The Linguist

12 The Linguist Vol/61 No/3 2022 thelinguist.uberflip.com FEATURES Sue Leschen and Rosalind Howarth outline their distinct perspectives of a murder case across two venues, as interpreters for court and counsel During a recent assignment on a murder case, Sue Leschen was booked 'off contract' (directly by the court and not by the Ministry of Justice's outsourcing agency) as the 'court interpreter' and Rosalind Howarth was booked by the defendant's solicitors. Sue's role was to interpret for the defendant during the court hearing – whether he was in the dock or in the witness box giving evidence. Rosalind's role was to interpret for him during his meetings with his barrister. As interpreters working on the same case we shared some of the same experiences, but our respective roles meant that we had different remits. Shared experiences This was a two-venue case: a crown court and a medium-secure hospital where the defendant was being held on remand, which was linked to the court via video. The defendant attended part of the trial in person and part by video link. From a practical point of view, having two venues in different towns made life difficult. On long-running jobs away from home, interpreters normally book a hotel to cut down on travel-induced fatigue, but that was impossible on this job, as we didn't know from one day to the next which venue we would be working in. Crossed wires between the court and the hospital as to the relevant venue, and even start times, occurred regularly. We were not always kept updated when the venue changed, which meant some hasty last-minute travel plans. Hospital staff also needed some notice of the venue, so they could arrange transport to take the defendant to court. In these circumstances, it would have been a lot harder working with a previously unknown interpreting colleague. Fortunately, we already knew one another through our professional network and had a good working relationship, so we were able to liaise about any changes to the venue or timings. Rosalind tended to be more au fait with arrangements as she was in daily contact with the defendant's barristers, while Sue was reliant on court booking staff, who weren't always aware of last-minute changes themselves. Due to an administrative issue, Rosalind only started on day two and we didn't find out we would be working together until the night before the first day in court. A large group of the victim's family and friends attended court every day, so when we were physically present in court we would seek out unoccupied consultation rooms, rather than stay in the public waiting room. This was in order to maintain distance and neutrality. However, it wasn't always possible to find a private room, as they were often being used by barristers. It really highlights how little provision there is for interpreters (compared to lawyers) in court buildings. Even though interpreters are as crucial to the criminal justice system as solicitors and barristers, we are not on a level playing field. One major issue is that we have nowhere to work or leave our bags, coats, laptops and other belongings. A separate waiting room for interpreters would have been really useful. In many ways, being at the hospital was far easier. We were able to park there, so travelling was quicker and easier. We were treated very well by staff, who were friendly, helpful and patient when escorting us around the building. We were able to take phones and laptops into the conference room, although we were not permitted to use them in other parts of the building. The icing on the cake was the wonderful free refreshments that the hospital laid on during breaks and at lunch time. Interpreting via video link at the hospital did, however, raise some challenges. In the conference room, the link and sound were generally very good, but as the room was located just above the delivery van entrance, we were occasionally affected by noise from outside. There was also some noise from the acute ward on the next floor. One day we were moved to a different room where the sound was extremely poor and we were unable to increase the volume. Sue struggled to interpret in this situation, so we moved back to the conference room the following day. As interpreters, we often work on short assignments and are then able to draw a line under them and carry on with our lives. However, this trial lasted for more than two weeks and was all-consuming; we had little time for anything else. Sue missed the CIOL Conference while Rosalind struggled with childcare, particularly when the venue changed at short notice. It was difficult to keep up with our admin work, but we managed to check emails and make calls related to potential jobs during breaks. Requests for future work had to be carefully considered as it was uncertain how long the trial would last. The traumatic stories and images that we were exposed to increased the feeling of fatigue at the end of each day. Along with the nursing staff, we woke very early each morning A case of two halves

• Cover