relevant in assessing quality. This is also – surprisingly – the only provision in the Directive which refers to ‘independence’ of interpreters in relation to quality. Nothing is said as to what appropriate qualifications will be, however. D. USING THE DIRECTIVE IN PRACTICE 1. Preliminary point This section contains advice about controlling quality of interpretation at the police station, which overlaps partly with general advice on working with interpreters, which is essentially a technical question, rather than a legal one. We thought this helpful: in advance of a recent in-person training on the Directives, 82% of participants, from five jurisdictions, said they had never received training on working with interpreters in criminal cases. Fair Trials is a legal organisation, not an interpreters organisation, but has consulted with some interpreters within our LEAP network to produce this Toolkit. We refer back to the section on preparatory work and emphasise the value of talking with professional interpreters. Guidance issued by EULITA,31 for instance, includes a number of practical tips for lawyers working with interpreters, which can help you avoid contributing to quality issues. 2. Action to take at the pre-trial stage Equipped with all the necessary information from your preparatory work (see Part I), you need to be ready to take action when you get to the police station to represent a person who does not speak or understand the language of the criminal proceedings. As noted above, the requirement for there to be adequate interpretation applies as from the police interrogation and, where necessary for safeguarding the fairness of proceedings, between client and counsel. Accordingly, your action with a view to ensuring compliance with the Directive should begin at the police station. It is, of course, necessary to bear in mind that the police are not likely to be particularly receptive to legal arguments concerning the Directive, still less broader principles of EU law, during the short time-frame available for conducting an interview before the suspect is brought before a judge. However, you should still take action at the police station. For one thing, the police may respond to your complaints (particularly, as noted above, if your complaint is part of a pattern), and this may help address the issue of quality. And, equally importantly, it is necessary to raise the issues as to quality during the proceedings at the police station in order to ensure that there is a basis on which to ask the courts, later on, to address the evidence differently. The following paragraphs contain some suggestions as to how to act in respect of specific situations. a. Before the questioning begins i. Pre-questioning consultation with the client In Fair Trials’ knowledge, there are different practices as to whether (i) an interpreter is provided for the consultation between lawyer and clients and (ii) whether this is the same interpreter who then assists with the police questioning. See Part I in relation to the decision whether to appoint an 31 EULITA / European Criminal Bar Association, Vademecum: guidelines for a more effective communication with legal interpreters and translators, available (in English) at http://www.eulita.eu/fr/documents-pertinents. 24