Cases of historic child assault typically rely on the complainant's narrative due to lack of corroborating evidence. Although it is important that complainants give their best evidence, concern has been expressed that evidence-sharing procedures are suboptimal. This study explored criminal justice professionals’ perspectives on the utility of introducing reforms to the evidence-sharing process. We interviewed judges, prosecutors, defence counsel and witness assistance officers (N = 43) on the utility of regulating the questioning of complainants and of using video-recorded interviews as evidence-in-chief. Many professionals perceived that adult complainants of child assault were vulnerable and supported reforms to evidence-sharing. Primary objections to these reforms were the belief that all adult complainants should share evidence in the same way and the poor quality of investigative interviews. This study illuminates potential barriers to the implementation of reforms which would change how adult complainants of child assault give evidence.