Language assistance in the Criminal Court

Abstract European Union Directive 2010/64/EU introduces a defendant’s right to receive written translations of documents in criminal proceedings but at the same time it allows Member States to substitute written translations with oral translations or summaries. Through an instrumental case study, this article investigates the implementation and adequacy of substituting written translations with oral interpreting for defendants with limited Dutch proficiency in criminal proceedings at the Court of First Instance in Ghent, Belgium. Our findings reveal that the Court systematically relies on the oral alternative. However, we argue that oral assistance cannot serve as an adequate substitute. This is because of the processes of discursive filtering and entextualization that take place when procedural documents travel between different participants through the criminal-law process, from written to spoken form and from one language into another. These processes may cause reductions, distortions and comprehension gaps. Consequently, defendants with limited proficiency in the language of the proceedings have unequal access to case files and procedural information.