Justice Requires Human Interpreters in Our Courts

A recent report suggesting that court interpreters no longer need to attend hearings in person and could instead appear via video link, raises serious concerns about fairness in the UK justice system. While the proposal may be explained as a cost-saving measure, justice should never be reduced to a budget factor.

Court interpreting involves conveying tone, nuance, emotion and legal precision in high-stakes environments. In criminal and family courts especially, communication is complex and often emotionally charged. A parent facing the possible loss of their child, or a defendant in a criminal trial, depends on accurate and immediate interpretation to understand proceedings and participate fully.

Physical presence matters. In family courts, parents involved in child custody disputes or care proceedings may feel vulnerable, anxious, or intimidated and they frequently feel more confident when the interpreter sits beside them. That human proximity provides reassurance and clarity at moments of intense stress. A remote interpreter on a screen cannot fully replicate that support, nor can they as easily observe body language or clarify misunderstandings.

The practical realities of court infrastructure also cannot be ignored. Many UK courtrooms are not equipped for seamless remote communication. Even basic equipment such as headphones for simultaneous interpreting is often unavailable. Sound quality can be poor, connections unstable and delays disruptive.

There is also growing unease that remote interpreting may become a stepping stone toward replacing qualified 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, and highly emotional testimony. The UK alone is home to a wide range of accents and speech patterns. When additional languages and dialects are added, the complexity increases significantly. Errors in court are not minor inconveniences - they can affect parental rights and life-changing decisions.

If there is currently a shortage of interpreters attending court, the cause is not unwillingness to travel. It is chronic underpayment. Interpreters remain among the lowest-paid professionals in the court system, despite carrying significant responsibility and often working with distressing material. Rather than diminishing their role, the system should be addressing fair remuneration and professional recognition.

It is also worth asking why interpreters, and not other court professionals, are being singled out for remote replacement in the name of efficiency. Other court professionals are not being told their physical presence is optional. Access to justice should not be compromised by targeting the most vulnerable link in the system.

Remote interpreting may have a place in limited, carefully managed circumstances. But making it the default risks undermining the fairness and humanity of our courts. Justice depends on clear communication, trust and accuracy. That requires skilled professionals, physically present, ensuring every voice is properly heard.