Making “one particular part of one particular flawed system a bit more bearable”: Findings from a cross-jurisdictional study of independent legal representation for sexual offence complainants

There is increasing recognition of the case for independent legal representation (ILR) for rape and serious sexual offence (RASSO) complainants in respect of applications to admit sensitive records or sexual history and character evidence. Numerous adversarial jurisdictions have either already implemented schemes or are in the process of doing so. Nonetheless, ILR, even in these discrete areas, presents difficult issues because it inserts a third party into the traditional bipartite model of criminal justice. In this paper, we present the findings of a study of adversarial jurisdictions that have implemented ILR. We shed light on issues including the most appropriate model of delivery and the practical challenges ILR can involve. We thereafter examine what ILR can achieve through a dual input/output lens and argue that, despite challenges to be overcome, ILR brings important benefits beyond representing the complainant's views at a hearing.