tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post6922979959119906756..comments2024-03-28T07:16:39.621+00:00Comments on Lallands Peat Worrier: You have the right to remain silentLallands Peat Worrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18276270498204697708noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-85939524949036585992015-10-23T12:04:51.255+01:002015-10-23T12:04:51.255+01:00Not to make light of this situation but it sounds ...Not to make light of this situation but it sounds very much like Starfleet v Spock with Commander Christopher Pike as a witness.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05939629386866815856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-78044617968266289812015-10-22T21:30:07.007+01:002015-10-22T21:30:07.007+01:00It seems as if the complainant would not have a fa...It seems as if the complainant would not have a fair chance to put across his point of view if forced to communicate through an unfamiliar interpreter, so there should have been a skilled interpreter present to verify what the familiar one was doing. Gonetomarshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12557201683153754896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-13323997393824105202015-10-22T16:02:11.109+01:002015-10-22T16:02:11.109+01:00Easy to understand if one juxtaposes the dumb comp...Easy to understand if one juxtaposes the dumb complainer as the Westminster Government , the defendant as the Scottish Government and the interpreter as the , ever ready to interpret for the stupid , news media.Voteforhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09232084956094725089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-8576486855362705532015-10-22T14:16:02.009+01:002015-10-22T14:16:02.009+01:00An interesting idea! Though not one I think that o...An interesting idea! Though not one I think that our financially overstretched court service would welcome. As you rightly say, the role of the interpreter is critical. You can apprehend some things from how an individual comports themselves in the witness box, but the words - the words are critical. I get the scent of a potentially interesting research project here, on the travails and challenges of this...Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-55237457948138535962015-10-22T13:13:08.703+01:002015-10-22T13:13:08.703+01:00Going off at a slight tangent (and for present pur...Going off at a slight tangent (and for present purposes ignoring the cost implications), is there not a problem of principle here if evidence being given is only comprehensible to one person in the court? It is of the essence that justice should be public (done and seen to be done).<br /><br />There are notorious philosophical problems about the concept of a private language. Given this, when translation is crucial to a case, should the court not require the services of two independent translators to eliminate any possibility of misunderstanding, quite apart from the question of bias?<br />Dennis Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04533079746508505314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-23601599199987262552015-10-22T10:14:10.934+01:002015-10-22T10:14:10.934+01:00Consider this scenario. The complainer is giving e...Consider this scenario. The complainer is giving evidence in a manner inscrutable to everyone else in the court room. A difficult question is put in cross-examination. The interpreter has a personal relationship with the complainer. They also are themselves familiar with the "story" of the case. The heat gets turned up. The complainer mis-remembers or mis-states their story. The interpreter can see that to relay their thoughts in the manner in which they had been expressed would undermine their thoughts. Perhaps even only unconsciously, they reassemble the evidence into a more "accurate" version, and relay this to the court. Nobody can know if they've done this or not. But it is the kind of thing which only somebody close to a witness on a personal basis is likely to do. This would be actual bias. Nothing of that sort is alleged here. The decision focuses on appearances of bias only. But these anxieties are at the crux of Lady Smith's reasoning.Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-43239249445545122162015-10-22T09:49:55.908+01:002015-10-22T09:49:55.908+01:00If as LPW says she was his interpreter during init...If as LPW says she was his interpreter during initial police interviews she will have perhaps better memory of his evidence then. During cross examination she could interpose what he said then instead of what he is saying in court to shield him. Acting from what she perceives as his own best interest. <br /><br />Yet the court, and the defendant are entitled to make a fair assessment of a witness's reliability and this case that would be frustrated. <br /><br />It seems to me another example of difficult cases leading to bad law. The Appeal Court has fixed that. <br /><br />The result is unsatisfactory but we have to accept such a situation when a trial fair to all cannot be contrived. In this case the truth will have to remain known only by the two involved. C'est la vie. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-14705500369690727282015-10-21T22:20:42.769+01:002015-10-21T22:20:42.769+01:00This feels a little wrong. Why should a translator...This feels a little wrong. Why should a translator be impartial? A defendant is surely by definition partial? Why couldn't the person tasked with communicating on their behalf to the court *also* be partial?Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02294852146462286329noreply@blogger.com