I thank Deputy Carthy for his question. It is probably motivated by the "First Conviction" documentary that was on RTÉ in November of last year. It highlighted a conviction that was overturned by the Court of Appeal back in November 2021 on the grounds that court thought the interpretation services that were provided to the accused were unsatisfactory. I think the Court of Appeal judgment referred to very serious inaccuracies in the translation.
The Deputy will be aware we have legislation in place to govern the quality of translation in our courts. It is set out in SI 565 of 2013 on interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. It transposes EU Directive No. 64 of 2010. It says that a person who appears in a criminal court "shall have the right to the assistance, at no cost, of an interpreter as set out in these Regulations". It also sets out provisions in respect of the quality of interpretation. If the quality is not sufficient, obviously the court can direct that the interpreter be replaced. That is given practical effect in our courts by the Courts Service entering into a contract with an entity or entities that provide those translation services.
I am satisfied that in the vast majority of cases the quality of the translation services provided is sufficient and professional. What was surprising in the particular case that was overturned on appeal is the fact the language in the court was French, rather than something more exotic. When accused people are before the courts they will have their own legal representation and if there is any issue in respect of the quality of translation services then, as the regulation, provides, they can be set aside.