FAMILYCOURTOFAUSTRALIA

ATTORNEY-GENERAL’SDEPARTMENTFAMILYVIOLENCETASKFORCE

EXPOSUREDRAFT–FAMILY LAWAMENDMENT(FAMILYVIOLENCEANDCROSS-EXAMINATIONOFPARTIES)BILL2017

SUBMISSIONBY

THEHONOURABLE DIANABRYANTAOCHIEFJUSTICE OFTHE

FAMILYCOURTOFAUSTRALIA

25 August2017

INTRODUCTION

1.TheFamilyCourtofAustralia(‘theFamilyCourt’or‘theCourt’)welcomestheopportunitytocommentontheproposedamendmentstotheFamilyLawAct1975(Cth)(‘theFamilyLawAct’or‘theAct’)toaddressdirectcross-examinationofparties in proceedings involvingfamilyviolence.

2.Imakethis submission in mycapacityas ChiefJusticeoftheFamilyCourt ofAustraliaandtheviewsexpressedherein,whichhavebeendevelopedinconsultationwithJusticeStrickland,theJudgeresponsibleforadvisingmeonmattersoflawreform,andwithinputfromseveralotherJustices.WhilsttheydonotpurporttorepresentthoseofalloftheFamilyCourtJusticesortheCourtasawhole,Ianticipatethatthese viewswill bewidelyacceptedbythe judges.

3.Thissubmissionwillaimtodescribesomeofthelegal,proceduralorotherissuesthatariseinrelationtomostofthequestionsasked,saveforthosequestionswhicharetoobroadformetocommenton,orwhereamatterofGovernmentpolicyisengaged.Anumberofquestionsgiverisetosimilarissues,andIhaveconveniently groupedthosequestionsunder a moregeneralheading.

4.AttheoutsetIindicatethatIamstronglyoftheviewforreasonslaterexpressed,thattheintentionandtheaimsexpressedinthePublicConsultationPaperandintheDraftExposureBillcanbebestachievedbyprovidingthenecessaryresourcestoStateLegalAidbodies.Theamendmentsspecificallyinrelationtoexaminingpartieswithoutlegalrepresentationneedtobecarefullyconsidered.TheCourthassignificantconcernsaboutcourt-appointedrepresentativeswithoutguidelinesandscopeofwhatthatpersoncandobeingincludedinthelegislation.Asoutlinedbelow,court-appointedpersonsshouldbefromastatelegalaidbodywiththenecessarytrainingandqualifications.Thelegalaidbodies,iffunded,couldestablishspecialistunitsforthispurpose.IfthereissuchabodyfromwhichappointmentscanbemadebytheCourt,andifthereisconcernthatsomelitigantsmayresistbecausetheywishtopersonallycrossexamine,thentherewouldbeadequatejustificationforajudgetorefuse to allowcross examination.

5.IntheCourt’ssubmissiontotheVictorianRoyalCommissionwesaidthefollowingwhichbearsrepetition:

(a)Fromtimetotime,suggestionshavebeenmadethatgovernmentsfundanadvocacyservicesimilartothatwhichisusedincertainstatesincriminaltrials,whereanadvocateconductsthecross-examinationoftheallegedvictimin place ofa self-representedaccused.

(b)Inbroadterms,wearenotpersuadedthatsuchasuggestionrecognisesthesignificantdifferencebetweencriminalandfamilylawproceedings,evenwherethesubjectmatter,violence,isthesame.Forexample,inacriminal

trial,whileviolencemaybethesolefactualandlegalissuefordetermination,oftentheallegedvictimisbutoneofthewitnessesinthecase.Inthefamilylawcontext,thevictimisapartytotheproceedingsandtheissueoffamilyviolenceisonlyoneoftheissuestobedeterminedalthoughitmaypermeatethewholeofthefactualmatrixofthecase.Itisdifficulttoseehowsuchasystemwouldsensiblysequesterthecross-examinationofanallegedperpetratorastofamily violencefromthecrossexaminationonotherissuesinthe case.

(c)Further,unlikeinacriminalcontext,wherethevictimisawitnessandistoaconsiderabledegreeprotectedbythefactthattheproceedingsareconductedbypoliceorbytheOfficeoftheDirectorofPublicProsecutions,infamilylaw,thevictimisapartyand,whereself-represented,willhaveinteractionwith the perpetrator throughout the case, not merelywhilegivingevidence.

(d)Whileultimatelyamatterforgovernmentfunding,abetterandmoreeffectiveapproachtotheissuewouldbetoprovidesufficientresourcestoenablepartiestohavelegalrepresentationwherethereisanallegationoffamilyviolenceatthe upper endof severity.

THE CURRENTPOSITION

6.ItiscommonintrialsincourtsexercisingjurisdictionundertheFamilyLawActthatawitnessisexamined,cross-examinedandsometimesre-examined.Generally,allwitnessesareliabletocross-examination(see,forexample,PrenticevCummins(2003) 134 FCR 449 at [25]).

7.Aspartofajudge’soverarchingdutytoensurethatallpartiesreceiveafairtrial,ajudgehasadiscretiontopreventorrestricttheexaminationandcross-examinationofwitnesses(see,forexample,GPILeisureCorpLtdvHerdsmanInvestmentsPtyLtd(No 3) (1990) 20 NSWLR 15 at 18, 22–23).

8.WiththeexceptionofthestatutoryrestrictionontheexaminationofchildrenintheFamilyLawAct(s102A),thereisnoexpresslimitationintheActontheabilityofanunrepresentedpartytodirectlycross-examineanotherpartyinproceedingswherethereisanissue of family violence;sucharestrictioncomesbywayoftheexerciseofa court’sdiscretion to limit the examinationandcross-examination ofa party.

9.TheFamilyLawActcontainsabroad,non-exhaustivedefinitionof‘familyviolence’whichprovidesthatitistomean‘violent,threateningorotherbehaviourbyapersonthatcoercesorcontrolsamemberoftheperson’sfamily(thefamilymember),orcauses thefamilymemberto be fearful’(s4AB(1)).

10.Generally,afamilyviolenceorderorinterimfamilyviolenceorderismadeundertheprescribedlawofaStateorTerritory.Suchorderscanbemadeby consent.ThereareavarietyofordersandinjunctionsthatcanbemadebyacourtexercisingjurisdictionundertheFamilyLawActwhicharerelatedtoissuesinvolvingfamilyviolence.Division11ofPartVII of theFamilyLawActrecognises,however,that,totheextentthatthereisaninconsistencybetweenanorderorinjunctionmadeundertheFamilyLawActandafamilyviolenceorder,theorderorinjunctionmadeundertheFamilyLaw Actwillrender thefamilyviolenceorder invalid.

11.AcourtexercisingjurisdictionundertheFamilyLawActhasarangeofpowerstomanageproceedingsinordertosecureafairtrialfortheparties.Inadditiontoacourt’spowertopreventorrestricttheexaminationandcross-examinationofwitnessesinanygivencircumstancewhereitseesfit(ss69ZXand101oftheFamilyLawAct,ss 26and41EvidenceAct1995(Cth)),acourthasthepowertodirecttheparties,whereitisintheirintereststodoso,togiveevidenceoutofsightofoneanother(see,forexample,RvSmellie(1919)14CrAppR128;RvDJX(1990)91CrAppR36;BUSBvR(2011)80NSWLR170).Thispowerhassubsequentlyextendedtotheuseof‘videolink,audiolinkorotherappropriatemeans’inDivision2ofPartXIoftheAct.IemphasisethediscretionarypowersthataregiventoacourtunderPartVII,Division12AoftheAct,particularlyss69ZX(1)(c)and69ZX(2)(i),andwhichcourts can exercisein anygivencircumstance as theysee fit.

12.Forreference,IattachtothissubmissionachartofrelevantprovisionscontainedintheActandtheEvidenceAct1995(Cth)whichIprovidedpreviouslytotheDepartment.

THE QUESTIONS

Question 1:Shoulddirectcross-examinationonlybeautomaticallybannedinspecificcircumstances?

13.MostAustralianjurisdictionshavelegislatedtoeitherbanorrestrictthedirectcross-examinationofprotectedwitnessesbyanunrepresentedpartyinprescribedcriminalproceedingsorincivilproceedingsthateitherrelatetoaprescribedcriminaloffenceor fallundercertainState familyviolenceprovisions. Specifically:

(a)InNewSouthWales,theNorthernTerritory,theAustralianCapitalTerritoryandundertheCrimesAct1914(Cth)(‘theCrimesAct’),anunrepresenteddefendantispreventedfromdirectlycross-examiningtheallegedvictimofanoffenceincertaincriminalproceedingstowhichtherespectivestatutoryprovisionsapply.Rather,cross-examinationinthesecircumstancesmayonlyoccur througha court-appointedperson.Theroleofthe court-appointed personislimitedsolelytothecross-examinationoftheallegedvictimandthequestionsthatmay beaskedbytheappointedpersonareonlythosethatarean

accuraterepresentationofthequestionsrequestedtobeaskedbytheunrepresenteddefendant(seeCriminalProcedureAct1986(NSW)s294A;SexualOffences(EvidenceandProcedure)Act1983(NT)s5;Evidence(MiscellaneousProvisions)Act1991(ACT)s38D;CrimesAct1914(Cth)s15YG).Notably,theCrimesActdiffersslightlyincomparisontotheotherstatutoryprovisionsrequiringacourttoappointapersonforthepurposeofcross-examinationinthatacourtexercisingjurisdictionundertheCrimesActretainsitsdiscretionastowhetherornotdirectcross-examinationwillbepermittedbyanunrepresenteddefendantandthecourtmaygiveleavetoanunrepresenteddefendantas it seesfit.

(b)InQueensland,s151oftheDomesticandFamilyViolenceProtectionAct2012(Qld)differsfromtheotherActsreferredtointhissubmissioninthatitdoesnotplaceanautomaticbanorrestrictiononthedirectcross-examinationofaprotectedwitnessbyanunrepresentedparty.Rather,thecourtretainsitsdiscretionandmayorderthatanunrepresentedpartybepreventedfromcross-examiningaprotectedwitnessifthecourtisoftheviewthatsuchcross-examinationislikelytocausetheprotectedwitnessto‘sufferemotionalharmordistress’or‘besointimidatedastobedisadvantagedasawitness’.Whereanorderhasbeenmadesoastoprohibitdirectcross-examinationofaprotectedwitness,cross-examinationmayonlythenoccurthroughalawyeractingfortheexaminingpartygenerally,oractingfortheexaminingpartyforthesole purpose ofcross-examination.

(c)InVictoriaandQueensland,whereanunrepresentedpartyisprohibitedfromdirectlycross-examiningaprotectedwitness,thecourtwillarrangefortheunrepresentedpartytobegivenfreelegalassistancebytheStateLegalAidbodyforthesolepurposeofcross-examining theprotectedparty(seeCriminalProcedureAct2009(Vic)s257;FamilyViolenceProtectionAct2008(Vic)ss70-71;EvidenceAct1977(Qld)s21O).UndertheFamilyViolenceProtectionAct2008(Vic)s70,aprotectedpartywhoisnotachildmayconsenttobeingdirectlycross-examinedbythe unrepresented party.

(d)InWesternAustralia,whereanunrepresentedpartyisprohibitedfromdirectlycross-examiningaprotectedwitnessthequestionsareputtotheprotectedwitnessbystating thequestionstoeitherthejudgeorapersonapprovedby thecourt.Theprotectedwitnesswhoisnotachildmayconsenttobeingdirectlycross-examined(EvidenceAct1906(WA)s106G)orrequestthatanorderprohibitingdirectcross-examinationnotbemade(Restraining Orders Act1997 (WA) s 44C).

(e)InSouthAustralia,whereanunrepresentedpartyisprohibitedfromdirectlycross-examiningaprotectedwitnessincertaincriminalorcivilproceedings

thequestionsareputtothejudgeforthejudgetothendeterminewhetheraquestionisallowableincross-examination.Thejudgeorthejudge’sdelegatecanthenasktheallowablequestions.Thejudgeneverthelessretainsadiscretioninrelationtohowcross-examinationmaybeundertaken,providedthatitisnotdonedirectlybytheunrepresentedparty(seeEvidenceAct1929(SA) s 13B;InterventionOrders(Prevention of Abuse)Act 2009 (SA) s 29).

14.Ascanbeseen,thereareobservabledifferencesinthewaysinwhichAustralianjurisdictionshaveapproachedtheissueofdirectcross-examinationofaprotectedwitnessbyanunrepresentedparty.Theeffectthatanyoneapproachhasonthepartiestotheproceedingscannotbesaid,norcanitbesaidwhetheroneapproachistobepreferredoveranother.ThedifferencesthatexistbetweentheapproachesareworthyofgreaterconsiderationinthecontextofproposedsolutionstoaddresstheissuesraisedinthePublicConsultationPaperasitispossibleforthosedifferencestoimpactthewayinwhichproceedingsareconductedand,perhapsmoreimportantly,theparties to those proceedingspersonally.

15.Ifdirectcross-examinationisbannedinspecificcircumstances,thissubmissionsupportsanapproachthatisconsistentwiththosecomparableprovisionsreferredtoabovewhichpreserveacourt’sdiscretionarypowerstomanagetheconductofproceedings in anygivencircumstance.

Question 2:Should direct cross-examination be banned in each of the specificcircumstances setoutin the newproposedsubsection102NA(1)?

16.Giventhemyriadofactsbyanindividualwhichmightbedefined,broadly,asactsof‘familyviolence’,therewillbeariskthatablanketbanwherethereisanyallegationoffamily violencewillrestrictdirectcross-examinationinproceedings where itwouldhaveotherwisebeenappropriatefordirectcross-examinationtooccur.Inturn,thiswillsignificantlyrestrictacourt’spowerstomanageproceedingsinanygivencircumstance.Inotherwords,s102NA(3)may notprovideacourtwithenoughscopeto permitcross-examinationwhere it should be allowed.

17.Inmyviewthelegislationshoulddifferentiatebetweenapersonwhohasbeenconvictedandapersonwhohasbeenchargedwithanoffence.Subsection102NA(3)maynot provide thecourt with the requiredflexibility.

18.Further,itcannotbethepresenceofallfamilyviolenceorderswhichattractstheautomaticban.AdistinctionneedstobedrawnbetweenthosemattersinwhichtherehasbeenatrialbeforeaStatecourtwhichresultedinanorder,andthosematterswhereanapplicationhasbeenbroughtinaStatecourt,andanordermadebyconsentandwithoutadmissions.

19.Thatconsiderationalsoappliestos102NA(c)(iii),andthesamedistinctionneedstoberecognised.

20.Itisalsonecessarytoappreciatethevarioustypesofinjunctionsthatcanbemadepursuanttoss114and68BoftheFamilyLawAct.Theymaynotnecessarilybelinkedtofamilyviolence.Forexample,apartymightberestrainedfromdealingwiththepropertyofthepartiestothemarriage,orfromattendingthechildren’sschool,oraplaceofemployment.Thus,s102NA(c)(iii)needstobeamendedtocaterforthiscircumstance.

Question 3:Shoulddirectcross-examinationbebannedin any additionalcircumstances notreferredto in thenewproposedss102NA(1)?Forexample, in theCourts’NoticeofRisk/NoticeofChildAbuse,familyviolence or risk offamilyviolence.

21.Theshortanswertothisquestioninno.Therearenoadditionalcircumstances,andtoincludethefilingofaNoticewouldinevitablyraisethesameissuesthatIhaveidentified in myresponseto Question 2.

Question 4:Shouldanybanondirectcross-examinationapplytobothpartiestotheproceedingsaskingquestionsofeachother,oronlytotheallegedperpetrator ofthe familyviolence asking questions ofthe allegedvictim?

22.Wherealegislativebanondirectcross-examinationseeks to preventanycontinuationofallegedabusivebehaviour,theredoesnotappeartobeanyreasontosuggestthattheallegedvictimshouldthenbepreventedfromdirectlycross-examiningtheallegedperpetrator.Although,fromtheperspectiveoftheallegedvictim,itmaybeunreasonableforthemto beobligedtodirectlycross-examineanallegedperpetrator.AsIhavelongadvocated,itismoreimportantthattheallegedvictimberepresentedasincapacitytocross-examinewilllikelyleadtoaninabilitytoprosecutethecaseatall.Atpresentjudgescanatleastsuggestthatlegalaidbegrantedbutthisisanopportunityforthelegislationtomakesomeprovisionfortherepresentation ofthose allegedvictimsfallingwithin the classasdefined.

Question 5:Shouldthediscretionarypoweronlybeexercisedonapplicationbytheallegedvictim,orbythecourts’ownmotion,orshouldtheallegedperpetratoralsobeabletomakeanapplicationtopreventdirectcross-examination?

23.Therewouldbeseriousquestionsofproceduralunfairnessifonepartywaspreventedfrommakinganapplicationtoaffectthewayinwhichproceedingsarerunandanotherpartywaspermittedtomakesuchanapplication.Acourt’sdiscretionarypowers shouldremainexercisableon thecourt’s own motion oronanapplicationbyaparty totheproceedings,soastoenablethecourttoretainmaximumflexibilityintheexercise of thatdiscretion.

Question 6: Whichpeople wouldbe themostappropriatetobeappointedbythecourttoaskquestionsonbehalfofaself-representedperson?Forexample,acourtemployeenotinvolvedintheproceedings,otherprofessionals,laypeople

24.Inthosecomparablelegislativeprovisionsreferredtoabovewhichrequireacourttoappointapersontoputtothewitnessthequestionsrequestedtobeaskedbytheexaminingparty,itisnotarequirementthattheappointedpersonbelegallyqualified.Although,itshouldbenotedthattheeffectofthelegislativeprovisionsinNewSouthWales,theNorthernTerritoryandtheAustralianCapitalTerritorymaycausesignificantdifficultiesfortheappointmentofalegalpractitionerinthattherespectivelegislativeprovisionsrequirethattheappointedpersonnotgivetheaccusedperson‘legalorotheradvice’(seeClarkvR[2008]NSWCCA122at[42]–[43](“Clark”)).Whomaybeappointedbythecourtandhowthepublicmightviewthatindividual’simpartialitywillvaryfromcasetocase,butitshouldbenotedthattheNewSouthWalesCriminalCourtofAppealinClarkrejectedthesubmissionthat‘theappointmentoftheregistrarwasinappropriateandunfairbecausehewasnotalegalpractitioner’(at [43]).

25.Nevertheless,itisundoubtedthatdespiteanydiscretionthatajudgemighthaveintermsofwhomaybeappointed,itisofgreatestimportancethatafairtrialissecuredandjusticeisseentobedone.Itfollowsthattheinterestsofanappointedpersonintheproceedingorthepartiestotheproceedingandthewayinwhichtheappointmentisviewedfromthepublic’sperspectiveshouldweighheavilyindeterminingwhocanactas acourt-appointedperson.

26.Isuggestthattherearenumeroussignificantchallengesassociatedwithanyproposalforacourt-appointedrepresentativewhoisanemployee.Firstly,anysuchproposalwouldneedtobeaccompaniedbycommensuratefundingfortheCourt–courtemployeesandresourcesarestretched,withnocapacity forcurrentemployeestotakeonthisadditionalworkorthehavetherequiredtraininginorderforthemtoperformsuchroles.Secondly,theissueoftheappropriatenessofcourtemployeesperformingsuchrolesfromthestanceofimpartialityandissuesofpartisanshiparises.Assuchthe representative shouldbe fromlegalaid.

27.Theremayalsobehealthandoccupationalsafetyissuesfromanemployee’sperspective(andthecommensuratedutyofcareanemployerhas)inrespectofanynegativeeffectsthatdirectexposuretothedisputebetweenthepartiesmighthaveontheirhealthandwellbeing.Onecanimaginethatinformedconsentwouldneedtobegiven oneach occasion an appointmentwas to bemade.

28.Asforotherprofessionals,lawyersaretheonlyrealisticoption.However,thatwouldentailfundingtobeprovidedpresumablythroughthevariousLegalAidCommissions.

29.Itissuggestedintheconsultationpaperthat“acourt-appointedpersonwillnotbealegalrepresentativeforapartyandtheywill not provideanylegal advicetoa party”.Irhetoricallyask,howcanthatbeprevented?Ifalawyerisappointedandreceivesremuneration,thensurelytheywillbethatperson’slegalrepresentativewithallthatthatentails.Theideathatalawyerwouldundertakethecross-examinationbutoutsidethe completeframeworkof ethicaland legal responsibilities andprotectionsthat applyto those admitted to practice is ofgreatconcern.

30.TheCourtwouldneedclearpolicyandideallylegislativeparametersaroundwhocould be appointed. (forexample, not a relative,clear aboutremunerationetc).

31.Further,ifanon-lawyerreceivesremunerationthenthatmaybeabreachofthelegislationthatgovernsthelegalprofession.Indeed,breachesofthatlegislationmayarise in manyofthecircumstancescontemplatedbythis proposal.

32.Therealsoneedstobefarmoreclarityaroundtheprocessofasking thequestions.Forexample,whatifaquestionisobjectedto?Whatifthepersonbeingcross-examinedasksformoreinformationorclarityaroundthequestion?Also,howwillfollow-upquestionsbeasked?Willthereneedtobeanadjournmentaftereachquestionandanswer?

33.Wheretheappointedpersonisnotalawyer,presumablythequestionswouldhavetobewrittenbythepartyandthenreadbytheappointedperson.However,hows41oftheEvidenceAct1995(Cth)isnotoffendedasaresultisproblematicanddependsonwhethertheappointedpersonisboundtoaskthequestionintheformprovided bytheparty.Further,it seems unreasonable thatanunrepresentedperpetratorwould have theadvantageofhavingapersonaskquestionsthatalawyerwouldbepreventedfromaskingbecauseof ethicalobligations.

Question 7:What qualifications,if any shouldthe court-appointedpersonhave?

34.Ifitisalawyerthenthequalificationsareobvious.Ifitisanon-lawyer,thenitisimpossibleto see whatqualificationswould be necessary.

35.Ifitisanon-lawyer,thenecessaryqualificationsofanycourtappointedpersonwouldattheleasthavetoincludesuitabilitytothesituationinwhichtheywouldbeplaced.Thiswouldincludeanunderstandingofcourtprocessandpotentiallytherulesofevidence.

36.Thereareofcoursemanyotherconcernsthatariseifitisanon-lawyer.Forexample,the Courtwouldhave nowayofverifyingthat thequestionwas faithfullyconveyed.

Question 8:Shouldanyrequirementsregardingwhothecourtcanappointandtheirqualifications be included in the Family LawAct?

37.Whilstacourtmustretainitsdiscretionastowhoisactuallyappointed,thereshouldbesomelegislativeframeworkwithinwhichacourtcanoperate.Whereacourt-appointedpersondoesnotpossesslegalqualifications,itshouldbefortheexamining-partyto satisfya court,for example,that:

  • Theappointedpersonhasasufficientunderstandingofthecourtprocesstobeable to conduct cross-examination;
  • The appointed person is able to conductthemselves in anappropriate manner;
  • Theappointedpersonhashadanopportunitytoobtainadequateinstructionsfrom the cross-examiningparty;
  • Theappointedpersonwillnotpersonallyintimidateorcausethewitnesstobefearful;
  • Theappointedpersonisnotcloselyrelatedtothecross-examiningpartyandissufficientlydisinterestedin the outcome ofthe proceedings.

Question 9:Shouldanyfurtherinformationaboutthescopeoftheroleofthecourt-appointedperson be includedinthe Family LawAct?

38.Themodelwherebyquestionspassthroughthecourt-appointedpersondoesnot,byitself,provideasafeguardagainstimproperquestions.TheCourtisrequiredtoensuretheappropriatenessofthequestionsaskedincross-examination(s41oftheEvidenceAct1995(Cth)),buttheCourt’sresponsibilitytointerveneonlyarisesonceanimproper questionhas been put to a witness.

39.Inrelationtotheproceduretobefollowedbyacourt-appointedperson,theCriminalCourtofAppealin Clark approved the following statements by the trial judge(at [27]):

…AcomplainantmayonlybesoexaminedbyapersonappointedbytheCourt.Thepersonappointedmayonlyaskthecomplainantthosequestionswhichyourequestthatpersontoputtothecomplainantandmustnotgivelegal or otheradvice toyou.

Iwilladvisethejuryofwhatistohappen.Thepracticewewilladopt,subjectto hearinganysubmissionsyou ortheCrown wish to make,willbe:

(a)Youwouldwriteoutalistofquestions,whichwouldbegiventome, in the absence ofthecomplainantand thejury(if applicable).

(b)Iwillruleonwhethereachofthequestionsispermissible.Consistentwithmyobligationswithrespecttoaself-representedaccused,Iwilladviseyouastowhyaquestionisnotpermissible,

andwillexplaintheproposedprocedureforcross-examinationofthe complainant toyou.

(c)Iwillgiveyoutheopportunitytore-formulatethequestionsinaccordancewithmyrulings.Youwillalsobeadvisedtowritedownanyfurtherquestionstobeaskedofthecomplainant,atanytimeduringthecourseofthecross-examinationandatanystageduringthecourseofthecross-examinationandatanystageduringthecourseofthetrialandtoseekpermissiontoaskthosequestions,includingtherecallofthecomplainantforthosequestions.

(d)Theintermediarywillaskthecomplainantthequestionsruledpermissible byme.

(e)Afterthecomplainanthasansweredthequestions,Iwill[ask]youifyouhaveanyfurtherquestionsarisingfromthecomplainant’sanswers, or anyquestions previouslyoverlooked.

(f)Ifyouhaveanyfurtherquestions,theproceduressetoutinparagraphs (a)to (e)would be repeated.

40.It is essentialthat theroleofacourt-appointed person is made clear,otherwise there isasignificantriskthattheindividualmightdeviatefromthequestionsrequestedtobeaskedbytheexaminingparty,askotherquestionsnotexpresslyrequestedbytheexaminingparty,giveadvicetotheexaminingpartyorotherwiseadvocatefortheexaminingparty.ThequestioniswhetherthescopeoftheroleisincludedintheFamilyLawActorlefttobeexplainedtotheappointedpersonbythetrialjudgeduringtheproceeding.Iwouldsuggesttheformerbecauseitallowsthepartiestoknow from the outset theparameters oftherole.

41.Ifthescopeoftheroleistobespecified,anemphasisneedstobeplacedontheappointedpersonaccurately puttingtothewitnessonlythosequestionsthatareexpresslyrequestedtobeaskedbytheexaminingparty.Further,itmaybethattheapproachtakeninClarkrequiringthatquestionspassthroughajudgepriortobeingputtothewitnessisthebestwaytoensurethatanappointedpersononlyasksthosequestionsrequested to beput to a witness or asotherwise allowedbyacourt.

42.Itisclearthatacourt-appointednon-lawyerwillnothavethesamelegalandethicalobligationsasapracticing lawyer.Whereanapproachistakenwhichdoesnotrequireacourttoapproveaquestionrequestedtobeputtoawitnessbyanexaminingpartypriortoitbeingputtoawitness,itmaynotbepossibleforacourttoverifythataquestionhasbeen faithfullyconveyedbythat person.

Question 10: Shouldaself-representedpersonbeallowedtonominatethepersonwhois appointed by the court toaskquestions on their behalf?

43.Asdiscussedearlierinthissubmission,theimpartialityoftheappointedindividualandhowthepublicperceivesthatpersonisfundamentaltotheadministrationofjustice.

44.Ifapartywaspermittedtonominateanindividual,theCourtmustneverthelessretainits discretionas to who is actuallyappointed.

Question 11: Do you haveany concerns about the court-appointedpersonmodel?

45.The Court’sconcerns arewellexplainedthroughout this submission.

Questions 12 to 15: Whendirect cross-examinationcanoccur

46.Thosecomparableprovisionsreferredtoearlierwhichpermitapartybeingexaminedtoconsenttobeingdirectlycross-examinedortorequestthatanordernotbemadetobandirectcross-examination,donotrequiretheconsentoftheotherparty,andthatshouldbethesamehere.However,incircumstanceswherebothparties are thevictimsoffamilyviolence,itwouldseemappropriate,giventheissuessoughttobeaddressedinthePublicConsultationPaper,thateachpartyberequiredtoconsenttodirectcross-examinationbytheother party.

47.Ifacourtisspecificallyrequiredtoformaviewthatcross-examinationcouldhaveaharmfulimpactonapartyoraffectthecross-examinationitself,asopposedtoacourtexercisingthediscretionthatithastomanagetheexaminationandcross-examinationofpartiesinanygivencircumstance,theissuearisesastowhatevidenceacourtwillhavebeforeitinordertoformsuchaview,especiallyincircumstanceswherethereisno convictionfor familyviolence orfamilyviolenceis beingalleged.

Question 16:Shouldtheamendmentsapplytoproceedingsstartedbeforethe lawcomesintoeffect,orshouldtheyonlyapplytoproceedingsstartedafterthe lawcomesinto effect?

48.Theamendmentsshouldonlyapplytoproceedingscommencedafterthelawcomesintoeffect.Thatwillpreventdifficultieswithtrialsthatarerunningatthetime,trialsthatare part-heard,and pendingtrialswhereall necessarydirectionshave been made.

Questions 17 to 20: Evidence and proceduralfairness

49.Thesearequestionsthatareinappropriateformetoanswer,saveandexcepttosaythatformanyofthereasonsthatIhavealreadyexpressed,theDraftExposureBilldoes not ensure:

(a)Thatallpartiesreceiveafair hearing.

(b)Thatthecourtscanbesatisfiedthatanycross-examinationofthepartiesthatoccursthroughacourt-appointedpersonwillenablethejudicialofficertoaccordproceduralfairness tothe parties.

(c)That the courts areableto make informed decisions.

(d)Thattheydonothaveanyunintendedconsequencesforvictimsoffamilyviolence.

50.The answers to these questions are mattersfor theGovernment.

CONCLUSION

51.Whatevermodelisadopted,ifany,toaddresstheissuesreferredtointhePublicConsultationPaper,therearerealissuesinrelationtothepossiblerestrictionthatanygivenapproachmighthaveonacourt’spowertomanageproceedingsandsecureafair trial in anygivencircumstance.

52.Whatisclearisthatifacourt-appointedpersonmodelisadopted,thatpersonshouldbestrictlylimitedtoonlyaskingthosequestionsrequestedtobeputtothewitnessbytheexaminingpartyorasotherwiseallowedbythetrialjudge.Furthermore,inadditiontootherissuesthatariseinrelationtotheadministrationofjusticeandhowtheadministrationofjusticeisperceivedbythepublic,theCourtdoesnotreceivesufficientfundstoexpand theroles ofits employees to act ascourt-appointed persons.Ifthecourt-appointedpersonmodelisputintoeffect,itnecessarilyrequiresconsiderationastohowthatmodelwouldoperateandhowindividualswouldbeappointed,withtheaimofnotplacinganunnecessaryburdenonthecourtsandincreasingtheiralreadylarge workload.

53.Importantly,ifaviewistakenthatthereshouldbeanamendmenttotheFamilyLawAct,anyproposedamendmentmustnecessarilybeweighedagainsttheexistingpowersofacourtexercising jurisdictionundertheFamilyLawActtobesatisfiedthatanyproposedamendmentbettersecuresafairtrialandprotectsthepartiestotheproceedings.

54.Finally,IreiteratethatgiventhedeficiencieswhichIhavehighlightedintheproposalas it currentlystands,itsharmfuleffect on the administration of justice, and theabilityofcourtstosecureafairtrial,theintentionandtheaimsexpressedinthePublicConsultationPaperandintheDraftExposureBillcanbevery effectively achievedbyprovidingthenecessaryresourcestoStateLegalAidbodiesasIhaveoutlinedinparagraph 4.

55.Theseproposals,whilstsuperficiallyakintowhatoccursinsomeothercourts,whentransposedintocomplexfamilylawdisputesinvolvingparenting,property,maintenanceandchildsupportissues,inrealityconstituteaforayintovery unchartedwaters.Ithinkitisimportanttoconsiderthatitmightbemoneyverywellspenttoresourceaproperadvocacyunitforthispurposewithinthestatelegalaidbodiesanddo so rightfrom thestart.

Jurisdiction / Who is protected? / How are they protected? / Relevant legislation
Cth / Anywitnessinvolved inchild-relatedproceedings / Less adversarial trialprocess —the principles forconductingchild-relatedproceedings include:
  • Thecourtisto activelydirect, controland manage theconductofproceedings and istoconductproceedings ina waythatwillsafeguard partiesto proceedings againstfamilyviolence.
  • Thecourtcan give directions ormake orders abouthowparticularevidenceisto begiven.
  • Thecourtcan make orderslimiting, ornotallowing, cross-examination ofa particularwitness.
  • Thecourtcanreceive into evidencethetranscriptofevidencein anyotherproceedings beforethe courtoranothercourtortribunal, and can draw fromthattranscriptanyconclusions offactthatitthinks proper,and adoptanyoftherecommendations,findings,decisions or judgments ofthosebodies.
/ FamilyLawAct1975(Cth)
PtVII,Div.12A
  • s.69ZN
  • s.69ZX(1)(c)
  • s.69ZX(2)(i)
  • s.69ZX(3)

Cth / Anywitnessinfamilylawproceedings / Generalmattersconcerningprocedure andevidence:
  • Partiestoa marriage arecompetentandcompellable todisclose communications made betweenthemduringthemarriage.
  • A child (otherthan achildwho is oris seekingto become apartytotheproceedings)isprevented fromswearinganaffidavitforthe purposes of proceedings unlessthecourtmakes an orderallowingthemto do so.
  • A child cannotbe called as a witnessorbe presentin courtunless the courtmakes an ordertothecontrary.
  • Thecourtmustforbidtheaskingof, orexcuse a witness fromanswering, offensive, scandalous, insulting, abusive orhumiliatingquestions, unless itis essentialintheinterestsofjustice thatthequestion beanswered.
  • Thecourtmustforbidtheexamination ofa witnessthatitregardsas oppressive,repetitive orhectoring, orexcuse awitnessfromansweringquestionsaskedduringsuchanexamination,unlessitis essentialintheinterestsof justiceforthe examinationto continueorforthe questionsto beanswered.
/ FamilyLawAct1975(Cth)
PtXI,Div.1
  • s.100(2)
  • s.100B(1)
  • s.100B(2)
  • s.101(1)
  • s.101(2)

Cth / Anywitnessinfamilylawproceedings / Use ofvideolink,audiolinkor othermeans to givetestimony,makeappearancesand givesubmissionsetc. Thecourtmaydirectorallow a personto givetestimonyand/orappearbeforethecourtbyvideooraudiolink,orotherappropriatemeans.Thispowermaybe exercisedonapplication ofa partytotheproceedings, oronthecourt’sowninitiative. / FamilyLawAct1975(Cth)
PtXI,Div.2ss.102C–102D
Cth / Anywitnessin proceedings towhichthe Actapplies / Thecourthascontroloverthequestioningofwitnessesand canmakeordersin relationto,interalia,the wayin whichwitnessesareto bequestionedaswellasthepresence andbehaviourofanyperson inconnectionwiththe questioningofa witness. / EvidenceAct1995(Cth)s.26
Cth / Anywitnessin proceedings towhichthe Actapplies / Thecourtisrequiredtodisallow a question,or informthe witnessthatthequestionneednotbe answered,ifthecourtis oftheopinionthatthequestionis misleadingorconfusing, undulyannoying,harassing,intimidating,offensive,oppressive,humiliatingorrepetitive;is putto thewitness,in a mannerortonethatis belittling,insultingorotherwiseinappropriate;orhasno basisotherthan astereotype. / EvidenceAct1995(Cth) s.41
Cth / Anywitnessin proceedings towhichthe Actapplies / Evidenceofanadmissionis notadmissibleunlessthecourtissatisfiedthatthe admission,andthe makingthereof,werenotinfluenced byviolent,oppressive,inhuman ordegradingconduct,whethertowardsthe personwhomade the admissionor towardsanotherperson;or a threatofthatkind. / EvidenceAct1995(Cth) s.84