Charlie Swinbourne: Why it is wrong for an Irish Deaf man to be denied an interpreter in court

The point of justice is that everyone is supposed to have access to it no matter what they have been accused of doing. Even if the deaf guy in this case is problematic, he is entitled to an interpreter and access to his own trial.

Have they looked into why the Deaf guy was harrassing the doctor in the first place? Was the doctor his doctor and had refused him interpreters at appointments? Does the Deaf guy’s behaviour stem from years of being ignored, perhaps?

Wow. We have people over here suing for new trials because of things like: all-white-juries can’t possibly come to a valid verdict when the defendant is black; family members of rape victims, or rape victims themselves couldn’t possibly be on an unbiased jury during a rape trial…….. but denying a defendant the ability to even understand the charges brought against him and the verdict rendered? To deny them the right to defend themselves? To tell their side of the story? Just wow. What was this judge thinking?

I know Irish laws are different from American one’s, but this is wrong.

I know someone who was cut off from her SS benefit due to some wrong paperwork (their error- she had been receiving SS for many years, then one day: not.) She finally had to get an attorney and take SS to court. When they finally got a court date, her attorney was a few minutes late to court. Her ASL interpreter was on time. The judge ordered the interpreter to leave the courtroom. The interpreter and client protested, but the judge insisted and even threatened to have the interpreter forcibly removed.

When the interpreter was gone, and the client completely unable to understand anything being said, the judge spoke to the attorney. When asked later, the attorney would only say that the judge was talking to her. It had nothing to do with the case.

It does not matter that it was not about the case. It does not matter that the interpreter was called back in after the judge-attorney conversation/reprimand. It does not matter that the case was resolved after SS could not explain the reasons behind their actions. It doesn’t even matter that my friend got back pay and attorney fees.

What matters is that this judge thought it was ok to send away a Deaf person’s interpreter during a court hearing- while allowing the rest of the courtroom to hear whatever he said to that attorney. He did not clear the courtroom, he did not call the attorney to a sidebar or into chambers. He spoke to her in full view/hearing of everyone else in that room.

I just don’t understand how someone who is supposed to uphold and interpret laws could think these things are acceptable behavior.

I’m trying to unpack the story as I am finding that there are some conflicting statements and that the reporting is rather muddled.

The facts are that if a judge **“remands him on bail for sentencing”** it can ONLY mean that either McGrotty has (a) pleaded guilty to the current offences – in which case there will not be a trial! If there is no trial – then there is no evidence given by the defendant , or (b)it is a sentencing hearing where he has previously been found guilty. So it is completely wrong to say that he was/will be denied an interpreter to give his evidence.

Now I want to make it clear that obviously an interpreter should be used at every stage of the court proceedings, and absolutely definitely in the trial. It would be an absolute breach of his human rights not to **“understand the evidence for and against him”** and would definitely be an appeal case or even a matter for the European Court of Human Rights. However given that THIS hearing was either (a) or (b) (as above) there simply was no evidence to be given by McGrotty.

If it was the former, i.e. (a) as he had a solicitor she would have given him advice on whether to plead guilty or not guilty – and very importantly it is her responsibility to book and pay for the interpreter for her independent and private advice/consultation sessions. It is totally wrong to say that someone (whether the solicitor or the judge) made **“a decision about a Deaf man’s culpability for something, without him having access to proceedings at all”**. I can absolutely assure you that a defendant himself/herself HAS to enter a plea for themselves and it would not be possible for anyone else to enter a plea on their behalf (excepting the rare cases where someone is declared “unfit to plead” – and where a different legal process is applied).

So where the article states **“No interpreter meant he could not give evidence…”**, let’s make it clear that at this stage of the case he wasn’t allowed/required to give evidence!

In this instance, yes, the court SHOULD have provided an interpreter but it seems they did try but were unable to get one (It happens!!!) In this case the judge did the right thing – he bailed him (to what he considered a safe distance from the family) until another day to try continue the matter when an interpreter could be there. Put yourself in the judge’s shoes, you have a man who has admitted harassing a family but you have no interpreter… does that mean you can send the bloke home to carry on harassing. No, of course not! The judge made a sensible decision not to impose a sentence without an interpreter present and to defer it to another day. Yes okay, perhaps when **“the judge told him he was not allowed in his own home country, he wasn’t able to understand this either” but either his solicitor would explain it to him (with her own interpreter) or he could have shown the written bail notice/conditions to anyone who could help him understand it, i.e. friend, social worker, etc. I can assure you that he wouldn’t have just been sent away with no understanding at all – and in the unlikely event that he was, well …. that’s down to his solicitor not the court who probably tried really hard to book an interpreter! The hearing would have HAD to go ahead regardless of whether an interpreter was present because his previous bail conditions (set at the police station or at an earlier hearing) would have expired!

**“What’s alarming is that the Justice system allowed for a Deaf citizen’s human rights to be denied”**. In balancing human rights, you have to consider the rights of EVERYONE involved. What about the family’s human rights to a secure environment and also their right to safety and family life? The judge had to balance both parties human rights and in this instance he clearly felt he was protecting the defendant’s rights by not sending him to prison and at the same time he was protecting the family by keeping McGrotty away from them.

If it’s correct that **“… the Judge held the door closed, denying [him] access”**, I agree that’s extremely inappropriate and insensitive as being in the room would have given McGrotty some (although very minimal) picture of what was happening which is better than nothing. Perhaps the judge (wrongly) believed that it would be better for McGrotty to be out of the room rather than sit there and not being able to hear anything?

I’m sorry that this is such a long posting, but I felt it important to show another perspective on much of what was reported.

Gloria Ogborn
Qualified BSL/English Interpreter (RSLI – Legal interpreting specialism), Trainer (Legal Interpreting CPD) & UK Registered Expert Witness