This paper sets out to present a sample of the results of a major data based study, in an attempt to put the interpreter on trial, by assessing the accuracy of her interpretation in terms of pragmatic equivalence. It is seen that often the interpreter is ‘guilty’ of misinterpretation, due to lack of pragmatic competence or failure to achieve pragmatic equivalence. However, at times, the interpreter cannot be held accountable for intrinsic problems of the interpreting process which hinder accuracy. The results of the study indicate that despite common belief that legal terminology is the biggest obstacle for court interpreters, achieving equivalence at the pragmatic level is most difficult. This often occurs with utterances or lexical items with semantic equivalents that do not match the pragmatic equivalents; with pragmatically difficult utterances to interpreter and with the observance of register. This paper only focuses on the pragmatic analysis section and pragmatic failure.