This guide is maintained as a current resource for September 2026 and covers only the laws of England and Wales. Information is for general guidance, not legal advice. Consult a qualified solicitor for advice specific to your situation.
Detailed guide to the rules on police using interpreters in England and Wales, explaining when interpretation must be provided during custody and interviews, professional and procedural standards under PACE, remote interpretation, confidentiality and evidential implications. Clear, authoritative information for the public and solicitors.
Interpreters and Access to Justice
Effective communication is a cornerstone of a fair criminal justice process. When suspects, witnesses, victims or others involved in police procedures do not speak or understand English fluently, the police are required by law to make interpretation and translation arrangements to ensure that these individuals can participate meaningfully. These requirements are set out in statutory Codes of Practice issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and supported by professional standards for interpreters. Understanding these rules helps clarify the rights of those involved in police interviews and statements, and helps ensure that evidence obtained is lawful and admissible.
1. Legal Basis and Applicable Guidelines
The principal legal framework governing the use of interpreters by police in criminal investigations is:
- PACE Code C (Detention, Treatment and Questioning of Persons by Police Officers) - sets rules for detained suspects, including requirements on interpretation and translation.
- PACE Code I - expands on interview rights and procedures, including provisions for interpretation.
- Related guidance and professional standards, including interpretation procedures endorsed by the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) and quality expectations for interpreters.
These Codes are approved by Parliament and must be available in every police station.
2. When Police Must Provide an Interpreter
Detained Suspects and Interviews
If a suspect in custody “does not appear to speak or understand English,” a police interview must not proceed without an interpreter or another form of appropriate assistance to enable effective communication. This applies equally to post‑arrest interviews under caution.
Specifically:
- Before a formal interview begins, if the detainee requires language assistance, the custody officer must arrange for a competent interpreter.
- If the suspect is juvenile or vulnerable and the appropriate adult also requires interpretation support, an interpreter must be provided so that all participants can understand and communicate effectively.
These rules ensure that a detained person understands the questions posed to them and can respond appropriately, safeguarding their rights and the integrity of any evidence obtained.
3. Statements and Written Records
When a person makes a statement under caution in a language other than English:
- The interpreter should record the statement in the language spoken by the person.
- The speaker should be invited to sign or confirm that statement.
- An official English translation is then prepared for use in the criminal process.
These steps help ensure that the statement reflects what was actually said in the speaker's language, which is essential for fairness and reliability in evidence.
4. Interpreters for Hearing and Speech Impairments
“Interpreter” in this context may include appropriate assistance for a person with hearing or speech impairments. If a detained person or their appropriate adult has difficulty communicating due to impairment, police must arrange for an interpreter or facilitator capable of bridging that communication gap before interviewing.
This requirement may include British Sign Language (BSL) or other specialist communication support where appropriate, ensuring compliance with disability rights and access to justice standards.
5. Live‑Link and Remote Interpretation
Police may use live‑link interpretation (audio or video) when a physical interpreter is not immediately available - for example by telephone or video conferencing - provided that:
- The method used enables accurate and secure communication that meets the requirements of the relevant PACE Codes.
- Confidentiality between the suspect, their solicitor and appropriate adult is maintained.
- A suspect or their legal representative who expresses concerns about live‑link interpretation can raise those concerns; continued use of remote interpretation may require written authorisation from a senior officer (typically inspector rank or above) if physical presence is not immediately practical.
These provisions ensure flexibility while preserving the fairness and reliability of communication.
6. Professional Standards for Interpreters
While PACE Codes do not mandate a single national interpreter register, they do expect “appropriately qualified independent persons” to act as interpreters.
In practice:
- Many police forces use interpreters accredited under arrangements such as the Police Approved Interpreters and Translators (PAIT) Scheme, which sets vetting, qualification and conduct standards for interpreters used in police assignments.
- Where PAIT‑accredited interpreters are not available, forces may use non‑accredited interpreters after appropriate risk assessment and senior authorisation, and must document the rationale.
Professional bodies such as the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI) also maintain codes of practice and standards aimed at quality and competence, although membership is voluntary.
7. Confidentiality and Legal Consultations
Interpreters involved in police interviews are bound by confidentiality regarding what is said during consultations, including private legal discussions between a suspect and their solicitor. This protects the right to legal advice and ensures the interpreter does not disclose privileged communication.
Guidance encourages best practice, such as using separate interpreters for legal consultations and interviews - for example by telephone - so that interpreters are never left alone with a suspect outside of appropriate supervision.
8. Consequences of Failing to Provide Interpreters
If police interview a person who requires an interpreter without making proper arrangements:
- Material obtained during the interview may be challenged in court.
- Under Section 78 of PACE, the court has the discretion to exclude improperly obtained evidence, including interviews where language needs were not met.
Ensuring accurate interpretation is therefore not only a rights issue but also a matter of evidential integrity.
Conclusion
In England and Wales, police use of interpreters is governed by statutory Codes of Practice under PACE and supported by professional and procedural standards. Where a person involved in custody, interview or statement procedures does not speak or understand English, the police must arrange competent interpretation before any formal questioning. Interpreters must be independent, qualified, and capable of ensuring effective communication, including for vulnerable individuals or those with speech or hearing impairments.
Remote interpretation - including live‑link or audio interpretation - is permissible when it meets accuracy and confidentiality requirements and when concerns about its use are addressed appropriately. Failure to provide proper interpretation can lead to evidence being excluded in criminal proceedings. Proper interpreter use protects individual rights, supports fair processes, and contributes to credible justice outcomes.
