ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR DEAF
PEOPLE
IN THE EU
Judge Kelly was told that a sign language interpreter
could not be made available for yesterday’s court sitting and McGrotty’s solicitor Patsy Gallagher said he needed an interpreter for his client to give evidence. (Irish
1. Directive Implementation
• 2010/64/EU right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings and in proceedings for the execution of the
European arrest warrant.
• 2012/29/EU, which established minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime.
2. Discrimination & Problems
• Deaf community suffer from a lack of provision of interpreters, lack of awareness, access to information and access to justice, booking interpreter procedures, using family members as
1. Deaf Community
2. Sign Language Interpreters
3. Police forces
•
7 partners
•
4 countries
•
3 spoken languages, 5 sign languages
•
6 consortium meetings
•
16 tangible outputs
•
30 months
•
Collecting data
across Europe
•
Quantitative &
qualitative
approaches
•
Desk research,
•
SLI profession has no official status in Europe (de
Wit, 2012)
•
Difficulties obtaining or ensuring quality of SLIs
(Brunson, 2007; Kermit, et al, 2014)
•
Challenges in interpreting legal terminology &
discourse (Brennan & Brown, 1997; Russell, 2002)
•
SLIs in USA choose not to specialize in legal
• ImPLI/ Co-Minor-INQUEST project reports
• Promotion of access to quality & standards in legal
interpreting across the EU (Hertog, 2001, 2003, 2010), & certification for legal interpreters (Giambruno, 2014)
• But… more than half of EU Member States do not have any specific training in legal interpreting (Hertog & Van Gucht, 2008)
• Provision of legal interpreting even within many countries in Europe is inconsistent (Leung, 2003; Gallai, 2012)
•
45 responses
•
21 countries
•
Sign language
interpreter associations
•
Deaf associations
• Deaf people (victims, family member, suspects) (Ireland: Gill Harold’s results re: Deaf Victims; UK: 1 x family member; 1 x Deaf suspect/prisoner & 5 Deaf
community members)
• Deaf & Hearing Interpreters (UK: 5; Ireland: 10 – 5 x DI, 5 x HI)
• Police officers with experience of working with (non-sign language) interpreters (UK: 5; Ireland: **)
• Police officers with experience of
• UK & Ireland
• Provision of legal sign language interpreting across Europe variable
• Legal sign language interpreter training, qualifications & accreditation across Europe variable
• Challenges of understanding police processes and language (for deaf people & interpreters)
• Challenges of understanding deaf cultural behaviours & status of sign languages (for police officers)
•
Colleagues in policing organisations generally
have had little input regarding the nature of
interpreting.
•
Consequences:
• Checking credentials?
• Evaluating quality of interpreters – no criteria applied.
• Knowing little or nothing about how interpreting in triadic
settings works >> assumptions that lead to conflation of
what the interpreter says with what the signer/speaker
has said.
-•
Generally little or no opportunity for interpreters to
learn about police processes
• Interviewing techniques? • Protocols?
• Nature of the charges • Reading of rights
•
Linguistic capacity?
• Most interpreters are L2 learners of their sign language • Working with vulnerable groups – e.g. victims of abuse • NB – skill set that Deaf Interpreters bring.
•
Consequences
•
Those coming in contact with police unlikely to
have experience working with interpreters in most
EU countries
•
Expectations of interpreters – as impartial or as
ally? Linguistic capacity? Cultural knowledge? As
known entity in a small community?
•
Lack of autonomy in selecting interpreters
•
Critical Mass - (in)visiblity of sign language users; limited
numbers of appropriately skilled interpreters – Deaf and
Hearing
•
Quality assurance issues
•
Lack of reliable figures re: requests for interpreters versus
supply of same.
•
What happens when a foreign deaf person is arrested? Or
is a witness? >> Deaf Interpreters required >> training and
employment opportunities.
•
Joint Training
• Increased awareness on part of all parties but short sessions insufficient to develop skill set required to competence level required
• Embed approach in initial and continuous professional training.
•
CHALLENGE: variability in training for police across
EU
• Harness joint training as opportunity to engage in a meaningful way with local Deaf communities >> community policing/
relationship building opportunity.
• Not all countries require CPD from interpreters
•
Increased awareness among all parties re: need to video
record SL content in interviews – deaf party PLUS
interpreter/s.
•
CHALLENGES
• Physical environment in police stations need to change to facilitate this. • Implications for Court – ensuring the source text is protected and
accessible >> traceability of communicative intent.
• Increased awareness of need for a register of legal interpreters as per Directive 2010/64/EU
•
CHALLENGES
• Not all EU countries have a voluntary register; not all EU countries have basic interpreter training;
•Added Value Considerations
•Police colleagues: the synergies from our training for engagement in interpreted interactions more generally
•Police colleagues responding to consideration of the role that interpreters play
•Building on existing relationships and building new relationships across sectors >> good for everyone!
•Adopting the European Language Portfolio (ECML) to interpreter contexts; efsli piloting this via JUSTISIGNS;
THANK YOU!
•Dr. Gill Harold, UCC
•Garda Darren Coventry-Howlett - GRIDO
•Office of the Garda Commissioner
•Templemore Garda Training College
•Irish Deaf Society
•The Courts Services
•President – The District Courts
•Deaf Community Centre, Limerick
•Interpreters – Deaf and Hearing – who contributed to this project
•Legal professionals who participated
•Dublin Rape Crisis Centre Training Unit
•Dr. Mary Phelan, DCU & ITIA
