Interpreters: Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "O.J. No. " to "OJ No " |
m Text replacement - "(R v [A-Z][a-z]+)," to "''$1''," |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
}} | }} | ||
Interpretation must be continuous, precise, impartial and contemporaneous. <ref> R v Wong, [http://canlii.ca/t/flkdk 2011 ONCJ 264] (CanLII){{perONCJ|Horkins J}} at para 20</ref> | Interpretation must be continuous, precise, impartial and contemporaneous. <ref> ''R v Wong'', [http://canlii.ca/t/flkdk 2011 ONCJ 264] (CanLII){{perONCJ|Horkins J}} at para 20</ref> | ||
Evidence given through an interpreter in court is presumed to have provided an accurate interpretation unless the claimant can demonstrate otherwise.<Ref> | Evidence given through an interpreter in court is presumed to have provided an accurate interpretation unless the claimant can demonstrate otherwise.<Ref> | ||
R v Titchener, [http://canlii.ca/t/fw2mr 2013 BCCA 64] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Ryan JA}} at para 30<br> | ''R v Titchener'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fw2mr 2013 BCCA 64] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Ryan JA}} at para 30<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
'''Competence'''<br> | '''Competence'''<br> | ||
This right requires that the interpreter be a competent one.<ref> | This right requires that the interpreter be a competent one.<ref> | ||
R v Rybak, [http://canlii.ca/t/1wsq6 2008 ONCA 354] (CanLII), [2008] OJ No 1715{{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{at|84}}<br> | ''R v Rybak'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1wsq6 2008 ONCA 354] (CanLII), [2008] OJ No 1715{{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{at|84}}<br> | ||
R v Sidhu, [http://canlii.ca/t/1jlfq 2005 ONCJ 8] (CanLII), [2005] OJ No 4881{{perONCJ|Lampkin J}}</ref> | ''R v Sidhu'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1jlfq 2005 ONCJ 8] (CanLII), [2005] OJ No 4881{{perONCJ|Lampkin J}}</ref> | ||
This does not mean that s. 14 of the Charter extends guarantee to an accredited or certified interpreter.<ref> | This does not mean that s. 14 of the Charter extends guarantee to an accredited or certified interpreter.<ref> | ||
See R v Sidhu, [http://canlii.ca/t/1m14s 2005 CanLII 42491] (ON SC), (2005) 203 CCC (3d) 17{{perONSC|Hill J}} at para 298</ref> | See ''R v Sidhu'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1m14s 2005 CanLII 42491] (ON SC), (2005) 203 CCC (3d) 17{{perONSC|Hill J}} at para 298</ref> | ||
The interpreter must simply be a competent and qualified court interpreter.<ref> | The interpreter must simply be a competent and qualified court interpreter.<ref> | ||
R v Tran, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frqw 1994 CanLII 56] (SCC), (1994) 92, CCC (3d) 218 (S.C.C.){{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}</ref> | ''R v Tran'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1frqw 1994 CanLII 56] (SCC), (1994) 92, CCC (3d) 218 (S.C.C.){{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}</ref> | ||
Unaccredited interpreters will often be held to be inadequate.<Ref> | Unaccredited interpreters will often be held to be inadequate.<Ref> | ||
R v N.S. [2010] OJ No 3255{{NOCANLII}}<br> | R v N.S. [2010] OJ No 3255{{NOCANLII}}<br> | ||
R v Thillayampalam, [http://canlii.ca/t/fphxc 2011 ONCJ 800] (CanLII){{perONCJ|Bourque J}}{{at|8}}<br> | ''R v Thillayampalam'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fphxc 2011 ONCJ 800] (CanLII){{perONCJ|Bourque J}}{{at|8}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
To determine whether an interpreter is sufficiently competent the court must look at "the nature of the accreditation and the validity of the test upon which it is based, the test results attained, the mode of interpretation required, the expected length of the proceedings, and the technical nature of the subject matters in the proceeding."<ref> | To determine whether an interpreter is sufficiently competent the court must look at "the nature of the accreditation and the validity of the test upon which it is based, the test results attained, the mode of interpretation required, the expected length of the proceedings, and the technical nature of the subject matters in the proceeding."<ref> | ||
R v Dutt, [http://canlii.ca/t/flqc4 2011 ONSC 3329] (CanLII){{perONCJ|Hill J}} at para 12 | ''R v Dutt'', [http://canlii.ca/t/flqc4 2011 ONSC 3329] (CanLII){{perONCJ|Hill J}} at para 12 | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Revision as of 09:57, 13 January 2019
General Principles
Every person charged with a crime has a right to the assistance of an interpreter where they cannot understand the English or French language.[1] Section 14 of the Charter states:
14. A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.
– CCRF
Interpretation must be continuous, precise, impartial and contemporaneous. [2]
Evidence given through an interpreter in court is presumed to have provided an accurate interpretation unless the claimant can demonstrate otherwise.[3]
Competence
This right requires that the interpreter be a competent one.[4]
This does not mean that s. 14 of the Charter extends guarantee to an accredited or certified interpreter.[5]
The interpreter must simply be a competent and qualified court interpreter.[6]
Unaccredited interpreters will often be held to be inadequate.[7]
To determine whether an interpreter is sufficiently competent the court must look at "the nature of the accreditation and the validity of the test upon which it is based, the test results attained, the mode of interpretation required, the expected length of the proceedings, and the technical nature of the subject matters in the proceeding."[8]
Procedure
Before an interpreter can testify, he must be sworn.[9]
- ↑ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms section 14
- ↑ R v Wong, 2011 ONCJ 264 (CanLII), per Horkins J at para 20
- ↑
R v Titchener, 2013 BCCA 64 (CanLII), per Ryan JA at para 30
- ↑
R v Rybak, 2008 ONCA 354 (CanLII), [2008] OJ No 1715, per Watt JA, at para 84
R v Sidhu, 2005 ONCJ 8 (CanLII), [2005] OJ No 4881, per Lampkin J - ↑ See R v Sidhu, 2005 CanLII 42491 (ON SC), (2005) 203 CCC (3d) 17, per Hill J at para 298
- ↑ R v Tran, 1994 CanLII 56 (SCC), (1994) 92, CCC (3d) 218 (S.C.C.), per Lamer CJ
- ↑
R v N.S. [2010] OJ No 3255(*no CanLII links)
R v Thillayampalam, 2011 ONCJ 800 (CanLII), per Bourque J, at para 8
- ↑ R v Dutt, 2011 ONSC 3329 (CanLII), per Hill J at para 12
- ↑ Tran, supra at p. 988 ("an interpreter must at least be sworn by taking the interpreter’s oath before beginning to interpret the proceedings")