Recommended Standards for Courts and Tribunals

Information about the circumstances in which a court or tribunal may provide an interpreter should be published on court and tribunal websites and be available in hard copy from the relevant registries.

If a court or tribunal is responsible for the engagement of an interpreter in some or all kinds of matters, an application form for the provision of an interpreter in languages commonly spoken by court and tribunal users should be readily available online and in hard copy from the relevant registries. The form should make provision for a person to request that particular cultural or other considerations are taken into account in selecting an interpreter.

Training should be provided for judicial officers on assessing the need for interpreters and working with interpreters in accordance with these Standards and the Model Rules and Practice Note as enacted in their jurisdiction.

Training should be provided for court and tribunal staff on assessing the need for interpreters and working with interpreters in accordance with these Standards.

In the selection of an interpreter, courts and tribunals should ensure the interpreter is appropriate, taking into account any cultural and other reasonable concerns relevant to the proceedings.

A specific member(s) of registry staff should be designated as having responsibility for coordinating interpreting arrangements.

Courts and tribunals should implement a booking system for interpreters to ensure that interpreting services are used efficiently and with appropriate consideration to providing interpreters with as much notice as possible in relation to the assignment of work.

To maximise the ability of interpreting services to provide an appropriate interpreter for a particular case, courts or tribunals seeking to engage the services of the interpreter should give as much notice as possible.

Where Auslan interpreters are required to interpret for a deaf party or witness, they should be engaged in tandem with two (or more) interpreters, given the simultaneous mode of their work and risk of occupational injury.

Interpreters should be remunerated by reference to a scale of fees which reflect their level of qualifications and NAATI certification, skill and experience. Interpreters should also be remunerated for preparation time, travelling time, travel and accommodation costs where relevant, and for the time contracted – regardless of whether the matter finishes earlier.

In order to provide practical support for interpreters and protect their independence, courts and tribunals should provide interpreters with a dedicated space where they can wait until called, leave their belongings, prepare materials, and be briefed and debriefed. The room should be close to the hearing rooms and be equipped with wireless internet and/or a computer with internet access, for interpreters to use online resources such as dictionaries and terminology banks to prepare for their cases.

In the hearing room, courts and tribunals should provide interpreters with a dedicated location where they can see all parties in the room. Where a working station or booth is not feasible, interpreters should be provided with a chair and table and sufficient room to work, together with any necessary equipment such as, for example, headphones.

Interpreters should be provided with regular breaks during proceedings.

Where the court or tribunal is responsible for the engagement of interpreters directly or through an interpreting service, the court or tribunal shall provide counselling and debriefing for any distress or trauma suffered by the interpreters arising from their performance as officers of the court or tribunal, in that they owe paramount duties to the court or tribunal, unless such counselling and debriefing is already provided by the interpreting service provider.

Where the court or tribunal is responsible for the engagement of interpreters directly or through an interpreting service, the court or tribunal should implement procedures for the provision of feedback to and from interpreters on interpreting performance and associated matters, either coordinated through the interpreter service or through the court or tribunal.

Courts and tribunals should advise NAATI when they have been unable to secure the services of an interpreter.

Court and tribunal procedures should be adapted to ensure that the most efficient use is made of the interpreter’s time and skills. As outlined in rule 8.1 in the Model Rules, the court or tribunal may at any time make directions regarding a range of issues concerning the retainer and role of the interpreter in proceedings.

Courts and tribunals should prefer to engage a Qualified Interpreter. Where a Qualified Interpreter cannot be found, a Suitable Person may be engaged instead. Where possible, the following order of preference for an interpreter’s level of certification and qualification should be followed:

1. Certified Specialist Legal Interpreter
2. Certified Interpreter
3. Certified Provisional Interpreter
4. Recognised Practicing Interpreter
5. Suitable Person

When engaging an interpreter, whether a Qualified Interpreter or otherwise, the following should also be taken into account:

• the extent and level to which the person has pursued formal education and interpreter training, especially legal interpreting training;
• the level of their NAATI certification;
• whether or not the person is a current member of AUSIT, ASLIA or other recognised State or Territory based association; and
• any experience interpreting in court or tribunal, including the nature of that work.

For languages in Tier A, only a Certified Interpreter, or a Certified Specialist Interpreter if available, should be engaged, having regard to any cultural and other reasonable concerns.

For all other tiers, if a Certified Interpreter is not reasonably available, then, subject to cultural and other reasonable concerns:

1. For languages in Tier B:
   1. a Certified Provisional Interpreter should be engaged if there is one available; or
   2. if a Certified Provisional Interpreter is not reasonably available, the judicial officer may grant leave for a person to carry out the office of interpreter in accordance with Model Rule 4.2
2. For languages in Tier C:
   1. a Certified Interpreter should be engaged if one is available; or
   2. if a Certified Provisional Interpreter is not reasonably available, the judicial officer may grant leave for a person to carry out the office of interpreter in accordance with Model Rule 4.2
3. For languages in Tier D:
   1. 1. a Certified Provisional Interpreter should be engaged if there is one available; or
      2. if a Certified Provisional Interpreter is not reasonably available, a Recognised Practising Interpreter should be engaged if there is one available; or
      3. if neither a Certified Provisional Interpreter nor Recognised Practising Interpreter is reasonably available, the judicial officer may grant leave for a person to carry out the office of interpreter in accordance with Model Rule 4.2