Human Interpreters in Virtual Courts: A Review of Technology-Enabled Remote Settings in Australia

Objective: This interdisciplinary review intends to inform legal scholars, practitioners, and users of language interpretation services in the judiciary of challenges encountered by professional interpreters in virtual hearings and remote settings.

Methods: Situated at the intersection of law, language, and communication, this review analyses the latest discourses about technology-enabled remote settings and synthesises insights into recommended practices in effective legal communication mediated by interpreters in virtual courts.

Results: With an overarching aim to improve effective collaboration between interpreting service providers and users in multilingual legal communication for procedural equity and access to justice, this review establishes three central claims: (1) the technology-enabled virtual hearings is accelerated by the covid-19 pandemic, (2) the need for effective legal communication mediated by the use of interpreters in remote settings is mounting, and (3) successful collaboration between the service user and provider can achieve a win-win outcome.

Scientific novelty: A review of existing studies in law and language reveals three main gaps: (1) procedural justice in videoconferencing hearings and remote technologies, (2) equity and access for people with limited proficiency in the official language of the court system, and (3) effective legal communication mediated by human interpreters in virtual courts. This review bridges the existing gaps in knowledge.

Practical significance: it touches on three aspects of the law-language nexus: (1) Covid-19 accelerated adoption of the virtual courtroom technologies in Australia and its impact on court interpreting, (2) challenges for interpreters in remote settings, and (3) achieving linguistic accuracy and intercultural appropriateness when preserving the manner in which the content is expressed as intended or implied by the original speaker. Grounded in courtroom interpreting practices, it highlights the importance of effective collaboration in successful multilingual legal communication rooted in mutual purpose, shared expectations, and interprofessional understanding.

1. Braun, S. (2020). “You are just a disembodied voice really”: Perceptions of video remote interpreting by legal interpreters and police officers. In H. Salaets, & G. Brone (Eds.), Linking up with video: Perspectives on Interpreting Practice and Research. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.149.03bra

2. Gallai, F. (2022). Relevance Theory in Translation and Interpreting: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Approach (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003183969

3. Grieshofer, T. (2022). Remote Interpreting in Immigration Tribunals. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law-Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique, 36, 767–788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-022- 09908-3

4. Hildebrand-Edgar, N., & Ehrlich, S. (2017). She was quite capable of asserting herself”: Powerful Speech Styles and Assessments of Credibility in a Sexual Assault Trial. Linguagem e Direito [Language and Law], 4(2), 89–107.

5. Kerr-Thompson, J. (2002). “Powerful/Powerless” language in court: A critical re-evaluation of the Duke Language and Law Programme. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 9(2), 153–167.

6. Lee, J. (2011). Translatability of Speech Style in Court Interpreting. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 18(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v18i1.1

7. Legg, M., & Song, A. (2021). The courts, the remote hearing and the pandemic: From action to reflection. UNSW Law Journal, 44(1), 126–166. https://doi.org/10.53637/ZATE4122

8. Liu, X. (2020). Pragmalinguistic challenges for trainee interpreters in achieving accuracy: An analysis of questions and their interpretation in five cross-examinations. Interpreting, 22(1), 87–116. https://doi.org/10.1075/ intp.00035.

9. liu McIntyre, J., Olijnyk, A., & Pender, K. (2020). Civil courts and COVID-19: Challenges and opportunities in Australia. Alternative Law Journal, 45(3), 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X20956787

10. Roberts-Smith, L. (2009). Forensic Interpreting: Trial and Error. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.87.03rob Yi, R. (2022). Does Style Matter in Remote Interpreting: A Survey Study of Professional Court Interpreters in Australia. International Journal of Translation and Interpretation Studies, 2(1), 48–59. https://doi. org/10.32996/ijtis.2022.2.1.7

11. Yi, R. (2023a). The promise of linguistic equity for migrants in Australian courtrooms: a cross-disciplinary perspective, Australian Journal of Human Rights, 29(1), 174-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/132323 8X.2023.2232171

12. Yi, R. (2023b). The Routledge Handbook of Public Service Interpreting. By Gavioli, Laura and Wadensjö, Cecilia, London, UK: Routledge. Public Integrity. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2023.2206236