SPECIAL FEATURE: AI IN T&I, PART 1 / RECENT RESEARCH
Researchers: Ludmila Stern, Sandra Hale, Stephen Doherty, Mel Schwartz, Julie Lim
Institutions: UNSW Sydney, (external) UTS Sydney
During courtroom proceedings, the judge or magistrate is the key figure responsible for monitoring the flow of communication.
In bilingual cases the interpreter has historically been held accountable for the quality of communication, and blamed for any miscommunication or misunderstanding. In our study How do judicial officers ensure effective interpreted communication in domestic proceedings? Implications for access to justice, we have used the framework of interpreting service users’ shared responsibility for effective interpreted communication.
Our research team – supported and funded by the Australian Research Council and eight key industry stakeholders (AIS, AIJA, All Graduates, AUSIT, JCDI, Multicultural NSW, NAATI, TIS National) – has conducted a major study into the ways Australian judges and magistrates conducted interpreted criminal proceedings in Australian courts during 2020–22.
In Part 1 of this project we have examined how 25 judges communicated when an interpreter was present, comparing court observations in 44 criminal cases with the judges’ perceptions of their communication strategies (obtained via post-observation interviews) and interviews with 34 interpreters in mostly migrant (NSW, VIC, TAS, QLD) and some Indigenous (WA, QLD) languages.
The results revealed that despite the judges’ inconsistent practices in working with interpreters and poor familiarity with the Recommended National Standards for Working with Interpreters in Courts and Tribunals, most aim to use some strategies to accommodate interpreting (e.g., slowing down, pausing, rephrasing, explaining terminology, controlling other speakers), although their aspirations mostly exceed their actual practices.
The majority of the interviewees – judges and interpreters alike – acknowledge that despite recent improvements in how judges treat interpreters, much more needs to be done before it can be said that interpreters are treated as professionals, especially in local courts. Communication must be adapted to meet interpreters’ professional requirements, to enable them to interpret accurately and completely, so as to ensure equal access to justice for participants who do not speak the language of the court.
It was noted that not only judges but other participants – mainly lawyers – play an important role in implementing ‘good practice’ communication strategies.
On a positive note, most judges acknowledge that their communication practices in interpreted proceedings are insufficient, and would benefit from regular training on working with interpreters.
Further reports on this project will focus on judicial officers working with interpreters in Aboriginal languages in NT courts (Report 2) and in international criminal courts and tribunals (Report 3).
.
Advertisement:
