Afternoon, everybody. Thank you for making the time to join our webinar this afternoon on culture and language in the immigration and Asylum Tribunal. So Selby, our amazing colleague, has just launched her report
And the report is
linguistic and procedural barriers to access to just
in Immigration and Asylum Tribunals. So it's on the website, and you will be able to see
here in the link I just sent into the chat. So we're just going to give you a few minutes for people to join because we have quite a lot of sign up for this event. And while we wait, I'm going to launch a little poll on the screen. So if you can rate your knowledge
on the topics, on the scale from 1 to 10
And we will do this polling at the end of the session again to see how the speakers have helped you increase your knowledge on these topics. And while we wait for that, I'm also going to do a little bit of code of conduct and share a little bit about the setting of this webinar. So
The purpose of this webinar is to provide insight and discussion, so our speakers and chairs are not able to provide any legal advice or comments on your individual cases or personal circumstances. and to ensure, because this is a free webinar with a lot of people joining
So to ensure and help the safeguarding and security of this free training session, the message in the chat will only be visible to the host me and the rest of the speakers. And
the panelists will be able to interact with you. And if you have any questions, please drop them in the Q&A box, which is at the bottom of your screen with a little question mark on it. And if you leave your question there, we will make sure the speakers will see it and then pick it up at the end of the sessions
And, when asking questions or using the chat function, we kindly really ask you to avoid sharing confidential, identifying, or detailed case information, particularly regarding ongoing Tribunal matters. And please do be mindful and respectful
Of other audience and our speakers. And we do reserve the right to remove any participant whose behavior is disrespectful or inappropriate from the Zoom webinar
So thank you so much, and I can see the polling result coming in and it's very, very spread out. So I would say the average is five and I will leave it to the speakers to increase that. So I'm going to hand the mic to our chair today, Selby and the author of the report
Thank you very much, Nicole. As Nicole mentioned, my name is Selby Dordieva. I am a senior research fellow at Public Law Project, and I'm the author of the report. I will be chairing today's session and also shortly presenting the findings of the report.
We have an exciting lineup of speakers. I'm really grateful to everyone who has joined. And first, we will have short presentations and then we will reserve Q&A for the last half an hour.
Without any further ado, let me start the presentation.
And, yeah, we should see the slides appearing soon
So the title of the report is Culture Linguistic, and Procedural barriers to Access to Justice in Immigration and Asylum Tribunals. This is the first report out of two, and this report focuses on language, evidence, and procedure
Next slide, please.
In terms of the methodology, the primary source of data was the analysis of 271 APA Tribunal decisions of Tribunal of Immigration and Asylum Chamber decisions
These are openly available and the
advantage of such approach of having quite a large number of cases analyzed qualitatively is that it enables to see the patterns as identified by the ABBA Tribunal judges themselves. In addition to that, I've conducted 7 semi-structured interviews with interpreters, legal representatives, and one intermediary
And I've also done six hearing observations of the other Tribunal hearings
Next slide, please.
In terms of why the topic matters and what were the findings. And if you ask me whether how important cultural sensitivity and awareness is for this particular chamber, for this particular Tribunals, I would say that the findings demonstrated that it is very important
And first of all, as we know, the specific fix of the Immigration and Asylum chamber is that the applicants are either foreign nationals or they were foreign nationals, mostly coming from non-Western countries from over
146 countries and understanding the linguistic and cultural matters, particularly for this jurisdiction are very important. They can materially alter the outcome of the case and the decisions demonstrated that misunderstanding with respect to culture and language can result in material errors of law
They can affect credibility findings, they can affect ability to understand and engage with country and other expert reports and guidance
They can affect the decision maker's expectations around evidence, expectations around behavior, which are culturally or socially driven. They can
Affect the expectations around documents and their formats. For example, there were cases where the decision makers did not understand the even the date as it was written, because the calendar wasn't the Western calendar forms of relationships
And this is particularly relevant for the second report expression. And this was especially relevant for LGBTQ plus cases in the second report, as there were some culturally driven expectations around openness
And medical evidence, and there was one case in particular where gunshot wound was translated as traumatic injury, and this resulted in negative credibility findings
It also affects applicants ability to participate and engage because there are multiple levels of translation and interpretation, and one is to understand cultural expectations around evidence
There could be certain assumptions, bias, and discrimination, and this particularly came out in age assessment cases
It can also affect empathy, and there is a separate section on procedural culture care as a procedural guarantee that is formed by the judges themselves and the question of judicial restraint
And it can affect procedural fairness
Next slide, please.
And one example, and I'm conscious that we have a country expert joining us today, so I will just briefly touch upon it. For example, in one case, there was an applicant from Iraq, and the one question that was disputed is
from which town the applicant was from where the applicant claiming that he was from Mahmoud and the Home Office claiming that he was from Erdil. And this question was central, and again, this is the issue of context and understanding of the context. This
This question was central to the claim because if he would be going back to one town, he might face persecution or threat, whereas in the other town he would not. And the case went all the way to the other Tribunal because there was misunderstanding and lack of understanding
administrative and geographical units in Iraq with the mistake which would be akin to somebody arguing that an applicant lied, because in one case he mentioned that he's from London, and in another case he mentioned from
He mentioned that he's from Camden. So the ALPA Tribunal judge stated that the decision maker did not explore innocent explanations, which was indeed indicative of a closed mind.
Next slide, please.
Another example was based on the observations, hearing observation, and this one particular case, it raised multiple issues. One issue was the issue of interpretation. From what I observed, this was a litigant in person, an unrepresented applicant
And the Tribunal clerk approached him 15 minutes before the scheduled start of the hearing to ask whether he needed an interpreter, which is already quite indicative of issues. Secondly.
It was interesting to observe the interaction between the judge and the hearing management of the judge because the judge was in this particular case was walking through, was helping the applicant with the hearing and was helping with the procedural aspects of the case
And there were also multiple references to cultural understanding as the case involved precarious family life and the applicant stating that in his culture, in order to be in relationships with someone, in romantic relationships with someone, he needed to marry that person
And also the applicant was saying that his English is limited. Nevertheless, he mastered the language. And this is another aspect of culture and language, the language of procedure. And he was, for example, he was asked about disposal, he said that he would like to see remittal
under Nova hearing.
Next slide, please.
And these are just two examples
And the the
report has always quite strongly policy related aspects, and it has recommendations for HMCTS Home Office, Ministry of Justice and Judicial College. This recommendations are more systemic and structural. They are
organized around language and dialect interpretation, understanding context, representation, participation, participation and procedural fairness.
And they are meant to build on existing good practice, for example, equal treatment benchbook and implement quite manageable changes, for example, update to the equal treatment benchbook, having additional guidance, having additional training
This report could be also useful for legal representatives and anyone involved in the process as it is designed around issues
If you look at the report, you'll see that I have identified the issues that are recurring or the pertinent issues. And I would state what the problem is, I would give an example or multiple examples and these examples are coming from the
judgments and decisions themselves. And then at the end of each section, there are recommendations. And we will talk about it a bit more towards the end of the session when I will be taking all the recommendations from all the speakers.
Next slide, please.
And what's also relevant is that the report comes at a particular policy moment. And one of the aims of the report was to see how analyzing quite a large number of cases for patterns and inconsistencies can help
prevent… can help identify and preventable issues that in the long term could help preventing backlog. And as we know, backlog is quite a large issue. Another finding that the report demonstrated is that there are so many actors and so many different competencies and cultural competence is one of them
That replacing the existing system with a system of untrained people would not work. And hopefully, what also the report shows is that we should not only look at the questions of law and rules, which are very complex for especially for immigration and asylum
But cultural understanding and linguistic understanding are central. These are not meagerly logistical issues or administrative issues, and they should be treated as such.
And to conclude, next slide, please. There will be a second report which is forthcoming. Whereas the first report looked more at procedural aspects, logistical aspects, administrative aspects, infrastructure
The second one looks at the human dimension of cultural and linguistic understanding. And it looks at how humans experience the system, and it looks at identity relationships and vulnerability, particularly focusing on family and or private life, LGBTQ plus identity, mental health, trauma, and vulnerability
I will conclude right here
And I will gladly introduce the second speaker who is Hiba Bayat
And Hiba is a registered public service interpreter and translator of Arabic. She's also a certified ADHD and advanced ODHD coach and supervisor, and she was previously an accredited immigration and Asylum case worker
Iba, over to you.
Thank you very much, Selby. Firstly, I'd like to thank the Public Law Project for inviting me to be part of today's discussion. It's a real privilege to be here. I should also say at the outset that what I'd like to share today really only scratches the surface of much
wider conversations. In many ways, 10 minutes can never do justice to the complexity of these issues. Every point I'll touch on today could easily be a discussion in its own right. So rather than trying to cover everything, I'd like to offer a few reflections from my own professional journey that I hope will contribute to today's conversation.
So today's report provides something incredibly valuable. Thank you very much for your hard work, Selby. It gives us evidence, an evidence base to issues that many practitioners working across the immigration and asylum system
Have recognized for yes
My hope is that today's discussion isn't simply about acknowledging those findings, but about asking what we do with them next
Rather than revisiting the report, which many of you will already be familiar with, as I said, I'd like to share some reflections.
I've had the privilege of working both as a public service interpreter and also as an accredited Immigration and Asylum caseworker. And those two roles allowed me to witness many of the same conversations, but from two very different professional perspectives. And over the years, they've taught me one lesson that has stayed with me
An interpreter can interpret every word faithfully, yet genuine understanding can still be incomplete
Why?
Because language alone isn't enough.
It depends on culture, it depends on cognition, and it depends on professionals understanding not only the people they serve, but also one another's professional roles
My first reflection is about culture
Whether we're talking about family relationships, honor, identity, religion, or community expectations, language never exists in isolation. Words carry meaning shaped by culture
Two people can hear exactly the same words, yet understand them very differently because of the cultural experiences they bring into the room.
As interpreters, our role is not to explain or advocate or investigate. Our role is to interpret faithfully, accurately, and impartially to the best of our ability.
As an NRPSI registered public service interpreter, my practice is guided by the NRPSI's Code of Professional Conduct
That code defines both our responsibilities and our professional boundaries
It also recognizes that there are limited circumstances where we may intervene professionally. For example, to seek clarification or address something affecting effective communication.
Those interventions, however, are carefully defined. They do not extend to investigating a person's account or developing their evidence.
Those boundaries are sometimes viewed as limitations. I see them differently
They safeguard impartiality. They preserve trust, and they protect the integrity of the legal process
One request many interpreters will recognize is this. Can you just please give us the gist
Although that may sound like a very simple request, it fundamentally changes our professional role
As interpreters, we are trained to interpret faithfully. We are not trained, nor should we be expected, to decide which parts of someone's evidence are important and which are not.
The moment we begin summarizing, we stop interpreting and start making judgments about relevance.
Those judgments belong to the legal representative and ultimately the decision maker.
Our responsibility is to ensure that everyone has access to the same communication, not a shortened version chosen by us
My second reflection is about cognition
If Culture helps us understand what people mean
Cognition helps us understand how they are able to communicate it
Many people navigating the asylum system have experienced trauma, prolonged uncertainty, and significant stress.
Those experiences influence attention, memory, sequencing, and recall
I've often reflected on how easily fragmented recall can be interpreted as inconsistency, when in reality it may simply reflect the way traumatic experiences are processed and remembered
To me, cultural awareness and cognitive awareness are equally important. Cultural awareness helps us understand what people mean, and cognitive awareness helps us understand how they are able to communicate it.
The biggest lesson I learned came from moving between those two professional roles
I'll give you a practical example
During substantive asylum interviews
I was often present as interpreter. I heard every question, I interpreted every answer. There were occasions where, because I shared the client's language and culture background, I recognized that understanding might be an incomplete
I could see there might be cultural context or other factors influencing what had been said. But as the interpreter, it wasn't my professional role to explore that.
Later in my career as an immigration and asylum caseworker, I regularly reviewed substantive interview records with my own clients while preparing their cases
The interview hadn't changed. The questions hadn't changed. The answers hadn't changed, and the evidence hadn't changed. The only thing that had changed was the professional lens through which I was looking at it.
Now, I had the professional remit to remain curious rather than make assumptions. I could ask things like, can you help me understand what he meant? Can you tell me more about this? Is there cultural context that helps explains this
Sometimes those conversations uncovered cultural nuances. Sometimes they uncovered the effect of trauma. Sometimes they explained what had appeared to be an inconsistency.
It wasn't because one profession was better than the other. Each profession had a different purpose.
As interpreters, sorry, I could recognize that understanding might be incomplete
And as an Immigration and asylum caseworker, I had the professional limits to explore why. For me, one of the most important lessons is that good professional practice begins with curiosity.
Curiosity asks, help me understand assumptions says, I already know what this means
Whether we interpret as legal representatives or decision makers, remaining curious is often what allows us to uncover the cultural context, the cognitive factors, and the lived experiences that might otherwise be overlooked.
That experience fundamentally changed the way I think about participation in the asylum process.
Procedural fairness isn't achieved because every professional does the same job. It's achieved because each profession professional does their own job well, understands the contribution of everyone else
And respect the boundaries within which we all work
I'd also like to say something about the interpreting profession itself
Legal interrupting is sometimes perceived simply as transferring words between two languages. In reality, it's a highly skilled professional discipline, requiring linguistic expertise, cultural understanding, ethical judgment, and significant cognitive effort
Interpreters are often expected to walk into some of the most complex and emotionally demanding conversations with little or sometimes no prior context, yet still produce an accurate, faithful, and impartial interpretation from the very first question.
Yet despite the level of expertise the world demands, I think we also need to reflect on the long-term sustainability of the profession itself.
Most public service interpreters work as self-employed professionals. They often work in isolation, without the employment protections, structured professional support, or organizational infrastructure that many other professions take for granted.
At the same time, they are expected to perform one of the most cognitively demanding roles within the justice system, often in emotionally challenging circumstances.
If we want to continue attracting and retaining experienced and highly skilled and qualified interpreters, we need to create an environment in which their expertise is recognized. Their professional boundaries are understood, and the conditions are in place for them to carry out their role effectively
Recognition is not simply about acknowledging interpreters. It influences recruitment, retention, professional standards, and ultimately the quality of interpretation available within the justice system. That isn't simply an investment in interpreters. It's an investment in the quality
fairness and integrity of the justice system itself. That is why appropriate briefing, where possible is so important. Not because it influences the interpreter, because it supports accuracy. Simple practices such as appropriate briefing, segments, avoiding overlapping speech
And allowing interpreters to seek clarification when necessary, they all improve communication for everyone involved. They don't compromise impartiality, they strengthen accuracy. They strengthen meaningful participation.
I'd like to finish with one final reflection
Today's report gives us something our professions have needed for a very long time. It gives us evidence, evidence that many of the challenges practitioners have recognized for years are real, recurring, and capable of affecting meaningful participation and procedural fairness
The challenge now is to turn that evidence into action to better understand the influence of culture, to better recognize the impact of trauma on communication, to better understand one another's professional roles, and perhaps the simplest message I'd like to leave with you today is this
Let's remain curious before we make assumptions. Let's ask, help me understand, because before evidence can be assessed, it first has to be communicated. Before it can be communicated, it first has to be understood.
Meaningful participation depends on understanding, and understanding depends on professional collaboration. For me, that's what going beyond words really means. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Hiba, for this very structured and powerful presentation I wrote down
Thank you, Celie.
some of the key takeaways, and I will mention them towards the end as a summary. Thank you so much. We have now, however, our third speaker, also an interpreter
who is an accredited and registered public service interpreter and translator of Albanian and Russian. She's also a director of Association of Interpreters and Translators in the Uk. Over to you, Yedena.
Good afternoon, Selby and everyone, thank you so much for this amazing session and for your very, very important report, which highlights the major failures in our immigration system. So first of all, I would like to thank Selby again, you and my association of Interpreters and Translators for creating a nurturing environment
Where can we connect with researchers like Selby and make our voice heard. I'm a court interpreter, and I spend most of my working life in immigration and asylum tribunals in criminal settings and alongside solicitors preparing cases. And today
I want to walk you and I want to take you through a claim as a person seeking asylum actually leaves, but from point of view of an interpreter. So almost everyone in this system is vulnerable and many people are extremely vulnerable. They do not know how our system works
They cannot read a word of what is written about them, and they arrive, frankly speaking, frightened. Often after the worst experiences in their lives, only to be asked to tell everything to a voice over the phone in a country whose rules they do not understand
Everything I'm going to describe happens to people in this condition, so this is the baseline. So, first of all, the detention, the initial arrival. For many of people, detention comes first on arrival because they claim before the claim is ever heard, so some of them are being detained to be sent back to France now, and
They are not informed about this decision on their language, and I'm speaking here from my professional experience, so they apply for bail, the bail summary arrives to the detention center, and the agency is called. And all the agency interpreter does is the pass on the date of the hearing
So nobody goes through the summary with a person in language, they actually understand. So they come before the judge, the judge asks them whether they have read the bail summary, and the answer is, judge, I do not know what I'm doing here
I do not speak English. I cannot read this. And in that moment, the Home Office jumps in and saying, like, hold on a second, we have a record of you using the over the phone interpreter to go through the documents. Well, this is a lie
No over-the-phone interpreter can get access to the documents to read them to the person. So in that moment, they lose their first chance to apply for bail
And not because the case is weak, but because nobody did the basic things they have to do of telling them what was written about them in their documents. And in this
scenarios, the basic, the bail application is normally refused and not withdrawn for them to read the documents.
The account of which the whole case will rest is given at the interview and is given through interpreter. So let me ask the solicitors and barristers and other legal representatives in this room a quiet question
How many times has your client told you their evidence has been misinterpreted during the Home Office interview?
I've probably even can hear from this, many people are nodding now. Most of you will have heard it like
more than once, and I hear it every day, and I can tell you why.
The system is failing them people. Some of the interpreters used for these interviews are based overseas. They are always not always hold recognized qualifications and they hold no counterterrorism checks
I know this personally because I am a professional interpreter with years and years of experience, and I have been refused to be on the home office list because I have no indefinite leave to remain in this country while unvetted overseas interpreters are being used for screening interviews in detention centers and for airport interviews through agencies
over the phone. Most sensitive account a person will ever give is occasionally taken down by someone unaccountable abroad, and when that account is later challenged, it is the appellant who pays for the error and not the interpreter and not the system they use. So
This is not a fault of them interpreters. I just want to emphasize this is not the fault of them people. This is the fault of the two-tier system
Going further. So when the person finds themselves a representative, they need representation, obviously, because the system is very difficult, so it is the point where so many of them are being exploited by dodge immigration solicitors who take money and don't do the job
A person pays extortionate amount of money. They have a well-documented journey, objective evidence, country material, a genuine and well-founded fear, for example. And the solicitor pushes them through the system
Never use an interpreter, write thin statements, evidence never properly assembled country material never cited, refused by again, refused, reviewed by again. Let's go to the Tribunal. Let's go to the appeal
And the person feels that everything is wrong, it's not because they're solicitor doing the bad job, it's just because the system works that way, but sometimes
I sometimes go to another solicitor and they are happy and they actually find out that their case is really strong and the situation turns into their favour. And I have witnessed
worse than neglect, because I do see alongside this people in tribunals. I have seen representatives saying one thing to the appellant, another thing to the witness, and the third thing to the court, until nobody in the room knew what the position actually was.
And that confusion was not accidental. It was there to hide that the work has never been done. A member of my own extended family lived through something like this, so I'm not speaking in the abstract here. And when this happens, this is some very
undervalued and undermined problem because nobody actually thinks that
Well, the court will expect this person to go to the SRA
and file a complaint against the dodgy solicitor, but they cannot do this because there's no linguistic support, and frankly speaking, the SRA and legal ombudsman procedures are so difficult that even a trained person cannot deal with them. Imagine somebody who is extremely vulnerable in a
time-sensitive position and they have no support in their language. So that's why complaints procedures must be made genuinely accessible, and the language support built in
So now let's go to the hearing process. So the case has the hearing and here is my message to every instructing solicitor and professional working with asylum seekers. Treat the interpreter as an expert. What we produce is evidence
It goes on the record, it is signed and is relied upon, and you would never accept an expert criticized by the Tribunal previously, so do not accept an unqualified interpreter, or worse, do not ever accept a family member or a friend doing interpreting for you during the preparation of the case.
There is one reliable place to find a good interpreter, and this is the National Register of Public Service Interpreters, not an agency. Agent selling you 150 or 200 languages. It carries a real risk that you will be handed someone with no expertise and no checks. And this person
You will realize it only when the damage is done to the case and to the credibility of your client. The accountability lives in the same place.
The person who's working for you through an agency is not accountable. The agency, they won't do anything, but if you have registered public service interpreter, you can go to the register
And there's a full published transparent process of accountability behind it. So we hold ourselves to that standard, because after the years of begging to be regulated and being refused, we have to self-organize. And until the state regulators that voluntary register is the only real protection that you and your client have at the moment
So
If you have a chance to brief interpreter before the hearing, please do take it. You can simply give us a topic so we know what we are dealing with today. So every case is very different. It's a trafficking case? Is it a religious-based persecution? Terminology, the sensitivity
The register is completely different. So
Nobody does this thing. Please do prepare your client how to work through an interpreter. The court interpreter, as I am myself and other
are the many, many interpreters we owe our duty to the court, and we hold no privilege, and we interpret everything, yet nobody tells the client the interpreter is not their friend
It's not someone to confide in, it's not there for your comfort, it's someone who… who will professionally interpret everything that you say with no filter
So what your client might believe is a private conversation might become a part of the proceedings, and I had this experience. It was a very unpleasant experience where the person have lost the credibility in full, right in front of the judge, because they were claiming they have a different sexual orientation, and they were persecuted on that matter
And they decided to confide in me, saying, like, actually, I'm straight on the record, right in front of the judge. Please do tell your client never, never have private conversations with interpreter
So the court interpreter is
Just one point about the preliminary matters. So the short supervised conversation between the judge and the interpreter and the person is very, very important, so you can actually gain understanding about the language and the dialect
Because I know some judges do some housekeeping, but they keep the conversation very short, like, what's your name, what's the day-to-day, and what transport did you use to arrive here? But it's not enough. It is not enough because sometimes person can understand basic things, but when it comes down to the legalities and terminology
The dialects can be very different, so it's very important to understand that there is a comprehension and not just politeness and fear
So
He would touch that point, but I've been advocating for this publicly for a very long time. We are not allowed to summarize.
We are not legally trained. We exist only for one reason, to give a person equal access to justice. So I know that many judges understand this, and they manage their hearings very well, particularly online, asking the person of how they want the case to be handled, and this is
like this instinct is right, but on face-to-face hearing, the full interpreting should be absolutely mandatory. It takes long, it's necessary because it's their right for a fair trial, for a fair hearing
So I just want to give you a short example. I know Sylvia, I'm running out of time, but
the… why the
full interpreting is absolutely necessary. So I had one case when I've seen Home Office state an incorrect file in the filing submissions, and the council missed it
So the appellant caught it, and because they could hear it through my interpreting, they have corrected it and full interpreting led the person to judge their own representation to how good the barista is, because only with a summary, a frightened person can assume that everything has been handled nicely and correctly.
And the person who cannot hear what is happening cannot know whether there's anything to complain about. Just a few simple touches on how the Tribunals treat us. I have raised it many times on the different
On the different meetings, but we sometimes have been treated as a very expensive afterthought of this justice system, because everybody thinks that we get the money that the agency gets, but it's not true.
And I have been, frankly speaking mistreated, and I know that my colleagues have been mistreated by the judges. I've been subject to misogynistic comments by the judges during their breaks and mistreated by the security staff just because I'm saying like I am an interpreter and I don't know what is happening with some people when they see us
And they start to behave in a different way. So a system is failing claimants, yes, but it does fail everyone who speaks another language
So it's not about the judges, it's not about the home office or the barristers who know well each other. It's about the person, the system is about the person who has the same right as everyone else in that room to understand that what is being said about them and on their behalf and to speak to it while it still matters
That was equal access to justice means, especially for those who are vulnerable and extremely vulnerable. Not a summary of justice, but justice in full, in a language that they understand
Thank you
Thank you very much, Ilana, for this very powerful, again, position of interpreter and also the position of applicant and pointing to structural and systemic issues. We'll go back to them towards the end
And now I have the pleasure of introducing the next speaker, Adiodun Olatakun, who is a barrister at 36 Public and Human Rights in London, specializing in employment, education, discrimination, and public law
He's also a lecturer and campaigner. Over to you, Abiodun.
Thank you very much and thank you for hosting such an important and timely topic. And I think from what I've heard so far from the Hibber and Elena, I definitely say that those are my experiences as a practitioner in many immigration, many asylum, many bail cases
There are really profound issues with linguistic, cultural, and procedural issues, and I found myself very much nodding very vigorously off-camera
to the comments that Eleanor was making about the issues caused by misinterpretation during home office interviews
I once had a client who
I suppose I just couldn't believe it when I read our skeleton argument. He in essence had been provided with a Russian speaker who knew very little of his language, Georgian, in his first interview
So, as you can imagine, the nose became yeses, the didn't became I did. He was said to have referred to 2007 when it was 2017
And as a result of that misinterpretation from the very outset, his case was supposedly played by inconsistencies, when in fact it was merely him being provided with an interpreter who couldn't speak his language
And the comments that Hibber was making about how it's not just about translation, but it is a quite substantial cognitive effort
And
There are so many occasions where I've been in the Tribunal
And the entire said to the judge, I don't understand what he's talking about
And the judge has said, just translate verbatim when there is a value and an importance to be placed in the translation, understanding to some extent, the legal principle, because that word or phrase or terminology
will not be the same in both languages, and are very grateful for an excellent report that speaks to these issues.
And I think it's really important that we are able to zoom the camera out and understand why it's so important that we resolve these linguistic, cultural, and procedural issues
What's really at stake here is the rule of law. This individual before this Tribunal getting justice. And from the state of the
Justice system that we've seen from Selby's report from contributions we've heard so far
that this is an utter force in which it is almost impossible to have the standard of their adjudication that people expect.
And I think the sort of person who finds themselves in that situation is someone who needs and deserves that justice.
Here we have people from around the world who in many instances have been abused, persecuted, in many instances tortured, and they're asking what holds itself out to be one of the most rule-of-law compliant nations to just give them
Equality of arms and to give them an opportunity to put over the case, and to give them an opportunity to understand what is being said about them
And unfortunately, these three issues, these linguistic, cultural and procedural barriers, I think from the experience of all who are engaging with the system
I, as an advocate, have certainly seen everything that the translator colleagues have been talking about thus far, do prevent people from achieving the access to justice under the rule of law
And I just wanted to talk about a little bit of what I've seen from my vantage point
So turning first to the linguistic
I've spoken a little bit about the Russian Georgian horror show where my client had
Essentially somebody who was broken loanwords rather than speaking his full language in that home office interview.
But there have also been other issues that I've experienced with translation
So I am a proud Yoruba, and a member of Nigeria's most popular southwestern tribe, and I had the privilege to represent people from my area in Article 8
family life claim, and what they were saying was that they had a network of cousins
Cousins in Lagos, cousins in Hertfordshire, cousins in here, cousins in there. And
they were talking about this closely knit international family, and when the drudge began to ask them, all right, so
Whose brother is this person? How are you related to that person? It came to be seen that they were not blood relations.
And cousin for people from my area is a way of talking about someone who's close to you, or someone who has shared a journey with you, and people who you have as the very closest knit people within your community.
But because the judge's positioning was a cousin is a person who has to be related to you. They may negative findings about the credibility of the appellant simply because, in their view
They hadn't used the word in his dictionary definition throughout their pleadings. And again, that for me is one of the sorts of very unfortunate examples about the Tribunal as an institution being positioned in a way to not be
to take empathy with the position of people who are not like those who are making decisions. And again, those are some of the profound cultural and linguistic issues which I find have a disproportionately big impact on whether or not some people are believed
and some people are not believed
Another matter that I see crop up time and time again in cases where the appellant is not an English speaker is what I might class as the impact
Of the first impression
So
We have this tradition of orality where we want to prove things in live evidence
We, to the extent the Americans will have you believe, want the gotcha moment where somebody let something slip in live evidence. And to some extent, I do feel that that is a trap that judges fall into
There is a lengthy exchange or quoted passage by the appellant. The interpreter is at length describing what they're saying in English
And then
of perhaps in a language where the double negative doesn't work the same
As it does in English, somebody says that they did something when previously they said they didn't
There is
very terse exchange with the Home Office presenting officer where the appellant clarifies actually this is what I meant.
However
There has already been an exchange between through the interpreter to the judge
I said I did it when I didn't.
That impact of that first exchange
And it will be taken away.
Even if there is in re-examination or through different response to the successive question, the appellant saying, I didn't do it
That is something that I've never been able to get out of my head. The fact that
The first mark of the judicial pen on that issue was the appellant says they did it
Again, another really big issue with how the Tribunal treats evidence as an advocate, I've always struggled with
And I've seen judges come to the view that people were not telling the truth because they changed their story
Even though the way that English works might be different from their original language
The next thing I wanted to get to was the matter of context and culture.
A lot of the report is talking about the way that this system treats expertise
And there are unseen examples from my experience of
A lack of flexibility in decision makers thinking about other people's context.
And I remember once I had a humanitarian protection and asylum
client who was from Honduras and there was a Home Office document about El Salvador talking about essentially two gangs from the area
She had been subject to persecution by both of the gangs talked about in the El Salvador guidance, but no decision maker at the Home Office, and no decision maker in the First Theater Tribunal could connect that these connected countries with exactly the same gangs who have people
experience exactly the same issues
And again, there is an issue about the empathy and the flexibility of thinking through cultural issues rather than sticking to the letter of how it's written. In the end, we did manage to show that she was part of a protected social group, women who are oppressed by gangs in these areas
But they shouldn't have taken 18 months to get to that position. Decision makers of both the Home Office and at the Tribunal should have been able to see that
And the final thing I wanted to come to is the map, the notion of the procedural
There are so many things that go wrong in the way that we deal with immigration matters in this country. The minute or so that I've got isn't enough to be talking about any of that
But the
context of Eleanor's experience, I think is really, really instructive.
We struggle to get people to interpret a range of
Languages and dialects from less common ethnicities and cultures. There can be a situation where
Tribunal judges settle for something close to or near to how a person speaks or where they're from, which is actually completely inappropriate, and leads to scenarios where they 80% understand each other, which isn't quite enough
And I would be a big fan of the recommendations which carry through in Selby's report to make sure that there is a procedure that enables the right interpreter to be with the right appellants to ensure that they can understand each other
Because quite frankly
I often have English speaking clients and English speaking friends with whom I have substantial misunderstandings with, and we need not have culture and language be another barrier when we are determining the most important parts of people's lives
Their families, their freedom and their rights. So those are just a few thoughts from the position of an advocate.
Thank you very much, Abiodun. And it's so interesting to see how so many things resonated with what was said already, starting from the horror stories with our own languages to Western-centric understanding or homogenized
Understanding of what families or what relationships are. We'll touch upon them later. Thank you very much. We have another
legal representative, my colleague, Rebecca Hacker. Rebecca is a solicitor at PLP specializing in asylum and immigration law and related public law challenges. Offer to you, Rebecca
Thank you, Selby. I think I have some slides which should be loading. Thanks so much for inviting me to be part of this conversation. I also found myself nodding along during Eleanor's presentations
I'm really grateful to Abiodan for reminding us what's at stake in these cases. So I'd like to start my presentation. I'm going to focus particularly on asylum appeals. I'd like to start with this metaphor that's often used for culture
Which I would argue also applies to language as part of culture, as the sea that we're all swimming in because they are so pervasive that we often completely forget that they're there
Next slide, please.
Could we move to the next slide?
Thanks. So, in that context, I think paying closer attention to culture… the previous slide, it should be
Thanks. So in that context, paying closer attention to culture when we are working on asylum appeals can be the key really to unlocking a lot of aspects of a client's case. I'm particularly looking at this based on my experience as a practitioner
And coming from the perspective of a caseworker or a solicitor who might be preparing a client's appeal and preparing for the hearing. And I think that paying closer attention to culture and language can help to unlock effective client care
which feeds into the quality of evidence that's prepared
It can also help to unlock meaningful participation by clients in their Tribunal hearings.
It can also help to unlock a sort of more nuanced perspective on the legal arguments that can be deployed at the hearing. And I'm going to focus in particular on arguments around the refugee convention. Next slide, please.
So starting with client care, which is where we begin when we're working on a client's asylum appeal, I think it's really helpful to touch on some initial observations from practice
Firstly, that culture is a really broad concept. So this can encompass not just literature or artifacts, but we could be talking about a communal way of life
Oral traditions
Dialects
Festivities, ways of dressing, ways of
Cooking, so it's really useful as a practitioner to be alive to all the potential areas that are impacted by a client's culture and how it can crop up. Culture is also not a monolith, so just because I worked on an asylum appeal
A female client from Kabul last year doesn't mean that when I see a new female client from Kabul this week, she's going to be coming from the same cultural context.
Her cultural context may be informed by being from a different socioeconomic background, different family, different ethnicity, religion, speaking different dialects, different education. So it's really useful to remember to exercise cultural humility, and remember that clients are really the authority on their cultural context, and we need them to explain it to us
Culture is also not static. It's often, you know, we have a tendency to think about it in the sense of objects and production, but clients are living their culture, and it can be more accessible to start a conversation about culture when taking someone
instructions by starting with something like whether they have recipes from home, how they used to dress, did they speak in a particular way with family when they were growing up
And I really echo what Hiba said about the importance of curiosity in this context.
This can also help to build trust and effective communication.
Culture is also often implicit. Clients don't come to us expressing their case explicitly in times of their cultural context all the time. So it can be useful to carry out research and identify potential questions we might want to ask, and also just to take a proactive approach
to understanding a client's cultural context
Next slide, please.
So this is just an example. This is someone called the pianist of Yamu. I recommend looking him up. It's a really interesting story. This is a picture from Yamuk refugee camp in Damascus. This is a Palestinian camp that was built in the 50s in Damascus
And I just want to highlight that, you know, culture, like I mentioned, is not static, it's layered, it's in flux, and there are many influences on someone's cultural context at different points in their life. Many people seeking asylum in the UK may have first been internally displaced within their own country to a different area
They may then have been displaced to a neighboring country before later arriving in the UK. So there may be layers of cultural context to the account that they're providing us with. The experience of someone who's lived in Yarmouk and Damascus may be different from
The experience and cultural context of a Palestinian client who has grown up in a camp in Lebanon, in Gaza, in Jerusalem, and we need to be alive to these nuances and layers.
Next slide, please.
A final point on client care and culture is being culturally attuned is really part and parcel of a trauma-informed practice. Many asylum-seeking clients have experienced severe trauma, which… and they may still be dealing with the repercussions for their physical and mental health
While we're representing them
Trauma Treatment International have really recently produced a guide for professionals supporting survivors of torture, which actually explicitly addresses the relevance of cultural context
To trauma-informed practice, it makes some really useful recommendations, which I, you know, encourage people to look at alongside Selby's recommendations in her report. One of these interestingly, is recognizing collective trauma and systemic oppression
may impact clients and it's important to remain sensitive to this. Refugee law has a tendency to make us focus on the individual and their experiences, but a more nuanced understanding of the experiences of their community is… can be really important for articulating their claim properly.
Next slide, please
So the second point I want to touch on is culture at the Tribunal. And this brings me back to this point about culture and language being the sea we're all swimming in. So the legal culture that we and our clients are navigating and the legal language we're using are not neutral
This really comes out in Selby's report, and I think it's just really helpful to actually sit down with clients and acknowledge that and talk about it.
Get the client's perspective on various aspects. The Tribunal culture is full of symbolism, rituals, the judge sitting at an elevated level to reflect the fact they're the authority in the room, and it can be really useful to actually just discuss that with clients
In order to identify whether you need to take additional steps to support the client in navigating that culture and actually having meaningful participation in their own hearing
Good practice usually involves bringing your own interpreter to the hearing that the client is used to working with rather than just relying on the court-appointed interpreter. But there may be additional steps that are needed to help someone participate and navigate all of these cultural nuances
Such as appointing an intermediary or applying for ground rules to be applied, or even getting a friend or support worker to be there on the day in the background.
Next slide, please.
I just wanted to share an example quickly from one of my cases. I represented a client in her asylum appeal, and this was a really vulnerable client with really severe mental health… ill health
And we ended up deciding to apply to the Tribunal to appoint an intermediary to support her in appointments and also at her hearing
This is a really underutilized resource in immigration appeals, and it made a huge difference to her ability to navigate the legal culture and context and actually have participate in her hearing
We had a ground rules hearing where we established, certain ground rules for the substantive hearing, and the judge then made an order that these should be respected at the final hearing
And it was actually really promising to see the judge engage with the intermediaries expert findings on the client's needs. And there were rules established such as all parties would use first names only, including marginal client
The judge was seated on the same level as the appellant and the Home Office presenting officer, and the client was allowed to access aromatherapy oil, specifically lavender, because this reminded her of her friend's garden, and this was a friend who, you know, provided a lot of support to her, and it was really grounding for her. She could use fidget toys, she had permission
to stand during the hearing, and to use self-season techniques such as tapping and swaying. And, you know, I know this takes us into a sort
topic around mental health and trauma, but it is relevant because we are expecting appellants to operate in what can be a really, really challenging and alien legal culture. And I think the more that we push for these measures to be put in place, the more of a shift we will see within the Tribunal culture itself
Next slide, please
The final point I want to touch on is that
closer attention to culture can all so really help us to explore, you know, different approaches to the legal arguments that can be advanced at the hearing. And there is so much to say on this topic, you know, I'm not even going into trafficking, Article 8, Article 3
But just a couple of points on the refugee Convention, I think don't always get discussed
There's really interesting research, particularly by an academic called Shireen El Shala, on the destruction of cultural heritage as a form of persecution. And this isn't always explored. It is criminalized under the Rome statute and often can be a precursor to other forms of persecution against particularly targeted groups
It can be really useful to explore this. Was your client prevented from speaking their community's dialect, and were they allowed to be educated in their own language at school? Were they able to go out in the street dressed in traditional clothing to express themselves, to gather with their community openly, or did that make them a target
That is all relevant to understanding whether a particular group is being targeted and is at risk
As has been touched on, I think cultural norms around shame and attribution of responsibility can be highly relevant to why someone remains at risk
you know, someone's father may have committed a crime 20 years ago, which they still ultimately are held responsible for, because they are the eldest son, or the wife, or a family member. There may be cycles of revenge that are continuing, and they may remain at risk.
And finally, another point that I think is being increasingly explored by practitioners
is the role of climate impact in protection claims. And I think culture is really hugely significant here for some communities, particularly sort of agrarian communities, the destruction of the natural environment that they live on
Goes hand in hand with the destruction and erosion of their culture and their ability to practice their culture in community. And it's really important to kind of explore these nuances when advancing these claims
The Refugee Convention, as I've said, can be really focused on the individual, and I think zooming out and looking at culture can help us to understand the wider context.
Next slide, please. I am wrapping up very soon.
This is just an example that I wanted to share, you know, from representing clients from the Darfur in Sudan
you know, we can see examples of this intersection between the destruction of cultural heritage and destruction of natural environment being directly relevant to the persecution and attempted erasure of non-Arab Darfuris in Darfur. So, alongside all the other atrocities, we've seen the looting of museums and destruction of physical cultural heritage of non-Arab dalfoy tribes. We've seen the banning of ancestral villages and farmlands, which destroys traditional architecture and communal spaces
We've also seen how by displacing these communities to multiple different locations, there's
you know, a threat to the continuity of many cultural practices from different languages to oral histories, traditional farming customs, and communal way of life. This is all part of the wider picture, and you may have a home office refusal saying that someone hasn't been individually targeted
And when you're preparing the appeal and taking this client's instructions, preparing evidence, instructing an expert, it's important to look at that wider pattern. And I think culture can be really helpful for that.
Final slide, please.
Next slide, please. I don't know if there's a delay.
Anyway, so I just wanted to leave everyone with this final call to really
Connect with clients over their culture. I found that when taking instructions and preparing witness statements, talking, you know, inviting a client to talk about their culture can actually be quite an empowering experience. It can be a way of humanizing what's ultimately quite a dehumanizing process
It's a way of handing over a little bit of agency, and it's a way of building connection and trust
And ultimately, a client's culture may be one of the very few things that they've been able to bring with them from home, and that they still have access to that connects them. And it can be hugely powerful just to create the space for understanding that bit better when preparing the case.
I often ask clients about what food they like making from home, and you'd be amazed the difference that those kind of conversations can open up. So I just invite everyone, you know, if you haven't already, ask a client about their favorite meal they like to cook from home, and that can really open up such a rich conversation to understand their case better
And ultimately represent them better in what is a really challenging process
Thanks so much. And yeah, my email's there if anyone wants to ask questions or get in touch about this.
Thank you very much, Rebecca. From the beginning with a very powerful metaphor of culture as a key and also talking about the multifaceted nature of culture
And also providing practical examples, which was extremely interesting and touching. We'll come back to that. So we've heard from interpreters, we've heard from legal representatives and last, and certainly not least, we have a country expert joining us today
So we are very happy to have Dr. Imran Ali Panjwani, who is a senior lecturer in law at the Center for Access to Justice and Inclusion at Anglia Raskin University and the country expert who authored over 140 reports
Dr. Panjwani specializes in Immigration and human rights, and having advanced a framework to recognize religious, cultural, and linguistic aspects of asylum claims, which was recognized by the National GG2 leadership and diversity awards in 202
Over to you.
Thank you very much, Sylvie and everybody, and very much in agreement with all the speakers. My small contribution really is, I think something substantive and practical. One to build on the respected contributions of the speakers, even the last speaker talking about the loss of land relating to identity, just being culturally aware, the other speakers have said
The respected barriers have talked about the Nigerian culture. So what I want to do is that it's now actually now almost 230 country expert reports on the MENA region, and I want to focus on
Part of the report where there are recommendations which deal with, for example, improving expert evidence, improving the procedure, highlighting linguistic issues. So, you know, there are some very nice reforms, which I was reading the report, and I want to contribute the following. I don't know if this can be added, amended, or whatever people's discussion, but this is what I'm currently working on
So, my humble suggestion is that there should be a legally substantive reform to deal with the issues the report is highlighting and from the contribution of speakers. How
So in English law, the definition of evidence is crucial
To determine the way in which a case is submitted to the judge, and how a case is heard
And then by consequence
The access to justice issues, or what is available to the asylum seeker in terms of the evidence he or she can present. So if, for example, linguistic evidence is not considered, cultural evidence is not considered, or it is
but not maximized, then already you implicitly have certain types of evidence emphasized and then other types of evidence less emphasized, which then leads to a restriction of access to justice. So let's answer the first question. How? What is
you know, humble proposal. So, what I'm suggesting is that in English law, evidence can be oral, documentary, conclusive, direct, circumstantial, real, extrinsic
hearsay indirect original derivative
parole, prima facie, primary and secondly. And you've all probably gone to sleep now. However, I had to go through those definitions to show you that English law, and then a branch of Immigration and human rights law
Essentially
can be expanded in terms of how it approaches evidence. So the where I see the failing in or where I see actually a lacuna, you know, which is a missing rule or mechanism within Immigration human rights law
is there should be a hierarchy of evidence whereby original evidence and derivative evidence are emphasized. Now, original evidence is primary source evidence, which can be anything. I mean, they're respected interpreters and on the panel would be able to attest to this. I received this type of evidence as well, where, you know.
there has been a transcript which needs to be interpreted, or sorry, translated, I should say, or there has been, for example, I don't know, an arrest warrant or a picture, or anything which has, let's say, a text in Arabic, or Farsi, or any language
And that's an example of a common primary source evidence used in immigration cases. However, it's beyond this, because original evidence can also be
Those things which can't always be quantified, but are part of the custom, or let's say part of the tribe, part of the rituals, let's say, of that group or that asylum seeker
And that original evidence needs to be captured. And that means expanding the term of original evidence and then also derivative evidence because derivative evidence means sources that you can't just pinpoint from one source, but comes from a variety of forces
Sources like scripture, theology, for example, jurisprudence, right? And all of these types of evidence, original and derivative. So primary can be quite broad. It's not just, for example, something that needs to be translated. It could be
A scripture. But then derivative even goes beyond that, and you talk about theology, and you talk about jurisprudence. And I'll give you one or two very simple examples to illustrate this. So, I had to write a country expert report for Yemen, and the issue
was the term Nika. And nika basically is a marital contract in Islamic law, but as perhaps some of you know, Nika is not done at a civil registry. It can be verbal. And verbal, and you can have two witnesses there. In other schools of thought, you don't even need witnesses
And not only that, does he even have to be recited by the bride and groom. It can be done by the wukala, which are the representatives of the bride and groom. Now, this term causes a huge issue in the Immigration Tribunal because
Their understanding was, well, I mean, how do I identify Nika? What's… I mean, we understand marriage to be something that is can be concrete, written down, there's a certificate, there is some kind of documentary proof. That's why I gave those
terms at the start, that immigration tribunals, in my view, need to be amended, or they need to expand their view of evidence. And so the… when I wrote the country expert report
I relied on derivative evidence, which is essentially beyond just sources or even scripture. But I actually consulted Islamic legal manuals or fiqhi books, jurisprudential books to illustrate to the judge that these are longstanding
Customs and long-standing traditions, which are not just
customs in a cultural sense, but they are authenticated legal customs and legal procedures in the same way we would view, let's say in Britain, going to a civil registrar to register the marriage
That's the first substantive reform that I would like to bring, that at the outset, these types of mechanisms, evidential mechanisms will be expanded. The second few minutes
The second actually is procedural. Now, I saw in one of the Powerpoints the equal treatment bench book, or forgive me if I've got the title wrong, but I've also referred to that book as well, which is which is a nice start
to kind of tell judges and tell lawyers kind of what things to look out for and what to be aware of in terms of religion, culture and language. And it's also beyond that, you know, certain terms may be defined there. But what the procedural
handbook that I think is needed is we need to have a handbook dealing with each particular culture
Or religion, and I'll just give the example of Islam just as an example, where, for example, Nika is not just defined, but then the custom is defined, the schools of thought are defined, and the legal procedure is defined. And it doesn't have to be a big book, but you have, for example, Nik
You have Kabila, which means tribe. I think one of the speakers mentioned about tribe, if I'm correct. And so tribe is a huge thing because in parts of Iraq, in parts of Morocco, in parts of Jordan
tribe is still in certain parts very it determines marriage. It determines who makes the decision. And it also determines an honor killing, an honor abuse, because if you go against the tribe
And a family that comes from a big tribe, then the poor victim, the boy or the girl that has engaged in an illicit relationship outside marriage can be subject to abuse by the tribe or the larger family. Now, these contours need to be explained in
I think a very you know could have different handbooks, but you need some kind of handbook to define these terms.
And, the last two, I'll decide whether three or four. Let's see, but the third one, as I'm sure the barrister knows and others, that when you deal with country guidance
If you've looked on the Cpin country policy information Notes of the UK, you have certain countries which don't have country guidance, right? You can take Israel as an example, right? You can take the UK itself, you can take Australia
Right? And this comes from a very decolonial perspective. But the biggest problem is that there's a huge level of political influence as to which countries are so-called, you know, human rights defenders, or bastions of human rights and democracy
and others which are not. And so you see huge bias and use of secondary source information, not even primary source information, in these CPIN notes, which the Home Office does rely upon right? And I think Selby, you gave the presentation at the start about even the issue with the village and Erbil
And the other village in Iraq, where sometimes even that can be used sometimes as a flimsy reason to reject an asylum claim. So the third issue, which I have a huge problem with, which is quite frustrating, is you kind of read these country guidance as if they're gospels of truth, and which they're not
And I wish that there could be a balance. Look, you… if you're gonna critique Iran as an example, right, well, also critique UK, also critique Israel, et cetera, et cetera. And the last thing, just to end, really
is I'm currently… well, I've written, I think, one or two reports on country expert reports on Palestine, people that actually managed to flee, for example, and I'm currently writing on Afghanistan as well
And the one thing I want to conclude on, which which I find a similar trend in all these contracts reports, is that the asylum seekers
emotions
And that feeling of persecution and what they're feeling from needs to be communicated to judges, judges and lawyers alike. You know, we're talking about law, we're talking about religion, culture, and language. But this type of emotion
And feeling for the asylum seeker needs to be felt by all. And so it's not just about reading things, but it's also about that emotion being captured, whether it's a video, whether it's a heartfelt statement
These also need to be factored in whenever proceedings are initiated. So these are my four kind of suggestions for reform, which I have developed literature on, and I'd like to end there, because it's been a long session
Thank you very much for your time. God bless you all
Yes.
Thank you very much, Imran Ali, for another fascinating presentation. And I think the underlying large question asked was what counts as evidence and what sources count as knowledge, which I think is very important
So I would like to thank all of the participants. Unfortunately, running out of time, but I'll quickly go through recommendations from all of you, and then I'll take questions. So we started with Hiba, who gave a very structured and powerful presentation, and it was around understanding
the professional role of interpreters about the second part was about cognition and trauma, cultural nuance, fragmented recall, and the third part was on recognition of interpreters and the treatment of interpreters, which I think came out in all the presentations
The second one was from the second presentation was from Iliana
who walked us through the journey of asylum claims from the position of interpreter, but I would say also the applicant. And Yelena particularly stressed the issues of extreme vulnerability and what that means. Also talked about qualifications and lack of regulation. And then
systemic issues around it and also talked about the treatment of interpreters, which again is quite an important issue. Then we moved to legal representatives, and we had Abi Odun, a barrister, going first
And who talked about particular examples of not having proper interpreters. Also talking about the specificities of cultures, which are not accessible to somebody who looks at, for example things like extended families through a Western-centric lens
or homogenizing understanding of what it is. And also talked about the impact of first impression
And treatment and procedural aspects as well. Then we had Rebecca with the very illustrative presentation discussing, again, multifaceted aspects of culture and
And in very many ways it can interplay, starting with the metaphor that culture is a key that could unlock
Client care and I really like the focus on care and also talked about curiosity, on which Hiba touched upon cultural humility, which is an incredible term and gave very practical experience, practical examples which came from experience and also added the very human dimension to
to the role that we don't always see and talked about the importance of collective culture that is experienced not only on individual level, but collective. And this is something that is often forgotten
And then we had the last presentation by Dr. Imranawi Panjwani
who talked about different understandings of evidence and definitions and how it can be influenced by customs, schools of thought, even within a certain tradition
I also like the point about conveying emotion and feeling
I'm giving very precise and I would say even quite radical suggestions of what needs to be done, which is sometimes is missing.
In order to change the state of things, which was extremely interesting. And I would like to read more of your work, certainly.
So thank you all very much. And I feel like everyone added something very unique, but we all spoke to one another. And now I will move to the questions and a huge thank you for very active participation in the chat. Unfortunately, we will not do justice to everyone
questions and comments that came from the experience as well. I'll quickly go through, and we will try to do a rapid round of one minute each to each speaker to respond. I'll read them all
I'll summarize. So the first one was
What was the criteria for the selection of 271 decisions by some and not other, which I believe these questions to me
The second one dealt with
One question was about the best interest of interpreters and translators, and there was an example of Eritrean interpreter discriminating against, for example, Ethiopian asylum seeker. And the second one was about the English
language skills of some of the interpreters, for example, they might speak English, but they might not be familiar with legal terminology.
Then there was a question about what do we think about the problems with the new proposed by the government, independent immigration appeals. Okay, there were multiple names first
independent Immigration Appeals Authority that was suggested in light of everything that we've been speaking about
Then there was
Related question
Whether the jury would be a better option, and also talking about the Home Office's plan and how it might influence the issues. Then there was a question about neutrality
And it was particularly addressed to Yeliana
Then there was another question about the state of interpretation as Cland public service interpretations where it was argued that some people cannot afford the fee in order to be accredited or regulated, how to or registered, how to deal with that
Then there was a very timely and important question about AI, the use of AI, particularly in immigration and asylum. What do we think about that and integration of technology to summarize cases, which is problematic. Then there was a question about body language in different cultures, body language means different things. And there is an example of eye contact where in some cultures it's considered to be a sign of respect to elderly, for example, in other cultures it's considered
Lack of sincerity and there were also some questions in the chat one about when should the interpreters intervene, for example, when they need to clarify certain issues as was mentioned by Abio Odun about the meaning of, for example, brother or cousin or what kind of brother, what kind of cousin
And then there was a last question on confidentiality, and I believe Jeliana can respond to that well, what to do with the interpreters when they come from the same community or when they had some close relationships with those whom they are translating
So
I suggest we go in the same order, and we'll just have a quick one-minute fire response. I'll start. So the 271 decisions were selected randomly out of around 4,000. So
It's coding every 30th decision. And one of the principles of research is its replicability, meaning that if anyone else would follow the same method, they would arguably arrive to the same results. So the simple, quick answer
It's randomly sampled. So next we'll have Yeliana and sorry, next we'll have Hiba and then Yelena, then Abiodun, then Rebecca and Imranelli, I will trust you to conclude the session
I believe you're on mute still.
Sorry, yes. I think I'll answer the question about impartiality. So that's a really interesting question. Yes, I'm aware about the substantial body of interpreting studies research exploring interpreter impartiality, neutrality and agency
But I think it's important to distinguish between professional impartiality as an ethical obligation and the broader structural context in which interpreters work. Those are not necessarily the same thing. My perspective today was grounded in professional practice, so as an NRPSR registered interpreter, I'm bound by a professional code of conduct
And within that framework, impartiality remains a fundamental ethical principle. However, that doesn't mean interpreters work in neutral environments or that they are unaffected by the systems in which they practice. In many ways, that's why I chose to focus on collaboration today
If we place the responsibility for procedural offenders solely on interpreters, we overlook the fact that fairness is created collectively by interpreters, legal representatives, decision makers, and the wider system in which they operate. So that's all from me. Thank you again
Jelena, if you could jump in next
Yes, so I'm going to answer the question about the public service interpreters in Scotland and the DPSI and a PSI registration. So I am somewhat aware about the situation with the public service interpreters in Scotland because I do travel myself there occasionally
But we have to understand that they are not under the main Ministry of Justice contract. They have their own system. As for the Zpsi and for the NSPSI registration, the qualification and
The fact that you are professionally regulated, even though this is voluntary regulation
does expose you, so it comes with the benefit of exposing yourself towards the potential clients who would like to have to hire an accountable interpreter
So
Because we've been advocating for such a long time for this to be, for an NPSI to be made into the official register, and I do believe it's just a matter of time now, because the framework is changing from the… as we will hear in England, the framework is changing from the 1st of October 2026. We had some
guidance of the practical guidance issued today, but there for criminal settings. So everything is
everything is going from being extremely regulated to somewhat regulated, somewhat regulated, and then we are, I believe, I hope so, because, you know, the hope dies the last. We hope that we are on the right direction
It's the full regulation. So at one point of time, it will become mandatory. So obviously the person wants to work on the English bookings here down in England, the DPSI or the level 3
is the WSI is level six
And the level 3 is going to be a mandatory minimum now. So it's always worth investing. I understand we don't get much we don't we don't do either but
It's worth investing into yourself, and it's worth to be able to be exposed through the official channels to real potential clients
So there was another question, but unfortunately, I cannot find it
about the accountability
There were multiple somewhere about the level of English that not all interpreters have good level of English sufficient enough for legal terminology. There was a question about on which HIPAA touched
Yes, so…
vested interest in interpretation and confidentiality
So about the
The way… the fact that there's some interpreters have not… don't have a sufficient level of English
Well, it is a problem. It is a very well acknowledged problem. We had the whole house of laws inquiry into provision of language services in courts and tribunals. It is a very valid point, and as I said, we are going
Slightly slowly, but we're going towards the regulation, so we will have
people now who hopefully have a better quality of English language. I have seen it myself. I have witnessed it, I have made complaints
We need to move. We need to do things. We need to take actions all together
Just by raising it all the time, we won't change anything. But if we know, if we support it, we have to make a complaint. And as I said previously, so if you have somebody who doesn't speak English very well, there's I understand nobody wants
ask for an adjournment, for example, if we're talking about the, the settings of the first-year Tribunal, nobody wants to ask for an internment, nobody wants to pay another fee for their barrister because
It is an expensive thing to have a hearing in a Tribunal, but still, there's always a chance to us to swap an interpreter, to get interpreter over the video link. It's not preferable, I know. In some cases, it's absolutely unacceptable, but still
There is an option, and it has to be raised every single time, if a legal professional
spots that the interpreter is not doing their job, please raise it and complain. Raise and complain so we can actually make
The contract holder and the Minister of Justice see the failures
I am not going to touch about the question that Hiba already answered, because I think she answered absolutely brilliantly. With regards of
Could you possibly help me solve the other question
There were some questions about outsourcing, but also there is an option to respond in the Q&A, I believe, in writing, because there were quite a few
And yeah, we're running out of time, but feel free to either come back or to respond by writing.
Yeah, I'm just going to respond by writing letter.
Thank you.
And there was also an AI one
Yes, sir.
So next, if Abiodun and then Rebecca could come in, please
Yeah, sure. So I think I'll tackle the AI and IIAA. Said that right. So in terms of AI, I think there
reasons to be very cautious about its adoption in this area
You know, the training data that you'll find out there is likely to have elements of human bias
can oversimplify very complex things
And there are problems. However
I say this with some reluctance. I think a couple of the decisions that the Home Office have made in this area
makes some sense. So they've got two tools, ACS and Aps at the moment
ICS is used by home office caseworkers to summarize asylum claims and APS basically helps them get the right documents
So I spoke earlier about somebody with a gangs issue from Honduras who really could have benefited from the casework, thinking there's this guy that's in El Salvador. I think
the AI that they're deploying would have helped that case worker to see that this is actually a case where she does suffer from persecution.
So
I think because of how bad first tier decision making and asylum claims at the Home Office is, tools that used
practically cautiously with accountability and will might help them
However.
all of the same provisos about AI apply in terms of appellants, we are starting to see quite a few skeleton arguments and appeals coming through, which I drafted with the assistance of AI. Again, those make me feel very uncomfortable because
People who write pleadings who have used AI may not necessarily have had somebody advise them as to their individual position. And that comes with quite significant issues
And whether that person then understands the output of the AI that they're then potentially going to be cross-examined on is something that I think is very problematic, but it is happening. And I've not seen any AI used by judges yet, but I'm sure some of them with
extensive backlogs of cases that they've got to write decisions for will start using them. And then, in terms of
The outputs of Selby's report and the new proposal for how these asylum claims are going to be adjudicated. I am very
Very cautious about the possibility that these problems will be magnified when they're applied by people with less experience. So yeah, I was very critical of the judicial position earlier, but there are
There are things about judges that will be different from the people who will be running these IAA appeals
Judges tend to have 7 plus years of experience in the area. These people running these IAI bureaus will have significantly less. As a whole, judges tend to be quite aware of the consequences of making unlawful decisions that tend to be aware of guidance in this area
This guidance around vulnerable witnesses, et cetera
Looking at the experience of the magistrates Court, which
Unhelpfully, but maybe somewhat in the foreshadowing way is the model that the Home Office and Tribunal Marine were talking about when they first started trialing this. There are significant issues with magistrates getting into the detail and using all
evidence available in terms of guidance and external advice. So I think these things are probably going to get worse
As what are in essence lay people are going to be making these decisions. So I have a fairly pessimistic view about the future of this.
Thank you very much, Abiodun. Just a reminder, there is a poll you can to which you can respond while we are also responding to the questions. So to all the attendees, please respond to
So Rebecca
I do apologize. Can I just correct myself really quickly because I've made an unapologetic mistake. So I've been talking about the qualifications for the core jobs, for the court work. Now the framework now is level six necessary. Level 3 is for the non-core jobs
I do apologize for misleading the audience. Thank you.
No worries. Thank you for all the clarifying this. Rebecca, please
Yes, I echo Abiodun's concerns about both the use of AI and the new appeal body.
Just a couple of further thoughts I have
We've been looking at the APS and ACS tools in Asylum casework at PLP, and I think
There are concerns, you know, when applying tools in this specific context we're talking about both in terms of
output, so where tools are being used to summarize interviews, accounts provided by clients
There's a lot that is not necessarily legible to a tool
the subtext, there's nuance, there's
body language, there's a lot of cultural ambiguity that may get lost. Tool's ability to sort of filter what's relevant and important and needs to be included in a summary and what doesn't. You know, how is that going
Formulated. There's also all the linguistic nuances we've talked about. So is this an English translated some interview transcript that's being summarized? If so, the errors in translation are just going to
fed into a shorter summary. There's also an issue in terms of sources and input. So if
Tools are being trained on English language sources
That's a very limited pool of information, bringing with it all the issues that Dr. Panjuwani has already, you know, discussed around what gets published. There's been huge politicization, for example, of
US Department of State Human Rights reports being pulled on certain countries, the topics that are covered have been
reduced under the Trump administration, that directly affects what is inputted into these tools when summaries of country information are being provided to caseworkers.
And, I mean, the common denominator between the use of AI tools and the proposals for the new body are basically the Home Office saying we have a backlog of cases. We need to speed things up, we need to be more efficient
And we need to clear the backlog
And I think the underlying, you know, that this is not the answer. Using AI is not going to fix it. The new body is not going to fix it. The problem lies in the quality of decision making, the culture of disbelief within the Home Office
And the fact that, you know, legal aid is under-resourced, so people don't have representation in their appeals
And
PLPs published our response to the call for evidence on the new body, so I'd encourage people to look at on our website. But really, I think both of these
Topics come down to the same issue, that we need to tackle those root causes rather than adding on
Supposed fixes.
Thank you very much, Rebecca. Imran Ali, would you like to pick up some of the questions raised
Yes, so I'd like to just briefly deal with the AI issue. So one thing is that it's bigger, of course, in immigration and human rights. But one thing I will say is there needs to be
A greater voice from minority communities. Their input into what these terms mean
As opposed to just relying on AI. So yes, AI, you can put Nika there and Shia and Sunni, and you'll get you'll get a reasonable description, but what you won't get is those internal customs, fears, and experiences, which, let's say, a member of a tribe experiences
Or what happens within a NICAR procedure, and the difference between verbal and written down. So I think that my humble suggestion is, in order to refute this kind of AI trend that AI can solve everything, and this independent kind
Was it Tribunal? I think we need to show that there are weaknesses in this AI movement and this kind of semi or quasi independent judiciary by showing that actually the real evidence
comes from the ground, and that's gonna impede upon access to justice and evidential mechanisms. So a strong argument and greater involvement from minorities, which I you know I visit a number of minority communities, I gave lectures for the Afghani community, the Pakistani Indian community
and they're not involved in the process. So I maybe there requires to be a legal sociopolitical movement on this. But that's my response, at least to that one. Thank you.
Thank you, Imran Ali, and huge thanks to all the participants today and everyone who attended the workshop. Please don't forget to fill in the poll, which is in the chat
And just to conclude, I'm very pleased that we speak. We all speak together and we all some of the things are very unique to our professions. Some things are very unique to our experiences
But there are certain things which are underlying and which are true for all of us, such as the argument that the issues are systemic, their issues are structural, and then that we need a real mindset shift
That would take into account how important the question of language, how important the question of culture in all its complexity is, especially for this tribunals. I thank you all for participation. I hope we continue the conversation. The second report comes out in a month
And yes, let's keep this conversation going. Thank you all very much.
Thank you. Yes.
Thank you.
Thank you very much
I think the recording is still on. Thank you so much. It's incredible. I think the level of engagement was so nice. Thank you all. It was really interesting to listen.
The