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--根据两个司法管辖区的法律与英语具有平等的立法地位，可以由当事人或证人在法庭上发言。由于《宪法》第8.1条规定，爱尔兰语是国家的第一官方语言，这一地位在爱尔兰语案中得到了加强。在这两个案例中，立法(在爱尔兰的案例中是宪法)关于少数民族语言的规定的结果意味着，法庭诉讼程序的参与者有权说威尔士语或爱尔兰语，而无需证明否则审判将是不公平的。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，见《Cadhla诉司法和平等部长案[2019]IEHC 503》中的判决)。这一观点在使用口译员的地方得到了加强，因为这种看法是，鉴于口译方假定的双语能力，坚持提供服务就是不合作或回避的表现。更广泛地说，口译员还可能在审判过程中增加一种不熟悉的动态，这可能会在确保公正评价方面产生负面后果，因为对证人的评价是根据口译员的陈述，而不是根据他们自己的是非曲直。该项目旨在探讨口译如何在法律程序中使用，听众如何回应通过口译员发言的人，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。我们尤其热衷于探讨口译员在法庭内的安置、口译员的特点(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)对此的认识程度。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同时出现在同声传译(在威尔士使用)和交替传译(在爱尔兰使用)中，并检查少数族裔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口译法庭程序对一种语言比另一种语言流利程度更高的人的影响。幼儿(必须由成人翻译翻译)和有特定医疗条件的人，如中风康复者或痴呆症患者，一种语言可能比另一种语言流利得多。这些不同的能力和弱点如何通过笔译来适应和影响是我们研究中的一个独立问题。因此，我们的目标是将来自威尔士和爱尔兰的学者以及在涉及口译的案件中代表客户的法律从业人员、口译员、法官和来自国务院的代表聚集在一起，考虑以下问题：a.口译在这两个地区是如何运作的；b.听者对通过口译员审理的案件和提出的证据的态度；c.听者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的混淆程度。机构对口译带来的风险的认识，以及相关的知识和培训需求需要在法律环境中使用

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