Linguistic rights of a suspect
For the investigation of an alleged offence, it is essential that the police, the suspect and his or her legal counsel understand one another. For a suspect in particular, it is crucial that they are able to explain what has happened during the police interview, and that their account is properly understood and recorded accurately.
In pre-trial investigations, the procedural language used by the police is Finnish or Swedish. Interview records are drawn up in the interviewee’s language if that language is Finnish or Swedish. If the interview is conducted in a language other than Finnish or Swedish, the interview record will be prepared in the procedural language of the investigation.
Under the Criminal Investigation Act, a person whose language is not Finnish, Swedish or Sámi has the right in pre-trial proceedings to use a language they understand and are able to speak sufficiently, and a person who uses sign language has the right to use sign language. The police must assess whether an interpreter is needed and ensure that the party receives the interpretation required.
The right to use an interpreter
It is therefore possible to use one’s native language in a police interview even if it is not Finnish, Swedish or Sámi. In such cases, an interpreter is often used. When an interpreter is present, everything said by the police, the interviewee and their lawyer is interpreted through the interpreter. This typically doubles the time required compared with an interview conducted without interpretation in a language everyone present understands.
Requiring an interpreter in situations where the interviewee’s own language skills are not sufficient to convey the necessary information in the authority’s language is, however, usually essential for legal protection and due process.
Interpreters used by the police are generally approved by the authorities and are qualified legal interpreters, meaning that the interviewee’s account is usually recorded correctly in the interview record. That said, specialised terminology—particularly industry-specific vocabulary—may sometimes be unfamiliar even to the interpreter. In such situations, it is especially important that the suspect’s lawyer is present, remains alert and intervenes if there is reason to suspect that the interpreted account does not fully reflect what the interviewee intended to say.
Conducting a police interview without an interpreter
The Criminal Investigation Act also allows the interviewee to use a language other than their native language, provided they understand and can speak it sufficiently. In practice, this most often means English. From the authority’s perspective, English can be a convenient option. The interviewer often speaks English as well, and an interpreter may not be arranged at all. This can save resources, time and money.
If an interview is conducted, for example, in English without an interpreter, interpretation in practice becomes the responsibility of the police officer conducting the interview. This approach understandably has weaknesses.
The interview record will in any event be prepared in Finnish or Swedish, even if the interview itself is conducted entirely in English. The police officer must therefore translate the interviewee’s account during the interview and write it into the record in a way that preserves its meaning and nuances. Because both the interviewee and the police officer are using a language that is not their native language, the risk of translation errors is likely higher than in an interview conducted through an interpreter.
Even if the interview record is read aloud to the interviewee before it is signed, an interviewee who does not understand Finnish or Swedish is not able to identify potential translation errors in a record wrintten in Finnish or Swedish.
In my view, in these situations the police should already ensure that the suspect has a lawyer present who understands the procedural language of the pre-trial investigation. In addition to their other duties, the lawyer then effectively acts as a supervisor of the police officer’s translation and, where necessary, helps correct inaccuracies. For the lawyer to perform this task properly, they must of course have reviewed the matter sufficiently with the client in advance, so that the lawyer understands the context of the account and the client’s position on the issues being examined in the investigation.
A careless approach to interview language is risky
A pre-trial interview is extremely important. If the interviewee’s language skills—even in the language they have requested—are insufficient in light of the matter, the interview should not, in my opinion, be conducted in that language without an interpreter. Instead, the police should order the use of an interpreter.
It is quite common that an interviewee does not fully understand their position in the pre-trial proceedings at the time of the interview. This may lead to indifference or undue confidence regarding the interview and to an overly relaxed attitude towards one’s own language limitations. This can have serious consequences later on, because the interview record will be revisited many times during the criminal process, and the interviewee’s later statements will be compared against what was recorded in the interview record.
Do you need a lawyer for criminal proceedings?
At Attorneys at Law Kinanen & Co Ltd, our attorneys assist clients in a wide range of criminal matters. We represent both private individuals and businesses. We assist suspects and defendants, as well as victims of crime. We specialise in extensive financial crime cases (for example tax fraud, dishonesty by a debtor, bribing, accounting offences, environmental offences) while also actively handling other criminal matters throughout Finland.
If you need assistance, please contact us by phone at +358 19 450 370 or by email at info@tapiokinanen.com to book a free initial assessment of your situation.
Klaus Kinanen
attorney-at-law