2026-01-27

141. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration if he proposes to introduce new legislation in relation to the interpretation and translation in legal proceedings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6115/26]

Many people will be surprised to learn that there is no set quality or standard in respect to interpretation and translation in legal proceedings in this State. Many would argue it is undermining our criminal justice system. Is it the Minister's intention to bring forward legislation or regulations on the use of language interpreters in court?

I thank Deputy Carthy for his question. It is probably motivated by the "First Conviction" documentary that was on RTÉ in November of last year. It highlighted a conviction that was overturned by the Court of Appeal back in November 2021 on the grounds that court thought the interpretation services that were provided to the accused were unsatisfactory. I think the Court of Appeal judgment referred to very serious inaccuracies in the translation. The Deputy will be aware we have legislation in place to govern the quality of translation in our courts. It is set out in SI 565 of 2013 on interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. It transposes EU Directive No. 64 of 2010. It says that a person who appears in a criminal court "shall have the right to the assistance, at no cost, of an interpreter as set out in these Regulations". It also sets out provisions in respect of the quality of interpretation. If the quality is not sufficient, obviously the court can direct that the interpreter be replaced. That is given practical effect in our courts by the Courts Service entering into a contract with an entity or entities that provide those translation services. I am satisfied that in the vast majority of cases the quality of the translation services provided is sufficient and professional. What was surprising in the particular case that was overturned on appeal is the fact the language in the court was French, rather than something more exotic. When accused people are before the courts they will have their own legal representation and if there is any issue in respect of the quality of translation services then, as the regulation, provides, they can be set aside.

The Minister referenced a 2021 case. The Court of Appeal found "serious, and potentially far-reaching, inaccuracies" in that case. The interpreter in that case had assisted in more than 240 other cases that had been before the courts. After that judgment the interpreter continued to work in that role for another 40 cases. I find it hard to believe the Minister does not accept this case highlights that having no regulation - no competency tests - in respect of interpretation can potentially undermine our justice system. It is not just about the right to a fair trial and to have an interpreter, which is important, but it is also about the very real potential that a failing in this regard could result in an actual criminal managing to overturn a conviction. In a note from the Courts Service to the justice committee on this issue, the head of that service stated the court or any party to the case can request that the interpreter be replaced, but does the Minister accept the problem is that the person before the courts or their representative might not be in a position to identify the problem with the interpretation they are receiving? I take it the Minister is saying he has full confidence in the system as it stands.

Every day of the week there are a series of cases going on in the Central Criminal Court and in the circuit criminal court for which translation services are required. That is part of the consequence of having a multicultural society in which people from all backgrounds end up as witnesses or accused before the court. Any person who is accused of a criminal offence and who needs the services of a translator will have their own legal solicitor and counsel representing them. I suggest to the Deputy that it will become readily apparent if the translation services being provided are not adequate. What is surprising is that it took the Court of Appeal to intervene in this particular case. However, if there were further issues and ongoing issues with translation services I would expect to see a whole series of convictions being quashed or translators being set aside by the court, but that is not happening. This was a serious matter, but it was an isolated example and there are measures and protections in place to deal with poor quality in translation services.

Is the Minister seriously saying he will wait until there is a series of overturned convictions before he acts on what is clearly a gaping problem? He is right that the State pays a significant amount to companies under contracts for translation services, but the translators, it has to be said, are fairly poorly paid. I have to ask the Minister what checks are in place, through the Courts Service or An Garda Síochána, to ensure interpreting is of a good standard. Are there digital audio or video recordings? Are they checked independently? Best practice across the world, including in our nearest neighbours' country, is that regulations that can be upheld have been put in place. The Association of Translators and Interpreters Ireland has repeatedly called for the regulation of court interpreters in Ireland. It has argued that the current unregulated system risks miscarriages of justice, violates the right of defendants to a fair trial and creates a potential scenario where people who are guilty of offences can find a route to being released on a technicality. Therefore, I have to ask again. Will the Minister ensure we put in place a system that can have public confidence?

The public can have full confidence in this. What happens in practice is that the Courts Service enters a contract with translation providers, those being, companies that provide translation services. A fundamental requirement of that contract is that the contracted company must ensure interpreters possess the qualifications and competence appropriate to the tasks for which they are employed. The contract agreed under the central procurement framework sets the standards for interpreters supplied to the Courts Service. There are procedures in place to ensure the quality of the interpreters and translators being provided is adequate. In the unusual situation that does not happen, it can be, and generally is, readily apparent in a court room. If it happened in the Dáil and translation or interpretation services were being provided, the individual would be aware that the communication was not being provided adequately. There are mechanisms for checking this-----

What are the mechanisms?

-----but this is not an issue in terms of undermining public confidence in the criminal justice system. It is a confident system.