TO HAVE AN INTERPRETER – A RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL. EVALUATION OF PERSONAL EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY THE HELP OF AN INTERPRETER

Main Article Content

Csilla HATI

Abstract

Abstract. The author is a trainee lawyer, and a graduating PhD student. Her field of research is the principle of directness in the criminal procedure, with special emphasis on the significance of the spoken language, and the possibility of the distortion of the information that is mediated during interpretation. The author supplements her research with her experience obtained during her time as a defense lawyer in criminal procedures. Her aim is to point out how a confession obtained with the help of an interpreter can lead to a false statement of facts. The right to have a free interpreter belongs to the circle of absolute rights of a fair procedure, the deprivation from which makes a procedure unfair in every case. However, improper interpretation bears risks of a similar proportion, as it can apply new meaning to the confessions. Thus, the forensic and questioning rules of interrogation are different when conducted with an interpreter, provided that the interrogator indeed strives to unveil the truth. This information should be part of the basic knowledge of the members of authority and the defense lawyer as well. However, both the judge and the interpreter must keep it in mind that the parties might intentionally apply such linguistic means which result in the distortion of information.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
HATI, C. (2016). TO HAVE AN INTERPRETER – A RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL. EVALUATION OF PERSONAL EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY THE HELP OF AN INTERPRETER. Comparative Legilinguistics, 28, 25-42. https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2016.28.2.
Section
Articles

References

  1. Balassa, László. 1977. A hajnalodik ige rokon szavai és a hajnal irodalmi ábrázolása. In: A mai Magyar nyelv. (edited by Borbála Keszler) Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.
  2. Elek, Balázs. 2007. A vallomás befolyásolása a büntetőeljárásban. Debrecen: Tóth Könyvkereskedés Kiadó Kft.
  3. Elek, Balázs. 2014. A bírói meggyőződés és a megalapozott tényállás összefüggései. In: Jura 2014 XX./1.
  4. Gudykunst, William B. 2003. Cross-cultural and Intercultural Communication. Thousand Oaks (CA).
  5. González, Roseann D. (1994). The Federal Court Interpreter Certification Project: Defining World Class Standards for Court Interpretation. (Proceedings of IJET 4, Brisbane, University of Queensland) IN: GAMAL, Muhammad (1998): Court Interpreting. In: Routledge Encyclopaedia of Translation Studies. (edited by Baker, Mone) London/New York, Routledge.
  6. Hall, Edward T. 1987. Rejtett dimenziók. Budapest: Gondolat.
  7. Hidasi, Judit. 2004. Interkulturális kommunikáció. Scolar Kiadó.
  8. Horváth, Ildikó. 2012. Interpreter Behaviour. A Psychological Approach. Budapest: Hang Language School.
  9. Horváth, Ildikó. 2013. Bírósági tolmácsolás. Budapest.
  10. J. H, Lempp. 2002. A helyes kérdezés módja. Pszichoterápia.
  11. Jiun Lee. 2015. How many Interpreters Does It Take to Interpret the Testimony of an Expert Witness? A Case Study of Interpreter-Mediated Expert Witness Examination. In: International Journal for the Semiotics of Law. Volume 28, No.1
  12. Joachim, H. A büntetőeljárás reformja Kelet- és Nyugat-Európában. Fordította: Bócz Endre. Magyar Jog.
  13. Jolán, R. – Sandra, H. (ed.) (2009). Interkultúrális és nemzetközi kommunikáció a globalizálódó világban. Budapest: Budapesti Kommunikációs és Üzleti Főiskola.
  14. Juszkiewicz, Hanna. 2012. Dissolution of Marriage: Functional Approach to Polish-English Translation of Selected Court Documents. In: Comparative Legilingustics. 12/2012
  15. Kővágó, György. 2009. A kommunikáció elméleti és gyakorlati alapjai. Aula.
  16. Neuliep, James W. 2006. Intercultural Communication. A Contextual
  17. Papp, Ferenc. 1977. Az Értelmező Szótár legtöbb jelentésű szavairól. In: A mai magyar nyelv. (edited by Borbála Keszler) Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.
  18. Samovar, Larry A. - Porter, Richard E. - McDaniel, Erwin R. 2007. Communication Between Cultures. Belmont (CA).
  19. Ting, T., Stellan - Chung, Leeva C. 2005. Understanding Intercultural Communication. Los Angeles (CA).
  20. Tremmel, Flórián. 2006. Bizonyítékok a büntetőeljárásban. Budapest-Pécs: Dialóg Campus.
  21. Végvári, R. 2005. Az angol büntetőeljárás egyes kérdései. Keresztmetszet. Szeged: President of the Advisory Board of the Elemér Pólay Foundation.
  22. Zygmunt, Lukasz. 2012. Lexical Pitfalls in Polish-English Legal Translation: a Case Study Involving Students of English Philology in Poland. In: Comparative Legilingustics. 12/2012