Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reform Measures: The Devil Is in the Detail

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Closing the Justice Gap for Adult and Child Sexual Assault

  • 1003 Accesses

Abstract

As someone who has been actively involved in law reform for over two decades, the following parental experience reveals the problems faced by law reformers when they set out a reform agenda.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Lord Chief Justice 2013, Toulmin Lecture, Half a Century of Change: The Evidence of Child Victims, King’s College London; cited in Judicial College (2013–2019: 2).

  2. 2.

    See also Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, s 95.

  3. 3.

    Representations by the author to the NSW Government in 2015 saw the appointment of two specialist judges to the NSW District Court to sit on CSA trials; https://www.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/media-news/media-releases/2015/New-specialist-judges-support-victims-child-sexual-assault.aspx, accessed 7 March 2019.

  4. 4.

    Using the wording of s 278.2(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

  5. 5.

    See YJCE Act, s 26.

  6. 6.

    See, e.g., Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 306B; 306I.

  7. 7.

    In 2004 a comprehensive British study found there was no evidence that conviction rates were affected by the availability of special measures for vulnerable witnesses (Hamlyn et al., 2004). Two Australian studies confirmed these findings. Taylor and Joudo (2005) found that the mode of presentation of evidence had no impact on mock jurors’ perceptions of the defendant, the complainant or the defendant’s guilt. Similar findings were reported by Cashmore and Trimboli (2006) who found that a majority of actual jurors from 22 child sexual assault trials did not have a negative reaction to viewing a child’s pre-recorded interview (as evidence-in-chief), or to a child giving evidence via CCTV. Out of 241 jurors, 84% stated that ‘the pre-recorded tape of the child’s evidence-in-chief helped either “a lot” … or “quite a bit” … in understanding the child’s evidence’ (ibid., 5). With regard to the police interview being used as evidence-in-chief, jurors appreciated seeing the child give a first-hand account in their own words close to the time when the report was first made. In addition, 90.3% of 277 jurors in 25 trials considered the use of CCTV as ‘quite fair’ or ‘very fair’ to the complainant, while 88% held the same views in relation to the defendant (ibid., 6). There was also a high level of understanding by jurors about the reasons for using CCTV such as the need to reduce the stress on the child, provide a safe environment for the child, the child’s age, the nature of the alleged offence or the relationship between defendant and complainant. While this study did not examine the use of pre-recorded cross-examination, there is no reason to expect jurors would react differently to that aspect of a child’s evidence. See also Ellison and Munro (2014).

  8. 8.

    Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), ss 369–370; Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 21AK; Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 106I; Evidence Act 1929 (SA), s 13; Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT), s 40S; Evidence Act 1939 (NT), ss 21A–21B.

  9. 9.

    Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 306U.

  10. 10.

    Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 21A(1).

  11. 11.

    Evidence Act 1929 (SA), s 4.

  12. 12.

    https://www.icca.ac.uk/advocacy-the-vulnerable, accessed 30 March 2019.

  13. 13.

    https://www.icca.ac.uk/advocacy-the-vulnerable, accessed 30 March 2019.

  14. 14.

    Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW); Youth Justice Act 2018 (NT); Dispute Resolution Centre Act 1990 (Qld); Young Offenders Act 1993 (SA); Youth Justice Act 1997 (Tas); Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic); Young Offenders Act 1994 (WA).

  15. 15.

    Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW), ss 8 and 35. This Act established a youth conferencing scheme. Section 8(2)(d) and (e) excludes the following sex offences ‘under section 61E, 61L, 61M, 61N, 61O (1), (1A) or (2), 66C, 66D, 80, 81A or 81B of the Crimes Act 1900’ and ‘an offence under the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007’.

  16. 16.

    Youth Justice Act 2018 (NT), s 39(3) excludes, serious offences as prescribed by the regulations, such as murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, terrorism offences, other violent offences and sexual offences.

  17. 17.

    In Victoria, no offences are specifically excluded under the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, although in practice serious offences, such as murder, manslaughter, serious violent crimes and sex offences are excluded from conferencing. The Victorian Law Reform Commission (2016) made a recommendation to enact a statutory scheme for restorative justice conferencing for indictable offences where a decision is made to discontinue a prosecution or after a guilty plea and before sentencing. However, it was recommended that the scheme should only be extended to sexual violence and family violence offences at a later stage (Recommendations 32, 33 and 34).

  18. 18.

    Young Offenders Act 1994 (WA), s 25.

  19. 19.

    Crimes (Restorative Justice) Act 2004 (ACT), ss 14(3) and 16.

References

  • Anderson, P. S. (2016). When justice and forgiveness come apart: A feminist perspective on restorative justice and intimate violence. Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, 5, 113–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Law Reform Commission. (2010a). Family violence: A national legal response (ALRC Report No. 114). Sydney: ALRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Law Reform Commission. (2010b). Family violence: Improving legal frameworks (Consultation Paper). Sydney: ALRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baverstock, J. (2016). Process evaluation of pre-recorded cross-examination scheme (Section 28). London: Ministry of Justice. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/process-evaluation-of-pre-recorded-cross-examination-pilot-section-28.

  • Bolitho, J., & Freeman, K. (2016). The use and effectiveness of restorative justice in criminal justice systems following child sexual abuse or comparable harms. Sydney: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J. (2002). Setting standards for restorative justice. British Journal of Criminology, 42, 563–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. (2011). We mind and we care but have things changed? Assessment of progress in the reporting, investigating and prosecution of allegations of rape. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 17, 263–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, C. (2014). ‘This Bitch Got Drunk and Did This to Herself’: Proposed evidentiary reforms to limit ‘victim blaming’ and ‘perpetrator pardoning’ in rape by intoxication trials in California. Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society, 29, 285–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caruso, D. (2012). Proposed reforms for the cross-examination of child witnesses and the reception and treatment of their evidence. Journal of Judicial Administration, 21, 191–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cashmore, J., Taylor, A., & Parkinson, P. (2017). The characteristics of reports to the police of child sexual abuse and the likelihood of cases proceeding to prosecution after delays in reporting. Child Sexual Abuse & Neglect, 74, 49–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cashmore, J., & Trimboli, L. (2006). Child sexual assault trials: A survey of juror perceptions. Crime and Justice Bulletin, 102, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, J. (2014). Independent legal representation for complainers in sexual offence cases. In J. Chalmers, F. Leverick, & A. Shaw (Eds.), Post corroboration safeguards review report of the academic expert group (pp. 185–189). Edinburgh: The Scottish Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comiskey, M. (2010). Initiating dialogue about jury comprehension of legal concepts: Can the ‘stagnant pool’ be revitalised? Queen’s Law Journal, 35, 625–677.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, D. A., Coburn, P. I., & Chong, K. (2017). Twenty-six years prosecuting historical child sexual abuse cases: Has anything changed? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23, 166–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, K. (2011). Rape investigation and prosecution: Stuck in the mud? Journal of Sexual Aggression, 17, 250–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cossins, A. (2006a). Prosecuting child sexual assault cases: Are vulnerable witness protections enough? Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 18, 299–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cossins, A. (2006b). Prosecuting child sexual assault cases: To specialise or not, that is the question. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 18, 318–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cossins, A. (2008). Children, sexual abuse and suggestibility: What laypeople think they know and what the literature tells us. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 15, 153–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cossins, A. (2010a). Alternative models for prosecuting child sex offences in Australia. Sydney: National Child Sexual Assault Reform Committee, UNSW.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cossins, A. (2013a). Expert witness evidence in sexual assault trials: Questions, answers and law reform in Australia and England. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 17, 74–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cossins, A. (2013b). The legacy of the Makin case 120 years on: Legal fictions, circular reasoning and some solutions. Sydney Law Review, 35, 731–759.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cossins, A., Goodman-Delahunty, J., & O‘Brien, K. (2009). Uncertainty and misconceptions about child sexual abuse: Implications for the criminal justice system. Psychiatry, Psychology & Law, 16, 435–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cossins, A., & Rowden, E. (2020). The child sexual assault trial: Redesigning courtroom spaces according to trauma informed principles. In K. Duncanson & E. Henderson (Eds.), Courthouse design and social justice. London: Routledge (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, K. (2006). Restorative justice and sexual assault: An archival study of court and conference cases. British Journal of Criminology, 46, 334–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, K. (2008). Setting the record straight and a call for radical change: A reply to Annie Cossins on ‘Restorative justice and child sex offences’. British Journal of Criminology, 48, 557–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, K. (2011). Conventional and innovative justice responses to sexual violence (Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault, Issue 12). Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, K. (2016). What is restorative justice? Fresh answers to a vexed question. Victims & Offenders, 11, 9–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, K. (2017). Sexual violence and victims’ justice interests. In E. Zinsstag & M. Keenan (Eds.), Sexual violence and restorative justice: Legal social and therapeutic dimensions (pp. 108–140). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, K., & Bouhours, B. (2010). Rape and attrition in the legal process: A comparative analysis of five countries. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, K., & Curtis-Fawley, S. (2006). Justice for victims of sexual assault: Court or conference? In K. Heimer & C. Kruttschnitt (Eds.), Gender and crime: Patterns of victimization and offending (pp. 230–265). New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, K., Curtis-Fawley, S., & Bouhours, B. (2003). Sexual offence cases finalised in court, by conference, and by formal caution in South Australia for young offenders, 1995–2001: Final report. Brisbane: School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University. https://www.gu.edu.au/school/ccj/kdaly.html.

  • Daly, K., & Wade, D. (2017). Sibling sexual violence and victims’ justice interests: A comparison of youth conferencing and judicial sentencing. In E. Zinsstag & M. Keenan (Eds.), Restorative responses to sexual violence: Legal social and therapeutic dimensions (pp. 143–178). New York: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dent, H. (1992). The effects of age and intelligence on eyewitnessing ability. In H. Dent & R. Flin (Eds.), Children as witnesses (pp. 1–13). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devine, D. J. (2012). Jury decision making: The state of the science. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devine, D. J., & Caughlin, D. E. (2014). Do they matter? A meta-analytic investigation of individual characteristics and guilt judgments. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 109–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. D., Seying, R., & Pryce, J. (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 622–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dignan, J. (2005). Understanding victims and restorative justice. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinos, S., Burrowes, N., Hammond, K., & Cunliffe, C. (2015). A systematic review of juries’ assessment of rape victims: Do rape myths impact on juror decision-making? International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 43, 36–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, D. E., Bjelajac, P., Fallot, R. D., Markoff, L. S., & Reed, B. G. (2005). Trauma-informed or trauma-denied: Principles and implementation of trauma-informed services for women. Journal of Community Psychology, 33, 461–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, L., & Munro, V. E. (2009). Turning mirrors into windows? Assessing the impact of (mock) juror education in rape trials. British Journal of Criminology, 49, 363–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, L., & Munro, V. E. (2014). A ‘special’ delivery? Exploring the impact of screens, live-links and video-recorded evidence on mock juror deliberation in rape trials. Social & Legal Studies, 23, 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, A., & Henry, N. (2012). Disputing consent: The role of jury directions in Victoria. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 24, 167–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frohmann, L., & Mertz, E. (1995). Legal reform and social construction: Violence, gender, and the law. Law and Social Inquiry, 19, 829–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geddie, L., Fradin, S., & Beer, J. (2000). Child characteristics which impact accuracy of recall and suggestibility in preschoolers: Is age the best predictor? Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 223–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghetti, S., Goodman, G. S., Eisen, M. L., Qin, J., & Davis, S. L. (2002). Consistency in children’s reports of sexual and physical abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 26, 977–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibb, F. (2007, November 27). Juries to be warned of rape victim ‘myth’. The Times. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/juries-to-be-warned-of-rape-victim-myth-3wv7k9dlrpc.

  • Godden-Rasul, N. (2017). Repairing the harms of rape of women through restorative justice. In E. Zinsstag & M. Keenan (Eds.), Restorative responses to sexual violence: Legal social and therapeutic dimensions (pp. 15–27). New York: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman-Delahunty, J., Cossins, A., & Martschuk, N. (2014). Persistent misconceptions about child sexual assault abuse: The impact of specialized educative information and deliberation on mock-jurors. In K. C. Haung (Ed.), Proceedings of the third international conference of empirical studies of judicial systems: Citizen participation around the world. Taipei, Taiwan: Academia Sinica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman-Delahunty, J., Cossins, A., & Martschuk, N. (2016). Jury reasoning in joint and separate trials of institutional child sexual abuse: An empirical study. Sydney: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman-Delahunty, J., Cossins, A., & O’Brien, K. (2010). Enhancing the credibility of complainants in child sexual assault trials: The effect of expert evidence and judicial directions. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28, 769–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman-Delahunty, J., Cossins, A., & O’Brien, K. (2011). A comparison of expert evidence and judicial directions to counter misconceptions in child sexual abuse trials. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 44, 196–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haegerich, T. M., & Bottoms, B. L. (2000). Empathy and jurors’ decisions in trials involving child sexual assault allegations. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 421–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haegerich, T. M., Salerno, J. M., & Bottoms, B. L. (2013). Are the effects of juvenile offender stereotypes maximized or minimized by jury deliberation? Psychology, Public Policy & Law, 19, 81–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamlyn, B., Phelps, A., Turtle, J., & Sattar, G. (2004). Are special measures working? Evidence from surveys of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses (Home Office Research Study 283). London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, M., & Fallot, R. D. (2001). Envisioning a trauma-informed service system: A vital paradigm shift. New Directions for Mental Health Services, 89, 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, E. (2014). All the proper protections—The Court of Appeal rewrites the rules of the cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses. Criminal Law Review, 2, 93–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, E. (2015). Theoretically speaking: English judges and advocates discuss the changing theory of cross-examination. Criminal Law Review, 12, 929–948.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, E., & Duncanson, K. (2016). A little judicial direction: Can the use of jury directions challenge traditional consent narratives in rape trials? The University of New South Wales Law Journal, 39, 750–778.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, J. (2005). Justice from the victim’s perspective. Violence Against Women, 11, 571–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HM CPS Inspectorate and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary. (2012). Joint inspection report on the experience of young victims and witnesses in the CJS. London: HMIC & HMCPSI.

    Google Scholar 

  • HM Government. (2018). Victims strategy. London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons, Justice Committee. (2016). Restorative justice: Fourth report of session 2016–17. London: House of Commons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, H. (2012). Children’s evidence in legal proceedings—The position in Western Australia. In J. R. Spencer & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Children and cross-examination: Time to change the rules (pp. 75–94). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. (2009). Does Forum Sentencing Reduce Re-Offending? Report No. 129. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, J. (2011). Here we go round the review-go-round: Rape investigation and prosecution—Are things getting worse not better? Journal of Sexual Aggression, 17, 234–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyce-Wojtas, N., & Keenan, M. (2016). Is restorative justice for sexual crime compatible with various criminal justice systems? Contemporary Justice Review, 19, 43–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judicial College. (2013–2019). Equal treatment bench book. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/equal-treatment-bench-book-february2018-v5-02mar18.pdf.

  • Judicial Commission of NSW. (2006–2017). Equality before the law bench book. Sydney: Judicial Commission of NSW. https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Equality_before_the_Law_Bench_Book.pdf.

  • Jülich, S. (2006). Views of justice among survivors of historical child sexual abuse. Theoretical Criminology, 10, 125–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jülich, S., & Bowen, H. (2015). Restorative justice in Aotearoa, New Zealand: Improving our response to sexual violence. Revista De Asistenta Sociala, 14, 93–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jülich, S., & Landon, F. (2017). Achieving justice outcomes: Participants of Project Restore’s restorative processes. In E. Zinsstag & M. Keenan (Eds.), Restorative responses to sexual violence: Legal, social and therapeutic dimensions (pp. 192–212). New York: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kasparian, A. (2014). Justice beyond bars: Exploring the restorative justice alternative for victims of rape and sexual assault. Suffolk Transnational Law Review, 37, 377–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keenan, M., & Zinsstag, E. (2014). Restorative justice and sexual offences: Can ‘changing lenses’ be appropriate in this case too? Monatsschrift for Criminology, 97, 93–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koss, M. P. (2014). The RESTORE program of restorative justice for sex crimes: Vision, process, and outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 1623–1660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KPMG. (2010). Review of the Youth Justice Group Conferencing Program: Final Report. Melbourne: Department of Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, J. (2014). Restorative justice in the Australian criminal justice system (Research and Public Policy Series No. 127). Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. https://aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/rpp127.

  • Law Commission, New Zealand. (1999). Juries in criminal trials part two: A discussion paper, preliminary paper 37—Volume 1. Law Commission, New Zealand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lievore, D. (2005a). Prosecutorial decisions in adult sexual assault cases (Trends and Issues in Crime & Criminal Justice, No. 291, pp. 1–6).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lievore, D. (2005b). No longer silent: A study of women’s help-seeking decisions and service responses to sexual assault. Canberra, Australian Institute of Criminology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, F., & Wager, N. M. (2015). Restorative justice in cases of sexual violence: Exploring the views of the public and survivors. Probation Journal, 62, 336–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McElrea, F. W. M. (1998). The New Zealand model of family group conferencing. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 6, 527–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGlynn, C. (2017). Rape trials and sexual history evidence: Reforming the law on third-party evidence. The Journal of Criminal Law, 81, 367–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGlynn, C., Westmarland, N., & Godden, N. (2012). I just wanted him to hear me: Sexual Violence and the possibilities of restorative justice. Journal of Law and Society, 39, 213–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, S. L., & Iovanni, L. (2013). Using restorative justice for gendered violence: Success with a post-conviction model. Feminist Criminology, 8, 247–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice. (2014). Report on review of ways to reduce distress of victims in trials of sexual violence. London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice. (2017). Press release: Greater protection for rape victims and children at risk of grooming. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/greater-protection-for-rape-victims-and-children-at-risk-of-grooming.

  • Naylor, B. (2010). Effective justice for victims of sexual assault: Taking up the debate on alternative pathways. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 33, 662–684.

    Google Scholar 

  • NSW Criminal Justice and Sexual Offences Taskforce. (2005). Responding to sexual assault: The way forward. Sydney: Attorney-General’s Department of NSW.

    Google Scholar 

  • NSW Joint Select Committee on Sentencing of Child Sexual Assault Offenders. (2014). Every sentence tells a story—Report on sentencing of child sexual assault offenders (Report No. 1/55). Sydney: Parliament of NSW.

    Google Scholar 

  • NSW Law Reform Commission. (2012). Jury Directions (Report No. 136). Sydney: NSW Law Reform Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • NSW Standing Committee on Law and Justice. (2002). Report on child sexual assault prosecutions (Parliamentary Paper No. 208; Report No. 22). Sydney: Parliament of NSW.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Mahony, D., & Doak, J. (2017). Reimagining restorative justice: Agency and accountability in the criminal process. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pether, P. (2009). What is due to others: Speaking and signifying subject(s) of rape law. Griffith Law Review, 18, 237–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plotnikoff, J., & Woolfson, R. (2015). Intermediaries in the criminal justice system: Improving communication for vulnerable witnesses and defendants. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Poynton, S. (2013). Rates of recidivism among offenders referred to Forum Sentencing. Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, 172, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proietti-Scifoni, G., & Daly, K. (2011). Gendered violence and restorative justice: The views of New Zealand Opinion Leaders. Contemporary Justice Review, 14, 269–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Queensland Law Reform Commission. (2009). A review of jury directions (Report No. 66). Brisbane: Queensland Law Reform Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raitt, F. E. (2010). Independent legal representation for complainants in rape trials. In C. McGlynn & V. E. Munro (Eds.), Rethinking rape law: International and comparative perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. (2015). The experience of the child witness: Legal and psychological issue. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 42–43, 168–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rook, P., Rafferty, A., & Ward, R. (2016) Advocacy and the vulnerable. In P. Rook & R. Ward (Eds.), Rook & ward on sexual offences: Law & practice (5th ed., pp. 1553–1568). London: Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. (2017a). Final report: Nature and cause (Vol. 2). Sydney: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. (2017b). Criminal justice report (Executive Summary and Parts I–II). Sydney: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. (2017c). Criminal justice report (Parts VII–X and Appendices). Sydney: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossner, M., Bruce, J., & Meher, M. (2013). The Process and Dynamics of Restorative Justice: Research on Forum Sentencing: Final Report Prepared for NSW Department of Attorney General’s and Justice. Sydney: University of Western Sydney and University of New South Wales.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, D. (2012). More problems with criminal trials: The limited effectiveness of legal mechanisms. Law and Contemporary Problems, 75, 167–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, N., & Weatherburn, D. (2012). Youth justice conferences versus Children’s Court: A comparison of re-offending. Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, 160, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, J. R., & Lamb, M. (2012). Children and cross-examination: Time to change the rules?. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Intergovernmental Agreements. (1996). Evidence law: Eighteenth report in the thirty-fourth parliament. Perth: Legislative Assembly of Western Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Standing Council on Law and Justice. (2013). Guidelines for restorative justice processes in criminal cases. Sydney: Standing Council on Law and Justice. http://www.sclj.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/sclj/restorative%20justice%20national%20guidelines.pdf.

  • Steblay, N., Hosch, H. M., Culhane, S. E., & McWethy, A. (2006). The impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 469–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, D. N., & Jacquin, K. M. (2010). Juror perceptions in a rape trial: Examining the complainant’s ingestion of chemical substances prior to sexual assault. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19, 853–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strang, H., Sherman, L. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., Woods, D., & Ariel, B. (2013). Restorative justice conferencing (RJC) Using face-to-face meetings of offenders and victims: Effects on offender recidivism and victim satisfaction. A systematic review. Oslo: Campbell Collaboration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strang, H., & Braithwaite, J. (2017). Restorative Justice: Philosophy to Practice. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs, J. (2007). Beyond apology? Domestic violence and critical questions for restorative justice. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 7, 169–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, N., & Joudo, J. (2005) The impact of pre-recorded video and closed circuit television testimony by adult sexual assault complainants on jury decision-making: An experimental study (Research and Public Policy Series No. 68). Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Temkin, J., & Krahé, B. (2008). Sexual assault and the justice gap: A question of attitude. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, C. (2010). Are juries fair? (Ministry of Justice Research Series No. 1/10). London: Ministry of Justice. https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/are-juries-fair-research.pdf.

  • Trimboli, L. (2008). Juror understanding of judicial instructions in criminal trials (Crime and Justice Bulletin, No. 119). Sydney: Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Victims Commissioner Office. (2016). A question of quality: A Review of restorative justice part 1—Service providers. https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/victcomm2-prod-storage-119w3o4kq2z48/uploads/2019/02/VC-Restorative-Justice-Part-1-Service-Providers-Review-2016.pdf.

  • Victims Services, NSW Department of Justice (2016) Children’s Champion (Witness Intermediary) Procedural Guidance Manual (2016), Sydney, NSW Department of Justice (https://www.victimsservices.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/child-champ_manual.pdf).

  • Victorian Law Reform Commission. (2016). The role of victims of crime in the criminal trial process (Report No. 34). Melbourne: Victorian Law Reform Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Ness, D. W., & Strong, K. H. (2015). Restoring Justice: An Introduction to Restorative Justice. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wager, N. (2013). The experience and insight of survivors who have engaged in a restorative justice meeting with their assailant. Temida, 16, 11–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willmott, D., Boduszek, D., & Booth, N. (2017). The English jury on trial. Custodial Review, 82, 12–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, L. C. (2005). Independent legal representation for victims of sexual assault: A model for delivery of legal services. Windsor Year Book Access to Justice, 23, 249–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woessner, G. (2017). On the relationship between restorative justice and therapy in cases of sexual violence. In E. Zinsstag & M. Keenan (Eds.), Restorative responses to sexual violence: Legal social and therapeutic dimensions (pp. 248–265). New York: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zajac, R., & O’Neill, S. (2013). The role of repeated interviewing in children’s responses to cross-examination-style questioning. British Journal of Psychology, 104, 14–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zehr, H., & Mika, H. (1998). Fundamental concepts of restorative justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 1, 47–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zinsstag, E., & Keenan, M. (Eds.). (2017). Sexual violence and restorative justice: Legal, social and therapeutic dimensions. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Honorary Professor and former Professor of Law and Criminology Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

    Anne Cossins

Authors
  1. Anne Cossins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne Cossins .

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Cossins, A. (2020). Reform Measures: The Devil Is in the Detail. In: Closing the Justice Gap for Adult and Child Sexual Assault. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-32051-3_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-32051-3_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-32050-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-32051-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation