It evaluates the functioning of judicial systems in 45 Council of Europe Member States as well as in Israel, an observer state, and continues a process carried out since 2002, focusing on main indicators.
Today I would like to present a most valuable guest post from Dr Yvonne Fowler, who gave written evidence to the UK’s Justice Select Committee as part of its investigations into what can only be described as an outsourcing fiasco.
I believe that Dr Fowler’s paper covers the key issues in a clear, incisive and succinct way, and that the points raised can easily (and should) be transposed to apply to court interpreting globally.
This is a great resource for translators working with French and English – the Canadian Department of Justice has published individual factsheets or “records” for terms that have been the subject of legislative harmonization between the common law and civil law systems. The records include many legal concepts (one of the trickiest things to translate 😉 ) so I think it’s really useful.
This guest post by Judy Harrison, courts reporter, is published with kind permission from the Bangor Daily News*. It discusses interpretation for migrants – in languages where professional, qualified interpreters are often not available. I had an interesting discussion about this issue with a person working in international civil rights and methods of training for those speaking rare languages. I’d love to hear your opinions!
* * *
Today Marta Stelmaszak is reporting from the seminar “Justice Interpreting: the Need for Quality Standards” held in London on 23 February last (see here). Marta is a Polish translator and interpreter from the UK and is “devoted to constant development”, including through her involvement on the Management Committee of the Chartered Institute of Linguists and her great blog. Over to you, Marta!
The symposium is being organised by the EU project AVIDICUS 2 (Assessment of Video-Mediated Interpreting in the Criminal Justice System, led by the Centre for Translation Studies, University of Surrey, 2011-13), and will provide an update on current practice and research.
Following on from my February post about the US Supreme Court case differentiating translation costs and interpretation costs, today we have a second thought-provoking guest post from Tony Rosado (see his earlier post here). In addition to discussing the outcome of the case, he also gives some very good advice on how to deal with its aftermath.
Tony has been a freelance conference interpreter for almost 30 years and is Federally, Colorado, and New Mexico certified. He also qualified as an attorney from the Escuela Libre de Derecho in Mexico City. You may also be interested in his English/Spanish blog. Tony runs Rosado Professional Solutions in Chicago.
“After watching many of our colleagues celebrating because the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the definition of an interpreter in the Taniguchi case, and more importantly, after reviewing the briefs, oral arguments, full written decision, and the dissenting opinion by Justice Ginsburg, I wonder if this decision should be cause for joy or grounds for concern.