Video Evidence

[LS]

The interview was attended by a PC who could interpret for her

Surely an interpreter should be someone impartial, not a plod?

[Rights Fighter]

THANK YOU SO MUCH!!! I am literally crying with relief. My next question is this. We have a statement that says her name at the top of it. However, the statement is roughly as follows: The interview was attended by a PC who could interpret for her (she speaks fluent English by the way) then the police officer has written that every time she was asked a question about the attack she just cried, is this her statement then?

Surely an interpreter should be someone impartial, not a plod?

Yes it should be as a rule, but as the complainant can speak fluent English then it would not really make much difference.......

[LS]

I would have thought it would make a big difference. If the plod-on-the-side is the one making comments which would be purported to have come from the complainant then it's no different to having a plod there acting as your solicitor, which is just wrong.

The fact the complainant's fluent in English is (to me) neither here nor there. There is another party speaking for her, who should not be in that role.

It's probably a Godsend that the complainant did nothing but cry throughout, because at least nothing has been put on paper purporting to have come from her.

[Rights Fighter]

It would be clear who was saying what though and as the complainant speaks fluent English I doubt the plod interpreter would have been needed. A good defence sol/barrister would engage their own interpreter if they believe dirty doings had occurred.

The interpreter doesn't act as a solicitor. They are not there for support purposes or should not be. They are only supposed to interject if/when the subject is having problems understanding questions or giving answers. They are not supposed to chip in as and when.