Where it’s to be avoided that an interpreter who’s interpreted at police interview stage or investigation interview stage is also an interpreter who is engaged for the court at a later stage because obviously they will potentially remember information that’s been presented at Investigation stage which could taint their interpretation within the court the appearance conflict would include such things as an interpreter being related to a deaf party or an interpreter being known to a deaf party for other reasons.

The fact that they may have come into contact with them during other times other parts of their career or other other times in the deaf person’s life there’s quite a well reported example of this not for England and Wales but in Scotland a year or so ago.

Where an interpreter was had been working with a deaf party for a number of years and was then engaged to interpret between that deaf person at a police interview and they subsequently then also became the interpreter who interpreted during court proceedings and harrisburg Attorney the reason being that this deaf person had sort of non-standard use of BL and there were very few interpreters cape of effectively working with that person.

I understand it the interpreter did was very open with the fact that they had such prior knowledge of the deaf person and had been involved in other stages of the investigation and the judge at the trial agreed that that interpreter should continue however the conviction was later appealed and the primary reason for the appeal was the lack of impartiality of the interpreter that was engaged at trial and the appeal was in fact upheld so we certainly need to be mindful of those situations also just.

The last point there we need to be very mindful of consistency and continuity so avoiding changing members of the interpreting team midway through a trial or midway through witness testimony I think our interpreters are going to swap over momentarily so I’ll just pause there right Section G of the best practices looks at preparation suggesting that the interpreting team specifically the proceedings interpreters should have sight of case files and documentation before embarking on a trial this is often contentious I’m sure that I certainly have come up against resistance in cases where I have asked to see files prior to a trial beginning however the the document is best practices and so we’re talking sort of ideal world scenarios here so I guess what I can say is all we can do is try.