You have0 free article left this month.
Register for a free account to access unlimited free content.
You have 0 free article left this month.
Register for a free account to access unlimited free content.

Lawyers Weekly - legal news for Australian lawyers

Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
lawyers weekly logo

Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA

Goodbye job applications, hello dream career
Seize control of your career and design the future you deserve with LW career

Legislation protecting victims of family violence from cross-examination passes

Direct cross-examination in family law matters where violence has occurred is set to be banned in certain circumstances, following the passage of new legislation.

user iconJerome Doraisamy 07 December 2018 Politics
Parliament house
expand image

The Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Act 2018 will protect victims of family violence by banning direct cross-examination in certain circumstances, federal Attorney-General Christian Porter said in a statement, and will instead require that cross-examination be conducted by a legal representative.

“The reforms, and associated ongoing funding, will provide better protection for victims of family violence and, most importantly, perpetrators will never be able to cross-examine their victims in the future,” Mr Porter said.

“Direct cross-examination by an alleged perpetrator can expose victims of family violence to re traumatisation and can affect their ability to give evidence. The new Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties Scheme will be available to all parties who are subject to the ban on direct cross examination – the usual legal aid means and merits tests will not apply.”

“The government has worked closely with National Legal Aid on the reforms and to accurately cost the scheme and has followed information and advice from National Legal Aid to ensure that the scheme is well designed and fully funded,” Mr Porter continued.

“These new arrangements will apply in 2019, after the courts have had an opportunity to put necessary procedural mechanisms in place. Fortunately, the current incidence of direct cross-examination of victims of family violence is rare,” he said.

“Recent research by the Australian Institute of Family Studies found that there were 173 final hearings in the federal family law courts over two years between 2015 and 2017, involving allegations of family violence where one or both parties were self-represented.”

Jerome Doraisamy

Jerome Doraisamy

Jerome Doraisamy is the managing editor of Lawyers Weekly and HR Leader. He is also the author of The Wellness Doctrines book series, an admitted solicitor in New South Wales, and a board director of the Minds Count Foundation.

You can email Jerome at: jerome.doraisamy@momentummedia.com.au 

Comments (5)
  • Avatar
    As long as the government pays for independent legal representation for the accused I see no problem with this.
    0
  • Avatar
    This should only apply to cases of proven ongoing domestic violence. Most DVO matters relate to one incident, often just a threat or pulling hair, a heated argument etc. followed by extension due to a breach, such as sending a Birthday Wish. Here is another Tool to disadvantage mostly males, ensuring that the male suicide rate keeps going up, Fathers not afforded justice in a system that is already biased.
    0
  • Avatar
    This law only destroys real victims. As someone who has been a victim of severe domestic violence, because my ex makes a few false allegations of “emotional abuse” to take out a DVO against me, I had to consent as I couldn’t afford a lawyer while on a disability pension due to my injuries and legal aid wouldn’t represent me against my ex’s choice of lawyer and without being allowed to cross examine my ex (all they would do is have a court admin person read a few prepared questions with no ability to adjust for ex’s answers.

    This ruling actually abuses the most severely abused victims - the ones whose abusers pretend to be victims.
    0
  • Avatar
    it is a ruse by lawyers to rort legal aid funding.

    45% of litigants are self-represented. Reform proposes to prevent cross-examination of "victims". Outrage. Expected compromise to provide legal aid funding to unrepresented. Judges elected by mates write blank cheques for those mates from the public treasury. Lawyers now get paid for unrepresented cases. Another revenue stream. Win - win.

    It is the same rort for FV victims in VIctoria under the FVPA.

    Never mind the fundamental principles of a 1000 years of jurisprudence, namely, the right to confront your accuser in open court is effectively being repealed.
    45% of litigants are self-represented. Reform proposes to prevent cross-examination of "victims". Outrage. Expected compromise to provide legal aid funding to unrepresented. Judges elected by mates write blank cheques for those mates from the public treasury. Lawyers now get paid for unrepresented cases. Another revenue stream. Win - win.

    It is the same rort for FV victims in VIctoria under the FVPA.

    Never mind the fundamental principles of a 1000 years of jurisprudence, namely, the right to confront your accuser in open court is effectively being repealed.
    0
  • Avatar
    What provisions and safe guards have been put in place for those accused of family violence to defend themselves against ADVO's and criminal charges and or to be properly represented in family law proceedings?

    It's all good and well to prevent direct cross examination but it necessarily means those who have limited funds and don't qualify for Legal Aid (most working mums and dads) they will no longer be able to simply accept an ADVO without admissions or plead guilty in those borderline cases - because it will mean that they can no longer represent themselves in the family law proceedings. This is going to put many victims through a whole extra world of discomfort in the criminal and ADVO Courts. Not to mention increase the legal costs and pressure on the justice system all around.

    Suggesting that they'll get a lawyer just to cross for them is ridiculous - unless you know the matter intimately you can't perform an adequate cross in family law.

    I am very concerned that this has not been properly thought through and is another example of a knee jerk quick fix that's only going to cause more problems.
    1
Avatar
Attach images by dragging & dropping or by selecting them.
The maximum file size for uploads is MB. Only files are allowed.
 
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
Posting as
You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!