Remote Interpreting in Immigration Tribunals

Abstract

As part of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many jurisdictions across the world introduced remote hearings as an alternative way of continuing to offer access to courts. This practice-based article discusses the report prepared by the author for a judicial review case which revolved around the claim that in immigration settings the quality of interpreting conducted in fully online hearings is inferior to interpreting in face-to-face hearings. In the absence of pre-existing research comparing the impact of the physical and fully online settings on interpreting, the author’s expert witness report explored linguistic principles governing conversation and turn-taking management, power relations and narrativisation and discursive practices in online and physical settings to illustrate communicative advantages and disadvantages of each environment. The article draws on the investigations conducted for the expert witness report and pursues the following aims: (1) reflect on the role of linguistic expertise required for the case; (2) detail the conclusions drawn and recommendations endorsed in the report; (3) discuss the importance of effective communication in immigration settings; (4) challenge common misconceptions in relation to how narratives are elicited, shared and perceived; (5) explore safeguarding strategies for enhancing discursive practices in fully remote hearings in order to improve non-native speakers’ access to justice.

Legal-Lay Discourse and Procedural Justice in Family and County Courts

“…But there are also contexts which are even more challenging from the perspective of data collection and institutional language data management, such as procedural stages during which interactions are not even recorded. For instance, immigration tribunal hearings tend to rely on the notes of case workers and panel members and thus do not have a traceable or transparent record of original interactions or the evidence elicited during the proceedings (Gibb 2019;Grieshofer 2022a).…”

Simultaneous interpretation in interpreter-mediated remote legal proceedings: some observations from a forum theatre study

“…Nevertheless, conducting interpreter-mediated remote hearings also presents challenges (Grieshofer 2023). It is difficult for sign language interpreters to ensure that their head, arms, and torso are visible (Hughes, Hudgins, and McDougall 2004) so that the person for whom they are interpreting can understand them.…”

“…Nevertheless, we do not consider that these limitations have compromised the validity of the research. The Welsh context is a particularly valuable area for study because, its statutory status, and the quality assurance safeguards for interpreters, means that the high standard of interpretation can be assured -something that is lacking in other contexts (Grieshofer 2023), and therefore exploring how listeners respond to interpreter-mediated proceedings can be undertaken without concerns about the quality of interpretation being an obstacle.…”