An interpreter had been translating the evidence to Mr Hafiz, and his evidence to the jury, in an uncommon dialect which the defendant used.
But a member of the jury, who was familiar with the dialect, had raised concerns with the judge about the translation of the defendant's evidence.
Hmmm, not that uncommon, then? What are the odds?
Judge Rose said it was not a criticism of the interpreter, but there were significant difficulties with the dialect.
He told the jury: "I am not satisfied that what the defendant has been trying to convey to you in his evidence has accurately been conveyed."
Can't you just get another interpreter to double-check?
Judge Rose added: "This is not the end of the case, and there is every prospect this trial will take place in the future when these matters have been resolved."
He gave the prosecution 21 days to indicate whether they would retry the matter and fixed a provisional new trial date for February next year.
*sighs*
I prefer the system they have in the countries from which these people come: court appearances are conducted in the country's language - you can pay for an interpreter if you are the accused - but the language of the country is the norm.
ReplyDeleteA cyclic might wonder if they'll make sure no-one on the next jury knows that particular dialect…
ReplyDeleteMr. Treen has the right of it. English is our language, you came here of your own free will, so deal with it. My free will on this matter would be censored, for the sake of the squeamish.
ReplyDelete"I prefer the system they have in the countries from which these people come..."
ReplyDeleteAnd some of the sentencing options too..? ;)
"A cyclic might wonder if they'll make sure no-one on the next jury knows that particular dialect…"
;)
"My free will on this matter would be censored, for the sake of the squeamish."
If there's any of those reading this blog, they've come to the wrong place!