Report comment

There are no grounds on which an abusive former partner should be allowed to cross examine. The wife/husband should be subject to cross-examination but I'm behind Mr Justice Hayden completely - there are rules which advocates have to follow and which allow for robust cross-examination without it being abusive and there are provisions for McKenzie Friends and pro-bono units.
If a competent Justice Secretary was appointed with the interests of justice as a prime target, rather than cutting costs and increasing professional red tape, I am sure that there could be a cost effective system - There are only a handful of "contested cross-examinations" out of the many litigant in person hearings and if Judges were to co-ordinate hearings so that "contested cross-examinations" were all listed on the same day, then they could arrange for appropriate cover at very little cost. The party wishing cross examinations provides a statement for the advocate and draft questions and then the trained advocate can put the appropriate questions to the other party.....but nothing is free, particularly judicial salaries and civil service pensions of the freeloaders in the Department of Justice - perhaps make the cuts there rather than in Court. ........and if you think it's going to get better with online and evening courts,........... and proper means testing could also be used to make abusive well-off abusers (and well-off "contested cross-examination" complanants pay all or a contribution. I recently saw a case where both parties were litigants in person, wife accused husband of abusive cross examination and objected, but after the case, both drove off alone in their separate 3 year old Mercedes