Report comment

The most basic of rights is to confront your accuser and to cross examine witnesses.

It is not in general cross examination of abused witnesses but cross examination of allegedly abused witnesses.

A judge has a responsibility and power to prevent abusive cross examination but to prevent it altogether would remove the appearance let alone the substance of a fair trial. In the absence of funding for legal aid for both parties when there is an allegation of abuse then cross examination by the alleged abuser must be allowed. The judge must control that cross examination to prevent abuse.

In the specific case the judge allowed the mother to testify by video link with her back to the camera. Presumeably he would not have allowed the father the same if he had asked. If a witness is seeking to mislead, it must be easier without visibility of expression and body language. Had the judge already decided that abuse had most probably occured prior to cross examination in order to grant this to the mother, or would he allow it simply on the basis of any accusation however tenuous? It seems to me that his action in allowing the mother to testify in this way could be seen as both evidence of prejudice and prejudicial in effect.

I have seen statistics that since legal aid in private family law was removed except where there are allegations of dometic violence (and then only to the accuser) that such allegations have increased by nearly a factor of four.

This is strongly suggestive that the overwhelming number of such accusations are false and the true victim in the majority of cases is not the accuser but the accused. He (and it will nearly always be he) will be permenantly tarnished by the accusation alone, he will be disadvantaged unless wealthy by having to represent himself and if this judge has his way he will not even be able to cross examine his accuser.

I can't see how a judge can not only advocate something so contrary to the most basic of principles but state that he will refuse to allow cross examination and be seen as a proper person
to be a judge.