« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
INSPECTORATE OF PROSECUTION IN SCOTLAND
Thematic Report on Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal
Service's Response on Race Issues
ANNEXE B
INTERPRETERS POSTAL SURVEY
The main interpreting agencies used by
the Fiscal Service were contacted initially and asked for
their co-operation in sending out a questionnaire to their
members. Questionnaires were then sent directly to those
agencies that responded and were distributed to individual
interpreters from there. Subsequently, a total of 50
questionnaires were returned to the Inspectorate. Hence it
is not possible to say with absolute accuracy what this
represents in terms of response rate; to give an
indication, the total number of questionnaires sent to
agencies was 105.
Information on ethnic background was not
collected as was not required in this context. Given that
the survey was intended for completion by all interpreters
employed by the various agencies, including some requested
by services other than COPFS (for example, the court or by
the police), information relating to Fiscal performance
exclusively is unfortunately very limited. Many
interpreters made references indicating that they were
referring to, and commenting on assignments organised by
the Scottish Court Service or by the Police.
However, a number of interesting
findings emerged, relating to the experience of
interpreting at court and indeed to interpreting generally.
The main findings are presented here.
Summary Results
Interpreters were asked in which
language(s) they interpreted. There were a wide variety of
languages indicated and many respondents interpreted in
more than one language. While there were 26 distinct
languages indicated, some of the most often mentioned were
Cantonese (10 per cent), Kurdish Sorani (8 per cent), Dutch
(8 per cent), Albanian, Spanish, Turkish and Urdu (all 6
per cent).
Figure 1 shows the distribution of
responses, in percentage terms, relating to frequency of
breaks that are given, while interpreting at court.
Good practice suggests that breaks
should be given, or at least offered, after approximately
every 30 minutes. Even allowing for breaks up to one hour
as being acceptable it is clear that the majority (52 per
cent) indicated that the breaks they received were much
less frequent than this. In fact, some were not offered
breaks at all.
Note that 23 per cent respondents
indicated that they received no breaks, but that breaks
were not actually needed. Generally, it was indicated that
this was because of the length of time involved in
interpreting (usually between 30 minutes and 1 hour,
although on one occasion longer).
Figure 1
How often do you get breaks when
interpreting?
However, it appears that not all of
those receiving breaks less frequently than is recommended
by good practice actually felt that they required one
within that limit. A further question asked if the breaks
received were adequate. Over half of respondents (58 per
cent) indicated that the breaks they received were either
always or mostly adequate with another 11 per cent
indicating that breaks given were adequate sometimes.
However, 31 per cent of respondents indicated that the
breaks they were given (or not, as the case may be) were
mostly not, or never, adequate.
In relation to those who indicated that
the breaks given were not adequate, a further question was
asked about whether this caused problems for them. Where
respondents indicated either yes or sometimes (71 per
cent), the main difficulty reported was a loss of
concentration when having to interpret for long periods of
time and related difficulties following on from that - loss
of confidence, slower speed of interpreting and so on.
The provision of breaks for the
interpreter in court is, of course, a matter for the court
(see
Recommendation 4 in Chapter 3).
Interpreters were also asked whether
they ever felt they were unsuitable for an assignment, for
whatever reason. Figure 2 below shows the responses
received, in percentage terms.
Figure 2
Do you ever feel you are not suitable for an
assignment you are given?
While 86 per cent of responses fall into
either the 'mostly not' or 'never' categories, 14 per cent
of respondents indicated that sometimes they did feel
unsuitable for a given assignment. Note, though, that no
replies fell into the 'mostly yes' or 'always'
categories.
In an attempt to gauge interpreters'
overall level of satisfaction with court as a working
environment, an open-ended question was included in the
questionnaire, prompting respondents for a general
description of their impression and/or experience of being
an interpreter at court. This yielded some very interesting
feedback. The responses, which were categorized as ranging
from very positive to very negative are presented as
percentages in Figure 3.
Figure 3
How would you describe your overall experience
of being an interpreter at court?
A reassuring number of respondents
answered positively - 63 per cent indicated that their
overall experience was either positive or very positive.
However, a small proportion of respondents felt that their
experience generally was negative or very negative (11 per
cent) and a further 24 per cent felt it was both a positive
and negative experience.
Particularly interesting feedback was
obtained via the comments received in relation to the
general question posed. Some common themes emerged (many of
which were similarly drawn from the face to face interviews
conducted with interpreters - the exception is point 5
below):
- Audibility of speakers in the court is often
poor;
- All parties in court should be trained in the use
of interpreters;
- The need for a separate waiting area for
interpreters;
- Cancellations not compensated for;
- Lack of information about cases before assignments
is a problem.
« Previous | Contents | Next »