Two truthful accounts of the same event, interpreted by two different people, can read as inconsistent — not because the witness changed their story, but because the interpreting did. This 'false inconsistency' is one of the most damaging and least understood interpreting risks in litigation.
In short
- Different interpreters can word the same account differently, creating apparent contradictions.
- These false inconsistencies attack credibility at trial.
- Continuity of interpreter and careful statement-taking reduce the risk.
How the trap is set
A witness gives an account at the police station, again in a statement, and again at trial — potentially through three different interpreters. Each renders the same facts in slightly different words. Cross-examination then puts the variations to the witness as inconsistencies. The witness is honest and consistent; the record is not, because the interpreting varied.
Why it is so persuasive — and so unfair
Apparent inconsistency is a standard and effective line of attack on credibility, and a tribunal cannot see the interpreting layer that produced it. The unfairness is that the witness is blamed for variation they did not introduce. In asylum and criminal trials, this can be decisive.
Taking a statement that holds up
Use a registered, dialect-matched interpreter; where possible keep the same interpreter across stages; allow time so the statement is taken carefully rather than rushed; and have the interpreter flag any term that is genuinely ambiguous so it is resolved on the page rather than argued at trial. A clear note of who interpreted, and how, also helps rebut a false-inconsistency point later.