For anyone working in immigration law, an unexpected friend or family member arriving with a new client to a first meeting will be a familiar scenario. And there’s good reason most advisers are unsurprised when told the uninvited guest is there to ‘interpret’.
After all, the 2021 census carried out in England and Wales revealed that 17% of migrants who had arrived in the UK in the previous two years spoke very little or no English. These people frequently rely on acquaintances to help them navigate language barriers in their new surroundings and, in many areas, for example, housing and employment, this may be adequate. However, in a legal context, this type of non-professional interpretation is often insufficient.
Currently, many immigration advisers allow individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP) to elect a friend or relative as an interpreter when seeking immigration-based legal counsel and, from a legal standpoint, this appears to be permitted. Indeed, in November 2024, a set of guidelines was published by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) that leaves it to the discretion of immigration advisers to determine whether a friend or family member is a suitable interpreter.
Why not keep it in the family?
The guidance does stipulate that the adviser must assess whether any proposed acquaintance is competent to interpret, although it’s difficult to understand how an adviser could do so with absolute certainty without speaking the language in question themselves.
The immigration process involves highly technical vocabulary and complex procedures. When both adviser and client speak the same language, working out when a client needs more explanation due to unfamiliar terminology may be relatively simply, when there’s a language barrier to overcome, this becomes harder.
A friend or family member who’s not totally fluent in English could struggle to correctly interpret the intricacies of a conversation between client and solicitor, but may be reluctant to speak up having offered themselves up as a suitable interpreter.
In this respect, there are similarities between the legal and healthcare profession. However, in regard to the latter, guidance from most NHS trusts is much more clear cut on the use of friends and family as interpreters. This is widely discouraged unless there is no other alternative, for example, an emergency admission and, even then, most trusts will attempt to secure a telephone or video interpreter rather than rely on someone known to the patient.
As a language services provider working with 110 NHS clients around the UK, we’ve seen firsthand the negative consequences of inaccurate interpretation. Sometimes mistakes occur because a friend or family member is not sufficiently fluent to understand medical terminology.
Questionable intentions
However, there’s a potentially more worrying issue: as well-meaning as many friends and family members may be, they are not impartial parties. Their vested interest in the patient’s life may cloud their interpretation efforts and the same is true in immigration processes. Because just as a medical misinterpretation could result in inappropriate treatment, misinformation given during the immigration process could have a negative effect on a migrant’s future.
If, for example, an individual provides false or misleading information to the Home Office as part of an immigration application, they may face financial damage and, in some cases, deportation. An applicant with LEP is especially vulnerable to unintentionally offering inaccurate information if a professional interpreter is not used.
A common reason for the Home Office to reject asylum applications is because there are inconsistencies in an applicant’s account. I would argue that inconsistencies are much more highly likely to occur if one follows the mix-and-match approach to interpretation seemingly allowed under the aforementioned OISC guidance.
It states: ‘A family member or friend may be suitable to help support the client in your initial meeting when you are generally discussing the client’s case, options and costs, or in subsequent calls where you are seeking clarification on a point, however a qualified professional may be necessary where you are confirming a witness statement or drafting detailed representations.’
Any discussions are likely to have a bearing on the information a client gives for inclusion in witness statements or representations, so I would argue there’s a danger in using a mixture of friends and family and professional interpreters.
A counter argument may be that a client may not always have access to the same professional interpreter and that this also leads to a risk of inconsistency. But the key point to make here is that there are established frameworks used by public sector bodies to ensure all professional interpreters meet the highest quality standards, so while a client may not be able to use the same interpreter each time, they will meet the same standards.
Indeed, the value of such frameworks is highlighted in the Best Practice Guide to Asylum and Human Rights Appeals, a comprehensive body of advice published by Doughty Street Chambers and Asylum Aid.
Similar to the NHS, it recommends that advocates use acquaintances only as a last resort. ‘If you do not have a professional interpreter, then an English-speaking friend of the appellant is better than nothing. However, interpreting is a demanding and difficult profession, and the friend is likely to be of limited value. If such a friend warns you about a problem during the hearing, the judge is likely to be unhappy that the concern comes from your client's friend rather than a professional interpreter.’
Counting the cost
There is obviously an added complicating factor in the decision-making process here, and that’s cost. While the NHS is required to make sure interpreters are available to patients free of charge, a private immigration adviser recommending an interpreter to a client will likely need to charge for this.
Therefore, clients may want to use a friend or family member simply to save money. But advisers need to push for professional interpreters when they feel it is needed, because the risks are much greater than any inaccuracies.
When an interpreter has an emotional connection to a client, they may choose to deliberately misinterpret information to make a better case for the immigration application. While the sentiment may be noble, the most likely consequence will be false hope and – in the worst-case scenario – serious legal consequences for the client.
On a more sinister level, the unvetted interpreter could have a vested interest in an individual’s immigration application. In the most extreme cases, such as human trafficking, a so-called ‘friend’ or ‘relative’ interpreting for an LEP person could monitor and manipulate the conversation between solicitor and client.
The government has produced comprehensive statutory guidance to help professionals identify signs an individual’s movements are being controlled by a coercive third party. However, if that coercive third party is in the room with the client – under the guise of an interpreter – these indicators could be more difficult to spot.
But what about the benefits?
While there are undoubtedly pitfalls when it comes to the use of interpreters known to clients, there are some advantages. Close acquaintances might be more suited to interpreting unusual dialects and languages, where only a small number of professional interpreters are available.
It’s worth noting though that technology is helping to overcome issues with interpreter scarcity. In the past, the problem of sourcing professional interpreters for certain languages would certainly have been a factor that led some immigration advisers to make use of friends and family when they’d have preferred a professional interpreter.
Before the Covid-19 pandemic, the interpreting options available were typically in-person or via telephone, with the latter having obvious limitations in terms of the lack of visual cues. However, just as the pandemic led to a rise in the use of video technology for business meetings, it also led to a big increase in the availability of video interpretations, making professional interpretation more accessible. Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, only 1% of our company’s 15,000 daily transactions were held over video call and we only offered these as a pre-bookable option. Today, this number has risen to 10% and it’s available on-demand.
With video interpreting now more widely available, immigration advisers don’t need to accept an acquaintance of a client to interpret simply for availability reasons if they feel a professional would be more appropriate.
After all, non-professional interpreters pose a threat not just to the client, but also to legal advisers. Any legal firm found giving inappropriate advice to immigration applicants could face disciplinary action by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, with consequences ranging from fines to the closure of the firm.
With such high stakes involved, it would seem to be in everyone’s interest to be extremely discerning when it comes to using people connected with clients as interpreters. Where there is any doubt about the suitability of an interpreter linked to a client, the best course of action is usually to enlist the services of a professional.
Copyright & permissions
.jpg&w=256&q=75)
