POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984 (PACE)
CODE C
REVISED
CODE OF PRACTICE FOR THE DETENTION,
TREATMENT AND QUESTIONING OF PERSONS BY
POLICE OFFICERS
Commencement – Transitional Arrangements
This Code applies to people in police detention after 00.00 on 27 October
2013, notwithstanding that their period of detention may have commenced
before that time.

1. Procurement arrangements are left to the discretion of chief officers. Note 13A amended to make this clear.
2. Details of the arrangements for the provision of interpreters and setting in the Criminal Justice System are outside the scope of the Code. Responses forwarded for the information of the Ministry of Justice

http://www.policeoracle.com/news/PACE-changes-What-you-need-to-know-_72911.html
PACE scholar Michael Zander looks at the changes taking effect on 27 October 2013.
“There have been serious issues with regard to the provision of interpreter services. The Ministry of Justice wanted to give a monopoly to one organisation. Under the new rules chief officers are free to decide which individuals or organisations to employ.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/revised-pace-codes-of-practice-c-and-h

Consultation on PACE Codes C and H – response
Published: 23 October 2013 PDF, 997KB, 34 pages
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/252316/A__B__C__E__F__H_PACE_Consultation_Response.pdf

64. Sixteen separate responses – 5 from organisations involved in providing services, and 11 from individual interpreters.
See ‘Response & purpose’ column. Code C Note 13A Code H Note 13A
1. Requested that the Ministry of Justice Framework Agreement should not be cited as an example of arrangements which comply with the Directive. Some included detailed information about the Framework agreement to support this.
2. Many asked that the deleted reference to national arrangements be reinstated.
1. Procurement arrangements are left to the discretion of chief officers. Note 13A amended to make this clear.
2. Details of the arrangements for the provision of interpreters and setting in the Criminal Justice System are outside the scope of the Code. Responses forwarded for the information of the Ministry of Justice
Organisations within the Professional Interpreters for Justice (PI4J) including
Association of Police and Court Interpreters (APCI)
Chartered Institute of Linguists (CIOL)
Institute of Translation and Interpreting (ITI)
National Register of Public Service Interpreters Ltd (NRPSI)
National Union of Professional Interpreters and Translators (NUPIT)
Professional Interpreters Alliance (PIA)
Society of Official Metropolitan Interpreters UK Ltd (SOMI)
Society for Public Service Interpreting (SPSI)
Wales Interpreter and Translation Service (WITS)
Individuals: (initials only): AC, AN, IM, JC, JM, JP, KS, LRS, NK, SGT and TP

26. Police – Gwent Chief Inspector Wales Interpretation and Translation Service (WITS)
Code C Note 13A Code H Note 13A
Concerned that citing the Ministry of Justice Framework Agreement of 2011 (MoJ FA) as an example of services that satisfy the requirements of the EU Directive, gives credence to a commercial contract which has been widely discredited.
1. Suggest the reference be removed.
2. Suggest deleted reference to national arrangements be reinstated.
1. N 2. N
1. Procurement arrangements left to the discretion of chief officers and selection processes are not affected. Note 13A amended to make this clear.
2. Details of the arrangements for the provision of interpreters in the Criminal Justice System and setting qualifications & standards are outside the scope of the Code. Responses forwarded for the information of the Ministry of Justice.

3.3 Key Comments and Home Office Responses

3.3.1 General
(a) The vast majority of comments related either to the proposed changes in relation to 17 year olds or those relating to the EU Directive on Interpretation and Translation. There were a few comments on other areas and three responses supported the change without comment.

3.3.2 EU Directive on Interpretation and Translation
(a) Some respondents did not support the reference to the Ministry of Justice Framework Agreement for Interpreter and Translation Services being included in Note for Guidance 13A as an example of services that meet the requirements of the EU Directive.
Home Office Response:
We have retained reference to the Ministry of Justice Framework Agreement on the basis that it is available to chief officers who have discretion when determining an operational matter such as the individuals or organisations they use to provide services for their forces. The comments offered by respondents have been forwarded to the Ministry of Justice for information.

(b) A significant number of responses expressed concerns at the cost, time and additional work needed to produce copies of the essential documents2.
Home Office Response:
The Government is bound by EU Law to comply with the EU Directive so the modest resource implications highlighted would need to be met by forces. We estimate that the costs of translation are likely to amount to around £3.5m per annum which works out an average cost of just over £81,000 per force, although it is likely to be concentrated in the Metropolitan Police’s area.

(c) The list of key documents should be more clearly defined.
Home Office Response:
We are content that the list provided at Annex M of Code C meets the requirements of the Directive. Decisions on whether or not to translate any additional documents would be an operational matter for the chief officer.

(d) The Home Office should provide more guidance on what circumstances an oral translation as opposed to one in writing would be acceptable.
Home Office Response:
We will liaise with national policing leads to establish whether further guidance in this area is necessary. Oral translations should, however, be the exception, not the rule.
Decisions on whether or not an oral translation would be sufficient are an operational matter and should be made on a case-by-case basis.

(e) The requirement for written interview records to be created contemporaneously by the interpreter for the person to check and sign will create significantly delay and will impact upon the flow of an interview.
Home Office Response:
This applies only to interviews for which a written record is required and does not represent a change in current practice. Interpreters are already required to provide this so there is no extra burden.

(f) The Home Office should provide translations of the essential documents in multiple languages, perhaps the same list as the Notice for Rights and Entitlements.
Home Office Response:
We are currently discussing with national policing leads the feasibility of providing standard translations of the commonly used forms in an appropriate range of languages.

(g) Can a person be detained for the purposes of producing a translation?
Home Office Response:
The reasons under which an individual can be detained in police custody are set out in Part IV of PACE. There is no power to detain a person to complete and provide a written translation. We have added a note M3 to Annex M to clarify this.

(h) Concern was raised over the implications for police forces in Wales with regard to the need for Welsh interpreters and translations.
Home Office Response:
New paragraph 13.1C inserted to make it clear that the Codes do not affect the application of Welsh Language Schemes by police and crime commissioners in Wales in accordance with the Welsh Language Act 1993

4. Next Steps
4.1 Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, the Home Office has finalised revisions to the six codes of practice. These revised codes have been laid before Parliament, along with the statutory instrument (SI 2013/2685) which will bring them into operation on 27 October 2013. Copies of the revised codes are being made available online at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-and-criminal-evidence-act-1984-pace-current-versions.

4.6 There were also calls for the Government to provide a set of templates for essential documents translated into a range of languages in order to reduce the resource implications for individual police forces. We are currently working with police forces to establish the practicalities of doing so and develop solutions which minimise bureaucracy and burdens. We are also looking to include additional information in the Notice of Rights and Entitlements to explain this new requirement for detainees who require an interpreter.