Some countries such as the Netherlands decided that this meant that they should accept the need for a proper provision of interpreting services. Others just ignored it. The result is that within Europe the provision of interpreting in the courts varies enormously from one country to another. Yet it is absolutely essential that court interpreters should be impartial, they should not take on the role of advocates and they should have an understanding of legal concepts. But if interpreters are not trained, how can they acquire these characteristics themselves?

There are two different legal systems. The civil law system is the system in English speaking countries such as Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States. The common law system is the system in mainland Europe. In the civil law or adversarial system the defendant and all witnesses appear in court before a judge and jury and give their version of events. An interpreter is present in order to render a foreign language into the language of the court and to inform the defendant of the proceedings. In the common law system a judge is appointed to a case when a crime is committed and he or she takes written statements from the defendant and the witnesses. Foreign language statements are translated. The court interpreter's role is closer to that of a translator in that he or she does mainly sight translation. For example, in Spain, there is a university qualification known as traductor jurado or traductor público. These people are trained legal translators. Despite this legal background, these translators may benefit from courses in court interpretation. The stenographer or court reporter records everything that is said in the language of the court i.e. everything except the foreign language. In some countries an audio recording is also made of the whole proceedings. In some jurisdictions the interpreter has to take a specific interpreter's oath to interpret to the best of his or her ability.

Court interpreters should always remember that their job is to interpret – not to question clients or tell them what their rights are or explain points to them. The court interpreter is not a lawyer. The interpreter must be neutral and should not supply extra information over and above what the clients actually say.

As for the types of interpreting provided in the courts, consecutive interpreting is provided in question and answer sessions. If statements are particularly long the interpreter may need to take notes. Accuracy is extremely important here because this is testimony that will appear in the court record. It is very easy for the interpreter to misrepresent the

language of a defendant or a witness. Informal, uneducated speech can be interpreted into very correct, educated speech. The interpreter may censor bad language, thus making the speaker appear more polite than he or she really is. The interpreter may omit or add information.

Whispered simultaneous interpreting is provided to defendants so that they can understand the testimony that is heard in court. Some courts have equipment for simultaneous interpreting. In the United States some interpreters buy their own infrared equipment. The ideal is to ensure that the defendant understands everything that is going on in court. However, in some jurisdictions it may not be clear if the interpreter is to interpret everything or if he or she can interpret certain items and omit others.

责任编辑：admin