Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
The Queen's Bench Division has dismissed the defendant's application that translators of the claimants' foreign language witness statements be required to attend court for cross-examination. In doing so, it found that any power to make such an order existed under its general case management powers (CPR 3.1(2)(m)) as opposed to under Part 32 of the CPR. This decision is also interesting in its consideration of the distinction between translators of witness statements and interpreters for witnesses giving oral testimony. It also offers some practical tips for practitioners with concerns about the reliability and/or accuracy of translated witness statements.
This was originally published Lexis®PSL on 1 December 2016. Discover how Lexis®PSL can help you stay on top of the latest developments and find the answers you need fast, click here for a free trial to access.
Practical implications arising from this judgment include:
The defendant sought an order that translators of the claimants' foreign language witness statements be required to attend court for cross-examination. It contended the purpose of its application was for it and the court to:
understand the process by which the documents were created and make judgment as to the reliability and accuracy of the documents in portraying the true account of the witness.
Note: in this case, the translators of the witness statements were not the same people as those who had interpreted for the witnesses in their oral testimony.
The court found there was no entitlement to cross-examine the translators of the witness statements under CPR PD 32, para 23.2, CPR 32.2(1), CPR 32.5 or CPR 32.7 (paras –).
As such, any power to make such an order fell under the court's general case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.1(2)(m) and therefore fell to be determined by reference to case management principles and furthering the overriding objective.
This fact specific decision indicates, among other things, that in determining such an application, the court will consider:
'any benefit accruing to the court from hearing translators is not a proportionate benefit in terms of time and cost'
(para [52(iii)]—see Cross-examining translators (Kimathi v FCO) — What are the practical implications of this case? as to the alternative ways in which the court suggested the various concerns raised by the defendant could be addressed
See Practice Note: Difficulties when interviewing witnesses — Non
English speaking witness.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234