WORKING WITH INTERPRETERS PRACTICE NOTE [GPN-INTERP]
General Practice Note
1.	COMMENCEMENT
1.1	This Practice Note commences on 24 March 2023.
2.	APPLICATION
2.1	This Practice Note applies to all civil and criminal proceedings commenced after its commencement and to any existing proceedings which the Court directs should be subject to this Practice Note in whole or in part.
3.	DEFINITIONS
3.1	In this Practice Note: 
“accurately” means resulting in the optimal and complete transfer of the meaning from the other language into English and from English into the other language, preserving the content and intent of the communication made in the other language or in English (as the case may be) without omission or distortion and including matters which the interpreter may consider inappropriate or offensive.
“Certified Interpreter” means a person who is currently certified by the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (NAATI) as a Certified Interpreter (previously called “Professional Interpreter”).
 “Code of Conduct” means the Code of Conduct for Interpreters in Legal Proceedings set out in Annexure A.
“consecutive mode” means the mode of consecutive interpreting whereby the interpreter interprets after each short segment. 
“interpret” means the process whereby spoken or signed language is conveyed from one language (the source language) to another (the target language) orally.
“interpreter”, in relation to any other language (as defined below), means a qualified interpreter, a Certified Interpreter, an interpreter who is registered or recognised as an interpreter for that language by a Recognised Agency, or a person who otherwise satisfies the Court that they are qualified to carry out the office of interpreter.
“other language” means a spoken or signed language other than English.
“qualified interpreter” means a person qualified for court interpreting because they have all of the following attributes: 
•	a tertiary (VET or university) qualification in interpreting; 
•	certification from NAATI; 
•	membership with a professional body (e.g. AUSIT, ASLIA or other recognised national, State or Territory based interpreter association); and 
•	experience interpreting in court.
“Recognised Agency” means the NAATI and such other organisations as are approved by the Chief Justice for the purposes of this Practice Note. 
“Recommended National Standards” means the Recommended National Standards for Working with Interpreters in Courts and Tribunals (2nd ed, 2022), a copy of which may be found on the Court’s website.
“FCA Standards” means the modified rules based on the Judicial Council on Cultural Diversity (JCCD) (now the Judicial Council on Diversity and Inclusion), Recommended National Standards for Working with Interpreters in Courts and Tribunals (2nd ed, 2022) , which have been agreed to be implemented and applied in the Court and are set out in Annexure B.
“sight translate” means the process whereby an interpreter or translator presents a spoken interpretation of a written text. 
“simultaneous mode” means the mode of simultaneous interpreting whereby the interpreter listens to the spoken language, or watches the signed language, and interprets at the same time with only a small lag between the message in the source language and the interpretation in the target language. 
“translate” means the process whereby written language is conveyed from one language (the source language) to another (the target language) in the written form. 
4.	PURPOSE
4.1	The main purposes of this Practice Note are:
1)	to implement in the Court the second edition of the Recommended National Standards for Working with Interpreters in Courts and Tribunals published in 2022 by the Judicial Council on Cultural Diversity, with minor modifications as set out in Annexure B to this Practice Note;
2)	to clarify that the Court has control over the giving of evidence that is interpreted or translated into English;
3)	to recognise the special status of an interpreter in the administration of justice by declaring the duties of an interpreter in relation to the Court and the parties to proceedings; and
4)	to provide some procedural guidance on the operation of the FCA Standards in the Court (which are for the Court, judicial officers, interpreters, and legal practitioners).
4.2	The adoption of these modified standards and the provision of procedural guidance in the form of the FCA Standards is through this Practice Note, issued by the Chief Justice, rather than by amendment to the rules of the Court and the issue of a less comprehensive practice note as was recommended by the Judicial Council on Cultural Diversity.
4.3	This approach will enable the Court to monitor the effects of the implementation of the Recommended National Standards in practice and, from that experience, make an informed decision at an appropriate time in respect of whether and, if so, how best to adopt the Recommended National Standards and the associated model rules contained therein into the body of the Court’s rules.
5.	Construction and application of THIS PRACTICE NOTE 
5.1	This Practice Note and its annexures should be read together.
5.2	The Court will take into account and, unless the Court considers it for any reason impractical or undesirable in the circumstances of the particular case, give effect to the FCA Standards when the Court is construing and applying this Practice Note.
6.	Assessing the need for an interpreter 
6.1	In considering whether a person requires an interpreter and in engaging an interpreter, parties must take into account the matters set out at Standards 21, 22 and 24 of the FCA Standards and comply with the tiered approach to engaging an interpreter required by Standard 23 (which picks up Standard 11). 
7.	Code of conduct must be provided to an interpreter on engagement 
7.1	Subject to paragraph 7.2, when a party or an accused engages an interpreter in anticipation of, or in connection with, proceedings commenced or to be commenced in the Court, that party or accused must provide a copy of the Code of Conduct to the interpreter as soon as possible upon engaging the interpreter. The party or accused must not proceed with the engagement of the interpreter until that party or accused has obtained from the interpreter a signed acknowledgement that the interpreter has read, understands and will abide by the Code of Conduct.
7.2	Paragraph 7.1 of this Practice Note does not apply to an interpreter in respect of whom the party or accused intends to make an application under paragraph 14.4 of this Practice Note, or if the interpreter is to be used only by a party or accused for purposes other than communicating with the Court (see paragraph 13.4). 
8.	Matters to be considered when an interpreter is engaged 
8.1	When engaging an interpreter, a party or accused must give early consideration to: 
8.1.1	the matters set out in paragraph 18.1 of this Practice Note; and 
8.1.2	whether any orders or directions should be sought from the Court having regard to those matters or otherwise in connection with the participation of an interpreter in the proceedings. Such directions must be sought at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings. 
8.2	For the purposes of providing any time estimate to the Court where evidence is to be given through an interpreter using the consecutive mode, a party or an accused should generally allow 2.5 hours for every hour that would have been estimated if the evidence was being given in English without an interpreter. The use of the simultaneous mode can significantly expedite the proceedings. 
8.3	A party or an accused engaging an interpreter to interpret in proceedings in Court must inform the interpreter that they will be required by the Court to produce evidence of their current certification as an interpreter for the relevant language by a Recognised Agency, status as a Suitable Person (as defined in the Recommended National Standards) for the relevant language, or other evidence to satisfy the Court that they are qualified to carry out the office of interpreter. 
9.	Conduct of proceedings 
9.1	In addition to compliance with the other provisions of this Practice Note, each party or accused must, to the extent it is reasonably practicable, conduct proceedings in accordance with, and so as to give effect to, the FCA Standards in this Practice Note.
9.2	Interpreting “accurately” for the purposes of this Practice Note and the Code of Conduct involves skilled and sophisticated judgments on the part of the interpreter. An accurate interpretation does not equate to a literal or “word for word” translation. The Court recognises that, in general, the obligation to interpret accurately is not intended to compel, and will not necessarily be satisfied by, literal or “word for word” interpretation.
10.	Fees for interpreters 
10.1	The Court accepts that interpreters, in particular those who are certified by a Recognised Agency, are entitled to charge reasonable fees commensurate with their level of qualifications and certification, skill and experience. While what fees may be reasonable can vary depending on the circumstances, as a general guide the Court adopts as reasonable minima the rates published from time to time by Professionals Australia for the purpose of any taxation or assessment where an interpreter has been retained by a party or an accused. 
11.	Issues concerning the availability of interpreters and implementation of the Recommended NATIONAL Standards 
11.1	It is expected that the Recommended National Standards will be regularly reviewed. The Court encourages parties to provide comments, especially where they have encountered difficulties in obtaining qualified interpreters, about the operation of the Recommended National Standards to the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters at info@naati.com.au.
12.	Proceedings to be conducted in English 
12.1	Unless the Court otherwise orders, proceedings in the Court are conducted in English. 
13.	When interpreters may be required 
13.1	If the Court is satisfied that a witness cannot understand and speak English sufficiently to enable the witness to understand, and to make adequate reply to, questions that may be put to the witness, then the witness may give: 
1)	oral evidence in any other language which is interpreted into English by an interpreter in accordance with this Practice Note; 
2)	evidence by an affidavit or statement in English which has been sight translated to the witness by an interpreter. 
Note. Section 30 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) provides that a witness may give evidence about a fact through an interpreter unless the witness can understand and speak the English language sufficiently to enable the witness to understand, and to make an adequate reply to, questions that may be put about the fact.
13.2	The party or accused calling a witness who requires the services of an interpreter is responsible for engaging an interpreter in accordance with this Practice Note, unless that party or accused:
1)	is self-represented in a proceeding under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and English is not their first language; or 
2)	is an accused person in criminal proceedings.  
In either of the circumstances set out in sub-paragraphs (1) or (2) above, the Court will cause an interpreter to be engaged.
13.3	In any criminal proceedings, if the Court is satisfied that the accused cannot understand and speak English sufficiently to enable the accused: 
1)	to understand and participate in the proceedings; or 
2)	to understand, and to make adequate reply to, questions that may be put to the accused, 
then the Court must ensure that the accused is provided with an interpreter.  
13.4	In any civil proceedings, if the Court is satisfied that a party cannot understand and speak English sufficiently to enable the party to understand and participate in the proceedings, the Court must permit that party to engage the services of an interpreter who meets the standards and requirements imposed by this Practice Note, if the interpreter is to be engaged by that party to communicate with the Court (but for no other purpose).
14.	Who may ACT AS AN interpreter 
14.1	A person must not act as an interpreter in proceedings or proposed proceedings unless the person:
1)	is currently a Certified Interpreter for the other language concerned or otherwise satisfies the Court that the person is qualified to act as an interpreter; and
2)	has read and agreed to comply with the Code of Conduct; and
3)	takes an oath or makes an affirmation to interpret accurately to the best of the person’s ability.
14.2	In addition to the requirements set out in paragraph 14.1 above, a person must not act as an interpreter if the person:
1)	is or may become a party to, or a witness in, the proceedings or proposed proceedings (other than as the interpreter); or
2)	is related to, or has a close personal relationship with, a party or an accused, or a member of the party’s or accused’s family, or a witness or potential witness; or
3)	has or may have a financial or other interest of any other kind in the outcome of the proceedings or proposed proceedings (other than an entitlement to a reasonable fee for the services provided by the person as an interpreter in the course of the person’s engagement or appointment); or
4)	is or may be unable to fulfil, for any reason, the person’s duty of accuracy or impartiality under the Code of Conduct as required by paragraph 16, including, without limitation, personal or religious beliefs, or cultural or other circumstances.
14.3	A person acting as an interpreter must:
1)	cease to act as an interpreter if the person becomes aware during a hearing of any of the disqualifying matters referred to in paragraph 14.2; and
2)	immediately disclose the disqualifying matter or matters to the Court.
14.4	The Court may, where it is in the interests of justice to do so, grant leave for a person to act as an interpreter in proceedings despite that person not complying with one or more of the requirements under paragraphs 14.1-14.3, if (to the extent practicable):
1)	the Court is satisfied that, because of the person’s specialised knowledge based on the person’s training, study or experience, the person is able to interpret and, if necessary, sight translate accurately to the level the Court considers satisfactory in all the circumstances from the other language into English and from English into the other language; and
2)	the person takes an oath or makes an affirmation to interpret accurately to the best of the person’s ability; and
3)	the Court is satisfied that the person understands and accepts that, in acting as an interpreter, the person:
a)	is not the agent, assistant or advocate of the witness, the party or the accused for whom the person is to act as an interpreter; and
b)	owes a paramount duty to the Court to be impartial and accurate to the best of the person’s ability; and
4)	the Court directs that the evidence and interpretation be sound recorded for spoken languages and video recorded for sign languages; and
5)	the person is over the age of 18 years.
14.5	Paragraphs 14.1-14.3 are subject to paragraph 14.4.
15.	What is the function of the interpreter 
15.1	An interpreter has a special status in the administration of justice in the sense that they owe to the Court a paramount duty to be impartial and accurate to the best of the person’s ability. 
15.2	The interpreter’s duty to the Court overrides any duty the interpreter may have to a party or an accused (regardless of whether the party or accused engaged the person).
15.3	Unless the Court otherwise orders, an interpreter must:
1)	interpret questions and all other spoken or signed communications in the hearing of the proceedings for the party or accused, or a witness, from English into the other language and from the other language into English; and
2)	subject to paragraph 15.4, sight translate, whether before or during the course of the witness’ evidence, written text shown to the witness.
15.4	An interpreter may refuse to sight translate if:
1)	the interpreter considers that the interpreter is not competent to do so; or
2)	the task is too onerous or difficult by reason of the length or complexity of the text.
15.5	Unless the Court otherwise orders, an interpreter may not assist a party or an accused, or the party or accused’s legal representatives, in their conduct of proceedings or proposed proceedings (including a hearing) except by:
1)	interpreting questions and other spoken or signed communications in connection with the proceedings or proposed proceedings from English into the other language and from the other language into English; or
2)	sight translating documents in connection with the proceedings or proposed proceedings from English into the other language and from the other language into English.
16.	Code of conduct for interpreters 
16.1	An interpreter must comply with the Code of Conduct.
16.2	Unless the Court otherwise orders, as soon as practicable after an interpreter is engaged or appointed for proceedings or proposed proceedings, a copy of the Code of Conduct is to be provided to the interpreter by:
1)	if an interpreter is engaged by a party or accused – the party or accused; or
2)	if the interpreter is appointed by the Court – the Court.
16.3	Unless the Court otherwise orders, a witness may not give evidence using an interpreter unless the Court is satisfied that the interpreter has read the Code of Conduct and agreed to be bound by it.
16.4	Paragraphs 16.1 and 16.3 have effect subject to paragraphs 14.1-14.5. 
17.	Evidence adduced through interpreters 
17.1	Unless the Court otherwise orders, a party or accused seeking to read a translated affidavit or statement of a witness who requires an interpreter is not entitled to rely on the affidavit or statement unless it includes a certification in the approved form by a qualified interpreter for the other language concerned, or a qualified interpreter separately verifies by affidavit in the approved form, to the following effect:
1)	before sight translating the affidavit or statement to the witness, the interpreter: 	
a)	had read the Code of Conduct and agreed to be bound by it; and
b)	had been given an adequate opportunity to prepare to sight translate the affidavit or statement; and
2)	the interpreter sight translated the entire affidavit or statement to the witness and the witness then:
a)	informed the person responsible for the preparation of the affidavit or statement through the interpreter that the witness had understood the interpreter and agreed with the entire contents of the affidavit or statement; and
b)	swore or affirmed the affidavit or signed the statement in the presence of the interpreter. 
17.2	Unless the Court otherwise orders, the interpreter referred to in paragraph 17.1 may, but is not required to, be the interpreter who acts as the interpreter for that witness in any hearing in the proceedings.
17.3	The Court may at any time, either of its own motion or on the application of a party or an accused, request an interpreter to correct, clarify, qualify or explain the interpreter’s interpretation of the evidence or sight translation of a document.
18.	Court may MAKE ORDERS OR give directions concerning interpreters 
18.1	Without limiting the Court’s powers to control its own procedures, the Court may at any time make orders and directions concerning all or any of the following, having regard to the nature of the proceedings (including the type of allegations made and the characteristics of the parties and witnesses): 
a)	any particular attributes required or not required for an interpreter, including, without limitation, gender, age, ethnic, cultural or social background so as to accommodate any cultural or other reasonable concerns of a party, the witness or accused; 
b)	the number of interpreters required in any proceedings and whether relay interpreting should be used; 
c)	establishing the expertise of an interpreter; 
d)	the steps to be taken to obtain an interpreter who is certified, registered or recognised by a Recognised Agency as an interpreter for the other language concerned or is otherwise qualified to act as an interpreter; 
e)	the steps to be taken before an application under paragraph 14.4 is made;
f)	what information concerning the proceedings (including, without limitation, pleadings, affidavits, lists of witnesses and other documents) may be provided to a person in advance of any hearing to assist that person to prepare to carry out the office of interpreter at that hearing;
g)	when, in what circumstances and under what (if any) conditions the information referred to in paragraph 18.1(f) may be provided; 
h)	whether the interpreter is to interpret the witness’s evidence in the consecutive mode, in the simultaneous mode or in some other way; 
i)	other resources such as dictionaries or other reference works which the interpreter may require to consult in the course of carrying out the office of interpreter; 
j)	the length of time for which an interpreter should interpret during a hearing without a break; 
k)	security for the interpreter including, where necessary, arrangements to preserve the anonymity of the interpreter; 
l)	practical matters concerning the interpreter, such as seating for, and the location of, the interpreter; 
m)	the disqualification, removal or withdrawal of an interpreter, including on the application of the interpreter, any party to the proceedings or by the Court of its own motion; and 
n)	the payment of interpreters. 
18.2	In making any order or direction in relation to interpreters, the Court will also have regard to the Central Practice Note (CPN-1), the National Practice Area and Sub‑area Practice Notes, the General Practice Notes and the Appeal Practice Notes. 
19. APPLICATION OF EVIDENCE ACT
19.1	This Practice Note applies subject to the provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). 

J L B ALLSOP
Chief Justice
24 March 2023

Annexure A
Code of Conduct for Interpreters in Legal Proceedings

1.	Application of Code 
This Code of Conduct applies to any person (the “Interpreter”) who whether or not for a fee or any other reward is engaged, appointed, volunteers or otherwise becomes involved in proceedings or proposed proceedings to carry out the office of interpreter by interpreting or sight translating from any spoken or signed language (the “other language”) into English and from English into the other language for any person. 

2.	General duty to the Court 
1.	In view of their special status in the administration of justice, an Interpreter has an overriding duty to assist the Court impartially. 
2.	An Interpreter’s paramount duty is to the Court and not to any party to or accused or witness in the proceedings (including the person retaining or paying the Interpreter). 
3.	An Interpreter is not an advocate, agent or assistant for a party or accused or witness. 

3.	Duty to comply with ORDERS AND directions 
An Interpreter must comply with any order or direction of the Court. 

4.	Duty of accuracy 
1.	An Interpreter must at all times use their best judgment to be accurate in their interpretation or sight translation. 
2.	In this code “accurate” means the optimal and complete transfer of the meaning from the other language into English and from English into the other language, preserving the content and intent of the communication made in the other language or in English (as the case may be) without omission or distortion and including matters which the Interpreter might consider inappropriate or offensive.
3.	If an Interpreter considers that their interpretation or sight translation is or could be in any way inaccurate, incomplete or requires qualification or explanation (including, without limitation, where the other language is ambiguous or otherwise unclear for any reason), then: 
a.	the Interpreter must immediately inform the party or accused who engaged them and provide the necessary correction, qualification or explanation to that party; and 
b.	if their evidence is being given or was given in Court, immediately inform the Court and provide the necessary correction, qualification or explanation to the Court. 

5.	 Duty of impartiality 
1.	An Interpreter must at all times carry out the office of interpreter impartially so as to be without bias in favour of or against any person, including but not limited to the person whose evidence the Interpreter is interpreting, the party or accused who has engaged or is remunerating the Interpreter, or any other party to or person involved in the proceedings or proposed proceedings. 
2.	Unless the Court orders otherwise, an Interpreter must not accept an engagement or appointment to carry out the office of interpreter in relation to a proceeding or proposed proceeding if the Interpreter: 
a.	is or may become a party or a witness; 
b.	is related to, or has a close personal relationship with, a party or accused or a member of the party’s or accused’s family, or with a witness or potential witness;
c.	has or may have a financial or other interest of any kind whatsoever in the outcome of the proceeding or proposed proceeding (other than an entitlement to a reasonable fee for the services provided by the Interpreter in the course of their engagement or employment); or 
d.	is or may be unable to fulfil their duty of accuracy or impartiality for any reason including, without limitation, personal or religious beliefs, cultural reasons or any other reasonable concerns. 
3.	Other than carrying out their engagement or appointment in the office of interpreter, an Interpreter must not provide any other assistance, service or advice (including by way of elaboration) to: 
a.	the party, accused, legal representative or other person who has engaged them; or 
b.	any witness or potential witness, 
in relation to the proceeding or proposed proceeding.

6.	Duty of competence 
1.	An Interpreter must only undertake work they are competent to perform in the languages for which they are qualified by reason of their training, qualifications or experience. 
2.	If it becomes apparent in the course of a matter that expertise beyond their competence is required, the Interpreter must inform the Court immediately and work to resolve the situation, either withdrawing from the matter or following another strategy acceptable to the Court.

7.	Confidentiality
Subject to compulsion of law, an Interpreter must keep confidential all information in any form whatsoever which the Interpreter acquires in the course of their engagement or appointment in the office of interpreter (including any communication subject to client legal privilege) unless: 
1.	that information is or comes into the public domain other than by an act of the Interpreter in breach of this duty of confidentiality; or 
2.	the beneficiary of the client legal privilege has waived that privilege.

Annexure B
FCA Standards

DEFINITIONS
In these Standards:
“Annexure 4” means Annexure 4 to the Recommended National Standards (2nd ed) published in 2022 by the Judicial Council on Cultural Diversity;
“AUSIT” means Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators, the national association for the translating and interpreting profession; 
“ASLIA” means Australian Sign Language Interpreters’ Association, the national peak organisation representing the needs and interests of Auslan/English interpreters and Deaf Interpreters in Australia; 
“Certified Interpreter” means a person who is currently certified by NAATI as a Certified Interpreter (previously called “Professional Interpreter”);
“Certified Mentor” means a Certified Interpreter in another language who is a member of AUSIT, ASLIA or other recognised national, State or Territory based association requiring adherence to a code of ethics and/or standards, and is experienced in court interpreting;
“Certified Provisional Interpreter” means a person certified by NAATI as a Certified Provisional Interpreter (previously called “Paraprofessional Interpreter”);
“Certified Specialist Interpreter” means a person certified by NAATI as a Certified Specialist Interpreter in the legal or health domain;
“Certified Specialist Legal Interpreter” means a person certified by NAATI as a Certified Specialist Legal Interpreter;
“Certified Translator” means a person certified by NAATI as a Certified Translator;
“Court” means the Federal Court of Australia; 
“Code of Conduct” means the Code of Conduct for Interpreters in Legal Proceedings set out in Annexure A to the Working with Interpreters Practice Note; 
“interpret” means the process whereby spoken or signed language is conveyed from one language (the source language) to another (the target language) orally; 
“judicial officer” means a Judge or Registrar as defined in the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth); 
“language” includes Auslan and other signed languages; 
“NAATI” means the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters, the body responsible for setting and monitoring the standards for the translating and interpreting profession in Australia through its certification system; 
“party” includes an accused in criminal proceedings and may include a person with a significant interest in the proceedings; 
“Qualified Interpreter” means a person qualified for court interpreting because they have all of the following attributes: 
•	a tertiary (VET or university) qualification in interpreting; and
•	certification from NAATI; and
•	membership with a professional body (e.g. AUSIT, ASLIA or other recognised national, State or Territory based interpreter association); and
•	experience interpreting in court.
“Recognised Practising Interpreter” means a person holding the NAATI award of Recognised Practising Interpreter, which requires the person to demonstrate English proficiency, ethical competency, intercultural competency and complete a minimum amount of introductory interpreter training, but there is no testing of the person (previously called “Recognised Person”); 
“relay interpreting” means the process whereby one interpreter interprets from language A to language B, and another interpreter interprets from language B to language C.  
“sight translate” means the process whereby an interpreter or translator presents a spoken interpretation of a written text; 
“Suitable Person” means an interpreter who has some of the attributes of a Qualified Interpreter, or where no interpreter can be found, a bilingual; 
“team interpreting” means the process whereby two or more interpreters are engaged to work together as a team to improve accuracy and fidelity. For example, team interpreting will be necessary when a Certified Interpreter cannot be sourced and a qualified interpreter in another language is appointed as a mentor to support an interpreter or bilingual of lesser competence.
“tandem interpreting” means interpreters working in rotation at agreed intervals in order to avoid fatigue over extended periods of time. 
“translate” means the process whereby written language is conveyed from one language (the source language) to another (the target language) in the written form.

STANDARDS FOR THE COURT 
(AS ADOPTED AND MODIFIED BY THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)

Standard 1 — Model Rules 
1.1	[Not adopted by the Court at this stage.]
Standard 2 — Proceedings generally to be conducted in English 
2.1	Proceedings in the Court are generally to be conducted in English. 
Standard 3 — Engagement of interpreters to ensure procedural fairness 
3.1	The Court must accommodate the language needs of parties and witnesses with limited English proficiency in accordance with the requirements of procedural fairness. 
Standard 4 — Provision of information to the public about the availability of interpreters 
4.1	Basic information about interpreters in the legal system, in languages commonly used by court users, should be readily available on the Court’s website and in hard copy from the Court’s registries. This information should include the contact details of organisations through which interpreters may be engaged and the special status of an interpreter in the administration of justice by the Court. 
4.2	Information about the circumstances in which the Court may provide an interpreter should be published on the Court’s website and be available in hard copy from the Court’s registries.
4.3	If the Court is responsible for the engagement of an interpreter in some or all kinds of matters, an application form for the provision of an interpreter in languages commonly spoken by court users should be readily available online and in hard copy from the Court’s registries. The form should make provision for a person to request that particular cultural or other considerations are taken into account in selecting an interpreter. 
Standard 5 — Training of Judicial Officers and Court Staff 
5.1	Judicial officers and court staff should be familiar with the special status of interpreters in the administration of justice by the Court. 
5.2	Training should be provided for judicial officers on assessing the need for interpreters and working with interpreters in accordance with these Standards and the Working with Interpreters Practice Note. 
5.3	Training should be provided for court staff on assessing the need for interpreters and working with interpreters in accordance with these Standards. 
Standard 6 — engaging an interpreter in accordance with these Standards 
6.1	Where an interpreter is engaged by the Court, the Court should endeavour to ensure that the interpreter is selected in accordance with Standard 11 of these Standards.
6.2	In the selection of an interpreter, the Court should ensure the interpreter is appropriate, taking into account any cultural and other reasonable concerns relevant to the proceedings. 
Standard 7 — Court budget for interpreters 
7.1	If the Court is responsible for the engagement of interpreters either directly or through an interpreting service, court budget allocations should provide and support interpreting services to court users with limited English proficiency in accordance with these Standards and the Working with Interpreters Practice Note.
Standard 8 — Coordinating the engagement of interpreters 
8.1	This standard applies where the Court is responsible for the engagement of the interpreter either directly or through an interpreting service. 
8.2	A specific member(s) of registry staff should be designated as having responsibility for coordinating interpreting arrangements. 
8.3	The Court should implement a booking system for interpreters to ensure that interpreting services are used efficiently and with appropriate consideration to providing interpreters with as much notice as possible in relation to the assignment of work.
8.4	To maximise the ability of interpreting services to provide an appropriate interpreter for a particular case, in seeking to engage the services of the interpreter, the Court should give as much notice as possible. 
8.5	Where Auslan interpreters are engaged to work with a deaf party or witness, they should work in tandem with two (or more) interpreters, given the simultaneous mode of their work and risk of occupational injury.
Standard 9 — Support for interpreters 
9.1	The Court should provide adequate and appropriate working conditions and remuneration to support interpreters in the performance of their duties to the best of their ability.
9.2	Interpreters should be remunerated by reference to a scale of fees which reflect their level of qualifications and NAATI certification, skill and experience. Interpreters should also be remunerated for preparation time, travelling time, travel and accommodation costs where relevant, and for the time contracted — regardless of whether the matter finishes earlier.
9.3	In order to provide practical support for interpreters and protect their independence, the Court should provide interpreters with a dedicated space where they can wait until called, leave their belongings, prepare materials, and be briefed and debriefed. The space should be close to courtrooms, and be equipped with wireless internet and/or a computer with internet access for interpreters to use online resources, such as dictionaries and terminology banks, to prepare for their cases. 
9.4	In the courtroom, the Court should provide interpreters with a dedicated location where they can see all the parties in the Court. Where a working station or booth is not feasible, interpreters should be provided with a chair and table and sufficient room to work, together with any necessary equipment such as, for example, headphones. 
9.5	Interpreters should be provided with regular breaks during proceedings. 
9.6	Where the Court is responsible for the engagement of interpreters directly or through an interpreting service, the Court shall provide counselling and debriefing for any distress or trauma suffered by the interpreters arising from the performance of their duties to the Court in the role of an interpreter, unless such counselling and debriefing is already provided by the interpreting service provider. 
9.7	Where the Court is responsible for the engagement of interpreters directly or through an interpreting service, the Court should implement procedures for the provision of feedback to and from interpreters on interpreting performance and associated matters, either coordinated through the interpreter service or through the Court. 
9.8	The Court should advise NAATI when it has been unable to secure the services of an interpreter. 
9.9	The Court’s procedures should be adapted to ensure that the most efficient use is made of the interpreter’s time and skills. As outlined in paragraph 18.1 of the Working with Interpreters Practice Note, the Court may at any time make orders and directions regarding a range of issues concerning the retainer and role of the interpreter in proceedings. 
Standard 10 — Assessing the need for an interpreter 
10.1	In determining whether a person requires an interpreter, the Court should apply the four-part test for determining the need for an interpreter as outlined in Annexure 4. 
Standard 11 — Engaging an interpreter 
11.1	This Standard applies where the Court is responsible for the engagement of the interpreter either directly or through an interpreting service, or required to determine whether or not a particular individual should be permitted to carry out the office of interpreter. 
11.2	The Court should prefer to engage a Qualified Interpreter. Where a Qualified Interpreter cannot reasonably be obtained, a Suitable Person may be engaged instead. Where possible, the following order of preference for an interpreter’s level of certification and qualification should be followed:
1.	Certified Specialist Legal Interpreter
2.	Certified Interpreter
3.	Certified Provisional Interpreter
4.	Recognised Practising Interpreter
5.	Suitable Person
11.3	When engaging an interpreter, whether a Qualified Interpreter or otherwise, the Court should also take into account: 
(a)	the extent and level to which the person has pursued formal education and interpreter training, especially legal interpreting training; 
(b)	the level of their NAATI certification; 
(c)	whether or not the person is a current member of AUSIT, ASLIA or other recognised national, State or Territory based association requiring adherence to a code of ethics and/or standards; and 
(d)	any experience interpreting in court, including the nature of that work. 
11.4	For languages in Tier A, a Certified Interpreter, or Certified Specialist Interpreter if available, should be engaged, subject to cultural and other reasonable concerns. 
11.5	For all other tiers, if a Certified Specialist Legal Interpreter or Certified Interpreter is not reasonably available, then, subject to cultural and other reasonable concerns:
(a)	For languages in Tier B: 
•	a Certified Provisional Interpreter should be engaged if one is available; or 
•	if a Certified Provisional Interpreter is not reasonably available, the judicial officer may grant leave for a Suitable Person to carry out the office of interpreter in accordance with paragraph 14.4 of the Working with Interpreters Practice Note. 
(b)	For languages in Tier C:
•	a Certified Provisional Interpreter should be engaged if one is available; or 
•	if a Certified Provisional Interpreter is not reasonably available, the judicial officer may grant leave for a Suitable Person to carry out the office of interpreter in accordance with paragraph 14.4 of the Working with Interpreters Practice Note. 
(c)	For languages in Tier D: 
•	a Certified Provisional Interpreter should be engaged if one is available; or 
•	if a Certified Provisional Interpreter is not reasonably available, a Recognised Practising Interpreter should be engaged if there is one available; or 
•	if neither a Certified Provisional Interpreter nor a Recognised Practising Interpreter is reasonably available, the judicial officer may grant leave for a Suitable Person to carry out the office of interpreter in accordance with paragraph 14.4 of the Working with Interpreters Practice Note. 
Standard 12 — Provision of professional development to interpreters on the FCA Standards 
12.1	Where the Court is responsible for the engagement of interpreters, either directly or through an interpreting service, interpreters should be provided with induction and continuing training, either by the Court or by the interpreting service, to ensure that interpreters understand their special status in the administration of justice and responsibilities under the Code of Conduct. 

Note: The following Optimal Standards are aspirational or long-term strategies or objectives to be implemented as and when resources become available
Optimal Standard 1 — Simultaneous interpreting equipment 
1.1	To improve the efficiency and quality of interpreting, satisfy the requirements of procedural fairness and improve the working conditions of interpreters, the Court should review its equipment for interpreters and consider introducing simultaneous interpreting equipment to allow interpreters to interpret simultaneously from a distance, without the need to sit next to the party or witness.
Optimal Standard 2 — Provision of tandem INTERPRETING or team interpreting 
1.2	Whenever possible, the Court should utilise tandem interpreting. Particularly in the case of Tier C and Tier D languages when a Suitable Person may be difficult to locate and engage, the Court should utilise team interpreting. 
Optimal Standard 3 — Provision of CERTIFIED mentors 
1.3	In cases where it has been necessary to engage a Suitable Person for a Tier C or Tier D language, the Court (where the Court is responsible for providing the interpreter) or the party engaging the interpreter should endeavour to provide a Certified Mentor in another language for the person undertaking the office of interpreter. The role of the Certified Mentor is to assist the person undertaking the office of interpreter with ethical issues, to assist with the interaction of that person with others in the Court, including where clarification or explanations may be required.
Optimal Standard 4 — Establishment of an interpreters’ portal 
1.4	The Court should consider setting up an interpreters’ portal to upload booking and briefing materials, and where both interpreters and legal personnel can provide feedback after each assignment.

STANDARDS FOR JUDICIAL OFFICERS
(ADOPTED BY THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)

Standard 13 — Judicial Officers’ duties 
13.1	All judicial officers should apply the Working with Interpreters Practice Note [GPN‑INTERP] and endeavour to give effect to the FCA Standards. 
Standard 14 — Plain English 
14.1	Judicial officers should use their best endeavours to use plain English to communicate clearly and articulately during court proceedings. 
Standard 15 — Training of judicial officers for working with interpreters 
15.1	Judicial officers should undertake training on assessing the need for interpreters and working with interpreters in accordance with these Standards and the Working with Interpreters Practice Note [GPN‑INTERP]. 
Standard 16 — Assessing the need for an interpreter 
16.1	The fundamental duty of the judicial officer is to ensure that proceedings are conducted fairly and in accordance with the applicable principles of procedural fairness, including by ensuring an interpreter is available to persons of limited English proficiency. 
16.2	To ensure that criminal proceedings are conducted fairly and that there is no miscarriage of justice, the Court should ensure that an interpreter is provided to an accused of limited English proficiency. 
16.3	Judicial officers should satisfy themselves as to whether a party or witness requires an interpreter in accordance with the four-part test for determining the need for an interpreter as outlined in Annexure 4. 
Standard 17 — Proceedings with an interpreter 
17.1	Judicial officers should ensure that the interpreter has been provided with appropriate working conditions, as outlined in Standard 9. 
17.2	In making directions as to the conduct of proceedings, judicial officers should consider whether and to what extent interpreters should be briefed on the nature of a matter prior to the commencement of proceedings and, if so, give consideration as to the time which an interpreter may reasonably require to become familiar with the briefing material. Briefing may include the provision of materials which may otherwise have required sight translation, subject to Standard 26.
17.3	Interpreters should be afforded a reasonable time to familiarise themselves with materials that are relevant for the process of interpretation in the particular case. 
17.4	Except where a Qualified Interpreter has been engaged, judicial officers should ascertain the competence of an interpreter by reference to their certification status, qualifications and court experience, as well as whether they are members of AUSIT, ASLIA or other recognised national, State or Territory based associations requiring adherence to a code of ethics and/or standards. If the judicial officer is concerned about any of these matters, they may raise this with the parties to ascertain whether another interpreter is available, and should consider adjourning the proceedings until one is available. 
17.5	At the start of proceedings, and before an interpreter commences interpreting, judicial officers should introduce the interpreter and explain their special status in the administration of justice and paramount duty to the Court. 
17.6	Judicial officers should confirm that the interpreter has acknowledged the Code of Conduct and understands their paramount duties to the Court.
17.7	Judicial officers should inform the interpreter to alert the Court, and if necessary to interrupt, if the interpreter: 
(a)	becomes aware that they may have a conflict of interest in the proceedings; 
(b)	cannot interpret the question or answer for any reason; 
(c)	did not accurately hear what was said; 
(d)	needs to correct an error; 
(e)	needs to consult a dictionary or other reference material; 
(f)	needs a concept or term explained; 
(g)	is unable to keep up with the evidence; or 
(h)	needs a break. 
17.8	Judicial officers may become aware that an interpreter has a conflict of interest in the proceedings. In such cases, judicial officers should permit the interpreter to withdraw from the proceedings if necessary and adjourn the proceedings until another interpreter can be found, or consider another appropriate strategy to address the conflict. 
17.9	Judicial officers should speak at a speed and with appropriate pauses so as to facilitate the discharge by the interpreter of their duty to interpret.

STANDARDS FOR INTERPRETERS
(ADOPTED BY THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)

Standard 18 — SPECIAL STATUS OF Interpreters
18.1	Interpreters have a special status in the administration of justice in the sense that they owe to the Court paramount duties of accuracy and impartiality in the office of interpreter which override any duty that the interpreter may have to any party to the proceedings, even if they are engaged directly by that party. 
Standard 19 — Code of Conduct FOR INTERPRETERS
19.1	Interpreters must ensure that they are familiar with, and comply with, the Code of Conduct. 
Standard 20 — Duties of interpreters
20.1	Interpreters must diligently and impartially interpret communications in connection with a court proceeding as accurately and completely as possible. 
20.2	Interpreters must comply with any order or direction of the Court. 
20.3	Where the interpreter becomes aware that they may have a conflict of interest, the interpreter must alert the Court to the possible conflict of interest immediately, and if necessary, withdraw from the assignment or proceed as directed by the Court. 
20.4	Requests by the interpreter for repetition, clarification and explanation should be addressed to the judicial officer rather than to the questioning counsel, witness or party.
20.5	There may be occasions when the interpreter needs to correct a mistake. All corrections should be addressed to the judicial officer rather than to the questioning counsel, witness or party. 
20.6	If the interpreter recognises a potential cross‑cultural misunderstanding, or comprehension or cognitive difficulties on the part of the person for whom the interpreter is interpreting, the interpreter should seek leave from the judicial officer to raise the issue.
20.7	Interpreters must keep confidential all information acquired, in any form whatsoever, in the course of their engagement or appointment in the office of interpreter (including any communication subject to client legal privilege) unless: 
(a)	that information is or comes into the public domain; or 
(b)	the beneficiary of the client legal privilege has waived that privilege.

STANDARDS FOR LEGAL PRACTITIONERS 
(ADOPTED BY THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)
Standard 21 — Assessing the need for an interpreter 
21.1	To ensure that proceedings are conducted fairly and that there is no miscarriage of justice, legal practitioners should ensure an interpreter is provided to parties and witnesses of limited English proficiency. 
21.2	In determining whether a person requires an interpreter, legal practitioners should apply the four-part test for determining the need for an interpreter as outlined in Annexure 4. 
Standard 22 — Booking interpreters 
22.1	To maximise the ability of interpreting services to provide an appropriate interpreter for a particular case, the party seeking to engage the services of the interpreter should give as much notice as possible. 
22.2	When applying for a hearing date, parties or their legal advisors should draw the availability of the interpreter to the Court’s attention for the judicial officer to take into account where possible. 
Standard 23 — Engaging an interpreter in accordance with these Standards 
23.1	Parties engaging an interpreter should select interpreters in accordance with Standard 11 of these Standards.
Standard 24 — Briefing Interpreters 
24.1	The legal representatives for a party are to use their best endeavours to ensure that interpreters who are engaged are familiar with, understand and are willing to adopt the Code of Conduct for Interpreters in Legal Proceedings and understand their paramount duties the Court. 
24.2	The legal representatives for a party should ensure that interpreters (whether or not engaged by those legal representatives) are appropriately briefed on the nature of the case prior to the commencement of proceedings. The interpreter should be provided with all relevant materials, including those that the interpreter will need to either sight translate or interpret, subject to Standard 26. 
24.3	An interpreter should be afforded a reasonable amount of time to familiarise themselves with materials that are relevant for the process of interpretation in the particular case. 
Standard 25 — Plain English 
25.1	Legal practitioners should use their best endeavours to use plain English to communicate clearly and coherently during court proceedings. Legal practitioners should speak at a speed and with appropriate pauses so as to facilitate the discharge by the interpreter of their duty to interpret
Standard 26 — Documents 
26.1	Legal practitioners should ensure that any document in a language other than English which is to be referred to or tendered into evidence in proceedings has been translated into English or the other language by a Certified Translator, where available. 
26.2	Legal practitioners should not require interpreters to sight translate during the course of a hearing without prior notice (“sight unseen”) long, complex or technical documents. Sight unseen translation by interpreters of even simple or short documents should be avoided as far as possible.