Judgment not to be set aside due to inadequate interpretation

Case no. 93/2025

Order made on 20 February 2026 

The Prosecution Service
vs.
T

In November 2024, T was sentenced to 20 days’ suspended imprisonment for assault. A Somali interpreter participated in the District Court’s hearing of the case. T appealed the judgment to the High Court, where the case was heard in September 2025. However, the High Court interrupted the main hearing because it was concerned whether it would be prudent to continue with the interpreter present. It was the same interpreter who had participated in the main hearing in the District Court. 

The case concerned whether the District Court’s judgment should be set aside, and the case be remitted for reconsideration by the District Court on the grounds that the interpretation had been inadequate. 

A defendant who does not sufficiently understand and speak the language of the court is entitled to assistance from an interpreter. This right is an essential procedural safeguard in criminal proceedings, which, as part of a fair trial, aims to ensure that the defendant is able to properly defend their interests during the proceedings. The Supreme Court stated that, as a rule, insufficiently qualified interpretation creates a presumption that the interpretation may have had an impact on the outcome of the case.
 
In this case, there was no information about any language problems in connection with the interpretation during the District Court proceedings, or that the interpretation assistance was otherwise inadequate in the District Court. The Supreme Court therefore found that there was no such doubt about the quality of the interpretation in the District Court that the District Court’s judgment should be set aside.  

The High Court had reached the same conclusion.