BANKS & SMYTHE

In the matter of *Banks & Smythe*, Cleary J of the Family Court of Australia considered the application of section 102NA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) concerning the prohibition on cross-examination. The proceedings involved a father who was self-represented and had previously been found to be a perpetrator of family violence towards the mother, following charges of a domestic violence offence in 2016.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the requirements of section 102NA(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* should apply to the cross-examination of the parties. This section generally prohibits a party to family law proceedings from cross-examining the other party personally, with exceptions requiring legal representation for such cross-examination.

Cleary J reasoned that given the prior findings of family violence and the father's self-represented status, it was appropriate to apply the prohibition on personal cross-examination. The court noted that no specific order had yet been made regarding this prohibition, and that making such an order in the absence of the parties would not disadvantage either party. The court also considered the availability of the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme to facilitate legal representation for cross-examination.

Consequently, the court ordered that the requirements of section 102NA(2) would apply to any cross-examination in the proceedings. The parties were advised that neither could cross-examine the other personally, and that any cross-examination would need to be conducted by a legal practitioner. The court also informed the parties about the aforementioned scheme and that a copy of the orders would be provided to Legal Aid New South Wales, which administers the scheme.