Cross Examining Police: Kellie Stares SC

I'm good.

Thanks for having me.

I'm excited to be here and excited to be presenting at the Legal Aid Conference against-- again this year.

Wonderful.

So is there anything different about cross-examining police compared to other witnesses?

Yes, there is definite differences when you're comparing how a police witness presents compared to a civilian witness or a professional witness in another way.

They are more experienced.

They've generally been to court a number of times, um, to give evidence.

They're trained.

They're able to manage their own behavior in the witness box better than some of the people that we cross-examine over time.

And of course, they are permitted to refer to their own statements as a particular exception to the rules in the Evidence Act at Section thirty-three.

So it means that we need to approach cross-examination of police differently to other witnesses, in particular being more careful.

It's also more important to close the gates earlier and ensure there is zero gap for them to escape out of, because otherwise, with that experience comes the opportunity to get out of the web that you're trying to spin there.

I also, in particular, do things unpredictably with police so that they don't catch on where I'm going.

So that means not dealing with things chronologically or necessarily logically, so they don't follow where you're going with your particular area of questioning.

So that's the way that I approach it.

I do it very differently when it's with a civilian witness or somebody who has no experience in the criminal justice system or of giving evidence.

But here you need to make sure you cover your tracks a little bit or, um, certainly disguise where you're going with things when we're dealing with police witnesses.