Time to protect victims in courtroom Domestic violence victim Kay Schubach wrote a book detailing her short, violent relationship. Discrimination Commissioner Liz Broderick. LAWYERS would be stopped from using aggressive tactics during domestic violence trials as part of sweeping changes under consideration by the Barnett Government. Attorney-General Michael Mischin said he was prepared to look at "limiting the scope" of cross-examination to give victims testifying against their attackers similar protection in court as sexual assault victims. His comments come after public debate about the treatment of Tammy Kingdon during the trial against her former partner, Finks bikie Troy Mercanti. Mercanti's lawyer, Melbourne silk Colin Lovitt, came under fire for his interrogation, which brought Ms Kingdon to tears several times. Under instructions from his client, he accused her of being "a liar and an actress" who was out for revenge and was accident-prone. In WA, lawyers cannot ask sexual assault victims to reveal intimate details about themselves without special leave from a judge as part of the evidence laws, but domestic violence victims do not have the same type of protection. Mr Mischin said the Government had a "no-tolerance" approach to domestic violence and was prepared to introduce reforms as part of that commitment. He said he was considering "all aspects" of the cross-examination process, including what questions a lawyer could ask a victim as well as their behaviour towards them, with the aim of ensuring that "sufficient discretion" was left to the trial judge to "address the particular circumstances of the case." And, he said he expected any such reform would be one of the first objectives to be championed by the state's new Victims of Crime Commissioner, who will be appointed later this year. "The Liberal-National Government has demonstrated a clear no-tolerance approach to domestic violence and I am prepared to consider any legislative reforms that will advance that approach, including limiting the scope of cross-examination of victims of domestic violence," he said. This is the type of reform that I expect the Victims of Crime Commissioner to champion once appointed later this year. If the reforms are adopted, it could effect the way defence lawyers handle cases for clients. Criminal Lawyers Association of WA president Linda Black said restricting what a lawyer could ask a witness was a dangerous exercise, but providing some controls in the right circumstances had some potential merit. "I don't know what the Attorney-General has in mind and I don't precisely see how you could swap over the provisions for sexual assault victims into domestic violence cases because the provisions that control the way defence lawyers can cross-examine victims of sexual assault, wouldn't really apply," she said. But domestic violence victim Catherine welcomed any such plans. The mother of two, whose former husband spent nine months on remand for breaching a violence restraining order 42 times, said she experienced similar treatment when she was testifying against her ex at a different trial. She was so horrified by the experience that she made a complaint to the Legal Profession Complaints Committee against the lawyer. "The trial ended up being about me and not about my ex's behaviour," she said. I felt like I wasn't being listened to, that there was a lack of compassion towards me and a lack of understanding. Anne Moore, from the Women's Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services, said she supported any move to protect victims in the court system. "Our fear is at the moment that (without some protection) it will deter women from going to court," she said. KAY Schubach says she was so terrified of her former partner she endured months of abuse that included dislocating her fingers, numerous bashings and strangulations before she made a complaint to police. An interim apprehended violence order was issued against him, but she did not pursue it because he threatened her. "I was too afraid to ratify it and a piece of paper was never going to stop him," she said. He had the keys to my car, to my apartment and I had to go home to him. She said the man, who has since been convicted and jailed for raping and assaulting another woman, which he is appealing, "wrote in the sand he would harm my parents and then frogmarched me home and made me recant the statement." "I went into hiding and didn't press charges," she said. And I feel terrible because he went on to abuse someone else. If there was any way of defending the AVO without facing him in court, that would have helped. In another chilling case, psychologist Nanette May thought she had found true love when she met IT professional Karl Koch on RSVP in 2002. He wanted marriage, but she grew fearful after six months because he was becoming violent. She fled to the US to end the relationship, but on her return he began stalking and threatening her. Her complaints to police in June 2004 were dismissed. "I was regarded as a nuisance," she said. It took her until March 2005 to obtain an AVO, which was granted only because Koch failed to show in court. And even when he broke it, police said they couldn't help her unless he physically harmed her or broke into her property. In August 2006, Koch tried to kill her, subjecting her to a horrific 40-minute knife attack. He was charged and jailed, and has since been deported to his native Germany. Ms May has changed her name and her treatment at the hands of police has become part of a training video to help police understand risk. "When police are called by an abused person, the abuse will be worse once the police leave," she said. At least an on-the-spot AVO can provide immediate and preventative help, otherwise the onus is on the victim. MEN who assault their partners should face tougher sentences than a man who attacks a stranger, Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick says. She said weak sentences and insensitive remarks by judges discouraged women from reporting domestic assaults. Courts needed new guidelines to ensure they treated domestic violence seriously and applied the tough sentences available for crimes such as grievous bodily harm. "If I assault someone who loves me, whom I have loved, who has an intimate relationship with me, there's an argument that that should be a premium penalty, not a discount," Ms Broderick said. Speaking after a Melbourne magistrate handed sports agent Ricky Nixon a sentence of 200 hours community service for assaulting his girlfriend, Ms Broderick said high-profile cases with weak sentences were a major deterrent to reporting. On Thursday, Tasmanian judge Peter Evans told a court a 33-year-old rapist had been "gentle" with a 17-year-old girl he assaulted and gave him a six-month suspended jail sentence. Ms Broderick said women she met in refuges around the country were put off reporting if they thought nobody would take them seriously. "Sometimes the penalty we might assume would be applied is not applied because it's 'just a domestic'," Ms Broderick said, adding that at least 1.2 million women lived in violent relationships. It's the greatest human rights abuse that's happening in Australia towards women in 2013. It's a very hidden problem, domestic violence. What we need to do is drag it out of the shadows. In NSW, Family and Community Services Minister Pru Goward is spearheading a raft of reforms including on-the-spot apprehended violence orders in a bid to tackle domestic violence.