Sabine Braun and Judith

s/23_abstract_Videoconferencing_Norway.pdf; http://www.ccbe.org/fileadmin/user_upload/document/E-Justice_Portal/17-18_02_2009/ Presentations/23_Videoconferencing_in_Norwegian_courts.pdf 34 http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/808333.html 35 http://www.lantech.co.ke/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57&Itemid=74 36 http://www.supremecourt.tas.gov.au/about_us/courtroom_technology/ video_conferencing_guidelines 37 http://www.supremecourt.tas.gov.au/about_us/courtroom_technology/ video_conferencing_guidelines Video-mediated interpreting: an overview of current practice and research | 47 Other than this example, available reports on video-mediated interpreting in criminal proceedings focus on ‘remote interpreting’ (RI). Such reports are mostly from the United States. Therefore, the remainder of this section is based on information available from the US, where both VCI and RI are widely used. Video-based interpreting in US courts A general assessment of video-based interpreting in US criminal courts was given in 2009 by the United States’ National Center for State Courts: States that have integrated videoconferencing into the courtroom report the advantage of expediency in providing language services when no interpreter is available on-site, and when they use credentialed in-state interpreters, there is no question about the quality of the service. In addition, most of the systems available are portable, mobile, wireless, and fairly simple to incorporate into the existing courtroom network. This method is already being successfully used by courts for arraignments and jail interviews, and the possibilities of additional areas of use are limitless. (Green & Romberger 2009: 2)38 The authors imply a potentially wide range of settings of both videoconference and remote interpreting but do not give a description of the details, e.g. the effect of having the interpreter at different locations, nor is it clear from whose point of view this method of interpreting is “successful”. As previously shown, such statements are not unknown in relation to video-based interpreting (see GDISC project in section 3.2.1), but they clash with some of the research findings in relation to legal videoconferencing, VCI in legal proceedings and remote conference interpreting. Yet, as in immigration, the appeals by researchers (and some legal professionals) for caution have not stopped the use of VC in legal proceedings (with or without an interpreter) nor the use of VC technology for remote interpreting. The examples below show that RI is common practice in US court rooms. In many cases, the interpretation is delivered in simultaneous mode. Remote interpreting in the Circuit Courts in Florida, USA A prominent example of the use of remote interpreting is the Ninth Circuit Court in Florida, which introduced a central interpreter hub in 2007 to address the challenge of having to interpreters for over 25,000 court hearings each year with only eight employed interpreters and a reduced budget for hiring freelance interpreters. The situation was exacerbated by the fact that the Ninth Judicial Circuit covers sixty-seven courtrooms spread over more than 2,000 square miles, entailing high travel costs for interpreters.39 In other words, the introduction of this hub was mainly a cost-cutting exercise. The interpreter hub serves all judicial locations that fall under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Judicial Circuit from a single point (one of the court houses). The interpreters’ 38 http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/accessfair&CISOPTR= 184&CISOBOX=1&REC=1 39 http://www.ninthcircuit.org/programs-services/court-interpreter/downloads/ CentralizedInterpretingPresentation.pdf 48 | Sabine Braun and Judith L. Taylor workstations are configured to provide remote simultaneous interpreting.40 A demo video is available at the court website.41 Source: Ninth Judicial Circuit Court, Florida, USA A study of the interpreters’ workload appears to have taken place, but it is not clear how the figures were gathered (for example, with regard to the savings made by using remote interpreting). In any case, the results of the study are mainly couched in financial terms. For the most part, the need for freelance interpreters (as opposed to the staff interpreters, who are directly employed), has diminished, due in part to the fact that a single staff interpreter now provides remote services to several locations. Travel time for staff interpreters has also been reduced. Since January 2008, there has reportedly been a 16% reduction in spending on staff interpreter services.42 In the meantime, other circuit courts followed, and a report published by the Commission on Trial Court Performance & Accountability of the Supreme Court of Florida in 2010 states that “13 circuits report using some remote audio or audio/video technology to provide court interpreting services”.43 The report provides some guidelines for the use of RI via video link, similar to the guidelines developed by other courts in the 40 The interpreters’ workstations are equipped with Pentium Dual Core computers, audio and visual network connectivity, dual 17”-19” monitors, and analogue touch-tone telephones. The courtroom is fitted out with an audio-mixer-biamp flex (12 microphone units, telephone interface card with two inputs), a video camera (security camera on network), and headphones (3 per courtroom). – http://www.ninthcircuit.org/programs-services/court-interpreter/downloads/ CentralizedInterpretingPresentation.pdf 41 http://www.ninthcircuit.org/programs-services/court-interpreter/centralized-interpreting/ 42 http://www.ninthcircuit.org/programs-services/court-interpreter/downloads/ CentralizedInterpretingPresentation.pdf 43 Recommendations for the Provision of Court Interpreting Services in Florida’s Trial Courts; http://www.remoteinterpreting.com/media/PDFs/TCP&A_Full_Recommend.pdf, p. 51. Video-mediated interpreting: an overview of current practice and research | 49 US (see Wisconsin example below), and also highlights some of the shortcomings of remote interpreting via telephone, which have entailed that some courts “choose not to use the services”.44 Remote interpreting in Arizona Municipal Court, Mesa The Arizona Municipal Court in Mesa (US) introduced new videoconference equipment in 2009, mainly to cater for video links between courts and prisons (Webster 2009).45 The feasibility was evaluated by the National Centre for State Courts. The evaluation report touches on the issue of the interpretation: [A] critical issue is the role of the interpreter. The interpreter may be needed during conversations with the financial officer, public defender, prosecutor, and clerk. The interpreter also is needed during the court hearing. Finally, an interpreter may be required by the victim or witnesses. Careful choreography is required to ensure that the interpreter is available at the right time in each of these areas. The use of interpreters adds a layer of complexity to the design of a videoconferencing solution. (Webster 2009: 5) No comment is offered on other potential issues with the interpretation. However, the report makes some interesting technical observations: Control over the audio-video environment is essential. At present, the court has a panel of button presets for various arrangements of speakers, interpreters, etc. In the new videoconferencing environment, this control must include the video feed, as well. (2009: 13) Full duplex audio is required. Since two videoconferencing signals are recommended, the audio signal for one link can work in one direction, and the audio signal for the second link can function in the other direction. Without full duplex audio, interpreters must change their approach to translation from simultaneous to sequential, which will slow the proceedings. (2009: 14) This suggests that as in the Florida circuit courts, the interpretation is routinely delivered in the simultaneous mode, a situation that is partially different from the situation in most European countries (see Braun & Taylor on the AVIDICUS surveys this volume). Remote interpreting in the Wisconsin Court Interpreters’ Program, US The Wisconsin Court Interpreter Program is another example of a coordinated effort to use remote interpreting in order to keep costs down and to gain timely access to an interpreter (Wisconsin Court Interpreter Program 2010). The programme has used remote interpreting in consecutive mode via both video link and telephone for a number of years and has developed guidelines for the use of remote interpreting in a courtroom setting. These include recommendations for when RI can be used and when it should not be used. 44 Recommendations for the Provision of Court Interpreting Services in Florida’s Trial Courts; http://www.remoteinterpreting.com/media/PDFs/TCP&A_Full_Recommend.pdf, p. 55. 45 http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=708