Methodology

To answer our research questions, we used two targeted purposive samples to obtain the views and experiences of the implementation of the Act. The first consisted of nine legal practitioners including three of eight ACT Supreme Court judicial officers who oversee cases involving sexual assault, one ACT prosecutor and five legal barristers who had each represented a defendant in a sexual assault matter in the past five years.

Three victim support workers and two victim witnesses either completed a second online survey or participated in a face-to-face interview.^[30] The former were recruited using “respondent driven sampling”.^[31] As a result of an October 2010 story about the project in the Canberra Times newspaper, which included a participation invitation to victims of sexual assault who had experienced a trial, three victims of sexual assault contacted the researchers. One was not suitable since the defendant in that case plead guilty before the committal. The two victims who participated in the research gave evidence at the committal hearing (pre-reform) and at the trial (post-reform).

Each potential research participant was sent an email with a link to the particular survey on SurveyMonkey®. All instruments first asked some demographic and contact information questions. Questions for legal practitioners then asked how each of the indeterminate sections of the legislation were being interpreted in practice. The last section of the instrument sought the respondents’ views on whether the changes were achieving their intended aims.

The victim support person survey was composed of questions asked of the practitioners and those asked of the victims. Participants were asked about the impact that a trial could have on sexual assault victim witnesses’ wellbeing.

Of the two victim participants, one completed an online survey using SurveyMonkey®, and the other chose to participate in a face-to-face interview using the same instrument. That interview was recorded and later transcribed. The victim witness research instrument first asked the participant to discuss her experiences of committal hearings, pre-trial hearings and trials, and how the processes had impacted on her wellbeing. Questions were then asked about the respondent’s specific experiences in relation to the reforms, ie view of the accused, testifying in an open/closed court, and having a support person present.

Note that with both of these last two samples, participants were contacted by email again to clarify or expand on their answers. This method was ideal for eliminating errors and omissions in the original instrument.

Survey responses were examined qualitatively using an “open-coding” approach.^[32] Due to the small number of respondents and the shortness of most answers, the process of thematic coding was informal and unstructured. The process of studying the interview transcript and each passage of every survey word-by-word and line-by-line led to the labelling of each passage with an adequate code. This process helped to identify the common themes that arose and to summarise and observe the patterns in the responses.

Caveats

Due to the small sample sizes, we do not claim that the findings necessarily represent the views of all judges, lawyers, support workers and victims: it cannot be said that these few are representative of the whole. Further, due to the short research “window” the findings are preliminary. They can be used to demonstrate how the legislation is being or might be implemented and how it could affect victim witnesses’ wellbeing.