Learning from Domestic Homicide Reviews Gillian Dennehy, Domestic Homicide Review Manager Standing Together Against Domestic Violence

Standing Together: Building the CCR

Standing Together and DHRs CCR principles Perpetrator Accountability NOT a blame game Informal Networks-AAFDA Intersectional; Victim shoes National Unique Dissemination of learning

Coordinated Community Response (CCR) and Risk Key Initiatives in UK: DASH RIC Checklist IDVA MARAC Training

Key Legal Remedies CRIMINAL CIVIL Family Law Act 1996 ( amended by DV Crime & Victims Act 2004) –Non Molestation Order, Occupation Orders, DVPO 2014 Clare’s Law 2014 Cross- Gov. Definition of DA (includes CC) 2013 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Remedies –Restraining Order, 2012 Stalking Offence IDAP in sentencing From 2015: Offence of Coercive Control Currently: Ratification Istanbul DV and Abuse Bill 2017

    Case Analysis Report 32 homicides 75% 25% Intimate Partner Homicide- 24 Family-Related Homicide-8 Partner or ex-partner 23 Murder-suicide 4 Partner also carer 6 Matricide 5 Patricide 2 Fratricide 1    

Overview of Victim Demographics 5 5 5 Sex Disability 85% female 27 19% disability 27 1 10 Age Sexuality 15 20-81; Mean 41 Over ¼ IPH over 58 1 gay male victim 31 7 Ethnicity 17 Children 7 71% / IPV cases 5/8 AFH BME ⅓ IPH Black Women 15 17

Safeguarding Children Key Themes from DHRs Identification/assessment and referral pathways Primary Care and Mental Health Not always considered, thresholds for assessment, accountability Age, disability, caring responsibilities Hold vital information, wider community involvement Risk Health Safeguarding Children Safeguarding Adults Informal Networks

Findings: Common Risk Factors Separation* Suicide and attempts of perpetrator Older women Disability Caring relationship Abuse to previous partners Wider offending history Coercive Control Jealous surveillance

Women killed in the context of separation –’separation as a process not a single event’ Femicide Census, 2009 - 2015

Findings for Risk Assessment FAILURE TO IDENTIFY AND ASSESS RISK LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF COERCIVE CONTROL NOT ‘WEIGHTING’ VICTIMS CONCERNS INCIDENTS VIEWED IN ISOLATION NOT VIEWING RISK AS DYNAMIC BAIL CONDITIONS SEEN AS ‘MANAGING’ RISK

What About The Person Who Is The Risk?

Risk: Key Recommendations Summary Victim’s perception of danger is crucial. Not view incidents in isolation- context is everything Need to improve understanding of coercive control and inherent high risk of non-physical abuse Risk is fluid, dynamic – need to be regularly reassessed at ‘critical points’ Risk assessment with perpetrators needs to be built in to the practice of many agencies Point out and do not go through

The Way Forward: The CCR

Overall Recommendations: STRUCTURE Leadership Create DA policies Embed training Create referral pathways and links with specialist services, MARAC Improve mechanisms for information sharing Improve links between health services Embedded DA leads Opportunities for commissioning – IRIS, IDVAs etc. PRACTICE Training Implement enquiry Child Safeguarding: Victim Centred and Perpetrators held to account Multi-agency working Recognise Link with Caring Co-location Leads / Champions Resources Record keeping Joint assessments Integrated working Information sharing Perpetrators

Empowering rather than Disempowering Survivors: "Activists and advocates need to be continually reflective about how institutions, such as the criminal justice system, reproduce relations of domination in society, whether gendered, racialized, or classes. And the workings of power are often far more visible to women on the margins of society, or those situated in the intersections of different relations of inequality, than to those nearer the center.“ Ellen Pence

Thank You! Enquiries Welcome! DHR Manager: Gillian Dennehy g.dennehy@standingtogether.org.uk Link to DHR Case Analysis: http://www.standingtogether.org.uk/news/domestic-homicide-review-case-analysis-report