2. Barcelona ciudad marítima
2.10. Mención de la pesca
The Avidicus projects were carried out between 2008 and 2016 with Avidicus 1 (2008-2011), Avidicus 2 (2011-2013), and Avidicus 3 (2014-2016). These projects, co-ordinated by the University of Surrey, received financial support from the
European Commission’s Directorate-General for Justice, and they gathered many different cross-European stakeholders17. The Avidicus’ overarching aim is to assess Video-Mediated Interpreting in the Criminal Justice System. With such an aim, various interpreting contexts (such as police stations, criminal courtrooms, cross-border resettlement hearings) in different set-ups (face-to-face, RI and/or VCI) in sign and spoken languages are examined. Given the financial pressure exercised across judicial systems in Europe and the increasing need to provide MLS access to interpreters, the Avidicus projects were to “design research-led but practical solutions that aim at mitigating current problems of video-mediated
16 Avidicus stands for Assessment of Videoconference Interpreting in the Criminal Justice Service. 17A comprehensive list of the stakeholders taking part in the projects is available on the Avidicus’
31 interpreting rather than stopping at the (scientific) insight that video-mediated interpreting is challenging” (Braun, 2016a, p. 5), which is materialised by the creation of training guidelines and recommendations. Interestingly, the projects conclude by opening up the use of VCI and research to other fields such as mediation in civil and commercial matters or even within healthcare and local government provisions (Braun, 2016a, 2016b). The sub-sections below highlight the main findings in each project. However, given the scope of this doctoral study, only research in VCI used in a legal setting with spoken languages is considered.
3.2.4.1. Avidicus 1
The studies carried out within the scope of Avidicus are divided into four main areas: the legal framework and context, the technological needs and
specifications, various experimental studies, and the training required. These studies covered both VCI and RI. As the first two areas (legal framework and technological specifications) have already been discussed in Section 1 and Section 2 of this chapter, this section will focus on the findings from the experimental studies and training recommendations.
Comparative, experimental studies have been articulated around three main settings: the use of VCI/RI during police interviews, in court hearings, and during prosecution interviews. As discussed in Section 3.2.2 above, Braun and Taylor (2011a) investigate the use of RI during police interviews. Also in a police context, Rombouts (2011), a police officer in Antwerp, describes his professional
experience in VCI, and he comments on the necessity to build a rapport between the interviewer and the interviewee. He argues that it is much more difficult to establish such a rapport when interviews are conducted via VC systems as the interviewer and interviewee are not co-present. This raises questions as to whether an interpreter in VCI A would then be able to build a rapport with the defendant or witness, which concurs with Ellis (2004)’s findings in immigration hearings. Balogh and Hertog (2011)’s study sheds further light on police interviews by examining interaction in VCI and RI. They (2011, p. 102) simulated sixteen police interviews in order to “observe and analyse the differences in performance and perception between face-to-face, videoconference and remote interpreting.” On the basis of their findings, they argue that VCI and RI require more
32 overlaps in speech and artificial pauses. However, they conclude that VCI B may be the most favourable option as it is possible to build a rapport between the interpreter and the suspect, which supports Ellis (2004)’s findings discussed above. Furthermore, in VCI B, the interpreter should be seated behind the suspect in order to avoid distractions. However, they argue that this can also lead to the interpreter becoming an advocate for the suspect, which as Devaux (2017) argues, would create ethical rationalisation dilemmas.
In a criminal court context, Miler-Cassino and Rybińska (2011) focus their study on the use of VCI during prosecution questioning of witnesses in Polish courts. As per Balogh and Hertog (2011)’s study above, their aim is to assess “interpreting
quality and all the factors that affected or might have affected the quality of
interpreter’s performance in VCI A and VCI B settings” (Miler-Cassino & Rybińska, 2011, p. 120). They devise a simulation of three case scenarios, using three
different interpreters. In terms of assessing the quality of the interpreters’
performances, the results are mixed. An interpreter performed better in VCI A than in VCI B or in face-to-face, whilst another performed better in VCI B. These
discrepancies may be due to various factors such as a difference in linguistic and interpreting skills, or the knowledge of the subject matter. However, this study also highlights other interesting points. Interpreters reported that they found the
experiments more stressful, isolating, and tiring. They also claim that interpreters need to focus more in VCI. These results concur with those gathered from studies on the use of RI in conference settings in terms of the physiological impact of technologies on the interpreter18. Also, as per Balogh and Hertog (2011)’s study, interpreters prefer to work in VCI B than in VCI A. Finally, this study asserts that the interpreters in their case study have developed, throughout the three days of the experiment, coping techniques for dealing with stress, for instance, as they seemed more relaxed. Unfortunately, they do not provide more detailed
information concerning the type of coping techniques used, but this suggests that interpreters may be adapting rather quickly to interpreting in VCI. To some extent, these studies find some concerns similar to those expressed in studies in
monolingual settings or in RI as discussed above. However, these studies are
33 based on simulations, something which as Fowler (2012) argues, paves the way for more empirical research to be conducted in this area.
The last chapter of the Avidicus 1 project is dedicated to VCI training. It is divided into four presentations that are aimed at student interpreters, practising legal interpreters, and legal practitioners and police officers. The material covers various areas such as legislation governing the use of VC systems, definitions of the various types of technologies used, an overview of the current practice, and some exercises (for student interpreters); and it offers practical guidelines as to when such technologies are used. It is apparent that the material is based on the outcomes of the studies that were carried out within the scope of Avidicus 1.
Braun (2011) concludes by providing recommendations in which she highlights the fact that the use of technologies in the legal sphere is on the increase. However, there are various discrepancies in the actual knowledge and research, and practitioners are expressing uncertainties as to the use of technologies. She further asserts that the technological issues may be the aspect that can be the most easily resolved. However, technologies impact on the interpreter’s behaviour, and for this reason further studies are needed, and codes of conduct may need to be amended, thus providing avenues for further research.
3.2.4.2. Avidicus 2
Building on the findings from Avidicus 1, this second project focuses more
specifically on the communicative legal goals and adaptive strategies in bilingual, national and cross-European legal proceedings 19.
When examining the interpreting quality, Braun (2013b) identifies that in police interviews, quality can be impacted by the following interrelated factors: “quality of sound and image, careful and correct positioning of all participants, effective turn- taking and avoiding of overlap, and familiarity with the equipment and setting” (Braun, 2013b, p. 20). Interestingly, even though training and raising awareness on these factors does not eradicate quality issues, it contributes to improving the interpreter’s performance. Furthermore, the interpreter’s training and education should not take place in a vacuum, but joint training gathering together all the
19The exhaustive list of Avidicus 2’s aims and outcomes is available at
34 judicial actors (police officers, judges, lawyers, etc.) is required. Avidicus 2 also examines the strategies developed by the interpreters when interpreting during simulated prosecution interviews in Poland. Braun (2013b, pp. 31-33) lists the following seven strategies: “request for repetition, alert to problem, comprehension check, direct request for clarification, repetition plus interrogative, approximation, physical resolution” which in fact can be combined. She argues that some are used more successfully than others, and for instance, request for repetition was less efficient than a comprehension check, which was used more frequently. It is interesting to note that most strategies listed require a verbal action from the interpreter, and only “physical resolution” (where the interpreter would use body language, for example) was the only non-verbal strategy. Avidicus 3 also
examines the impact of VCI on the dynamics of police interviews and in
courtrooms. Braun (2013b)’s findings reveal that VCI impairs rapport building and interaction between participants. Furthermore, “the technology, even when very well designed, may not be able to erase reduction in the quality of the
intersubjective relations between the participants” (Braun, 2013b, p. 45), which correlates with the findings in a monolingual setting discussed in Section 3.1 above.
On the basis of the above findings, Braun (2013a) provides a list of
recommendations and guidelines to national institutions and authorities within the judicial realm, legal stakeholders (such as judges, lawyers and the police), and court interpreters. These recommendations and guidelines are more detailed than in Avidicus 1, and they are specific to each court participant. For instance, Braun (2013a) provides a step-by-step guideline for court interpreters to follow before, during, and after the VC session in which interpreters are encouraged to
familiarise themselves with the equipment, voice their preference between VCI A or VCI B, agree procedures to follow with the other court actors, and monitor their output and body language. Interestingly, and unlike in other studies, she
encourages interpreters to keep a diary of their experience in which to note any issues and solutions provided during a VC hearing. It can be argued that such an approach certainly encourages the interpreter to become a reflective practitioner who is then more able to provide adaptive strategies.
35 In the Avidicus 3 project, the main aim was “to conduct a comprehensive
assessment of the current practices in the implementation and use of VC facilities in the justice sector across Europe” (Braun et al., 2016b, p. 4). The study was carried out in twelve countries20, and for each country the findings are thematised under nine areas: procurement, equipment and maintenance, uses, participant distribution, pre-VC/post-VC, mode of interpreting, VC management,
communication management, and working arrangements with interpreters. Given the scope of this study, this section will review only findings for England.
In terms of procurement, Braun et al. (2016b) state that VC equipment is used between various judicial bodies (her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, the Crown Prosecution Service, the National Probation Service, the Prison Service, and the Police), which leads “to a great variety of products and suppliers” (Braun et al., 2016b, p. 20). In this case, and based on the discussion in Section 1.2 above, it could be argued that having many products and suppliers increases the risk of encountering technical issues and equipment incompatibility.
With regard to the equipment and maintenance, the equipment in criminal courts is fixed, and it is installed in already existing court layouts, which means that it
requires “compromises in the positioning of the equipment” (Braun et al., 2016b, p. 23). As a result, there exist disparities in terms of the number and the positioning of cameras, screens, microphones. However, the equipment also shows some common features. For instance, it displays picture-in-picture functionalities so that participants can also see themselves on screen. Cameras can also zoom in and out, and they are operated by a member of staff in court. However, given Licoppe et al. (2013) and Roth (2000)’s findings discussed in section 3.1 above, this raises further questions regarding staff training and their understanding of the staging and production of VCI court hearings. Furthermore, the connection is made through an ISDN or IP videoconference system. The quality of audio is on the whole good, but the quality of the video feed varies, which could be explained by the use of different connection systems21.
20 Belgium, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Scotland,
Spain and Sweden.
36 Braun et al. (2016b) state that in England VC systems are used in a multitude of hearings, and this covers Criminal Justice, Civil Justice, Immigration and Asylum. In this context, they assert that VC systems are used predominantly in national cases for hearings that usually last 30 to 45 minutes. Participants’ opinions regarding the use of VC equipment tend to vary. Overall, it seems that judicial authorities are satisfied, whereas some judges and interpreters’ feelings differ, and some are more cautious.
In terms of participants’ distribution, Braun et al. (2016b) state that interpreters tend to be located in court next to the defence lawyer, which suggests that VCI A is used more often than VCI B, and which reflects the Bail for Immigration
Detainees and the British Refugee Council (2008)’s study. However, when interpreting for a witness giving their testimony, the interpreter tends to be co- present with the witness. It is noteworthy that, as in Avidicus 2, interpreters in Braun et al. (2016b)’s report shared different opinions regarding their preferred location, and some would rather be interpreting in the courtroom, whilst others would rather be co-located with the MLS.
Furthermore, interpreters in England receive very little information before the VC hearing which is limited to logistic information (such as time and place), and they are not necessarily provided with the charges or indictments. Braun et al. (2016b) also argue that there is no debriefing session regarding the quality of the VC connection, and discussions taking place tend to focus on payment-related matters. However, the lack of information is not exclusive to the use of VCI, and scholars (such as Gamal, 2009; Tipton & Furmanek, 2016) have discussed the negative impact it has on the interpreter’s preparation in face-to-face court settings.
In terms of the mode of interpreting, it is confined to consecutive interpreting, and although whispered interpreting is possible in VCI B, “interpreters are often asked not to use whispered interpreting during video links and need to resort to
consecutive interpreting” (Braun et al., 2016b, p. 29). The reason given by Braun et al. (2016b) is that participants in court feel that whispered interpreting creates a background noise as the interpreter’s microphone is still live, and they find it
37 distracting. However, this results in the interpreter not always having the time to interpret consecutively, and she is instead asked to provide summaries.
Regarding VC management, the interpreters feel that they are more or less visible actors in VCI A and VCI B as they were not always certain if the defendant could see them in VCI A, while in VCI B, they may not have been in the camera shot as the room layout was not conducive to showing both the interpreter and the
defendant/witness. As a result, Braun et al. (2016b) state that it is more difficult to establish a rapport with the participants on the other side of the screen.
This difficulty in creating a rapport also impacts on the interpreters’ ability to manage the communication, both in VCI A and VCI B, and “they need to be more ‘forceful’ than in [face-to-face] hearings if they need to draw the court’s attention, for example, to ask for clarification” (Braun et al., 2016b, p. 31). Although the judge is supposed to manage the interaction, the use of VC systems leads to over-lapping speeches, difficulties in managing turn-taking, and a reduction of non-verbal cues, for instance. Interestingly, these findings correlate with Licoppe and Verdier (2013)’s conclusion. These researchers were also part of the Avidicus project, and they argue that in their study in VCI, the discourse is more
fragmented, and there is a greater need to manage turn-taking activities.
Finally, the working arrangements for interpreters have deteriorated since court interpreting provision was outsourced to a private company named ALS (and later Capita). Braun et al. (2016b) portray a working environment where underqualified or unqualified interpreters were allowed to work in court, which resulted in the interpreter’s remuneration being reduced. At the time when Braun et al. (2016b)’s report was written, the contract was put out for tender, which the authors
acknowledge. Since then Thebigword, a company providing language services, has been awarded the contract, but it appears that the use of under/un-qualified interpreters still persists, and the interpreter’s remuneration remains much lower than before the outsourcing22.
22 This is based on interpreters sharing their experience on numerous blogs, Facebook pages or
fora such as the Public Service Interpreters’ Forum, the Professional Interpreters’ Forum, or the
38 The practical implications of these findings were compiled in the Handbook of Bilingual Videoconferencing by Braun, Davitti, and Dicerto (2016a). This handbook has a far-reaching target readership as it is designed for policy makers, legal professionals, legal interpreters and technicians. Further to putting forward guidelines on the nine areas discussed above, it also provides training ideas in simulated contexts where all the stakeholders are invited to take part.
Overall, the use of technologies in a mono- or multi-lingual legal setting, be it through TI, RI, or VCI, produces some similar findings. It appears that the participants’ perceptions, their body language, or even their emotions can be skewered by the use of technologies, and in this sense, it is more difficult to establish a rapport with the remote participants. These problems can be further aggravated when technological issues, such as poor sound/video quality, are encountered, and despite research advocating an improvement in terms of technical specifications, they still seem to prevail. However, it also appears that questions related to the legalities of technologies are mainly examined in a
monolingual setting, whereas research whose focus is on interpreting tends to lay greater stress on the impact that technologies have on the interpreting
performance, its quality and the interaction management of the court proceedings.