Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T15:27:43.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Prosecutorial Decision-Making in Cases of Child Sexual Abuse

Lessons from Australia

from Part II - Pretrial Phase Decision-Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2024

By
Jane Goodman-Delahunty ,
Judy Cashmore  and
Natali Dilevski
Edited by
Monica K. Miller ,
Logan A. Yelderman ,
Matthew T. Huss  and
Jason A. Cantone
Monica K. Miller
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Reno
Logan A. Yelderman
Affiliation:
Prairie View A & M University, Texas
Matthew T. Huss
Affiliation:
Creighton University, Omaha
Jason A. Cantone
Affiliation:
George Mason University, Virginia
Get access

Summary

Prosecutors’ decisions in common law jurisdictions remain understudied. Drawing on examples in Australian cases of child sexual abuse, this chapter provides insights into case attrition or advancement at the discretion of the prosecution. We discuss contextual factors that support this expanding area of prosecutorial practice, including legislation, available special measures for vulnerable complainants, and recommendations of the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. We review factors that influence decisions on charges, whether a case proceeds, plea negotiation, jury versus judge-alone trials, and joint trials. These factors include the age difference between complainants and offenders, the time lapse between alleged offending and reporting, the quality of prerecorded interviews, and the amount of evidence. Recent research and developments affecting decisions by prosecutors about evidence by the complainant and expert witnesses in CSA trials are summarized. We conclude with suggestions for future research to expand understanding of the role of prosecutors’ decisions in this discrete area of criminal justice process.

Keywords

Australiachild sexual abusediscretionprosecutorspecial measures
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making , pp. 240 - 258
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albonetti, C. A. (1986). Criminality, prosecutorial screening, and uncertainty: Toward a theory of discretionary decision making in felony case processing. Criminology, 24(4), 623–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1986.tb01505.x.Google Scholar
Australian Law Reform Commission, New South Wales Law Reform Commission & Victorian Law Reform Commission. (2005). Uniform evidence law report. Australian Law Reform Commission.Google Scholar
Aziz (a pseudonym) v. R (2022) NSWCCA 76.Google Scholar
Block, S. D., Johnson, H. M., Williams, L. M., Shockley, K. L., Wang, E., & Widaman, K. F. (2023). Predictors of prosecutorial decisions in reports of child sexual abuse. Child Maltreatment, 28(3), 488–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/10775595221074375.Google Scholar
Boxall, H., & Fuller, G. (2016). Brief review of contemporary sexual offence and child sexual abuse legislation in Australia: 2015 update. Australian Institute of Criminology.Google Scholar
Brewer, K. D., Rowe, D. M., & Brewer, D. D. (1997). Factors related to prosecution of child sexual abuse cases. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 6(1), 91–111. https://doi.org/10.1300/J070v06n01_07.Google Scholar
Bunting, L. (2008). Sexual offences against children: An exploration of attrition in the Northern Ireland criminal justice system. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(12), 1109–1118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.09.002.Google Scholar
Bunting, L. A. (2014). Exploring the influence of reporting delay on criminal justice outcomes: Comparing child and adult reporters of childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 23(5), 577–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2014.920457.Google Scholar
Burrows, K. S., & Powell, M. B. (2014a). Prosecutors’ recommendations for improving child witness statements about sexual abuse. Policing & Society, 24(2), 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2013.784305.Google Scholar
Burrows, K. S., & Powell, M. B. (2014b). Prosecutors’ perspectives on using recorded child witness interviews about abuse as evidence-in-chief. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 47(3), 374–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865814522821.Google Scholar
Burrows, K. S., & Powell, M. B. (2015). Prosecutors’ perspectives on clarifying sexual acts in child abuse interviews. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 22(6), 903–911. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2015.1019332.Google Scholar
Burrows, K. S., Powell, M. B., & Anglim, J. (2013). Facilitating child witness interviewers’ understanding of evidential requirements through prosecutor instruction. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 15(4), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1350/ijps.2013.15.4.316.Google Scholar
Cashmore, J. (Principal Investigator). (2016–2022). Threshold decisions in determining whether to prosecute child sexual abuse (Discovery Project No. 160103688.) [Grant]. Australian Research Council. www.arc.gov.au/grants/discovery-program/discovery-projects.Google Scholar
Cashmore, J. (2017). Child witnesses. In Young, L., Kenny, M. A., & Monahan, G. (Eds.), Children and the law in Australia (2nd ed.) (pp. 563–586). LexisNexis Butterworths.Google Scholar
Cashmore, J. & Shackel, R. (2018). Evaluation of the Child Sexual Offence Evidence Pilot: Final outcome evaluation report. Victims Services, NSW Department of Justice. https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/sexual_assault/articles/Cashmore-Child_sexual_offence_evidence_pilot_final_outcome_evaluation_report_24Aug2018.pdf.Google Scholar
Cashmore, J., Taylor, A., & Parkinson, P. (2017). The characteristics of reports to the police of child sexual abuse and the likelihood of cases proceeding to prosecution after delays in reporting. Child Abuse & Neglect, 74, 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.07.006.Google Scholar
Cashmore, J., Taylor, A., & Parkinson, P. (2020). Fourteen-year trends in the criminal justice response to child sexual abuse reports in New South Wales. Child Maltreatment, 25(1), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559519853042.Google Scholar
Cossins, A. (2006). Prosecuting child sexual assault cases: Are vulnerable witness protections enough? Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 18(2), 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2006.12036391.Google Scholar
Cossins, A. (2009). Cross-examination in child sexual assault trials: Evidentiary safeguard or an opportunity to confuse? Melbourne University Law Review, 33(1), 68–104.Google Scholar
Cossins, A., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2017). The application of the Uniform Evidence Law to delay in child sexual assault trials. In Roberts, A. & Gans, J. (Eds.), Critical perspectives on the Uniform Evidence Law (pp. 104–124). Federation Press.Google Scholar
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1986-209.Google Scholar
Cowdery, N. (2022). Discretion in criminal justice. LexisNexis.Google Scholar
Cross, T. P., De Vos, E., & Whitcomb, D. (1994). Prosecution of child sexual abuse: Which cases are accepted? Child Abuse & Neglect, 18(8), 663–677.Google Scholar
Daly, K., & Bouhours, B. (2010). Rape and attrition in the legal process: A comparative analysis of five countries. Crime and Justice, 39(1), 565–650. https://doi.org/10.1086/653101.Google Scholar
Duron, J. F. (2018). Legal decision-making in child sexual abuse investigations: A mixed–methods study of factors that influence prosecution. Child Abuse & Neglect, 79, 302–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.02.022.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, T., Hannaford-Agor, P. L., Hans, V. P., & Waters, N. L. (2005). Judge-jury agreement in criminal cases: A partial replication of Kalven and Zeisel’s The American Jury. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2(1), 171–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2005.00035.x.Google Scholar
Freckelton, I., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Horan, J., & McKimmie, B. (2016). Expert evidence and criminal jury trials. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gittos, L. (2016). Complaints of sexual abuse and the decline of objective prosecuting. In Burnett, R. (Ed.), Wrongful allegations of sexual and child abuse (pp. 191–203). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2019, April). Adducing evidence of historical child sexual abuse: Memory research and counter-intuitive behaviour by complainants. Invited address at the Annual Crown Prosecutors’ Conference, Manly, NSW, Australia.Google Scholar
Goodman-Delahunty, J., Cossins, A., & Martschuk, N. (2016). Jury reasoning in separate and joint trials of institutional child sexual abuse: An empirical study. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.Google Scholar
Goodman-Delahunty, J., Granhag, P. A., Hartwig, M., & Loftus, E. F. (2010). Insightful or wishful: Lawyers’ ability to predict case outcomes. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(2), 133–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019060.Google Scholar
Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Martschuk, N. (2020). Mock jury and juror responses to uncharged acts of sexual misconduct: Advances in the assessment of unfair prejudice. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 228(3), 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000410.Google Scholar
Goodman-Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N., & Cossins, A. (2016). Programmatic pretest-posttest research to reduce jury bias in child sexual abuse cases. Onati Socio-Legal Series, 6(2), 283–214.Google Scholar
Goodman-Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N., & Cossins, A. (2017a). What Australian jurors know and do not know about evidence in child sexual abuse cases. Criminal Law Journal, 41, 86–103.Google Scholar
Goodman-Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N., & Cossins, A. (2017b). Validation of the Child Sexual Abuse Knowledge Questionnaire. Psychology, Crime and Law, 23(4), 391–412. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1068316X.2016.1258469.Google Scholar
Goodman-Delahunty, J., Martschuk, M., Lee, E., & Cossins, A. (2021). Greater knowledge enhances complainant credibility and increases jury convictions for child sexual assault. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 624331. https://10.3389/fpsyg.2021.624331.Google Scholar
Goodman-Delahunty, J., Martschuk, M., & Nolan, M. (2020). Memory science and the Pell appeals: Impossibility, timing, and inconsistencies. Criminal Law Journal, 44(4), 232–246.Google Scholar
Goodman-Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N., Powell, M. B., & Westera, N. (2018). Prosecutorial discretion about special measure use in Australian cases of child sexual abuse. In Colvin, V. & Stenning, P. (Eds.), The evolving role of the public prosecutor: Challenges and innovations (pp. 169–187). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429467547-12.Google Scholar
Goodman-Delahunty, J., Nolan, M, & van Gijn-Grosvenor, E. (2017c). Empirical guidance on the effects of childhood sexual abuse on memory and complainants’ evidence. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.Google Scholar
Holleran, D., Beichner, D., & Spohn, C. (2010). Examining charging agreement between police and prosecutors in rape cases. Crime and Delinquency, 56(3), 385–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128707308977.Google Scholar
Hodgson, N., Cashmore, J., Cowdery, N., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N., Parkinson, P., Powell, M. B., & Shackel, R. (2020). The decision to prosecute: A comparative analysis of Australian prosecutorial guidelines. Criminal Law Journal, 44(3), 155–172.Google Scholar
Horan, J., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2020). Expert evidence to counteract jury misconceptions about consent in sexual assault cases: Failures and lessons learned. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 43(2), 707–737.Google Scholar
Hughes v. The Queen (2017) HCA 20.Google Scholar
Judicial Commission of New South Wales. (2021). Criminal trial courts bench book. https://jirs.judcom.nsw.gov.au/public/assets/benchbooks/criminal/.Google Scholar
Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Kelly, L., & Karsna, K. (2017). Measuring the scale and changing nature of child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation: Scoping report. www.basw.co.uk/system/files/resources/CSA%20Scale%20and%20Nature%20full%20report%202018.pdf. Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse.Google Scholar
Klettke, B., Graesser, A., & Powell, M. B. (2010), Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: The effects of evidence, coherence and credentials on juror decision making. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 481–494. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1565.Google Scholar
Leach, C. L., Powell, M. B., Sharman, S. J., & Anglim, J. (2017). The relationship between children’s age and disclosures of sexual abuse during forensic interviews. Child Maltreatment, 22(1), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559516675723.Google Scholar
Lee, E., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Fraser, M., Powell, M. B., & Westera, N. J. (2019). Special measures in child sexual abuse trials: Criminal justice practitioners’ experiences and views. QUT Law Review, 18(2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.5204/qutlr.v18i2.757.Google Scholar
Lewis, P. (2006). Delayed prosecution for childhood sexual abuse. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lievore, D. (2005). Prosecutorial decisions in adult sexual assault cases: An Australian study. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 291, 1–6.Google Scholar
Ma v. R [2013] VSCA 20.Google Scholar
Mathews, B., Pacella, R., Scott, J. G., Finkelhor, D., Meinck, F., Higgins, D. J., Erskine, H. E., Thomas, H. J., Lawrence, D. M., Haslam, D. M., Malacova, E., & Dunne, M. P. (2023). The prevalence of child maltreatment in Australia: findings from a national survey. Medical Journal of Australia, 3, 218 Suppl 6:S13-S18. doi: 10.5694/mja2.51873.Google Scholar
Meeker, K. A., O’Neal, E. N., & Hayes, B. E. (2021). Policing and prosecuting sexual assault: An examination of arrest and initial filing decisions in cases involving adolescent complainants. Justice Quarterly, 38(5), 870–891. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1679863.Google Scholar
Moody, G., Cannings-John, R., Hood, K., Kemp, A., & Robling, M. (2018). Establishing the international prevalence of self-reported child maltreatment: A systematic review by maltreatment type and gender. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1164–1164. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6044-y.Google Scholar
Neal, T. M. S., Lienert, P., Denne, E., & Singh, J. P. (2022). A general model of cognitive bias in human judgment and systematic review specific to forensic mental health. Law and Human Behavior, 46(2), 99–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000482.Google Scholar
New South Wales Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. (2021). Prosecution guidelines. www.odpp.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-08/Prosecution-Guidelines.pdf.Google Scholar
Pichler, A., Powell, M. B., Sharman, S. J., Zydervelt, S., Westera, N., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2021). Inconsistencies in complainant’s accounts of child sexual abuse arising in their cross-examination. Psychology, Crime & Law, 27(4), 341–356. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/1068316X.2020.1805743.Google Scholar
Plotnikoff, J., & Woolfson, R. (2012). “Kicking and screaming” – The slow road to best evidence. In Spencer, J. R. & Lamb, M. E. (Eds.), Children and cross-examination: Time to change the rules? (pp. 21–42). Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Plotnikoff, J., & Woolfson, R. (2015). Intermediaries in the criminal justice system. Improving communication for vulnerable witnesses and defendants. Policy Press.Google Scholar
Powell, M. B., Roberts, K., & Guadagno, B. (2007). Particularisation of child abuse offences: Common problems when questioning child witnesses. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 19(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2007.12036415.Google Scholar
Powell, M. B., Westera, N., Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Pichler, A. (2016). An evaluation of how evidence is elicited from complainants of child sexual abuse. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.Google Scholar
Read, J. D., Connolly, D. A., & Welsh, A. (2006). An archival analysis of actual cases of historic child sexual abuse: A comparison of jury and bench trials. Law and Human Behavior, 30(3), 259–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9010-7.Google Scholar
Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. (2017). Criminal justice report, parts I–II, III–VI, parts VII–X and appendices. www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/final-report.Google Scholar
Scicluna, C., & Wijlens, M. (2022). Rights of alleged victims in penal proceedings: Provisions in canon law and the criminal law of different legal systems. Nomos. www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/9783748936169.pdf.Google Scholar
Spohn, C., & Tellis, K. (2019). Sexual assault case outcomes: Disentangling the overlapping decisions of police and prosecutors. Justice Quarterly, 36(3), 383–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1429645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J., & Kramer, J. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology, 36(4), 763–798. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01265.x.Google Scholar
Stroud, D. D., Martens, S. L., & Barker, J. (2000). Criminal investigation of child sexual abuse: A comparison of cases referred to the prosecutor to those not referred. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(5), 689–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(00)00131-9.Google Scholar
Trimboli, L. (2021). Early Appropriate Guilty Plea reform program – Process evaluation. Crime and Justice Bulletin No. CJB238. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.Google Scholar
Westera, N. J., Powell, M. B., Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Zajac, R. (2020). Special measures in child sexual abuse cases: Views of Australian criminal justice professionals. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 32(2), 224–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2020.1743904.Google Scholar
Young, G., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2021). Revisiting Daubert: Judicial gatekeeping and expert ethics in court. Psychological Injury and Law, 14(4), 304–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-021-09428-8.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×