Yesterday’s Law Gazette reports that senior judge Sir James Munby, who is the President of the Family Division of the High Court of England and Wales, has described the arrangements for providing court interpreters under the contract between Capita and the Ministry of Justice as “unacceptable” after he was forced to abandon a final adoption hearing after Capita was repeatedly unable to provide interpreters for the Slovak-speaking parents.

Sir James ordered Capita to explain why neither of the 2 interpreters booked for the 7th May hearing had attended. He described the response to the points he raised in his judgement (PDF) from Capita’s relationship director Sonia Facchini, as disclosing a “concerning state of affairs”, with 3 points “demanding notice”.

In the first instance he noted: “The contractual arrangements between Capita and the interpreters it provides do not give Capita the ability to require that any particular interpreter accepts any particular assignment or even to honour any engagement which the interpreter has accepted.”

Secondly, he drew attention to the short notice courts were given of any cancellation of a booking by a interpreter (2 pm on the day before the hearing). This gives the court insufficient time to make alternative arrangements.

Thirdly, he noted the lack of suitably qualified interpreters. On the day in question, Capita needed 39 Slovak interpreters to cover the workload requested by the courts; Capita only had 29 suitably qualified Slovak interpreters on its books for court hearings that day, of whom a mere 13 were within a 100-mile radius of London’s Royal Courts of Justice.

Defending his adjournment, Sir James stated: “Anyone tempted to suggest that an adjournment was not necessary might care to consider what our reaction would be if an English parent before a foreign court in similar circumstances was not provided with an interpreter.”

Quite.

When approached for a response to the learned judge’s remarks, both Capita and the MoJ made their usual, meaningless soothing noises that are not worth transcribing, let alone reading.

In political terms, the responses by the MoJ to concerns about its contract with Capita are akin to the “Big Lie“. However, the lies told by its various spokespersons over the years are so preposterous, no-one with any sense is buying their propaganda.

The report below – written by Heather Howe and reposted from Linguist Lounge – shows that the Crapita/MoJ court interpreting disaster is still rumbling on (posts passim).

Chaos such as this is being repeated in magistrates and Crown Courts in England and Wales every day. Nevertheless, this shambles – as Heather Howe so aptly describes it – and criminal waste of public funds is not getting the attention it really deserves in the mainstream media.

SOUTHWARK CROWN COURT – 23rd May 2014 serious matter listed not before 11am. No interpreter until 10.50 could be found therefore no assistance with conference with client and counsel. Into Court and started lengthy sentence hearing interupted [sic] by Jury returning in another matter and delayed until 12.30 ish. Returned to court and interpreter announces that he has to leave by 1pm. Case started but unable to finish and further interpreter sought. 2.15pm advised that only intepreter available was unqualified and without court experience. Further delays until about 3.30 when Court sat and considered adjourning case. All parties huge inconvenience and court empty for most of afternoon. An interpreter never arrived and we proceeded to sentence in the absence of interpreter and agreement of client. Lengthy conference will be required in prison with registered intepreter and full notes to explain sentence. Additional costs for all concerned. The last hearing at Southwark CC we have already complained that no interpreter arrived. That was simply a mention hearing and we managed after some delay and costs of empty courtroom. I am writing to the MP and the Court about this and lodging a formal complaint.

There was a case I did in Northampton last year with 4 Columbian clients and multiple charges. Two interpreters arrived and refused to attend the cells for conference. Again one had to leave at lunchtime, delayed again and hours spent for counsel and prison staff while clients were seen. SHAMBLES.