The right to be seen, heard, and understood: Interpreting power in Australian technology-empowered virtual courtrooms

This study investigates the impact of proverb-based instruction on developing language competence in a foreign language. Grounded in communicative competence, the lexical approach, and sociocultural pragmatics, the approach integrates authentic proverb use into reading, listening, speaking, and writing tasks. A mixed-methods design compares an experimental group receiving proverb-centered pedagogy with a control group following a standard curriculum over 12 weeks. Quantitative measures assess receptive and productive skills, pragmatic accuracy, and intercultural awareness; qualitative data capture learner motivation and perceived relevance. Findings indicate significant gains in pragmatic use and intercultural understanding, with learners reporting higher engagement and authentic language use. Implications for curriculum design are discussed.

In the face of mass human migration, the world faces both new and old justice questions. High among them is how can justice be served when a witness, complainant, or other party to an investigation or court proceeding cannot be understood by the trier of fact. Many African countries have long faced this challenge and the contributions in this book explore how jurisdictions can and are answering this and related questions, crucial work for academics and policy makers to consider the world over. Courtroom Discourse: Practical Insights from Legal Linguists is the sixth volume in the Studies in Forensic and Legal Linguistics in Africa and beyond series. This groundbreaking collection explores the critical role of language in achieving justice, especially in Africa’s multilingual and multicultural societies. Divided into four parts, the book examines the language of complainants and witnesses, courtroom discourse and legal education, court interpreting and police statement taking, and customary law, language policies, and legislation. The chapters offer practical insights into challenges faced by court interpreters, the use (and under-use) of indigenous African languages, the impact of poorly constructed police statements, and the power dynamics between lawyers and witnesses. Case studies range from South Africa and Malawi to Cameroon and Austria, making this an essential resource for linguists, legal practitioners, interpreters, and policymakers seeking to better understand and improve linguistic practices in legal settings. Justice, the authors show, begins with language.

This article recognizes that linguistic prejudice (with its associated cultural biases) is a reality in any multilingual country, including South Africa. Prejudice is inherently human and the article suggests that it can be both positive and negative. In the case of the Senzo Meyiwa murder trial the article suggests that the linguistic prejudice experienced by witnesses and legal practitioners was largely negative. Even though the South African Constitution suggests an empowering multilingual environment where there are now twelve official languages, in contrast to this, the article takes as a point of departure the monolingual language of record policy that has been in place in the South African legal system since 2017. This is contrary to the constitutional imperatives. It is argued that this policy negatively impacts witnesses and legal practitioners and that the Meyiwa trial is a case in point. It is found that in this trial there is linguistic prejudice (practiced by the presiding judge) where there are linguistic or cultural voids related to communicative inequality and where the speaker does not have sufficient English vocabulary to proceed. It is concluded that the interpretation process also has its challenges and that ideally the use of African languages as languages of record in courts could only aid the delivery of social justice and the implementation of language rights in a multilingual and multicultural country such as South Africa.

Eyewitness identifications are prone to error. Scholars and legal stakeholders are exploring whether and when eyewitness confidence predicts identification accuracy. Scholars agree on a strong but imperfect relationship between initial confidence and accuracy under “pristine” (ideal) conditions. However, pristine conditions are not unfailingly present in criminal cases. Even when pristine conditions are present, high confidence is not always associated with high accuracy because other factors influence the confidence–accuracy relationship. Researchers have not yet reached a consensus about the many variables that may impact the confidence–accuracy relationship. Ultimately, legal practitioners should be cautious in using confidence as an indicator of accuracy.

Use-based Englishes may act as professional gatekeepers and working languages in Asian societies even where other languages of wider communication are prioritised. Legalese is widely regarded as particularly resistant to societal changes, and in Malaysian law English remains indispensable half a century after Malay became the official medium for West Malaysia, with exonormative acrolects retaining professional prestige. However, legal practitioners also need Malay as it is a requirement for admission to the bar and used extensively in government dealings, as well as in the lower courts of West Malaysia. Courtroom discourse is under the control of judges empowered to interpret language policy in the interests of justice. While there have been a few studies exploring how Malaysian advocates orientate themselves toward bilingualism, this is believed to be the first to address the perspective of judges.

We study preferences over procedures in the presence of naive agents. We employ a school choice setting following Pathak and Sonmez (2008) who show that sophisticated agents are better off under the Boston mechanism than under a strategy-proof mechanism if some agents are sincere. We use lab experiments to study the preferences of subjects for the Boston mechanism or the assortative matching. We compare the preferences of stakeholders who know their own role with agents behind the veil of ignorance and spectators. As predicted, stakeholders vote for the Boston mechanism if it maximizes their payoffs and vote for the assortative matching otherwise. This is in line with the model of Pathak and Sonmez (2008). Subjects behind the veil of ignorance mainly choose the Boston mechanism when the priority at schools is determined randomly. In a second experiment with priorities based on performance in a real-effort task, spectators whose payoff does not depend on the choice of the mechanism are split in their vote for the Boston mechanism and the assortative matching. According to the spectators’ statements in the post-experimental questionnaire, the main reason for preferring the Boston mechanism is that playing the game well deserves a higher payoff. These findings provide a novel explanation for the widespread use of the Boston mechanism.

Brief report: Perceived credibility of autistic witnesses and the effect of diagnostic information on credibility ratings

Several international human rights conventions focus on ensuring access to justice for all. Based on their unique lived experiences, legal practitioners with disabilities have much to offer in terms of understanding – from an insider perspective – the accommodations that could be used in court. The aim of this study was to describe the perspectives of legal practitioners with disabilities on their own experience of participation in court (focusing on both barriers and facilitators), and to elicit their suggested accommodations for persons with severe communication disabilities. Online and telephonic interviews were conducted with seven legal practitioners with disabilities. In response to the questions, three themes were conceptualised: participation barriers that hinder access to justice; accommodations related to ensuring equality; and accommodations related to procedural fairness. The insider perspectives of legal practitioners with disabilities may assist other persons with disabilities to participate equally in court, thereby ensuring access to justice for all. Points of interest Law professionals with disabilities, for example lawyers and judges, have unique experiences of the court system, which means that they can offer a clearer understanding of what communication skills and strategies are needed to participate in court. Law professionals with disabilities can suggest effective communication methods and strategies that other persons with disabilities could use in court. There are certain barriers in court that make it difficult for persons with disabilities to participate in court, for example, policy barriers. There are also certain accommodations that can assist persons with disabilities to be treated with respect in court, in a fair and equal way. In the future, law professionals with disabilities should be involved when new laws, policies and guidelines are created that could assist persons with disabilities to participate in the court system in an equal way.

This is an interdisciplinary publication located in the discipline of forensic linguistics/ language and law. This handbook includes varying comparative African and global case studies on the use of language(s) in courtroom discourse and higher education institutions: Kenya; Morocco; Nigeria; Australia; Belgium Canada and India. These African and global case studies form the backdrop for the critique of the monolingual English language of record policy for South African courts, the core of this handbook, discussed in relation to case law and the beleaguered legal interpretation profession. This handbook argues that linguistic transformation and decolonisation of South Africa’s legal and higher education systems needs to be undertaken where legal practitioners are linguistically equipped to litigate in a bilingual/ multilingual courtroom that enables access to justice for the majority of African language speaking litigants, enforcing their constitutional language rights.

Police interviewers in English-speaking countries increasingly conduct interviews via an interpreter with suspects and witnesses who do not speak English. Oral communication in an official interview has serious legal consequences, beginning with Miranda rights or similar cautions. Past studies have yielded inconsistent results on key issues such as interpreting accuracy, changes in interpreter placement, remote versus face-to-face interpreting, and interviewer–interviewee rapport. To foster a robust and coherent scientific evidence base, this review synthesizes and integrates findings from the field and the laboratory. Interpreting procedures in Australia, Europe, and the United States of America are compared. The core of the chapter is an analysis of sources of research disparities which hinge on methodological differences in experimental assessments of interpreting performance. Prominent research gaps are identified regarding the optimal interpreting mode in police interviews, the interpreter’s role, assessment of interpreting performance, maintenance of investigative interviewing strategies, remote interpreting, and the effects of interpreting on witness credibility. Building on this review, future transdisciplinary research can develop empirically sound standards and best practice guidance and training for interviewers and interpreters. Implications of the findings are specified for courts, legal practitioners, and juries.

Objective: This study aims to analyze and compare the emergence of administrative judiciary systems in Qatar and Britain. The administrative judiciary plays a crucial role in ensuring the rule of law and protecting citizens' rights in modern legal systems. By examining the similarities and differences between these two countries, this study seeks to shed light on the factors that have influenced the development and implementation of administrative judiciary systems. Method: The research methodology employed in this study includes a comprehensive literature review, analysis of legal frameworks, and comparative analysis. The study explores the historical background and legal traditions of both Qatar and Britain to understand the contextual factors that have shaped their administrative judiciary systems. Result: The findings of this study reveal to: both countries have legal frameworks and court structures in place to regulate administrative matters. Second, they differ in their legal foundations, with Qatar following a civil law system and the United Kingdom adhering to common law principles. Third, the scope of judicial review varies, with Qatar focusing on legality and procedural fairness, while the United Kingdom has a broader scope that includes the merits and reasonableness of administrative decisions. Furthermore, the study identifies key factors that have influenced the emergence of administrative judiciary systems in these countries. The study also highlights the impact of international legal norms and practices on the development of administrative judiciary systems. The findings of this study can inform policymakers and legal practitioners in their efforts to strengthen and improve administrative judiciary systems.

Previous studies have shown that the emotional behavior displayed during testimony may affect the perceived credibility of the witness. The present study compares credibility ratings by Norwegian court judges with those made by lay people. The participants viewed one of three video-recorded versions of a rape victim's statement, role played by a professional actress. The statement was given in a free-recall manner with one of three kinds of emotions displayed, termed congruent, neutral, and incongruent emotional expression. The results show that, in contrast to lay people, the credibility ratings of court judges and their votes for a guilty verdict were not influenced by the emotions displayed by the witness. Results are discussed in terms of professional expertise.

Cognitive biases, such as adversarial allegiance, can compromise expert witness evaluations and contribute to wrongful convictions. Therefore, the application of debiasing strategies is essential. The Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) has been proposed as a potential method to reduce such bias, although empirical support remains limited. The present study investigated the effectiveness of the ACH method in mitigating adversarial allegiance in a sample of mock expert witnesses for credibility assessments. In an online experiment, 159 participants with prior knowledge in credibility assessments reviewed a summary of a child sexual abuse case. Before reviewing the case material, participants were randomly assigned to one of three retaining party conditions: defense, accessory prosecution, or court. Next, half of the participants were instructed to apply the ACH method which includes the systematic comparison of alternative hypotheses within a matrix. Meanwhile the control group was instructed to follow the standard approach in credibility assessments in Germany, which includes the evaluation and falsification of alternative hypotheses, albeit in a less structured way than the ACH method. Outcomes were assessed using credibility ratings and an Evidence Score, the latter reflecting the extent to which participants weighed evidence in favor of their retaining party or evaluated information more evenly. No significant differences emerged in credibility ratings across conditions. However, adversarial allegiance was evident in the Evidence Score: defense-retained participants emphasized evidence undermining the statement's credibility more than those retained by the accessory prosecution. At the same time, the application of the ACH method did not significantly influence credibility ratings or evidence selection. Overall, these findings suggest that the ACH method may have limited utility as a debiasing strategy in the context of credibility assessments and underscore the challenges of mitigating bias in forensic decision-making.

This essay examines James Boyd White's analysis of legal discourse from the perspective of legal and cultural critic. We commend his observation that jurists have done poor job of communicating their decisions to both legal practitioners and the public community. We ask, however, how his art of translation as constitutes ethical and political communities enabling writers and readers of what White characterizes as law's most central text, the judicial opinion, to participate more constructively the creation of a world of meaning. We have focused our analysis on White's Justice as Translation.' Our focus is appropriate because this essay is the developmental sequel to When Words Lose Their Meaning2 which White announced his method of rhetorical and cultural criticism. His is method for analyzing legal texts systematically to illuminate the meaning of justice and injustice in the relations we establish with our languages and with each other.3 We argue that the forms of discourse addressed to or issued from courts the United States define distinct (in White's terms) of argument. White contributes an approach to this culture which is particularly useful to those extra-legal critics who participate the construction of the meaning of judicial opinion through thoughtful reading, but which provides little guidance to those involved the creation of those texts.4 While we accept that legal discourse is distinct culture of argument with characteristics common with other cultures of argument, including literary

This study aims to delve deeper into the relationship between the executive and the judiciary in the context of separation of powers. Through a qualitative study approach, this study will analyze the dynamics of power and the role of law in influencing the interaction between the two branches of government. The research will involve in-depth interviews with legal practitioners, judges, executive officers, and other relevant stakeholders to gather in-depth qualitative data. Data analysis will be carried out by taking into account theoretical perspectives and concepts related to separation of powers, political power, judicial independence, and the role of law in the government system. The results of this study conclude that a better understanding of the dynamics of power and law in the relationship between the executive and the judiciary provides valuable insights for policymakers and law enforcers in strengthening the separation of powers and improving equitable governance systems.