Addressing the problem of direct cross-examination in Australian family law proceedings

Wangmann, J; Kaye, M; Booth, T

Addressing the problem of direct cross-examination in Australian family law proceedings

Wangmann, J

Kaye, M Booth, T

Permalink

Publisher:: Law School, University of New South Wales
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: University of New South Wales Law Journal, 2022, 45, (4), pp. 1415-1448
Issue Date:: 2022-12-13

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published versionAdobe PDF (514.1 kB)

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Wangmann, J https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0812-4214
dc.contributor.author	Kaye, M
dc.contributor.author	Booth, T
dc.date.accessioned	2022-12-13T03:22:53Z
dc.date.available	2022-12-13T03:22:53Z
dc.date.issued	2022-12-13
dc.identifier.citation	University of New South Wales Law Journal, 2022, 45, (4), pp. 1415-1448
dc.identifier.issn	0313-0096
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/164348
dc.description.abstract	Difficulties experienced by victims of family violence who are cross-examined by the unrepresented perpetrator of that violence (or vice versa) in family law proceedings are well-documented. Such direct cross-examination can be traumatic and unlikely to generate high quality evidence. In 2019 this problem was addressed in Australia by the Family Violence and Cross-Examination Scheme (‘Scheme’). Under this Scheme, direct cross-examination by self-represented litigants is prohibited on a mandatory or discretionary basis in certain family law cases involving allegations of family violence. This article examines the implementation of the Scheme by drawing on data from a large ethnographic project that was concerned with self-representation in family law proceedings involving allegations of family violence and an analysis of recent case law. We highlight issues in the early administration of the Scheme as well as more complex ongoing issues. This article provides an evidence base to guide policy and legislative developments in this area.
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	Law School, University of New South Wales
dc.relation	Australia's National Research Organisation for Women's Safety Ltd
dc.relation.ispartof	University of New South Wales Law Journal
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject	1801 Law
dc.title	Addressing the problem of direct cross-examination in Australian family law proceedings
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	45
utslib.for	1801 Law
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Law
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - LRC - Law Research Centre
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
pubs.consider-herdc	true
dc.date.updated	2022-12-13T03:22:52Z
pubs.issue	4
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	45
utslib.citation.issue	4

Abstract:

Difficulties experienced by victims of family violence who are cross-examined by the unrepresented perpetrator of that violence (or vice versa) in family law proceedings are well-documented. Such direct cross-examination can be traumatic and unlikely to generate high quality evidence. In 2019 this problem was addressed in Australia by the Family Violence and Cross-Examination Scheme (‘Scheme’). Under this Scheme, direct cross-examination by self-represented litigants is prohibited on a mandatory or discretionary basis in certain family law cases involving allegations of family violence. This article examines the implementation of the Scheme by drawing on data from a large ethnographic project that was concerned with self-representation in family law proceedings involving allegations of family violence and an analysis of recent case law. We highlight issues in the early administration of the Scheme as well as more complex ongoing issues. This article provides an evidence base to guide policy and legislative developments in this area.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/164348