Saturday, April 19, 2014

Standard for interpretation

R v Moo, 2014 ONCJ 127 holds an interpreter need not be perfect to meet the requisite constitutional competence. "What is required ultimately is that the information held by the accused person can be communicated as effectively after interpretation as it could have even if the accused person spoke the language of the trial".

Some might ask if the accused person is not entitled to understand the trial as well as merely communicating information?

No comments: