In the ACT, the system as it stands has been labelled “ineffective” and “a real issue” by experts.

Experts said children who disclosed abuse, particularly sexual abuse, were questioned by multiple agencies including social workers, police and medical professionals, which could cause confusion and result in differing evidence. As a result of inconsistent evidence, perpetrators might not be charged.

South Australian Law Reform Institute at the University of Adelaide deputy director David Plater said it was well-established that repeatedly asking vulnerable parties, both children and people with intellectual disabilities, to tell their account was traumatic and ineffective.

“It is a form of secondary victimisation,” Dr Plater said.

“The accounts will almost always differ - no one tells the same story in identical terms when you repeat it - and this gives rise to fertile and unjustified defence adverse comment as to the ‘fact’ that the witness has ‘changed’ their initial account and there are inconsistencies and the witness is somehow unreliable.

“The type of complex and incoherent and repetitive legal questions often used at trial by both prosecution and defence compound these pressures and concerns.”

Dr Plater said the aim in Australia, as it was in the UK, should be to elicit one comprehensive initial account by a specially trained interviewer. He said it might not avoid cross-examination at trial but it would be a good start.

A new system, proposed by former ACT children’s commissioner Alasdair Roy, would see children interviewed once in a neutral, non-clinical environment.

As part of the Churchill Fellowship, Mr Roy travelled to the Nordic states to examine child safe and child friendly practises. The model he has proposed, based on the Barnahus or Children’s House model adopted in many of the Nordic countries, would see children and young people subject to just one recorded interview by trained professionals focused on the safety and best interests of the child.

The recorded information is also used as evidence in court so that the child or young person doesn’t have to be there.

“Compared to more traditional court proceedings the Barnahus model has been shown to cause significantly less trauma to the child or young person,” Mr Roy said.

In Iceland under the model there has been a three-fold increase in cases prosecuted against abusers due to the quality of the evidence.

Legal Aid ACT chief executive John Boersig said while courts generally endeavoured to deal with children in other ways, under the current system it was sometimes unavoidable to have them give evidence to a court.

“It happens often enough so that it is a real issue,” Mr Boersig said.

“When someone gives evidence, their credibility is on the line. The voracity of what they have to say is questioned when they’re examined and cross-examined in the same way you would find in any court proceedings. Bearing in mind, these are adults asking these questions of children who are in situations where they are obviously not comfortable, they are out of their environment, and of course children get easily confused. In this context, when people are under pressure they often don’t always give the best evidence they can.

“There is obviously an impact on the child who has to do that in those circumstances.”

Mr Boersig said Legal Aid ACT supported change in this area.

ACT children’s commissioner Jodie Griffiths-Cook said court could be “extremely traumatic” for children and young people particularly in cases of sexual abuse.

“The confrontational nature of a courtroom is daunting at the best of times but can be even more so if you are a child or young person facing the person who perpetrated the abuse upon you,” Ms Griffiths-Cook said.

She said a range of options could potentially reduce the level of trauma in addition to the Barnahus model, which could include having an interpreter supporting the child by “translating” the questions they’re being asked into appropriately simple language.

“I strongly support the exploration and use of any and all strategies that may better support children and young people to provide evidence while minimising the potential for further trauma beyond that which they have already experienced.”

ACT Attorney-General Gordon Ramsay said the ACT was a leading jurisdiction in introducing protections for vulnerable people in the court process.

“Since 2008, child witnesses in sexual offence cases have been able to give pre-recorded evidence, have their police interview played as their evidence, and have a support person with them while they give evidence,” Mr Ramsay said.

He said “regular practise” was for a child witness to provide evidence in a recorded interview at a police station, which would then be played at a pre-trial hearing.

“At the pre-trial hearing, they are cross-examined by defence counsel via audio-visual link while they sit in a remote room. That entire pre-trial hearing is recorded and then played to the jury at trial on a later date.”

“These special measures have clear benefits such as avoiding stressful delays for vulnerable witnesses, ensuring they are not in the same room as the accused person while they give evidence, and being able to use the recorded evidence again in any retrials, therefore reducing the risk of re-traumatising the witness.”

Mr Ramsay said the government would continue to work on enhancing protections and support for vulnerable people, including children and young people, in the courtroom.

He said the government was currently seeking community views on the recommendations made by the Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse at yoursay.act.gov.au