Dr John MacDaniel et al – Written evidence (ITS0039)
House of Lords Public Services Committee short inquiry into Interpreting and Translation Services in the Courts
A Executive Summary
A.1 We are academics based at the University of Wolverhampton (Drs Karlie Stonard and Christopher Stone) and Lancaster University (Dr John McDaniel). Our expertise are criminology – domestic violence, sign language interpreting and translation, and criminal justice (policing) and human rights respectively.
A.2 In 2023, the authors carried out a pilot study exploring how D/deaf victims of Domestic Abuse (DA) experience access to DA support services and the criminal justice system (Stonard et al. forthcoming). In the pilot study, we interviewed nine charity workers, including Deaf British Sign Language (BSL) signers and hearing English speakers. More recently, we have received funding to carry out wider research which will include interviews with victims and the development of technology-related protocols (the project is called 'SmartSafeSigning' funded by the AHRC).
A.3 The initial findings from the pilot study indicate that D/deaf victims of domestic abuse experience significant delays, disadvantages and discrimination within the criminal justice system. This extends to and can impact upon court sittings. We found that there is a need for a greater degree of deaf awareness among police investigators (see also Race and Hogue, 2017; Lumsden and Black, 2020; Skinner and Napier, 2022), and amongst legal representatives and court officials.
A.4 There is also a need for a functioning scheduling system (to book interpreters), and a wider use of video-based interpreting services (e.g. using smartphones and tablet computers).
A.5 We have summarised some of our preliminary findings in response to three of the questions (1, 2, and 6) posed in the call for evidence.
B Question 1: To what extent do the current interpreting and translation services provided in courts meet the needs of those involved in proceedings, including defendants, witnesses, prosecutors and legal professionals?
B.1 The current interpreting services provided by courts are falling short of the needs of D/deaf victims of DA, D/deaf defendants and witnesses. Problems are particularly acute in three key areas: applications for Non Molestation Orders (NMO); the cancelling and rescheduling of court dates due to the absence of an interpreter; and the cancelling and rescheduling of court dates where more than one interpreter is needed for a whole day sitting, or where the victim and defendant are both D/deaf and require separate interpreters/interpreting teams.
B.2 NMO applications are frequently delayed. Charities report struggling to align the availability of interpreters, solicitors and court officials in order to complete NMO applications within a couple of weeks. The process was outlined to us as follows: a charity first sources a BSL interpreter for the victim to assist with filling out paperwork (forms can be difficult for deaf people to understand, as BSL is their first language - their written English may not be sufficient). Then try to organise interpreters for meetings with solicitors and court sittings aligned for the specific pre-arranged date. Interviewee 2 explained that they 'follow up the solicitor, follow up with finding an interpreter, follow up with the court. And so, it just drags on and on and on. And then the court case appearance might be cancelled because there's no interpreter'. For D/deaf people, applications were often 'delayed and delayed and delayed' (ibid). Multiple cancellations of court dates are not uncommon.
B.3 The cancellation or rescheduling of court sittings commonly occurs because of a lack of deaf awareness of three key issues. First, for bookings longer than an hour, it is best practice to arrange more than one interpreter (ASLI, 2015). Second, many freelance interpreters advertise their services for a half day (up to 3 hours) or a full day (up to 6 hours) to facilitate preparation, recovery and travel costs between bookings. So, for whole-day court sittings, more than one interpreter should be booked for a full day. This can be overlooked by court officials. When more than one interpreter is needed, delays are caused waiting for a sufficient number of interpreters to be booked by court officials, and for the availability of interpreters to align with court dates.
B.4 More than one interpreter is needed when both the victim and defendant are D/deaf. They should not share interpreters (ASLI 2015). Charity workers have reported frustration at having to explain to court officials why an interpreter cannot be shared by a D/deaf victim and D/deaf perpetrator. It is not unusual for D/deaf victims to arrive in court to find one interpreter has attended but not another, or to find that a deaf intermediary or deaf relay interpreter has not attended or were not booked in the first instance. Court officials and legal professionals with an appropriate degree of deaf awareness (to proactively book the correct number of BSL interpreters or to even ask what communications the D/deaf participant needs) are reportedly 'very, very few' in number, according to the lived experience of interviewees (Interviewee 4).
B.5 These delays occur repeatedly even though documents and forms submitted to the court contain clear requests for one or more BSL interpreters. DA Victims have reportedly sat through court proceedings without an interpreter present, causing victims not only panic about the prospect of facing their abuser in court, but panic about the prospect of arriving in court and finding their interpreter absent (ibid). Without an interpreter they cannot engage in meaningful communication. These experiences not only affect their mental health and sense of safety, but their trust in due process and legal instruments such as the Equality Act. Charity workers reported cases of self-harm while D/deaf victims wait for a court date, and reportedly heard court officials say that there is no budget to pay for interpreters (Interviewee 2). Interviewee 4 told us that they 'hate' the court system, that 'the court is the worst [part of the system]'.
Recommendations: Ensure interpreter booking training is provided to court personnel, and there is sufficient quality control of current interpreting service contracts for courts to facilitate inclusivity, trust and safety.
C Question 2: What are the key issues in the provision of interpreting and translation services and what impact do they have on the running of the courts, public trust, interpreters and translators.
C.1 Alongside the problems surrounding the booking of interpreters (see B above), there are problems at the D/deaf victim-police interface and the victim-solicitor interface which can affect the number of cases that reach court and significantly impact upon the victim's feelings of safety and their trust in the criminal justice system. Before D/deaf victims of crime reach the courtroom, they may have experienced significant failures in the ability of public officials, particularly police officers and legal representatives, to accommodate their D/deaf and BSL-using needs.
C.2 At the victim-policing interface, at present, a D/deaf victim of DA can download the 999 BSL app and connect to a BSL interpreter who can facilitate a call between the D/deaf victim/ BSL user and the 999 telephone line. This app, launched in 2022, was well liked by our interviewees. Where police forces have responded to such calls for assistance by tasking a 'police link officer for deaf people' (PLOD - a police officer or staff member holding qualifications in BSL) to engage with the victim, experiences have been described as 'very, very good' (Interviewee 2). However, it is reportedly common for a police officer to attend at D/deaf victim's addresses without an interpreter or a BSL competent officer and attempt to use other strategies to communicate such as pen and paper or lip reading.
C.3 Using communication forms other than BSL (via an interpreter and/or an intermediary) creates issues of safety and trust for a BSL-using victim of DA. Using pen and paper is problematic since some people cannot read English well. Lip reading and the use of gestures to communicate issues and experiences are similarly problematic. It is reportedly a common occurrence for police officers to expect D/deaf people to be able to lip read. A D/deaf victim may signal that they are okay with lip reading, and a police officer may record afterwards that they asked the D/deaf victim if they could lip read, believed that they could lip read, and verbally explained to the victim what their options were (that 'they'd done their job') (Interviewee 3). However, according to our interviewees, it is often unclear what communication is taking place, what is being lip read, what is being understood and being missed. Without an intermediary/ BSL interpreter, there can be no presumption that clear communication has taken place. The account written/ recorded by the police officer is likely inaccurate, which raises evidentiary concerns, and most importantly D/deaf victims and BSL users often do not feel safe without an effective means of communication. Such experiences can be demeaning and deeply frustrating for BSL users/ victims. It can also prevent or delay access to justice, where police officers do not understand the gravity of the situation or the crimes that have been committed.
C.4 Speaking with family members who are not D/deaf can be particularly problematic since the partner or parent(s) may be perpetrators of abuse ('perpetrators as interpreters'). In such circumstances, a D/deaf victim may be present but entirely powerless, without a voice, and without knowing what is being said. Such encounters may be crucial windows of opportunities, where a D/deaf victim who may be reliant on a perpetrator as their link to the world or any type of external support and is otherwise hard-to-reach (since the perpetrator is usually nearby or engages with most services on their behalf), can be helped. Police officers should work with a BSL interpreter/ intermediary as a standard response.
C.5 Text messaging can also be used to communicate at the police-victim interface. However, BSL users often do not use English in the same way that hearing people use English. They 'don't interpret every tiny little word in between', and their replies can be 'really hard to understand if you're not used to it'. For English speakers, it can reportedly 'look like this person is snapping. They're not. This is just how deaf people communicate' (Interviewee W). Text messaging is not a substitute for communication through BSL/ an intermediary.
C.6 At the police station, similar failings can occur. BSL users may be invited to attend a police station to provide a statement. They may be informed that they will be able to avail of a BSL interpreter once there. However, our interviewees have spoken of numerous instances where D/deaf victims/ BSL users have attended a police station for a pre-arranged meeting to find that no interpreter is available. There have been cases of BSL users travelling for an hour or more to a police station to find that no interpreter is there. This adds significant delay to the progression of their case, and can leave them feeling like second-class citizens, unimportant, disrespected, frustrated and unsafe. It can look to the deaf victim that the police and the criminal justice system 'can’t be bothered' with them (Interviewee 2). Waiting for a second meeting or contact, while a BSL interpreter is obtained, does little to improve the victim's safety either, rather reporting DA to the police through the 999 line may heighten their fear of being attacked by a perpetrator. It is not unusual for D/deaf victims to wait several days for a BSL interpreter to be arranged, and 'so much can change in four days' (Interviewee L).
C.7 Taking D/deaf victims to police stations for their own safety to escape a perpetrator of DA can also leave them feeling unsafe, trapped in a room with no appropriate means of communication. We heard cases of victims being brought to a police station without their phone and hearing aids, which remained at home with a perpetrator. We also heard cases of the police dropping a BSL user/ D/deaf victim off at a location other than their home (because of the presence of a perpetrator) without having communicated through a BSL interpreter, and without recording the address they were dropped to so they could return as soon as practicable with an interpreter, and leaving the victim without hearing aids or a mobile phone.
C.8 Where interpreters have been provided at the police-victim interface, organisations such as SignHealth are reportedly spending hundreds of pounds per meeting to hire freelance interpreters so that BSL users can communicate with police officers and investigators. Costs of around £375 per meeting/ interview are not unusual (independent freelancers, booked through a website, often need to be booked for a minimum three-hour slot, and have their mileage paid for). Due to the cost, charities cannot afford to pay for/ facilitate all of the meetings/ communications that need to take place.
C.9 There is a general view that police fail to find interpreters because it is not something they can do expediently and takes extra time and effort. A conversation that should happen promptly can end up being spread across multiple days and weeks, involve reminders and prompts from charities and thus require rescheduling. It can culminate in multiple conversations taking different forms (pen and paper, messaging services, etc.), and take from two weeks up to four months for a victim or witness statement to be taken. In some cases, charities have had to bring their own interpreters to police meetings, and a charity worker has written the statement for the victim. Interviewees also spoke of the difficulties and discomfort that victims experienced disclosing their experiences and trauma multiple times, in different ways and through different interpreters. Disclosing intimate violence and 'having to repeat it to strangers again and again isn't great' (Interviewee 4).
C.10 Experiences of solicitors can be similar. Solicitors can offer a face-to-face appointments in their offices but fail to ensure an interpreter is available for a meeting. Furthermore, solicitors have sent questions, requests and made calls to BSL charities working with a D/deaf victim rather than contacting the victim themselves (presumably in the interests of expediency and cost). Charities have reminded solicitors of the importance of going directly to the D/deaf client/ victim because it is the victim who is seeking justice and safety. They should be treated with dignity and their voices heard directly.
C.11 The experience of police responses, and arrangements at police stations and solicitors' offices can lead to a victim's trust in the criminal justice system breaking down. D/deaf victims have disengaged with the investigative process early on as a result. People get to a point of despair that they just want to 'move on' (Interviewee F). One interviewee told us 'a lot of the feedback in regards to police support was so negative to the point where they said they wouldn't even bother speaking to the police because it was that much of a negative traumatic experience for them in trying to communicate' (Interviewee L). Their experiences must also be set in the context of a 'a lifetime of discrimination and failings by statutory agencies' more broadly (ibid).
C.12 The number of cases that reach court are likely a lot smaller than they could be as a result. Victimless-led prosecutions can occur, but they may fail due to a lack of evidence. In those cases, that do reach court, D/deaf victims likely have good reason to be distrustful of the criminal justice system, and potentially distrustful of the evidence presented by the prosecution, due to their experiences with police officers and solicitors in the weeks and months prior. Charities, such as SignHealth, are developing policies on 'aftercare' following police interactions and court proceedings, to help D/deaf victims deal with the effects and new traumas generated within the criminal justice system.
C.13 Charities have also tried to address fears around reporting DA, by informing D/deaf people about abuse, the CJS, refuges and police best practice. Charities have reported, for example, that D/deaf victims may not understand that DA can take the form of child to parent abuse. Understanding of sexual consent and 'victim blaming' can also be problematic. Most importantly, D/deaf people can struggle to understand terminology, such as DA. There is no sign for domestic abuse. Many users sign DA implying punching. The commendable efforts of charities to affect DA are being undermined by failures of police officers, legal representatives and court officials to ensure the safety and dignity of D/deaf victims of DA.
Recommendations: Ensure that deaf awareness training is regularly provided to CJS personnel including information on communication preferences. The routine use of a BSL interpreter/ intermediary, including remotely, is a clear recommendation, but is not a panacea. Live video-mediated interpreting can involve the misinterpretation of gestures and a perceived lack of empathy in comparison to in-person onsite interactions (which reduces misinterpretation). D/deaf people may not be fluent in BSL, and use unique, household or community gestures to communicate, so interpretation can be inaccurate. There are also problems associated with lip reading and written communication. Greater deaf awareness training, the development of clear and inclusive protocols with input from D/deaf victims, and the funding (and training for CJS work) interpreters, who can be routinely accessed in-person and remotely, could nevertheless enhance current levels of trust, safety and quality of criminal justice.
D Question 6: What is the potential role of new technology (such as artificial intelligence, machine translation and the digitisation of court proceedings) in the future of interpreting or translation services in the courts?
D.1 The digitisation/ improvement of court scheduling systems for deaf/ BSL interpreters is of paramount importance. The ability of police officers and legal representatives to routinely utilise remote alongside live onsite interpreting services at victim addresses and in police stations is also crucial, and provision is considerably lacking. Our forthcoming research project will examine whether and to what extent police officers responding to a call for a assistance, or reported crime, or in the police station, can remotely and immediately access technologies for interpretation, and the weaknesses of such an approach. If police officers routinely accessed a BSL service on a set of smartphones, tablets or computers, it could potentially enhance the experience of a D/deaf victim (incl. potentially increasing the number of cases that reach court and building trust in the criminal justice system), and the evidentiary quality of the account taken. Our project seeks to examine and develop protocols for such interactions, including the use of AI-driven apps to enable BSL users to support interactions with the CJS (as well as new errors that could arise from such systems).
Recommendations: Consider the deployment of video assisted interpreting as and when appropriate, where the interpreting may be provided off site but the officer and deaf victim are on site with the police officer. Develop protocols with input from people with lived experience, mitigating some of the known problems of video interpreting/ conferencing and access to/ use/ understanding of such technologies.
30 September 2024
8 of 8