The Linguist

@CIOL_Linguists WINTER 2022 The Linguist 19 FEATURES In this case, what caused me something of an emotional upheaval was that the husband and members of his family gave convincing evidence which completely contradicted his wife's evidence. This left me in a position where I didn't know who to believe. Fortunately it is not my job to reach a verdict, though it's hard not to be affected. On high alert or doing nothing? My client's English was reasonably fluent and she only needed intermittent interpreting, for example when idioms or local colloquialisms, such as 'It's Raining Men', were used. I know the disco anthem by The Weather Girls well and was able to express it in French as Il y avait tellement d'hommes là-bas! 'The butty shop' also posed no problem – in Manchester we all eat 'butties' not she explores the upsetting testimony 'sandwiches' – and I conveyed this as restauration rapide – une sandwicherie. My client's fluency did not mean I could sit back and relax, however. Rather I had to remain alert every second as I didn't know when she would need me next. Sometimes when interpreters are in this situation, we get ignorant comments from lawyers, and even from our clients, along the lines of "you've got a cushy job". This happens even though I am obviously still working, as I am noting down names, dates and other important details as I listen. Judges tend to be less generous with breaks for interpreters in these scenarios – probably due to the same misunderstanding, as it may appear to them that we are doing nothing at all. Occasionally it seemed to me that my client hadn't properly understood a question. Of course, it is possible that she was pretending not to understand in order to buy time to consider her response, which can happen when witnesses are faced with difficult questions. I managed this situation by advising the judge of my concern and asking for his permission to interpret these questions, which he agreed to. Understanding the terms Particular linguistic challenges included the term 'coercive control' (contrôle coercitif ), as even in English law this is fairly new legal terminology, and explanatory case law is still in the developmental phrase. Also, despite counsel's best efforts to explain this concept in our pre-hearing conferences, the client had been brought up in a Francophone country where men have the backing of the law to control their wives. I think that the conflict for her was that she expected a different way of life in the UK. Being left on my own with the client was also an issue, both in the witness suite and in the adjacent hearing room, where we were sent to listen to her husband's live-streamed evidence (due to social distancing concerns in the main court room). Once on our own she asked me for legal advice, and gave me information which should have been (but wasn't) in her witness statement, at least until I asked her to stop. Possibly one of the reasons for this situation was that, as the CPS witness, she didn't have her own lawyer – in other words, legally, she wasn't a party, she was a witness. I felt acutely sorry for her: if anybody needed a lawyer's advice, she did. Live streaming was, in itself, difficult, as often the camera did not come on for up to 10 minutes after adjournments, which meant we could hear but not see speakers in the main court room. To make matters worse, the barristers frequently turned away from their microphones in order to address the jury, with one of them stroking his beard often, with his hand positioned across his mouth! Those in the main hearing room could neither hear nor see us, so it was impossible to alert the judge to these issues. In the event, I asked a security guard to get my handwritten messages to the judge; it was either that or go upstairs myself, and thus be unavailable to interpret should my client need me. The whole situation was an interpreter's nightmare and far from satisfactory for the client. Ironically, both counsel would often ask witnesses to speak up and/or use their microphones! An added complication was that I had to stay overnight and both of the parties were staying in my hotel. My client didn't think it was a coincidence that her husband just 'happened' to be there, and I think she was probably right, as he kept a close eye on her inside the court building and from his vantage point on the court steps at lunchtimes. It was too late to book different accommodation as I had already paid for the hotel, so I dealt with the situation by eating elsewhere and checking out the foyer, corridors and lifts before accessing them! It certainly didn't make for a relaxing respite after a hard day's work. T 1 A B 2 U N 3 A 4 Z A 5 R E 6 T H 7 O A T 8 P D U E K 9 A N N A D A L 10 A S E R P T R C I K O I 11 N U I T H 12 E B R E W S A E R C 13 I 14 M M 15 U R E N 16 A 17 V A J O N A P 18 R N B 19 R A H 20 U I A 21 Z T 22 E C B 23 A I D B A E L 24 A T I N G 25 L I M M E R A H D I C I T H 26 A I T I A N S C 27 L I O Crossword solution Puzzle, page 31

• Cover