Interpreting for jurors

Abstract

<p>Jury studies have largely focused on examining lay jurors’ ability to understand legal instructions, revealing jurors’ comprehension difficulties. The comprehension issue can be further exacerbated in cases where jurors do not speak English as their native language. The author's newly conducted study found that Chinese jurors face comprehension difficulties with both legal terminology and non-technical language in English-medium trials, most likely due to their insufficient knowledge of the English language, indicating the need for interpreting services. Interpreting for defendants who do not speak or have limited proficiency of the language used in criminal proceedings is a standard service in jurisdictions that have ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The use of interpreting services for jurors as the fact finders about the charge facing the defendant, however, remains contentious.<br></p><p>This paper examines two Hong Kong appellate courts’ divergent decisions on an appeal which contested the trial judge’s permission for some jurors to access the Cantonese interpretation provided for the defendant while other jurors listened to the English original. The trial court’s decision was upheld and the appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, which argued that the arrangement was constitutional, albeit unprecedented, as both English and Chinese are official languages in Hong Kong. Additionally, there was no evidence to suggest that the interpretation had been inaccurate. The Court of Final Appeal, however, unanimously allowed the appeal and ruled that the arrangement was undesirable and potentially comprised the defendant’s right to a fair trial. It argued that jurors listening to the interpretation and those listening to the original speech might not be receiving the same instructions in case of inaccuracy in the interpretation.<br></p><p>This paper discusses the implications of the courts’ rulings and arguments for the practice of court interpreting, on which the Hong Kong judicial system has long relied for the delivery of justice. It argues that providing interpretation for jurors enables local jurors to better understand court proceedings conducted in English, which is conducive to enlarging the jury pool, thus increasing the representativeness of the jury in Hong Kong. This, in return, helps safeguard defendants’ right to a fair trial and their right to trial by peers.</p>