Was the translation process a limiting factor in the Maddie case?

[slartibartfast]

I am not making any allegations.   Mercury posed a ridiculous situation and we were working through that purely hypothetical situation that would never occur.

So stop. If it has no relevance to the real world and causes issues on the forum take it elsewhere.

[Robittybob1]

G-unit can we get hold of a COI declaration used by UK translators? 

[G-Unit]

It is absurd to think there are no errors in the translation on the basis that all translations are likely to contain errors and the PJ do not seem to have any strict control on the quality of the translators. This is why there should have been a signed copy of the statement in English
The fact that some want to defend this flawed system is testament to their bias against the McCanns

The system in Portugal complies with the requirements of the ECHR in respect of the right to a fair trial. If people don't speak Portuguese adequate arrangements are made.

If you make a witness statement in the UK you won't get a copy of your statement, it's the property of the police. If you ask to see other's statements the police can decide whether to release them or not. Unlike in Portugal the case files are never released so can never be checked. When the McCanns tried to force Leicestershire Police in court to release evidence the answer was a very loud and clear refusal.

Every Judicial System could be improved I would imagine. Those who attack the system in Portugal could be accused of demonstrating their bias in favour of the McCanns. Perhaps they should remember that a concerted campaign against the Portuguese Judicial system began on 3rd May 2007 and has continued ever since.

The UK police may have disappointed some because no criticism of the Portuguese investigation has ever been made by them. Mark Harrison praised their initial search efforts. Leicestershire Police worked in harmony with the PJ, as did the Met. The review made no comment on any failings either. Jim Gamble, in his 'scoping exercise' criticised...competing UK police forces for hampering the Portuguese investigation. Neither the McCanns nor those who support them have attacked UK police for their interference.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11068928/Secret-Madeleine-McCann-report-finds-competing-British-forces-hampered-inquiry.html

If the Met close Operation Grange no files will be released to anyone. No-one will see what evidence Operation Grange followed or what new evidence was gathered. UK police may communicate with the media during an investigation but they never allow them to examine their files like the Portuguese do.

[G-Unit]

G-unit can we get hold of a COI declaration used by UK translators?

Is there such a thing?

[Robittybob1]

Is there such a thing?

I think there will be.  It might have a different name.   I'll spend time later and see if I can find it.

[G-Unit]

That is a bit harsh ("moving into the realms of fantasy").  I am not trying to go that far but I have worked in an environment where conflict of interest (COI) is taken seriously, so I know what it should deliver and it won't only be "the impartiality question is concerned with the interpreter knowing or having a connection with witnesses or their families".  Even though that would be important as well.
If we could get to see the COI declaration we would see the types of concerns there are.  How could we get one of those?  Even one that is used in the UK would give us a clue.
They would not get paid directly from the PJ investigation. (I'd be surprised if they do.)
The policy is to prevent any claims of "cahoots" from either side.

You enter the realms of fantasy when you post something without providing supporting evidence. I'm sure you don't do this with any ulterior motives but others do commonly use it as a ploy;

A poster makes an unsupported statement. Another poster disagrees. The second poster is challenged to prove the first poster wrong. The second poster must then find evidence to refute the unsupported post. The first poster can then sit back and relax while someone else does the research. They have also often successfully diverted the discussion from it's course.

[Robittybob1]

Are you familiar with this?  http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/interpreters/#a03

Interpreter as a Witness in Court
If a suspect has been interviewed through an interpreter and there is an issue about what was said, evidence will have to be given by the interpreter. Evidence from a police officer about what the accused has said in interview, as related to the police officer by the interpreter, is hearsay. The only valid witness as to what the defendant said is the interpreter. (Archbold 4-36). It is therefore important that the interpreter is a person who is suitably qualified and impartial.

If an interpreter is required to give evidence, he or she should be given an opportunity to confirm the accuracy of any record of an interview at which the interpreter was present. This may include being given the opportunity to listen to the taped interview, or in the case of a deaf person, view the video taped interview.

The CPS is responsible for the payment of expenses of an interpreter who attends court to give evidence about what took place at the defendant's interview.

In the UK it seems that the provision of the interpreters are up to the defence lawyer.  But what happens in just the general course of inquiries where there is no need for defence lawyers?

The principle would be the same the interpreter would have to be "a person who is suitably qualified and impartial".

[ferryman]

You enter the realms of fantasy when you post something without providing supporting evidence. I'm sure you don't do this with any ulterior motives but others do commonly use it as a ploy;

A poster makes an unsupported statement. Another poster disagrees. The second poster is challenged to prove the first poster wrong. The second poster must then find evidence to refute the unsupported post. The first poster can then sit back and relax while someone else does the research. They have also often successfully diverted the discussion from it's course.

There's no point providing supporting evidence to you, because when you are provided with it, you just ignore it and carry on pretending that what you said (if it has been contradicted and proven wrong) is right anyway ....

[Robittybob1]

You enter the realms of fantasy when you post something without providing supporting evidence. I'm sure you don't do this with any ulterior motives but others do commonly use it as a ploy;

A poster makes an unsupported statement. Another poster disagrees. The second poster is challenged to prove the first poster wrong. The second poster must then find evidence to refute the unsupported post. The first poster can then sit back and relax while someone else does the research. They have also often successfully diverted the discussion from it's course.

If first poster is asked to support their post often that request is just bluffed away, "I'm busy at the moment", or "read the file".  I'll try not to fall into the same trap in future.  It is also a matter of explaining one's argument and where the other party keeps changing their stance, it can be rather tricky, for I might feel I have argued my case adequately but the forum still doesn't see it that way.

[Robittybob1]

There's no point providing supporting evidence to you, because when you are provided with it, you just ignore it and carry on pretending that what you said (if it has been contradicted and proven wrong) is right anyway ....

Who are you addressing Ferryman?   We are all allowed to feel we are right. 

[ferryman]

Who are you addressing Ferryman?   We are all allowed to feel we are right.

Sorry, I was addressing G-Unit.

In fact, I responded to G-Unit's post (as I had intended).

[Robittybob1]

The system in Portugal complies with the requirements of the ECHR in respect of the right to a fair trial. If people don't speak Portuguese adequate arrangements are made.

If you make a witness statement in the UK you won't get a copy of your statement, it's the property of the police. ..... snip ...

"The system in Portugal complies with the requirements of the ECHR in respect of the right to a fair trial. If people don't speak Portuguese adequate arrangements are made."  OK the system complies but was the system followed in this case?  That is the question I would like you to answer.

"If you make a witness statement in the UK you won't get a copy of your statement, it's the property of the police. "
I was told in NZ that you are entitled to ask for a copy of your own statement, so what you say there really surprises me.

[Robittybob1]

Sorry, I was addressing G-Unit.

In fact, I responded to G-Unit's post (as I had intended).

Thanks for clarifying that.

[Robittybob1]

In the UK and I suspect a similar law will apply in Portugal since they are both in the EU this applies:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/interpreters/#a05

Interpreter at the Police Station
The police will arrange for an interpreter when interviewing suspects or witnesses in the course of their investigation who have difficulty in speaking and understanding English. The Codes of Practice issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) give guidance to the police. (Archbold 4-35 4-38) and in particular Code C 13. However, it should be noted that the Codes are currently under revision.

Any witness statement taken from a person who has difficulty in speaking or understanding English should be recorded in the foreign language and signed by the witness. It should include the declaration prescribed in section 9(2)(b) Criminal Justice Act 1967 or section 102(2)(b) Magistrate's Court Act 1980. Witness statements for the purpose of section 5A(3)(a) and 5B of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, must be the statement of the witness and not a translation of what was said by the interpreter See, R v Raynor Times Law Reports 19 September 2000.

So witness statements from the English in Portugal  should have been done with an interpreter present.  The statement should have been in English and the English version signed by the witness.

None of this appears to have been followed except for the interpreters being present.  But were the interpreters even selected on the correct basis. 

[jassi]

In the UK and I suspect a similar law will apply in Portugal since they are both in the EU this applies:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/interpreters/#a05So witness statements from the English in Portugal  should have been done with an interpreter present.  The statement should have been in English and the English version signed by the witness.

None of this appears to have been followed except for the interpreters being present. But were the interpreters even selected on the correct basis.

What is the correct basis?

Are you saying it was done on an incorrect basis?