Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/18705
Record ID: 644764b4-4aee-40bc-8014-db3b4bfb0897
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorKaye, Mirandaen
dc.contributor.authorBooth, Traceyen
dc.contributor.authorWangmann, Janeen
dc.date.accessioned2022-06-30T23:41:12Z-
dc.date.available2022-06-30T23:41:12Z-
dc.date.issued2019en
dc.identifier.citationVolume 42en
dc.identifier.urihttps://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/18705-
dc.description.abstractSince the early 2000s, the ability of a self-represented litigant alleged to have used domestic and family violence including sexual violence to personally cross-examine the alleged victim of that violence has been steadily restricted or prohibited across the Australian jurisdictions. These statutory limitations recognise the traumatic and negative impact such personal cross-examination can have on the<br/ >alleged victim. All Australian jurisdictions restrict such personal cross-examination in sexual offence proceedings. Many jurisdictions also impose similar limitations in proceedings for other domestic and<br/ >family violence related criminal proceedings and civil protection order proceedings. This article reveals a marked unevenness in protection for alleged victims both across and within jurisdictions.<br/ >The lack of consistency in approach and lack of uniformity in provisions across the jurisdictions means that not all victims of domestic and family violence are protected, and for those who are, the nature and extent of those protections differ.en
dc.languageenen
dc.publisherUNSW Sydneyen
dc.relation.ispartofUNSW Law Journalen
dc.source/mnt/conversions/anrows/filesen
dc.titleFamily Violence, Cross-Examination and Self-Represented Parties in the Courtroom: The Differences, Gaps and Deficienciesen
dc.typeReporten
dc.identifier.catalogid15934en
dc.subject.keywordnew_recorden
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/article/family-violence-cross-examination-and-self-represented-parties-in-the-courtroom-the-differences-gaps-and-deficienciesen
dc.identifier.sourceUNSW Law Journalen
dc.date.entered2020-01-15en
Appears in Collections:Reports

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat  
Issue-423-Booth-Kaye-and-Wangmann-14.pdfIssue-423-Booth-Kaye-and-Wangmann-14.pdf1.78 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open


Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Who's citing