The Linguist

Chartered Institute of Linguists AUTUMN 2025 The Linguist 17 FEATURES a legal background, how on earth can they know which part of the speech to include and which to exclude? If the speech is likely to upset or offend a party, might they be tempted to only summarise the 'nice bits'? What can the interpreter do? If situations like this arise, the interpreter should ask the judge to provide a summary, which they can then interpret. Alternatively, an experienced and skilled interpreter who has been able to take down accurate notes could provide an oral summary in English. This would only be interpreted into the other language once the judge had confirmed it was correct, and there were no additions, omissions or misunderstandings. However, if the interpreter is unlucky enough to get a judge who orders them to provide a summary in the target language only, they may have no choice but to comply. In the family court scenario at the start of this article, the interpreter had reasonable grounds for withdrawing from the case under their Code of Conduct. However, they quickly dismissed this as a solution as they were threatened with contempt of court and didn't trust the judge not to make a professional misconduct complaint against them. The phrase 'unlevel playing field' springs to mind, something the judge would also be aware of. Interpreters are low in the pecking order of professionals in the court room, even though the hearing can't proceed without us. It is telling, for example, that at no time did the judge criticise the mother's solicitors for not booking an interpreter, or adjourn proceedings so they could source one (whether in-court or remote). Could the interpreter make a complaint about the judge to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO)? Unfortunately, the JCIO does not deal with complaints about judges' decisions or about how judges manage cases. The interpreter turns instead to the Ministry of Justice's language service provider (MoJ LSP), which booked them. Their response is that, given the judge's order, the interpreter will just have to "grin and bear it". To make matters worse, the LSP won't compensate them for any extra time worked because they are already being paid to be present in court, and (most galling of all) because they are not contracted to interpret for any other parties. With the right judge, in the right circumstances, the interpreter's attempt to educate and advocate for their profession might be enough. This is really all we can do while we are on assignment, and some judges will respond and try to come up with appropriate solutions. In this case, the judge could have told the solicitors to source an interpreter as the problem came to light in the morning and the language concerned was a common one. These examples should be a call to action for shared CPD between the two professions, something that many of us have been campaigning for over several years. Both court interpreters and the judiciary operate in blissful isolation and ignorance of each other's practices, and as a result much of their training is needlessly duplicated. It also means that situations like these are not uncommon. Where possible, training should be shared for mutual benefit. For example, I attended a legal conference for BSL interpreters in Birmingham last year, where not one but two judges gave talks about their roles in the family court and mental health tribunal. They even ate lunch with us in the hotel dining room, where discussions continued – a shining example of inter- professional collaboration. Interpreters could do more to help themselves in these difficult, conflict-ridden situations. We can offer to speak at judges' CPD events and explain the often impossible pressure we are consciously (and, I suspect, subconsciously) being subjected to in court settings. We can do a lot more to publicise our codes of conduct as regards conflicts of interest, to get legal professionals over the 'interpreters are just a conduit' myth that many seem to subscribe to. We want to be taken seriously as the professionals we are, and be treated with the respect we deserve. Notes 1 Gurung, S (2025) 'A Summary Trial?' In The Linguist, 64,1 © SHUTTERSTOCK.COM

• Cover