Frank v Police

In Frank v Police, the appellant was charged with a criminal offence and pleaded guilty in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The appellant, who did not speak English, required an interpreter throughout the proceedings. However, due to the absence of an interpreter, the proceedings were adjourned on several occasions. Ultimately, the Magistrate sentenced the appellant in the absence of an interpreter, and did not deliver full reasons for the sentence, citing the appellant's lack of comprehension of English. The appellant appealed against the sentence, arguing that the proceedings were flawed due to the absence of an interpreter and the failure to provide reasons.

The court considered whether the appellant had a right to an interpreter and the consequences of the failure to provide one. It was established that defendants have a right to an interpreter in criminal proceedings. The court held that where an interpreter cannot be provided, proceedings should be stayed. The court also examined whether the Magistrate should have proceeded to sentence without an interpreter in the circumstances, and whether the failure to give reasons was an error of law. It was found that proceeding to sentence was an error of law, and the appeal was allowed.

The court held that the failure to provide an interpreter and the subsequent sentencing in the absence of one was a significant procedural error. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that defendants with limited English proficiency have access to an interpreter to ensure a fair trial. The failure to provide an interpreter and the lack of reasons for the sentence were both errors of law that warranted the allowance of the appeal. The appeal was successful, and the original sentence was quashed. The matter was remitted to the Magistrates' Court for further proceedings in accordance with the court's directions.