× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Decision making and appeals  →  Thread

Adjournments for interpreters

SamW
forum member

Lambeth Every Pound Counts

Send message

Total Posts: 430

Joined: 26 July 2012

Below is email sent to manager re hearings being adjourned for interpreters. Am I alone in encouraging clients (assuming their English is good) to give evidence direct to the panel in English rather than in their first language via an interpreter? Do other advisers have similar experiences? Would be interested in peoples thoughts as this is an issue that keeps on cropping up every so often and I don’t really know the best approach to take with it.

***

Every so often I get an appeal where it gets adjourned as the Tribunal panel feels the client needs an interpreter. I’ve had one today. The client has fluent or near fluent English albeit not as their first language and we had made a conscious decision not to request an interpreter so that they can speak to the Tribunal directly rather than via a third party. Unfortunately it seems that due to his mental health condition this client has got into a bit of a dispute with the panel about why they are asking him how often he can dress and this seems to have led them to conclude that he is not understanding the proceedings. But the problem is not because of his language difficulties but because of his mental health – he does not see why the tribunal should have to ask him questions when he has submitted supportive evidence from the CMHT.

Obviously the Tribunals cannot have a blanket policy on adjourning for an interpreter and have to deal with each case on its facts. But if possible would you be able to see if we can get some guidance on how the panels are approaching this issue. I’ve always felt that where a person’s English is up to the task it is better for them to give evidence directly rather than via a third party. It seems that at least some tribunals are taking a different approach and adjourning any case where the client’s English is less than perfect.

Also surely if an appellant is clear that they understand that they have the right to an interpreter and that they do not wish to use one surely this is down to them to make this decision?

It obviously isn’t in anybody’s interests (clients/us/the tribunal service) to have to adjourn hearings like this but at the same time I don’t think it is a great situation to be in if we are having to request an interpreter for every client who does not speak English as a first language, even if they have absolutely no need for this.

ClairemHodgson
forum member

Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 1221

Joined: 13 April 2016

SamW - 30 October 2018 07:45 PM

It seems that at least some tribunals are taking a different approach and adjourning any case where the client’s English is less than perfect.

so how would they deal with the supposed native not deaf english speaker who can’t in fact speak english properly?  we all know plenty of those…..

i think they’re wrong to do that. 

as wrong as if they’d refused an adjournment for someone who clearly did need an interpreter (or support of some other form)

 

Jane O-P
forum member

Parkinson's UK

Send message

Total Posts: 55

Joined: 31 July 2017

It is complex. Years ago I had a PCA appeal for a client with physical difficulties who I had spoken to entirely in English – she was fluent. There were some idiosyncrasies which I put down to her speaking in her second language, after some deliberation we decided to request an interpreter for the hearing as she struggled with some more technical language.
At the hearing, hearing her via an interpreter for the first time it became clear that she had some quite significant mental health problems. What I had mistakenly thought were her searching for the right word in English, or getting words slightly wrong were actually signs of erratic and unwell behaviour, lack of ability to focus and communicate. 
Luckily the tribunal could see what the situation was. And I learnt a lesson!
Also during the hearing her toddler got under the table and started trying to eat the paracetamol he had found in my handbag, so a memorable day all round.

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

I feel compelled to echo Jane’s post. There is a massive difference between being fluent in spoken English; thought English and written English. I would always go for an interpreter as soon as I have had to rephrase a question in order to get an answer or an answer hangs in the air or suggests a discrepancy. That’s a big clue something is amiss.

Granted there can be problems with the interpreters themselves. The quality issue is nationwide though and not confined to HMCTS. However, I too have learnt a lesson the hard way when working in an area where Welsh speaking was not the norm but politically desirable. Client and I both spoke Welsh but mine was largely lapsed and the clients verbal English was perfect as one might expect so I selected English as the way to go.

Case was a failure to disclose based on a question on an IS claim pack about household composition. Client confirmed they’d completed the form but could not explain coherently why they ticked no when the answer was plainly yes. My get out clause going in was that an answer elsewhere in the form clearly suggested that the answer to the earlier question was wrong. Tribunal noted this but also struggled to get a coherent explanation from the client for the discrepancy. That lasted right up until the judge (apparently on pure intuition) asked if the claimant “siarad Cymraeg?”. The subsequent conversation revealed a startling and obvious explanation for the discrepancy based on a specific difference in the construction of sentences between English and Welsh. The client could see no issue with his answer to the question when one understood that he translated it to Welsh in his head and that the meaning then changed slightly.

In the OPs case I suspect the clients understanding of what the tribunal need is completely sorted if they are able to converse with the appellant in their own language. So, for me, always an interpreter where a second language is involved on any level.

[ Edited: 31 Oct 2018 at 01:10 pm by Mike Hughes ]
ClairemHodgson
forum member

Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 1221

Joined: 13 April 2016

crikey

well those examples change my mind, certainly!

SamW
forum member

Lambeth Every Pound Counts

Send message

Total Posts: 430

Joined: 26 July 2012

Thanks all - definitely food for thought which is exactly what I was looking for! Have a nice evening!

S