Ms Alice Richardson – Written evidence (ITS0063)

Background to the responses

I am in the process of completing a PhD in the department of Language and Linguistic science at the University of York, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. The project, entitled Interpreting in the Asylum Procedure, investigates the current provision of interpreting services in the UK asylum process from a linguistic perspective.

My key research questions are:

1. How is the role of the interpreter understood by key stakeholders in the asylum process?
2. How does the role of the interpreter affect both the interactional dynamics and the legal outcome in asylum contexts?
3. What part does language play in the assessment of credibility of asylum applicants?
4. If language is used as evidence (e.g. to demonstrate that the applicant can speak a language known to be used in the relevant location, or where a piece of linguistic evidence is used by judges in attempt to demonstrate a lack of credibility on the part of the appellant), to what extent are potential interpreting errors considered and understood by judges and decision makers?
5. What improvements could be made for interpreters and other stakeholders to improve outcomes for all key parties?

My research is based on empirical data in the form of qualitative interviews with interpreters, solicitors, caseworkers, and other legal practitioners. The research is also informed by previous experience working in the field as a caseworker. I have also conducted fieldwork in the form of observations of legal interviews and asylum tribunals.

Although my work is primarily focused on immigration contexts, the findings are applicable to all courts, especially given the fact that many interpreters work for agencies which span several different institutional settings. I am currently able to share preliminary findings and observations. Below is a brief outline of how my work relates to some of the questions in the present call for evidence.

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?

I. How have interpreting and translation services changed in recent years?

1)   My research has revealed the following ways in which the needs of those involved may not be being met.

a)    Specific language requirements are not being met in all cases. Asylum applicants may be forced to communicate in their second or third languages, or in dialects which they are not fluent in. This can be due to a lack of qualified interpreters in rare languages, but can also be the result of the responsible party misunderstanding which language or dialect is required, and not booking the correct interpreter. For example, within the Kurdish language there are a variety of dialects with varying degrees of mutual intelligibility. In tribunals, interpreters of Kurdish Sorani have been booked for speakers of Badini or Kurmanji, for instance. Appellants may, understandably, not feel confident in raising an issue with the court. This leaves interpreters to manage the situation and request a different interpreter.

b)   Role expectations are extremely important. The role of the interpreter is to be a conduit through which meaningful messages are passed as impartially and and neutrally as is possible. This is regularly misunderstood by all involved in the process. Interpreters are often asked to step outside of their core role in order, for example:

i)            To complete tasks such as producing summaries of what has been said during a tribunal, rather than interpreting all of the speech as it occurs, increasing interpreter visibility and influence, as well as placing more cognitive demand on the interpreter.

ii)            To assist one side of the interaction in their specific interactional goal, such as detecting deception.

iii)            To act as go-between, for instance to explain institutional or cultural norms to appellants.

iv)            In some instances, legal practitioners may exhibit a lack of trust towards interpreters, and give them instructions which conflict with best practice.

c)    These demands provide barriers to interpreters carrying out their responsibilities and prevent them from adhering to their own professional codes of conduct.

1. From conducting interviews with interpreters, it is clear that the service has changed significantly in the last decade or so, with working conditions for interpreters becoming more difficult. The move away from in-house provision to an external agency in 2011 (and several changes of agencies since then) has, according to interpreters, resulted in a reduced quality of interpreting and lower thresholds for qualifications. It has also resulted in poorer working conditions for interpreters, which has a negative impact on the work they are able to do. This in turn may be affecting legal outcomes.

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.

I. Is there data on the number of miscarriages of justice due to ITS error?

2) My research highlights several factors for consideration in the current provision of interpreting services in the courts. The literature I’ve collated and the interviews I’ve conducted reveal potential areas for improvement in these key areas:

a)    Role expectations: As outlined above, stakeholders often misunderstand the role of the interpreter and ask them to step out of their role in several ways. This affects interpreters’ ability to do their job effectively and may also consequently affect legal outcomes.

b)   It is important that all parties have an understanding of the importance of using direct speech rather than reported speech, and when it is appropriate to switch between the two. For instance, the interpreter should assume the voice of the speaker at all times, not saying “he said XYZ” but interpreting “XYZ”directly. When an interpreter is obliged to use reported speech, by stepping in to explain something that does not translate straightforwardly, this should be made explicit to all parties involved.

c)    An insufficient understanding of how interpreting works by other stakeholders may cause legal problems. At the beginning of an immigration tribunal, interpreters are often asked to speak to the appellant to establish that they understand each other. This is a helpful and necessary process, but it may be incorrectly assumed that this means there will be no further communication issues and no risk of interpretation or translation errors or confusion.

d)   Working conditions for interpreters require improvement, both so that they are able to do their job effectively and so that highly skilled and qualified interpreters are attracted to the work for future recruitment.

e)    ‘Monitor/adversarial interpreting’ occurs when two interpreters disagree with one another, and thus a judge must decide who is correct. This subject needs significantly more academic attention and likely requires training for all stakeholders involved, particularly judges. It goes without saying that any person who does not understand the source language will not be in a position to adjudicate between target versions of that language.

1. I am currently working on an academic paper which answers this question, but do not have the results yet. The data comes from publicly available sources and I would be happy to share the findings once they are finalised.

30 September 2024