Limited attention has been paid to the realization of the right to interpretation in the police station. What has been done often focuses on the police or the interpreter experience. We seek to address this lacuna by focusing on the extent to which the right to interpretation is realized in Ireland. We start by outlining the nature of the right at international and European levels, and exploring the reasons why the right is so important. We consider how this has been implemented in Ireland, and note how even on paper there are significant, fundamental concerns as to how the effectiveness of the right is achieved. We then present findings from semi-structured interviews with over 40 criminal defence solicitors in Ireland, with experience of attending police interviews. The findings show that solicitors have concerns about the process of securing interpreters, the quality of the work, their independence, their understanding of their role, the overall impact on the process and the urgent need for training. It is abundantly clear that the right cannot be effectively realized under the current system in Ireland, despite the Directive on Interpretation being in effect there. Further, we note that solicitors are often uncertain and unclear on the extent of the right and what they can ask for. This means that those who are defending the rights of the detainee are unlikely to challenge breaches as they occur. The right to interpretation is clearly deeply neglected and ineffective in Ireland.

This paper explores the right to an interpreter as part of the right to a fair trial under the United Nations and Council of Europe systems of human rights. The right to an interpreter is guaranteed as part of both Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under both instruments, accused persons are entitled to a number of minimum rights to ensure a fair trial. Both instruments hold that an accused person has the right to “have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court”. This paper explores what this right means in reality for accused persons who seek to avail themselves of an interpreter. Only those who cannot understand or speak the language of the court are entitled to an interpreter. However, it is not always clear what is meant when we say a person ‘speaks’ or ‘understands’ a language. One may well understand day-to-day interactions in a second language but be completely out of their depth in a formal courtroom setting. Through comparison with the same right under the Statute of Rome, as well analysis of jurisprudence from the Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights this paper explores the scope of language rights under the right to a fair trial and the implications for access to justice.