1. PPDVP Domestic Violence Case File Attrition Study A summary analysis for five PICP member countries Dr Michael Roguski and Natalie Gregory

2. Research aims The current case file attrition study:  provided a demographic profile of victims and perpetrators / suspects and their relationships to one another  identified domestic violence cases characteristics (for example whether a weapon was involved and where the incident occurred)  gathered information surrounding the particulars of the police investigation of domestic violence cases;  identified why and cases were withdrawn and by whom; and  identified domestic violence attrition rates cases across three different stages of inquiry (Police, Prosecution and Court)  provided an opportunity to map the case file process in each nation

3. Quantitative Methodology  Data was collected from 2012 domestic violence case files in the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu  A coding framework and data collection form was informed by the rape attrition research conducted by Lovett and Kelly (2009) and Lievore (2004)  Forty-eight open and closed-ended questions that addressed the following areas: – victim characteristics – suspect / offender characteristics – relationship between the victim and suspect / offender – case characteristics – police investigation and charges – court proceedings – case summary and outcome

4. Sample  The sample across the five nations: – Cook Islands, n=55 – Kiribati, n=100 – Samoa, n=31 – Tonga, n=55 – Vanuatu, n=23  Due to the organisation of the filing systems, the random selection of 100 files was not possible in four of the nations

5. Victim characteristics  Gender was a significant risk factor to experiencing DV  Females were overwhelmingly the victims in all nations (ranging from 82% in Cook Islands to 95% in Tonga)  The median age range of victims ranged between 27 years in Tonga and 37 years in Kiribati  Unemployment high amongst victims from 20% unemployed in the Cook Islands to 81% in Kiribati  Majority of victims married in Kiribati, Tonga, Samoa and Vanuatu, with exception of Cook Islands where majority in de facto relationship

6. Perpetrator / suspect characteristics  Perpetrator / suspects predominantly male (ranging from 80% in Samoa to 93% in Kiribati  The median age of perpetrator / suspects ranged from 28 years in Kiribati and 35 years in the Cook Islands  Majority of perpetrators married in Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu, in Cook Islands most in de facto relationship

7. Prior offences Prior offenceCook IslandsKiribatiSamoaTongaVanuatu None 35%2%86%47%28% Prior DV 5%0%3%42%4% Prior sexual 0% Prior violent 0%3%6%0% Prior other 2%9%6%0% Prior unknown 11%0% Unknown 47%86%0%11%68%

8. Relationship between victim and perpetrator / suspect TypeCook IslandsKiribatiSamoaTongaVanuatu Current partner 76%45%40%84%56% Former partner 4%2%0% Family member 16%53%62%18%44% Other6%0% Notes: 1.Some percentages have been rounded and may not equal 100%. 2.In Samoa and Vanuatu one case included multiple offenders, hence the total number of perpetrators / suspects exceeds the total number of cases.

9. Offence characteristics  Alcohol use by perpetrators at the time of the offence prevalent (ranging from 20% in Samoa to 84% in Kiribati)  Alcohol use by victims largely uncommon, with the exception of the Cook islands in which 38% of victims used alcohol at the time of the offence  Predominantly one victim and one perpetrator  Weapon use not common, with the exception of Vanuatu in which 39% of incidents involved a weapon  Majority of incidents occurred in victim’s home (ranging from 74% of cases in Vanuatu to 95% of cases in Tonga)

10. Offence characteristics (continued) Offence included Cook IslandsKiribatiSamoaTongaVanuatu Physical assault 66%37%68%98%83% Sexual assault 0% 2%30% Victim injury44%28%58%87%70%

11. Time taken to report offence TimeframeCook IslandsKiribatiSamoaTongaVanuatu At the time of offence 80% 69%26%7%17% Within 3 hours 13% 5%29%53%22% 3 – 24 hours6% 22%19%22% 2 – 7 days2% 1%13%11%17% 8 days plus0% 3%7%22% Unknown0% 3%10%0% Note: Some percentages have been rounded and may not equal 100%.

12. Police investigation and prosecution processes Investigation included:Cook Islands KiribatiSamoaTongaVanuatu Victim/s interviewed89%95%100% 96% Suspect/s interviewed85%92%97%91%70% Witness/es interviewed44%56%74%13%87% Forensic scene examination 9%0% 13% Suspect arrested51%60%94%95%35% Charges laid51%73%100%93%35% Referred for Prosecution51%49%100%89%35%  The collection of other pieces of evidence, such as medical reports, victim impact reports, evidentiary exhibits and previous conviction information not common across all nations

13. Why charges were not laid and cases were not referred for trial  Across nations reasons varied, however reasons included: – victim withdrawal of complaint – insufficient evidence – inability to locate either suspect and / or victim – case reaching statute of limitation – alternative action (peace settlement, counselling, traditional reconciliation) – victim not cooperating with investigation – unknown reason

14. Charges faced in Court  Most common charges (please note that a number of cases involved multiple charges): -Cook Islands: assault on a female (n=27, 96%) -Kiribati: common nuisance (n=42, 86%) and common assault (n=12, 25%) -Samoa: common assault (n=17, 55%) and insulting words (n=9, 29%) -Tonga: common assault (n=46, 94%) -Vanuatu: domestic violence (n=4, 50%) and intentional assault (n=4, 50%)

15. Court outcome OutcomeCook IslandsKiribatiSamoaTongaVanuatu Withdrawn 4%22% 45% 8% 0% Acquitted / not guilty 0%2% 0% Found guilty 4%0% 3% 0% 13% Pleaded guilty 75%27% 45% 84% 50% Dismissed 7%10% 7% 6% 25% Unknown 11%39% 0% 2% 13%

16. Punishment – Cook Islands Punishmentn=% Discharged 1150% Counselling / workshop 523% Compensation 313% Fine 941% Alcohol ban 418% Community service 941% Probation 732% Custodial sentence 00% Unknown 15% Notes: 1. Some percentages have been rounded and may not equal 100%. 2. As multiple charges and punishments were possible percentages will exceed 100%.

17. Punishment– Kiribati Punishmentn=% Alcohol ban18% Bound to keep the peace431% Community service215% Custodial sentence18% Fine969% Suspended sentence431% Notes: 1. Some percentages have been rounded and may not equal 100%. 2. As multiple charges and punishments were possible percentages will exceed 100%.

18. Punishment– Samoa Punishmentn=% Come up again for sentencing213% Community service213% Custodial sentence17% Discharged (with conviction)213% Fine960% Probation17% Suspended sentence640% Notes: 1. Some percentages have been rounded and may not equal 100%. 2. As multiple charges and punishments were possible percentages will exceed 100%.

19. Punishment– Tonga Punishmentn=% Counselling410% Custodial sentence512% Discharged37% Fine1434% Probation717% Suspended sentence922% Victim compensation37% Unknown12% Notes: 1. Some percentages have been rounded and may not equal 100%. 2. As multiple charges and punishments were possible percentages will exceed 100%.

20. Punishment – Vanuatu Punishmentn=% Custodial sentence240% Fine360%

21. Outcome of DV incidents reported to police across five nations (%) OutcomeCook Islands KiribatiSamoaTongaVanuatu Protection order0% Charges pressed and proceeded to court 49%37%100%89%35% Referred to Women’s Centre / Counselling 24%0% Other20%38%0%9%65% Unknown7%25%0%2%0%

22. Proportion of DV cases withdrawn across five nations (%)

23. Point of attrition and who withdrew the case across five nations (%) VariableCook IslandsKiribatiSamoaTongaVanuatu When was the case withdrawn? Dropped before case filed with Court 84%67%0%36%83% Discontinued after filed with court 12%33%100%57%17% Unknown 4%0% 7%0% Who withdrew the case? Victim 16%65%93%64%56% Police 64%4%0%14%28% Prosecutor 16%26%0% 11% Judge / Magistrate 0%6%7%21%0% Other judicial officer 0% Unknown 4%0% 6%

24. Individual responsible for the case withdrawal across five nations

25. Case file management process  Encountered many difficulties locating DV files from 2012 in each nation  Each nation has processes in place, but generally not followed and there are weaknesses at every point of each process  Issues with file management historical  Barriers faced by each nation included: – Lack of resources – No purpose-built secure facilities to store files  Need for professional file management expert in each nation

26. General observations  The following observations are similar across the five nations: – the infrequent inclusion of the file copy of the Domestic Violence Report form which is used with CMIS data entry – the brevity of the formal statements taken by police – a lack of forensic evidence included in case files, photographs of injuries and the scene and sketches of the scene (it should be noted that Kiribati do not have any forensic equipment or cameras available) – the numerous gaps in the completion of information or information missing from files  With specific reference to Vanuatu, the length of time that victims’ have to wait from the time of reporting to police action, or eventual withdrawal by victim, was lengthy. In some cases, victims withdrew their complaints more than a year after reporting with no action

27. Recommendations 1.The five Pacific Police forces develop a clear understanding of, and adherence to, case file management best practice 2.Further training and supervisory programmes to ensure that best practice is consistently followed when investigating domestic violence cases 3.Formalise and implement case withdrawal protocols 4.The implementation of a system in which all domestic violence cases are returned to the Domestic Violence Team / Unit for completion and entry into CMIS / other databases 5.The development of guidelines to support complainant withdrawal petitions at court

28. Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Baseline Data: Summary Presentation Prepared for the Cook Islands Police, Kiribati Police, The Taupulenga, Niue Police, Tuvalu Police and Vanuatu Police

29. Recommendations

30. Recommendations (cont.)

32. PPDVP and these Results Auckland workshop 8 – 10 March Common factors identified – File Processes agreed, but not followed – Investigation skills not applied – Lack of supervision & file management – Data entry systems (CMIS and others) – Functionality of Police Filing systems Individual country approach PPDVP standards reinforced Key focus out to mid 2016 Further analysis of 2014 files in late 2015