Perceptions and profiles of interviews with interpreters: A police survey
| Author | Shellee J Wakefield,Mark R Kebbell,Stephen Moston,Nina Westera |
| Published date | 01 March 2015 |
| Date | 01 March 2015 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0004865814524583 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology
2015, Vol. 48(1) 53–72
!The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0004865814524583
anj.sagepub.com
Article
Perceptions and profiles of
interviews with interpreters:
A police survey
Shellee J Wakefield
Griffith University, Australia and Centre of Excellence in Policing and
Security (CEPS)
Mark R Kebbell
Griffith University, Australia
Stephen Moston
University of Canberra, Australia
Nina Westera
Griffith University, Australia and Centre of Excellence in Policing and
Security (CEPS)
Abstract
Policing organisations across the developed world increasingly need language interpreters to
communicate with non-native speaking people. Little research has investigated police percep-
tions of using interpreter services, despite their growing need, documented concerns and
lack of a widely accepted best practice. A survey of 413 police officers documented inter-
preted interviews in Australia and assessed police perceptions of those interviews. Interviews
carried out by police included a higher number of suspect interviews and interviews via
telephone interpreters. Cases more often involved sexual assault, assault and domestic vio-
lence. Indigenous people, victims and witnesses were identified as potentially vulnerable to
not being provided interpreters. Police views on the use of interpreting services were gen-
erally positive; however, length of interviews, cost and inadequate training were identified as
potential deterrents. Implications for police are discussed, as are ways to reduce negative
police perceptions, create informed guidelines and improve interpreting service use.
Keywords
Interpreter, interviewing, investigation, language, police, translator
Corresponding author:
Shellee J Wakefield, ARC Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security, M10 Social Sciences Building, Griffith
University, Queensland 4111, Australia.
Email: shelleejane.wakefield@griffithuni.edu.au
Introduction
Non-English speaking people are now classified as ‘vulnerable’ in their dealings with the
legal system appearing, alongside, people with intellectual or physical disabilities
(Bartels, 2011). This vulnerability creates a responsibility for government organisations
and support services to ensure appropriate processes are in place to support and facili-
tate communication. For example, the Minister for Disability Services and Multicultural
Affairs stated that in 2008/2009 the Queensland Government Expenditure on inter-
preter-related services (government services and government-funded services) was
$5.8 million (Palaszczuk, 2009).
The provision of language interpreters is vital for police interviewing as poor com-
munication can hinder the effectiveness of investigations and risks injustice for the
people involved (Gibbons, 2001). Again, using Queensland as an example, reports
from the Queensland Police Service (2013) suggest the organisation had engaged the
services of an interpreter more than 1000 times in the 2012/2013 financial year. Dixon
and Travis (2007) examined a sample of 262 suspect interviews in New South Wales,
Australia and found that interpreters were present in five of those interviews but could
also have been used in others. The importance of providing interpreters is reflected by
many police agencies in the developed world now having legislation, policies and guide-
lines in place directing police to use interpreters (e.g. Working with Interpreters and
Translators – Policy, Metropolitan Police Service, 2007, England). A critical issue then
however, is how police perceive, use and interact with interpreters and whether negative
police perceptions exist that impede their use.
Police use of interpreting services
The provision of interpreters poses a unique set of challenges for police, which may
result in a reluctance to use them. For example, in Australia the 1992 Australian Law
Reform Commission (ALRC) report Multiculturalism and the law identified that
police were reluctant to use interpreters when interviewing suspects, particularly in
cases involving relatively minor offences. The report revealed this may be the case
even when there is legislation in place to ensure interpreters are provided before suspects
are questioned.
Poor provision of interpreters may reflect a lack of police training in identifying
interpreter need and a lack of understanding and application of relevant legislation
(Venditto, 2000). Gibbons (1995) also noted that police were reluctant to use interpreters
unless there were major communication problems. Police may find it difficult to recog-
nise the level of English needed for a person to participate in a police interview and thus
the need for an interpreter may not be recognised (ALRC, 1992). Interpreters are also
crucial for people who have basic English skills to ensure understanding of the complex
words and phrases found in police interviews (Dixon & Travis, 2007). In addition to
people with limited English ability, people in remote communities or those who speak
rare dialects may be at further risk of not being provided interpreters. For example, of
concern within an Australian context is the poor provision and use of interpreting ser-
vices for Indigenous people in both police interviews and the courts (Asher, 2011;
Cooke, 2002). The report Doing time – Time for doing (2011) examined Indigenous
54 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 48(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial