Ministry of Justice - Written Evidence (ITS0080)

PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATION SERVICES IN THE COURTS

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE RESPONSE TO CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS

11 FEBRUARY 2025

Clarification questions from the committee below:

1)   During the evidence session, the Minister said that there is an ongoing court refurbishment programme which is delivering 80 courts a year. We wondered if you had more information on this programme, and to clarify whether this is 80 court buildings per year or 80 court rooms per year?

2)   During the evidence session with MOJ officials, there was discussion with Mark Stewart (Q 33) about the process for feedback to judges when an issue in interpreting has been identified (by quality assurance process or complaints). We asked in our previous questions about flagging issues to judges (point 3, impact of QA on cases), but it was not addressed in the supplementary evidence you returned. Could the MOJ provide details about the process they use to decide whether to tell a judge if there has been an issue in interpreting in the courts, the number of times the MOJ have informed judges of such issues, and what actions were subsequently taken?

Answer to question 1:

• The programme is for 80 court rooms per year, with priority for Crown Courts.
• The programme is the Digital Audio-Visual Evolution (DAVE) project, which since 2021 has been replacing court room screens, microphones and cameras to enable presentation of high-definition evidence (such as that commonly now taken by smart phones), pre-recorded evidence and hybrid hearings. This includes more larger screens in courts to show the judge, jury, defendant, council and public gallery what is being shown.
• WiFi has been installed in all courts and there is an ongoing project to further improve capacity and signal quality.
• The Digital Audio-Visual Evolution (DAVE) project was established in 2021 to address the need for refreshment, expansion, and improvement of the HMCTS audio-visual (AV) equipment estate.
• By March 2025, DAVE will have delivered state-of-the-art AV solutions in 115 Crime courtrooms and 116 courtrooms across the Civil, Family and Tribunal jurisdictions.
• Funding to continue the DAVE project in FY 25/26 has been bid for in Spending Review 24 and is currently going through HMCTS and Cabinet Office governance for authority to spend.

Answer to question 2:

There are eight criteria for interpreter quality, listed below.  A failure to meet any of these criteria will result in a fail for the interpreter.

1)   Demonstrates competence and knowledge in the subject matter.

2)   Competently used correct interpreting mode.

3)   Accurately interpreted the meaning of the communication in both languages.

4)   Did not add or omit anything to/from the message.

5)   Accurately reflected the register, tone, intonation and speed, plus any intention, attitude, irony, sarcasm or innuendo of the original message.

6)   Interpreted fluently, switching between both languages, with the correct sentence structure.

7)   Pronunciation and accent.

8)   Acted in an ethical manner and did not discriminate or show bias.

If a quality failure is detected, the relevant judge is informed.  The judge will determine what further actions are required, and what further information they require from the Quality Assurance supplier to support these actions.  The actions relating to integrity of justice are a judicial decision, and as such we do not keep specific records of those instances and actions.  For example, if the failure relates to interpreter behaviour the judge may deal with it in the moment, and subsequently  submit a complaint.  Our role is to ensure that an interpreter that has attracted concerns regarding their quality is appropriately assessed, and if they do not meet the quality threshold then they are removed from the MoJ register.  We keep records of quality failures and removal from the MoJ register.  In the contract year 2023-2024 there were 25 instances of interpreters failing an In Person Assessment, and thus being removed from the MoJ register.

A real example of this working in practice is as follows:

• A Mystery Shopper Quality Assessor flagged to the Quality Assurance Provider that an interpreter was providing advice to a defendant in a pre-hearing consultation rather than simply interpreting the conversation, and thus breaching the quality criteria.
• The Quality Assessor Provider flagged this to the Contracted Services Team in HMCTS, who informed the court. 
• The interpreter at fault was suspended from the MoJ register and invited for an In Person Assessment.  The Contracted Services Division commissioned an assessment of this interpreter’s previous work (accessible through court audio files) to understand if there were previous quality breaches by this interpreter.

The Runciman Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, established after the death of Mrs Iqbal Begum was related to inaccurate court interpreting, recommended in 1993 that only trained and qualified interpreters be used in court.  One of the actions that was taken was the creation of the Diploma in Public Service Interpreting (DPSI). Lord Woolf's 1996 review of the civil justice system ‘Access to Justice’ recognised a need for a "highly qualified interpreting profession that was both accountable and sustainable in order to support public services and in particular the courts". Lord Justice Auld's wider review of criminal courts in 2001, confirmed this requirement.

In the context of the inquiry, which we understood was about the quality and suitability of interpreters deployed since outsourcing was introduced in 2012, with particular focus on the current contract (effective since 2016), we can confirm our previous statement to the inquiry. There is no record of a miscarriage of justice in this period or since the lessons learned from the distressing case of Begum. R v Iqbal Begum significantly pre-dates the interpreter services that the MoJ provides, and thus provides no evidence for the current effectiveness of the interpreter and translation services. The MoJ’s interpreter and translation services have been continuously evolved to improve the consistency, reliability, and national coverage, whilst providing value for the taxpayer and access to justice, in this journey from the 1990s to the current service.

11 February 2025