The Linguist

Chartered Institute of Linguists SPRING 2025 The Linguist 17 FEATURES Opting for a summary, or releasing the interpreter altogether, is often seen as a way of saving public funds, particularly when the appellant is absent and only the sponsor or family members are present. This is openly articulated by quite a number of immigration judges in the current climate of austerity. A whirlpool of information Making a summary of a submission in such cases involves impromptu analysis of the key points presented by either the appellant or the respondent (i.e. the Home Office). The submission serves to outline the basis for the appeal, the evidence relied upon, and the legal arguments made to challenge or support the initial immigration decision. With several legal principles, precedents and the facts of the case thrown in, interpreters unfamiliar with immigration tribunals can easily feel drowned in a whirlpool of information. Sentence-by-sentence consecutive or simultaneous interpreting avoids this issue. In a typical immigration appeal setting, a submission on a respondent's part usually constitutes their stance on visa refusal and review or asylum denial. This is followed by immigration laws, human rights arguments or procedural breaches, as well as relevant case law or precedents and rebuttals of oral and written evidence, any medical or documentary evidence and country- specific reports. Likewise, the appellant's representative refers to legal principles, responds to the Home Office's arguments, relies on factual claims and cites past authorities to substantiate their appeal. The duration of a submission could be anywhere between a few minutes and half an hour or more. It may well include complex ideas and sentences, and repetitive information, with the judges reminding representatives to skip certain information time and again. What is expected of a summary? Is the interpreter equipped or skilled to provide a quick and brief summary? How would you pick and choose what information to interpret? What are the strategies an interpreter can follow to provide a summary? How would you make a summary as you go along, taking notes while a representative is making a submission? Interpreters are expected to keep summaries as brief as possible, making a spontaneous analysis of what parts of a submission to incorporate or discard. Since a key factor is saving money, the idea of 'keeping it brief' and filtering information remain at the core of a summary. I try to focus on points that I see as relevant, avoiding repetition, putting together all the precedents, and highlighting the respective parties' key arguments. I include each party's position, the legal principles engaged and the facts of the case. However, I am never 100% satisfied with the summary. The format or sequence of submissions in these appeals does follow a standard pattern: legal stance/ immigration laws, authorities, facts and evidence, whether an appeal should be accepted or dismissed, followed by the matters dealing with costs. However, given the different natures of appeals, the interpreter will only be able to recognise this pattern after doing multiple hearings. Only then will they be able to digest the whole sequence and content of an appeal, comprehend and process the complex set of information, and subsequently interpret the legal arguments as precisely and confidently as a professional interpreter can. A way forward Interpreters are trained and guided to interpret verbatim, sentence-by-sentence, as accurately as possible. We are known to adapt to unforeseen situations and requirements. In our day-to-day assignments, we interpret long sentences, often with no background information. We interpret most of the things we have managed to take notes of because that is what is expected of us, with an emphasis on 'no omissions'. Providing a summary is a whole new ball game and requires concise filtering of details. Even though I interpret such summaries daily, only two judges have simplified the procedure. The first offered to provide a summary at the end of each submission to be interpreted consecutively. Each summary was about five sentences and only comprised each party's position, legal ground and a few facts stating why the appeal should be accepted or dismissed. None of the precedents were included in the summary. All the details, such as meticulous factual details and elaborate legal arguments, were omitted. The second judge went straight into the facts of the case. Both judges summarised sentences succinctly, made interpreting easy to manage and appeared to make the summary as accurate as it could be. This is, of course, at the judges' discretion, but it is possibly the best way forward, at least as long as a brief summary is required. Where interpreters continue to be called on to do the summarising, it raises the question: Should there be guidelines on what should be included? Should a summary of submissions be included in DPSI courses and assessments, or is it something to be navigated and learnt on the job? Should one observe summary interpreting before taking on an immigration appeal assignment in order to provide a quality and precise interpreted summary? It is crucial that the stakeholder community discuss this issue, and consider whether we should equip interpreters to provide summaries of submissions or empower them to suggest to judges that it is beyond their remit and set of skills. ANALYTICAL SKILLS Submissions can last more than 30 minutes and include complex ideas, legal points and precedents, the facts of the case and more IMAGES © SHUTTERSTOCK

• Cover