INTERPRETERS CANNOT (AND WOULD NOT) BE COMPELLED TO ATTEND TRIAL FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION

Civil Litigation Brief

The case of Kimathi -v- The Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2016] EWHC 3004 (QB) has already featured several times on this blog.  Here we look at the judgment made last week relating to the defendant’s application that interpreters attend trial to give evidence.  It also provides an important example of the court considering and applying the overriding objective when considering whether to make an order.

KEY POINTS

  • The CPR gives no specific right to a party to demand that an interpreter attend court to be cross-examined.
  • The court could order that an interpreter attend by using its general case management powers.
  • The use of that power would involve consideration of the overriding objective.
  • The overriding objective strongly militated against the attendance of the interpreters in this case (the witnesses had already given evidence)

THE CASE

The action concerns a large number of claims brought for assault, battery and negligence relating…

View original post 2,037 more words

Advertisements
This entry was posted in World by truthaholics. Bookmark the permalink.

About truthaholics

| Exposing Truth Behind Media Spin. Truth is not gossip. It's not sensational or even exciting. Truth's reality, fact. Truth's shocking, sad, horrific, frightening and deadly. Controversial issues discussed here so only for those able to digest Truth.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s