Article published In: Interpreting
Vol. 25:1 (2023) ► pp.87–108
The right to a fair trial and the right to interpreting
A critical evaluation of the use of chuchotage in court interpreting
Published online: 24 May 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00082.ng
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00082.ng
Abstract
The right to a fair trial for defendants in the criminal process is internationally recognised as a fundamental
human right that, among others, includes the right of defendants to have the free assistance of an interpreter if they cannot
understand or speak the language used in court. The failure to provide the required interpreting service or a deficiency in the
service provided can be raised as grounds of appeal for potentially denying or compromising defendants’ right to a fair trial.
This article discusses the limitations of chuchotage, a mode of interpreting commonly used in domestic courts.
These limitations potentially compromise interpreting accuracy, and, specifically, the absence of a record of the interpretation
can spell problems for appellate courts dealing with appeals advanced on the ground of the deficient interpreting provided in this
mode. This study reviews four such appeals in Hong Kong and reveals inconsistencies in the appellate courts’ rulings and the
reasoning behind their decisions. This study argues that these inconsistencies can lead to problems with implementing the
principle of stare decisis, while at the same time sending confusing messages about the standard of interpreting
required to safeguard a defendant’s right to a fair trial and about the future use of chuchotage in court.
Article outline
- Introduction
- Sufficiency of court interpreting in statutory law
- Accuracy in court interpreting and the notion of equal footing
- Modes of interpreting and limitations of chuchotage
- Appeals advanced on interpreting problems
- HKSAR v. Moala Alipate (2019)
- HKSAR v. Gutierrez Alvarez Keishu Mercedes (2020)
- Chan Hon Wing v. HKSAR (2020, 2021)
- Summary and discussion
- Conclusion
- Notes
References Cases cited
References (51)
Angermeyer, P. S. (2015). Speak
English or what?: Codeswitching and interpreter use in New York City courts. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators
(AUSIT) (2012). AUSIT code of ethics and code of conduct. [URL] (accessed 12 August 2020).
Barghout, A., Ruiz Rosendo, L. & García, M. V. (2015). The
influence of speed on omissions in simultaneous interpretation: An experimental
study. Babel 61 (3), 305–334.
Bill of Rights Ordinance, c.
383 (8 June 1991). [URL] (accessed 15 November 2021).
Chávez, E. L. (2008). New
Mexico’s success with non-English speaking jurors. Journal of Court
Innovation 11, 303–327.
Chernoff, N. (2012). Wrong
about the right: How courts undermine the fair cross-section guarantee by confusing it with equal
protection. The Hastings Law
Journal 64 (1), 141–200.
De Jongh, E. M. (1992). An
introduction to court interpreting: Theory & practice. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Department of Judicial
Services (August 2009). Serving non-English speakers in the
Virginia court system. [URL] (accessed 15 November 2021).
Duff, P., Findlay, M., Howarth, C. & Chan, T. (1992). Juries:
A Hong Kong perspective. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Duffy, K. (2017). Lost
in translation: New Mexico’s non-English speaking jurors and the right to translated jury
instructions. N.M. L.
Rev. 471, 376. [URL] (accessed 9 October 2021).
European Parliament and Council of the European
Union. (20 October 2010). Directive
2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in
criminal proceedings. [URL] (accessed 15 November 2021).
Fowler, Y. (1997). The
courtroom interpreter: Paragon and intruder? In S. E. Carr, R. P. Roberts, A. Dufour & D. Steyn (Eds.), The
critical link: Interpreters in the
community. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 191–200.
Fowler, Y., Ng, E. & Coulthard, M. (2012). Legal
interpreting. In C. Millán & F. Bartrina (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of translation
studies. London: Routledge, 417–430.
Gile, D. (1995). Basic
concepts and models for interpreter and translator
training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hale, S. (2004). The
discourse of court interpreting: Discourse practices of the law, the witness, and the
interpreter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hale, S. & Stern, L. (2011). Interpreter
quality and working conditions: comparing Australian and international courts of
justice. Judicial Officers’
Bulletin 23 (9), 75–78.
Hale, S., Martschuk, N., Ozolins, U. & Stern, L. (2017). The
effect of interpreting modes on witness credibility
assessments. Interpreting 19 (1), 69–96.
Human Rights Act 1998, c.
42 (9 November 1998). [URL] (accessed 15 November 2021).
Indiana Supreme
Court (8 Oct 2020). Interpreter code of
conduct and procedure. [URL] (accessed 15 November 2021).
ISO (2016). ISO 20109:2016: Simultaneous
interpreting – equipment –
requirements. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
Judicial Council of
California (May 2013). Professional standards and ethics
for California court interpreters. California Courts. [URL] (accessed 15 November 2021).
Judicial Council on Cultural
Diversity (2017). Recommended national standards for working with interpreters in
courts and tribunals. [URL]. (accessed 2 February 2022).
Judiciary of Hong
Kong (November 2020). Guidelines for freelance
interpreters. Freelance Interpreters Management Unit, Court Language Section, Judiciary.
Korpal, P. (2012). Omission
in simultaneous interpreting as a deliberate act. In A. Pym & D. Orrego-Carmona (Eds.), Translation
research
projects 41. Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, 103–111.
Mikkelson, H. (1998). Towards
a redefinition of the role of the court
interpreter. Interpreting 3 (1), 21–45.
National Association of Judiciary Interpreters & Translators
(NAJIT) (n.d.). Code of ethics and professional
responsibilities. [URL] (accessed 15 November 2021).
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, No.
109 (28 August 1990). [URL] (accessed 15 November 2021).
Ng, E. (2015). Judges’
intervention in witness examination as a cause of omissions in interpretation in the Hong Kong
courtroom. International Journal of Speech, Language and the
Law 22 (2), 203–227.
(2016). Do
they understand?: English trials heard by Chinese jurors in the Hong Kong courtroom. Language
and Law/Linguagem e
Direito 3 (2), 172–191.
(2018). Common
law in an uncommon courtroom: Judicial interpreting in Hong
Kong. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2019). Xianggang fating chuanyi zhi huigu yu qianzhan 香港法庭傳譯之回顧與前瞻 [A historical review of court interpreting in Hong Kong and the way forward]. In E. Cham 湛樹基 & E. Lee 李劍雄 (Eds.), Xianggang shuangyu fazhi: Yuyan yu fanyi 香港雙語法制:語言與翻譯 [Bilingual legal system in Hong Kong: Language and translation]. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1–19.
(2020). Linguistic
disadvantage before the law: When non-native English-speaking witnesses waive their right to an
interpreter. In E. Ng & I. Crezee (Eds.), Interpreting
in legal and healthcare settings: Perspectives on research and
training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 21–44.
(2021). Interpreting
for the linguistic majority: A historical review of court interpreting in Hong
Kong. In R. Moratto & D. Li (Eds.), Global
insights into public service interpreting: Theory, practice and
training. London: Routledge, 152–168.
North Carolina Administrative Office of the
Courts (1 July 2017). Standards for
language access services in NC State Courts. [URL] (accessed 15 November 2021).
Ozolins, U. & Hale, S. (2009). Introduction.
Quality in interpreting: A shared responsibility. In S. Hale, U. Ozolins & L. Stern (Eds.), The
Critical Link 5: Quality in interpreting – a shared
responsibility. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–10.
Pym, A. (2008). On
omission in simultaneous interpreting: Risk analysis of a hidden
effort. In G. Hansen, A. Chesterman & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Efforts
and models in interpreting and translation research: A tribute to Daniel
Gile. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 83–105.
Seeber, K. (2017). Interpreting
at the European Institutions: Faster, higher,
stronger. CLINA 3 (2), 73–90.
Setton, R. (1999). Simultaneous
interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic
analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stern, L. (2012). What
can domestic courts learn from international courts and tribunals about good practice in interpreting?: From the Australian
war crimes prosecutions to the International Criminal Court. T&I
Review 21, 7–30.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s.
14 (17 April 1982). [URL] (accessed 15 November 2021).
United
Nations (1966, December 16). International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High
Commissioner. [URL] (accessed 15 November 2021).
Wang, D. (2014). Examining
the challenges for legal interpreters in New Zealand courtroom settings. MA
thesis, Auckland University of Technology. [URL] (accessed 15 November 2021).
HKSAR v. Chan Hon Wing [2021] HKCFA
45. [URL] (accessed 5 February 2022).
[2020] HKCA
938. [URL] (accessed 26 March 2021).
HKSAR v. Gutierrez Alvarez Keishu
Mercedes [2020] HKCA 184. [URL] (accessed 12 August 2020).
HKSAR v. Moala Alipate [2019] HKCA
537. [URL] (accessed 12 August 2020).
R v.
Tran [1994] scr2_951. [URL] (accessed 12 August 2020).
Abdula v.
R [2011] NZSC130. [URL] (accessed 12 August 2020).
Lee v. HM Advocate [2016] HCJAC
39. [URL] (accessed 14 August 2020).
Cited by (6)
Cited by six other publications
Adilmuratova, Rita, Kairat Alembayev, Dinara Kozhuganova, Yuliya Gavrilova & Galina Menzyuk
Mellinger, Christopher D., Teresa C. Salazar & Aimee K. Benavides
2023. ASTM and ISO standards in U.S. legal language services. Digital Translation 10:2 ► pp. 133 ff.
Weld-Ali, Eman W., Mohammed M. Obeidat & Ahmad S. Haider
Yi, Ran
2023. Review of Brunson (2022): Legal interpreting: Teaching, research, and practice. Sign Language & Linguistics 26:1 ► pp. 170 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
