Imagine… court cases about deaf communication in which judges know diddly squat about deaf communication.
Imagine a case about the denial of access to communication for deaf people, in which a judge thinks it’s ok to deny access to communication for deaf people when the case is being discussed.
Imagine a country where lawyers acting for deaf people don’t routinely demand English transcription as well as BSL interpretation, so that observing BSL/English bilinguals can monitor the accuracy of interpretation.
Imagine a situation where a judge dismisses concerns about sub-par interpreting by saying that the interpreters have promised that they can interpret the case.
Imagine a situation where interpreters can interpret anywhere they like, as long as they decide themselves that they’re good enough, and as long as they produce CPD evidence, and nobody calls them out.
Imagine a situation where sub-par interpreting in a legal setting comes to light only because it is exceptionally being broadcast to an audience of BSL users and BSL/English bilinguals.
Imagine what happens in hundreds of criminal and civil cases involving deaf people and interpreters where no independent judge of BSL is watching.
Imagine a country where court cases about the rights of ordinary BSL citizens are discussed in ways that are unclear even to educated English speakers.
Oh! No need to imagine. It’s the U.K. in 2021.
Roger Beeson is a retired BSL/English interpreter who is a proponent of a higher-level assessment of bilingual interpreting skills, beyond the current “fit to practice” level. He grew up in a deaf household where BSL was his parents’ language. This led to a life spent working with deaf people: 2 years at the old RNID, 21 years as a teacher in deaf schools, and 22 years as a self-employed BSL interpreter. He was a co-founder 20 years ago of the e-newsli newsgroup on BSL interpreting. The Association of Sign Language Interpreters (ASLI) awarded him their Ben Steiner Award in recognition of his contribution to the BSL interpreting profession. Despite retirement he still keeps an eye on deaf and BSL interpreting matters.
Enjoying our eggs? Support The Limping Chicken:
The Limping Chicken is the world's most popular Deaf blog, and is edited by Deaf journalist, screenwriter and director Charlie Swinbourne.
Our posts represent the opinions of blog authors, they do not represent the site's views or those of the site's editor. Posting a blog does not imply agreement with a blog's content. Read our disclaimer here and read our privacy policy here.
Find out how to write for us by clicking here, and how to follow us by clicking here.
The site exists thanks to our supporters. Check them out below:
- BSL Zone: TV programmes in BSL for the Deaf community
- Deaf Umbrella: what support is available for deaf students?
- Bellman & Symfon: home alerting solutions, including the mobile phone transceiver!
- SignVideo: Instant BSL video interpreting online
- SignHealth: check out the BSL health library
- 999 BSL: call 999 in an emergency, in BSL
- Appa: Looking for RSLIs, TSLIs and CSWs, apply here!
- Signly: Adding BSL to websites
- Signworld: Learn BSL online!
- DCAL: world-class research into deafness, cognition and language
- Action Deafness: “A Deaf-Led Charity” – interpreting & community support services
- Sign Solutions: Instant access to Interpreters, training and BSL translation nationwide
- InterpretersLive: On demand BSL video interpretation
- Lipspeaker UK: specialist lipspeaking support
- BID: Deaf services, including advice and support, interpreting, employment and letters
- Performance Interpreting: BSL interpreting at concerts
- National Deaf Children's Society: The leading charity for deaf children
Tim
July 5, 2021
Been saying it for years, but nobody pays any attention when deaf people complain. Instead, we’re waved away by people pulling silly faces of righteous indignation.
Reg Cobb
July 5, 2021
Great piece of writing here. Thanks Roger 🙂
Cathy
July 5, 2021
The extract above is linked to the Little Mix court case, where a deaf mother has been denied an interpreter to watch the show with her daughter.
Interestingly and puzzlingly how did deaf viewers watching the case from the chat box, know exactly what was being said in court by judges? So how could they define the interpreting as “poor?” Did they have a full manuscript in front of them and were they all bilingual?
This case raises interesting questions regardless of whether a judge knows diddly squat about deaf communication as many deaf (and hearies) know diddly squat about court proceedings too. It is a shame that such an important case has taken this ironic turn and the interpreters have walked away.
We cannot afford to lose interpreters especially in a court of law and if they are fully qualified they should not have an accusation of “poor interpreting” levelled at them.
I have used qualified interpreters and trainees in many different settings, including court and I can say with confidence that the qualified interpreters have always been brilliant. Poor interpreting has only come from trainees! So were they trainees in this case? There are more questions than answers here!
Alison
July 5, 2021
Cathy, I watched this case. I had Google Transcribe on because the interpreting was rubbish. Some deaf people present could hear. There were also Interpreters present, who could access BSL and spoken language. The issues were not just interpreting but simple things such as not looking in the direction of the camera, not reading the case notes and so on. I have legal qualifications, so I know a bit more than “diddly squat” about the law. The interpreters needed to go because the case would have been unsafe otherwise. It was a shambles. What’s a shame is poor interpreting has hyjacked deaf people’s situation.
Ian
July 5, 2021
There were fully and highly qualified interpreters in the court audience who highlighted the inadequate level of interpretation. I’m sure you agree that we all need equal access and sadly this was not the case.
It was not just the accuracy of their signing that was highlighted. There were also glaring inaccuracies and omissions in the voice-over.
The fact that Clarion are refusing to provide any interpreters for this case from this point on is a concern. Full access, professional standards and high quality interpreting should be a prerequisite.
The judge actually asked the agency if they would supply different interpreters but they refused point blank. He said, “Clarion have effectively washed their hands of this”.
Interpreters and interpreting agencies have a duty to their counterparts as well as the deaf community not to accept jobs that lie well outside their comfort zone.
There have been complaints about Clarion and their interpreters in the past but nothing has changed.
Unfortunately there appears to be no proper regulation or monitoring of interpreting standards where legal proceedings are concerned.
The fact that Clarion have withdrawn their services from the case means they are in breach of their contract with the Ministry of Justice and this should be terminated.
Clarion have done a great disservice to the deaf community and the interpreting profession.
NatalyaD
July 5, 2021
Cathy, assuming because your experiences were good that other people must not be honest about what we witnessed is a bit insulting. Both interpreters were RSLI or MSLI and registered with NRCPD.
I was there. I was able to hear some of the speech because direct audio to hearing aids and good video sync (otherwise the software stank) and even I with not fully fluent BSL skills could tell that the interpretation was bad in some cases. There were many hearing BSL/English bilinguals who could determine more problems than I could.
Also I saw at least two long discussions between terps and judge about the interpreting which were not interpreted at all including one at the start and one in the middle where one of the interpreters was complaining about the critical feedback and thought he was in private… The claimant’s lawyer had to INSIST on this conversation being interpreted. The whole attitude of the terps towards deaf people in general was hostile, defensive and deeply patronising and paternalistic. They literally said ‘deaf people don’t need to see this’ which is the worst thing you can say to us “you don’t need to know”
I have personally had HUGE issues with STTR in the Ministry of Justice and the courts and have seen issues with other BSL provision in the MoJ/Courts.
I hope the deaf communities and good allies like some interpreters and NRCPD etc can pull together to fix the structural problems that led to this and other miscarriages of justice.
Penelope Beschizza
July 5, 2021
Thanks Roger, for your Lennon perspective of an archaic UK legal system which is as bad as the Government’s nil use of BSL access.
Chris bradley
July 5, 2021
It will be interesting to see if any interpreters are willing to put themselves in the view of criticism by taking on this job.
Kerena
July 6, 2021
I find this article extremely short sighted and limited to a single case and a single judge.
I am a Deaf Judicial Office Holder that is supported in my work by a pool of BSL interpreters that are a credit to court interpreting. I don’t sit on Deaf cases and it’s empowering to see BSL on this platform. This is evidence of how inclusive the MOJ is.
I was surprised that the appellants’ counsel failed to refer the judge to the MOJ’s Equal Treatment Book, which is regularly updated and under pins what we do and ensure inclusion and fair trials/hearings.
I do agree that the standard of court interpreting, bourne up by the successful upheld NRCPD complaints about court/police interpreters, is a concern. Their training needs to be looked at, as does the monopoly of a single agency providing this.
In defence of interpreters I do know that I am the only person who provides them with a briefing for each hearing. Whose responsibility is it to do this ? I feel the appellants counsel should have provided the interpreters with skeleton arguments, Scott schedule etc. They failed to do this.
Ian
July 6, 2021
It is very easy to pass judgement when you did not attend the hearing and don’t have the full facts.
The appellants solicitor tried many times to contact the interpreters beforehand to give them the necessary information and to allow them to prepare for the case but was ignored.
At the hearing the interpreters concerned admitted to the judge that they had not done any preparation for the hearing. This is totally unacceptable and a complete abdication of their responsibilities.