Although translation and interpretation are crucial services, there are not many occasions when the course of your entire life could depend on how what you say is rendered in another language. Recent newspaper stories, however, show that interpreters are often of great importance in trials. According to www.sbs.com, ‘New Australian research has found that untrained interpreters can cause unjust verdicts in court cases involving people from non-English speaking backgrounds.'

It's easy to see how interpreting can encourage snap judgments and create prejudice. Interpreters are often used on television, for instance, leading viewers occasionally to debate the effect of the interpretation. An Iraqi, say, could be interviewed during a news report on Iraq, and the interpretation might be provided in an Iraqi accent. How might we respond to this? We might associate accented English with an absence of learning. If accented English sometimes - although not always - goes with an incomplete grasp of the language, we might associate any accented English with an inadequacy of expression. If people express themselves in a jumbled fashion, we might, however unfairly, think that they are not very intelligent. Consequently, even if the interpreter is producing perfectly-formed, fluent and coherent sentences, the fact that these sentences are delivered with an accent might lead viewers to perceive the interviewee as unintelligent when compared with a native speaker.

Beyond this, there are the stereotypical associations to consider. These may not be explicitly considered very often, but comedians have highlighted the influence of accented English. German-accented English is often parodied as being brusque, rough and confrontational; French-accented English is heard as pretentious and arrogant; Russian-accented English is heard as conspiratorial and shady; Japanese-accented English conjures associations of exaggerated politeness and deference. Arabic-accented English, meanwhile, might be heard as regressive, dangerous and alien.

These factors come into play in the courtroom, even before the questions of accuracy and fluency arise. Some surveys have suggested that juries are less likely to give a favourable judgment to a defendant whose interpreter stumbles over the sentences or provides a bad translation. In fact, it has been suggested that juries are prejudiced against a defendant who speaks through an interpreter even before the defendant has said anything.

There is little that can be done to counteract this prejudice. However, the legal system in question is able to ensure that it provides the very best interpreters possible. A recent dispute (November 2009) occurred in Scotland, where the legal system, having engaged a single interpretation firm for all of the work, was trying to impose a single contract on interpreters. This contract guaranteed the sum of £36 per day, for highly-qualified and experienced interpreters. Normal prices vary depending on language, but an experienced interpreter would in general charge around £350 per day. The arrangements in Scotland were utterly ludicrous; the result of the contract was that interpreters with few or no qualifications were being used, with disastrous consequences for trials and, especially, for defendants.

Trials need excellent interpreters, perhaps more so than any other situation. Sourcing quality interpreters, through a reliable and reputable agency, is the first step to a fair trial; the next step is to source quality transcribers, to ensure precise legal transcription. Often one firm can handle both of these crucial tasks.