Alleged inadequate interpretation in case concerning extension of pre-trial detention

Case no. 113/2019
Order made on 20 May 2020

The Prosecution Service
vs.
T

On 22 March 2019, T, a Georgian citizen, was detained and charged with multiple counts of burglary. T's pre-trial detention was subsequently extended several times, and on 1 June 2019, the District Court ordered (after the trial hearing had been scheduled to 1 July 2019) that T be detained until judgment was delivered in his case, which the High Court affirmed on 28 June 2019.

The High Court's order was referred to the Supreme Court, before which T claimed that he should have been released. To substantiate his claim, T referred to problems finding a qualified interpreter for the extension hearings and for meetings in the prison between T and his attorney. According to T, the pre-trial detention had therefore been contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Supreme Court held that regard should be had to the fact that the interpreter at the preliminary statutory hearing on 22 March 2019 was fully qualified, and that T had been informed of and been given the opportunity to comment on the charges for which he was being detained. The Court also gave importance to the fact that no new information of particular importance to the issue of pre-trial detention was provided after the preliminary statutory hearing, and that all relevant information about the charges and the proceedings was translated and provided to T during the case. T had stated that the problems with inadequate translation in the communication between him and his attorney occurred during the period from 10 April to 26 June 2019, which led the Court to assume that T had access to adequate interpretation services and could thus meet with his attorney in the period after 26 June 2019 and until the trial hearing on 1 July 2019. This meant that T did have sufficient time and opportunity to prepare his defence.

Against this background, and as there were otherwise legitimate reasons to extend the pre-trial detention of T, the Supreme Court agreed that there had been no grounds to release T with reference to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights on 28 June 2019.