A Victorian Supreme Court trial is moving forward despite the revelation that a language interpreter made more than 200 errors while translating the oral testimony of a key Arabic-speaking prosecution witness.
Despite the revelation that a language interpreter made over 200 errors while translating the oral testimony of a key Arabic-speaking prosecution witness, the Victorian Supreme Court trial continues.
The Arabic-speaking witness took the stand against her former husband, who is facing 12 charges, including seven counts of aggravated servitude, over the alleged exploitation of her and their six children, as well as charges of intentionally and recklessly causing injury and endangering life.
During a previous jury trial in November 2024, the witness gave evidence with the assistance of a court-appointed Arabic interpreter, but after that jury was discharged for unrelated reasons, her testimony was pre-recorded for presentation to a future jury.
After the evidence was heard in the new case, the accused engaged a second Arabic interpreter to review the transcripts and the initial translation, uncovering serious discrepancies.
The independent NAATI-accredited interpreter identified over 200 errors in the original translation, including omissions, additions, and mistranslations, with the defence claiming that approximately 100 of these errors were prejudicial and may have caused harm.
Following the witness’s testimony, the accused submitted a sample of 43 passages from the ongoing matter to Justice John Ross Champion.
In some instances, the interpreter was said to have added references to violence, threats, or injuries that were not stated by the witness at all.
For example, the original translation recorded the witness saying the accused “grabbed the piece of metal, the bar, and hit [one of her children] with it”, but the corrected transcript clarified that the object struck was actually the television, not her child.
The defence argued that the cumulative effect of the errors fundamentally distorted the witness’s evidence, portraying her as “isolated” and “completely unaware” of what was happening, whereas the reinterpreted evidence showed that “she had some understanding of what was occurring”.
Despite the errors, Justice Champion ruled that the evidence would not be struck out, citing its significant value to the trial’s outcome.
Proceedings will continue using an amended transcript reflecting the reinterpreted sections, with the judge noting that its value far outweighed any risk of prejudice, confusion, or undue delay.
To address the errors, omissions will be added to the transcript, extra words spoken by the interpreter will be flagged for the jury to disregard, and incorrect interpretations will be replaced with the agreed reinterpretation.
Justice Champion rejected the defence’s argument that the witness’s evidence should be treated as entirely “in or out”, finding that excluding the full body of evidence was not warranted.
Instead, he ruled that each error must be assessed on its own merits, with the impact of individual mistakes considered in context, as different errors can have vastly different consequences.
