Sabine Braun Recommendations for the use of video - mediated interpreting in criminal proceedings

The recommendations presented in this chapter constitute one of the major outcomes of the AVIDICUS Project, which set out to assess the viability of video-mediated interpreting in the criminal justice system. The project has provided an initial assessment of interpreting in two relevant videoconference settings: a) in criminal proceedings which involve a VC, e.g. the hearing of a remote witness, with an interpreter being located at either side of the VC (‘videoconference interpreting’ – VCI), and b) in proceedings which use a video link to access an interpreter who is not physically present (‘remote interpreting’ – RI). The review of current practice undertaken in AVIDICUS (see Braun & Taylor in this volume) suggests that there is a growing demand for both forms of videomediated interpreting throughout Europe in all areas of criminal justice. At the same time, the review reveals a considerable fragmentation of knowledge and a high level of uncertainty among legal practitioners (e.g. judges, prosecutors, solicitors), police officers and interpreters about these forms of interpreting. Equally importantly, the findings from the AVIDICUS Project and related project initiatives, reported in several chapters of this volume, suggest that whilst basic practical problems with video-mediated interpreting may be resolved quickly through initial training and a process of familiarization, the combined complexities of technological mediation (through videoconference) and linguistic-cultural mediation (through an interpreter) also create deeper-rooted behavioural and communication problems which require further research to be fully understood. In particular, further research is required to investigate how the double mediation through videoconferencing and interpreting affects the specific goals of legal communication and to elicit adaptive strategies to mitigate such effects. Prior research on legal videoconferencing has sounded a note of caution over the increasing use of videoconference technology in legal proceedings. Haas (2006: 61) emphasises that there is “a growing body of scientific evidence that shows videomediated personal interactions are perceived as significantly different by the participants and observers than in-person interactions”. Federman (2006: 450) claims furthermore that a multiplication of the complexity of legal communication “by the mediation effects created through videoconferencing introduces the significant possibility of inconsistency, inaccuracy, and altered judgment”. Federman’s claim is based on the assessment of the findings of videoconference use in immigration hearings, which also involved an interpreter, although the focus of the analysis was not on the interpretation.1 Research dealing specifically with video-mediated interpreting has generated mixed findings, making it difficult to infer the potential risks and challenges. As Roziner & Shlesinger