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.
Mexico’s success with non-English speaking jurors. Journal of Court
about the right: How courts undermine the fair cross-section guarantee by confusing it with equal
protection. The Hastings Law
De Jongh, E. M.
introduction to court interpreting: Theory & practice. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Department of Judicial
(August2009) Serving non-English speakers in the
Virginia court system. [URL] (accessed 15 November 2021).
Duff, P., Findlay, M., Howarth, C. & Chan, T.
A Hong Kong perspective. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
in translation: New Mexico’s non-English speaking jurors and the right to translated jury
instructions. N.M. L.
1, 376. [URL] (accessed 9 October 2021).
European Parliament and Council of the European
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).
(9November1998) [URL] (accessed 15 November 2021).
(8Oct2020) Interpreter code of
conduct and procedure. [URL] (accessed 15 November 2021).
(2016) ISO 20109:2016: Simultaneous
interpreting – equipment –
requirements. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
Judicial Council of
(May2013) Professional standards and ethics
for California court interpreters. California Courts. [URL] (accessed 15 November 2021).
Judicial Council on Cultural
(2017) Recommended national standards for working with interpreters in
courts and tribunals. [URL]. (accessed 2 February 2022).
Judiciary of Hong
(November2020) Guidelines for freelance
interpreters. Freelance Interpreters Management Unit, Court Language Section, Judiciary.
in simultaneous interpreting as a deliberate act. In A. Pym & D. Orrego-Carmona (Eds.), Translation
1. Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, 103–111.
(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.
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
(1July2017) Standards for
language access services in NC State Courts. [URL] (accessed 15 November 2021).
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
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 january 2023. 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.