Court and community interpreting in Denmark
In 2003, the Danish Court Administration (Domstolsstyrelsen) set up a working group to deal with interpreter assistance in court proceedings. I was a member of this group. The report was published in April 2004. The task given was
quote
to uncover whether the assistance of interpreters in court proceedings gives rise to significant problems[1]
unquote
The working group did not consider sign language interpretation.
The most important statutory provisions on interpretation in Denmark are set out in
1)the Danish Administration of Justice Act
(retsplejeloven)
2)the European Convention on Human Rights
3)the Nordic Language Convention
Section 149 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act sets out
quote
The language of the courts is Danish. The questioning of persons who do not master the Danish language must, as far as possible, take place with the assistance of an authorised interpreter. In civil proceedings, an interpreter need not be called if none of the parties so demands and the court believes that they have sufficient knowledge of the foreign language. Subject to the latter condition, the aforesaid exception may be applied in connection with criminal proceedings other than trials before the High Court.
unquote
This provision dates back to 1919, and one may therefore question whether it takes into account today’s needs and requirements.
According to Statistics Denmark, immigrants, refugees and their descendants amounted to 3 per cent of the Danish population in 1980. The corresponding figure in 2002 was 7.7 per cent. 175,000 people originate from the Middle East and from African and Asian countries. Their languages have not previously been used in Denmark, and there are a lot of different languages, such as Arabic, Turkish, Somali, Urdu and Farsi.
The intention of the Administration of Justice Act is that authorised interpreters must be used where possible. But in reality many interpreters have not completed any formal interpreter training, and therefore a number of practical matters are of relevance to safeguard a sufficiently high quality.
The working group has therefore recommended a reform of the Administration of Justice Act to ensure interpretation of sufficiently high quality and to stipulate rules on the calling of interpreters, their presence and preparation, etc.
The working group considered whether the court may use an interpreter who has assisted the police in connection with the interrogation of the accused.
The Danish Supreme Court has said on the subject that
quote
the fact that, outside the court hearings, counsel uses the interpreter who assists the court in connection with the court hearings does not in itself constitute the basis for deeming the interpreter to be prevented from assisting the court[2]
unquote
The working group finds that normally an interpreter is not disqualified from acting because he or she has previously been involved in the case. On the contrary, it may be the most expedient practice to use the interpreter who has been used prior to the court hearings.
In relation to the interpreter’s preparationit may be expedient to notify the interpreter of the subject-matter of the court hearing and the parties to the case in advance. This may contribute to avoid the situation where the interpreter appearing in court is deemed disqualified from acting because of close ties with one or more of the parties to the case. The interpreter also needs general information about the subject-matter of the case in order to prepare himself or herself.
In connection with the Grotius Project[3] on the establishment of standards for the use in connection with court hearings, a report entitled ‘Aequitas – Access to Justice across Language and Culture in the EU’ has been published. The report recommends that an interpreter should always assess the complexity of the case before accepting the assignment. In the light of these assumptions, the working group deems preparation to be desirable in connection with court interpretation. Naturally, interpreters should be remunerated for their preparation time.
No public register of interpretersexists, except for authorised translators, and it is definitely a problem to the courts to get trained interpreters.
To a wide extent, the courts use the interpreters on the list prepared by the National Police. By March 2003, about 2,500 interpreters had been admitted to the list, which comprises about 140 languages and dialects. Only about 20 per cent of these interpreters have completed formal training in interpretation or a formal language course. Moreover, the total number of interpreters on the list trained to interpret languages from the African and Asian continents only amount to about 1 per cent.
Another Committee - The Standing Committee on Procedural Law (Retsplejerådet) - has considered the possibility of court interpretation via a video link.[4]. ThisCommittee finds that normally the interpreter and the person receiving interpretation assistance ought to be at the same location. However, it should be possible to deviate from this principle if the interpreter has to travel a long distance and provided that the video link has the sufficient quality.
The European Convention on Human Rights imposes certain obligations on the Danish authorities. The working group finds that in practice the Danish courts live up to these obligations. However, section 6 -3 of the Convention reads as follows
quote
Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
unquote
The Danish Administration of Justice Act stipulates that an interpreter need not be called if none of the parties so demands and the court believes that they have sufficient knowledge of the foreign language. Generally this must be assumed to be contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights which imposes an obligation on the courts to request the assistance of an interpreter whenever the accused does not understand the language used in court.
As to quality, the Administration of Justice Act does not impose an absolute requirement on the courts to use an authorised interpreter.
This leads to the question whether a general requirement of the quality of the interpretation assistance can be inferred, supplemented by specific requirements relating to the educational background of interpreters. This issue is particularly relevant in connection with the interpretation assistance provided at Danish courts because the predominant part of interpreters used by the Danish courts have not completed any formal interpreter training.
According to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights there is no basis for assuming that the use of the term ‘interpreter’ means that specific educational requirements are made of the interpreters used by the courts.
Under Danish law there are no rules which set out specific quality requirements for court interpretation.
In relation to costs it is an absolute requirement of the Convention that the accused must be given free assistance of an interpreter. Rules to this effect are laid down in the Circular on Payment of Interpretation Costs issued by the Danish Ministry of Justice[5], according to which costs for interpretation in criminal proceedings must be covered by the Treasury.
According to the Administration of Justice Act, costs for court interpretation in cases to which a national of another Nordic country is a party must be covered by the Treasury.
These provisions were inserted into the Administration of Justice Act in view of the Danish ratification of the Nordic Language Convention. The Convention[6] imposes an obligation on the countries to work for the possibility of nationals of a Nordic country to use their native language when contacting authorities and other public bodies in another Nordic country, and the countries must also provide interpretation assistance to the nationals of the other Nordic countries where possible.
The costs for interpretation assistance are payable by the Treasury in connection with both civil and criminal proceedings which is an exception to the general principle in civil proceedings.
In other words, the state of the law means that, in civil proceedings, Nordic nationals are in a better position than other foreign nationals and Danish nationals living in Denmark who do not master the Danish language.
The rules set out in the Nordic Language Convention are justified as follows
quote
Good language services for Nordic immigrants are essential in order to improve their adaptation and provide for their social welfare and equal treatment in society
unquote
This view could be applied equally to immigrants and refugees who come into contact with the Danish criminal justice system.
As to training, the working group finds that interpreters must have completed formal training in interpretation, or at least a formal language course, to be able to provide quality interpretation. As regards interpretation, Denmark has three qualifying courses, apart from the military language training. The working group has not looked at the military language training.
Masters of Arts in Translation and Interpretation have completed a five-year course specialising in the field of translation and interpretation. This course is offered in the languages English, German, French, Spanish, Italian and Russian. Graduates are eligible to become state-authorised translators and interpreters.
In languages other than those mentioned, individuals who are interested may enter for the examination in translation and interpretation as privately-educated students, but this option is applied only seldom.
The Certified Community Interpreter course is a two-year part-time study. The course is aimed at persons who want to become qualified to act as interpreters in the major immigration languages for refugees and immigrants with county and local authorities, social service departments, the police and courts.
Education is offered in the languages in which no Master of Arts in Translation and Interpretation is offered.So far, 82 Certified Community Interpreters have graduated in the languages of Arabic, Polish, Farsi, Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian and Turkish.
The conference interpreter training is a one-year course for persons who already have a master’s degree. The main purpose of this course is to train qualified conference interpreters for the institutions of the European Union.
Finally there are a number of non-qualifying private courses of different quality.
Last year, a group of educational institutions and non-governmental organisations drafted a proposal for the training and upgrading of immigrant interpreters. I was involved in this work.
The proposal is intended to improve the quality of the interpretation provided by immigrant interpreters and to commit public bodies and institutions to use qualified interpreters.
One of the central elements of the proposal is a modularisation of the Certified Community Interpreter course to comprise the following modules:
1) Socio-medical interpretation
2) Legal interpretation, which means police and court
interpretation
3) Written production of socio-medical texts
4) Written production of legal texts
Furthermore, tests should be held at the business schools, although classes may be given somewhere else.The interpreters list should be removed from the National Police and made publicly accessible. We would like to be involved in the establishment of a register of interpreters.Finally the users must use certified and trained interpreters whenever available.
The proposal is based on the assumption that public bodies will be committed to only using interpreters with formal qualifications. Only if the users are committed to exclusively using qualified interpreters will it be possible to make improvements on the interpretation market.
In parallel with the aforementioned initiative, the Ministry of Integration drafted its own proposal.
The most important elements of this proposal are:
1)Quality assurance of interpretation services
should be improved
2)There is a need for more trained interpreters in
Denmark
3)The fee structure should be differentiated to
encourage non-trained interpreters to take a
qualifying course
4)Mandatory introductory courses for
interpreters should be established
And how is the current situation after all this work?
The Government has accepted the modularisation of the Certified Community Interpreter course. This is positive.
The fees of Certified Community Interpreters and non-trained interpreters have been differentiated in the Circular on Payment of Interpretation Costs issued by the Ministry of Justice. This is positive.
The Government and the largest party of the Opposition have proposed that immigrants have to pay themselves for interpretation in the health sector if they have resided in Denmark for seven years. This is immigration policy.
The Opposition in the Danish Parliament has introduced a bill to the effect that public authorities must use certified interpreters whenever available. This is positive.
Finally the Government has refused to order public authorities to only use qualified interpreters. This is sad.
Jørgen Christian Wind Nielsen
State-Authorised Translator and Interpreter (Spanish)
Master of Computer-mediated Communication
Jørgen Christian Wind Nielsen works as a consultant to the Union of Communication and Language Professionals, Denmark
Copenhagen, July 2005
FIT XVII World Congress – Rights on!
Tampere, Finland, 4-7 August 2005
SOURCES AND REFERENCES (IN DANISH)
Working group of the Danish Court Administration on interpreter assistance in court proceedings:
Court interpretation via a video link:
Report No. 1401/2001 on a reform of civil justice, page 369
The interpreter’s qualification to act:
Supreme Court order of 11 December 2002
Grotius Project 98/GR/131, ‘Aequitas – Access to Justice across Language and Culture in the EU’ (2001):
Circular on Payment of Interpretation Costs issued by the Ministry of Justice:
Interpreters list:
The Nordic Language Convention of 17 June 1981:
Executive Order No. 16 of 10 March 1987
The Danish Act on State-Authorised Translators and Interpreters:
Consolidation Act No. 181 of 25 March 1988 as amended most recently by section 4 of Act No. 227 of 21 April 1999
Executive Order on Bachelors and Masters of Art in Translation and Interpretation and in Business Communication:
Act on State-Authorised Translators and Interpreters (lov om translatører og tolke):
Bill No. 66 amending the Act on State-Authorised Translators and Interpreters and the Act on Average Adjusters (revocation of the requirements of nationality, residence and age and introduction of the possibility of electronic application for authorisation and electronic authorisation) introduced in Parliament on 27 October 2004:
Final adoption:
Executive Order on the Examination to Qualify as a State-Authorised Translator and Interpreter held at the CopenhagenBusinessSchool and Aarhus School of Business:
Executive Order No. 470 of 4 October 1983 as amended most recently by Executive Order No. 701 of 21 August 1995
Legislation on state-authorised translators:
As from 1 January 2002, a fee of currently DKK 10,000 (about EUR 1,500) is payable for the examination to qualify as a state-authorised translator and interpreter, as well as an additional fee for each re-examination, cf. the notice issued by the Copenhagen Business School on 20 August 2001
Certified Community Interpreter:
Report on upgrading of interpreters and quality assurance of interpretation services provided to public authorities, issued by the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs:
DanskABC – learning Danish online:
The integration policy of the Social Democratic Party suggesting that Danish authorities have to use certified interpreters (the daily newspaper Morgenavisen Jyllandsposten, 23 December 2004)
The Government and the largest party of the Opposition have proposed that immigrants have to pay themselves for interpretation in the health sector after seven years in Denmark, a time frame which is in conformity with the Danish Integration Act (integrationsloven) (the daily newspaper Information, 3 April 2004)
The Government refuses to order public authorities to only use qualified interpreters
(Letter from the Minister, 2004)
1
[1]
[2] Supreme Court order of 11 December 2002
[3]Grotius Project 98/GR/131
‘Aequitas – Access to Justice across Language and Culture in the EU’ (2001)
[4]Report No.1401/2001 on a reform of civil justice, page 369
[5]Circular No.104 of 7 July 1989
[6]Executive Order No.16 of 10 March 1987