Court interpretation in Wales and the Republic of Ireland

威尔士和爱尔兰共和国有一种有趣的双语模式，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具有同等的立法地位，并且可以在当事人或证人选择的法庭上使用。《宪法》第8条第1款规定，爱尔兰语是国家的第一官方语言，这就加强了爱尔兰语的地位。在这两种情况下，立法（在爱尔兰的情况下是宪法）对少数民族语言的规定意味着，法庭诉讼的参与者有权说威尔士语或爱尔兰语，而无需证明审判是不公平的。然而，大多数说威尔士语和爱尔兰语的人都是双语者，或者被认为是双语者，因此，在法律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Ó'Cadhla v Minister for Justice and Equality [2019] IEHC 503）。在使用口译员的情况下，这种观点得到加强，因为人们的看法是，鉴于被口译者假定会说两种语言，坚持提供这项服务表明了不合作或逃避的特点。更广泛地说，口译员也可能在审判过程中增加一种不熟悉的动态，这可能对确保公正评价证人产生负面影响，因为证人是根据口译员的陈述而不是根据他们自己的优点进行评价的。该项目旨在探索如何在法律诉讼中使用口译，听众如何回应通过口译员说话的人，以及法律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口译员在法庭上的位置、口译员的特征（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术也将使我们能够发现这些因素是否在同声传译（威尔士使用）和交替传译（爱尔兰使用）中出现，并检查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。我们特别热衷于探索解释法庭程序对那些在一种语言上比另一种语言更流利的人的影响。年幼的儿童（翻译，必须由成人翻译）和有某些医疗条件的人，如中风恢复期的人，或正在发展的痴呆症的人，可能在一种语言上比另一种语言流利得多。在我们的研究中，这些不同的能力和弱点是如何被翻译所适应和影响的，这是一个离散的问题。因此，我们的目标是汇集来自威尔士和爱尔兰的学者，以及在涉及口译、口译员、法官和国务院代表的案件中代表客户的法律从业人员，审议以下事项：翻译在两个地区是如何工作的？听者对案件的态度，以及通过翻译提供的证据。听众对需要翻译的人的态度；讲话者和口译员之间的关系，以及口译员和讲话者混为一谈的程度。机构对口译所带来的风险的认识，以及在法律环境中使用口译所需要的相关知识和培训

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