ABSTRACT
I once had to interpret in court for Muhammad Anees who had been charged with shoplifting. He had been in England for over fifteen years but his knowledge of English was poor. Under cross-examination he had to answer one main question. Was there some sort of commotion going on in the street outside the shop, and if so what? Anees replied that he thought something might have been happening but he could not remember what. At this point the court adjourned, and Anees, his solicitor and I withdrew to a private room. The solicitor then explained, with unmasked irritation, that Anees had just contradicted his written statement given to the court the day before. This statement said that some youths fighting in the street outside the shop had distracted Anees' attention just as he was going to pay for his goods. The solicitor then asked Anees why he had just contradicted in court the previous day's statement. It emerged that Anees had relied upon a Pakistani community representative from a local welfare association to give the original statement, the details of which Anees did not know. In view of Anees' contradictory evidence, the solicitor now advised Anees to change his plea to guilty. Anees accepted this. The court reconvened and Anees was fined.
