Avidicus Comparative Studies – Part I: Traditional Interpreting and Remote Interpreting in Police Interviews

One of the major aims of the AVIDICUS project was to assess the viability and reliability of video-mediated interpreting in criminal proceedings from an interpreting perspective. There are already many instances of video-mediated interpreting in criminal proceedings (and other legal proceedings), and given the new European Directive on the rights to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings,1 which allows the use of videoconferencing to gain access to qualified legal interpreters, the extent of videomediated interpreting in this area of justice is likely to rise. However, there is a dearth of systematic research in this area. To the best of our knowledge, no study has systematically investigated the quality of the interpreters’ performance in videomediated interpreting in criminal proceedings. In addition, research on video-mediated interpreting conducted in other areas has generated mixed findings, depending on the setting investigated and the research methods used (see Braun & Taylor’s contribution on current practice in this volume for an overview). Videoconferencing technology is often introduced in the judicial system to save costs. Sossin & Yetnikoff (2007: 248) argue (albeit with reference to immigration) that “questions of financial resources and structures” cannot be separated “from the question of fairness and reasonableness” of judicial decision-making. Procedural fairness is closely linked to the quality of the communication, and in national and transnational cases involving more than one language the quality of the interpretation is a crucial element. A sufficient quality of interpreting performance must therefore be regarded as a conditio sine qua non for the use of video-mediated interpreting in criminal proceedings. The question of the viability of video-mediated interpreting must override all considerations of potential financial savings, especially if it turns out that the use of video-mediated interpreting changes the proceedings beyond what is acceptable to ensure procedural fairness. At the same time, the potential benefits of videoconferencing, when appropriately used, must not be cursorily dismissed, especially at a time when the European effort to strengthen the rights of European citizens to translation and interpreting in criminal proceedings and the ensuing likely growth of demand for legal interpreting in Europe coincide – and sometimes compete – with financial constraints imposed on Public Service institutions. It was with a view to the absence of research-based guidance and in anticipation of the increasing use of video-mediated interpreting in criminal proceedings that the AVIDICUS project set out to investigate the quality of interpreting in such circumstances.