Organized by TRADULÍNGUAS and other legal translation professionals, the Conference will feature two full days of practical learning sessions -- translation and terminology workshops (in Portuguese, English, Spanish, more languages if possible) -- for the professional translator and interpreter of legal materials. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Is this Conference for you? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Job Marketplace and Network Opportunities | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sponsorship Opportunities | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Showing posts with label Legal Interpreting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Legal Interpreting. Show all posts
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Tradilinguas - Legal Translation Conference, 7-8 October 2011, Lisbon
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Ireland urged to provide sign language interpreters so deaf people can serve on juries
NEW laws should be introduced to allow sign language interpreters to help deaf jurors during confidential deliberations, it was urged last night.
DeafHear, formerly the National Association of Deaf People (NADF), has called for reform of Ireland's jury laws following a landmark legal action which said there could be no blanket ban on deaf people serving on juries.
Yesterday, deaf mother-of-two Joan Clarke, from Loughrea, Co Galway, won part of her High Court action challenging a long-standing ban on deaf people serving on juries.
Ms Clarke, whose husband is also deaf, has been deaf since birth.
High Court Judge Mr Justice Daniel O'Keeffe ruled that the county registrar in Galway had no power to "excuse" Ms Clarke from jury service as there is no mechanism to excuse people like Ms Clarke who are ineligible to serve on a jury.
DeafHear last night said that the presence of sign language interpreters in a jury room would not offend the "13th person" rule which bans anyone apart from 12 jurors being present during deliberations.
Suspects
"An interpreter is present to assist the deaf person not to represent any side," said DeafHear's CEO Niall Keane, who has interpreted on behalf of deaf suspects in criminal trials and has signed for deaf people in family law and rape cases.
"The juror, even if they are deaf, is still in the lead. The interpreter is there to assist the deaf juror and acts as an impartial officer of the court."
Because Mr Justice O'Keeffe decided to quash the decision to exclude Ms Clarke from the jury on a technical point of law, the judge did not go on to deal with the substantive Constitutional or European Convention on Human Rights issues connected with the case.
But the judge said that in his opinion sign language interpreters could not be allowed into a jury room as it would breach the absolute confidentiality of juror deliberations.
The Free Legal Advice Centres (FLAC), which represented Ms Clarke, who did not attend court yesterday, welcomed the ruling.
FLAC solicitor Michael Farrell said the decision made an important dent in the ban on deaf persons serving on juries which had been in force until now. Such a ban was offensive and hurtful to deaf people and had no place in a modern, inclusive society, he said.
- Dearbhail McDonald
Legal Editor
Sunday, February 6, 2011
ITIA CPD Talk and Workshop – Community and Court Interpreting
ITIA CPD Talk and Workshop – Community and Court Interpreting
Saturday 12 February 2011
11 am to 12.30 pm: Community interpreting research & scholarship: A nexus for change
with Jemina Napier
12.30 to 1.30 pm Lunchbreak
1.30 to 3.30 pm: Interpreting into the Ether: working through video link for aspiring court interpreters with Yvonne Fowler
Venue:
Irish Writers’ Centre, 19 Parnell Square, Dublin 1
Cost:
ITIA members (and FIT association members): € 40
Non-members: €50
Students (with valid ID card) and concession: €20
For further details and to book a place, please contact Annette at: cpd.itia@gmail.com
1. Community interpreting research & scholarship: A nexus for change
with Jemina Napier (11 am – 12.30 pm)
Within the broader discipline of translation and interpreting studies, community interpreting research and scholarship provides opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration, which can have a profound impact on pedagogy and practice in interpreting, but also on other related professions. Interpreting practice does not function in a vacuum, it is intrinsically tied to language, culture and context. Likewise interpreting pedagogy and scholarship cannot function in a vacuum – it needs to be informed by practice and research from a variety of disciplines. Research too depends on integration with pedagogy and practice in order to translate into implementation and inform a research agenda. This presentation will give an overview of how community interpreting research and scholarship (for spoken and signed languages) can provide a nexus for change, by providing examples of existing interdisciplinary, collaborative research projects that have pushed the boundaries linguistically and ethically. Who conducts research? How do they conduct research? Why do they conduct research? Where do they conduct research; and what are the implications for future research agendas? This presentation will appeal to a broad audience of spoken and signed language interpreters.
There will be an opportunity for questions and answers at the end of the session.
2. Interpreting into the Ether: working through video link for aspiring court interpreters
with Yvonne Fowler (1.30 -3.30 pm)
Using video conferencing technology to process bail applications directly from prison is now an everyday occurrence: and for defendants in the UK it is mandatory. Another initiative, the Virtual Court Pilot Project, will almost certainly mean that, in the very near future, most defendants will be “offered the opportunity” to “attend” a court hearing immediately after charge and be sentenced whilst still at the Police Station. References to interpreters are completely absent from the promotional literature. One government document states that “a Virtual Court Hearing is just like any other first hearing that takes place at a magistrates’ court” and “the timeliness of the process and the resource savings offered by the technology improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system in working together to put on effective first hearings – without any loss of quality”. So is it really true to say that video conferenced court hearings are just like any other or that there is no loss of quality? Those promoting the use of video conferencing technology in court have failed to take account of the fact that a large number of defendants coming before the courts have ways of communicating which differ from the norm, for example, sign language users and non-English speakers. Few, if any, researchers have looked at the differences between face-to-face interpreted court hearings and video conferenced ones. I use a combination of audio recordings, ethnographic observation and interviews to show that this technology alters interpreted communication in ways which are not immediately apparent, even to the interpreter. There are also differences in procedure and other factors requiring adjustment by the interpreter and the court if non-English speaking defendants are not to be disadvantaged. In the very near future, more and more court hearings (perhaps including trials) will be heard through video link. Interpreters must be equipped to cope with the demand that the technology places upon them. What is at stake is nothing less than justice for limited-English speaking defendants.
This workshop is designed for aspiring and practising court interpreters. It will use anonymised transcripts of real court cases to demonstrate the differences between interpreted face-to-face and remote hearings and will attempt to raise the awareness of participants of such issues as the role of the interpreter in the video link court, the need for assertiveness in setting out the parameters of the interpreter’s professional duty, the power relationships in the courtroom and how these affect the interpreter, and, last but not least, the interpreting techniques that are appropriate for dealing with the new technology.
Speakers:
JEMINA NAPIER is an Associate Professor in the Department of Linguistics at Macquarie University in Sydney, where she is Head of Translation & Interpreting. Jemina has over 20 years experience of signed language interpreting in British Sign Language, Australian Sign Language and International Sign, working in community and conference settings; and 15 years experience as an interpreter educator. Her major research interest is in the field of signed language interpreting, but her wider interests include effective translation and interpreting pedagogy, sociolinguistics, and discourse analysis. She has published books, book chapters and articles discussing aspects of signed language interpreting and interpreting pedagogy.
YVONNE FOWLER has trained over 250 court interpreters for the Diploma In Public Service Interpreting Law Option over a period of fifteen years. She has also trained Police Officers, social workers, medical students, Magistrates and Probation Officers to work through interpreters. The subject of her PhD research is the impact of Prison Video Link upon interpreter-mediated communication in court. The results will be used to devise new training programmes and protocols for court staff and interpreters.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Limited-language defendants pose challenge for courts- The Philadelphia Inquirer
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/01/12/1812525/limited-language-defendants-pose.html
NORRISTOWN, PA. With a flick of his wrist, the interpreter at the front of the courtroom mimed the bang of a judge's gavel, his other hand pointing to the ceiling.
The crude gestures were meant to convey that the case against Juan Jose Gonzalez Luna would be heard in a higher-level court.
Gonzalez's face, however, remained vacant.
Did the 42-year-old - who is deaf, mute and illiterate, including no known knowledge of sign language - understand what had just happened?
As Gonzales has next to no language skills, his case has baffled Montgomery County courts since his arrest on drug trafficking charges late last year. While courts have come a long way in providing access to interpreters in a host of exotic languages, no one is sure how to translate for a man who knows no language at all.
"It's taken a really hard time to communicate even the most basic things," said Ed Rideout, his public defender. "To try to describe legal procedure to someone like that is virtually impossible."
Accommodating those with limited access to language is a rare problem in U.S. courts, but one that judges have met with limited success.
Many have avoided the problem, declaring such defendants incompetent to stand trial. Others have relied on a complex and imperfect method of interpretation, one still viewed with skepticism by many in the legal profession.
And while most courts say they do their best, a good effort is not good enough, said Michele LaVigne, a lawyer and scholar at the University of Wisconsin Law School.
It is not, after all, that defendants like Gonzalez are incompetent to stand trial, but that the U.S. court system largely remains ill-suited for trying them.
"The law is a language-based system," she said. "Drop someone in who can't access that immediately, and we still don't know what to do with them."
It may seem hard to believe that in an age of federally supported special education, people emerge into adulthood lacking a fundamental grasp of any language.
But 30 percent of deaf children leave secondary school functionally illiterate. Up to 15 percent of them can be categorized as having minimal to no language competency, according to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.
Gonzalez's limited grasp began at infancy in the southern reaches of the Mexican state of Michoacan. Although uncertain of much of his client's history, Rideout thinks Gonzalez lost his hearing after a severe fever as a baby - a story re-enacted through pantomime.
With no formal education and little exposure to other deaf people, Gonzalez grew up virtually without language. He has picked up a few signs over the years.
But this inability to communicate is exactly what made him a valued member of a King of Prussia-based drug trafficking ring, prosecutors say.
Detectives arrested Gonzalez Oct. 8 after a purported cross-country smuggling drive, from Las Vegas to the Philadelphia suburbs, and seized more than 2 pounds of cocaine from his car.
"He makes the perfect drug mule," First Assistant District Attorney Kevin Steele said. "He can't consent to a search. He can't answer any questions about the operation."
Gonzalez has shown some limited ability to communicate.
Arriving at a recent preliminary hearing, he motioned toward detectives gathered around him. He pinched at his neck as if adjusting an invisible necktie. He bent his other arm mid-torso and clenched its fist, mimicking a heavy briefcase.
"He can't talk to the judge," one detective joked. "But of course he knows how to ask for his lawyer."
That assumption - that because such a defendant can convey basic messages, he is faking his inability to understand in the courtroom - is common, said Brandon M. Tuck, a Houston lawyer and author of a University of Pennsylvania Law Review article on dealing with witnesses with limited language.
In many recent cases, declaring incompetency for trial has become a standard reaction, Tuck said. Many judges order confinement to institutional language programs, hoping the defendant can be taught American Sign Language and eventually stand trial.
To work, though, the approach depends on a suspect's aptitude and willingness to pick up a new form of communicating late in life, LaVigne said. And the only incentive for many is the threat of possible prison time.
"ASL is a tough, tough language," LaVigne said. "There are some people who are just unreachable through this method."
After watching one of his own cases linger in New Jersey courts for nearly two decades, Passaic County Prosecutor Joseph Del Russo questions whether it works.
A judge first found one of his defendants - a Paterson man accused of raping two children - incompetent for trial in 1992. He ordered him to undertake ASL training at a state hospital.
Every six months since, the case has been called back for review. Each time, the result is the same. The defendant appears no closer to communicating.
"What other choice do we have?" Del Russo said. "We can't let these people commit crimes without recourse."
An alternative to forced sign language education has emerged over the last two decades. Known as relay interpreting, the process attempts to reach limited-language defendants through two interpreters working in the courtroom - one who translates from spoken English to ASL, and another who uses makeshift gestures and pantomime to communicate with the defendant.
An interpreter who was born deaf is essential in the second position, experts say, because that person is more attuned to thinking in strictly visual terms.
This second interpreter may spend hours prior to a hearing or trial working out an idiom unique to each defendant.
Consider the following example borrowed from Tuck's 2010 law review article:
A prosecutor asks a limited-language witness, "Did you take the train home last night?"
The ASL interpreter signs an approximate translation to the relay.
The relay interpreter then communicates the basic notions in a nonlingual fashion. He might hold out one arm to symbolize the horizon; on his other arm a clenched fist represents the sun. To convey the concept of night, he might move his fist below his outstretched arm.
As for the train, the interpreter could pantomime a scene the defendant would recognize in relation to train travel such as paying for a ticket at a turnstile.
But while relay interpreting has met with some success in reaching limited-language defendants, the process is both time consuming and costly.
What's more, this makeshift way of communicating can be inexact by legal standards. One can easily imagine pantomime for a lawyer or a train ride, but pantomiming a plea bargain is far more difficult.
Facing few other options, the Montgomery County courts have chosen relay interpreting to deal with Gonzalez. Their efforts have met with limited success.
At his preliminary hearing Monday, District Judge James P. Gallagher was satisfied that Gonzalez had at least a basic notion of why he had been arrested.
Though the man likely missed the finer points of the proceeding, Gallagher ordered the case held for trial.
But that three-minute hearing required hours of preparation, said Rideout, the public defender.
Interpreters used props, maps and photos of cocaine and vehicles to explain to Gonzalez the charges he faces. At times it looked as if they were getting nowhere.
"I had to tamp down our interpreters," a harried Rideout said moments before entering the courtroom. "They're ready to say this isn't working. I say, let's just get through this hearing."
Read more: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/01/12/1812525/limited-language-defendants-pose.html#ixzz1BUeCkIwI
NORRISTOWN, PA. With a flick of his wrist, the interpreter at the front of the courtroom mimed the bang of a judge's gavel, his other hand pointing to the ceiling.
The crude gestures were meant to convey that the case against Juan Jose Gonzalez Luna would be heard in a higher-level court.
Gonzalez's face, however, remained vacant.
Did the 42-year-old - who is deaf, mute and illiterate, including no known knowledge of sign language - understand what had just happened?
As Gonzales has next to no language skills, his case has baffled Montgomery County courts since his arrest on drug trafficking charges late last year. While courts have come a long way in providing access to interpreters in a host of exotic languages, no one is sure how to translate for a man who knows no language at all.
"It's taken a really hard time to communicate even the most basic things," said Ed Rideout, his public defender. "To try to describe legal procedure to someone like that is virtually impossible."
Accommodating those with limited access to language is a rare problem in U.S. courts, but one that judges have met with limited success.
Many have avoided the problem, declaring such defendants incompetent to stand trial. Others have relied on a complex and imperfect method of interpretation, one still viewed with skepticism by many in the legal profession.
And while most courts say they do their best, a good effort is not good enough, said Michele LaVigne, a lawyer and scholar at the University of Wisconsin Law School.
It is not, after all, that defendants like Gonzalez are incompetent to stand trial, but that the U.S. court system largely remains ill-suited for trying them.
"The law is a language-based system," she said. "Drop someone in who can't access that immediately, and we still don't know what to do with them."
It may seem hard to believe that in an age of federally supported special education, people emerge into adulthood lacking a fundamental grasp of any language.
But 30 percent of deaf children leave secondary school functionally illiterate. Up to 15 percent of them can be categorized as having minimal to no language competency, according to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.
Gonzalez's limited grasp began at infancy in the southern reaches of the Mexican state of Michoacan. Although uncertain of much of his client's history, Rideout thinks Gonzalez lost his hearing after a severe fever as a baby - a story re-enacted through pantomime.
With no formal education and little exposure to other deaf people, Gonzalez grew up virtually without language. He has picked up a few signs over the years.
But this inability to communicate is exactly what made him a valued member of a King of Prussia-based drug trafficking ring, prosecutors say.
Detectives arrested Gonzalez Oct. 8 after a purported cross-country smuggling drive, from Las Vegas to the Philadelphia suburbs, and seized more than 2 pounds of cocaine from his car.
"He makes the perfect drug mule," First Assistant District Attorney Kevin Steele said. "He can't consent to a search. He can't answer any questions about the operation."
Gonzalez has shown some limited ability to communicate.
Arriving at a recent preliminary hearing, he motioned toward detectives gathered around him. He pinched at his neck as if adjusting an invisible necktie. He bent his other arm mid-torso and clenched its fist, mimicking a heavy briefcase.
"He can't talk to the judge," one detective joked. "But of course he knows how to ask for his lawyer."
That assumption - that because such a defendant can convey basic messages, he is faking his inability to understand in the courtroom - is common, said Brandon M. Tuck, a Houston lawyer and author of a University of Pennsylvania Law Review article on dealing with witnesses with limited language.
In many recent cases, declaring incompetency for trial has become a standard reaction, Tuck said. Many judges order confinement to institutional language programs, hoping the defendant can be taught American Sign Language and eventually stand trial.
To work, though, the approach depends on a suspect's aptitude and willingness to pick up a new form of communicating late in life, LaVigne said. And the only incentive for many is the threat of possible prison time.
"ASL is a tough, tough language," LaVigne said. "There are some people who are just unreachable through this method."
After watching one of his own cases linger in New Jersey courts for nearly two decades, Passaic County Prosecutor Joseph Del Russo questions whether it works.
A judge first found one of his defendants - a Paterson man accused of raping two children - incompetent for trial in 1992. He ordered him to undertake ASL training at a state hospital.
Every six months since, the case has been called back for review. Each time, the result is the same. The defendant appears no closer to communicating.
"What other choice do we have?" Del Russo said. "We can't let these people commit crimes without recourse."
An alternative to forced sign language education has emerged over the last two decades. Known as relay interpreting, the process attempts to reach limited-language defendants through two interpreters working in the courtroom - one who translates from spoken English to ASL, and another who uses makeshift gestures and pantomime to communicate with the defendant.
An interpreter who was born deaf is essential in the second position, experts say, because that person is more attuned to thinking in strictly visual terms.
This second interpreter may spend hours prior to a hearing or trial working out an idiom unique to each defendant.
Consider the following example borrowed from Tuck's 2010 law review article:
A prosecutor asks a limited-language witness, "Did you take the train home last night?"
The ASL interpreter signs an approximate translation to the relay.
The relay interpreter then communicates the basic notions in a nonlingual fashion. He might hold out one arm to symbolize the horizon; on his other arm a clenched fist represents the sun. To convey the concept of night, he might move his fist below his outstretched arm.
As for the train, the interpreter could pantomime a scene the defendant would recognize in relation to train travel such as paying for a ticket at a turnstile.
But while relay interpreting has met with some success in reaching limited-language defendants, the process is both time consuming and costly.
What's more, this makeshift way of communicating can be inexact by legal standards. One can easily imagine pantomime for a lawyer or a train ride, but pantomiming a plea bargain is far more difficult.
Facing few other options, the Montgomery County courts have chosen relay interpreting to deal with Gonzalez. Their efforts have met with limited success.
At his preliminary hearing Monday, District Judge James P. Gallagher was satisfied that Gonzalez had at least a basic notion of why he had been arrested.
Though the man likely missed the finer points of the proceeding, Gallagher ordered the case held for trial.
But that three-minute hearing required hours of preparation, said Rideout, the public defender.
Interpreters used props, maps and photos of cocaine and vehicles to explain to Gonzalez the charges he faces. At times it looked as if they were getting nowhere.
"I had to tamp down our interpreters," a harried Rideout said moments before entering the courtroom. "They're ready to say this isn't working. I say, let's just get through this hearing."
Read more: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/01/12/1812525/limited-language-defendants-pose.html#ixzz1BUeCkIwI
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Deaf woman in jury disqualification challenge
A deaf woman who took a legal challenge after she was disqualified from serving on a jury has won part of her case in the High Court.
The court ruled that a County Registrar was not entitled to exclude Joan Clarke, from Loughrea, Galway, from jury service.
However, the judgment does not clear the way for deaf people to serve on a jury.
Mr Justice O'Keefe said the presence of a sign language interpreter in a jury room would breach confidentiality, which is an integral part of trial by jury.
Lawyers for the Free Legal Advice Centres who took the case on Ms Clarke's behalf said they will return to court next week to pursue other aspects of the case.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Irish Times - Hundreds of court, Garda interpreters have no qualification
CARL O'BRIEN, Chief Reporter
HUNDREDS OF interpreters working in the courts and for the Garda have no formal qualification to interpret or translate, despite growing concern over poor standards and the potential for miscarriages of justice.
Most of the major interpreting firms used by the State do not test the competency of individuals who claim to be either qualified or experienced interpreters, it has emerged.
In addition, new research based on hundreds of cases at District Court level points to serious lapses in interpreting standards, with defendants left in the dark over key details such as their rights or the facts of a case.
Unlike most other European countries, there are no written regulations or laws governing interpreting in Ireland.
The Irish Translators’ and Interpreters’ Association says it has raised concerns over poor standards of interpreting with both gardaí and the Court Services on a consistent basis over the past decade.
“We find it hard to understand how the State can spend millions of euro per year on interpreting without any auditing of contracts or quality control,” said Mary Phelan, the association’s spokeswoman.
“Members of our association, for example, tell us that they have come across court interpreters who do not know the meaning of basic words such as ‘guilty’ or ‘judge’. ”
Kate Waterhouse, a PhD candidate at the school of social work and social policy in Trinity College Dublin, is finalising research on access to justice among people with limited or no English.
As part of her research she spent eight months at district courts in Dublin and outside the capital examining how interpreters worked in hundreds of individual court cases.
She found that interpreting services themselves were highly variable and, in the majority of cases, deficient in some way.
“I was shocked at the way interpreting was taking place in many cases,” says Ms Waterhouse. “It was clear in some cases that nothing was being interpreted.”
The Courts Service, which has spent just under €10 million on interpreting services over the past three years, says there are no problems in the vast majority of cases.
“Where an issue of a lack of clarity or understanding arises, the dynamic of the court setting makes this apparent. On these rare occasions the interpreter is replaced,” a spokesman said.
The Courts Service says it appointed Lionbridge Ireland Ltd as the single provider of services following an international tender. This contract involved a series of levels of proficiency for interpreters ranging from “competency” in English to having a specific qualification in interpreting.
However, there have been numerous recent cases where the quality of interpreting has been raised in court. These include:
- In December 2009 a judge in Drogheda told a Polish defendant who pleaded guilty to dangerous driving that she could appeal the case after it emerged that her interpreter had not explained what she was pleading guilty to.
- In a case in Galway in May 2008, a judge told an interpreter from Lionbridge that she would not certify her payment as she felt she was not translating everything that was being said for the accused man.
- In October 2007, two Polish interpreters were asked to leave the District Court in Cork when a judge said they were not competent to translate as they could not explain the word “ambiguity” accurately.
In a statement, Lionbridge said it was proud of the high levels of quality it provided. It said it had a “stringent recruitment and qualification process” and regularly received positive feedback from its clients.
Several freelance interpreters used by the firm say they have never been tested for proficiency in interpreting. However, the company’s says it has an extensive quality assurance programme.
The Garda Representative Association has also raised concerns over standards and the lack of vetting of interpreters.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Deaf Blawg - Legal Issues and Deaf People
Found a very good website called Deaf Blawg on the Deaf Lawyers website, which has lots of info re: Deaf people's access to courts, with an international dimension.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Interpreting in Tribunals training conference, 26-28 Nov 2009
Kings House Conference Centre,
Thurs 26th 10.30am – 4.30pm
Fri 27th 9.30am – 4.30pm
Sat 28th 9.30am – 3.30pm
November 2009
A three-day training course for Registered, Qualified BSL/English Interpreters (and those about to qualify), Language Service Professionals and appropriately experienced relay/Deaf interpreters.
Trainers and facilitators include: Steve Powell, Frank Essery, Martin Ring, Mike Unsworth
Following on from the four-day course on Interpreting in Mental Health Settings held in June 2008, this training course will equip qualified BSL/English Interpreters (and those about to qualify), Language Service Professionals and experienced relay/Deaf interpreters with the skills necessary to work in Tribunals. The course will cover working within the English legal framework but should also have relevance to those working in
The primary focus of the training will be the Mental Health Tribunal. There will also be sessions on the specific issues related to interpreting in Disability Living Allowance (DLA) Tribunals, Employment Tribunals, Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunals (SENDIST) and Asylum and Immigration Tribunals (AIT).
Day One, led by Steve Powell and Frank Essery, will look at what a Mental Health Tribunal does and how it operates covering; Whose involved and their respective roles; The statutory legal questions explaining the reasons for detention; Burden of Proof; Type of Sections; How evidence is taken and what that evidence is; Risks; How decisions are made; What are the options open to patients; The use of community treatment orders; Different types of mental Illness and treatments. For day One only we will be joined by a cohort of deaf Independent Mental Health Advocate (IMHA) trainees and it will be a unique opportunity to explore how the two roles of Interpreter and Advocate interplay with each other.
Day Two, led by Martin Ring and Mike Unsworth, will start by looking at the dynamics of the Mental Health Tribunal from an Interpreter perspective covering; seating plans, who is who, possible contributors, who represents who, who is the interpreter interpreting for, who owns the interpreters for that day i.e. tribunal booked or booked directly for solicitor, deaf staff, etc. The second part of the day will focus on the challenges for the Interpreter such as jargon busting and will include an interactive demonstration. Throughout the day the dilemmas and tensions, the linguistic issues and the involvement of the Interpreter will be addressed.
Day Three, led by Mike Unsworth supported by external contributors, will focus on the specific issues related to interpreting in Disability Living Allowance (DLA) Tribunals, Employment Tribunals, Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunals (SENDIST) and Asylum and Immigration Tribunals (AIT).
Full details of the course content and structure will be provided to delegates prior to the course commencement.
Tribunal Training Booking Form
To book your place or for further details contact:
Jonathan Isaac
BSMHD
Tel: 07880 715427
Fax: 07876 835857
Email: j.isaac@bsmhd.org.uk
Website: www.bsmhd.org.uk
Thanks to Evelyn Nolan-Conroy for this information
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The Use of Non-Accredited Interpreters
Kerry Deaf Resource Centre email update, 28 Oct 2008
THE USE OF NON-ACCREDITED INTERPRETERS
Our service has been campaigning for a long time to ensure Deaf people are provided with appropriately qualified interpreters.
In the Corkman newspaper on the 16th of October, they ran an article on a court case where all the charges were dismissed due to the mishandling of interpreting access.
The paper reported that "the difficulties arose regarding a statement made by witness Marie O’Sullivan on the night of the incident, and the qualifications of an interpreter used at the court hearing. Tom O’Sullivan, defending solicitor for Laura Kelly, called for the case to be dismissed onthe basis that there had been a statement taken from a witness without an interpreter on the night of the incident..... In addition, he said, an interpreter used in court at a previous sitting, on September 3, had not been properly qualified.
Following that sitting, Mr O’Sullivan had sent Gardai information contending that the interpreter used for key witness Marie O’Sullivan in court was not properly qualified. “She [Laura Kelly] is entitled to fairness,” said Tom O’Sullivan. “I believe that the issue that has arisen is due to the interpreter, as she was not properly trained"
This is certainly a wake up call for Gardai, Courts and other agencies.There have been a number of incidents in Cork where a non-accredited person has been booked via Access Translations. The HSE and Court Services use Access Translations for sign language interpreters- however none of the agencies ensure the person booked is appropriately accredited to do the work.
We will continue to campaign to ensure only accredited interpreters are booked for all interpreting assignments.
MINISTERIAL ORDER ON INTERPRETER USE IN GARDA INTERVIEWS
To prevent cases collapsing as the one above, we need to be aware of the rights that Deaf people have in Ireland and ensure these rights are respected.
In the Criminal Justice Act, 1984 (Treatment of Persons in Custody in Garda Siochana Stations) Regulations, 1987.(8) (a) Where an arrested person is deaf or there is doubt about his hearing ability, he shall not be questioned in relation to an offence in the absence of an interpreter, if one is reasonably available, without his written consent (and, where he is under the age of seventeen years, the written consent of an appropriate adult) or in the circumstances specified in paragraph (7) (a) (iii).
For more information on this regulation, check out the following
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1987/en/si/0119.html
THE USE OF NON-ACCREDITED INTERPRETERS
Our service has been campaigning for a long time to ensure Deaf people are provided with appropriately qualified interpreters.
In the Corkman newspaper on the 16th of October, they ran an article on a court case where all the charges were dismissed due to the mishandling of interpreting access.
The paper reported that "the difficulties arose regarding a statement made by witness Marie O’Sullivan on the night of the incident, and the qualifications of an interpreter used at the court hearing. Tom O’Sullivan, defending solicitor for Laura Kelly, called for the case to be dismissed onthe basis that there had been a statement taken from a witness without an interpreter on the night of the incident..... In addition, he said, an interpreter used in court at a previous sitting, on September 3, had not been properly qualified.
Following that sitting, Mr O’Sullivan had sent Gardai information contending that the interpreter used for key witness Marie O’Sullivan in court was not properly qualified. “She [Laura Kelly] is entitled to fairness,” said Tom O’Sullivan. “I believe that the issue that has arisen is due to the interpreter, as she was not properly trained"
This is certainly a wake up call for Gardai, Courts and other agencies.There have been a number of incidents in Cork where a non-accredited person has been booked via Access Translations. The HSE and Court Services use Access Translations for sign language interpreters- however none of the agencies ensure the person booked is appropriately accredited to do the work.
We will continue to campaign to ensure only accredited interpreters are booked for all interpreting assignments.
MINISTERIAL ORDER ON INTERPRETER USE IN GARDA INTERVIEWS
To prevent cases collapsing as the one above, we need to be aware of the rights that Deaf people have in Ireland and ensure these rights are respected.
In the Criminal Justice Act, 1984 (Treatment of Persons in Custody in Garda Siochana Stations) Regulations, 1987.(8) (a) Where an arrested person is deaf or there is doubt about his hearing ability, he shall not be questioned in relation to an offence in the absence of an interpreter, if one is reasonably available, without his written consent (and, where he is under the age of seventeen years, the written consent of an appropriate adult) or in the circumstances specified in paragraph (7) (a) (iii).
For more information on this regulation, check out the following
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1987/en/si/0119.html
Monday, October 20, 2008
Bitter anger as charges in Kanturk assault case dismissed
ALL charges have been dismissed in a case where an alleged violent incident between young women in Kanturk led to one of the teen being hospitalised with her face a mass of injuries.At Kanturk District Court, charges of assault against sisters Laura Kelly, 42 St Theresa's Place, Kanturk, and Mary Kelly, Coolagella, Kanturk, relating to an incident at O'Brien St in Kanturk on April 15, 2007, were dismissed 'on merit' by Judge Michael Pattwell.
At the start of the eighth listing of the case at Kanturk, lawyers for the defendants pointed out a number of difficulties with the prosecution case, and Judge Pattwell subsequently dismissed all the charges.
The difficulties arose regarding a statement made by witness Marie O'Sullivan — who can't hear or speak — on the night of the incident, and the qualifications of an interpreter for Ms O'Sullivan used at a previous court hearing.
Gardai had appealed for the case of alleged assault of Nadd woman Nadine Picton (18) to be adjourned.
On the night in question, Nadine Picton ended up receiving hospital treatment for a number of facial injuries incurred in an incident earlier that evening in Kanturk. Ms Picton claimed she had been assaulted by the Kelly sisters — a claim denied by Mary and Laura Kelly.
The case, first mentioned in court on December 2007, had been adjourned for a succession of reasons, until October 1 last.
In court on October 1, a statement was made by Garda Padraig Reddington appealing for yet another an adjournment on the basis that a key witness had, in their opinion, become hostile.
"There is an application by the state to adjourn this matter. There is a hostile witness and other matters arose," said Garda Reddington.
However, Tom O'Sullivan, defending solicitor for Laura Kelly, called for the case to be dismissed on the basis that there had been a statement taken from a witness without an interpreter on the night of the incident. In addition, he said, an interpreter used in court at a previous sitting, on September 3, had not been properly qualified.
Following that sitting, Mr O'Sullivan had sent Gardai information contending that the interpreter used for key witness Marie O'Sullivan in court was not properly qualified.
"She [Laura Kelly] is entitled to fairness," said Tom O'Sullivan. "I believe that the issue that has arisen is due to the interpreter, as she was not properly trained.
Inspector Colin Collins agreed that an issue arose regarding the interpreter and he added that the witness herself, Marie O'Sullivan, might be unsuitable to give evidence.
For the full article go here - be warned, the photos used in this article may be distressing.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
ITIA Paper - Interpreting, Translation and Public Bodies in Ireland: The Need for Policy and Training
Mary Phelan, "Interpreting, Translation and Public Bodies in Ireland: The Need for Policy and Training"
This is an excellent article that neatly sums up the situation in Ireland with regards to spoken language interpretation - routes to working, profile of the typical interpreter, legal rights etc.
It was released on February 2007 and is held on ITIA's website.
Highly recommended.
This is an excellent article that neatly sums up the situation in Ireland with regards to spoken language interpretation - routes to working, profile of the typical interpreter, legal rights etc.
It was released on February 2007 and is held on ITIA's website.
Highly recommended.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Irish Times - Deaf woman contests jury exclusion
Deaf woman contests jury exclusion
A DEAF mother of two has brought a landmark legal action against the Courts Service and the State challenging her exclusion from jury service on grounds of her deafness.
Joan Clarke says she should not be deemed ineligible for jury service merely because she is deaf, and that any such exclusion is discriminatory and in breach of various provisions of the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003.
She wants to perform “this important civic duty” on the same basis as everyone else and was frustrated at not being allowed to when she was summoned for jury service before Galway Circuit Court in April 2006 but was subsequently excused from serving, apparently on grounds of her deafness, Ms Clarke said.
She is entitled to be facilitated to serve on a jury by means of a sign language interpreter, she contends. Gerard Hogan SC, for Ms Clarke, argued the fact she is deaf should not mean she is automatically excluded from jury service and there was no justification for such a blanket exclusion.
The real issue, under the Juries Act 1976, is whether she is “incapable” of serving and that issue should be decided judicially in open court and not decided administratively, he said.
Ms Clarke, identified as a homemaker, of Hassling, Athenry Road, Loughrea, Co Galway, and her husband were in court yesterday for the opening of her action before Mr Justice Daniel O’Keeffe.
The proceedings were signed for Ms Clarke and other deaf persons in court by two sign language interpreters.
The case has been brought against the Galway County Registrar, the Courts Service, Ireland and the Attorney General, with the Human Rights Commission as a notice party.
Ms Clarke is represented by the Free Legal Advice Centres. In opposing the action, the State denies the claims of unconstitutionality or breaches of the ECHR Act 2003. It says that, under the Juries Act, Ms Clarke is ineligible for jury service due to the “permanent infirmity of deafness” and denies that Ms Clarke is entitled to have appropriate arrangements made to accommodate her deafness and enable her serve as a juror.
Among other arguments, the State contends the presence of a sign language interpreter in a jury room would breach the “absolute confidentiality” of jury discussions.
In an affidavit on behalf of Ms Clarke, Evelyn Conroy, chairwoman of the Irish Association of Sign Language Interpreters, said all practising interpreters must be members of that body, which has a code of practice and of ethics.
Judgment reserved in deaf woman's challenge to State's bar on jury duty
THE HIGH Court has reserved judgment on a landmark legal challenge by a deaf mother of two to her being excused from jury service apparently on grounds of her deafness.
Joan Clarke says she should not be deemed ineligible for jury service merely because she is deaf and that any such exclusion is discriminatory and in breach of various provisions of the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Act 2003.
The real issue, under the Juries Act 1976, is whether she is “incapable” of serving and that issue should be decided judicially in open court and not decided administratively, she said.
Ms Clarke says she wants to perform “this important civic duty” on the same basis as everyone else and was frustrated at not being allowed to when summoned for jury service before Galway Circuit Court in April 2006, but was subsequently, against her wishes, excused from serving apparently on grounds of her deafness. She is entitled to be facilitated to serve on a jury by means of a sign language interpreter, she claims.
Ms Clarke, a homemaker, Ashlawn, Athenry Road, Loughrea, Co Galway, has been deaf since birth. Her husband is also deaf and they have two hearing children.
Represented by the Free Legal Advice Centres, she brought her action against the Galway County Registrar, the Courts Service and the State with the Human Rights Commission as a notice party.
The three-day hearing concluded this week before Mr Justice Daniel O’Keeffe who reserved his decision.
The proceedings were signed for Ms Clarke and other deaf persons in court by two sign language interpreters.
The State has denied the claims of unconstitutionality or breaches of the ECHR Act 2003. It argued that, under the Juries Act, Ms Clarke is ineligible for jury service due to the “permanent infirmity of deafness” and denies that Ms Clarke is entitled to have appropriate arrangements made to accommodate her deafness and enable her serve as a juror.
A DEAF mother of two has brought a landmark legal action against the Courts Service and the State challenging her exclusion from jury service on grounds of her deafness.
Joan Clarke says she should not be deemed ineligible for jury service merely because she is deaf, and that any such exclusion is discriminatory and in breach of various provisions of the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003.
She wants to perform “this important civic duty” on the same basis as everyone else and was frustrated at not being allowed to when she was summoned for jury service before Galway Circuit Court in April 2006 but was subsequently excused from serving, apparently on grounds of her deafness, Ms Clarke said.
She is entitled to be facilitated to serve on a jury by means of a sign language interpreter, she contends. Gerard Hogan SC, for Ms Clarke, argued the fact she is deaf should not mean she is automatically excluded from jury service and there was no justification for such a blanket exclusion.
The real issue, under the Juries Act 1976, is whether she is “incapable” of serving and that issue should be decided judicially in open court and not decided administratively, he said.
Ms Clarke, identified as a homemaker, of Hassling, Athenry Road, Loughrea, Co Galway, and her husband were in court yesterday for the opening of her action before Mr Justice Daniel O’Keeffe.
The proceedings were signed for Ms Clarke and other deaf persons in court by two sign language interpreters.
The case has been brought against the Galway County Registrar, the Courts Service, Ireland and the Attorney General, with the Human Rights Commission as a notice party.
Ms Clarke is represented by the Free Legal Advice Centres. In opposing the action, the State denies the claims of unconstitutionality or breaches of the ECHR Act 2003. It says that, under the Juries Act, Ms Clarke is ineligible for jury service due to the “permanent infirmity of deafness” and denies that Ms Clarke is entitled to have appropriate arrangements made to accommodate her deafness and enable her serve as a juror.
Among other arguments, the State contends the presence of a sign language interpreter in a jury room would breach the “absolute confidentiality” of jury discussions.
In an affidavit on behalf of Ms Clarke, Evelyn Conroy, chairwoman of the Irish Association of Sign Language Interpreters, said all practising interpreters must be members of that body, which has a code of practice and of ethics.
Judgment reserved in deaf woman's challenge to State's bar on jury duty
THE HIGH Court has reserved judgment on a landmark legal challenge by a deaf mother of two to her being excused from jury service apparently on grounds of her deafness.
Joan Clarke says she should not be deemed ineligible for jury service merely because she is deaf and that any such exclusion is discriminatory and in breach of various provisions of the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Act 2003.
The real issue, under the Juries Act 1976, is whether she is “incapable” of serving and that issue should be decided judicially in open court and not decided administratively, she said.
Ms Clarke says she wants to perform “this important civic duty” on the same basis as everyone else and was frustrated at not being allowed to when summoned for jury service before Galway Circuit Court in April 2006, but was subsequently, against her wishes, excused from serving apparently on grounds of her deafness. She is entitled to be facilitated to serve on a jury by means of a sign language interpreter, she claims.
Ms Clarke, a homemaker, Ashlawn, Athenry Road, Loughrea, Co Galway, has been deaf since birth. Her husband is also deaf and they have two hearing children.
Represented by the Free Legal Advice Centres, she brought her action against the Galway County Registrar, the Courts Service and the State with the Human Rights Commission as a notice party.
The three-day hearing concluded this week before Mr Justice Daniel O’Keeffe who reserved his decision.
The proceedings were signed for Ms Clarke and other deaf persons in court by two sign language interpreters.
The State has denied the claims of unconstitutionality or breaches of the ECHR Act 2003. It argued that, under the Juries Act, Ms Clarke is ineligible for jury service due to the “permanent infirmity of deafness” and denies that Ms Clarke is entitled to have appropriate arrangements made to accommodate her deafness and enable her serve as a juror.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Gardai spent €3 million on interpreters last year
Gardai spent €3 million on interpreters last year
Sunday, August 10, 2008 - By Susan Mitchell
The Garda Siochána spent almost €3 million on interpreters last year, as the number of immigrants requiring translators continued to grow.
The Garda deals with over 200 languages and dialects on a regular basis. Between 30 and 40 companies provided interpretation services to the Garda last year, a spokesman said.
The Garda recently issued a tender for the contract, which is the biggest public sector interpreting contract in the state.
‘‘We are in the process of awarding tenders at the moment, which are at the valuation stage, and these contracts are expected to be awarded by the end of the year,” said a spokesman.
However, the Irish Translators and Interpreters Association (ITIA) said it was hugely concerned at the quality of the service being provided to major state bodies.
Mary Phelan, secretary of the ITIA, claimed that the quality of interpretation work being carried out for major public sector bodies was often inadequate.
A number of agencies rejected charges regarding the quality of interpreting services provided to the state. They claimed they provided extensive and ongoing training, and regularly monitored satisfaction levels.
‘‘There are no controls in place to ensure a quality service is being delivered. There is an assumption that anyone who is bilingual can interpret. That is not the case, and specialised vocabulary is often needed, particularly in a courtroom setting,” said Phelan.
The contracts to translate for the Health Service Executive (HSE), the Courts Service and the Garda are the biggest public sector translation contracts in the country.
Together, the three bodies had an annual bill of about €5.75 million in 2007.
The HSE spent €750,000 on interpreting in 2007. It has a list of preferred providers that it issues to hospitals and other healthcare facilities.
The Courts Service has a contract with Lionbridge, a multinational company with an office in
Phelan said many translators, some of whom have degrees in translation, were not prepared to work for the low rates in
The sector is awaiting the results of a €100,000 study on interpreters for the public service, carried out by consultants Farrell Grant Sparks.
Sunday Business Post, 10th August 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
ITIA - Legal Interpreting seminar
The next ITIA CPD event, which takes place on October 11 at the Irish Writers' Centre, Parnell Square, Dublin 1, involves two workshops, which will be delivered by Prof. Leo Hickey*
Legal Interpreting: 10.30 am to 12 pm
The 90-minute workshop on Legal Interpreting will be part interactive, part scenario-based, discussing five main points:
1) The crucial difference between being 'wrong' (never) and not being 'right' (frequently)
2) Letting someone know they have said or done anything 'wrong'
3) Explaining and asking for explanations
4) An interpreter only hears words, never sees the realities: so, guess or panic?
5) If anyone speaks, the interpreter speaks, even if only to utter nonsense
Legal Translation: 2 pm to 3.30 pm
The 90-minute workshop on Legal Translation will be mainly text-based. Looking at documents, such as a Witness Statement, a Letter of Request or an Act of Parliament, points like the following will be discussed:
1) Dealing with clients
2) Non-coincidence of terms, concepts and realities in the SL and TL systems
3) Cherishing ambiguities
4) Use of expert informants
5) Whether a translation should look like an original.
*Leo Hickey
Leo Hickey took a BA in French and Spanish, an MA in Spanish and an LLB in Law from UCD before being called to the Bar (King's Inn), then going to the Universidad Complutense, Madrid, from which he is Licenciado en Filosofía y Letras in English and Doctor en Filosofía y Letras in Spanish. He has the Diploma in Public Service Interpreting from the Institute of Linguists, London, and is on the National Register of Public Service Interpreters.
Between 1966 and 2002 he was Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Reader and Professor of Spanish at the University of Salford, England. He is the author of over 100 academic publications (about 17 of them on translation/interpreting), always combining his academic work with the practice of translating and interpreting and doing exclusively legal work since 2002.
Cost: ITIA members €15; non-members €30. To book a place, please email: admin.itia@gmail.com.
Legal Interpreting: 10.30 am to 12 pm
The 90-minute workshop on Legal Interpreting will be part interactive, part scenario-based, discussing five main points:
1) The crucial difference between being 'wrong' (never) and not being 'right' (frequently)
2) Letting someone know they have said or done anything 'wrong'
3) Explaining and asking for explanations
4) An interpreter only hears words, never sees the realities: so, guess or panic?
5) If anyone speaks, the interpreter speaks, even if only to utter nonsense
Legal Translation: 2 pm to 3.30 pm
The 90-minute workshop on Legal Translation will be mainly text-based. Looking at documents, such as a Witness Statement, a Letter of Request or an Act of Parliament, points like the following will be discussed:
1) Dealing with clients
2) Non-coincidence of terms, concepts and realities in the SL and TL systems
3) Cherishing ambiguities
4) Use of expert informants
5) Whether a translation should look like an original.
*Leo Hickey
Leo Hickey took a BA in French and Spanish, an MA in Spanish and an LLB in Law from UCD before being called to the Bar (King's Inn), then going to the Universidad Complutense, Madrid, from which he is Licenciado en Filosofía y Letras in English and Doctor en Filosofía y Letras in Spanish. He has the Diploma in Public Service Interpreting from the Institute of Linguists, London, and is on the National Register of Public Service Interpreters.
Between 1966 and 2002 he was Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Reader and Professor of Spanish at the University of Salford, England. He is the author of over 100 academic publications (about 17 of them on translation/interpreting), always combining his academic work with the practice of translating and interpreting and doing exclusively legal work since 2002.
Cost: ITIA members €15; non-members €30. To book a place, please email: admin.itia@gmail.com.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
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:
And I've come across two early-ish mentions of sign language interpreters, too!
All the way back in 1929:
And in 1992 again:
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.
Legal Interpreting - Articles from NAJIT
I've found links to what can only be described as billions of articles on courtroom interpreting. Well, okay, maybe not that much but definitely it's in the high oodles.
They're on the website of the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators (NAJIT). it's an American based organisation of courtroom based interpreters and there are a ton of links to PDF articles on all kinds of topics including Direct Speech in Legal Settings, Equal Access as it Relates to Translation and Interpretation, Information for Court Administrators, Summary Interpreting in Legal Settings and Team Interpreting in the Courtroom.
Click here for the NAJIT Position Papers
Click here for the NAJIT Proteus articles also available (some are members-only I think).
They're on the website of the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators (NAJIT). it's an American based organisation of courtroom based interpreters and there are a ton of links to PDF articles on all kinds of topics including Direct Speech in Legal Settings, Equal Access as it Relates to Translation and Interpretation, Information for Court Administrators, Summary Interpreting in Legal Settings and Team Interpreting in the Courtroom.
Click here for the NAJIT Position Papers
Click here for the NAJIT Proteus articles also available (some are members-only I think).
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Legal, Medical, Political and Financial Jargon - Help is at hand!
Here are some excellent resources from the National Adult Literacy Agency that may help with some legal, political or financial terms that come up when you are interpreting.
A Plain English Guide to Citizenship Terms
A Plain English Guide to Financial Terms (with involvement from my old employers EBS! :) )
A plain English Guide to political terms
A Plain English Guide to Legal Terms
This Health Literacy Pack may also help when researching some basic facts about medical situations and settings.
A Plain English Guide to Citizenship Terms
A Plain English Guide to Financial Terms (with involvement from my old employers EBS! :) )
A plain English Guide to political terms
A Plain English Guide to Legal Terms
This Health Literacy Pack may also help when researching some basic facts about medical situations and settings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
