The High Court has ruled that a District Court judge had to listen to a recorded Garda interview when assessing a Lithuanian-speaking accused’s complaint that poor interpretation prevented him from participating properly. It did not rule that the prosecution had to be dismissed, leaving any remedy to be assessed in the context of the trial.
The ruling arose from a consultative case concerning a charge that Darius Savickis failed to notify An Garda Síochána of his name and home address as required under the Sex Offenders Act 2001. The High Court was not deciding whether he committed that offence or whether the interview interpretation was adequate. It answered questions of law referred by the District Judge.
The case stated said Savickis was interviewed at Galway Garda Station in January 2017 with a Lithuanian interpreter who had no formal training or qualifications in interpretation. His solicitor later challenged the interview’s accuracy and completeness. A translation review obtained by the prosecution compared with the interview memorandum showed the memorandum was abbreviated and, in places, mistranslated. The review also said some speech was difficult to understand because of the speaker’s poor English, and that the caution did not appear to have been translated into Lithuanian.
The District Judge had heard prosecution evidence about Savickis’s English, including from a prison officer who had spoken with him over a period of about two and a half years. The judge’s preliminary view was that the prosecution did not have to call the reviewer and that she was not obliged to hear the recording. She agreed to state a case before the trial had been completed.
Justice Donnelly answered that, on the specific facts, the prosecution was not obliged to produce the translation reviewer for cross-examination. The review had been put before the District Court without formal proof, in circumstances where the defence relied on it. The High Court said such a report could be admitted only by agreement or, without agreement, by calling its author to prove it; in that event, the author would be available for cross-examination.
The High Court held that the District Judge did have to listen to the recording in this case. The memorandum was accepted as incomplete and inaccurate, and the reviewer’s account described incomprehensible speech linked to the accused’s English proficiency. The court said a judge will not have to hear recordings in every case, but where a real issue arises and a recording is available, there would need to be a very good reason not to listen to it.
The court declined to decide whether inadequate interpretation could require dismissal of a charge. It said the trial judge must assess fairness and choose any appropriate remedy in light of all relevant circumstances. The case-stated ruling did not determine Savickis’s guilt or the outcome of the District Court trial.