Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Consecutive translation better but simultaneous acceptable

R. v. Jesuthasan, 2013 ONCA 779:

[8]          The additional time required for consecutive interpretation, particularly in the context of a jury trial, the difficulty of finding qualified interpreters to meet the needs of the courts, and the difficulty of creating a record of simultaneous interpretation are all factors which could properly bear on this decision.  It may be that technological changes would now permit at least provision of an audio digital record of simultaneous interpretation, however the whispered and simultaneous nature of the activity may make even that difficult.  If possible, it would be better to have a record of the simultaneous interpretation; however, the absence of that record, without more, does not make the simultaneous interpretation explicitly permitted in R. v. Tran insufficient. 

No comments: