Abstract
Legal professionals and researchers have expressed concern that the cross-examination of complainants in Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) cases is unfair and can leave complainants confused, humiliated, and re-victimised. This study provided a multijurisdictional analysis of cross-examinations of 120 child, adolescent, and adult complainants in 91 Australian CSA trials. We examined (1) defence lawyers’ cross-examination practices, (2) how these varied according to complaint characteristics, and (3) whether cross-examination practices were associated with trial outcomes. Lawyers challenged the inconsistency, plausibility, reliability, and credibility of complainants’ accounts using an average of 75 specific lines of questioning per complainant. Older complainants were more intensely cross-examined about inconsistency, plausibility, and with multipurpose lines of questioning. A greater focus on reliability and credibility was associated with a higher likelihood of acquittal. Penetrative abuse claims were around three times more likely to result in convictions than non-penetrative claims, and joint trials about 10 times more likely to result in convictions than trials with a single complainant. This empirical study provides a foundation for improving the cross-examination of vulnerable complainants.