Conference — temporary protection order — interim parenting order — cross-examination of protected person — counsel to assist — standby counsel — Evidence Act 2006, s 95(1) — Family Court Act 1980, s 9C — Family Violence Act 2018 — Irving v Irving [2021] NZHC 2269 — Fahey v R [2017] NZCA 596, [2018] 2 NZLR 392 — McMenamin v Attorney-General [1985] 2 NZLR 274. The applicant had previously obtained a temporary protection order and an interim parenting order against the respondent. The respondent intended to defend the temporary protection order being made final, and to represent himself. However s 95(1) of the Evidence Act prevented the respondent from cross-examining the applicant, as she was a protected person under the protection order. The Court had the power to appoint a counsel to assist, to cross-examine the applicant on the respondent's behalf. During the cross-examination, the counsel to assist would be able only to ask the applicant questions that were provided by the respondent. The Court observed that this put the respondent at a disadvantage, because he was inexperienced and lacked knowledge of how to use cross-examination questions to advance his case. Therefore the Court decided instead to use its powers to appoint a standby counsel, rather than a counsel to assist the respondent. The standby counsel would have greater powers to cross-examine the applicant rather than just asking questions put by the respondent. The Court concluded its judgment with a range of directions on advancing the matter. Judgment Date: 19 April 2023. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *