Despite widespread reforms to legislation and policy, rape complainants still find cross-examination distressing, demeaning and humiliating. We conducted a systematic and holistic examination of cross-examination strategies to discern: (1) the range of tactics that defence lawyers use to challenge rape complainants' accounts; and (2) whether-and if so, how-the approaches used currently differ from those used prior to the reforms. We compared the strategies and tactics used in cases that were prosecuted in the 1950s to those used in cases from the turn of the twenty-first century. Although contemporary complainants were subjected to lengthier cross-examinations involving a broader range of tactics than their historical counterparts, there was little difference in the breakdown of strategies and tactics across time periods.

Recent decades have seen an explosion of research into children's eyewitness capabilities and resulted in legal reform to render the adversarial trial process more child friendly. Many, however, have been left with the feeling that the most intimidating legal process for child complainants-cross-examination-has not changed meaningfully despite its potential to distort children's evidence. To test this possibility, we compared the cross-examination questioning of Australian child sexual abuse complainants in the 1950s to that used in contemporary cases. We found that the format of cross-examination questions has remained largely consistent over time, with leading questions still making up the bulk of the questions asked. The changes that we did observe, however, are concerning. Cross-examination questions posed to contemporary child complainants were less likely to be open-ended and more likely to be complex, relative to those asked in the 1950s. Crucially, contemporary complainants were asked 3 times as many cross-examination questions as they were 60 years ago. These changes are likely to have detrimental effects on child complainants and their evidence and could reduce the ability of jurors to reach just outcomes in these cases.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract