We often highlight the importance of accurate, culture- and domain-aware translation in legal contexts, due to the potential seriousness of the consequences in the event of mistakes. The three cases that follow are examples of how strongly a matter can be impacted by mistranslation. One is fairly recent while the other two are prior to widespread use of AI and large language models; two of them are due to human error while the other is due to unsupervised reliance on a machine translation tool. Yet their very diversity illustrates the broad potential scope for legal mistranslation, as well the range and gravity of its consequences.

R. v. Dutt, 2011 ONSC 3329

Canadian Superior Court Justice Anthony Hill declared a mistrial due to mistranslation in a 2012 Canadian sexual assault case against a man who spoke only Hindi. The court interpreter repeatedly mistranslated “sexual assault” as “physical assault,” and also had trouble with the word “genitals,” repeatedly rendering it as “between the legs.” She also translated “a couple of weeks” as “two days,” “afternoon” as “evening,” and, in one instance, the claimant’s testimony that the defendant had rubbed her legs was translated as the victim’s rubbing her own legs. 

The interpreter was legally qualified by the Province, but the relevant test was only in English. Moreover, audiotapes from the cross-examinations were sent to an expert, who said that, even though the interpreter spoke perfect Hindi, she “did not interpret verbatim, summarized most of the proceedings, and was not able to interpret everything that was said on record,” as she was unable to keep up with the rapid pace of the defendant’s speech.

Justice Hill ruled that “in this case, the non-English-speaker was prejudiced by a denial of full linguistic presence at his trial.”

This case of mistrial was reported in Canadian media as an example of the need for high standards and qualifications for legal translators and interpreters. 

Virginia Department of Health COVID-19 FAQs (2020)

During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, the Virginia Department of Health, in the US, posted a Spanish translation of the Frequently Asked Questions page on its website.  In the Spanish FAQs, the statement “the vaccine is not mandatory” was translated as “la vacuna no es necesaria” – the vaccine is not necessary: a significant difference in meaning by which something that was not legally mandatory became something that was not medically necessary.

Even though the Department of Health stood by its translation, this mistranslation contributed to vaccine hesitancy among Spanish speakers, thus undermining both the trustworthiness of the Department’s communications, and public health in the state.

It is worth noting that the translation was carried out using Google Translate – a tool that the Virginia Department of Health continues to use on its website, with a disclaimer as to its potential inaccuracy. 

King v. Bristow Helicopters Ltd. 

King v. Bristow Helicopters Ltd. (2001) was a landmark case in the United Kingdom concerning the liability of air carriers for injuries suffered by passengers under the Warsaw Convention. 

The case was filed after a helicopter operated by Bristow Helicopters made an emergency landing in the North Sea. Several passengers, including King, suffered psychological trauma as a result of the incident, but did not sustain physical injuries. The affected passengers sought compensation for their mental injuries under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, which governs air carrier liability for injuries to passengers during international air travel. The case specifically addressed whether compensation could be awarded for mental or psychiatric injuries—such as post-traumatic stress disorder—when there was no accompanying physical injury. 

The translation problem arose from the fact that the French term “blessure” in the original text of the Warsaw Convention was rendered in the official English version as “wounding” rather than the broader term “injury.” The French phrase in Article 17 is “lésion corporelle ou mort” (bodily injury or death), but the English version used “wounding or bodily injury or death.” This subtle difference had significant legal consequences: while “blessure” in French legal context means any form of injury, whether caused by trauma, illness, or other means, “wounding” in English implies an injury caused by a break in the skin or tissue, typically by violence, and is narrower in scope than “injury.”

The translation issue led to confusion and inconsistency in international aviation law, as different jurisdictions might interpret the scope of “injury” differently depending on the language version referenced. Because of this translation discrepancy, courts had to decide whether “bodily injury” in the English text included mental or psychiatric injuries, or was limited to physical injuries only. 

In King v. Bristow Helicopters Ltd., the House of Lords ultimately held that the terms “bodily injury” (from the English version) and “lésion corporelle” (from the French version) should be interpreted restrictively. Under this interpretation, it found that mental injuries alone, without accompanying physical injury, do not qualify for compensation under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention.