Role of lawyer to assist — unrepresented party — cross-examination — family violence allegations — Family Violence Act 2018 — Evidence Act 2006, ss 92 & 95 — Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (HL). In the matter before the Court the respondent was unrepresented by counsel. There were allegations of family violence by the applicant against the respondent, and a lawyer to assist had been appointed pursuant to s 95 of the Evidence Act ("the Act") to cross-examine the applicant. The applicant submitted she did not wish for the lawyer appointed to assist to continue acting, as she believed the assistance of her counsel and of the Court was sufficient. If the lawyer to assist was to continue acting, she submitted that the lawyer's role should be limited to asking questions specifically given to the lawyer by the respondent. The issue for determination was whether the lawyer to assist should continue acting and the scope of that role. The Judge noted that there was very little authority on the role of lawyer to assist, but that s 95(1) did not appear to give a party the right to waive the appointment of a lawyer to assist. In terms of the scope of the role, the applicant's lawyer submitted that subs (5) and (6) limited the role of the lawyer to assist to only putting questions to the applicant that the respondent had himself formulated. The Judge rejected this argument, as the lawyer to assist also had to comply with the duty that a lawyer owes to the Court and broader ethical obligations. The duties of cross-examination under s 92 of the Act applied, which stipulated a lawyer must cross-examine a witness on significant matters relevant and in issue and that contradict the evidence of the witness. The Judge directed that the lawyer to assist was to continue acting. He was required to ask any reasonably phrased questions as instructed by the respondent but was not precluded from advising the respondent as to the nature of the questions which ought to be asked, and not precluded from putting additional questions as necessary to comply with his professional ethical obligations. Judgment Date: 7 August 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *