ACT Law Society Submission

actlawsociety

8September2017

By email:

DearSir/Madam,

RE:ProposedamendmentstotheFamilyLawAct1975(Cth)toaddressdirectcross­examinationofpartiesinfamilylawproceedingsinvolvingfamilyviolence

Preliminaryobservations

TheLawSocietyoftheAustralianCapitalTerritory("theACTLawSociety")welcomestheopportunitytoprovidecommentonproposedamendmentstotheFamilyLawAct1975andmattersraisedintheConsultationPaper.[1]

TheprevalenceoffamilyviolenceanditscontributiontothebreakdownofrelationshipshaslongbeenafeatureofAustraliansocietyandevidentinthemattersconductedbeforetheFamilyandFederal

CircuitCourtsofAustralia("theFamilyLawCourts").Increasinglytherehasbeenagreateremphasisinaddressingstructural,economicandlegaldisadvantageexperiencedbythosepartiesandchildrenwhoarevictimsoffamilyviolence,andcomebeforethecourts.Theprofessionsupportsongoingeffortstoprotectthosevulnerablemembersofourcommunityfrombeingsubjectedtofurtherincidencesof

familyviolencewhenoperatingwithintheinstitutionalsettingnecessaryfortheconductoffamilylawmatters.

Attheoutset, theACTLawSocietynotesthatgenerally,thelegalpractitionersoperatingintheareaoffamilyviolence, dosowithasoundunderstandingoftheprevalenceoffamilyviolenceandtheinsidiousanddestructiveinfluenceithasonindividuals,familiesandourwidersociety.Manypractitionerswillbeawaretherangeofresponses,supportsandprotectionsavailabletoindividualparties,legalpractitionersandtheFamilyLawCourtsinmanagingtheconductofthemattersthatcomebeforetheCourtsinwhichfamilyviolenceallegationsaremade.

TheFamilyLawCourts'FamilyViolenceBestPracticePrinciples("theBPP”)provideacomprehensiveguideforpractitioners,Judgesandself-representedpartiesaboutfamilyviolenceandhowmattersinvolvingallegationsoffamilyviolencemightbestbepresentedincourtandthevictimsofthisviolence,properlysupported.

ThereareopportunitiesforfurtherandwidereducationabouttheunderlyingprinciplesthathaveinformedtheBPPandtheLawSocietyoftheACTwouldwelcomeandsupportinitiativesthatassistinthecontinuingeducationofcourtpersonnel(including,asrequired,Judicialofficers)andlegalpractitionerssothatwemaycontinuetoproperlyengagewithandsupportpeoplewhoarevictimsoffamilyviolenceintheeventtheymusthaveengagementwiththefamilylawsystem.

TheLawSocietyoftheACTwouldencouragesomefurtherreflectionuponandassessmentoftheextenttowhichfinalcontestedhearingsareoccurring,intheFamilyLawCourts,whereavictimoffamilyviolenceiscross-examinedbytheun-representedallegedperpetratorofthatviolence.Thebenefitofempiricalresearchastotheprevalenceofthisoccurrence(whichisrecognisedasbeingtraumatisinganddistressingforthevictim)willbetterinformtheextenttowhichresourcesoughttobeappliedtocreatefurtheropportunitiestoshieldvictimsoffamilyviolencefromthisoccurrence.

TheLawSocietyoftheACThashadthebenefitofreadingandsupportsthesubmissionsoftheLawCouncilofAustralia("theLawCouncil")totheParliamentaryinquiryintoabetterfamilylawsystemtosupportandprotectthoseaffectedbyfamilyviolence.[2]Thatsubmissioncontainsabriefsummaryoftheroleofcross-examinationintheadversarialtrial[3]andbalancingthedesiretoshieldavulnerable witnesswhileensuringtheprocessofelucidatingrelevantevidenceinthehearing,tosupportajudgment,isnotundermined.

ThemodelapparentlybeingcontemplatedintheConsultationPaper(abanondirectcross-examinationandacourtappointedpersontoaskquestions),whileappearingtoofferprotectionstoavulnerablewitness,maycreatearangeofundesirableandseriousadverseconsequences,therepercussionsofwhich,withrespect,maynothavebeenfullyconsidered.

ItistherecommendationoftheLawSocietyoftheACT,thattheresourcesnecessarytoimplementtheproposedamendments,wouldbemoreefficientlydirectedtoensuringtheexistingprotectionsforvulnerablewitnessesweremorewidelyknown,identifiedandavailableforuseinallregistries.TheseprotectionsincludethoseprovidedintheEvidenceAct1995(Cth)(includingprotectionfromimproperquestions),withintheFamilyLawAct(includingDivision12Aandthemanagementofchildrelatedproceedings)andthebroadpowerofajudgetomanagetheconductoftheproceedings,asheorsheseesfit.TheBPPmakeexplicitmanyoftheadditionalpowersavailabletotheFamilyLawCourtsinhearingmatterswhereallegationsoffamilyviolencehavebeenmade,includingensuringthatvulnerablepartiesarenotunnecessarilyexposedtotheperpetratoroftheviolenceandensuringwitnessesmaygivetheirevidenceremotely,amongotherthings.Notallregistrieshaveequivalentfacilities(notingthesignificantresourcechallengesatsmallerandregionalRegistriesinparticular).

ItistherespectfulviewoftheLawSocietyoftheACTthatthemodelbeingcontemplatedintheConsultationPaperisfoundedonafundamentalmisunderstandingoftheroleofcrossexaminationintheadversarialprocess,whichisasimportantinfamilylawproceedings,asanyother.Itisthismis­characterisationofcrossexaminationthathasleadtothemisplacedexpectationthatonepartoftheadversarialproceedingscanbeconductedinaparticularfashion,withthepartialortemporaryinterventionofathirdparty(courtappointedperson)toundertakeanhybridorabridgedquestioning,thatwillultimately,offerlittleassistancetotheCourt.

TheLawSocietyoftheACTadoptstherecommendationsoftheLawCouncil-thatifthepresentlyavailableprotectionsforvulnerablewitnessesareconsideredbyajudgetobeinsufficientprotectionforavulnerablewitness,inthatinstance,NationalLegalAidorthestateorTerritorylegalaidbodies,shouldbedirectedtoappointalawyertoactfortheunrepresentedparty(andbothpartiesifthevictimoffamilyviolenceisalsounrepresented)fortheconductofthetrial.ItisrecognisedthatthiswillhavefundingimplicationsforlegalaidbodiesandCommonwealthresourceswillconsequentiallyberequired.However,giventhegravamenoftheissuesbeingexploredandillstoberemedied,aseriouscommitmenttofundingthebestpossiblealternativeisrequired.Anyothersolution(includingthecourtappointedperson)createsadeficiencyinthetrialprocessthatwillunderminetheutilityofanyevidenceobtainedandleavetheJudgewithdeficienciesinevidencethatmayundermineherorhisabilitytoruleinthematter.TheriskofdeficientJudgmentswillaccordinglyincrease,withconsequentialburdensupontheappellateprocess,hearingtimeframes,resourcingforthecourtsmoregenerallyandfurtherburdensforallusersofthecourts.

TheLawSocietyoftheACTrecommendsthatifthecourtappointedmodelisadopted(ratherthanfullrepresentationfortheselfrepresentedpartyorpartiesasissuggested,above)thepersonsoappointedshouldbealegalpractitioner,withcertainparameterstothatrole,asdetailedfurtherbelow.

ResponsestoquestionsposedintheConsultationPaper

1.Shoulddirectcross-examination onlybeautomaticallybannedinspecificcircumstances?

2.Shoulddirectcross-examinationbebannedineachofthespecificcircumstancessetoutinthenewproposedsubsection102NA(1)?

TheLawSocietyoftheACTrecommendsthatthediscretionofjudicialofficerstoconductproceedingsintheircourtsshouldnotbefetteredandtheJudgemustbeatlibertytodetermineifthecurrentprotectionsavailabletoprotectavulnerablewitnessaresufficient.Ifthejudgedeterminesthatthewitnesscannotbeadequatelyprotected,thentheappointmentofalegalrepresentativefortheunrepresentedparty(orbothparties,ifthevictimisalsounrepresented)shouldoccur.

NecessaryfundingincreasestoNationalLegalAidwouldberequiredtoassist intheimplementationofthisresponse.Itisalsoanticipatedthatsomepartiestowhichthereferralforagrantofaidandrepresentationinthesecircumstances,maynotsatisfytheusualgrantcriteriasetbytherelevantlegalaidbodies;thisisespeciallysoinpropertyandfinancialmatterswheretheremaynotbeparentingissuesbeforethecourt,butwhereseriousfamilyviolenceallegationsaremade-thepartyinthat instancemightnormallynotreceiveagrantofaidunderthecurrentfundingcriteria.Particularfundingallowancesandexceptionsmayneedtobeagreedtoaddressthesechallenges-thisisanewresponsetoacontinuingandseriousproblemandbuilding,fundingandsupportingtheinstitutionalresponseswillbeanessentialpartofthemodel.

TheLawSocietyoftheACTrecommendsthatthecircumstancesidentifiedinquestions1and2oftheconsultationpaperactastriggersfortheCourttoconsiderifadditionalprotectionsoughttobeimplementedtoshieldavulnerablewitness-whichmattersmightbeusefullysetoutintheRulesandinPracticeGuidelinesforlitigants.

However,therearerisksinbuildingaresponsewhichisdependentupontheexistenceofcertainorders,madeorprotectionsputinplace,infamilyviolence proceedingsinstateorTerritorycourts.Thereareanumberofrisksarisingfromthis.InmanycasesbeforetheFamilyLawCourts,allegationsoffamilyviolencearemadeandtheremaynotbeordersmadeunderstatefamilyviolencelegislation.Wheretherearefamilyviolenceproceedingsinastatecourt,itispossiblethatbythetimeofthetrialintheFamilyLawCourts,thestatemattershavenotproceededtoafinalhearing(andsonofindings haveatthatstagebeenmade).

Ontheotherhand,therearemanyinstanceswhereallegationsrelatingtofamilyviolenceareresolvedinthestatecourtsbythemakingofundertakings,orordersbyconsent,withoutadmissionsastoliability.Again,whiletheallegationsoffamilyviolencemaybeserious,inthatoutcome,thecourtwillbeunabletohaveregardtofindingsmadeinanothercourt. Cautionneedstobeexercisedbeforethese(consensual)outcomesaredeemedtoindicatealessseriousallegationorriskoffamilyviolence

-inmanyinstances,theprospectofdirectcrossexaminationofthatperson,bytheallegedperpetrator,wouldbeterrible.

Itistheprocessofengagementwith,exposuretoandcross-examinationbytheallegedperpetratorthatcreatesriskofre-traumatisationoftheallegedvictim.Theprocessitselftherefore,ofatrial,wheretheallegedvictimisincloseproximitytotheallegedperpetrator,notjusttheaskingofaparticularseriesofquestions,incrossexamination,thatisoffensiveandpotentiallyharmful.

Theprotectionsalreadyavailabletothecourtsgosomeconsiderablewaytocreatingopportunitiesforproceedingstobeconductedinawaythatshieldsthevictimfromexposuretotheallegedperpetrator.Ifthecourtconsidersthatthoseprotectionsareinsufficient,thentheappointmentofalawyertorepresentoneoftheparties(oralawyerforeachifbothareunrepresented)isrequired,asdescribedpreviously.

TheconsultationpapercontemplatesabanuponcrossexaminationalsooccurringifinjunctionsundertheFamilyLawActareinplace.Thismayhaveunexpectedconsequences:aninjunctionundersection688or114maynotrelatetoafamilyviolenceoffenceorallegation[ss(1)(c)(iii)],howevertheexistenceofsuchaninjunction(forexampletopreventasaleofproperty),togetherwithanallegationoffamilyviolence[ss(1)(b)],wouldbesufficienttopreventaself-representedpartyfrombeingabletocross-examinethewitnessparty.

Again,thecircumstancesunderwhichsuchinjunctionsmaybemadearebroadandarenotconfinedtomatterswherefamilyviolenceisallegedorestablished.Cautionshouldbeexercisedthereforeinapplyinganexpresslistofqualifyingcircumstances,whichmayhavetheunintendedconsequenceofcapturingmattersinwhichfamilyviolenceisnotakeyelement.

TheACTLawSocietyrecommendspreservingthediscretionofthecourtstomanagetheirprocessesandoffercasespecificremediesandprotections.

TheexistingrulesofCourt,theEvidenceActandtheBestPracticePrinciplesprovideanexistingframeworkagainstwhichprotectionofvictimsoffamilyviolencecanbeachieved.Effortsdirectedtogreateradoptionofexistingmeasuresbymembersofthejudiciaryandlegalprofession,includingthroughuseofclosedcircuitevidence,proceduraldirectionstolimittheissueswarrantingcross­examinationattrial,legalaidfundingandongoingprofessionaldevelopmentcanproduceamorecohesivefamilylawsystemthatcontinuestopromotetheinterestsofchildrenandprovideprotectionstovictims(childrenandparties)offamilyviolence.

3.Shoulddirectcross-examinationbebannedinanyadditionalcircumstancesnotreferredtointhenewproposedsubsection102NA(1)?Forexample,inthecourts'NoticeofRisk/NoticeofChildAbuse,FamilyViolenceorRiskofFamilyViolence.

Similarly,thefilingofNoticesofRiskinwhichallegationsoffamilyviolenceareidentifiedmaybeausefultriggerforconsiderationofwhatprotections,ifany,mightberequiredinaparticularmatter,buttherearerisksinusingtheexistenceofsuchallegationsasatriggerfortheautomatichappeningofcertainresponses.WhilethetriageprocesscreatedbythefilingofNoticesofRiskensuresthecourtsreceive,atanearlystage,informationaboutafamily'sinvolvementwithwelfareauthorities,suchdoesnotnecessarilymeanthattheallegationsarewellfounded,orwillbefoundintimetohaveoccurred.

TheLawSocietyoftheACTrecommendsthatdetailedguidelinesareestablishedsettingoutthecircumstancesinwhichthecourtmayconsidertheimplementationofarangeofresponsestobettersupportvulnerablewitnesses-theinclusionofallegationsoffamilyviolenceinNoticesofRiskcouldbeincluded.

4.Shouldanybanondirectcross-examinationapplytobothpartiestotheproceedingsaskingquestionsofeachother,oronlytotheallegedperpetratorofthefamilyviolenceaskingquestionsoftheallegedvictim?

5.Shouldthediscretionarypoweronlybeexercisedonapplicationbytheallegedvictim,orbythecourts'ownmotion,orshouldtheallegedperpetratoralsobeabletomakean applicationtopreventdirectcross-examination?

TheLawSocietyoftheACTsuggestthatitisnotappropriatetomakeassumptionsaboutthebenefitsorotherwise,toanallegedvictiminbeingabletoaskquestionsdirectlytoanallegedperpetratoroffamilyviolence.Clearly,therewillbesomecasesinwhichthatprocessisnotdesiredorpreferredbytheallegedvictim-however,therewillbeothercaseswhereitisessential,totheallegedvictim,thatheorsheisabletoexercisetherighttoquestiontheotherparty-takingbacksomecontroloftheirsharednarrativeandasamanifestationoftheirownpowerorindependence.

ThesearecomplexissuesandtheLawSocietyoftheACTwouldwelcomefurtherinvestigationandreportaroundtheseissuestoavoidgeneralisedassumptionsinformingoutcomeforallallegedvictims,asiftheirexperiencesandpreferenceswillalwaysbethesame.

Thecourtshoulddeterminetheapplicationofanynecessaryandappropriatesafeguardstobetterprotectandsupportvulnerablewitnessesinfamilylawproceedings.Thosesupportswouldincludetailorededucationprogramsforjudicialofficersandrelevantcourtstaffandthelegalprofessionabouttheimpactsoffamilyviolenceandthewaysinwhichengagementbetweenanallegedvictimandallegedperpetratorcanbedistressingandre-traumatising.However,theLawSocietyoftheACTcautionsagainstformalisingageneralpositionforallpartieswherefamilyviolenceisanissue,inpreferenceforsupportingthediscretionoftheCourttorespondonacasebycasebasis.

TheCourtshouldbeatlibertytomanagetheproceedingsatlarge,includingtoapplyallpowersincludingrelatingtoprotectionsaroundcross-examinationandshouldnotrequireanapplicationbeingmadebyaparty.

6.Whichpeoplewouldbemostappropriatetobeappointedbythecourttoaskquestionsonbehalfofaself-representedperson?Forexample,acourtemployeenotinvolvedintheproceedings,otherprofessionals,laypeople.

7.Whatqualifications,ifany,shouldthecourt-appointedpersonhave?

Intheeventthecourtappointedmodelisadopted,theLawSocietyoftheACTrecommendsthatalawyershouldbeappointedtothisrole.Thereareuniqueobligationsandresponsibilitiesexercisedbylawyers,tothecourt,whichwillensurethecourtisbestservedbytheappointment.However,thisis stillnotastraightforwardprocess.IfthepersonsoappointedisalegalpractitionertheyhavedutiestotheCourt,totheclient(ifthatrelationshipisnototherwisedefinedandlimited)andpursuanttolegalprofessionalcodes.

Ifthecourtappointedmodelisadoptedandthepersonsoappointedistaskedwithalimitedandcurtailedroleonly(thatis,notactingasalawyerinthefullsensefortheparty)thenclearguidelinesandprotectionswouldneedtobeincorporatedintothelegislationtoshieldthatlegalpractitionerfromclaimsofbreachoftheirprofessionalobligationstotheclientandagainstclaimsofnegligenceintheperformanceofthe(limited)roleinthecourtroom.

Therearerealrisksthattheobligationsandresponsibilitiesofthelawyertotheclientandtothecourtmaycomeintoconflict.

Thereallimitationinthecourtappointedpersonmodelhowever,liesinthecurtailedroleanticipatedandtheunderlyingmisunderstandingofcrossexaminationandhowitiseffectivelyusedinfinalproceedings.ItistherespectfulviewoftheLawSocietyoftheACTthatthecentrallimitationwillregrettablyoccur,nomatterwhoisappointedtotherole.

TheLawSocietyoftheACThasparticularconcernsaboutthemannerofappointment,role,training,remunerationandselectionofcourtappointedpersons.Inadditiontothecommentsaboveanadditionalburdenwillfalluponjudicialofficerstoensurethattheconductofthecourtappointedpersondoesnotgiverisetoanyriskofamiscarriageofjusticeand/orappeal.Itisanticipatedasignificantsuiteofpoliciesandguidelineswouldberequiredtoregulateandprovideaframeworkfortheconductofcourtappointedpersons.

Theappointmentofacourtappointedperson,againsttheobjectionofapartyandtheconsequentfailureofpartoforallofthatparty'scasebeforethecourt,mayleadadisgruntledlitiganttodeterminethatanappealiswarranted(regardlessofthemeritsofthatprocess).Thereisarealriskthattheappellatecourtswillexperienceafurtherincreaseinapplicationsmadebydisgruntledselfrepresentedparties.

8.Shouldany requirementsregardingwhothecourtcanappointandtheirqualificationsbeincludedintheFamilyLawAct?

Yes,theActshouldbeamendedtoincludetheserequirements.

9.Shouldanyfurtherinformationaboutthescopeoftheroleofthecourt-appointedpersonbeincludedintheFamilyLawAct?Forexample:

howthecourt-appointedpersonobtainsquestionsfromaself-representedparty

thelevelofengagementthecourt-appointedpersonshouldhavewithaself-·representedpartyonwhose behalftheyareaskingthequestions

whetherthecourt-appointedpersonshouldbepresentincourtforthewholeof theproceedingsorjustduringcross-examination

whatdiscretionthecourt-appointedpersoncanexercise(ifany)inrelationtoaskingthequestionsthey havebeenprovidedbyaself-represented party

whetherthecourt-appointedpersoncanaskanyquestionsoftheirown(notprovidedbytheself-representedparty)duringcross-examination

whethertheyareunderadutytocooperatewithotherpartiestotheproceedingssuchasanIndependentChildren'sLawyerappointedinacase,and

theintersectionbetweenthecourt-appointedperson'sroleandthatofthejudicialofficer.

Despitesignificantreservationsaboutthecourtappointedpersonmodel,asexpressedpreviouslyinthisdocument,theLawSocietyoftheACTmakesthefollowingadditionalcommentsaboutthequestions posedinquestion9:

i.Whilstitcanbeacceptedthattheaskingofaquestionbyapersonotherthananallegedoffendermaybelessoffensivethaniftheoffenderthemselvesaskedthequestion,thisarguablydoesnotaddresstheilltheamendment isdirectedtocuring.Theriskofre­traumatisingvictimsremains,andinsomecases,maybeexacerbated,becauseanotherpersonisaskingquestions.

ii.Theadditionaldifficultieswiththeprovisionsasdrafted(102NAand102NB)include:

a.Thetermsofss(2)(b)suggestthecourtappointedpersonasksthe(same)questionthattheexaminingpartywouldliketoask.

b.Thefundingforthecourtappointedpersonisunknown.Thiswilllikelyhaveadirectimpactofthequalifications,qualityandassistancethatsuchapersoncouldprovidetotheCourtandtheparties(bothallegedvictimandallegedperpetrator).

c.Whatcontrolswouldexisttolimitordefinethenatureofthequestionstobeaskedbythecourtappointedperson?WhileJudgesroutinelyandproperlylimitandruleonquestionsinthetrial,toexpandthatrolesuchthataJudgemustapproveapriorlistofquestionswillcreatefurtherrisksinthemanagementofthetrialandintheprovisionofnaturaljusticeandproceduralfairnesstobothparties.

iii.Itisanticipatedthecourtwouldberequiredtoplacegreateremphasisonmakingcasespecificordersanddirectionsinrelationtothescopeandcontentuponwhichthecourtappointedpersonmaycross-examinetheotherparty.

iv.Ifthemodelproposesalistofquestionsisprovidedtothecourtappointedpersonandthosequestionsarethenaskedofthevulnerablewitness,itislikelythatprocesswillelicitevidenceoflimitedutilityandtheremaybearealdisconnectbetweenthatprocessandthecasenarrativemoregenerally.Crossexaminationismorethanaskingalistofquestions.Todefineandlimittheprocessinthisfashionwillhavesignificantanddeleteriousimpactsupontheutilityoftheprocessandupontheevidenceultimatelybeforethecourt.Thatislikelytohaveanadverseimpactuponthecourt'sabilitytomakesoundorderstoconcludethematter.

v.Theprocessofobtainingquestionsfromtheself-representedpartybythecourtappointedpersonwouldneedtoincludeanopportunityforthecourtappointedpersontospeakwiththepartyandtoobtainanunderstandingofwhatthequestionsweredirectedtoachieve.Somepartiesmayhaveliteracydifficultiessooraldirectionsmayberequired.Thereareadditionalchallengesforculturallyandlinguisticallydiversepartiesandtheprovisionofinterpreterserviceswillroutinelyberequired.

vi.Themodelbeingcontemplated(ofacourtappointedpersonstepping intothetrialtoperformanisolatedtask)willimpacttheutilityoftheexercise.Alistofquestionsaskedbyapersonwhohasnoknowledgeofthebalanceoftheevidencebeforethecourt(includinginaffidavitsandindocumentsproducedsubpoenatothecourt)willseriouslyimpacttheprospectsofquestionsbeingaskedwhicharerelatedtoandtakeintoaccountotherevidence.

vii.Ifthecourtappointedmodelisadoptedandthatpersonreceivesasetofquestionsfromtheparty,whichhavenototherwisebeenvettedbythecourt,itisexpectthecourtwillruleifaquestionisobjectionable,offensiveorotherwiseobjectionable.

viii.Ifthislimitedroleistobecreatedforthecourtappointedperson,andthatpersonisonlypresenttoaskthesetquestions,thatpersonshouldnotbepermittedtoaskadditionalquestions(oftheirownvolition).Thatpersonshouldhaveastrictlylimitedanddelineatedroleandbeexpectedtoactwithcourtesyandco-operatewithdirectionsfromthecourt,butnottootherwiseengageinthematterbeforethecourt.ThedeficienciesinthismodelareclearandtheLawSocietyoftheACTcontinuestorecommendthatinstead,alawyerisappointedtoactforaparty(oralawyerforeachpartyifbotharenotrepresented)to

ensurethatthevulnerablewitnessisprotectedandthatthetrialintegrityisnotundermined.

WhilethesourceandextentofanyCommonwealthfundingtoimplementthecourtappointedmodelisnotknown,theLawSocietyoftheACTsuggeststhatadditionalfundingmightusefullybedirectedto:

i.Additionaltrainingofjudicialofficersandlegalprofessionalsinaddressingandidentifyingfamilyviolenceandutilisingexistingmeasurestoprotectthevictimsoffamilyviolence;

ii.Additionallegalaidfunding,includingspecificallyfortrialmatters,andwhereitisintheinterestsofjusticethatapartybelegallyrepresentedtoensurethatvictimsoffamilyviolencearenotsubjectedtofurtherincidencesofviolenceorre-traumatisation;

iii.Whereproceedingsalsoinvolvechildren/parenting,additionallegalaidfundingtoenabletheappointmentofIndependentChildren'sLawyers("ICLs").ICLsalreadyhaveacentralroleinchildrelatedproceedingsinensuringappropriateevidenceisbeforetheCourt,evenmoresowhereoneormorepartiesareself-represented.TogetherwiththeCourt'sinherentpowertomanageitsownproceedings,thosemattersrequiringdeterminationbytheCourt,canbeaddressed.

10.Shouldaself-representedpersonbeallowedtonominatethepersonwhoisappointedbythecourttoaskquestionsontheirbehalf?

11.Doyouhaveanyconcernsaboutthecourt-appointedpersonmodel?

Thecourtappointedpersonshouldnotbeapersonnominatedbyaparty.Thereareobviousrisksthatthepersonsonominatedwillbealignedwiththepartyandtheremaybecomplexrelationshipdynamics,whichmakethatpersonasourceofdistressoranxietyforthevulnerablewitness.Thecourtappointedperson(ifthislimitedmodelisadopted)shouldbeappointedbythecourtandbeentirelyindependentofthepartiesandtheproceedings.

TheLawSocietyoftheACThassignificantconcernsaboutthecreationandimplementationofthecourtappointedpersonmodel,assetoutpreviously.

12.Shouldthecourtonlygrantleavefordirectcross-examinationtooccurifbothpartiestotheproceedingsconsent?i.e.whereanallegedvictimconsentstobeingdirectlycross-examinedorconsentsto conductingdirectcross-examination, shouldtheallegedperpetrator'sconsentalsoberequired?

13.Shouldthecourtonlygrantleavefordirectcross-examinationtooccurifithasconsideredwhetherthecross-examinationwillhaveaharmfulimpactonthepartythatistheallegedvictimofthefamilyviolence?

14.Shouldthecourtonlygrantleavefordirectcross-examinationtooccurifithasconsideredwhetherthecross-examinationwilladverselyaffecttheabilityofthepartybeingcross-examinedtotestifyunderthecross-examination,andtheabilityoftheparty conductingthecross-examinationtoconductthatcross-examination?

15.Arethereanyotherissuesthecourtshouldberequiredtoconsiderbeforegrantingleavefordirectcross-examinationtooccur?

Theconsultationpapersuggeststhat"Thegroundsforgrantingleaveareintendedtolimitjudicialdiscretionandensureaconsistentapproachtothecourtsgrantingleave."TheLawSocietyoftheACTresists any amendment, which is intended to limit judicial discretion, in circumstances where it has not been established that the full exercise of judicial discretion as failed to protect or shield vulnerable witnesses. It would appear,with respect, thatcertain assumptions have informed the questions being posed and remedies suggested in the consultation paper. The Law Society of the ACT would welcome further research being undertaken into these important issues, to better direct what remedies, if any are required to better assist victims of family violence within the family law system. The Law Society of the ACT notes that the Australian Law Reform Commission has been instructed to undertake a comprehensive review of the Family Law Act 1975 and it would appear sensible and prudent to await the recommendations of that body before embarking upon other significant change.

Thejudgeshouldretainfulldiscretiontomanagetheprocesswithinthecourt.Thepossibilityofdirectcross-examination,shouldremainatthediscretionofthecourt.Thatprocessshouldnotrequiretheconsentofbothparties,buttheconsentofeitherorbothparties,wouldbefactorsrelevanttotheconsiderationoftheissuebythecourt.

Thequestionsexpressedaboverelatetothemattersthatacourtmightconsiderbeforemakingadeterminationaboutwhetherdirectcrossexaminationshouldbepermitted. ThoseconsiderationsmightbeexpressedwithintheActoringuidelinestoensurethatthecourtandthepartiesareawareoftherangeofconsiderationsthatmayinformthedecisionmakingbythecourtaboutthisissue.Theconsiderations shouldnotbeexpressedaslimitingthediscretionofthecourt.Intheparticularfactsandcircumstancesofthecase,thediscretionofthecourtshouldremainatlarge.

16.Shouldtheamendmentsapplytoproceedingsstartedbeforethelawcomesintoeffect,orshouldtheyonlyapplytoproceedingsstartedafterthelawcomesintoeffect?

Therearerisksinseekingtohavechangestolegislationapplyretrospectively,especiallyif,ashasbeencontemplatedintheBillandconsultationpaper,theexistenceoffamilyviolenceordersorrestrainingordersmaybereliedupontosupporttheoperationoftheanticipatednewprovisionswithintheFamilyLawAct.Realinjusticesmayoccurwhereapartyhasconsentedtoornotvigorouslyopposedanoutcomeinonesetofproceedings,atthattimenotknowingthattheexistenceoftheordermaylaterbeusedasthefoundationforlimitingtheirabilitytocrossexaminationapartyinotherproceedings.Thedeficienciesofthatapproachareclear.

17.Shouldanychangesbemadetotheproposedamendmentstoensurethatallpartiesreceiveafairhearing?

18.Shouldanychangesbemadetotheproposedamendmentstoensurethatthecourtscanbe satisfiedthatanycross-examinationofthepartiesthatoccursthroughacourt-appointedpersonwillenablethejudicialofficertoaccordproceduralfairnesstotheparties?

19.Shouldanychangesbemadetotheproposedamendmentstoensurethatthecourtsareabletomakeinformeddecisions?

20.Shouldanychangesbemadetotheproposedamendmentstoensurethattheydonothaveanyunintendedconsequencesforvictimsoffamilyviolence?

21.Anygeneralcomments.

TheLawSocietyoftheACTsuggeststhattheprotectionspresentlyavailabletovulnerablepartiesin familylawproceedingsaresufficienttoensuretheprotectionofthosewitnesses.Itisrecognisedthattheremaybeinstanceswherethoseprotectionsarenotmadeavailabletothevulnerableparty,dueto alackofawarenessbythecourt,thepartyorothersinvolvedinthematter(includinglegalpractitioners)abouttheabilitytoutilisethoseprotections.Thesechallengeswouldbeassistedbyfurther,directed,educationofjudgesandcourtpersonnelandlegalpractitionersabouttheseoptions.Inaddition,anauditoftheabilityofdifferentregistriesoftheFamilyLawCourtstosupportandprotectvulnerablepartiesoughttooccur-itisquiteclearthattheservicesandfacilitiesthatareavailableincertainregistrieswillnotbeavailableinothers.

Areviewshouldalsobeundertakenabouttheextentofanycircumstancesinwhichvulnerablepartieshavebeendirectlycross-examinedinfamilylawproceedings.WhiletheLawSocietyoftheACTagreesthatsuchaprocesswouldbedistressingandpotentiallyre-traumatisingforavictimoffamilyviolence,havinganunderstandingofhowfrequentlythisoccursandinwhatcircumstances,wouldbetterdirectconsiderationoftheapplicationofappropriateresourcestoaddressthisneed.

Theadversarialtrialprocessrequirescrossexaminationofwitnessestooccurinawaythatisintendedtoensurethatevidenceischallenged,thecredibilityofwitnessesmaybeassessedandsothatthefundamentalaspectsofthecaseofonepartyare"put"totheother(theruleinBrownevDunn5).Toseektocreateahybridquestioningprocess,undertakenbyapersonnototherwiseinvolvedinandnotawareoftheevidenceinthecase,willseriouslyunderminetheefficacyofthetrial.Itislikelythattheevidenceobtainedinthatprocesswillbeoflimitedutilitytothecourtandmayleadtotheultimatejudgmentbeingchallenged(orappellatechallengestotheprocessimposeduponapartyoccurringmorefrequently).

Absentcleardatatosupportthecontentionthatsuchafundamentalandadversechangeoughttooccur,theLawSocietyoftheACTrespectfullysuggeststhatthecurrentpowersavailabletothecourtstomanagetheproceedingsandprotectvulnerablewitnessesaresufficient.

Yourssincerely,

thelawsocietyoftheaustraliancapitalterritorymemberof thelawcouncilofoustraliafourthfloor1farrellplaceCanberraact2601

gpobox1562 Canberraact2601

dx5623Canberra

I

wactlawsoc1etyasnau

[1]ConsultationPaper-Addressingdirectcrossexaminationofpartiesinfamilylawproceedingsinvolvingfamilyviolence,July2017

[2]Submissionnumber85,27May2017

[3]Ibid,p24-25