Interpreting and Translation Services in the Courts: Response to the House of Lords Public Services Committee inquiry From His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons

• We welcome the opportunity to submit a response to the House of Lords Public Services Committee inquiry about Interpreting and Translation Services in the courts.
• His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMI Prisons) is an independent inspectorate whose duties are primarily set out in section 5A of the Prison Act 1952. We provide scrutiny of the conditions for and treatment of prisoners and other detainees and report publicly on our findings.
• HMI Prisons’ inspections are carried out against published inspection criteria known as Expectations. We have a bespoke set of Expectations for assessing the treatment of and conditions for detainees in court custody.[1] The Inspectorate sets its own inspection criteria to ensure transparency and independence, with the starting point of all inspections being the outcome for detainees.
• Interpretation and translation services are required not only in court, but also in court custody to help staff to look after detainees properly and to be able to explain where they are and what is happening. Below, we summarise our key findings in relation to interpreting and translation services for detainees in court custody, from inspection reports published in 2023 and 2024.

[1] Microsoft Word – Court custody expectations 2020.docx (cloud-platform-e218f50a4812967ba1215eaecede923f.s3.amazonaws.com)

• Generally, we have found an improving picture in recent years in the use of interpreting and translation services, with greater emphasis placed on their importance. Our report on court custody facilities in Humber and South Yorkshire for example noted that “custody staff now used professional telephone interpreting more confidently”[1] and in Staffordshire and West Mercia “telephone interpretation was now available in every court.”[2]
• Nonetheless, interpreting services are not always used when required, with implications for the extent to which staff have the relevant information about some detainees’ needs and welfare. In Surrey and Sussex courts, telephone interpretation was not always used even for health-related matters.
• Interpretation services not always being used when required featured as a priority concern in our report of court custody facilities in Surrey and Sussex and as a key concern in Wales, Staffordshire and West Mercia, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire. 
• In Wales, inspectors found that “staff did not always make best use of it to explain fully to detainees all the processes, either before court or the next steps on conclusion of their cases. Neither did they use telephone interpreting with detainees when they returned from their court hearing to see how they were feeling, or to check that they understood what had happened.” [3] Though not a priority or key concern in Cheshire and Merseyside courts, inspectors noted that “telephone interpretation services for detainees who spoke little to no English were underused.”[4]

[1] Humber and South Yorkshire courts – HM Inspectorate of Prisons (justiceinspectorates.gov.uk)

[2] Staffordshire and West Mercia courts – HM Inspectorate of Prisons (justiceinspectorates.gov.uk)

[3] Welsh courts – HM Inspectorate of Prisons (justiceinspectorates.gov.uk)

[4] Cheshire and Merseyside courts – HM Inspectorate of Prisons (justiceinspectorates.gov.uk)

• We noted some positive oversight by leaders in relation to interpretation services in Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire courts, but noted limited follow-up action to improve telephone interpretation in Surrey and Sussex.

• In some of our reports we found some detainees having to spend longer in court custody than necessary. In court facilities in Humber and South Yorkshire, in Surrey and Sussex and in Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire we noted that one of the contributing factors included delays in the attendance, or non-attendance, of court-appointed interpreters.

In addition to the information outlined, inspectors at HMI Prisons have also come across instances where a court appointed interpreter has not turned up, appearing to result in individuals being remanded into custody. This has included cases where the alleged offence would not normally result in a remand.

I hope that you find this information useful and should you require anything further, please do not hesitate to contact me.