Most problems with Arabic interpreting in legal proceedings are not caused by interpreters. They are caused at the booking stage, by decisions made under time pressure by people who reasonably assume that one Arabic interpreter is much like another. They are not. After years of NRPSI-registered legal interpreting across courts, police stations and the Home Office, I can group the recurring errors into a short list — and each one is avoidable. This article is written to help instructing firms get the booking right the first time.
Error one: selecting the wrong dialect
This is the most common error and the most consequential. Arabic is a family of regional varieties, not a single spoken language. A request for "an Arabic interpreter" with no dialect specified invites a mismatch — and a mismatch can turn a cooperative witness into one who appears evasive, or introduce inconsistencies that later read as credibility problems. For Yemeni and Sudanese speakers especially, the dialect must be specified and matched. I have written separately on Yemeni Arabic versus Modern Standard Arabic, which explains why this is not a detail.
The fix: state the country and region at the point of booking. If you do not know it, ask the client or instruct an interpreter who can confirm the variety at the outset.
Error two: using unqualified interpreters
Bilingualism is not interpreting, and community interpreting is not legal interpreting. A person who speaks fluent Arabic and English may still be unable to render legal terminology accurately, maintain impartiality under pressure, or follow courtroom procedure. The benchmark for legal work is NRPSI registration backed by a recognised qualification such as the DPSI in Law. Anything less is a risk the instructing firm carries.
The fix: ask for the NRPSI number and verify it on the public register. My article on why NRPSI registration matters explains exactly what that registration guarantees.
Error three: overlooking legal experience
Even a qualified interpreter may lack experience in the specific setting. Interpreting a GP consultation is not interpreting a contested cross-examination or a PACE interview under caution. The pace, the register, the stakes and the procedural conventions are different. An interpreter who has not worked in the Crown Court may freeze, paraphrase, or fail to interrupt when clarification is needed.
The fix: ask about experience in the relevant setting — Crown Court, tribunal, police station, Home Office — and brief the interpreter on the issues in advance. See how I work with instructing firms.
Error four: mishandling remote hearings
Remote hearings over CVP and Teams are now routine, and they bring real advantages, but they also introduce failure points: poor audio, interpreters talking over proceedings, and confusion about who interprets for whom. An interpreter inexperienced with the platforms can slow a hearing or, worse, garble evidence. I have set out the detail in remote court interpreting best practice.
The fix: instruct an interpreter comfortable with the platform, confirm the technical setup in advance, and allow for consecutive interpreting, which is generally safer on video. See remote interpreting.
Error five: confidentiality and conflict
Interpreters in legal matters handle sensitive, privileged information. An interpreter without proper vetting, or one already connected to another party in the matter, is a confidentiality and conflict risk. In small language communities this is a genuine concern: the interpreter may know the client, the witness, or their family.
The fix: use a vetted, registered interpreter bound by a professional code of conduct, and raise any potential connection at the booking stage so a conflict check can be done. My credentials page sets out my clearances, including Enhanced DBS and CTC.
The consequences when bookings go wrong
- Adjournments and wasted hearings — when a mismatch is discovered on the day, costing time and money.
- Tainted evidence — accounts interpreted loosely cannot be relied upon and may need retranslation.
- Apparent inconsistencies — interpreting artefacts that read as credibility problems for the client.
- Grounds for appeal — serious interpreting failures can undermine the fairness of proceedings.
- Reputational risk — for the instructing firm, before the court and the client.
Getting it right is straightforward
None of these errors requires special expertise to avoid. Specify the dialect, verify registration, check relevant experience, prepare for the platform, and confirm there is no conflict. Better still, build a relationship with a named interpreter who knows your firm and your caseload, so the booking becomes a phone call rather than a gamble.
Instruct an Arabic interpreter the right way
I welcome direct instruction from solicitors, chambers and advisers, with the dialect matched, the credentials verifiable, and the bundle prepared in advance. Request a booking, review my rates and terms, or call +44 7305 742888.