26 Jul Qualis Lingua Personae

Experienced court professionals and many ordinary common citizens alike in both the United States of America and the United Kingdom are familiar with the centuries-long doctrine of “Habeas Corpus.” However, ever since the inception of the habeas corpus doctrine, we have never had a complementary concept to affirm and confirm the language(s) of the person who appears before the Court following a habeas corpus proceeding.

It is my belief, through my ongoing professional experience as a working California State Certified Court Interpreter, that the missing twin doctrine to habeas corpus is a novel concept that I call “Qualis Lingua Personae,” according to which the Court would be compelled to affirm and confirm the language of the parties appearing in court following a habeas corpus proceeding.  “Qualis Lingua Personae” simply means (in Latin) “the Quality of the Language of the Person.”

For the doctrine of “Qualis Lingua Personae” to be applied effectively, the Court cannot merely rely on casual statements by either counsel or a court clerk, or a court interpreter for that matter, on what the language of the person appearing before the Court is under habeas corpus.  The Court should be compelled to ascertain the languages of the parties appearing in Court by way of a judicial oath either in open court or in writing under my proposed novel doctrine of “Qualis Lingua Personae.”

In circumstances where any individual party might claim to have “two indivisible native languages,” the Court should once again, by means of an oath (under the doctrine of “Qualis Lingua Personae”), require such an individual to elect which of those two languages that individual will use throughout the entire duration of any particular set of proceedings that are related to a single case.

A judicial oath for the purposes of guaranteeing the application of the doctrine of “Qualis Lingua Personae” could theoretically be crafted and integrated into existing opening oaths in a variety of ways across all jurisdictions in the United States.

For example, a judge (or a justice in a court of last resort) could ask a respondent:

1) Do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

2) Do you swear that you speak and understand and intend to use “Language X” throughout the entire duration of the court proceedings pertinent to this case and only this case?

First of all, in the example above, oath 2) is automatically clearly and firmly supported by oath 1).

Secondly, the two oaths together diminish the likelihood of any party attempting to claim discrimination against them based on language, culture, race, ethnicity, tribe, and/or national origin.

Thirdly, both oaths eliminate the possibility of either “judicial imposition” or “administrative imposition” of any particular language(s) on a party appearing before the Court.

And finally, both oaths administered universally to all parties close the door in our jurisdiction to English-speaking parties who might strangely elect to address the Court in a language other than English.

Since I live and work in the epicenter of technological innovation (the San Francisco Bay Area and neighboring Silicon Valley), I often wonder why it is that no new products and no new services emanate from the justice sector (or judicial sector) as we see in the tech, health, commercial, educational, or industrial sectors.

Although “access to justice” is a prominent goal in the justice sector, the overarching professional principle and purpose of all sectors of society (particularly in transactional events between the State and individuals) should be the idea of “access to service.”  The “Qualis Lingua Personae” doctrine could undoubtedly be adopted and integrated into the processes of other professional service sectors under the heading of “primary service language” (or “primary care language” in the health sector).

Patrice Binaisa, Patrice Binaisa (B.A., 1983, Spanish, Middlebury College, Vermont) is a Ugandan American Spanish/English court interpreter (State Court certified in California since 2013). He speaks Luganda, English, Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Mandarin. He is also an actor and voice actor. Having left Uganda in 1974, Patrice and his family first found asylum in the U.K., and then moved to the U.S.A. in 1977. His dear late father, Godfrey L. Binaisa QC, was Uganda’s first attorney general (1962-67) and Uganda’s fifth president (1979-80). A member of the USCF (United States Chess Federation) – with a ranking of 1340 –, Patrice is currently studying the Benko Gambit. He has worked as contract interpreter and in U.S. Immigration Court in California, and as a staff interpreter in Northern California State Courts. Find Patrice on IMDB or on Facebook, or write to him at adjustice7@yahoo.com.

Main photo taken from “Diversidade linguistica do Mundo” by Kazimierz Zaniewski at OpenEdition Journals no. 9 (2010), under the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license. First body photo taken from “Juridique et judiciaire, une différence entre ces deux termes ?” by Koloina Rasoahoby at STILEEX: Maths, Data & Information, under the CC BY 4.0 license. Second body photo taken from “Le secret professionnel du magistrat,” “Audience correctionnelle au Palais de Justice de Paris,” in Respecter et intégrer les aspects légaux liés à la protection et à l’accessibilité des données professionnelles at Université de Paris 1 (Panthéon, Sorbonne), Université Numérique Juridique Francophone, under the CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 license.