I moves on to law enforcement again stating that all of these best practices should be taken into into account with regards to law enforcement interactions and just pointing out that some investigations may take place in settings where generalist interpreters are already engaged to interpret.
So for example police officers might go into a school and actually conduct an interview or take a statement in a in a school building there may already be interpreters in place educational interpreters working in that environment but it points out that those interpreters should not be the ones to be engaged for the legal interaction and experience legal interpreters should be brought in to conduct.
That or to mediate that interaction and again team interpreting always remains a best practice often we do find with law enforcement interactions only one interpreter is engaged but the best practice is that team interpreting is here’s what we do DUI Defense Attorney again deaf interpreters need to be considered the importantly it states that the interpretation of the caution should be video recorded as evidence of whether.
The rights have been understood now in pace the the police and Criminal Evidence Act it states that the caution must be repeated at the beginning of any interview so usually that will be caught on camera at that point that’s often not the first time that the caution is read to the deaf party and it’s a bit of a sticky situation sometimes as to whether video recording equipment will be available.
When the caution is first put to the deaf party but it’s certainly something that we need to consider and just reinforces the fact that any interactions with the potential to become evidence should ideally be video recorded and obviously again as we said previously both the source and the target language must be recorded so the language of the deaf party and of the interpreter so that’s all the sections within the best practices document and just to say we’ve had as we have had one one item of feedback so far since.