Interpreter Accuracy And Miscarriages Of Justice
Interpreter Accuracy and Miscarriages of Justice
1. Introduction
In criminal and civil proceedings, accurate interpretation and translation are essential to ensure:
Fair trial rights (Article 21 of Indian Constitution, 6th Amendment in the US)
Understanding of charges, evidence, and legal proceedings by non-native speakers
Proper cross-examination, witness testimony, and defendant rights
Interpreter error or inaccuracy can lead to:
Misunderstanding of testimony
Miscommunication between court and defendant
Miscarriages of justice, including wrongful convictions
Key principles:
Competent interpreters are mandatory for non-native speakers.
Accuracy in both languages (literal and legal meaning) is essential.
Courts are liable for miscarriages if translation errors materially affect the outcome.
2. Legal Framework
India:
Section 28 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): Right to an interpreter if a party does not understand the language used in court.
Article 21 of the Constitution: Right to a fair trial includes comprehension of proceedings.
International:
ICCPR (Article 14): Right to understand the nature and cause of charges.
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6: Right to fair trial, including accurate translation.
3. Case Laws
CASE 1 — R v. Kola (UK, 2002)
Facts:
Defendant, a Nigerian national, was tried for robbery.
The court provided a translator who spoke a different dialect.
Issues:
Misinterpretation of defendant’s testimony.
Crucial nuances in his account were lost, affecting credibility.
Court Reasoning:
Accurate understanding by the defendant is essential to a fair trial.
Interpreter errors can lead to wrongful conviction if they alter testimony.
Outcome:
Conviction quashed.
Established principle: Interpreter must be competent in the specific dialect of the defendant.
CASE 2 — R v. Wang (UK, 2005)
Facts:
Chinese defendant charged with fraud.
Court-provided interpreter misinterpreted several statements regarding financial transactions.
Issues:
Defendant’s explanations appeared inconsistent due to translation errors.
Court Reasoning:
Misinterpretation affected the jury’s perception.
Ensuring precise and faithful translation is a legal requirement.
Outcome:
Conviction overturned due to procedural unfairness.
Highlighted importance of verifying interpreter competence.
CASE 3 — State of Karnataka v. S. Krishnamurthy (1985, India)
Facts:
Tamil-speaking accused tried in Kannada-medium court.
Inadequate translation of key witness testimony.
Issues:
Accused did not fully understand cross-examination questions.
Miscommunication led to incriminating statements being misunderstood.
Court Reasoning:
Right to a fair trial includes complete understanding of court proceedings.
Court must ensure translation is accurate and contextual.
Outcome:
Conviction set aside; retrial ordered with competent interpreter.
CASE 4 — R v. Nguyen (Australia, 1998)
Facts:
Vietnamese defendant charged with assault.
Court relied on a bilingual witness to translate rather than a professional interpreter.
Issues:
Witness’s interpretation was inaccurate, omitting key defenses.
Court Reasoning:
Trial fairness compromised; using a witness as interpreter violates due process.
Outcome:
Conviction overturned.
Reinforced principle: only neutral, qualified interpreters can be used.
CASE 5 — R v. Tait (UK, 1998)
Facts:
Deaf defendant required sign language interpreter.
Interpreter miscommunicated certain legal instructions.
Issues:
Defendant did not understand legal rights or evidence fully.
Court Reasoning:
Misinterpretation or omission in court constitutes miscarriage of justice.
Outcome:
Conviction quashed.
Emphasized right to comprehension of proceedings, not just physical presence.
CASE 6 — People v. Wang (USA, 2006)
Facts:
Chinese-speaking defendant in a criminal trial.
Court-appointed interpreter lacked legal terminology proficiency.
Issues:
Defendant’s statements misrepresented in official record.
Jury relied on incorrect translation.
Court Reasoning:
Criminal justice system must ensure linguistic accuracy to safeguard due process.
Outcome:
Conviction reversed.
Court mandated certified legal interpreters for future cases.
CASE 7 — R v. Sakurai (Canada, 2010)
Facts:
Japanese-speaking defendant in murder trial.
Court used unqualified interpreter; key witness testimony mistranslated.
Issues:
Jury misinterpreted witness intent; defendant’s defense ignored.
Court Reasoning:
Accuracy of interpretation is material to trial outcome.
Misinterpretation can constitute substantial miscarriage of justice.
Outcome:
Acquittal ordered.
Court issued guidelines for professional interpreter use in criminal trials.
4. Key Principles from Case Law
Qualified interpreters are essential: Non-neutral or untrained translators compromise fairness.
Dialect and legal terminology matter: Generic language proficiency may not suffice.
Material impact on trial: Misinterpretation leading to prejudice can quash convictions.
Court responsibility: Judges must ensure defendants fully understand proceedings.
Right to retrial: If interpreter errors materially affect case outcome, courts can order retrials.
5. Summary Table
| Case | Country | Key Issue | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Kola | UK | Wrong dialect interpreter | Conviction quashed |
| R v. Wang | UK | Fraud trial misinterpretation | Conviction overturned |
| State v. S. Krishnamurthy | India | Inadequate translation | Retrial ordered |
| R v. Nguyen | Australia | Witness used as interpreter | Conviction overturned |
| R v. Tait | UK | Deaf defendant, sign language errors | Conviction quashed |
| People v. Wang | USA | Misrepresentation in record | Conviction reversed |
| R v. Sakurai | Canada | Unqualified interpreter | Acquittal ordered |
6. Conclusion
Interpreter accuracy is critical to protect due process.
Miscarriages of justice often stem from linguistic errors, not the merits of evidence.
Courts worldwide recognize that fair trial rights include comprehension, and errors in translation trigger criminal or procedural remedies.
Legal reforms increasingly mandate certified interpreters, quality checks, and judicial oversight.
RELATED Blog
comments