The Linguist

16 The Linguist Vol/64 No/3 ciol.org.uk/thelinguist FEATURES Should legal interpreters be going the extra mile? Sue Leschen considers the professional implications A n interpreter has been booked by the court to interpret in a bitterly contested family law case involving estranged parents fighting over contact rights to their children. Unfortunately, "due to an oversight", the mother's solicitors haven't booked their own interpreter for their client consultations in the adjournments before, after and mid hearing. However, all is not lost, the judge has a bright idea – the mother can use the court interpreter. Problem solved! The somewhat surprised interpreter starts to protest. This is outside their job remit – the court, not the mother's solicitor, has booked them to interpret in the hearing room itself when the parties and witnesses are testifying. Interpreting separately for one of the parties would mean a potential conflict of interest in their role as court interpreter. The interpreter adds a personal, self-care concern about fatigue (interpreting a full-day hearing on their own is hard enough). Unfortunately, the protest goes unheeded – the (now irate) judge orders the interpreter to interpret in the mother's solicitor-client consultations. Our brave interpreter stands their ground, saying they will report the situation to their professional membership organisations and the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI). Not to be outdone, the judge retorts that if the interpreter refuses to comply, she will find them in contempt of court. During the lunch break the father approaches the interpreter in the public waiting room to say he doubts they will be able to remain impartial as they are now "working for the mother". This sort of interaction can occur because interpreters, unlike lawyers, do not have separate waiting rooms in most courts. Privately the interpreter has some sympathy with the father's misgivings. In a consultation with the mother's solicitors (which reduces the interpreter's lunch break to 10 minutes), the interpreter gleans a lot more information about the facts of the case than has yet been disclosed to the court. They are now au fait with the relevant terminology in the mother's evidence, as well as her lawyer's tactics for tripping the father up in court. The interpreter no longer feels that they are as neutral and objective as they should be. This scenario highlights the sort of ethical, contractual and practical issues that can arise when an interpreter is railroaded by a judge into conduct that doesn't sit well with their Code of Conduct but leaves them with nowhere to go, and undermines them personally and professionally. It is a classic example of the result of judicial ignorance (some would say arrogance) as to the role of the court interpreter and their terms and conditions of business. How 'bad practice' creeps in When unprofessional working conditions become the norm it is almost impossible for court interpreters to challenge them. We work on our own (with the exception of British Sign Language (BSL) interpreters, who work in pairs), often interpreting for more than two hours at a time, depending on the judge's discretion. While this is wrong and unprofessional, it is the status quo. In the Spring issue, Sangi Gurung highlighted another worrying trend whereby interpreters are pushed into unprofessional situations in tribunals. 1 In the context of extreme time pressures, it has become standard for judges to ask interpreters to summarise speeches in tribunals, particularly when they are lengthy. What is disturbing about this practice is that the onus is on the interpreter to choose which parts of the speech to summarise. In effect this incorrectly puts the interpreter into the driving seat, and is thus a legal and ethical minefield. Where the interpreter lacks Beyond the call of duty When unprofessional working conditions become the norm it is almost impossible to challenge them

• Cover