Justice via Video: Family Court Shields Alleged Violence Victim During Cross-Examination in Knight & Knight Case

📘 Introduction:

In the landmark family law case of Knight & Knight [2022] FedCFamC1F 797, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia took a proactive stance to protect the integrity of evidence and the emotional safety of a party in family law proceedings. The case involved serious allegations of family violence, and the Court grappled with ensuring procedural fairness while safeguarding vulnerable parties. Judge Schonell’s decision to allow cross-examination via video link underlines the Court’s commitment to child-focused and trauma-informed justice.

🧾 Facts and Issues:

Facts:

• The proceedings concern parenting arrangements for two children, referred to as X and Y.
• The applicant (Ms B Knight) is the mother, while Mr Clifton (third respondent) is described as the psychological parent of child Y.
• Mr Clifton sought orders to spend time with Y. The maternal grandmother opposed this, and the mother only supported it conditionally (i.e., supervised and after drug tests).
• The mother alleged she had been a victim of family violence by Mr Clifton, which he denied.
• During the mother’s cross-examination, Mr Clifton, unrepresented and present in court, made repeated outbursts.

Issues:

1. Whether the mother’s evidence was being compromised by Mr Clifton’s courtroom behavior.
2. Whether the Court should alter the mode of cross-examination to protect the integrity of the proceedings and the wellbeing of the witness.
3. Whether the Court's actions were consistent with the Family Law Act 1975, particularly sections 69ZN, 69ZQ, and 102NA.

⚖️ Application of Law:

The Court applied several provisions from the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth):

• Section 69ZN(4) mandates the Court to actively direct, control, and manage proceedings.
• Section 69ZN(5) requires the Court to conduct proceedings in a way that safeguards children and parties from exposure to family violence.
• Section 69ZQ(1)(aa)(ii) allows the Court to manage proceedings in a manner consistent with child safety.
• Section 69ZQ(1)(e) supports the use of technology to implement these principles.
• Section 102NA sets rules for cross-examination in family violence contexts, including restrictions when parties are self-represented.

Despite both the mother and Mr Clifton being self-represented, and the fact that orders under s 102NA were in place, the Court had to manage real-time courtroom dynamics and potential trauma.

🧠 Judgment Analysis and Judicial Reasoning:

Judge Schonell acknowledged that the alleged perpetrator's presence during cross-examination could affect the quality of the mother’s evidence (at [6])

. Although no findings had yet been made regarding the violence allegations, the appearance and behavior of Mr Clifton—including repeated outbursts—necessitated protective measures.

The Court, on its own motion, directed that the mother’s cross-examination continue via video link, citing ss 69ZN and 69ZQ as justification (at [7]–[8])

. This decision was consistent with the overarching goal of conducting child-related proceedings in a safe, efficient, and emotionally secure manner.

No specific judicial precedents were cited, but the reasoning aligns with a growing body of family law jurisprudence emphasizing trauma-informed processes and the protection of vulnerable litigants.

📌 Take-Home Lesson:

This case reinforces that procedural fairness does not mean procedural rigidity. Courts are empowered—and indeed obligated—to adjust traditional practices where necessary to uphold the safety and integrity of family law proceedings. The use of video link for cross-examination in sensitive matters involving allegations of violence is not only permissible but may be essential to achieving just outcomes.