What to Expect When Giving Evidence as a Court Interpreter or Translator
If you're an interpreter or translator called to give evidence in court about your work, there are a few important things to understand, especially regarding your professional oath/affirmation and responsibilities.
Understanding the Oath
You will have sworn (or, like me, affirmed) to perform your duties as best as your "skill and understanding" permit.
TIP: you should always add “to the best of my skill and understanding" to your certificate of translation too, even if a client provides their template.
Let’s break that down:
To the best of my skill
This means you are only accountable for what you are reasonably capable of delivering, based on your training, qualifications, and experience.
It covers situations such as:
You didn’t know a specific term or concept;
You thought you knew something, but when giving evidence realised you were mistaken back then.
You cannot be penalised for genuine errors that arise within the limits of your professional competence (and, for clarity, that does not make you a worse professional).
The only instance of being punished would be if you had deliberately made a mistake.
To the best of my understanding
This means you are only responsible for what you were able to comprehend at the time you were interpreting, translating, or transcribing.
This applies when:
You misheard or misread something;
You thought something was said or written, but it wasn’t;
You didn’t hear or read something at all.
All three examples can happen for various reasons. Errors may happen when speech is too fast, sentences are too long, or the sound quality is poor due to acoustics, or people talking too quietly. None of these situations warrant punishment, unless the mistake was intentional.
Your Duty to the Court
Court interpreters play a vital role in ensuring access to justice. If something interferes with your ability to interpret accurately, for instance, say a speaker is talking too quickly, too quietly, or using overly complex language, you have a duty to raise it with the court. Even if that speaker is the judge. It may well be their style, but it needs to be adjusted to what you are able to process (they depend on you): clarification, shorter sentences, and repetitions are within the rules of the game and you must request them if you need.
You can raise your hand and wait to be acknowledged, but keep in mind that if you're not in the witness box, most people in the courtroom will have their backs to you. This is why clear, respectful interruptions are not just acceptable; they are essential. If the interpreter cannot process the message, the hearing cannot continue. This is part of your responsibility to the court and to the interest of justice.
It is also perfectly okay to not carry on with an assignment if you are struggling to understand an accent (or vice-versa). But if a speaker uses a word or phrase and you want to ask for clarification, two things are important:
1. Speak about yourself in the third person so they know the question is coming from you;
2. If clarification has to do with what the person giving evidence has said, ask the court if the interpreter could clarify something before asking them to repeat and say whatever you need to in English first. That allows both counsel and the judge to know you are not engaging in a side conversation.
If you are interpreting and suddenly realise you have made a mistake, just say: "the interpreter has made a mistake", and provide the correct interpretation. And don’t dwell on it afterwards. I always say, "For the record, the speaker said X and interpreter has said Y, but the interpreter should have said Z". Where applicable, I mention that there was an ambiguity somewhere. And then I move on, happily ever after. And oh, I have had instances where I, for example, asked counsel to say "you both" in a case where you could have been singular or plural in my language, which they wouldn't have guessed.
With handwritten documents you may simply write [unintelligible]. When transcribing, if you can't hear or understand something, just state [inaudible]. Never try to guess what was said or written.
Giving Evidence as an Expert
Now the fun bit: suppose you fulfilled your duty to the court. When giving evidence about your interpreting, transcription or translation work, remember: YOU are the expert. It is likely that the barrister cross-examining you does not speak your language, and even if they do, they are unlikely to be a trained linguist. And if they are, well, you can still agree to disagree.
They may challenge you, but remember that’s part of their role - they want the court to adopt their case - but you are entitled to explain your choices and to stand by your interpretation if you believe it is correct. You can also disagree with the interpretation being suggested.
Here’s a couple of suggestions on what to say:
With all due respect, in my professional opinion my interpretation is accurate.
I have carefully considered the context, and I stand by my interpretation.
I understand the point being raised, but my interpretation is consistent with the speaker’s intent.
What if You Realise You’ve Made a Mistake?
Mistakes happen, and acknowledging them does not damage your reputation, especially because you are not bound by perfection. If something is put to you during cross-examination and you realise an error was made, you are entirely free to and must say so.
Being honest and transparent supports the integrity of our profession. It will not result in punishment or professional damage. On the contrary, it reinforces your credibility.
A few things you can say:
Upon reflection, I do acknowledge the correct interpretation should be...
Yes, I now recognise the correct term should be....
Final Thoughts
As interpreters and translators, we bear significant responsibility. A person’s freedom, family life, property, or reputation may depend on the accuracy of our work. But our duty is not to perfection; that's actually virtually impossible with language. Rather, our commitment is to fairness, integrity, and clarity within the limits of our professional ability and what the information we can process.
