In the UK’s complex criminal justice system, Eastern European migrants often struggle with procedures obscured by language and cultural barriers. As a paralegal working behind the scenes, I regularly support clients who are not unwilling to engage but simply unable to access justice meaningfully. Though not accredited to represent clients in police stations, I’ve witnessed systemic gaps disproportionately affecting non-English-speaking migrants.
As a proud member of the National Association of Licensed Paralegals (NALP) and having trained under their Level 3 Criminal Law programme, I’ve drawn heavily on their standards of ethical practice and professional discipline in my approach to legal support work.
Between Participation and Exclusion
On paper, rights exist: the right to remain silent, consult a solicitor, and access an interpreter. In practice, I’ve seen how these are misunderstood, miscommunicated, or effectively denied due to official assumptions.
A Polish client declined legal advice because an officer told him it would “only delay things”. Another Romanian client signed a property search consent form without realizing it waived key protections, as no translation was available. These aren’t rare cases. They happen when translation is treated as a formality, not a necessity.
As a paralegal, I prepare background materials and liaise with solicitors. But when a client’s understanding is fractured by language, our work is undermined from the start.
Legal Guarantees vs. Operational Realities
PACE Code C says interviews cannot proceed without an interpreter if the suspect doesn’t understand English. Yet I’ve seen officers decide someone speaks English “well enough”—without formal assessment. Often, “enough” just means enough to appear compliant, not enough to comprehend rights.
Courts require understanding, yet interpreter delays lead to adjournments—or worse, proceedings continue under the illusion of comprehension. I’ve seen clients nod along, too intimidated to admit confusion.
The Illusion of Understanding
Language barriers go beyond words. Cultural norms matter. In some Eastern European cultures, there’s a reluctance to challenge authority. Combined with poor language support, clients can seem passive or uncooperative, affecting their credibility.
I recall a Lithuanian client who asked no questions during consultation. Only later, with a bilingual assistant, did we learn he hadn’t understood the caution or even that he had the right to a solicitor. He thought the process was about confession, not defence.
These moments reveal a grim truth: many migrants are procedurally present but legally absent.
What Can Be Done
I write this not as critique from above, but as a voice from within. My role is not to undermine the system, but to highlight blind spots.
First, there should be a standardized language assessment at initial police contact. Officers shouldn’t judge language skills informally. Second, all rights forms and waivers must be available in major community languages.
Third, paralegals and interpreters should be better integrated early in proceedings. We’re often the bridge between client and solicitor. Finally, legal education must reach communities before legal trouble begins—via outreach, translations, and partnerships.
Conclusion
Eastern European migrants are not invisible. They appear in all parts of the justice system. But their ability to participate fairly depends on our recognition that language is central to justice. As a paralegal, I see where communication fails. Until those gaps are bridged, fairness remains conditional—not by law, but by language.
