Interpreting error leads to £25,000 retrial costs

  • Print
  • Comments (11)

Readers' comments (11)

  • I wonder who is going to pick up the tab of £25,000 cost of retrial ?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Send it to:
    Gavin Wheeldon
    Riverside Court
    Huddersfield Road
    Delph
    Oldham
    Greater Manchester
    OL3 5FZ

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Its a case of "Once bitten twice shy". Surely it should had been backed up by a signed Witness Statement from the initial interpretation.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What is with all the damned "theys"? I'm pretty sure people are either "hes" or "shes", unless the individuals mentioned above are hosts to multiple personalities.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • One of the most effective ways of avoiding this expenditure would be to restrict the entry of Romanians, Albanians and the like, who appear to have a disproportionately large criminal element amongst their migrant population.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sceptic, you're so pathetic...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sceptic you would not say the same if a Brit Abroad was arrested. Then it would be all about, "There's no deocracy, there is no justice, how can they do this to us, we're British, it breaches his Human Rights", etc etc

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Now we can't even evict Abu Qatada from this country, because ALS can't provide an interpreter:
    http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-04-17/abu-qatada-appears-in-court/

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sceptic just to keep you occupied from dealing with any meaningful matters I reckon that you should make a list and then a revised one and then a revised one after the revised one and so on...

    I can also recommend a place where you can do this where the staff are so sympathetic that you are bound to like it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • In my experience, this is typical of how the UK translation market works when compared with the market in Australia.
    Aussie market
    CLIENT: Hi, we’ve got some documents which need translating, they are quite technical, legal contracts and really important to us.
    US: Sure, we can help. We’ve got heaps of legal experts who translate stuff for us. The cost will be $500 and it’ll take two days.
    CLIENT: Great. Go ahead.
    UK market
    CLIENT: Hi, we’ve got some documents which need translating, they are quite technical, legal contracts and really important to us.
    US: Sure, we can help. We’ve got heaps of legal experts who translate stuff for us. The cost will be £300 and it’ll take two days.
    CLIENT: Um, I see. Well Pile It High translations down the road has said they can do it in four hours and it’ll cost £100.
    US: Right, OK. Are they using a legal translation expert? And will it be checked by an experienced lawyer / reviewer once it’s complete?
    CLIENT: Um, no, they didn’t say. They actually didn’t say much about who’d be doing the work or anything about the quality. But, man, is it cheap, can you match that price?
    US: Sorry, no. Our translators are mainly ex-lawyers, experts in their field if you will, and they don’t work at the same rate as, say, a non-specialist linguist based in a cheaper overseas jurisdiction.
    CLIENT: OK, no worries. We’ll go with Pile It High.
    One week later…
    CLIENT: Hi guys. You know those translations we were talking about. Well, Pile It High stuffed up and our transaction has been held up for a month, costing us £14,000 in legal fees for nothing. Any chance you can amend them for us.
    US: We may need to start from scratch depending on the quality. The cost will be £300 and it’ll take two days.
    CLIENT: Oh, that’s quite expensive. We might see if we can get it cheaper somewhere else.
    US: Sigh

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • In its current state the whole contract is far from meeting expectations.
    Outsourcing – as in this contract – is a natural business model for court interpreting because of the complexity and volume of the back-end system that’s required to support it. A lot of administration and resources are required to make a national system of the size required for court interpreters across the whole of England and Wales run effectively and efficiently.
    But it’s clear that the new system doesn’t work and neither did the old one - where courts individually appointed interpreters from the National Register of Court Interpreters. Interpreters understandably don’t want to work for a lot less money than they were used to and receive no travel costs into the bargain if they are travelling a long way to fulfil a booking.
    The whole system has fallen apart and this contract needs to be rescinded urgently. It was awarded purely on the basis of the cheapest provider and this is the result – sheer chaos
    This debacle is affecting the credibility of the whole industry. There needs to be consultation with the interpreting community in order to get things moving again because it’s clear that everything is at an impasse.
    There needs to be a wider appreciation within Government of the measurement of quality, rather than just the National Register of Court Interpreters – for example, conference interpreting is more demanding than face-to-face and court interpreting experience is an important criteria that needs to be taken into account.
    We need to get back to a system where everybody appearing in court receives the same quality of services, without discrimination. Court interpreting needs to be reliable, efficient and effective.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (11)