In England and Wales, 98% of criminal cases are dealt with by the Magistrates Court, and are heard in front of Magistrates.

Traditionally in the UK it has been said that Deaf people cannot serve as Magistrates, Judges or Jurors because interpreters will not be able to convey the full nusances of a court room. However, great strides have been made in recent years, especially after winning the campaign for BSL recognition (although more work needs to be done on this), and various other initiatives.

A Deaf person is in the process of applying to become a Magistrate, and the latest advice given this week by the Department of Constitution Affairs, to the Justices’ appointment team states:

‘The position of people who are deaf serving as magistrates is analogous to that of people who are deaf serving on a jury. Courts do everything they can to accommodate people with a disability and there is a presumption in favour of people with a disability serving as magistrates. The Magistrates Courts Committee will make any adaptations necessary to the court to enable them to carry out the duties of the office, such as induction loop systems, where the adaptations required are reasonable. However, the present law is that a bench of magistrates must reach its decision in the privacy of its own retiring room free from the presence of anyone else except the Justices’ Clerk, who may to be present to give legal advice only. The presence of a person who is not a magistrate in the retiring room can amount to an irregularity upon which a convicted defendant may challenge his or her conviction. For this reason, it is not possible to permit a person who would need assistance from an interpreter in the retiring room to be a magistrate’.

An ongoing argument, where interpretation of primary legislation is literal and does not recognise interpreters. We will keep this matter updated.

Extracted from the Crown Prosecution Service website …

A witness who is deaf or hard of hearing may require the services of a qualified Sign Language Interpreter or, for those who do not know or use sign language, a Lipspeaker in order to give their evidence at court. Only registered Sign Language Interpreters or Lipspeakers should be used. The Council for the advancement of Communication with Deaf people (CACDP) is the national examining and registration body for sign language interpreters and details of qualified Sign Language Interpreters and Lipspeakers appear in the CACDP Directory. (See Annex A)

The true record of the original statement of a witness or defendant who uses sign language is a video recording, not the interpreter’s written or oral version of what they say the defendant or witness conveyed. See R v Raynor (Times Law Reports 19.09.00) and Regina v Govenor of Brixton Prison and Another Ex Parte Safi (Times Law Reports 24.01.01) (See also ECHR Manual of Guidance Chapter16.8C)

The Crown Prosecution Service.

Yesterday’s Sunday papers carried articles relating to the possible introduction of Lie Detector Tests in the UK, and their contribution to sentencing in the UK, especially in relation to paedophiles.

Whilst any measures in this area have to be welcomed, and respect given to the welfare of children, I wonder how Deaf people could be treated in a justice system that is subject to lie detection tests.

I am reminded of a letter written to Mother Jones by an attorney: Matthew Rafat, in relation to an application for the FBI. The text below is taken from here:

This provides an insight into the over analysis that Deaf people could undertake when being asked questions, especially when lipreading and thus potentially creating flaws in the results. Will the Home Office take such things into account?