The European Commission has started infringement proceedings against Malta over its failure to introduce new rights for alleged criminals. According to Brussels, Malta had until last October to introduce free interpretation and translation services to non-Maltese speakers accused of crime. However, the government has not implemented the relevant EU directive, endorsed over three years ago and, while stating it is actively working on the issue, has not set a date for interpretation and translation services to be offered.
The EU directive forms part of the Commission’s efforts to tackle the problem across Europe of varying standards and different access facilities to legal interpretation and translation services in criminal proceedings. In line with the European Convention of Human Rights, the directive specifies that free interpretation should be provided as needed to safeguard the fairness of proceedings, not only during the trial itself but also at police interrogation stage and during meetings between client and lawyer.
People accused of crime also have the right to the translation of essential documents in their own language. Translations must be of sufficient quality to ensure suspected or accused people have knowledge of the case against them and can exercise their right of defence.
There can be little quarrel with the principle of fair judicial process the directive is seeking to achieve. Yet, it is difficult not to feel that the system was designed for countries having greater human and interpretation resources than Malta.
The task of meeting such an ambitious directive in a small country like Malta, where such interpretation facilities are inevitably limited, are a measure of the problem confronting government.
The difficulties Malta faced in finding sufficient interpreters and translators for employment at the Commission itself are testimony to this.
Although numbers differ from one year to another, in very rough terms, out of a population at Corradino Correctional Facility of about 600 inmates, about one third tend to be foreigners.
These include EU nationals and a larger number from other countries around the world, mostly Africa. While all foreign prisoners will require translation and interpretation facilities under the terms of the EU directive, not all should pose a problem. Translation for foreign prisoners who speak English, Italian or French, for example, should be handled relatively easily and this often happens.
The problem arises over the other foreign-speaking prisoners, possibly the vast majority. While the Commissioner for Refugees has a good and efficient team of interpreters working for him handling applications from asylum seekers, his resources are inevitably limited.
A possible solution might be to devise methods not only to expand the number of interpreters available but also to share out what is available even more cost-effectively. Another solution would be to install remote interpretation via video-conferencing, telephone or internet and to contract out this facility so that it can be used both locally and, possibly, by interpreters based abroad.
Whatever the solution sought, it will be costly and organisationally challenging for Malta to meet the requirements. But it has no alternative to doing so. It is the price of joining the EU club as well as a necessary and civilised improvement to the way foreign prisoners are treated here.
Corradino Correctional Facility and the Malta Police Force have not been noted in the past for treating foreign prisoners with respect or administrative efficiency. The new tasks of interpretation and translation placed – quite rightly – on the system by the EU add yet another layer of responsibility which must in future be met.