Every Friday, and one Wednesday a month, the courtroom is set aside to hear cases involving one or more sexual offences. There are rapists, up-skirters, gropers, child pornographers and online harassers. Sometimes there are women. When magistrate Johanna Metcalf walked into court 12 last Friday at 10am, it was standing room only. And they came from all walks of life. The youngest was 18, but looked 12; the oldest looked to be in his 80s. One of the first to come before the court is a prisoner, flanked by two guards as he walks into the dock. This man, who we cannot name for legal reasons, was charged by police three days earlier and has been in custody since. By the look of him, he has been wearing the same clothes since his arrest. He has a small flesh wound on the top of his forehead, and looks grubby and on edge. The court is told the man has not been getting his epilepsy and other medication while he's been in custody. Then the prosecutor says something that sends chills down the spine: "The complainant [alleged victim] in this matter is a child, and she has an intellectual disability, so it may be hard to get instructions." Metcalf grants the man's family an intervention order against him, and sternly tells him he is not to make any contact with them.

He is led out in handcuffs and, disconcertingly, the sound of a baby's cry cuts through the packed courtroom. In the front row are a man and a woman, whose baby is in a pram. The child babbles and waves its chubby arms and legs. The couple's delight in their child is clear: seemingly oblivious to the grimy details being aired by police prosecutors, they coo and cluck at him. But the baby's babbling creates a weird energy in the room. It feels wrong to have such innocence amid these awful sex cases. Everyone tries not to look at the baby. In December, the sex court will celebrate its 10th year. It was first introduced at the Melbourne Magistrates Court as a pilot program to cope with the high number of sexual offences coming before the courts, and the complex needs of victims of sexual offences. Soon, sexual offences lists were introduced at regional courts across the state. A separate sexual offences list is also held at the Children's Court for juvenile offenders.

Magistrate Belinda Wallington, who presides over the list, says it is less a sex court than a case management list. Seven magistrates preside over the list, taking turns each week. Magistrates read the brief of evidence for every case, before defendants appear in court, and their preparation means cases move more quickly than in other courts. There are time limits on each stage of a case, so victims are not further traumatised by long delays. "Because of the shame attached to sex offending and the possible consequences of a finding of guilt – imprisonment or sex offender registration – there is a great deal of denial and avoidance," Wallington says. "Without close case management, this results in adjournments and delays and prolonged distress to complainants." There are other protections for victims, too. People charged with sexual offences cannot cross-examine their alleged victims. Children and people with cognitive or intellectual disabilities have their evidence recorded, to try to ensure they only have to give evidence once. There are strict limits on the questions that can be asked of complainants, including a ban on any questions about their sexual history.

Sergeant Kirei Wall, who leads the specialist prosecutions team for Victoria Police, says prosecutors also approach their task differently in courtroom 12. Sgt Wall knows the public has high expectations of the court and police. Credit:Daniel Pockett "All parties in the court are dedicated to case management, I think is the best way to describe it," she says. "A lot of these matters are heavily contested, because a conviction – really – the consequences can affect their future employment; people can be put on the sex offenders register." Although sexual offences can be notoriously hard to prosecute, Wall says her team tries to make every victim feel as supported and protected as possible. "The public has a really high expectation that the courts and police are taking it really seriously."

Another striking feature of the court is its gender imbalance. Most of the positions of power in the court, on this day at least, are occupied by women – the magistrate, Metcalf, her clerk, two police prosecutors, an Office of Public Prosecutions prosecutor, and many of the defence lawyers. Apart from one exception, all the defendants are men. Soon, the videolink screen lights up to reveal Damen Stephens, a man in his late 40s or 50s, who is sitting at a desk in a prison somewhere in Victoria. His lawyer hasn't turned up to court, and Stephens – a well-spoken man wearing spectacles and an irritated air – is not happy. He complains that he has been trying to get his lawyer's number listed on his list of approved phone numbers, but "there've been significant difficulties with the prison administration".

Stephens has been charged with stalking offences. "The charges aren't very serious", he tells the magistrate. Basically, he says, he was "sending nasty messages" over the internet. He wants to apply for bail. Defendant Damen Stephens was in 'sex court', charged with stalking offences. Credit:Fairfax Prosecutor Luisa Di Pietrantonio jumps in. Stephens is charged with stalking a woman, and breaching an intervention order, she says. "They're quite serious charges." Stephens protests, but it's hard to make out what he's saying – the audio keeps breaking up, and the baby is squawking.

His case is adjourned. At last, it is the baby's father's turn. Hearing his name called, he grabs the infant and steps forward to the bench, holding the child like a prop. His case is adjourned to the Sunshine Magistrate's Court and he and his partner – who looks about 30 years younger than him – leave with the baby. Blayne Bayliss, who appears to be in his 80s, is unable to come to the front of the court for his hearing because he cannot get his walking frame through the packed room. He is given permission to sit at the back, from where he fixes his defence lawyer with a steely eye. Bayliss, who is dressed in an immaculate suit, was charged in April with sexually assaulting two boys many years ago, the court is told. His lawyer says Bayliss denies the charges completely, and the allegations were made "in the context" of the men being charged with separate offences. His matter is adjourned for a two-day hearing, at which five witnesses will give evidence against him.

A group of school children walk into the court to observe the court's goings on for their legal studies course. Aghast at what they might hear, Metcalf's clerk quickly shepherds them out. In walks Kris Ressom, who has a boyish air and is wearing a short-sleeved checked shirt, jeans and runners. He has a hipster-style beard and carries a backpack. He is here to offer to plead guilty to downloading hundreds of images of child sexual abuse, in exchange for having his case heard in the Magistrates Court. Usually matters as serious as this would be heard in the County Court, but Metcalf agrees to consider his request to have them dealt with at the lower court level. The court is told that when police searched Ressom's computer, they found 286 images and 31 videos of child exploitation. Ressom's lawyer argues that the "vast majority" of the images – 258 of them – were "category 1" images, or the lowest category of abuse imagery. Thus, he says, his client's behaviour must be seen as being "at the lower end of the scale for this type of offending".

Ressom's lawyer, who sports a plush Ned Kelly-style beard, offers a novel defence of his client: most people caught sharing child abuse material do so by effectively opening up their computer databases to strangers over the internet. Ressom, on the other hand, only shared his abuse material with others by request. "It's a limited sharing; so a less serious type of offence." But Di Pietrantonio is having none of it. She points out that category 4 and 5 images, and category 4 videos, were found on Ressom's computer. Category 4 images show sexual penetration between an adult and child. Category 5 images are worse. Ressom – who under normal circumstances would face a maximum 10-year sentence for each of the two offences he's charged with – confessed everything when police caught up with him, his lawyer says. He even gave police his passwords. He will plead guilty to the offences in January. His lawyer suggests a community-based punishment would be appropriate. There are a baffling number of ways people can sexually degrade each other, but prosecutor Wall says there are some cases that come up again and again.

"There's a lot of child exploitation material – possession of it," she says. "A lot of sexual assault – often opportunistic, like on public transport. And we're beginning to see an increase of reporting of historical matters." This, she suggests, could be a result of increased publicity due to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. "It could be that people are feeling more supported." Working on the sexual offences list can be a gruelling experience, and many who work at the court get some form of support. Police prosecutors have counselling made available to them, and are able to take leave from the court and work on other roles for a break. Some decline to work on cases involving the abuse of children.

Wallington says that, for magistrates, presiding over sexual abuse cases is more difficult than presiding over other offences. The cases are more distressing, and the victims of sexual abuse are often vulnerable people – children, or people with social, cognitive or other difficulties. "We are acutely aware that any stress we as judicial officers suffer cannot be compared to that experienced by the parties in these cases," she says. "However, there is a cumulative effect of exposure to the suffering caused by sexual offending and we should probably have compulsory de-briefing." Just before lunch, a most peculiar case comes before the court. First, the person accused of sexual assault is a woman. And, second, she is in court because police want to force her to expose her body against her will for forensic photography – in a way, turning the whole notion of the court on its head.

Katrina Arredondo was a youth officer 20 years ago. She is now charged with sexually abusing a teenage boy who was a detainee under her care, and after he left youth detention, when he was 15 and 16. Police are applying to have Arredondo's breasts and lower abdomen photographed to see whether she does in fact have marks and a scar that correspond with the 20-year-old recollections of the then-teenager. They win their bid to have a forensic medical officer photograph Arredondo's pelvic area, but they fail in their application to have her breasts photographed – magistrate Metcalf rules it is too intrusive. As the magistrate rises from the bench and leaves the courtroom, everyone takes a deep breath. Then one woman turns to the others and says, "God, I need an acid shower after that."