Disciplinary Outcomes
Here you will find a regularly updated list of the outcomes of all cases considered by the Professional Conduct and the Disciplinary Committees (following a change in publications policy with effect from 1st July 2014).
Disciplinary Outcomes - 2025
The Register received a complaint alleging that in relation to a 5-day trial booking, the Registrant:
- failed to inform the Principal that the trial was adjourned on the first day and did not take place during the remainder of the 5-day booking;
- submitted a claim for fees and associated travel expenses in relation to the trial period in the knowledge that the trial had been adjourned on trial period day 1;
- subsequently allowed themselves to be booked directly by the Principal’s client for the adjourned trial period, without the Principal’s knowledge or permission;
- in an email sent to NRPSI and another NRPSI registrant, communicated incorrect information about the Principal not paying them monies they said they were due.
It was further alleged that this amounted to breaches of clauses 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.17 and 4.7 of the NRPSI Code of Professional Conduct and, if proven, amount to serious misconduct in a professional respect.
The Disciplinary Committee found the allegations partially proved and decided to apply a three months conditional suspension from the Register. The condition includes a written Statement of Understanding to demonstrate insight and awareness of the concerns raised in the allegations to be submitted to NRPSI one month from the date this sanction takes effect. Failure to do so will result in additional three months of suspension.
The Professional Conduct Committee recognised the disruption described by the Complainant and the serious consequences of the Registrant non-attendance but viewed what happened as an unintended human error, albeit with a significant impact on others.
The Registrant was advised to: -
reflect on all aspects of their practice, using this experience as a foundation for continuous professional improvement, and
proactively ensure that their business support systems and processes are and remain as reliable, effective and dependable as possible.
The Register received a complaint from the police that, in relation to a rape case, the Registrant had made omissions, errors and inaccuracies in their interpreting of a Video Recorded Interview, and during a trial in Wood Green Crown Court. The Registrant had accepted a booking in their registered language of Bengali, and when it transpired that Sylheti was required, they did not inform the complainant of their NRPSI registration status or qualifications; and continued with the assignment in Court.
It was further alleged that this amounted to breaches of clauses 3.1, 3.2, 3.8,3.9, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 5.6 and 5.7 of the NRPSI Code of Professional Conduct and was serious misconduct in a professional respect.
A panel of the Disciplinary Committee found the allegations proved and that the relevant clauses of the NRPSI Code of Professional Conduct were breached, with the exceptions of 3.8 and 5.1. The Panel found that this was serious misconduct in a professional respect.
The Panel imposed an immediate order of suspension for a period of 12 months with conditions to: (i) provide to the Register a written portfolio documenting all CPD undertaken during the suspension; and (ii) to provide to the Register documentary evidence that the Registrant had undertaken reflective practice during their suspension.
The Register received a complaint that the Registrant, Mr Chowdhry Mohammad Sarwar Aabid (Reg. no 12744) of Newport, in the course of interpreting at the interview of a suspect by the police, failed to transfer truly and faithfully the meaning by interpreting in an inaccurate and/or inappropriate manner by:
- making unwarranted changes and/or omissions and/or additions;
- failing to understand specific terms;
- failing to interpret specific terms;
- asking additional questions not asked by the interviewing officers.
Further, that the Registrant breached and/or compromised interpreter neutrality by assisting the suspect in responding to questions from the interviewing officers; and breached and/or compromised professional boundaries by asking for details of the suspect’s address without professional justification.
It was alleged that it was contrary to clauses 3.1, 3.2,3.8, 3.12, 4.1, 5.1, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7 and 5.9 of the NRPSI Code of Professional Conduct.
The Disciplinary Committee (DC) found that the Registrant had: failed to transfer truly and faithfully the meaning by interpreting in an inaccurate and/or inappropriate manner; made unwarranted changes and/or omissions and/or additions; had asked additional questions not asked by the interviewing officers; and had breached and/or compromised interpreter neutrality by assisting the suspect in responding to questions from the interviewing officers.
The DC found that the following clauses of the NRPSI Code of Professional Conduct had been breached: 3.1, 3.2, 3.12, 4.1, 5.4, and 5.9; which amounted to serious misconduct in a professional respect.
The DC ordered that the Registrant be immediately Excluded from the Register, with the possibility of an application being made for reinstatement after a minimum period of two years.
The Register received a complaint alleging that the Registrant made inappropriate comments towards a police officer while in a professional capacity, making them feel very uncomfortable. These comments were made in front of a detainee and another officer.
Theserepresent potential breaches of clauses 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.10, 3.12, 4.2, 5.8 and5.9.
The Professional Conduct Committee decided that the Registrant’s behaviour did not reach the threshold of serious professional misconduct and offered the following advice:
The Registrant should engage in thoughtful self-reflection regarding their professional conduct, with particular attention to how they communicate and interact with others. Regardless of frustrations and other factors, being mindful of their mode of expression and approach will help in avoiding misunderstandings and creating negative perceptions.
The Register received a complaint alleging that, in connection with a police interview, the Registrant:
delivered incorrect interpreting;
lied to complainant ‘in favour’ of the police; and
prevented complainant’s carer from entering the interview room;
which is contrary to clauses 3.1, 3.2, 5.1, 5.4 and 5.9 of the NRPSI Code of Professional Conduct.
The Professional Conduct Committee found no evidence to support these allegations and therefore dismissed the case.
The Register received a complaint alleging that the Registrant:
breached the complainant’s terms and conditions;
breached confidentiality; and
made direct contact with the Principal without the complainant’s consent and also contrary to their instruction.
These represent potential breaches of clauses 3.1, 3.2, 3.13, 3.17 and 4.3 of the NRPSI Code of Professional Conduct.
The PCC considered that this complaint primarily revolved around a contractual dispute and issues about payment of fees. Accordingly, and mindful of proportionality, the PCC determined that in the specific circumstances of this case, there was no realistic prospect that the Disciplinary Committee (DC)would find that the Registrant’s purpose or intention in making contact/communicating with the client directly would give rise to said breaches of the NRPSI Code.
The Register received a complaint alleging that the Registrant:
- was not interpreting accurately in court causing the victim to be confused by questions, and also causing concerns from the jury about the Registrant’s competence;
- struggled in using a case binder and had to seek help form the court usher;
which is contrary to clauses 3.2, 3.9, 5.1, 5.5 and 5.7 of the NRPSI Code of Professional Conduct.
The Professional Conduct Committee has not referred this case for a Disciplinary Committee hearing due to insufficient evidence. An advice has been given to the Registrant to maintain mindful self-reflection in relation to their professional practice activities, with a particular focus on capability.
