Analysis: There is no requirement for a competent translator to be present when gardai question non-nationals, writes Carol Coulter
The case of Mr Anar Odon raises disturbing questions about the treatment of non-nationals who are charged with crimes.
Because Mr Justice Michael White directed the jury to find him not guilty on the basis that his detention was illegal, there was no opportunity to test the evidence brought forward against him.
Therefore we do not know the Garda explanation of how they came to arrest a broad and well-built man who is 6' 3" when the victim described her attacker as 5' 4", and an independent witness, a bus driver, described letting an Oriental-looking man of about about 5' 3" off her bus around the time of the assault.
Nor do we know why gardaí did not look for a person matching this description, or why there was no identity parade.
It cannot be that there would not have been potential candidates for such a parade as there are some 30,000 Chinese people now in Dublin, and half a dozen could surely have been assembled for an identity parade.
If the case concerned an Irish suspect, it would have been normal Garda practice to ask the victim to positively identify the alleged perpetrator. The victim in this case was not asked to do so, and, given that he worked in the pub where she had been drinking, surely could have done so had she been asked.
But quite apart from deficiencies in this particular case that may have emerged had the case gone on, there are clear deficiencies in the Garda regulations for dealing with non-nationals. These are specified in the 1987 Treatment of Persons in Custody Regulations, and their omissions are glaring.
For example, there is no requirement that the services of a competent translator be obtained before a non-national is questioned. Nor are any standards set for the quality of translators who are used when gardaí are questioning suspects.
There is no requirement either for the recording of the words spoken in the suspect's own language, against which the translation could later be checked if necessary. There is no way, therefore, of checking the accuracy of a translation. The translator in this case was also a prosecution witness.
There is no requirement either that the rights of a suspect, which must be read out, are actually explained. It is likely that many non-nationals have no understanding of what a solicitor is, or what their right to a solicitor means, let alone any understanding of their entitlements under the Irish criminal legal aid scheme.
The issue did not arise in this case, but the question of possible conflicts of interest between different suspects being served by the same translator can also arise. For example, two or more individuals could be charged in connection with the same crime. If they were non-English-speakers of the same nationality, it is likely they would have the same translator. There is no mechanism for ensuring that such a translator did not favour one suspect over another in the course of the translation.
The legal system has its own language, and even a person quite competent in English could find some of the terms difficult to understand. There is a need for the criminal justice system to establish a panel of translators which can be used both by gardaí and the courts, who are trained in the language of criminal law as well as competent in English.