Irish translation sought in criminal trial

A DUBLIN man seeking to have his criminal trial simultaneously translated into Irish made legal history yesterday.

His case became the first ever before the Supreme Court in which the proceedings were simultaneously translated.

The action was taken by Ruairí Mac Cárthaigh (56), of An tSruthan Ban, Tamhlacht, Dublin. He is charged with the robbery of confectionery and chocolate worth £11,000 at Suardais Road, Corballis, Dublin, on May 28th, 1990, and receiving the goods knowing them to have been stolen. He denies the charges.

Mr Mac Cárthaigh, who was raised in Dublin through Irish, wants to make his case through that language. He denies the charges.

In his Supreme Court proceedings, he is appealing a High Court decision of 2002 rejecting his claim that the interests of justice can be better served by simultaneous, rather than consecutive translation.

It is argued that consecutive translation, which involves lawyers making submissions in Irish and then waiting while an interpreter translates it into English, interrupts the flow of the proceedings and contravenes legal constitutional principles and natural justice.

Mr Mac Cárthaigh claims he is entitled to have his trial conducted in Irish, the first official language, and simultaneously, rather than consecutively, translated for the judge and jury and for any member of the public who wishes to avail of the translation.

He also claims that very little of an estimated €1.5 million spent by the courts annually on interpretative services is spent on translating proceedings into Irish or from Irish to English.

He claims he has a right to expect continuity in the presentation of evidence and submissions on all sides, as if one language was being used, and that this objective is best achieved through effective use of a system of simultaneous translation.

In its submissions, the State has argued the consecutive system does not contradict any obligation in the Official Languages Act.

Under Article 8.2 of that Act, the court has no duty to arrange for a bilingual trial, the trial may be held in any language and any person before the court is entitled to a trial in whatever official language they choose, it is argued.

When the proceedings came before the Supreme Court yesterday, they were conducted principally through Irish.

Two interpreters provided a simultaneous translation of the proceedings from a specially installed booth and that service was availed of now and then by some of the five judges.

In response to questions from the judges, Gerard Hogan SC, for the State, said the State accepted there is a right to fair translation in a criminal trial.

It was his case that consecutive translation was fair and the State rejected arguments that simultaneous translation was necessary.

After further exchanges, the court proposed, in light of the coming into force in 2006 of Section 8 of the Official Languages Act, which provides for applications to the Circuit Court regarding mode of trial, that the case could be adjourned to allow Mr Mac Cárthaigh make a fresh application to the Circuit Criminal Court for simultaneous translation of the proceedings at his trial.

Mr Hogan and Séamus Ó Tuathail SC, for Mr Mac Cárthaigh, agreed to that proposal and the case was adjourned.

In its 1998 judgment on earlier proceedings brought by Mr Mac Cárthaigh, the Supreme Court rejected his claim that he was entitled to be tried by a jury sufficiently fluent in Irish to follow legal proceedings without a translator.

The Supreme Court accepted there was no such thing as perfect interpretation but said most of the population would be excluded from jury service if they were required to have a clear grasp of the Irish language.

This would be contrary to the requirement that a jury should be truly representative, the court held.