It's a Sham(e)
In a recent case in Kent, a woman who had passed herself off as a nurse was charged with obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception, fraud by false representation and forgery (click here to read the full story). There is clarity over who is, and who is not, a nurse.
When is an interpreter not an interpreter? In this unregulated profession, now that the CTS has chosen to disregard the DPSI diploma, it is only possible to decide that on performance. Many recent reports have referred to 'incompetent interpreters' when they appeared to describe non-interpreters sent to do an interpreter's job.
The pecuniary advantage enjoyed by ALS/Capita is considerable, in contrast to the pittance paid to those it sends to perform in court. Surely any agency sending a non-interpreter to do an interpreter's job bears shared liability for deceiving the customer and financial penalties should reflect the extent of its enrichment thereby.
Will the CPS take action of its own motion or will liability fall to be established by defence counsel on a case-by-case basis?