19
Examination of witnesses
Tanya Allen and Kate Brown.
Q27 The Chair: Good morning and welcome to this session of the Select Committee that is looking at the Domestic Abuse Act, which was introduced in 2021. This is what is called post-legislative scrutiny: we are looking at the Act of Parliament that was created, and we are seeing what its impact has been. We are looking at the ways in which it has presented opportunities and challenges, and we are hearing from different witnesses today.
We have two very distinguished people with us here on this first panel. We have Kate Brown, who is the Chief Crown Prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service. Can I welcome you, Kate? It is great to see you here. Kate was appointed the Chief Crown Prosecutor for the CPS Wessex in June 2024. She has been a prosecutor since 1994—woman and girl—and she really has considerable expertise in this field. It is really wonderful to see you here, Kate, a colleague in the legal profession.
Tanya Allen is the other person here. She is a programme manager for courts and criminal justice in an organisation called Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse. It is a national charity that co-ordinates multiagency responses to domestic abuse. Tanya specialises in improving specialist domestic abuse court co-ordination. There are plenty of challenges in that, and we are very keen to see how this new legislation is working out in the courts.
First, I am going to just start by asking each of you distinctly to outline your roles, or the role of your organisation as it plays out in bringing domestic abuse cases before the courts. What are the particular issues that affect the successful progress of a domestic abuse case in the courts? What can be done to mitigate any of these issues? I remember back in the very short period of time when I did such cases, I did them in the criminal courts but not in the family courts. Often, in any of the courts, there was the problem of people sitting next to the person who had been abusing them. The abuse could often continue in the foyer of the court. I am just wondering; have we sorted all those things that were very stressful for the parties to the litigation and to the cases? I am going to start with you, Kate. If you could just let us know how you see it from your seat running the prosecutions.
Kate Brown: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to come and give evidence to you today. Tanya will pick up on other specific elements. We obviously play a really important role in bringing these cases: we review the evidence that the police provide us; we assess that evidence; and, according to the Code for Crown Prosecutors, we make decisions to charge and then bring those cases to the court. Obviously, that is a key role.
For many years we have identified the complexities and difficulties of bringing cases where there is domestic abuse. We have really worked hard to ensure that we understand both the technicalities of the offences that we can charge—there is a range of offences—and the whole dynamics of domestic abuse brought about by that power and control element and how that impacts victims. That impacts all the way through, from reluctance to involve any criminal justice agencies and the police, to reluctance to disclose, often to reluctance to come to court. There are lots of obstacles born out of those dynamics.
It is very important to us that we equip our prosecutors with—as I say—both that technical knowledge and that deeper understanding of domestic abuse and how it can present itself, and how we can approach these cases to try to get just outcomes for victims. We have invested heavily over many years in comprehensive guidance and training for our staff, to ensure that they are equipped with both that technical understanding and that knowledge about what happens here and what we can do. That includes responding to how things change and to technology, for instance.
As it stands, at the moment our biggest challenge is the consequence of delay in the criminal justice system and the impact that is having on victims. The way that is manifesting itself in the court process is that, in the magistrates’ court and the Crown Court, it is a real postcode lottery for victims. In the magistrates’ court, there are courts where they are able to prioritise the domestic abuse cases and go into specialist courts. Those cases are dealt with expeditiously, but that is not the case everywhere. There are parts of the country where a victim will have to wait 12 to 18 months for a trial, post the not guilty plea.
The Chair: Can I ask you this? We know that generally in crime, the vast majority of cases go through the magistrates’ courts. Is that true in the domestic abuse situation?
Kate Brown: There has been a change. I am really grateful for that question because I was just about to move on to that. If we look back to the data from March 2021, 61.5% of our caseload was sitting in the magistrates’ court and 38.5% in the Crown Court. In the most recent data we have, which was July to September, that percentage has changed: we now have 41.4% in the magistrates’ court and 58.6% in the Crown Court. There has been a real shift.
The Chair: What does that tell us?
Kate Brown: Some will be a result of the delays, which are probably more extensive in the Crown Court. We are hearing reports of Crown Court listings up to 2030. Those cases are sitting in the Crown Court and not getting out. We are also seeing more serious cases being prosecuted such as strangulation; I will get on to that later as I know that you have a specific question you may want to ask. The guidelines for strangulation envisage the starting point as an 18-month custodial sentence. Inevitably, if charged, those cases are likely to go to the Crown Court to be dealt with.
The Chair: Yes. I also wondered about gaming the system, if you like. Knowing that there are huge delays, are people choosing a trial by jury in order to basically spin out the period before the day of reckoning comes?
Kate Brown: Yes. There is probably always an element of that, but that is not the real driver.
Q28 Baroness Gohir: The longer the victims have to wait for the process, what is the drop-off rate in them withdrawing the case and saying they do not want to go through with it? Do you do many victimless prosecutions?
Kate Brown: We have real concerns about the drop-off rate. It feels like a bit of a time bomb in the sense that, as they extend, it is likely that that drop-off rate increases. What we know from the research is that time is of the essence with domestic abuse. The longer it goes on, the greater the chance there will be a drop-off.
Baroness Gohir: Do you have data on that?
Kate Brown: I do not have it to hand now, but we can send that in. There is a caveat because there is probably a data lag. Our data relies on finalisation so it is the cases that are going through now, not the cases that are necessarily going through when a victim has waited for some time.
Baroness Gohir: What about victimless prosecution?
Kate Brown: We have done a lot of work on that, and we seek to use the option of a victimless prosecution where we can. We train our prosecutors to look for that and we are looking for it at every stage. We should be looking at that when we first see the case. We get cases presented to us where the victim never supports, so we then look to see if we can build the case around that. We also get cases where the victim is initially supportive and we are looking to find the evidence even at that time so that, if they withdraw, that is still an option for us.
We will not always be able to do it. If we then prosecute, we will not always win those cases. But in my case work I see good evidence of us building those cases and some successes in relation to doing that, both in the magistrates’ court and the Crown Court.
Baroness Gohir: It would be handy if you sent that data as well.
Kate Brown: Expectations in relation to the data on what we call evidence-led are very difficult, because it is not easily obtainable.
Lord Russell of Liverpool: Kate, you mentioned that it is a postcode lottery, but you also mentioned that some areas are doing really well.
Kate Brown: Yes.
Lord Russell of Liverpool: How are they doing it?
Kate Brown: It is where the Courts Service finds itself in terms of resource, really. Certainly, that is the case in the magistrates’ court. That is where that decision is made on how many courts it can run with the legal advisers it has.
The Chair: Is it usually better in the big cities?
Kate Brown: It could be anywhere. It sits in my area; I have long waiting times in the magistrates’ court. It is not down to our involvement: we are processing those cases, we are making the decisions in good time, and we are prepared. It is the lack of availability of legal advisers in my area that prevents a sufficient number of trial courts from being listed.
Q29 The Chair: Tanya, can I take this over to you for just a little opener about how your organisation plays a part in getting these cases in before the courts?
Tanya Allen: Yes, of course. I work in and around the specialist domestic abuse court at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. I co-ordinate the partnership for the boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, and Westminster. We work in the magistrates’ court. In essence, as an organisation we focus on the co-ordinated community response, as the model to deliver the best response to domestic abuse. Agencies co-ordinate their efforts and work together to manage risk, share information, and what have you.
My role specifically is in and around the court system. I attend court every week, so I am seeing a lot of what Kate is saying is happening on the ground and the delays that are happening. We do not have the delays that Kate talks of, and I am sure there are a multitude of reasons for that. Perhaps in answer to the question of what works, I would say a partnership effort is sorely needed; that is certainly what works in our area.
In answer to the question about what affects successful progress, we know that the criminal justice system is a very stretched system; it is incredibly fragmented. A case has to travel through various agencies that all have different priorities, targets, focuses, resources and what have you. That presents a challenge in and of itself. That is where partnership working really comes in, where each agency can have the independence and remit of doing what it needs to do. It is based and supported by co-ordination, which has an overarching view of where the gaps are happening, where there is good practice, and where there are barriers to good practice.
We have also done some mapping of the country to see how it looks in other areas. Postcode lottery is going to be the term of the session, certainly for me. It is a postcode lottery in best practice, and it is a postcode lottery in funding commissioning for support services for victims of domestic abuse. That is certainly something that we see and experience even locally. Early access to specialist support for victims of domestic abuse is quite key to that falling-off rate. The longer the delays are, the more stretched it is for those agencies as well. The support services are also supporting the practitioners who are delivering this, who are also under an incredible amount of strain. In essence, they are propping up the system as well as supporting victims and survivors.
Q30 Baroness Neate: The Domestic Abuse Act expanded “Coercive and controlling behaviour” by removing the need to be living together. It also introduced the new offence of “Strangulation and suffocation”, which has already been referred to. I am interested to know what issues you think have arisen in how the criminal courts prosecute these offences.
Kate Brown: We welcomed both those changes. I will deal with the change in relation to the coercive and controlling behaviour first. It always seemed a bit of an anomaly, so it made sense and has therefore been really useful. However, we were concerned that it might make it a bit of a confusing picture because obviously we have coercive and controlling behaviour, but we also have stalking. When people are not living with each other, we did not want to lose sight that that is also available. We work with specialist organisations—we were a little anxious about what would happen—to provide guidance to our prosecutors to navigate their way through the options. What we are looking for is that the prosecutor chooses the charge that both reflects the extent of the criminality and gives the court the sentencing powers.
The strangulation has been a game changer for us and for what we are seeing going through the courts. Again, we were really pleased to see that on the books. It has really elevated that offence; it has recognised the emotional as well as the physical, the control element and the risk. It is really important that it has that standing. As we were embarking on implementation, obviously as part of the process, a lot was learned about that by practitioners from the experts in the field that perhaps was not totally understood by us as prosecutors. In the run-up, we wanted to harness not just that technical, “This is what the law says”, but everything else that was known about it. We were able to hook in with the specialists just before implementation so that we could give our prosecutors the extent and that knowledge, which was really useful.
We often talk about how it takes time for legislation to take hold, but within 24 hours of that legislation being enacted we started having cases coming through. That was good to see. We also obviously have to write our guidance in anticipation of the legislation, and we had put a working definition in our guidance. Quite soon we realised we had probably overengineered it and that actually we had put an element—restriction of breath—in the definition of strangulation that was unnecessary and unhelpful. We reviewed our guidance and took that out.
We also were concerned—again, the expertise from the sector helped us—that it was misunderstood that you have to have physical injury for there to have been strangulation. We made it clear that that was not a necessary element in order for it to pass the evidential barrier. The other thing we are doing because we want to very much keep this alive and keep that learning is working with the Institute for Addressing Strangulation. We are developing further training with it so that the people who are coming through can gain that knowledge, as well as those who were initially here when the legislation came through.
Baroness Neate: I want to just return to controlling and coercive behaviour and understand how that is working as a stand-alone offence, so in cases where that is the offence.
The Chair: Kate, I should flag up that we have already been hearing that this is presenting a problem when it is stand-alone. It is often linked to much more physical behaviour, but how well understood is it? Is there ever prosecution of it standing on its own?
Kate Brown: The vast majority of the cases that are referred to us are because there has been a violent incident. When unpicked, that violent incident is seen in context. It is uncovered. I cannot think of any cases I have seen—it does not mean it has not happened—where it is referred to on its own; where someone has identified themselves and reported to the police, and the police have brought us something that did not involve a violent incident.
The Chair: Tanya, do you have an answer to Baroness Neate’s question? Have you dealt with any stand-alone cases where a woman is saying, “I’m not allowed to see my family members. My husband tracks me on my phone. I’m only allowed out of the house when he says so and it’s in limited circumstances. My access to doctors is limited”?
Baroness Neate: I would just like to add that one might think that if that offence was being dealt with on its own more, if you like, that would lead to earlier identification and earlier prosecutions in the history of domestic abuse experience.
Tanya Allen: Yes. We have seen stand-alone offences being prosecuted. I suspect how they came about being prosecuted is very similar to how Kate describes it. The barrier to bringing it in the way you have described is around risk assessments, dialogue with police, and early access to specialist services, because people who are experiencing that may not know that that is how it is framed. They may not know to think, “This is what’s happening to me. I can go to a front desk and report that in this manner”. When you have a fluid dialogue during a risk assessment process, that is when those things come out. They inform safeguarding, but they also frame evidence gathering, if you like. It is important that they happen in tandem. That is where the partnership between agencies—
Baroness Neate: That is about join-up.
Tanya Allen: It is about join-up. It is about training and understanding what you are hearing. That would be my view. Raising awareness of coercive and controlling behaviour generally is important—outside just the journey of prosecution in court—because as practitioners understand more about it, the court process can be safer as well. It can be addressed in terms of bail conditions, special measures, or protective orders, even if it is not just the prosecution that is being focused on, if that makes sense.
Baroness Gohir: Does CPS give guidance on what counts as coercive control? Does it include transnational abandonment in that?
Kate Brown: I would have to double check that, but we try to give as many hints as we can. It is not an exhaustive list, but it is quite a long list. I could not say for certain.
Baroness Gohir: The only reason I ask is that transnational abandonment is not a stand-alone offence.
Kate Brown: No.
Baroness Gohir: It has to fit in somewhere. I was just wondering if that would be in that list. It is interesting.
The Chair: You might think about that and let us know if there is more you want to add at any stage later. We are always happy to hear from you.
Q31 Baroness Gerada: We have heard evidence around the broad definition of “personally connected” in the Act. We have listened to evidence saying that it is good, it is bad, it has expanded far too much but it is really good. We have had complete evidence. Maybe this goes to Kate: how has this affected the prosecution cases in the criminal courts in general, and in particular with regard to minoritised victims and perpetrators?
The Chair: Baroness Gerada, it might be helpful for the general public who are listening in to know what “personally connected” is about. We are talking about domestic abuse including other members of the family participating in it.
Baroness Gerada: Yes, it is other members of the family but much wider family, even including—
The Chair: It is even wider. People in the community who have authority.
Baroness Gerada: It could include a great aunt, an imam, a teacher. It is much wider than intimate family or even just the nuclear family.
Kate Brown: I am aware that you have had evidence about concerns. From a prosecutorial point of view, we have not encountered those problems. Obviously, the Act did not create an offence. The only offence for the element of personal connection is coercive and controlling behaviour, which needs to be shown anyway, but we have lots of offences in the domestic abuse field where we are using other offences. I have not seen that personal connection being a problem for us. Nothing has been escalated to me.
Baroness Gerada: We heard evidence that it actually created too many cases that could have gone elsewhere, therefore putting a lot of pressure on the system that deals with domestic violence, including the legal system and the third sector system. That is the evidence we heard from a number of witnesses.
Kate Brown: If I am right, I think you have heard evidence around the police dealing with that. The bottom line for us is that if that person has potentially committed an offence, they have committed an offence, whether we flag it as domestic abuse or not. We are looking to see about the evidence in the public interest on that offence. The implications that have potentially been found within policing are not causing problems for us.
The Chair: By the time it reaches your desk there has been some consideration of the appropriateness of prosecuting and so on.
Kate Brown: Yes. Can I pick up the second part of that question around minorities? We are acutely aware that minorities have difficulties accessing criminal justice in general. We are mindful of the intersectionality of that. Because we were reflecting on that, we launched the CPS Violence against Women and Girls Strategy at the end of last year, and we have reinforced that need to approach cases mindful of that. We are currently updating prosecution and training to take into account that aspect because we want a just outcome for all victims. If we need to provide additional guidance and support to prosecutors to find our way there, that is something we are committed to doing. That is work under way.
The Chair: Tanya, can I ask you to deal with Baroness Gerada’s question? Are there problems arising for organisations that are dealing with these issues around the wide nature of that definition, introducing relationships that are outside the intimate relationship, if you like, but are elders in a community—religious elders, perhaps elderly relatives—who have authority in the family?
Tanya Allen: It is slightly outside the scope of my remit to be able to offer an answer. Certainly, I have colleagues who would be able to put their expertise behind that. I am more than happy to come back on that.
The Chair: If there is anything you want to add then, as I said earlier, we are always happy to hear supplementary evidence coming by way of letter and communication.
Q32 Lord Russell of Liverpool: One of the elements included in the Act, which many of us fought hard for, was the notion that children are victims of domestic abuse if they see, hear or witness it directly or indirectly. The question for you first, Kate, is: what issues—if any—are there in the criminal courts in terms of prosecuting perpetrators in this particular area?
Kate Brown: Again, it was welcome to see that in the legislation. We actually already had in our guidance a recognition that a child witnessing it was an aggravating feature. It therefore needed to be brought into consideration when deciding to prosecute and when presenting the facts of the case so that the sentencing court could take that into account when it sentenced.
I am mindful that the committee is interested in whether there were any gaps, so I thought it would be helpful to raise two in the current definition. First, there is the extended two-year time limit for charging domestic abuse assault cases by beating; it applies only if the Domestic Abuse Act applies. Since that requires everyone to be over 16, it means if the victim was under 16, the six-month time limit applies. I have gone very technical, but does that make sense?
The Chair: Yes, absolutely.
Kate Brown: Okay. Secondly, controlling and coercive behaviour cannot be if the victim is under 16. Of course, that means it precludes teenage relationships, which we are aware can be subject to that sort of behaviour.
Lord Russell of Liverpool: What could we do to plug those gaps? What would your advice be?
The Chair: We could extend the two years to under-16s.
Kate Brown: Similarly with the CCB provisions.
The Chair: Okay, that is very interesting. Thank you so much for drawing our attention to that, I was not aware of that.
Lord Russell of Liverpool: Tanya, what have you observed?
Tanya Allen: I would agree with Kate. It is very technical and to do with prosecution, so I would not add to that.
Q33 Baroness Sugg: I wanted to ask you about special measures. Obviously, Section 62 made the assumption that all domestic abuse cases would have special measures, and Section 63 brought the family courts in line with the criminal courts on that. As I understand it, that is everything from screens to separate waiting areas. I would be really interested to hear about how effective they have been in protecting victims and witnesses, helping them to give the best evidence and have the best experience at court. Have there been any issues specifically in court on implementing the special measures? I might go to Tanya first because Standing Together did a report on this in 2023, did you not?
Tanya Allen: Yes, when we were doing the mapping that was one of many things we looked at. From an operational perspective, I will talk about the gaps in the logistical issues. There is the technology, of course: people’s and staff’s understanding and ability to use that technology; the delays in communicating with people who might be waiting in the virtual lobby, not knowing what is going on. These all seem like quite simple things. However, in the context of the whole purpose of special measures, it undermines the aim to achieve best evidence, such as if someone’s anxiety and distress is through the roof because they have had to negotiate their way in through a side entrance and they are waiting and do not know what is going on. These are the things that we have observed. They are relatively easy to solve, but the impact of not solving them most certainly is quite high.
Baroness Sugg: How would you solve them?
Tanya Allen: Communication, for sure, and understanding the technology and thinking about the logistics. For example, who is going to be in the room with that person if they are giving evidence from home? Are they going to get the link? What do they do? Victims often have to wait a very long time at court to give evidence. They can be updated by the Witness Service very often to say, “This is what’s happening. They’re just dealing with another case”, “They’re waiting for an interpreter to turn up”, or what have you. That sometimes gets missed when somebody is waiting in the virtual lobby, so they do not know what is going on.
The real-time communication can solve that. We all know how to use video calling, but very often that does not play out in the court setting. It is quite archaic in that respect. Those solutions could be there. There is also the use of things such as side entrances: some courts are just not physically set up for that. There needs to be an audit of courts and a realistic assessment of what is required. In our area, the court has felt that one of the courthouses in our area is just not deemed suitable for domestic abuse cases.
Baroness Sugg: Is that from an infrastructure perspective?
Tanya Allen: Yes, from the physical layout. That is positive in so far as it has been seen, but of course, that cuts off the venue and then can sometimes add to delays. That is about the court estate.
Baroness Sugg: That is the postcode lottery again.
The Chair: I like your idea that there ought to be an audit of the courts that are doing this. Sometimes there needs to be a tough decision about saying that a particular court is just not suited for handling these cases.
Tanya Allen: Space then needs to be made in the listing framework for the cases that are suitable to make space for the cases that are not, if you see what I mean.
Kate Brown: Again, from my experience in court, we are keen to see this eligibility and take some uncertainty out for victims, but I wonder if we have gone far enough. I have another suggestion, if I may? It is about the distinction between eligibility and entitlement. When we are talking about screens and video link, these are not complex things. We would support a position where a victim had certainty at the start of their interaction with the police and could be provided with the reassurance that those supportive measures would be in place because they wanted them—not because somebody had to make an application within a certain amount of time, but because it was recognised that they felt that was a supportive measure they wanted or needed.
That would also give flexibility further along because people change their mind—understandably—about what supportive measures they want as they get closer to the prospect. Sometimes they want to not appear in court. Sometimes they want to appear in court but they want a screen. We could take out the bureaucracy and bring in the certainty and flexibility if the legislation went further.
Baroness Sugg: I understand in your report that you highlighted something quite concerning about people being advised that they should not use special measures to show that they were not acting with hostility or whatever. Your suggestion would take that away, would it not?
The Chair: That is very helpful too.
Q34 Baroness Barran: I just have a quick question for Tanya. You talked about the importance of communication. I assume that on an individual case basis, if a woman has an IDVA or another court support worker, they can do that individual-level communication: the side entrance, the waiting room, et cetera. However, your role is obviously more systemic. I appreciate you have a certain point of view, but can this work without that more systemic work you are doing to make sure the wheels keep turning between the various partners?
Tanya Allen: Absolutely. Indeed, it should. The support services are certainly a crucial part of the service, but they are client led and not every victim-survivor wants to have them or feels ready. The system needs to be equipped to be able to deal with that. Kate has already mentioned that there are the police, the prosecution, Witness Service, witness care and the victim liaison officers. It is not the case that there are no people or agencies to respond in this way, but the protocols need to be there. It needs to be laid out, complied with, audited and monitored. There needs to be more than just guidance, but direction as to how these things can be communicated.
I do not know how things are more recently, but certainly I recall a time when Witness Service, which is at court and ready to receive people giving evidence, had minimal information about what was coming. Before this, it used to have almost notes from somebody who came for a pre-trial visit: “These were their concerns, this is what we discussed”. That enabled that feel of continuity, so that when the witness came they saw a familiar face. Somebody already knew it was domestic abuse and what the barriers were or what have you. Information sharing is just so key for that co-ordinated, consistent, holistic support that people need.
The Chair: Tanya, it is very interesting hearing you describing what you do. What I want to understand is: is this available in every bit of our jurisdiction? Is every court supported by an organisation such as yours that is so in touch with the clientele, if you like?
Tanya Allen: I would definitely say it is a postcode lottery. Maybe what you are asking is what is happening in our court compared with other courts.
The Chair: Yes. I just wondered if you have any good sense of that.
Tanya Allen: Through the mapping we did a few years ago, the prevalence of DA courts was quite difficult to measure because of the absence of a common definition of what a domestic abuse court is. We went with how people defined themselves in their area. Certainly, we had an assessment of the components that we felt made up a DA court, and they were not always present. In our area, the uniqueness of the court is that it is clustering its DA cases. The specialists can be in one courtroom together: an IDVA, a co-ordinator.
The legal process is exactly the same, but the focus is around safety; it is around making the court process as safe as possible for victims and children, so that they can feel confident to access that as an avenue for protection. That is quite key. Operationally, that means the DA cases need to be heard together. It means that the information sharing is happening. There are protocols so that the professionals in the courtroom know they can work together in a certain way that has been endorsed by their management, by leadership, through protocols and what have you. That is a really important aspect. The information is fed into the CPS, in essence, to relay to the court so the court can make safe decisions, probation can make a suitable assessment for rehabilitative sentencing, and what have you.
The IDVAs are really key in that as well. They have to be present because they are feeding in real-time and up-to-date information about what is happening in the victim’s life. Of course, we know that victims of domestic abuse face so many multiple intersecting barriers and issues. Criminal justice and the court process are just one of them amidst housing, financial abuse, child protection, what have you. The IDVA is quite key to create that context. It is delivering safety and safeguarding in real time to have this.
Equally, it engages victims and survivors because somebody is there to let them know and communicate with them what is happening. For example, somebody could be released from custody, or sentenced, or what have you; the IDVA can be outside on the phone, safety planning around the bail conditions before the person has even left the dock. That is going to engage people better because they feel at the heart of the process. That is where the specialist domestic abuse court really comes in.
It is a postcode lottery for sure. Funding and commissioning are very inconsistent. Even our area, which is arguably one of the most advanced in this area, is still suffering an existential threat because of the funding and it is just hoping that local authorities will find it in their budget. Yes, it is a constant, constant battle and challenge for organisations and for me.
The Chair: That is very helpful.
Q35 Baroness Hussein-Ece: My question is about the effect of the prohibition on perpetrators cross-examining their victims. What impact has that had so far? It is quite recent, is it not? What impact has that had on victim-survivors in the family courts? Have you picked up on how that has played out in any of your case work? Have there been any issues in how this measure has been used?
Tanya Allen: I am in the magistrates’ court, not the family court, so it is not something that I have observed. For a long time, we have seen in the magistrates’ court that somebody is not allowed to cross-examine. The various provisions are quite consistently put in place. In terms of the effect when in family court, I would probably have to—
The Chair: The family court is going to be dealt with in the next session.
Baroness Hussein-Ece: I realise it says panel 2 in the document.
The Chair: Yes, it is a different session.
Baroness Hussein-Ece: Is there also a fear from victims about the presence of the perpetrator or the family connected to that perpetrator? I suppose there is anxiety about that. You have described safeguarding, protecting and putting things in place, but it is still unavoidable, is it not? You said that some courts are not suitable: they do not have side doors, they do not have the facilities. How is that handled?
Tanya Allen: That is a really good question, and it is important that the professionals on the ground understand the logistics of that. They might be able to pull a screen, but if there is a gap in the screen and you can see a whole public gallery full of family members, then that has an impact. That knowledge and training of everybody in the courtroom around these issues is just crucial.
Q36 Baroness Rafferty: My question is around specialist domestic abuse courts and their differentiation from normal courts. Tanya, you have already laid out so beautifully what that distinction might be in terms of the clustering of cases and the focus on safeguarding and safety for both children and victims. There are also the various protocols that are being set up and the sharing of those to facilitate access to services, and the multifaceted barriers that you just outlined there. I also noted that there is not a standard definition of a specialist domestic abuse court. Do you see that as a huge disadvantage, or is the elasticity of that definition actually quite helpful in how you can funnel cases and workloads in different ways?
Tanya Allen: That is a really good question. The criminal justice system is not necessarily in a position to respond to elasticity as effectively as we might like it to. If it was up to me, I would say, “Let’s be quite rigid about what a DA court is”. When I say rigid I mean the fundamentals. There has to be a clustered listing system that has to be adhered to, and the fact that it is a DA case must be the priority. What we found when we went around the country is that it did not take much to trump DA, if you like. We would have a DA court, but actually no, the remand cases would be in another court, or the sentencing cases would be in another. Where is the prioritisation of DA in that structure? That is really, really important.
Obviously, the support of IDVA provision and co-ordination is fundamental. We cannot progress and know where our DA court is going, what the gaps are, where the issues present themselves and how they can be filled, unless somebody has an overarching view. I sit in court every week so I see what trends and issues there are. I have an opportunity to go to a steering group that is multiagency: police, CPS, HMCTS, the judiciary, and what have you. I can present the gaps I have observed and together, within our given remits and independence, we can find a solution to those gaps.
The Chair: You have just mentioned something that is really interesting to me. You are talking about how at your court there is a steering group that is multidisciplinary. Is that happening in all courts up and down the land?
Tanya Allen: From the mapping exercise we carried out, no. We found that it was quite rare to have a specific DA court-related steering group. They were subsumed within other groups—local justice area groups—that had a multitude of other priorities and crime areas to talk about. Domestic abuse was just one of those. What is good about ours is that it is focused purely on the domestic abuse court, and then things can be fed accordingly because it is multiagency. No, it is not very common. I was going to mention towards the end—I still can—about the DA best practice framework that was put in place. In my view, that really paved the way and created a framework within which this sort of thing could be achieved.
The Chair: There is that framework, but is it yet being acted on universally?
Tanya Allen: It is a bit historic now. The framework is sound. When we did the mapping we almost tested it against the components that were identified. We feel that they are absolutely still applicable. It was implemented and then it dwindled in terms of maintenance. That was our observation. I have been in this sector for such a long time—this will be the second time—and CPS very much drives these initiatives. It gets the cross-agency support; it gets the evidence; everybody is around the table; there is a lot of excitement; then—rightly so—it steps back and says, “Right, it’s for local areas to handle. You have the blueprint, carry on”. That is when it all goes wrong.
That plays to the strengths of partnerships in areas. We have a strong partnership, and we do a lot of the things that the DA best practice framework laid out. We probably do not have to do them any more, but we saw the benefit of them.
Q37 Baroness Porter of Fulwood: I want to bring us on to a cultural point. Could you please both say a little about the attitudes of legal professionals and court officials, and what impact those have on the progress of cases and victims’ and survivors’ experiences? How do you think any shortcomings could be addressed? You have both touched on training, so it would be good to hear a little more about how adequate you think that is, but also other areas beyond that.
Kate Brown: What we know from the work we have done and the consultations we have had for many years as a sector, is that training is really important in understanding. How well individuals understand domestic abuse and the impact on victims has a significant impact on not just the decision-making, but the experience of victims when they come in contact with members of our staff. As I say, we train front-line prosecutors on domestic abuse.
We are also currently going through trauma-informed training for both prosecutors and other staff who are likely to come into contact with victims: our staff who support at the Crown Court. We also have a pilot going on at the moment around an enhanced victim offer to domestic abuse victims. Our staff are reaching out to victims of domestic abuse and trying to fill in some gaps that you have understood about the court process and what is going to happen, so they can hear directly from CPS staff. We have included the trauma training as well as other aspects because we know it is important.
The Chair: That is all great because you have a systematised process going on in the Crown Prosecution Service. One of the difficulties is that very often the perpetrator will go to a traditional criminal law firm, and the lawyer who might be acting may not be very well versed in domestic violence. They may actually be used to dealing with crime of all sorts: burglaries, robberies, assaults and so on in the generality. They then bring their traditional criminal advocacy manner into the domestic violence arena. It can be very unhelpful at times, in my experience.
What do we do about that? You have a way of providing the training. Yes, we are trying to get more of this stuff going on inside our law schools and universities where law is being taught, and in the training of solicitors and barristers. But what happens thereafter, as we learn more and become more informed about the effect on victims of this kind of trauma? How does one engage with the defence side?
Kate Brown: I am not sure I have the answer for that. We would obviously continue to endeavour to be a protective shield to some extent in the actual courtroom activities, as it were, to make sure that inappropriate questions are not asked and that victims are dealt with respectfully during that process.
The Chair: It is also the responsibility of judges and those who are hearing the cases to manage the court in such a way that there is some understanding of the traumatising effect of certain kinds of cross-examination.
Q38 Lord Russell of Liverpool: Baroness Barran asked a question in a previous evidence session and said that when she founded SafeLives, when it was delivering training to the police, it frequently found at the end of the session that people from the police would come forward themselves to say they were victims of domestic abuse. Have you had the same phenomenon in the Crown Prosecution Service? How do you deal with it?
Kate Brown: Yes. We have done some work to provide additional support for people and allies within the organisation and to recognise that because, for a front-line prosecutor, this is quite a high level of work that we deal with, sadly. If you think it is underreported, then there could be a lot more. Yes, we have a range of support that we can give victims when they are our own staff. They have access to support and people they can go to.
Lord Russell of Liverpool: Would you say you are exemplars of best practice?
Kate Brown: We try very hard. What we want is that our understanding in relation to the cases we deal with is extended to our staff.
The Chair: Yes. Judges are certificated to do certain kinds of cases, such as rape cases, homicides and so on. They have had special training and experience that enables them to do it in the right kind of way. I often wonder whether people should be certificated when they are dealing with particular kinds of cases so it would show that they have had training. It just might be worth us thinking about it.
If you have any further thoughts about that with colleagues, I would be interested to hear them. Often there are specialist teams within the Crown Prosecution Service. For those lawyers who do defence work—whether they are barristers or solicitors—perhaps there should be a certification that they are certificated to deal with children’s cases or domestic violence cases, so that they actually have gone to the bother of receiving additional training because there is new knowledge coming through all the time.
Q39 Lord Polak: Tanya, right at the beginning you made a statement that one of the difficulties is reluctance to come to court. People have had trauma, of course, and it is difficult. Do the domestic abuse services—in particular the independent domestic violence adviser—help? If so, how can we extend that?
Tanya Allen: Absolutely. They are absolutely vital to the system. I can highlight that in our area, we have a specific criminal justice IDVA, not just a court IDVA. They can come in a little sooner. They are co-located in the police station, which then often might make a difference whether a prosecution is supported by a victim-survivor. IDVAs generally are fairly crucial. The independent bit is the key: they are not part of the system; they are client led. That means they can support somebody who is navigating a multitude of different barriers, sectors and issues such as housing, social care and what have you. That is quite key.
To the last question around attitudes, within the criminal justice system, victim-survivors are more than just witnesses; it is their lives. That is where the IDVAs really come into their own and are able to support someone. It is unconditional. It is not, “We’ll support you if you give a statement”, or, “We’ll support you only if you leave the perpetrator”. That is really important.
They demystify the process, which is really important. With anything, if you have a deeper understanding of it, of course you are much more likely to engage with it. They demystify; they physically support at court; they discuss all the options that are available and the potential implications and outcomes. They are crucial in that respect.
It is difficult with data, but we have seen that there are lower levels of attrition where an IDVA is involved and higher conviction rates, which is really important. Again, the barrier is funding and commissioning. It would be remiss of me not to keep repeating that because it is a postcode lottery even in that sphere. We are lucky to have the funding for a criminal justice IDVA from Hammersmith and Fulham, but that is not everywhere, certainly.
Lord Polak: How do you find these people?
Tanya Allen: How do we find the funders?
Lord Polak: The IDVAs. Who are these people?
Tanya Allen: They are trained and qualified professionals in risk and domestic abuse from SafeLives. They have been accredited; it is a profession. It is a very honourable profession that a lot of—
Lord Polak: Are there enough IDVAs?
Tanya Allen: Absolutely not, no.
The Chair: I think Tanya would agree, a lot of the people do degrees in sociology, criminology, or women’s studies. There is a whole range of things that prepare people for then further professionalising the skills they have acquired in general. There are lots of people who—
Tanya Allen: They might be specialists as well, in criminal justice, housing, immigration, mental health and what have you. They are very important. They might have lived experience as well.
Baroness Gohir: In terms of the training—it is £2,000 or £3,000, I cannot remember now—small organisations cannot necessarily afford that. Where is that funding coming from? How is the funding going to be impacted with the police and crime commissioners being disbanded? A lot of it was coming from there. Is that a big concern?
Tanya Allen: I will not profess to know the ins and outs of the commissioning process for IDVA services. However, if PCCs are being disbanded, the money that was going to them is not precluded from continuing to fund IDVA provision. I can get back to you on that.
Baroness Gohir: We have to make sure that happens though. That money could just go somewhere and disappear into thin air, right? We have to make sure that money—
The Chair: We have to make sure that in the distribution of resources this whole area is not forgotten.
Tanya Allen: If there is a rollout of things such as domestic abuse courts, then in tandem there is going to have to be funding for that because it cannot happen without an IDVA.
The Chair: That is the sort of thing we can feed into the report.
Kate Brown: Sorry, could I just add my support for everything Tanya has said, from a practitioner point of view? It is important. It is absolutely crucial.
The Chair: It makes such a difference, absolutely, I know. It also does for lawyers who are not in the Crown Prosecution Service.
Q40 Baroness Sugg: I just wanted to ask: is there an issue about IDVAs accompanying the person to court? I understand that some might not be able to. I do not know why that is. Is that a resource issue? Is that something we need to look at?
Tanya Allen: Yes, it is a resource issue in so far as if they have a big caseload, there is often lots of waiting at court and they would be going for one case. That is one of the issues. We found when we were mapping—we do not see it so much in London—that, as courthouses closed and DA cases were diverted, they were often diverted very far away. They might have been in an area that is not then covered by the IDVA provision. We heard of some resistance around them being present in court with the people they were supporting. Yes, they face barriers.
Baroness Sugg: I can imagine that must be quite traumatic in itself. You have come to know someone and you are very reliant on them, and all of a sudden you are moved away, they are moved away, or they are not allowed in.
Tanya Allen: Absolutely. The funding does not help with that either because often employment contracts are very short term. Often there is a build-up of a relationship that then has to be moved on because the particular funding stream has gone.
Q41 The Chair: I want to thank you both and to finally ask you about recommendations because, of course, we are looking at whether there are things we can suggest might take place. Kate, you have mentioned the business of under 16-year-olds and how the law seems to be impacting there and whether we should look at that again. Are there other areas? Obviously, we have the resource issue, and the postcode lottery is one that we have our minds on. There is this whole business about how we make sure that there is a multiagency response. Are there any other areas that you would like to particularly flag?
Kate Brown: No. There was a special measures point as well that Tanya mentioned. There is nothing in addition to that, no.
The Chair: That is really very helpful.
Tanya Allen: I would also like to re-emphasise the DA best practice framework. It should not be archived and replaced with a new initiative because it is very sound. DA court is a very test bed to see what is working and what is not because it is there in front of us so we can see where the issues are.
The Chair: Can I thank you both? This has been a really useful session and you have both been most helpful. Your expertise has been a great assistance to us, so I want to thank you formally.
