms. In other words, in order to make a correct interpretation, the person must know the

legal culture of the courtroom, otherwise it can lead to misunderstandings and an incorrect

resolution of the case.

Related to the previous point, the fact that some people consider, or want to consider

interpreters as “a translation machine” (Lee, 2013) or a “mechanical mouthpiece” (Colley &

Guéry, 2015), does not help the message to be expressed correctly. If interpreters were only

translating, the essence of the original message could change, as tone can say a lot about a

statement. Therefore, interpreters who simply translate witness statements may send the wrong

message to the court and the actual meaning may change.

 Following on from the above argument, the idea has also been suggested that the

interpreter's work should be carried out by technologies, by machines. As previously

mentioned, this may affect the final verdict as it will not convey the message with the same tone

and emotion as the original message. But, in this case, the situation is worse, as not only does it

change that, but it can also make a completely incorrect translation. This is because a machine

will translate regardless of what the context is, and without knowing this, the meaning can be

completely different. Therefore, an interpreter that makes mistakes is preferable to a technology

that can change an entire argument.

Another reason why the interpreter may make mistakes and change the witness's version

is because he or she does not have to “truly and faithfully”. That is, by not swearing to tell the

truth, he or she is not committing a crime if he or she changes the witness's speech either by

mistake or on purpose. In the same way, the interpreter must know how to differentiate between

legalese and technical terminology in order to be able to make a proper translation, otherwise,

again, it may affect the credibility of the witness.

Another factor that can affect an interpreter's speech is that listening to the story or

testimony may provoke an emotion in the interpreter that makes him or her take a position and

slightly change the speech, in a way that favours the witness, or on the contrary, by not

maintaining impatience, may make the interpreter feel guilty and affect his or her way of

interpreting the witness's speech.

On the other hand, if interpreters did not do their job, many cases would not be resolved,

or would be resolved unfairly. According to reports from the Ministry of Justice (2016), the

majority of cases in which an interpreter was needed were for criminal courts. Without this

profession, many people would not get the justice they deserve, either by being released or

wrongfully imprisoned. That is why everyone should have the right to an interpreter to be able

to tell their side of the story.

Another reason why interpreters, despite the possibility that they may make mistakes,

are necessary is that in the English justice system, according to the European Convention on
Human Rights, it is illegal to charge a person with a crime or put them in prison if they do not

understand why they have been arrested. It is for this reason that the police need to call an

interpreter and have them come as soon as possible. This way, the person can be properly

informed in a language they understand about the charge they are receiving.

The work of an interpreter requires a lot of concentration and attention, as well as

knowledge of the situation. In spite of the mistakes that an interpreter may make when doing

their job, if they did not exist, words with double connotations, details such as the gender of a

person, or the subject of a sentence (since there are languages in which it is not necessary to

specify the subject and there are verbs in different persons that are written the same way) could

go unnoticed by a person who can handle themselves speaking English, but not as a native

speaker. For example, according to the case of an Aboriginal man called Gene Gibson, whose

third language was English the “Police interviewed Gibson without an interpreter, assuming one

wasn’t needed to assess his English fluency. This neglect resulted in Gibson spending nearly

five years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit.” (Morris, 1999). That is why, despite the

mistakes an interpreter may make, he or she will always be needed to clarify details that would

not even be noticeable to others.

There are several situations in which an interpreter is indispensable, for example, to

translate or explain concepts that do not have an equivalent in English. According to Brown-

Blake (2006) “Language and interpretation/translation are critical factors for the effective

exercise of other fair trial rights such as the right to presence, to confrontation of witnesses, and

to have sufficient time and facilities for the preparation of a defence”, simply to have a fair trial

an interpreter is necessary. Or as previously mentioned, if a person has poor English, an

interpreter is necessary, not only for their rights, but also because they may not be able to

express themselves correctly and the jury may get a bad impression of them, leading the jury to

incriminate them.

In conclusion, a court interpreter can make a large number of mistakes, either by not

knowing the legal culture, by modifying information, by not translating accurately or by being
subjective, so most of the mistakes made in a court with interpreters are due to the interpreters

themselves. However, despite this undeniable fact, it would be an even bigger mistake not to

have one, as there would be no way to understand the situation or get an explanation if one is

not fluent in English. This would not only be unfair not only to the defendant but also to the

defender, as well as being an illegal act due to the article of the European Convention on

Human Rights. Therefore, errors will be made in one way or another, but the interpreter is

necessary to resolve doubts.

References

Aliverti, A. (2017, February 1). Lost in Translation? Examining the Role of Court Interpreters

in Cases Involving Foreign National Defendants in England and Wales. University of

California Press. https://online.ucpress.edu/nclr/article/20/1/130/68817/Lost-in-

Translation-Examining-the-Role-of-Court

Berk-Seligson, S. (2017) The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process.

2nd edn. University of Chicago Press.

Brown-Blake, C. (2006). Fair Trial, Language and the Right to Interpretation. International

Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 13(4), 391–412.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/24675356

Colley, H., & Guéry, F. (2015). Understanding new hybrid professions: Bourdieu, illusio and

the case of public service interpreters. Cambridge Journal of Education, 45, 113–131.

Commission on Integration & Cohesion. (2007). Our Shared Future.

Council of Europe (2021). European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg: Directorate of

Information.

Dawar, A. (2015, June 17). £17 million lost in translation: Taxpayers landed with huge bill for

migrants up in court. The Express. Retrieved from http://www.express.co.uk/news/

uk/585181/Translators-migrants-taxpayer

Hale, S. (2004) The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse practices of the law, the

witness and the interpreter. John Benjamins.

ICCA. (2020, January 27). Interpreters. https://www.icca.ac.uk/interpreters/

Justice Committee. Written evidence from Involvis Ltd. (2012). Www.Parliament.Uk.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmjust/645/645vw50.htm

Kiss, Z., & Park, A. (2014). National identity. In A. Park, C. Bryson, & J. Curtice (Eds.),

British Social Attitudes 31 (pp. 61–77). London: NatCen.

Lee, J. (2013). A study of facework in interpreter-mediated courtroom examination.

Perspectives, 21, 82–99

Ministry of Justice. (2016). Statistics on the use of language interpreter and translation

services in courts and tribunals.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/

attachment_data/file/559875/use-of_language-interpreter-translation-services-statistics-

30_June_2016.pdf

Morris, R. (1999). The gum syndrome: predicaments in court interpreting. Forensic Linguistics,

6(1), 6–29. https://doi.org/10.1558/sll.1999.6.1.6

outsource, v. (2021). In OED Online. Oxford University Press.

https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/205416?rskey=IUsI4R&result=1  
The realities of outsourcing: court interpreters mean miscarriages of justice. (2021).

openDemocracy. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/realities-of-

outsourcing-court-interpreters-mean-miscarriages-of-justice/