I am from Australia, and I am currently based in Melbourne. I grew up in a small rural town and at 17 I joined the Royal Australian Navy. All I wanted to be was a cook but the navy had other plans and I was trained as a cryptologic linguist gaining formal qualifications in Vietnamese and French. I left the navy after 20 years of service, which included tours of duty on submarines involved in Cold War operations and on HMAS Brisbane during the first Gulf War. I then held a number of intelligence and security related positions in various Australian government departments prior to undertaking a lengthy period of full-time tertiary study.

Yes. The Royal Australian Navy’s Clearance Diving Team worked closely with French military personnel disarming sea mines in the vicinity of Kuwait harbor. I translated communications between the Commander of the Australian Task Group and senior French military personnel in relation to operational matters.

Yes. I was engaged to assist in negotiations with French officials in New Caledonia to expand Australia’s coastal surveillance capability to detect illegal activity threatening Australia’s security interests. The primary concern at the time was to address increases in the importation of illicit drugs and to strengthen the integrity of Australia’s borders to counter illegal immigration.

Generally speaking, native English speakers have difficulty becoming proficient in the Vietnamese language due to its unique sounds and tones. I found that I was able to grasp the language quite quickly and I soon developed an interest in Vietnamese culture. I set an objective to specialize in Vietnamese translation which led to professional accreditation. It was a long, hard road but well worth it.

Proteus: When did you join NAJIT and what was your educational background then?

I had completed a masters of translation and interpreting in 2012 and I joined NAJIT in 2014 when I was nearing completion of my PhD. I had yet to consider undertaking the Juris Doctor program.

Proteus: You said that your experience with NAJIT inspired you to pursue the JD, for which you are extremely grateful. Please tell us how NAJIT inspired you to embark on the JD journey.   

My first involvement with NAJIT was when I attended and presented at the 36th NAJIT Annual Conference held in Atlanta, Georgia in 2015. At the conference I was fortunate to meet with Professor Clifford Fishman who presented on translated transcripts used as evidence in Court. It was then that I realized that the justice system imposes many constraints in relation to evidence which conflict with the subjective nature of interpreting and translating. Also, after listening to Judge James Clayton deliver his keynote speech at the conference dinner, it was clear to me that there is still a lot of work to be done to improve the provision of interpreting and translating services in court to conduct a fair trial. It was then that I decided to study law in order to fully understand the difficulties legal practitioners face when an interpreter or translator is involved in court proceedings.

I decided to pursue a Masters of Translating and Interpreting Studies in 2011 and graduated in 2012. I then moved straight into a PhD and focused on evaluating Australia’s language capability that is relied upon by law enforcement and national security agencies to combat serious and organized crime including terrorism. I completed the PhD in 2015 and commenced the Juris Doctor program in early 2016. I graduated from the Juris Doctor program in February of this year. All three degrees were undertaken full-time at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology in Melbourne. It took seven years of full-time study to complete the three degrees. I am still unsure how I managed to get through it all. Gallons of coffee and very late nights perhaps. However, I do know that it would not have been possible but for the support and guidance I received from my family, friends and lecturers.

The knowledge I have gained from studying the three degrees has opened up a broad range of opportunities, particularly in areas of law. The JD has enabled me to further my research into problems associated with translated transcripts from electronic surveillance presented as evidence in court. I was fortunate enough to be invited to present a paper at the 6^th International Conference on Evidence Law and Forensic Science held in Baltimore, Maryland last year on the topic of alleged drug-related code words and the reliability of expert opinion evidence. My studies and research enabled me to make a significant contribution to improving Australia’s language capability relied upon to combat organized crime including terrorism.  This was achieved by identifying shortfalls in the training of interpreters and translators, achieving general acknowledgement that transcription skills are a hybrid of interpreting and translation skills not normally undertaken in community interpreting situations.

I have been on the Panel of Vietnamese Examiners since 1997 and was appointed Chair of the Panel in 2010. I manage a team of highly skilled and proficient Vietnamese interpreters and translators. Our role is to develop interpreting and translation tests for the national accreditation authority. We also mark tests completed by candidates wishing to attain professional standing. There are very few native English speakers in Australia with professional qualifications in translating and/or interpreting Vietnamese. Our role is to set and mark tests for para-professional and professional certification. It is very rewarding from a professional perspective.

The National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters undertook a rigorous study of what specialist interpreting services are required in areas of law. I was a member of a working group assigned to identify competencies required of interpreters working in a legal setting and to develop a testing format for certification as a “Certified Specialist Interpreter (Legal).” The new specialist stream aims to improve the delivery of interpreting services in a variety of legal settings, particularly in our courts.

In the past ten years it would be accurate to say that less than ten percent of candidates have achieved accreditation as professional Vietnamese interpreters or translators. Australia is currently transitioning from a system of accreditation to certification of its interpreters and translators. This process involves significant changes in training and the testing format and it is anticipated that the pass rate will increase.

Not yet. However, the new certification system establishes a specialist stream of legal interpreters which may, in time, result in an association being formed.

The deficiencies I identified were mainly concerned with translated transcripts (Vietnamese to English) from telephone interception and listening devices used as evidence in drug-related trials. I found that the way alleged code-words were translated had the potential to mislead the court. This led to identifying causal factors which included inadequate training of community interpreters and deficiencies in the accreditation system.

Yes. Interpreters often comment that they do not receive adequate briefings about the case prior to interpreting in court. They also become frustrated when court officials don’t adjust their speed of speech when speaking through an interpreter. This is one of the primary reasons why I decided to study law. I wanted to see the court interpreter/translator from the perspective of a lawyer.

The language of the law is written with the purpose of specificity while also ensuring a degree of flexibility to enable the justice system to apply legal principles to a broad spectrum of cases. While there is an effort to write laws in simple English, sometimes this is difficult to achieve. A good interpreter needs to understand how to effectively and accurately negotiate the communication of legal principles and concepts. Literal renditions seldom prove to be an effective approach to communicating the intended meaning of written law.

Also, the courts have an obligation to move through cases quickly in the interests of ensuring that justice is delivered fairly and efficiently. It is usually the case that trials are relatively lengthier when a court interpreter is required. The courts will appreciate an interpreter who is punctual, well-presented, clear and articulate. However, my research revealed that court interpreters often feel they are not trusted with access to confidential information prior to the commencement of trials. The tension lies between ethical obligations lawyers have to protect their clients’ confidentiality and adequately briefing interpreters to achieve optimal interpreting performance in court. Barristers and solicitors are very careful with information relating to the way they run their cases. They are bound by ethical rules to protect information divulged to them by their client and they have an obligation to act in their client’s best interest after their paramount duty to the Court. However, there is always room for improved cooperation between lawyers and interpreters to optimize the accuracy of court interpreting which will inevitably improve the integrity of the judicial process. In an effort to address this and other issues, the Judicial Council on Cultural Diversity has published recommended standards for working with interpreters in courts and tribunals. Recognition that interpreters are officers of the court is a major achievement in this area. This emphasizes the paramount duties an interpreter owes to the Court to interpret accuracy and impartiality overriding any duty the interpreter may have to any party to the proceedings.

A barrister recently advised me to choose an area of law where I feel most comfortable. As I have extensive experience in national security and law enforcement, I see myself working in the area of criminal prosecution or international law.

An understanding of criminal and civil procedure is very important. Interpreters need to understand the meanings of key legal concepts that are frequently referred to in court. For example, in US courts, I would imagine that court interpreters would need to be familiar with Federal Rules of Evidence 701 and 702 and understand why those rules are important in relation to expert witness testimony, especially for those interpreters or translators who may be called as expert witnesses themselves. The rules often require knowledge of how and when they are applied in order to bring context to their application. However, this may be considered advanced knowledge that court interpreters might aspire to obtaining.

There are a number of interesting areas of law where interpreters and translators can refine their skills. Police interpreting is one such area and there will always be a demand for it. Forensic interviewing techniques are constantly being refined and updated to optimize the effectiveness of witness responses. This means that interpreters need to be able to mirror the questioning format as closely as possible and to interpret with minimal interruption to ensure that investigative interviewing techniques achieve maximum effect.

In relation to future challenges, we are seeing an increase in the number of police interviews using telephone interpreter services and court trials using videoconferencing. These forms of disruptive technology require interpreters to adapt quickly to technological change and to find ways of mitigating limitations imposed by the method of communication. For example, a police interview conducted through an interpreter over the phone will deny the interpreter information derived from body language which may affect the flow of interpreting. Also, in phone interviews, the interpreter has a reduced ability to control the flow of communication between participants in the interview. I see significant challenges also coming from those advances in the development of automated interpreting/translating technology. Google translate, for example, has come a long way from where it began in 2006. Having said that, I think most will agree that there is a long way to go before interpreters and translators will be replaced by machines, if in fact this ever occurs. Perhaps the intuitive aspect of human language is a factor that machines will never be able to replicate.