Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cross-Examination in Sexual Assault Trials: Evidentiary Safeguard or an Opportunity to Confuse?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Closing the Justice Gap for Adult and Child Sexual Assault

  • 1054 Accesses

Abstract

One of the key features of the adversarial criminal trial is the giving of oral evidence by witnesses and the testing of that evidence through cross-examination, a process considered to be fundamental for ensuring that the defendant receives a fair trial (see, for example, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights [ECHR]) because of its utility for testing a witness’s veracity.

This chapter is based on Cossins (2009). It has been updated and also considers the problems faced by adult complainants during cross-examination.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, for example, Kelleher v R (1974) 131 CLR 534, 543 (Barwick CJ); R v Rosemeyer [1985] VR 945, 963 (Ormiston J); Question of Law Reserved on Acquittal Pursuant to Section 351(1A) Criminal Law Consolidation Act (No 1 of 1993) (1993) 59 SASR 214, 227 (Perry J); Leoni v State, 44 Ala 110, 113 (Peters J) (1870); see also at 114 (Peck CJ); Bute v Illinois, 333 US 640, 681 (Douglas J for Douglas, Murphy and Rutledge JJ) (1948); Johnson v Alaska, 501 P 2d 762, 766 (Boney CJ for Boney CJ, Rabinowitz, Connor and Erwin JJ) (Alaska, 1972); United States v Wiley, 492 F 2d 547, 554 (Bazelon CJ) (DC Cir, 1973); R v Sherrin [No 2] (1979) 21 SASR 250, 254 (King CJ); R v Henry (1968) 53 Cr App R 150, 153 (Salmon LJ).

  2. 2.

    These symptoms are documented in Chapter 11.

  3. 3.

    EWCA Crim 1926, [25].

  4. 4.

    Ibid., [33].

  5. 5.

    Ibid., [31].

  6. 6.

    O’Reilly v R [2015] VSCA 19, [49].

  7. 7.

    Ibid., [51].

  8. 8.

    Ibid., [53]–[54].

  9. 9.

    Ibid., [81]–[82].

  10. 10.

    The study evaluated a ‘specialist jurisdiction’ which was established in 2003 after recommendations made by the NSWSCLJ (2002) to address the obstacles associated with CSA prosecutions, although it did not amount to a specialist court. Eleven trials were heard in the ‘specialist jurisdiction’ and six were held in a comparison registry (Sydney).

  11. 11.

    S v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 266; Dietrich v R (1992) 177 CLR 292; R v McHardie and Danielson [1983] 2 NSWLR 733; R v McLennan [1999] 2 Qd R 297; R v Khan [2003] NSWSC 849; Stack v State of WA [2004] WASCA 300.

  12. 12.

    [2010] EWCA Crim 4, [42].

  13. 13.

    [2014] EWCA Crim 2064, [40].

  14. 14.

    https://www.theadvocatesgateway.org/toolkits.

  15. 15.

    [2014] EWCA Crim 2064, [40].

  16. 16.

    Ibid.

  17. 17.

    [2014] EWCA Crim 2064, [13] (Hallett, LJ).

  18. 18.

    Ibid.

  19. 19.

    Ibid., [14].

  20. 20.

    Ibid., [17].

  21. 21.

    Ibid., [24].

  22. 22.

    Ibid., [45]. See also R v E [2012] EWCA Crim 563; R v W and M [2010] EWCA Crim 1926; R v Wills [2011] EWCA Crim 1938.

  23. 23.

    Ibid., [48].

  24. 24.

    Ibid., [51]–[52].

  25. 25.

    Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 1999) [2001] 2 AC 91, 118, Lord Steyn. See also R v A (No 2) [2002] 1 AC 45, 65, Lord Steyn; R v H [2004] 2 AC 134, 146, Lord Bingham.

  26. 26.

    See Criminal Practice Directions 2015, CPD I General Matters 3D Vulnerable people in the Courts; 3E Ground rules hearings to plan the questioning of a vulnerable witness or defendant; 3F Intermediaries (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/crim-pd-2015.pdf; accessed 4 July 2018). The Criminal Practice Directions 2015 at para 3E.4 adopt the position of the EWCA in Lubemba [2014] EWCA 2064, stating that in order to promote the giving of best evidence by young and vulnerable witnesses ‘this may mean departing radically from traditional cross‐examination’, including preventing an advocate from putting their case to the witness and preventing further questioning where an advocate does not obey the ground rules for questioning.

  27. 27.

    [2011] ECHR 212, [142]–[143].

  28. 28.

    R v Morrow [2009] VSCA 291, [47] (Redlich JA).

  29. 29.

    Ward [2017] VSCA 37, [121]; [124]; [125] (Maxwell P and Redlich JA).

  30. 30.

    [2011] EWCA Crim 3028, [28].

  31. 31.

    See Barker [2010] EWCA Crim 4, [42]; E [2011] EWCA Crim 3028, [26].

  32. 32.

    Dietrich v R (1992) 177 CLR 292, 335, Deane J; quoting Barton v R (1980) 147 CLR 75, 101, Gibbs ACJ and Mason J. See also Jago v District Court of New South Wales (1989) 168 CLR 23, 33 Mason CJ, 49–50; 54, Brennan J; R v Lodhi (2006) 199 FLR 250, [54]–[57], Whealy J.

  33. 33.

    Dietrich (1992) 177 CLR 292, 328 (Deane J) (citations omitted). See also McKinney v R (1991) 171 CLR 468, 478 (Mason CJ, Deane, Gaudron and McHugh JJ).

  34. 34.

    Dietrich v R (1992) 177 CLR 292, 364, Gaudron J.

  35. 35.

    Dietrich v R (1992) 177 CLR 292, 357, Toohey J.

  36. 36.

    See also Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2002.

  37. 37.

    See Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 15YF-15YG; Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT), s 38D; Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 294A; Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act 1993 (NT), s 5; Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), ss 21 N-21O; Evidence Act 1929 (SA), s 13B(1)(a); Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), ss 356–357; Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 106G(1). For example in NSW, the complainant can only be cross-examined by a person appointed by the court (not necessarily a lawyer) who will ask the complainant questions requested by the accused: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 294A(2)–(3).

  38. 38.

    The validity of s 294A, Criminal Procedure Act 1986 was upheld by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal in R v MSK and MAK [2004] NSWCCA 308.

  39. 39.

    R v TA (2003) 57 NSWLR 444, 446 (Spigelman CJ).

  40. 40.

    Skelton [2015] NSWCCA 320, [38] (Beazley P and Davis J; emphasis added).

  41. 41.

    [2007] HCA 30, [127].

  42. 42.

    Skelton [2015] NSWCCA 320, [58] (Beazley P and Davis J).

  43. 43.

    Ward [2017] VSCA 37, [16] (Maxwell P; Redlich JA).

  44. 44.

    Evidence Act 1995 (Cth); Evidence Act 1995 (NSW); Evidence Act 2001 (Tas); Evidence Act 2008 (Vic); Evidence Act 2011 (ACT); Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT).

  45. 45.

    Now known as the Inns of Court College of Advocacy.

  46. 46.

    See Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 15YM(1); Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT), s 40F; Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 306U; Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93A; Evidence Act 1929 (SA), s 34BA; Evidence (Children and Special Witnesses) Act 2001 (Tas), s 5; Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), s 367; Evidence Act 1906 (WA), ss 106H–106HB; Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (UK), s 27.

  47. 47.

    Insight, SBS Television, 27 February 2018.

  48. 48.

    Ward [2017] VSCA 37, [5] (Maxwell P and Redlich JA).

  49. 49.

    Ibid., [31]; [32].

  50. 50.

    Ibid., [35].

  51. 51.

    R v W and M 80 [2010] EWCA Crim 1926, [30] (Hughes LJ). In R v W and M, the two child appellants, convicted of raping an eight-year-old girl, appealed on the grounds that the complainant had retracted her complaints of rape during cross-examination. The EWCA dismissed the appeal.

  52. 52.

    Ward [2017] VSCA 37, [35] (Maxwell P and Redlich JA).

  53. 53.

    Ibid., [48]–[49].

  54. 54.

    Ibid., [50]; [54].

  55. 55.

    Ibid., [59].

  56. 56.

    Ibid., [64].

  57. 57.

    This question was paraphrased by the Court; ibid., [64].

  58. 58.

    Ibid., [65]–[67].

  59. 59.

    Ibid., [68].

  60. 60.

    Ibid., [69].

  61. 61.

    Ibid., [83].

  62. 62.

    Ibid., [84]–[85].

  63. 63.

    See, e.g., Ward [2017] VSCA 37; Martin v R (2013) 46 VR 537; JJB v R [2006] NSWCCA 126; Barker [2010] EWCA Crim 4.

  64. 64.

    Ward [2017] VSCA 37, [109].

  65. 65.

    Ibid., [99].

  66. 66.

    The event involved a tour of a NZ police station during which the children had their thumbprint recorded and ‘mug shot’ taken. They were also shown a jail cell and a police car with the lights and siren turned on.

  67. 67.

    The eight-month period was the average delay in NZ between when a child first reports and the matter goes to trial.

  68. 68.

    In E&W, for example, the Ministry of Justice (2018) reported that, after an analysis by the CPS of 309 sexual assault cases (finalised in 2016) to determine the frequency of applications to admit sexual history evidence under s 41 of the YJCE Act (1999), the trial judge refused to allow sexual history evidence in 92% of cases and such applications were only made in 13% of cases.

References

  • Advocacy Training Council. (2011). Raising the bar: The handling of vulnerable witnesses, victims and defendants in court. London: The Advocacy Training Council. https://www.icca.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Raising-the-Bar.pdf.

  • Andrews, S. J., Lamb, M. E., & Lyon, T. D. (2014). Question types, responsiveness and self-contradictions when prosecutors and defense attorneys question alleged victims of child sexual abuse. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 253–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration Committee (AIJA). (2014). Bench book for children giving evidence in Australian courts. Melbourne: AIJA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Law Reform Commission and Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. (1997). Seen and heard: Priority for children in the legal process (ALRC Report No. 84). Sydney: ALRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettenay, C., Ridley, A. M., Henry, L. A., & Crane, L. (2014). Cross-examination: The testimony of children with and without intellectual disabilities. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 204–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boniface, D. J. (1994). Ruining a good boy for the sake of a bad girl: False accusation theory in sexual offences, and New South Wales Limitations Periods—Gone but not forgotten. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 6, 54–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, M. (1995). The discourse of denial: Cross-examining child victim witnesses. Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 71–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caruso, D. (2012). Proposed reforms for the cross-examination of child witnesses and the reception and treatment of their evidence. Journal of Judicial Administration, 21, 191–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cashmore, J., & Trimboli, L. (2005). An evaluation of the NSW child sexual assault specialist jurisdiction. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cashmore, J., & Trimboli, L. (2006). Child sexual assault trials: A survey of juror perceptions. Crime and Justice Bulletin, 102, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cossins, A. (2000). Masculinities, sexualities and child sexual abuse. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cossins, A. (2009). Cross-examination in child sexual assault trials: Evidentiary safeguard or an opportunity to confuse? Melbourne University Law Review, 33, 68–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cossins, A. (2010a). Alternative models for prosecuting child sex offences in Australia. Sydney: National Child Sexual Assault Reform Committee, UNSW.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyle, I. R., Field, D., Wilson, P., Cuthbert, C., & Miller, G. (2009). Out of the mouths of babes: The case for an increased use of expert evidence in rebuttal of sexual abuse allegations by child witnesses. Criminal Law Journal, 33, 139–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Criminal Justice and Sexual Offences Taskforce. (2006). Responding to sexual assault: The way forward. Sydney: Attorney-General’s Department.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, E., Henderson, E., & Hanna, K. (2010). Facilitating children to give best evidence: Are there better ways to challenge children’s testimony? Criminal Law Journal, 34, 347–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, E., Henderson, E., & Seymour, F. W. (1997). In the interests of justice? The cross-examination of child complainants of sexual abuse in criminal proceedings. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 4, 217–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, E., & Seymour, F. W. (1998). Questioning child complainants of sexual abuse: Analysis of criminal court transcripts in New Zealand. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 5, 47–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dein, J. (2015, September). Crown Court trial in 2015: A practical update. https://www.25bedfordrow.com/cms/document/Madrid__edited_pdf.

  • Dulcan, M. K., & Wiener, J. M. (2006). Essentials of child and adolescent psychiatry. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastwood, C., & Patton, W. (2002). The experiences of child complainants of sexual abuse in the criminal justice system. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. http://www.criminologyresearchcouncil.gov.au/reports/eastwood.pdf.

  • Eastwood, C., Kift, S., & Grace, R. (2006). Attrition in child sexual assault cases: Why Lord Chief Justice Hale got it wrong. Journal of Judicial Administration, 16, 81–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P., O’Sullivan, M., & Frank, M. G. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science, 10, 263–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, L. (1999). The protection of vulnerable witnesses in court: An Anglo-Dutch comparison. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 3, 29–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, A. D., Stolzenberg, S. N., Lee, K., & Lyon, T. D. (2014). Children’s difficulty with indirect speech acts: Implications for questioning child witnesses. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 32, 775–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. P., Vrij, A., & Leins, D. A. (2013). Does testimonial inconsistency indicate memory inaccuracy and deception? Beliefs, empirical research, and theory. In B. S. Cooper, D. Griesel, & M. Ternes (Eds.), Applied issues in investigative interviewing, eyewitness memory, and credibility assessment (pp. 173–189). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fogliati, R., & Bussey, K. (2014). The effects of cross-examination on children’s reports of neutral and transgressive events. Legal & Criminological Psychology, 19, 296–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fogliati, R., & Bussey, K. (2015). The effects of cross-examination on children’s coached reports. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21, 10–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, G. S., & Melinder, A. (2007). Child witness research and forensic interviews of young children: A review. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hale, M. (1736/1971). Historia Placitorum Coronae (P. R. Glazebrook, Ed., Vol. 1). London: Professional Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanna, K., Davies, E., Crothers, C., & Henderson, E. (2012). Questioning child witnesses in New Zealand’s criminal justice system: Is cross-examination fair? Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 19, 530–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, E. (2002). Persuading and controlling: The theory of cross-examination in relation to children. In H. Westcott, G. Davies, & R. Bull (Eds.), Children’s testimony: A handbook of psychological research and forensic practice (pp. 279–293). Chicester: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, E. (2014). All the proper protections—The Court of Appeal rewrites the rules of the cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses. Criminal Law Review, 2, 93–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, E. (2015). Taking control of cross-examination: Judges, advocates and intermediaries discuss judicial management of the cross-examination of vulnerable people. Criminal Law Review, 3, 181–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henning, T. (2006) Control of cross-examination—A snowflake’s chance in hell? Criminal Law Journal, 30, 133–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office. (2011). Achieving best evidence: Guidance on interviewing victims and witnesses. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, A., & Boyd, R. (2010). Cross-examination of child sexual assault complainants: Concerns about the application of s 41 of the Evidence Act. Criminal Law Journal, 34, 149–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyano, L. (2014). What is balanced on the scales of justice? In search of the essence of the right to a fair trial. Criminal Law Review, 1, 4–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyano, L. (2015). Reforming the adversarial trial for vulnerable witnesses. Criminal Law Review, 2, 107–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jack, F., & Zajac, R. (2014). The effect of age and reminders on witnesses’ responses to cross-examination-style questioning. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3, 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judicial College. (2013–2019). Equal treatment bench book. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/equal-treatment-bench-book-february2018-v5-02mar18.pdf.

  • Judicial Commission of NSW. (2006–2017). Equality before the law bench book. Sydney: Judicial Commission of NSW. https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Equality_before_the_Law_Bench_Book.pdf.

  • Judicial Commission of NSW. (2017, Update). Criminal trial courts benchbook. https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal/index.html.

  • Kebbell, M. R., Deprez, S., & Wagstaff, G. F. (2003). The direct and cross-examination of complainants and defendants in rape trials: A quantitative analysis of question type. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 49–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klemfuss, J. Z., Quas, J. A., & Lyon, T. D. (2014). Attorneys’ questions and children’s productivity in child sexual abuse criminal trials. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 780–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuehnle, K., & Connell, M. (2009). The evaluation of child sexual abuse allegations: A comprehensive guide to assessment and testimony. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., & Esplin, P. W. (2008). Tell me what happened: Structured investigative interviews of child victims and witnesses. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, M. E., La Rooy, D. J., Malloy, L. C., & Katz, C. (2011). Children’s testimony: A handbook of psychological research and forensic practice. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Langbein, J. H. (2003). The origin of adversary criminal trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice. (2011). Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings: Guidance on interviewing victims and witnesses, and guidance on using special measures. London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mugno, A. P., Klemfuss, J. Z., & Lyon, T. D. (2016). Attorney questions predict jury-eligible adult assessments of attorneys, child witnesses, and defendant guilt. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 34, 178–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NSW Department for Women. (1996). Heroines of fortitude: The experiences of women in court as victims of sexual assault. Sydney: New South Wales Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • NSW Department of Justice. (2015). Children’s champions & pre-recording of evidence. Sydney: Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • NSW Law Reform Commission. (2003). Questioning of complainants by unrepresented accused in sexual offence trials (Report No. 101). Sydney: NSW Law Reform Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • NSW Standing Committee on Law and Justice. (2002). Report on child sexual assault prosecutions (Parliamentary Paper No. 208; Report No. 22). Sydney: Parliament of NSW.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, S., & Zajac, R. (2013a). Preparing children for cross-examination: How does intervention timing influence efficacy? Pyschology, Public Policy, and Law, 19, 307–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, S., & Zajac, R. (2013b). The role of repeated interviewing in children’s responses to cross-examination-style questioning. British Journal of Psychology, 104, 14–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pichler, A. S., Sharman, S. J., Powell, M., Westera, N., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2019). Association between interview quality and child sexual abuse trial outcome. Journal of Family Violence, online, 1–9. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10896-019-00051-5.

  • Plotnikoff, J., & Woolfson, R. (2009). Measuring up? Evaluating implementation of government commitments to young witnesses in criminal proceedings. London: NPSCC & Nuffield Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plotnikoff, J., & Woolfson, R. (2012). ‘Kicking and screaming’: The slow road to best evidence. In J. R. Spencer & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Children and cross-examination: Time to change the rules (pp. 21–41). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, S., Woodworth, M., & Birt, A. R. (2000). Truth, lies, and videotape: An investigation of the ability of federal parole officers to detect deception. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 643–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, M. B. (2013). An overview of current initiatives to improve child witness interviews about sexual abuse. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 25, 711–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, M. B., Bowden, P., & Mattison, M. (2014). Stakeholders’ perceptions of the benefit of introducing an Australian intermediary system for vulnerable witnesses. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 48, 498–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, M. B., Westera, N. J., Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Pichler, A. S. (2016). An evaluation of how evidence is elicited from complainants of child sexual abuse. Sydney: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Queensland Law Reform Commission. (2000). The receipt of evidence by Queensland courts: The evidence of children (Report No. 55; Part 2). Brisbane: Queensland Law Reform Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Righarts, S., O’Neill, S., & Zajac, R. (2013). Addressing the negative effect of cross-examination questioning on children’s accuracy: Can we intervene? Law and Human Behavior, 37, 354–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Righarts, S., Jack, F., Zajac, R., & Hayne, H. (2014). Young children’s responses to cross-examination style questioning: The effects of delay and subsequent questioning. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21, 274–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rook, P., & Ward, R. (2016). Rook & Ward on sexual offences: Law & practice (5th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. (2017a). Final report: Nature and cause (Vol. 2). Sydney: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. (2017b). Criminal justice report (Executive Summary and Parts I–II). Sydney: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. (2017c). Criminal justice report (Parts VII–X and Appendices). Sydney: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salhany, R. E. (2006). Cross-examination: The art of the advocate. Sydney: LexisNexis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sas, L. (2002). The interaction between children’s developmental capabilities and the courtroom environment: The impact on testimonial competency. Ottawa, ON: Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saywitz, K. J. (1995). Improving children’s testimony: The question, the answer and the environment. In M. Zaragoza, J. R. Graham, G. C. N. Hall, R. Hirschman, & Y. S. Ben-Porat (Eds.), Memory and testimony in the child witness (pp. 113–140). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saywitz, K., Camparo, L. B., & Romanoff, A. (2010). Interviewing children in custody cases: Implications of research and policy for practice. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 24, 542–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scottish Executive Central Research Unit. (2002). Vulnerable and Intimidated witnesses: Review of provisions in other jurisdictions. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharman, S. J., & Powell, M. B. (2012). A comparison of adult witnesses’ suggestibility across various types of leading questions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 48–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheehan, P. (2006). Girls like you: Four young girls, six brothers and a cultural timebomb. Sydney: Pan Macmillan Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, C. (1990). Law’s truth/women’s experiences. In R. Graycar (Ed.), Dissenting opinions: Feminist explorations in law and society (pp. 1–20). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, P. C., & Powell, M. B. (2007) Getting the story in forensic interviews with child witnesses: Applying a story grammar framework (Report to the Criminology Research Council Grant: CRC 04/04-05). https://www.criminologyresearchcouncil.gov.au/reports/200405-04.pdf.

  • Spencer, J. R., & Flin, R. (1993). The evidence of children: The law and the psychology (pp. 289–291). London: Blackstone Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, J. R., & Lamb, M. (2012). Children and cross-examination: Time to change the rules?. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stolzenberg, S. N., & Lyon, T. D. (2014). How attorneys question children about the dynamics of sexual abuse and disclosure in criminal trials. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 20, 19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, N. (2007). Juror attitudes and biases in sexual assault cases (Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 344). Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, T., & Maras, K. (2011). The effect of cross-examination on the accuracy of adult eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 554–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Victorian Law Reform Commission. (2004). Sexual offences (Final Report). Melbourne: Victorian Law Reform Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Granhag, P., & Porter, S. (2010). Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal lie detection. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 11, 89–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westcott, H. L., & Page, M. (2002). Cross-examination, sexual abuse and child witness identity. Child Abuse Review, 11, 137–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westera, N., Zydervelt, S., Kaladelfos, A., & Zajac, R. (2017). Sexual assault complainants on the stand: A historical comparison of courtroom questioning. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23, 15–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigmore, J. H. (1974). Evidence in Trials at Common Law (Volume 5). Boston: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajac, R., & Cannan, P. (2009). Cross-examination of sexual assault complainants: A developmental comparison. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 16, S36–S54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajac, R., & Hayne, H. (2003). I Don’t Think That’s What Really Happened: The effect of cross-examination on the accuracy of children’s reports. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 9, 187–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajac, R., & Hayne, H. (2006). The negative effect of cross-examination style questioning on children’s accuracy: Older children not immune. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajac, R., Irvine, B., Ingram, J. M., & Jack, F. (2016). The diagnostic value of children’s responses to cross-examination questions. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 34, 160–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajac, R., Gross, J., & Hayne, H. (2003). Asked and Answered: Questioning children in the courtroom. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 10, 199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajac, R., Jury, E., & O’Neill, S. (2009). The role of psychosocial factors in young children’s responses to cross-examination style questioning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 918–935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajac, R., O’Neill, S., & Hayne, H. (2012). Disorder in the courtroom? Child witnesses under cross-examination. Developmental Review, 32, 181–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zydervelt, S., Zajac, R., Kaladelfos, A., & Westera, N. (2017). Lawyers’ strategies for cross-examining rape complainants: Have we moved beyond the 1950s. British Journal of Criminology, 57, 551–569.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Honorary Professor and former Professor of Law and Criminology Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

    Anne Cossins

Authors
  1. Anne Cossins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne Cossins .

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Cossins, A. (2020). Cross-Examination in Sexual Assault Trials: Evidentiary Safeguard or an Opportunity to Confuse?. In: Closing the Justice Gap for Adult and Child Sexual Assault. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-32051-3_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-32051-3_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-32050-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-32051-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation