Justice Requires Human Interpreters in Our Courts
/When I read recent reports suggesting that court interpreters may no longer need to attend hearings in person and could instead appear via video link, I felt deeply concerned. As someone who works regularly in UK courts, I know how important our physical presence can be. While the proposal may be presented as a cost-saving measure, justice should never be reduced to a budget line.
In my experience, being physically present in the courtroom matters enormously. I often work in family courts, where parents involved in child custody disputes or care proceedings are already under great stress. Many feel frightened, confused and overwhelmed. Sitting beside them allows me not only to interpret their words but also to offer reassurance through simple human presence. At moments of intense stress, that proximity makes a real difference. A face on a screen cannot fully replace it. When I am in the room, I can also observe body language and notice quickly if something has not been understood.
There are also practical realities that anyone who works in court will recognise. Many UK courtrooms are not equipped for seamless remote communication. Even basic equipment, such as headphones for simultaneous interpreting, is often unavailable. Poor sound quality, unstable connections and delays can easily disrupt proceedings. In a legal setting, where every word matters, even minor technical problems can affect understanding.
Another concern is that remote interpreting could become a stepping stone toward replacing human interpreters with artificial intelligence. While AI tools are advancing, they are not equipped to handle the realities of courtroom speech: overlapping voices, strong regional accents, dialects, legal terminology and emotional testimony. Errors in court are not minor inconveniences; they can influence decisions that affect families and people’s lives.
If there is currently a shortage of interpreters attending court, it is not because we are unwilling to travel. The real issue is chronic underpayment. Court interpreters carry significant responsibility yet remain among the lowest-paid professionals in the justice system. Rather than reducing our role, the system should be addressing fair pay and proper professional recognition.
Remote interpreting may have a place in limited circumstances. But making it the default risks undermining the fairness of our courts. From my experience, justice depends on clear communication, trust and accuracy - and those are best protected when a trained interpreter is physically present in the room.
