Court Interpreting in Ireland - early references in Dáil debates

I've always found the online database of Oireachtas Debates fascinating when researching Deaf history. You get all kinds of references to the Deaf schools and Deaf people.


Take this savage criticism of a Minister for Justice in 1972 that uses sign language as a tool to satirise:

Mr. Sherwin: I regret that the Minister for Justice has left the Dáil Chamber because I wonder if he has forgotten what I said earlier. I asked what the meaning of “otherwise” was in section (1) (a) which says: “any such statement made orally, in writing or otherwise,”. Can we find out from the Government what
precisely “otherwise” means? So far as my understanding of making a statement goes you can make it either orally or in writing. Is the word “otherwise” included to get at a person who has not the power of speech but would speak in sign language? Will this language, to be interpreted as a
statement to interfere with the course of justice, be under the heading of
“otherwise”? Perhaps the chief superintendent, when he is trying to arrive at a
conviction, is able to interpret a person's dreams. Has he the power of mental
telepathy so that he can ascertain what a person is thinking? Is that what
“otherwise” means?

And I've come across two early-ish mentions of sign language interpreters, too!


All the way back in 1929:

"The question as to whether a man is mute of malice or mute by the act of God is
always a very simple one to determine. There never can be any real doubt about
it. Accordingly, we have left it to the judge to decide as to whether a man is
mute of malice or mute by the act of God. It might, indeed, be argued, that it
is unnecessary to have this provision at all, that if a man is mute in the dock
that there and then a verdict of “not guilty” should be entered on his behalf,
and the trial proceeded with. But there is a possibility that somebody not mute
of malice, but mute by the act of God might be indicted and the court might not
know that fact. He may not have the proper interpreter there to explain to him
the procedure taking place and the nature of the evidence that was being given
against him. In a case like that, somebody who knows the deaf and dumb alphabet or who has been used to conversing with the prisoner is always sworn as an interpreter."

And in 1992 again:

Certainly one of the more revolutionary and unusual aspects of this Bill is the
concept of the introduction of an intermediary, if you like, someone who will
act as conveyor and interpreter of a question to a young witness and who may or
may not have some function in dealing with the response of the witness ... I
have said that the provisions of this Bill are revolutionary. They are not
entirely so because, heretofore, when deaf and mute witnesses gave testimony, people representing the National Association of the Deaf and other agencies would come to court and translate the words for the examiner by way of sign language, sound or touch, by applying the hand of the person to the voice box or throat of the intermediary speaking, or, as has been the case, an interpreter may translate the language of the court into
the language of a foreigner brought before our courts. Therefore, the concept of
an intermediary is not new but is certainly new in these circumstances, in that
it recognises not so much a physical deformity or an infirmity as affecting
language, but rather inability of a witness due to youthfulness or other
difficulties.