An analysis of responses of Jordan courts to objections based on language interpreting issues

摘要

Jordan does not have a legal framework specifically designed to regulate legal interpreting at court. This gap results in precluding litigants' attempts to make convincing appeals before apex courts, which rely on generalised provisions in the Experts Regulations, the Civil Procedure Law and the Criminal Procedure Law as well as their discretion in answering appeals based on interpreting issues. This study aimed to examine the grounds on which litigants invoke interpreting issues in their cases and the courts' response to such claims. The exploratory study employed a content analysis method to analyse and categorise areas of interest in the Jordanian court judgments on cases involving interpreting issues. The analysis of the cases was matched to the court procedures and decisions made for the cases challenged for interpreting misrepresentation. The findings revealed that in deciding an appeal, Jordanian courts weigh other sorts of evidence than the alleged interpreting issue, and that they would accept such appeals only in the case of proven violations of formalistic procedures of interpreter appointment. The study is significant and holds implication for researchers, stakeholders, lawmakers and interpreters, for the legalisation and professionalisation of court interpreters in Jordan.