A Victorian Supreme Court trial is proceeding with amended transcripts after an interpreter made over 200 translation errors during a key witness's testimony. The case involves 12 charges, including seven counts of aggravated servitude.
The errors were identified when the accused engaged a different Arabic interpreter to review the transcripts of an Arabic-speaking witness's evidence from 2024. The second interpreter found more than 200 errors, with approximately 100 potentially creating harm or prejudice.
Examples of Translation Discrepancies
A sample of 43 passages revealed various errors, including misinterpretations, omissions, and additions. Examples include:
- Original: "I do not remember if I went or not because I was in a new country and I didn’t know anything." Re-interpretation: "I do not know if I went or not because I was in a new country and I didn’t know anything."
- Original: "She called the police; I don’t know what she told them, and the police attended." Re-interpretation: "She called the police, she told them everything, and the police attended."
- Original: "Did he ever threaten to shoot the children in your presence?" Re-interpretation: "Did he ever threaten to hit the children with firearm?"
- Original: "... he grabbed the piece of metal, the bar, and hit [her son] with it." Re-interpretation: "... he grabbed the piece of metal, the bar, and hit the TV with it."
Court Resolution and Future Implications
The court resolved to continue the hearing using an amended transcript. The judge ruled against striking out the evidence, citing its value to the trial's outcome, stating that its amended form substantially outweighed potential prejudice or confusion. Omissions will be incorporated, additional words from the interpreter identified as ignorable, and incorrect interpretations replaced. An explanation will be provided to the jury regarding the need for alternative interpretations.
The incident has prompted discussions regarding the accuracy of legal interpretations. Professor Sandra Hale of the University of New South Wales, Sydney, noted that key recommendations from a 2017 Judicial Council on Cultural Diversity report are not consistently followed. These recommendations include employing at least two interpreters in tandem and hiring the most qualified professionals. Working in tandem is considered best practice internationally and helps minimize major errors.
Consequences for Interpreters
Michael Nemarich, CEO of the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (NAATI), stated that making mistakes does not automatically end an interpreter's career. NAATI can revoke certification for breaches of ethics or failure to meet requirements, following a complaint. No complaint has been made to NAATI regarding the errors in this specific case. The trial is set to resume on a date to be determined.