Elena Shutova – Written evidence (ITS0062)

Are the recommended requirements standardised across all governing bodies, contractors, and institutions?

Are the current requirements fit for purpose?

How easy is it to recruit and retain skilled interpreters and translators to work in the courts?

It is both shocking and deeply troubling that in a highly developed country like the United Kingdom, crucial assistance for limited-English speakers in court proceedings remains an unchecked, chaotic "Wild West." The absence of rigorous oversight and enforced standards in court interpreting has created a system where the rights of non-native English speakers are routinely compromised, and justice itself is at risk.

In a legal system that prides itself on fairness and equality before the law, it is unconscionable that individuals with limited English proficiency face such precarious circumstances. These individuals depend entirely on interpreters to communicate with legal counsel, understand court proceedings, and defend their rights. Yet, the current situation allows poorly qualified or entirely unqualified interpreters to occupy these critical roles, leading to potential grave misinterpretations.

The landscape of court interpreting in the United Kingdom raises significant concerns. Stakeholders appear to prioritise financial gain over the quality and integrity of interpreting services. What was once a profession requiring extensive training and expertise has been reduced to a casual side hustle for individuals with bilingual abilities.

Extensive research has shown that proficiency in two languages alone is insufficient for the complex role of a public service interpreter. The position demands a deep understanding of legal terminology in both languages, advanced cognitive skills for real-time interpretation, and cultural competence to convey nuanced meanings. Additionally, interpreters must be well-versed in professional ethics and courtroom protocol and possess broad general knowledge to handle diverse subject matters. These specialised skills, which extend far beyond basic language proficiency, are crucial for ensuring accurate and fair legal proceedings.

However, the lack of robust regulation and oversight in the industry exacerbates these issues. The National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI), which functions as the regulatory body, lacks the necessary authority to enforce mandatory standards or impose sanctions on unqualified individuals practising as interpreters. This absence of regulatory power has led to a market where linguistic competence is often conflated with professional interpreting skills, resulting in grave misinterpretations of legal matters and undermining the fairness of the judicial process.

Rather than nurturing a skilled cadre of public service interpreters, the industry has been flooded with individuals lacking the minimum necessary qualifications and professional standards. As a result, professional and experienced interpreters are being systematically marginalised by profit-driven enterprises that follow a troubling pattern of hiring and dismissing interpreters once their inadequate competencies are revealed.

The current career trajectory for many in this field is deeply problematic. Recent minimum requirements—such as professional or voluntary experience in the target language and English, an Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check, and the right to work in the UK—appear to be mere window dressing, falling far short of addressing the need for professional standards.

These individuals are then assigned to court interpreting duties. When their lack of proficiency is identified—whether by professional colleagues, legal practitioners, jurors, or even defendants themselves—these interpreters are subjected to quality assessments. This process lacks a fair appeals mechanism, resulting in their immediate termination.

This cycle not only undermines the integrity of court proceedings but also fails to uphold the high standards necessary for effective and accurate interpreting in legal settings. From a legal standpoint, improper or inaccurate interpretation during court proceedings can lead to miscarriages of justice. Misinterpretations may result in the misrepresentation of a defendant’s testimony, misunderstanding of legal charges, or the wrongful conviction or acquittal of individuals. These are direct violations of the fundamental right to a fair trial, enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and incorporated into UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998.

After dismissals, the cycle begins again, with recruitment efforts led by individuals based overseas, particularly in India. These recruiters, often with little to no understanding of the British justice system or its interpreting requirements, embark on a renewed search for bilingual individuals, perpetuating the problematic cycle.

This approach to recruitment shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the complexities inherent in legal interpreting within the UK court system. It overlooks the crucial role that cultural understanding and familiarity with legal processes play in effective court interpreting. Consequently, this practice further erodes the standards of interpreting services in our courts, potentially compromising the fairness and accuracy of legal proceedings.

The current Language Service Provider has turned court interpreters into disposable labour. From a legal perspective, this practice violates established principles of equality before the law, procedural fairness, and access to justice. The government and relevant regulatory bodies must enforce mandatory accreditation and licensure for court interpreters, empowering the NRPSI with full regulatory oversight. This would allow NRPSI to establish clear legal standards, implement rigorous testing, and enforce disciplinary measures for non-compliance.

Furthermore, Parliament must consider enacting statutory regulations that mandate the use of interpreters registered with NRPSI for all court proceedings. This would align with precedents in other regulated professions, such as law and medicine, where competency and professional conduct are closely monitored and upheld by regulatory authorities. Implementing stringent legal requirements is essential to safeguard the justice system from the detrimental effects of inadequate interpreting services.

Professional interpreters in criminal justice.

Professional interpreters in criminal court proceedings often occupy one of the most vulnerable, yet least protected, positions in the courtroom. Far from being treated as essential professionals, interpreters are frequently regarded with disdain by court staff, legal professionals, and even members of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). They are often seen as overpaid nuisances—an inconvenience to the swift administration of justice—when, in reality, interpreters are crucial to ensuring a fair trial and upholding justice for non-English-speaking defendants and witnesses.

Rather than being respected for their highly specialized skills, court interpreters are often treated as little more than walking dictionaries, expected to translate complex legal proceedings non-stop, with little consideration for their cognitive or emotional needs. The assumption seems to be that, because they speak two languages, they can endlessly interpret without error or fatigue. This attitude fails to acknowledge the intense mental effort required to simultaneously process and deliver accurate translations in real-time. Interpreters, unlike others in the courtroom, rarely receive breaks or support, and they are often left to fend for themselves under immense pressure.

Adding to this is the widespread misconception that interpreters are overpaid for their work. Many in the justice system believe that interpreters are a costly inconvenience, disrupting the efficiency of court proceedings. Most interpreters are grossly underpaid for the critical role they play. They are expected to have an advanced understanding of legal terminology, cultural nuances, and courtroom procedures, all while carrying the emotional weight of the proceedings—yet they are often compensated at rates that do not reflect their level of expertise or the importance of their work.

This combination of exploitation, disrespect, and marginalization creates a toxic environment for interpreters, who are vital to ensuring non-English speakers can understand and participate in their legal proceedings. Without interpreters, defendants would be unable to adequately defend themselves, witnesses would be unable to testify accurately, and the justice system itself would fail to provide fair trials.

Interpreters are not machines. They are professionals who require time, respect, and adequate compensation to do their jobs effectively. The current treatment of interpreters not only dehumanizes them but also threatens the integrity of the entire legal process. If the UK justice system is to truly live up to its principles of fairness and equality, it must start with recognizing interpreters as a respected and indispensable part of the court proceedings, rather than an afterthought or inconvenience.

For a nation that sets global standards in many areas of governance, law, and human rights, the chaotic state of court interpreting is not only a national embarrassment but also a legal and moral failure. Inadequate or inaccurate court interpretation doesn’t just inconvenience the court—it jeopardizes the entire judicial process, causing delays, retrials, and, in some cases, irreversible damage to the lives of those meant to be protected by the legal system.