Evaluation of providing interpreter services
1. The 2017 Access to Justice Review recommended more accessible interpreter services be available in courts, and that court staff be trained in recognising when the services of a specialised legal interpreter are necessary.
2. Interpreters are not provided for free in most civil disputes, so the 2017 recommendation should be implemented with the VLRC 2008 Civil Justice recommendation, that funding be provided for interpreters to be used during the resolution of civil disputes. Interpreters could be employed by the courts in common languages other than English, and the courts could have partnerships with interpreting and translating services to access interpreters in less commonly-needed languages. It is important that interpreters have some training in legal procedure and terminology, however, because technical concepts can be difficult to translate accurately.
3. The provision of free interpreters in courts would improve equality between the parties. If one party can speak English confidently and the other cannot, this renders one party completely unable to understand or participate. Their decisions will be less informed than the decisions of the other party, and they will be less able to give evidence in their own case. This inequality will be exacerbated if the party facing the language barrier also lacks the financial resources to pay for a full-time professional interpreter. Interpreters give the party facing the language barrier a more equal ability to engage with the procedures of justice.
4. Access can never be entirely achieved by the provision of free interpreters, because using the courts through constant translations is more difficult and time-consuming than not, but it can be improved – particularly for poorer parties. Parties are not receiving access if they cannot confidently understand or speak English and we demand that they either make decisions without this understanding, or relinquish their decision-making entirely to someone else such as a lawyer. Interpreters are always permitted in legal proceedings, but the cost of an interpreter can be prohibitive for people without significant financial resources. The government has a responsibility to assist with basic accessibility services such as interpretation – particularly when the legal system and law are so complex, and so full of special terminology, that a basic interpreter without special legal training is often inadequate. The main problem is implementation: logistically, there are more than 200 different languages spoken in Australia, and accommodating every language that might be spoken in one jurisdiction is simply very difficult and expensive. Free interpreters for even the most common languages would aid access for many people, though.
5. Providing free interpreters in courts would be logistically difficult, but would increase access and equality, and enable both sides to engage more fully in what would become a fairer hearing. The existing legal system acknowledges the importance of interpreters, but simply does not provide them because it allocates funding elsewhere and does not prioritise access in civil disputes. VCAT provides interpreters at no charge, and they are available in police interviews. It is courts that are lacking. The Magistrates’ Court webpage on interpreter services, however, acknowledges that court can be “confusing” and that interpreter services permit parties to understand the information they are being given and meaningfully participate in the process. People cannot be expected to make decisions regarding the conduct of their case if they are unable to understand what is being said in the courtroom, or in directions hearings and other conferences outside court. It is unfair to demand that people either make decisions without this understanding, or relinquish their decision-making entirely to someone else such as a lawyer.
6. Interpreters are always permitted in legal proceedings, but the cost of an interpreter can be prohibitive for people without significant financial resources. The government has a responsibility to assist with basic accessibility services such as interpretation – particularly when the legal system and law are so complex, and so full of special terminology, that a basic interpreter without special legal training is often inadequate and a non-English speaker without an interpreter cannot hope for a fair trial. Language differences create enormous barriers to equality, as they can render one party completely unable to understand or participate in any way.
7. In a practical sense this equality and access measure is extremely difficult to implement: there are more than 200 different languages spoken in Australia, and accommodating every language that might be spoken in one jurisdiction is simply very difficult and expensive. Access will always be limited for people who speak less common languages, because it would be too expensive to fund this service and perhaps too difficult to find interpreters in every language. If possible, however, the benefits to all the principles of justice are undeniable.