Cross-examining children in sexual abuse trials: How Australian criminal justice practitioners perceive judicial intervention

The quality of cross-examination in child sexual abuse trials is critical to elicit accurate evidence. In a mixed model study, we examined perceptions of Australian practitioners (i.e., judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers, police officers, and witness support officers; N = 337) of child cross-examination and judicial intervention. Each participant rated two simulated cross-examination excerpts in a 2 (complainant age: child/adolescent) × 2 (questioning: appropriate/inappropriate) × 2 (judicial intervention: present/absent) design. Questioning of a younger child was perceived as significantly less fair to both the complainant and the defendant, diminished complainant credibility, and perceived judicial sensitivity. Complainant age effects interacted with approval of questioning on fairness to the complainant and with the presence of a judicial intervention on judicial sensitivity. Questioning approval effects interacted with a judicial intervention. Even when appropriate questions were asked, the judge's proactive intervention and consideration of the complainant were deemed necessary. The findings underscored the need for proactive judicial interventions to ameliorate the detrimental effect of inappropriate cross-examination, as well as further professional training and education on developmentally appropriate questioning and psychological vulnerability of child sexual abuse complainants.