AVIDICUS Bilingual videoconferencing in legal proceedings: findings from the AVIDICUS projects Dr Katalin Balogh, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Dr Sabine Braun, University of Surrey Electronic Protocol A Chance for Transparent and Speedy Trial Warsaw, May 2015 AVIDICUS About us AVIDICUS Assessment of Video-Mediated Interpreting in the Criminal Justice System AVIDICUS 1 European Commission, Project JLS/2008/JPEN/037, AVIDICUS 2 European Commission, Project JUST/2010/JPEN/AG/1558, AVIDICUS 3 European Commission, Project JUST/2013/JPEN/AG/4553, Project consortium University of Surrey (UK) (co-ordinator), KU Leuven (BE), Local Police Antwerp (BE), Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice (NL), Dutch Legal Aid Board (NL), Institut Tlcom (FR), University of Alicante (ES), University of Trieste (IT), Polish Society of Sworn and Specialised Translators TEPIS (PL), Ann Corsellis (UK) This presentation was produced with financial support from the Criminal Justice Programme of the European Commission Directorate-General Justice. The views expressed in this material are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. AVIDICUS I. Videoconferencing in bilingual proceedings Videoconferencing and interpreting Different settings and their motivations II. Issues in VC and interpreting Interpreting performance/quality Participant distribution and communicative dynamic System and user III. Simulation Role Play Discussion IV. Guidance AVIDICUS guidelines for all stakeholders This presentation AVIDICUS I. Videoconferencing in bilingual proceedings: VC + interpreting AVIDICUS Setting 1: The judicial authority and the person to be heard (who does not speak the official language) are in different locations E.g. court-prison video links, virtual courts, hearings of remotely located witnesses; cross-border hearings The interpreter is normally at one of these locations Method of interpreting: normally consecutive; whispering interpreting possible in some configurations Source: AVIICUS1 Example 1: Interpreter co-located with authority Setting 1: Parties in different locations Example 2: Interpreter co-located with person to be heard Source: Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice Source: TRANSNATIONAL VIDEOCONFERENCING Project Example 3: Interpreter co-located with person to be heard (Cross-border) Setting 1: Parties in different locations Example 4: Interpreter in separate location (leads to 3-way videoconferencing) Setting 1: Parties in different locations Source: Onscreen Interpreting AVIDICUS Setting 2: The judicial authority and the person to be heard are in the same location The interpreter is linked in from another location (remote interpreting) Still infrequent in Europe, but common in the US Method of interpreting: consecutive, although simultaneous technically possible Setting 2: Interpreter in different location Source: Ninth Judicial Circuit Court, Florida, USA Example 1: Interpreter hub of the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court, Florida Source: Ninth Judicial Circuit Court, Florida, USA Setting 2: Interpreter in different location Example 1: Interpreter hub of the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court, Florida Example 2: Interpreter hubs of the Metropolitan Police, London Source: Metropolitan Police, London Setting 2: Interpreter in different location AVIDICUS II. Issues in VC + interpreting AVIDICUS Interpreting performance How does the interpreting performance (quality) in VC compare to that of onsite interpreting? What affects the interpreting performance in VC? (e.g. interpreters level training/qualification) What are the implications for the viability of VC+interpreting in legal proceedings? (reliability, fairness of justice) AVIDICUS Participant distribution and communicative dynamics When the main parties are in different locations (e.g. court and prison or different court houses), what is the best place for the interpreter? What is the impact of different participant distributions on the communicative dynamics? What is the impact on the proceedings? AVIDICUS System and user What is the impact of the system quality and design, e.g. Transmission protocol and bandwidth, quality of equipment (sound and image quality, lip synch) Design and implementation, especially number and placement of screens, cameras, microphones What role does the participants behaviour play, e.g. The participants VC literacy Spatial organisation of participants, especially seating arrangements / positioning in front of cameras and screens Participant interaction and co-ordination of the communication (e.g. intervening, overlapping speech) AVIDICUS III. Simulation: Hearing of a remote witness interpreter in Surrey interpreter in Hungary AVIDICUS IV. Guidance AVIDICUS Guidelines for judicial services AVIDICUS 1. Identify your needs Map out your setting who talks to whom, who needs to see/hear whom, where are the main parties and the interpreter located (is the distribution flexible yes/no), how long is the interaction etc. 2. Involve expertise at the planning stage Involve interpreting/linguistic, public service and technological expertise to work out the specifics of your setting and to approve your solution. 3. Use the best available technology Provide high-quality sound and video for all parties involved and additional equipment for the interpreter as required (e.g. headphones); use a separate document camera (for the presentation of documents, images and other material that can facilitate interpreting) Guidelines for judicial services Inter- preting Legal Technological AVIDICUS 4. Provide an appropriate work environment for the interpreter Provide an ergonomic and quiet work environment for the interpreter, allow the interpreter to control the equipment (e.g. volume control) 5. Allow a trial and error phase Run a pilot before large-scale purchase, implementation and roll-out of equipment Identify critical instances, make necessary adjustments 6. Allow for stage-by-stage introduction of new technology Start with low-impact communication, evaluate effect of technology at each stage, assess implications for the next stage Guidelines for judicial services AVIDICUS 7. Use qualified participants and interpreters Use trained and experienced legal interpreters Use legal staff who is experienced in working with interpreters 8. Offer training to the interpreters and legal practitioners Offer an early-stage induction before roll-out of technology Provide continuous professional training (including awareness of wider context, mastery of technology, communicative situation and supportive techniques such as stress management) 9. Agree risk-assessment procedures Agree procedures for deciding whether or not a video link in combination with interpreting is appropriate, consult experienced interpreters Guidelines for judicial services AVIDICUS 10. Develop guidelines/protocols for your procedures Who is responsible e.g. for booking, timing, testing, starting and controlling the connection; what is the procedure before, during and after the session (briefing of interpreter, beginning of session, introductions, rules during session, debriefing) 11. Make provisions for breakdown Develop a protocol for communication or technological breakdown; do not leave it to the interpreter to resolve breakdowns 12. Work towards a code of best practice Judicial services, legal practitioners and interpreter associations should cooperate to develop joint codes of best practice for video-mediated interpreting Guidelines for judicial services Initial AVIDICUS guidelines available at the European eJustice portal See Ch. 2.4 of Guide on videoconferencing in cross-border proceedings Comprehensive guidelines and quick guides for legal professionals, interpreters, witnesses/defendants available at AVIDICUS website AVIDICUS Contact AVIDICUS projects:Dr Katalin Balogh, Dr Sabine Braun, AVIDICUS 3 Final Symposium: Paris, January 2016 Info at