Updates and background for this project (Digest)

• Conclusion
• Implications of this report

CONCLUSION

7.1 In this study, efforts were made to improve upon the initial preliminary study and create as realistic a scenario as possible. The information was provided to participants prior to undertaking the various stages of the study. However, the source text was still de-contextualised from an actual court case and participants were deprived of the gradual introduction of material that would have occurred in a real-life case. The material was also challenging, as hearing ‘jurors’ equally misunderstood some aspects of the summation, even though they were receiving the information directly in English. In a real-life courtroom, jurors would have had time to absorb evidence and arguments before hearing the judge’s summation. Even with these limitations, this study has demonstrated that:

• legal facts and concepts can be translated into Auslan;
• Auslan interpreting can provide effective access to court proceedings for a deaf juror – but certain conditions are necessary;
• hearing people misunderstand court proceedings without being disadvantaged by hearing loss; and
• deaf people are willing and able to serve as jurors.

• Legal concepts are translatable from English into Auslan, but interpreters need to be adequately skilled so as not to skew the legal definitions or to bias the text with subtle shifts in interpretation.
• In this study, we found that the legal concepts and terminology present in the original judge’s summation were interpreted from English into Auslan with 87.5% accuracy.
• Hearing jurors in this study answered almost 78% of the comprehension test questions correctly, implying a relatively high level of comprehension of the judge’s summation.
• Deaf jurors in this study answered 75% of the comprehension test questions correctly, implying a relatively high level of comprehension of the judge’s summation.
• For the participants in this study there was no significant difference between levels of comprehension of the deaf and hearing jurors.
• Relying on sign language interpreters to access information in court does not disadvantage deaf jurors.
• Deaf and hearing jurors similarly perceived the content of the judge’s summation to be complex and repetitive.
• Deaf and hearing jurors regarded jury service as a necessary civic duty. The deaf jurors all expressed interest in serving as jurors if they were afforded the opportunity.
• The Auslan/English interpreters in this study did note a difference in interpreting for deaf jurors (as compared to deaf witnesses, defendants, etc), but felt confident that they could adequately service their information needs.
• The findings of this pilot study suggest that deaf jurors can effectively access courtroom proceedings via sign language interpreting.

7.3 The findings of this project contributed to the work of the NSWLRC. It is envisaged that the conclusions of this report will also influence considerations for law reform in other States and Territories in Australia. The findings will also have national and international impact by revealing the extent to which deaf people can access courtroom proceedings and make a contribution to a jury, by demonstrating that they are not disadvantaged in doing so by using interpreters.