The exercise of judicial discretion in rent arrears cases - Sheffield ...

“I wouldn’t dream of making an order...without being really certain that the person
that I was making the order, one of the parties understood it entirely.” (DJ E)
Others placed emphasis on their need to understand the particular circumstances of the
defendant and stated they could not make an order unless they were clear what the
defendant said:
“Well I certainly wouldn’t then make an order if I wasn’t satisfied that she hadn’t been
able to get across what she wanted to say. I’d probably have to adjourn it, and… I’d
probably ask her to see one of the advisers so that they could then try and arrange
appropriate interpreters to come again on another occasion, simply adjourn it without
making any terms or anything at that stage.” (DJ R)
A few judges felt the need to test whether the defendant genuinely could not understand the
process. For example, one judge stated that he would give a short adjournment to:
“see whether they understood what I’m saying or not, because they often…usually
they give themselves away if they are conning. (pause) I would adjourn for a very
short period of time, fourteen days at the most for her to provide proof.” (DJ D)
In general judges were concerned to ensure that defendants who are not fluent in English
should access appropriate interpreting services. Mixed views were recorded however, as to
who should be responsible for the provision of such services. In 1997 the Court Service was
instrumental in creating the National Register of Public Services Interpreters (NRPSI) by the
Institute of Linguists. The principle is that every interpreter working in the courts should be
selected from this Register, or the CACDP Directory in the case of deaf people, and these
registers are used frequently by Crown Courts. However, before the county court will pay for
a registered interpreter in a civil case, all other possibilities must first be exhausted. This
means in practice that interpreters are often paid provided by landlords, advice centres
and/or Duty Desk Schemes, by members of court staff, or (with approval by the judge) by a
friend or family member.
Judges’ comments on who should be responsible for the provision of interpreters reflected
the need to explore practical alternatives to employing the services of a member of the
NRPSI. Indeed only one of the judges even referred to the possibility of the court providing
such a service stating:
“I’d be quite concerned to find out and if necessary I’d go and ask the court manager
about getting an interpreter for her, I mean if it was that bad…and she wasn’t going
to be represented.” (DJ Y)
More commonly judges sought to resolve the problem by relying on the claimant:
“I have made orders for the claimant to provide an interpreter if it seems difficult. I
don't do it often, but I have done it, particularly against local authorities and housing
landlords.” (DJ Q)
66