Communication and a conflicted relative
A fictional officer plans a nonurgent substantive interview with a witness who communicates primarily through a language the officer does not understand. A relative offers to interpret, but the relative is also a disputed witness whose account differs on a significant point. The interview can be arranged with an appropriate qualified interpreter. A colleague proposes using the relative to save time and recording the translated account as if the officer heard the witness directly in English. No emergency requires an immediate improvised exchange, and no particular Hawaii statutory timetable is supplied. Students must identify the competence and conflict concerns, preserve the source of the account and explain how appropriate communication support improves reliability without assuming that every relative is dishonest or every bilingual person is qualified for the task.
1. Which concerns require attention?
Read the worked answer
The proposed interpreter has an actual case role and potential conflict, and linguistic competence for a substantive interview is not established merely by being a relative.
2. How should the interview be arranged and recorded?
Read the worked answer
Use an appropriate qualified interpreter, confirm effective communication and identify the participants and translation role accurately. Do not misstate the account as directly understood English.