Complaint references: CR69

The assignment concerned was a Civil Law Court Case, this was a 'hybrid' Hearing. The Registrant and their co-worker were the Court Interpreters. NRCPD received 5 separate complaints about the Registrant. As all the complaints were received in a short space of time, and all related to the same assignment, the complaints were issued under one case number, rather than issuing separately. The Complainants included a Claimant and Witnesses in the Case, as well individuals from the virtual Public Gallery. The Complainants felt the Registrant was unprofessional and that their performance could have had a detrimental impact on the case. Criticisms included the tone of the voice over, impacting on how the Claimant was presented to the Judge and failure to interpret all dialog.

Investigation was conducted into potential breach of Sections 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4 and 7.3 of NRCPDs code of conduct. Witness Evidence was obtained from the various Complainants as well as the Legal Professionals involved in the case. Information was also sort from relevant agencies and the MOJ.

Case Examiners decided based on the evidence provided, that there was/was not a realistic prospect of finding an impairment of fitness to practice, and that it was not in the public interest to refer the case to a Complaints Committee.

The Case Examiners decided there were breaches of Section 1.1, 1.3, 4.1, 6.1 and 7.3 of the Code and required that the Registrant undertake 12 months professional supervision, reflect upon their practice and complete a reflective log, and refrain from undertaking any court work for a 12 month period. They also offered advice to the Registrant, which included requesting further information for assignments from agencies to assess suitability.