The "Good Old Days" of Courtroom Questioning: Changes in the Format of Child Cross-Examination Questions Over 60 Years

Recent decades have seen an explosion of research into children's eyewitness capabilities and resulted in legal reform to render the adversarial trial process more child friendly. Many, however, have been left with the feeling that the most intimidating legal process for child complainants-cross-examination-has not changed meaningfully despite its potential to distort children's evidence. To test this possibility, we compared the cross-examination questioning of Australian child sexual abuse complainants in the 1950s to that used in contemporary cases. We found that the format of cross-examination questions has remained largely consistent over time, with leading questions still making up the bulk of the questions asked. The changes that we did observe, however, are concerning. Cross-examination questions posed to contemporary child complainants were less likely to be open-ended and more likely to be complex, relative to those asked in the 1950s. Crucially, contemporary complainants were asked 3 times as many cross-examination questions as they were 60 years ago. These changes are likely to have detrimental effects on child complainants and their evidence and could reduce the ability of jurors to reach just outcomes in these cases.

Sharing the archive: Using web technologies for accessing, storing and re-using historical data

Historical data pose a variety of problems to those who seek statistically based understandings of the past. Quantitative historical analysis has been limited by researcher’s reliance on rigid statistics collected by individuals or agencies, or else by researcher access to small samples of raw data. Even digital technologies by themselves have not been enough to overcome the challenges of working with manuscript sources and aligning dis-aggregated data. However, by coupling the facilities enabled by the web with the enthusiasm of the public for explorations of the past, history has started to make the same strides towards big data evident in other fields. While the use of citizens to crowdsource research data was first pioneered within the sciences, a number of projects have similarly begun to draw on the help of citizen historians. This article explores the particular example of the Prosecution Project, which since 2014 has been using crowdsourced volunteers on a research collaboration to build a large-scale relational database of criminal prosecutions throughout Australia from the early 1800s to 1960s. The article outlines the opportunities and challenges faced by projects seeking to use web technologies to access, store and re-use historical data in an environment that increasingly enables creative collaborations between researchers and other users of social and historical data.

A historical comparison of Australian lawyers' strategies for cross-examining child sexual abuse complainants

Many child sexual abuse complainants find the adversarial trial process so distressing that they say they would never report abuse again. Their concerns stem largely from cross-examination, in which the lawyer acting for the accused attempts to discredit their evidence. We examined whether-and if so, how-Australian defense lawyers' approaches to cross-examining child sexual abuse complainants have changed meaningfully over the past 60 years. To do this, we systematically evaluated cases that were prosecuted in the 1950s, comparing them to a matched set of cases from the turn of the twenty-first century. Despite the intervening law reforms designed to improve complainants' experience in court, we found that, relative to their historical counterparts, contemporary child complainants of sexual abuse are actually subjected to far lengthier cross-examinations involving a much broader range of strategies and associated tactics. These findings have important implications for future legal practice and reform, and for the way in which these are evaluated.

Understanding community perspectives for advancing inclusion of trans and gender-diverse people in blood donation in Australia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Trans and gender-diverse people who wish to donate blood face significant barriers with policies and procedures differing across countries. It remains critical to explore the experiences and perspectives of trans and gender-diverse people in different locations to understand challenges in local systems. We undertook a qualitative study focussed on procedures and processes affecting trans and gender-diverse people in Australia, and their views about needed change.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Stakeholders collaborated with the researchers to refine the focus of and design the research. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 trans and gender-diverse people who were current, past or potential donors. The interviews comprised open-ended questions about donation experiences, knowledge of current policies and procedures and preferences for change. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Participants reported varied and inconsistent donation experiences. When compared with current practice, participants preferred a two-step approach to donor registration that asks for sex reported at birth followed by gender identity. However, they also expressed concern that the two-step approach could deter new donors and stressed the importance of only collecting information relevant to eligibility assessment. Participants were supportive of a gender-neutral approach to assess eligibility to donate.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights significant barriers and procedural inconsistencies for trans and gender-diverse individuals when (considering) donating blood. We recommend more inclusive practices including clear communication about data use, rigorous staff training on gender diversity, registration processes that respect all gender identities and adopting a gender-neutral approach to donor screening.