1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Interpreting
  4. Volume 25, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 25, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The right to a fair trial for defendants in the criminal process is internationally recognised as a fundamental human right that, among others, includes the right of defendants to have the free assistance of an interpreter if they cannot understand or speak the language used in court. The failure to provide the required interpreting service or a deficiency in the service provided can be raised as grounds of appeal for potentially denying or compromising defendants’ right to a fair trial. This article discusses the limitations of , a mode of interpreting commonly used in domestic courts. These limitations potentially compromise interpreting accuracy, and, specifically, the absence of a record of the interpretation can spell problems for appellate courts dealing with appeals advanced on the ground of the deficient interpreting provided in this mode. This study reviews four such appeals in Hong Kong and reveals inconsistencies in the appellate courts’ rulings and the reasoning behind their decisions. This study argues that these inconsistencies can lead to problems with implementing the principle of , while at the same time sending confusing messages about the standard of interpreting required to safeguard a defendant’s right to a fair trial and about the future use of in court.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00082.ng
2022-05-24
2024-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/intp.00082.ng
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Angermeyer, P. S.
    (2015) Speak English or what?: Codeswitching and interpreter use in New York City courts. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199337569.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199337569.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators (AUSIT)
    Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators (AUSIT) (2012) AUSIT code of ethics and code of conduct. https://ausit.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Code_Of_Ethics_Full.pdf (accessed12 August 2020).
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Barghout, A., Ruiz Rosendo, L. & García, M. V.
    (2015) The influence of speed on omissions in simultaneous interpretation: An experimental study. Babel61 (3), 305–334. 10.1075/babel.61.3.01bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.61.3.01bar [Google Scholar]
  4. Bill of Rights Ordinance, c. 383
    Bill of Rights Ordinance, c. 383 (8June 1991) https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap383 (accessed15 November 2021).
  5. Chávez, E. L.
    (2008) New Mexico’s success with non-English speaking jurors. Journal of Court Innovation11, 303–327.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Chernoff, N.
    (2012) Wrong about the right: How courts undermine the fair cross-section guarantee by confusing it with equal protection. The Hastings Law Journal64 (1), 141–200.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. De Jongh, E. M.
    (1992) An introduction to court interpreting: Theory & practice. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Department of Judicial Services
    Department of Judicial Services (August 2009) Serving non-English speakers in the Virginia court system. citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=38C2DB4E5FD3BA70CE778CB6566D19E8?doi=10.1.1.174.5829&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed15 November 2021).
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Duff, P., Findlay, M., Howarth, C. & Chan, T.
    (1992) Juries: A Hong Kong perspective. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Duffy, K.
    (2017) Lost in translation: New Mexico’s non-English speaking jurors and the right to translated jury instructions. N.M. L. Rev. 471, 376. https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmlr/vol47/iss2/8 (accessed9 October 2021).
     [Google Scholar]
  11. European Parliament and Council of the European Union
    European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (20October 2010) Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2010/64/oj (accessed15 November 2021).
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Fowler, Y.
    (1997) The courtroom interpreter: Paragon and intruder?InS. E. Carr, R. P. Roberts, A. Dufour & D. Steyn (Eds.), The critical link: Interpreters in the community. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 191–200. 10.1075/btl.19.20fow
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.19.20fow [Google Scholar]
  13. Fowler, Y., Ng, E. & Coulthard, M.
    (2012) Legal interpreting. InC. Millán & F. Bartrina (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation studies. London: Routledge, 417–430.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Gile, D.
    (1995) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.8(1st)
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8(1st) [Google Scholar]
  15. Hale, S.
    (2004) The discourse of court interpreting: Discourse practices of the law, the witness, and the interpreter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.52
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.52 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hale, S. & Stern, L.
    (2011) Interpreter quality and working conditions: comparing Australian and international courts of justice. Judicial Officers’ Bulletin23 (9), 75–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Hale, S., Martschuk, N., Ozolins, U. & Stern, L.
    (2017) The effect of interpreting modes on witness credibility assessments. Interpreting19 (1), 69–96. 10.1075/intp.19.1.04hal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.19.1.04hal [Google Scholar]
  18. Human Rights Act 1998, c. 42
    Human Rights Act 1998, c. 42 (9November 1998) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42 (accessed15 November 2021).
  19. Indiana Supreme Court
    Indiana Supreme Court (8Oct 2020) Interpreter code of conduct and procedure. https://www.in.gov/courts/files/order-rules-2020-interpreter.pdf (accessed15 November 2021).
     [Google Scholar]
  20. ISO
    ISO (2016) ISO 20109:2016: Simultaneous interpreting – equipment – requirements. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Judicial Council of California
    Judicial Council of California (May 2013) Professional standards and ethics for California court interpreters. California Courts. https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/CIP-Ethics-Manual.pdf (accessed15 November 2021).
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Judicial Council on Cultural Diversity
    Judicial Council on Cultural Diversity (2017) Recommended national standards for working with interpreters in courts and tribunals. jccd.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/JCCD-Interpreter-Standards.pdf. (accessed2 February 2022).
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Judiciary of Hong Kong
    Judiciary of Hong Kong (November 2020) Guidelines for freelance interpreters. Freelance Interpreters Management Unit, Court Language Section, Judiciary.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Korpal, P.
    (2012) Omission in simultaneous interpreting as a deliberate act. InA. Pym & D. Orrego-Carmona (Eds.), Translation research projects41. Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, 103–111.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Mikkelson, H.
    (1998) Towards a redefinition of the role of the court interpreter. Interpreting3 (1), 21–45. 10.1075/intp.3.1.02mik
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.3.1.02mik [Google Scholar]
  26. National Association of Judiciary Interpreters & Translators (NAJIT)
    National Association of Judiciary Interpreters & Translators (NAJIT) (n.d.). Code of ethics and professional responsibilities. https://najit.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/NAJITCodeofEthicsFINAL.pdf (accessed15 November 2021).
     [Google Scholar]
  27. New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, No. 109
    New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, No. 109 (28August 1990) https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/whole.html (accessed15 November 2021).
  28. Ng, E.
    (2015) Judges’ intervention in witness examination as a cause of omissions in interpretation in the Hong Kong courtroom. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law22 (2), 203–227. 10.1558/ijsll.v22i2.17782
     https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v22i2.17782 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2016) Do they understand?: English trials heard by Chinese jurors in the Hong Kong courtroom. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito3 (2), 172–191.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. (2018) Common law in an uncommon courtroom: Judicial interpreting in Hong Kong. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.144
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.144 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2019) Xianggang fating chuanyi zhi huigu yu qianzhan香港法庭傳譯之回顧與前瞻 [A historical review of court interpreting in Hong Kong and the way forward]. InE. Cham 湛樹基 & E. Lee 李劍雄 (Eds.), Xianggang shuangyu fazhi: Yuyan yu fanyi香港雙語法制：語言與翻譯 [Bilingual legal system in Hong Kong: Language and translation]. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. (2020) Linguistic disadvantage before the law: When non-native English-speaking witnesses waive their right to an interpreter. InE. Ng & I. Crezee (Eds.), Interpreting in legal and healthcare settings: Perspectives on research and training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 21–44. 10.1075/btl.151.01ng
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.151.01ng [Google Scholar]
  33. (2021) Interpreting for the linguistic majority: A historical review of court interpreting in Hong Kong. InR. Moratto & D. Li (Eds.), Global insights into public service interpreting: Theory, practice and training. London: Routledge, 152–168. 10.4324/9781003197027‑12
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003197027-12 [Google Scholar]
  34. North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts
    North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (1July 2017) Standards for language access services in NC State Courts. https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/inline-files/02_2_NC_Standards_for_Language_Access_0.pdf?NhuszCAEVfS8KkdLetH97b9I4NRBcd.f (accessed15 November 2021).
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Ozolins, U. & Hale, S.
    (2009) Introduction. Quality in interpreting: A shared responsibility. InS. Hale, U. Ozolins & L. Stern (Eds.), The Critical Link 5: Quality in interpreting – a shared responsibility. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–10. 10.1075/btl.87.01ozo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.87.01ozo [Google Scholar]
  36. Pym, A.
    (2008) On omission in simultaneous interpreting: Risk analysis of a hidden effort. InG. Hansen, A. Chesterman & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research: A tribute to Daniel Gile. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 83–105. 10.1075/btl.80.08pym
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.80.08pym [Google Scholar]
  37. Seeber, K.
    (2017) Interpreting at the European Institutions: Faster, higher, stronger. CLINA3 (2), 73–90. 10.14201/clina2017327390
     https://doi.org/10.14201/clina2017327390 [Google Scholar]
  38. Setton, R.
    (1999) Simultaneous interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.28
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.28 [Google Scholar]
  39. Stern, L.
    (2012) What can domestic courts learn from international courts and tribunals about good practice in interpreting?: From the Australian war crimes prosecutions to the International Criminal Court. T&I Review21, 7–30.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 14
    The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 14 (17April 1982) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/CH37-4-3-2002E.pdf (accessed15 November 2021).
  41. United Nations
    United Nations (1966, December16). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx (accessed15 November 2021).
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Wang, D.
    (2014) Examining the challenges for legal interpreters in New Zealand courtroom settings. MA thesis, Auckland University of Technology. https://openrepository.aut.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10292/7878/wangdy.pdf?sequence=3 (accessed15 November 2021).
     [Google Scholar]
  43. HKSAR v. Chan Hon Wing
    HKSAR v. Chan Hon Wing [2021] HKCFA 45. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=141159&currpage=T (accessed5 February 2022).
  44. HKSAR v. Chan Hon Wing
    HKSAR v. Chan Hon Wing [2020] HKCA 938. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=131891 (accessed26 March 2021).
  45. HKSAR v. Chan Hon Wing
    HKSAR v. Chan Hon Wing [2016] CACC 200.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. HKSAR v. Gutierrez Alvarez Keishu Mercedes
    HKSAR v. Gutierrez Alvarez Keishu Mercedes [2020] HKCA 184. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=127215&QS=%24%28GUTIERREZ%2CALVAREZ%2CKeishu%2CMercedes%29&TP=JU (accessed12 August 2020).
  47. HKSAR v. Moala Alipate
    HKSAR v. Moala Alipate [2019] HKCA 537. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=121916&QS=%24%28HKSAR%7Cv%7CMoala%7CAlipate%29&TP=JU (accessed12 August 2020).
  48. R v. Tran
    R v. Tran [1994] scr2_951. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7902/index.do (accessed12 August 2020).
  49. Abdula v. R
    Abdula v. R [2011] NZSC130. https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2011/sc-80-2010-chala-abdula-v-the-queen.pdf (accessed12 August 2020).
  50. Lee v. HM Advocate
    Lee v. HM Advocate [2016] HCJAC 39. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=f8db12a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7 (accessed14 August 2020).
  51. R v. Grejlal Recica
    R v. Grejlal Recica [2007] EWCA Crim 2471.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00082.ng
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): chuchotage; deficiency in interpreting; fair trial; ground for appeal; right to interpreting

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error