Court interpretation in Wales and the Republic of Ireland

Wales and the Republic of Ireland have an interesting pattern of bilingualism, in that both Welsh and Irish - as minority languages - have equal legislative status with English under the laws of both jurisdictions, and may be spoken in court at a party or witness's choosing. This status is augmented in the Irish case by the existence of Article 8.1 of the Constitution which provides that Irish is the first official language of the State. In both cases, the result of the legislative (and in Ireland's case constitutional) provision for the national minority language means that participants in court proceedings have a right to speak Welsh or Irish, without needing to demonstrate that the trial would otherwise be unfair. However, most speakers of Welsh and Irish alike are, or are considered to be, bilingual and therefore the use of these languages in legal settings is sometimes perceived to be unnecessary and problematic (see for example the judgment in Ó'Cadhla v Minister For Justice and Equality [2019] IEHC 503). This view which is reinforced where interpreters are used, because the the perception is that, given the assumed bilingualism of the interpreted-for party, an insistence on the provision of the service is indicative of an uncooperative or evasive character. More broadly, interpreters may also add an unfamiliar dynamic to the trial process which may have negative consequences in terms of ensuring a just evaluation, for witnesses who are evaluated on the basis of the interpreter's presentation, rather than on their own merits. This project seeks to explore how interpretation is used in legal proceedings, how listeners respond to a person speaking via an interpreter, and how members of the legal professions and those who interact with the trial process understand the risks, and potentials, of interpretation in Wales and Ireland. We are particularly keen to explore how the placing of the interpreter within the court, the characteristics of the interpreter (matters such as age, and sex) influence the listeners' evaluation of the witness, and the extent to which both members of the court (including legal professionals and parties to the case) and other listeners in court (including juries) are aware of this. Comparing the techniques of interpretation in Wales and the Republic of Ireland will also enable us to discover whether these factors are matters that arise in both simultaneous interpretation (used in Wales) and consecutive interpretation (used in Ireland), and to examine the role played by social and cultural perceptions of minority language users in the listening process. We are particularly keen to explore the impact of interpreted court proceedings on people who have higher levels of fluency in one language than another. Young children (interpreted, necessarily, by an adult interpreter) and people who have certain medical conditions, such as those recovering from Stroke, or those developing dementia, may be significantly more fluent in one language than in another. How these different capacities and vulnerabilities are accommodated, and impacted, by translation is a matter of discrete concern within our research. We aim, therefore, to bring together academics from Wales and Ireland, along with legal practitioners who represent clients in cases involving interpretation, interpreters, judges, and representatives from State departments to consider the following matters: a. how interpretation works in the two territories, b. the attitudes of listeners towards cases heard, and evidence presented, via an interpreter, c. the attitudes of listeners towards those who require an interpreter, d. the relationship between the speaker and the interpreter, and the extent to which the interpreter and the speaker are conflated, and e. the institutional awareness of the risks which interpretation presents, and the associated need for knowledge and training its use requires in legal setti