Abstract
A common theme in the literature on rape trials is that complainants in such cases are routinely subjected to forms of questioning by defence counsel that would rarely, if ever, be utilized in other trial contexts. This paper critically examines this assumption, drawing upon a comparative study of transcripts of assault and rape trials conducted in the Melbourne County Court between 1989 and 1991. The paper concludes that, while the rape trials undoubtedly had some unique features, there were also strong similarities in the way in which complainants in the two types of trials were cross-examined. These findings suggest that a proper understanding of rape trials can only be obtained through comparative analysis, and by giving due explanatory weight to factors such as the constraints imposed by adversarial processes and structures, the structure and logic of legal language and techniques, and the assumptions which lawyers and judges make about what is relevant evidence
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
