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).
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.
