Is There a Case for the Legal Representation of Children in Sexual Assault Trials?

References

• Ambikapathy, P (2001) ‘Acting for Child Witnesses: A Proposal for Their Legal Representation in Tasmanian Criminal Cases’, unpublished manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Law Reform Commission and Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1997) Seen and Heard: Priority for Children in the Legal Process, Australian Law Reform Commission, Sydney.
   Google Scholar
• Chisholm, R (1998) ‘Children's Participation in Litigation’, paper presented at the Third National Family Court Conference, Melbourne, 20–24 October 1998, <www.familycourt.gov.au/papers/fca3/chisholm.pdf>.
   Google Scholar
• Cashmore, J & Bussey, K (1995) The Evidence of Children, Judicial Commission of New South Wales, Sydney.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Women (1996) Heroines of Fortitude: The Experiences of Women in Court as Victims of Sexual Assault, Department for Women, Sydney.
   Google Scholar
• Eastwood, C & Patton, W (2002) The Experiences of Child Complainants of Sexual Abuse in the Criminal Justice System, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, A (1996) Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Assault Victims, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Sydney.
   Google Scholar
• Ellison, L (2001) The Adversarial Process and the Vulnerable Witness, Oxford University Press, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Home Office (1998) Speaking up for Justice, Home Office, London.
   Google Scholar
• Home Office (2002) Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance for Vulnerable or Intimidated Witnesses, including Children, Home Office, London, <www.homeoffice.gov.uk/justice/legalprocess/witnesses/index.html>.
   Google Scholar
• Jörg, N, Field, S & Brants, C (1995) ‘Are Inquisitorial and Adversarial Systems Converging?’ in Harding, C, Fennel, P, Jorg, N & Swart, B (eds) Criminal Justice in Europe: A Comparative Study, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Lindenmayer, T E & Doolan, P A (1994) ‘Comments: The Role, Powers and Status of the Separate Representative’, Australian Journal of Family Law, vol 8, no 1, pp 89–95.
   Google Scholar
• Moult, K (2002) The Doors May Be Open, But What Lies Behind Those Doors? An Observation of the Workings of the Wynberg Sexual Offences Court, Institute of Criminology, University of Cape Town, <www.uct.ac.za/depts/sjrp/publicat/kelleyt.htm>.
   Google Scholar
• Parliament of Victoria, Crime Prevention Committee (1995) Combating Child Sexual Assault: An Integrated Model (First Report upon the Inquiry into Sexual Offences against Children and Adults), Government Printer, Melbourne.
   Google Scholar
• Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission (2003) Seeking Justice: An Inquiry into the Handling of Sexual Offences by the Criminal Justice System, Crime and Misconduct Commission, Brisbane.
   Google Scholar
• Queensland Law Reform Commission (2000) The Receipt of Evidence by Queensland Courts: The Evidence of Children (Report No. 55 Part 2), Queensland Law Reform Commission, Brisbane.
   Google Scholar
• The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre and The School of Law, Trinity College Dublin (1998) The Legal Process and Victims of Rape, The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, Dublin.
   Google Scholar
• Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service (1997) Final Report—Volume IV: The Paedophile Inquiry, The Government of the State of New South Wales, Sydney.
   Google Scholar
• Sadan, M, Dikweni, L & Cassiem, S (2001) Pilot Assessment: The Sexual Offences Court in Wynberg and Cape Town and Related Services, Idasa, Cape Town.
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Executive Central Research Unit (2002) Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses: Review of Provisions in Other Jurisdictions, Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.
   Google Scholar
• Standing Committee on Law and Justice, NSW Parliament, Legislative Council (2002) Report on Child Sexual Assault Prosecutions (Parliamentary Paper No. 208; Report 22), NSW Parliament, Sydney.
   Google Scholar
• Victorian Law Reform Commission (2001) Sexual Offences: Law and Procedure Discussion Paper, Victorian Law Reform Commission, Melbourne.
   Google Scholar