A MAN charged with serious assault offences has walked free because police prosecutors failed to organise a translator for an alleged victim who speaks a rare Burmese dialect.

Jo Shua Pithang was charged with aggravated assault and committing an act likely to cause harm following an altercation involving a number of men at Elizabeth Vale in February 2014.

Pithang, 30, allegedly threatened one of his victims with an iron bar and three knives and almost hit a second man with his car as he left the scene.

The case went to trial before Elizabeth magistrate Ted Iuliano in July last year, when an interpreter was called to translate for one of the victims, who spoke the Miso-Chin dialect of the Burmese language.

However, the interpreter was unable to understand the particular dialect of the alleged victim and the case was adjourned until September to allow for another translator to be found.

When the trial recommenced, a police prosecutor told Mr Iuliano that while the witness was present and prepared to testify, no suitable interpreter had been found.

Mr Iuliano refused an application by prosecutors for a further adjournment and dismissed both charges against Pithang, ruling there was a “huge diversion” between the two witnesses who had already given evidence.

Police appealed against the dismissal of the charges in the Supreme Court, which this week ruled the magistrate had acted properly in dismissing the case.

During the appeal hearing, police lawyers argued there was a public interest in maintaining prosecutions, particularly in serious cases such as assault.

Justice Parker said the magistrate had provided ample opportunity and time to find a replacement interpreter and found that police had “simply assumed” court registry staff would find another translator.

“In my view, at the very least, the prosecution should have taken steps to ensure that all possible action was being taken by the registry staff to secure the attendance of a Chin interpreter,” Justice Parker found.

“Moreover, the information provided to the court did no more than suggest that there was some possibility that if a further adjournment was to be granted an interpreter might be available. There was no certainty of availability.”

Justice Parker said he accepted Pithang’s lawyers’ argument that their client would be prejudiced by further adjournments that were not of his making.

“The problems that have arisen in this case highlight the need to identify with precision the language spoken by a proposed witness before arrangements are made to secure an interpreter,” he said.

“The generic description of ‘Burmese’ was apparently an accurate description of the national origins of (the alleged victim) but it did not serve to identify the language that he spoke.”