Today, in a remand court. Defendant has a tenuous grasp of English as his second (or third) language. Interpreter is not too good, and prosecutor is a mumbler who would come second to Mrs. Malaprop in an English test.
"So you attended the property that evening?" Blank stare, and interpreter doesn't look any more sure.
What's wrong with; "did you go to the house?"
So that's how the grumpy old chairman rephrased the question.
Based on your experience, and I suspect that of the majority of your readers, why do you think this is newsworthy - other than it is nice to hear of a direct approach to a problem by a magistrate?
ReplyDeleteWe all know that sadly if you’re not good enough to get a job as a solicitor in private practice you will get a job with the CPS or as a Local Authority Solicitor.
The interpreting situation is widely publicised as being crap and in reality most remand prisoners who deny they understand English probably do so as a ruse to attempt to delay the case.
Call me a cynic why don’t you?
What you say about solicitors may have had some truth in it a few years ago, but in the present climate with high street firms facing meltdown, a nice job in a Government legal post is highly desirable and is attracting high quality candidates.
DeleteI've spent nearly 30 years at the Bar, I can tell you there are mublers a plenty at the Bar, in th solicitors profession and the odd judge too. It is easy to have a dig at the CPS but in my experience there are some very good lawyers who work there. It is far too eay to knock the occasional odd-bod as representing the whole organisation. The work those guys and girls get through with limited resources is extrodianry.
DeleteUsing your rational then the court advisers are has-beens or failed solicitor/barristers otherwise they would have not signed up to be clerks etc etc
It is total bollocks that the CPS is staffed by people who do not know what they were doing. Actually for some particularly the femal child bearing variety, the CPS was always the wisest choice: Decent employer, good conditions, decent/flexible hours and a reasonable salary.
The difficulty with ‘a nice job in a Government Legal post’ is that within a few months, or years at the most, even the most energetic and committed person finds themselves worn down by the apathetic attitude that seems to pervade Local Authorities in particular.
DeleteThrough the years I have been employed, either directly or indirectly, by eleven different councils in a variety of roles, all of which had an aspect to them that involved contact with the legal system in one way or another.
Without exception in every position my peers and those with whom I had contact eventually accepted and developed their own levels of ineptitude, laziness, dishonesty and sickness(?) that is not accepted in the private sector.
I cannot think of one single former colleague in the public sector that I would employ in my own business.
@Tiptop. Mublers?
DeleteIn out area, the interpreters are at least competent, bearing in mind we don't have any defendants from countries with obscure languages. Most of those on our list come from the EU (this country included) so interpretation is not a real problem.
ReplyDeleteServe the grumpy old chairman right, for not appointing an - obviously needed- interpreter for the prosecutor as well.
ReplyDeleteDon't! One day that might not be a joke. Remember that Southwark Crown Court send out jury summons in eight different languages to ensure that immigrants are not denied their right to be a juror.
DeletePerhaps one day everyone in court will wear a headset and be listening to proceedings in their mother tongue, as interpreted by some dodgy software.
One of my pet hates is language that people don't understand. Why do we talk about custody? Even many of those without English as their first language will understand the word prison. Then there is that awful 'deemed served'. Why not 'as you have been locked up since XX.XX you will not actually have to pay the fine. If you hadn't been locked up, you would have done.'
ReplyDeletealongside 'deemed served' you could add 'remitted' - and then there's the drink drive rehab. courses being referred to by the name of the operator eg HAPAS...
DeleteNormal Bloke, I can get by in French and in German socially, but if I was the defendant in a criminal trial and that was the language of the court I would want an interpreter.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I once had to help out when a German interpreter (rarely seen in criminal courts and more used to the language of the civil courts) did not understand the expression "Deemed served" - which I then translated, from the Chair, into German. The legal adviser said "You can't do that, Sir" and I said "Have you got a better idea". And the interpreter thanked me for teaching her something new and tickled my vanity by calling me Wuerdiger!
If I had been that interpreter, I wouldn't have appreciated what you did at all. Interpreting is not a collaborative effort to which everyone who knows a little bit about the language can contribute. How can we know that what you told the interpreter is the correct expression or circumlocation in German? How can she know? If an interpreter doesn't understand a term, that's tough, but by no means can you just intervene! A better idea would have been for the person who uttered the term to reformulate it in other words. By the way, I have no idea what the German interpreter was trying to say by calling you "Wuerdiger". What does that mean? Mind you, I'm a professional German interpreter.
DeleteI did not interpret at all. I just put a poorly phrased question that was in 'lawyerese' into Englidh.
DeleteWell, before, you said you translated the phrase "deemed served" into German, i.e. you tried to help her with the interpreting. But regardless of what you did: no one except for the speaker who gets interpreted and the interpreter should say anything during interpreting.
DeleteBy the way, a qualified court interpreter is supposed to understand legalese and to translate it appropriately.
DeleteYou have assumed the commentator Andrewofgg is Bystander Team. He is in fact someone placing a comment just as you have done.
DeleteI spent many years as an international conference interpreter (and German is one of my languages) MU, and in all that time never once came across the notion of 'circumlocation' as a linguistic (or other) device. I presume you may have been struggling to find the word 'circumlocution' (which essentially means a long-winded way of saying something - rather like the prosecutor here!). There may well be times when the use of such periphrastic expressions is deliberate. For example, by saying "property", one doesn't predefine its nature. It could have been a flat, bungalow, house, chalet, or static caravan, for example. It is conceivable that s/he didn't want to reveal that fact at this particular stage of the proceedings.
DeleteThe quality of interpretation overall has undoubtedly suffered since the change to a national contract. Some of the new interpreters provided have been clearly inadequate, and when that has been the case (it is often the defendant or witness who will say so!), a report is always made.
Like Andrew, I would also opt to have an interpreter if facing criminal charges in another country, even one where I speak the language. I have never worked in the courts. I never blame people for taking interpreters, even if they have a good day-to-day command of English.
I was always grateful (and judged delegates' experience inter alia on the basis of their understanding of the rôle of the interpreter) when they either reformulated an expression with which I was struggling (I remember being thrown at the last minute into a meeting on boat scantlings, for example, a subject I know little about, and had had no time to prepare for) or simply told me what they thought it was in English, French, German or whatever. That was obviously easier when working in consecutive (or 'chuchotage' = whispered interpretation) than from the booth in simultaneous interpretation.
My own practice in court is not to supply the expression / word etc., but rather to ask the speaker to clarify things for my benefit (and incidentally everyone else's too).
P.S. I assume that Andrew meant that the interpreter used "würdiger" ('worthy') adjectivally as an honorific in the same register as "My learned friend" (the term used between barristers - who call solicitors "My friend").
From Me 2 EU
SouthLondonJP, yes, I realised that just after posting my comment. However, what would his statement mean and why would he place it here if he wasn't the same person as Bystander?
DeleteSorry, I meant what would Bystander Team's comment do in the place where it is if he wasn't Andrewofgg?
DeleteHaving no German myself, I make no judgment upon Mirjam Urfur’s difficulty in understanding ‘Wuerdiger’. I merely report that the Babylon on-line translation offers “dignified, honourable (sic), worthy of respect, worthy, respected, valuable”, which seems clear enough. Doubtless there must here be some subtlety of language that prevents a “professional German interpreter” from seeing this or any meaning.
DeleteNot me guv.
DeleteAnonymous, I'm very sorry to say that, but "circumlocation" is a term I learned in one of my first classes of linguistics at uni. In translation and interpreting, it's a very important technical term and I'm extremely surprised that you say you never came across it. It's almost as if a Freudian psychiatrist said he'd never come across the term "id".
DeleteAs for "Wuerdiger", Anonymous, Bystander Team claimed that the interpreter called him "Wüerdiger", which definitely isn't an adjective (why would he have capitalised it?) and even if it was meant to be an adjective, it would have had to be accompanied by a noun, as in the English expression you mentioned. Now, I admit that in very rare situations, you may find someone who calls someone else using a nominalised adjective, e.g. "Lieber", but in such cases "Lieber" would be accompanied by a possessive pronoun, i.e. "mein Lieber". And to be honest, I can't think of many situations and indeed of many adjectives that would be used in such a way. A nominalised adjective could certainly not be used in a courtroom - or for that matter at a conference - for one simple reason: it implies that the speaker is addressing the addressee informally ("Du"), whereas in a court setting you would always have to use the formal address ("Sie"). I hope I have explained what the "subtlety" was, Sub Rosa, why in this context "Würdiger" really doesn't mean anything at all.
the wa
If my memory stretches back accurately just over fifty years to my school German lessons, "wuerdiger" and its equivalent for other vowels, was the English language convention for transcribing German without access to an umlaut on the typewriter. As such it would understandably be incomprehensible to a German language interpreter who has the benefit of being too young to have encountered it. Team Bystander, on the other hand, clearly includes greybeards like myself.
DeleteAnonymous, you said: "For example, by saying "property", one doesn't predefine its nature. It could have been a flat, bungalow, house, chalet, or static caravan, for example. It is conceivable that s/he didn't want to reveal that fact at this particular stage of the proceedings."
DeleteI completely agree with you and that's exactly why people can't just throw in their two cents worth during the interpreting process and that's why I repeat the fact that a qualified interpreter is supposed to know and understand legalese and - wherever possible - to interpret it accurately.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIan Hurdley, no, the "ue" spelling of the umlaut is not the issue. This is not an obsolete way of writing umlauts at all. The issue is the use of a nominalised adjective as an address of a person in a courtroom.
DeleteAs a native German linguist, I can savely say that "Würdiger" is not something a native speaker would say to address anyone.
"As for "Wuerdiger", Anonymous, Bystander Team claimed that the interpreter called him "Wüerdiger","
DeleteOh dear MU you just don't get it do you? Bystander Team said NOTHING about translating into German. It was an entirely different poster. Your refusal to understand that is worrying. People are entirely free to post and comment on blogs. That is part of what blogging is about.Please do not accuse people of saying things that they haven't.
Mirjam, in the British courts (Magistrates' and Crown), the person(s) on the bench are addressed by the advocates either as "Your Worship" (Magistrates) or "Your Honour" (Judges). In this context, "Würdiger Herr"/"Würdige Frau" is perhaps no more than an attempt to transpose British usage into German - always a dangerous path, whatever the languages involved.
DeleteSouthLondonJP, I did get it, I simply mixed up the names. I'm interested in what happened, not in who did it. Sorry for the mix-up.
DeleteIan Hurdley, I'm well aware of this. As I said, I make a living as a legal translator and interpreter. If the interpreter had said "würdiger Herr", that would be acceptable, of course, but that's not the nominalised adjective I was taking issue with. And still, it is not really something a native German speaker would say in a courtroom in the 21st century.
Moreover, all this is besides the point. One major aspect of interpreting is for the interpreter not to bring himself/herself into the interaction that they are interpreting. A personal address such as "würdiger Herr" places far too much focus on the interpreter himself/herself, because it contains what we call an "author's standpoint" in applied linguistics, i.e. the interpreter tells the addressee what he/she thinks about him/her. There are official ways to address advocates and magistrates in German too, and "Würdiger" is certainly not one of them.
Why is it so hard for you guys here to believe me when I talk about my profession and standards which should be widely known within courts? No wonder interpreting a certain person had to call interpreting services "shambolic" in the UK.
MU, I am disturbed both by your obstinacy and inability to understand what people have written.
DeleteFirstly, please enlighten me re the word "circumlocation" (with one u and one a). I can't see what you possibly mean.
Secondly, my suggestion that the German interpreter used "würdiger" adjectivally implied that in all likelihood it was accompanied by a noun (as adjectives usually are). Your contortions around this word are concerning. Several perfectly normal expressions suggest themselves to me, but then I'm just an old German conference interpreter.
Your constant mixing up of who said what is also a bit disconcerting. My own comments were identified as being "From Me 2 EU" and conventionally one would identify a post from me by an abbreviation such as FM2E or the like.
From Me 2 EU
From Me 2 EU, what did I not understand? The only problem was that I mixed up the names of andrewofgg and Bystander Team. This happened because I'm really not interested in WHO did what but in WHAT actually happened.
DeleteAll I'm talking about is interpreting standards during court hearings and the fact that it's unacceptable that anyone else other than the speaker or the interpreter talk during the interpreting process, as the legal adviser in the above mentioned situation rightly said. I'm interested in seeing standards maintained. That's all, and for anyone to just chuck in something they believe is the translation of a term in another language shows severe lack of respect for interpreting standards' being maintained.
Of course, it's "circumlocution" with a "u". I'm sorry, I made a typo when I spelled it with an "a". Was that all you had to object or did you not come across "circumlocution" either? It's a technical term for describing something in other words, which is what I suppose andrewofgg did when he "translated" "deemed served" into German.
I'm really not wanting to accuse you of anything, but did you not say that you never worked as a court interpreter? Why then is it so hard for you to believe something a legal translator & interpreter tells you about her profession?
Also, you said that German is one of your languages, right? So, I assume it's not your native language. In this case you may not be aware of certain nuances in which we German native speakers understand a term. Andrewofogg clearly didn't use the term as an adjective accompanied by a noun because he capitalised it. Did you actually read my explanations as to why "Würdiger" the way it was suggested wouldn't be anything a German native speaker would say, and why even "würdiger Herr" would be suboptimal in the context of court interpreting?
Our interpreters vary form the wonderful (one of our Polish interpreters is also legally qualified and does a superb job) to appalling or non existant in that they fail to turn up. Our CPS prosecutors are also variable. Our defence solicitors are, on the whole, pretty good (a few long-winded ones, but we deal with that). My favourite is one who often says "my client is a complete idiot, and knows it". There are days when you know all is going to go well, and days when your heart sinks when you look at the list, and are told of the vcases which have interpreters and who your duty and CPS are.
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean interpreters don't have to be registered or prove their ability? If so a defence brief could make a strong point over a mistranslation. Maybe even have the case dismissed.
DeleteNo. interpreters are registered, but the issue of their management ha sbeen live for a year and more. Just do a search on the blog (top left) for interpreter.
DeleteI have seen some superb prosecutors in magistrates court.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience where mediocre advocates are exposed is often in cross-examination.
Mediocre cases are also exposed in cross-examination.
DeleteStandard cross x:
ReplyDeleteyou lied didn't you ! a: No
your a liar aren't you! a: No
your a dishonest fellow aren't you..........defendant nods off
No further questions
At least the short list above are all questions. A lawyer making a statement, followed by staring at the witness does not a question make.
ReplyDeleteI remember a trial when a lawyer was told more than once to ask questions. Eventually the witness had had enough. The lawyer made a statement, yet again, followed by looking at the witness. The witness said nothing. The lawyer then said to the witness "Please answer the question", to which the witness replied "I will when you actually ask me something".
I am going to call a halt to the wrangles about who said what, as there is a lot of confusion above.
ReplyDeleteMy post was a simple comment on so many lawyers' inability to use simple uncluttered English rather than legal expressions that will not be properly understood by defendants, especially those whose first language is not English. When I chair a court I sometimes see it as my duty to clarify and to ensure that all parties understand what is going on.