A few points from a massively long document about prosecuting historical child sex crimes ....... as usual, I am starting to look at the legalities :blush:
Child sexual assault generally, and historical child sexual assault in particular, are categories of crime that are, arguably, a poor fit for the traditional rules, practices and the very culture of the adversarial criminal justice system.
That is not to say that justice cannot be achieved within the current system. It can be, and routinely is, achieved.
.... in 2010, 89% of all defendants appearing in the Local Court, 86% of those appearing in the Children’s Court and 84% of those
appearing in the higher criminal courts (the District and Supreme Courts) either pleaded guilty or were found guilty of at least one offence ...
Victims of child sexual abuse who complain after a considerable amount of time are typically fragile and vulnerable.
The passing of time means that police and ultimately prosecutors are faced with an inevitable loss of evidence: memory, scientific and medical evidence, written records and living or competent witnesses.
... delay is a typical, rather than an aberrant feature of child sexual abuse ...
In an effort to isolate events, investigators focus on events. Such events may be the first offence in time or the first occasion when the offending escalated to another form of conduct ..... Events on or about particular occasions like Christmas, birthdays, holidays or other milestones can be triggers enabling recall of a particular act.
Victims can be cross-examined for a long time; three or four days is not uncommon.
.... the rights of the accused do not need to be unfairly sacrificed. These rights are not, and should not be, mutually exclusive from
the rights of victims and the community at large in achieving a fair trial.
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/CICrimJust/2014/13.pdf