Court interpretation in Wales and the Republic of Ireland

威尔士和爱尔兰共和国的法院解释

• 批准号: AH/X011437/1
• 负责人: Catrin Huws
• 金额: $ 4.07万
• 依托单位: Aberystwyth University
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Research Grant
• 财政年份: 2023
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2023 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 未结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FX011437%2F1
• 关键词: Court; interpretation; Wales; Republic; Ireland

Wales and the Republic of Ireland have an interesting pattern of bilingualism, in that both Welsh and Irish - as minority languages - have equal legislative status with English under the laws of both jurisdictions, and may be spoken in court at a party or witness's choosing. This status is augmented in the Irish case by the existence of Article 8.1 of the Constitution which provides that Irish is the first official language of the State. In both cases, the result of the legislative (and in Ireland's case constitutional) provision for the national minority language means that participants in court proceedings have a right to speak Welsh or Irish, without needing to demonstrate that the trial would otherwise be unfair. However, most speakers of Welsh and Irish alike are, or are considered to be, bilingual and therefore the use of these languages in legal settings is sometimes perceived to be unnecessary and problematic (see for example the judgment in Ó'Cadhla v Minister For Justice and Equality [2019] IEHC 503). This view which is reinforced where interpreters are used, because the the perception is that, given the assumed bilingualism of the interpreted-for party, an insistence on the provision of the service is indicative of an uncooperative or evasive character. More broadly, interpreters may also add an unfamiliar dynamic to the trial process which may have negative consequences in terms of ensuring a just evaluation, for witnesses who are evaluated on the basis of the interpreter's presentation, rather than on their own merits. This project seeks to explore how interpretation is used in legal proceedings, how listeners respond to a person speaking via an interpreter, and how members of the legal professions and those who interact with the trial process understand the risks, and potentials, of interpretation in Wales and Ireland. We are particularly keen to explore how the placing of the interpreter within the court, the characteristics of the interpreter (matters such as age, and sex) influence the listeners' evaluation of the witness, and the extent to which both members of the court (including legal professionals and parties to the case) and other listeners in court (including juries) are aware of this. Comparing the techniques of interpretation in Wales and the Republic of Ireland will also enable us to discover whether these factors are matters that arise in both simultaneous interpretation (used in Wales) and consecutive interpretation (used in Ireland), and to examine the role played by social and cultural perceptions of minority language users in the listening process.We are particularly keen to explore the impact of interpreted court proceedings on people who have higher levels of fluency in one language than another. Young children (interpreted, necessarily, by an adult interpreter) and people who have certain medical conditions, such as those recovering from Stroke, or those developing dementia, may be significantly more fluent in one language than in another. How these different capacities and vulnerabilities are accommodated, and impacted, by translation is a matter of discrete concern within our research.We aim, therefore, to bring together academics from Wales and Ireland, along with legal practitioners who represent clients in cases involving interpretation, interpreters, judges, and representatives from State departments to consider the following matters:a. how interpretation works in the two territories,b. the attitudes of listeners towards cases heard, and evidence presented, via an interpreter,c. the attitudes of listeners towards those who require an interpreter,d. the relationship between the speaker and the interpreter, and the extent to which the interpreter and the speaker are conflated, ande. the institutional awareness of the risks which interpretation presents, and the associated need for knowledge and training its use requires in legal setti

威尔士和爱尔兰共和国有一个有趣的双语模式，即威尔士语和爱尔兰语作为少数民族语言，在两个司法管辖区的法律下与英语享有同等的立法地位，并可根据当事人或证人的选择在法庭上使用。在爱尔兰，《宪法》第8.1条规定爱尔兰语是国家的第一官方语言，从而加强了这种地位。在这两种情况下，关于少数民族语言的立法（在爱尔兰的情况下是宪法）规定的结果意味着，法庭诉讼的参与者有权说威尔士语或爱尔兰语，而无需证明审判否则会不公正。然而，大多数讲威尔士语和爱尔兰语的人都是或被认为是双语的，因此在法律的环境中使用这些语言有时被认为是不必要的和有问题的（例如，参见Kadhla v Minister For Justice and Equality [2019] IEHC 503的判决）。在使用口译员的情况下，这一观点得到了加强，因为人们认为，鉴于被传译方假定会双语，坚持提供服务表明了不合作或回避的性质。更广泛地说，口译员还可能给审判过程增加一种不熟悉的动态，这可能对确保公正评价证人产生不利影响，因为对证人的评价是根据口译员的陈述，而不是根据其本身的是非曲直。该项目旨在探讨如何在法律的诉讼中使用口译，听众如何通过口译员对一个人说话作出反应，以及法律的专业人员和那些与审判过程互动的人如何理解威尔士和爱尔兰口译的风险和潜力。我们特别热衷于探讨传译员在法庭内的地位、传译员的特征（如年龄和性别）如何影响听众对证人的评价，以及法庭成员（包括法律的专业人员和案件当事人）和法庭上的其他听众（包括陪审团）在多大程度上意识到这一点。比较威尔士和爱尔兰共和国的口译技巧也将使我们能够发现这些因素是否在同声传译中出现（威尔士使用）和交替传译（用于爱尔兰），并研究少数民族语言使用者的社会和文化观念在听力过程中所起的作用。我们特别热衷于探讨口译法庭程序对一种语言比另一种语言更流利的人。年幼的儿童（必须由成人翻译）和患有某些疾病的人，如中风康复者或痴呆症患者，可能会比另一种语言更流利。这些不同的能力和脆弱性是如何适应，并受到影响，在我们的研究中是一个离散的问题。因此，我们的目标是汇集来自威尔士和爱尔兰的学者，沿着与法律的从业者谁代表客户在涉及口译，口译员，法官和国家部门的代表的情况下，考虑以下事项：a.两个地区的口译工作，B。听众对通过口译员审理的案件和提出的证据的态度，c.听众对需要口译员的人的态度，d.说话者和口译员之间的关系，以及口译员和说话者被混为一谈的程度。对口译所带来的风险的机构意识，以及在法律的环境中使用口译所需的知识和培训的相关需求