|
|
|
|
 |
Where am I now? Lawlink > Law Reform Commission > Publications > Report 101 (2003) - Questioning of complainants by unrepresented accused in sexual offence trials
Report 101 (2003) - Questioning of complainants by unrepresented accused in sexual offence trials Terms of reference Participants Recommendations
Issues Paper 22 Recent consideration of the issue by the Government THE ISSUES
Reasons for self-representation The structure of this Report 2. The nature of sexual offence proceedings THE DISTINCTIVE NATURE OF SEXUAL OFFENCE TRIALS
Focus on complainant’s credibility Relationship between complainant and accused RESPONDING TO THE DISTINCTIVE NATURE OF SEXUAL OFFENCE TRIALS
Cross-examination in person by an unrepresented accused 3. Prohibition on cross-examination
The role of cross-examination Limitations on questioning THE REQUIREMENTS OF A FAIR TRIAL
Self-representation Cross-examination THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST PROHIBITION
The case for prohibition Prohibition or alternative arrangements? THE COMMISSION’S VIEW A DISCRETION TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION IN PERSON
Arguments against a discretion The Commission’s view TO WHOM SHOULD THE PROHIBITION APPLY?
A broader application The Commission’s view PROCEEDINGS COVERED BY THE PROHIBITION
Sexual offence proceedings involving children Which stages of the criminal process? 5. Procedure TESTING THE COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE
Who should ask the questions? The Commission’s view THE ROLE OF THE LEGAL PRACTITIONER
Where the accused is unwilling to provide legal representation IMPACT OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS
The rule in Browne v Dunn Effect on the jury 6. Alternative arrangements WHAT ARE “ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENTS”?
Adult witnesses Use of alternative arrangements in practice ARE CURRENT PROVISIONS ADEQUATE?
Impact on the fairness of the trial VIEWS IN PREVIOUS INQUIRIES AND IN SUBMISSIONS APPENDICES |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
