Written evidence from Southall Black Sisters (DVB0035)
Executive Summary
About us
Human rights implications of the Bill for migrant women with ‘No Recourse to Public Funds’ (NRPF)
Government response
Whether the Bill could do more to enhance the protection of human rights
15 February 2019
Appendix
Response ID ANON-1WEK-1XG4-V
Submitted to Transforming the response to domestic abuse
Submitted on 2018-05-31 21:58:10
Personal details
A I understand that there are two versions of the consultation. If I have already completed the short version I will not answer the following
questions again: 6, 7, 9, 12, 24, 25, 26, 32, 35, 39, 43.
Yes
B What is your name?
Name:
Radhika Handa
D What region are you in?
Please select your region:
Greater London
E Are you responding on behalf of an organisation or as a member of the public?
Please choose an option below:
Organisation
F If relevant, which, if any, best describes you/your organisation?
Please select one of the options that best describes you:
Charitable/voluntary domestic abuse organisation
If none of the above please specify below:
G If applicable, please give the name of your organisation/ profession.
The name of your organisation, if relevant.:
Southall Black Sisters ('SBS')
Introducing a new statutory definition of domestic abuse
1 Do you agree with the proposed approach to the statutory definition?
Disagree
Please explain your answer.:
1. The first problem with the proposed definition is that it is gender neutral. This gender neutrality betrays official statistics across the UK and indeed the world
which show that women are far more likely to have experienced domestic abuse than men (7.5% of women compared with 4.3% of men). This equates to an
estimated 1.2 million female victims and 713,000 male victims (Office for National Statistics, Statistical bulletin: Domestic abuse in England and Wales: year
ending March 2017). This is not the whole story though, as research shows that coercive control is highly gendered and women are overwhelmingly the victims of
this form of abuse (Myhill, A., (2015) Measuring Coercive Control - What Can We Learn From National Population Surveys? Violence Against Women and Girls,
volume 21, issue 3, 13 February, 2015). Women are more likely to suffer repeated and systemic violence, severe assaults and injuries and are more likely to die
at the hands of violence partners. For example:
a. The Office for National Statistics data shows that the majority of victims of domestic homicides recorded between April 2013 and March 2016 were females
(70%), and that over three-quarters of female victims of domestic homicide were killed by a male partner or ex-partner (76%, 242 females); of these, 114 were
killed by a spouse or civil partner, 47 were killed by their ‘common-law spouse’ or cohabiting partner, 35 were killed by a boyfriend and 28 were killed by an
ex-spouse, ex-common law spouse or ex-cohabiting partner;
b. The Femicide Census developed by Karen Ingala Smith and Women’s Aid (which records killings of women by men, not limited to domestic homicides)
recorded a total of 309 domestic femicides in England and Wales from April 2013 to March 2016;
c. Standing Together Against Violence’s report (Sharp-Jeffs, N. and Kelly, L., June (2016) Domestic Homicide Review (DHR) Case Analysis,
http://www.standingtogether.org.uk/sites/default/files/docs/STADV_DHR_Report_Final.pdf ) analysed 32 domestic homicide reviews. Intimate partner homicide
made up three-quarters (24) of the 32 DHR cases. Within these, 92% (22) of the victims were women and two were men.
2. Also, the difference between men and women’s experiences of violence is particularly striking for sexual violence. The latest available ONS statistics show that
an estimated 3.1% of women (510,000) and 0.8% of men (138,000) aged 16 to 59 experienced sexual assault, according to the Crime Survey for England and
Wales (CSEW) for the year ending March 2017; no significant change from the previous year’s survey. There has been no significant change in the prevalence of
sexual assault measured by the CSEW between the year ending March 2005 (2.6%) and the year ending March 2017 (2.0%) surveys.
3. In our view, not recognising that domestic violence is a gendered phenomenon either in the title or in the text of the definition is a serious omission that will
have far-reaching consequences including the loss of women-only services. In her report, following her mission to the UK in 2014, the UN Special Rapporteur on
Violence against Women expressed concern about the move towards gender neutrality:
“The Special Rapporteur is concerned about a number of regressive measures that have been adopted. These include the shift from gender specificity to gender
neutrality, including gender-neutral services being increasingly favoured…” (UN Human Rights Council 19 May 2015).
4. Secondly the very title of this Bill contradicts the government’s own strategy and action plans on domestic and other forms of violence which is entitled
'Strategy to end violence against women and girls: 2016 to 2020.' This failure to reflect properly the reality of violence against women and girls is not surprising
since we still live in a society where patriarchal attitudes and structures and gender inequality, of which violence against women and girls is a manifestation, are
prevalent.
5. Thirdly, we had understood that the primary purpose of this Bill was to honour the commitments the government made nearly 6 years ago, when it signed the
Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (the Istanbul Convention). That Convention is
specifically and deliberately gendered. It recognises in its preamble the links between historical and structural inequality between men and women and gender
based violence, and the fact that domestic violence disproportionately affects women. Article 1(1) (a) of the Convention specifically states that a purpose of the
Convention is to protect women against all forms of violence, and prevent, prosecute and eliminate violence against women and domestic violence.
6. In light of this we do not understand the rationale for ignoring gender in the definition of domestic abuse. At the very least, this Bill must ensure that there is
such recognition in a preamble to the Bill and in any guidance that follows. The preamble should follow the Istanbul Convention in recognising that gender based
violence disproportionately affects women and that there are clear links between domestic abuse and structural gender inequality.
7. Fourthly, it is vital that there is recognition that domestic abuse and other forms of abuse, including culturally specific harms, are viewed as part of a continuum
of violence and not seen as separate incidents. This is especially true of domestic and sexual violence which are rarely recognised as linked. Yet our experience
shows that women who experience domestic violence also experience emotional and sexual violence. For example, women subject to forced marriage also
experience sexual violence and a range of other coercive practices. An understanding of the overlapping nature of gender-based violence needs to be embedded
in all statutory responses since all too often, statutory bodies only concentrate on the presenting issue, rather than the broader contextual history of violence
which often reveals experiences of overlapping patterns of violence, coercion and control.
8. Fifthly, whilst the proposed definition correctly recognises the myriad ways in which abuse can take place, we note the absence of reference to specific
culturally specific forms of harm including but not limited to forced marriage, honour based violence, dowry-related abuse, polygamy and transnational marriage
abandonment. It is important to include cultural forms of harm in the statutory definition since all too often such forms of abuse are not picked up by statutory
agencies or other professionals and this can have consequences in respect of their response. The other benefit of having examples of abuse explicitly recognised
by the statutory definition is that it also sends an important message to victims that their experiences amount to gender-based violence. Many of our BME users
for instance, are unaware that the behaviour they have been subjected to by their partners and/or families is abuse and therefore unacceptable. Any revised
definition must make reference to distinct forms or contexts of violence, and to the intersectional and compounded nature of the risks experienced by women due
to their marginalised status or context. We therefore suggest adopting the definition of domestic abuse contained within Practice Direction 12J to the Family
Procedure Rules 2010 as an example; this guidance follows the cross-government definition but also includes examples of cultural forms of abuse which may not
otherwise always be recognised. The College of Policing definition similarly provides further examples on different forms of domestic abuse. We therefore
recommend that the definition of domestic abuse adopted in the Practice Direction be followed since it will allow for consistency across government and legal and
statutory bodies.
9. We welcome the fact that the proposed definition is not limited to violence caused by partners but also ‘family members’. Our experience and wider research
shows that 50% of all BME women experience abuse from multiple perpetrators within extended family networks.
10. In addition, it is vital that there is statutory guidance underpinning the definition of domestic abuse. Such guidance could include further examples of more
culturally specific forms of abuse as well as those that are those less well recognised, together with examples of the various characteristics of victims which may
make them vulnerable to abuse and indicate heightened risk (such as insecure immigration status, disability etc). We find that statutory agencies, including social
services, the police and the Legal Aid Agency do not pick up on less well known forms of abuse unless they are specifically directed by legislation or guidance to
take account of such forms of abuse (as mentioned above). It is vital that women’s organisations, particularly specialist organisations including BME Violence
Against Women and Girls (VAWG) groups, are widely consulted in relation to such guidance.
11. We would also reiterate the importance of ensuring that any new definition of domestic violence is truly cross-governmental in nature; it must be consistent
across all government bodies, courts and tribunals services and across different areas of law (e.g. family, immigration, crime, housing etc).
2 Will the new definition change what your organisation does? Please select 1. (This question is for organisations only)
No it won't change
Explain how it will change what your organisation does.:
3 How can we ensure that the definition is embedded in frontline practice?
Please provide you answer in the box provided:
1. Firstly; as mentioned above, it is crucial to ensure consistency of definition across government bodies and statutory agencies to make sure all frontline
professionals are applying the same definition.
2. We would also like to see a standardisation of the risk assessment criteria based on the new definition, across frontline (statutory and non-statutory) agencies,
especially when assessing risk related to harmful cultural practices. We have concerns about the CAADA-DASH assessment since it is often approached as a
‘tick box’ exercise. In our experience, attaching a narrative element to a risk assessment works more effectively in capturing nuances and information that is vital
to assessing ongoing risk and/or the emergence of potentially new risks. We are concerned about the way in which the current risk assessment has been
designed, since it only captures risk at the time of the presenting incident(s), but is not effective in assessing risk in a more holistic manner or capturing any future
risk. It is vital to ensure that any new risk assessment framework is designed to acknowledge that risk is a dynamic and not static process. We are aware that the
CAADA-DASH assessment is being currently revised by the College of Policing (CPP) and that a new template has been piloted in some police forces and that
the CPP is awaiting results of the pilot project. We are also aware that number of questions within the assessment is being reduced (including the removal of
some questions on sexual violence). This is not helpful since our experience is that the absence of specific questions and flexibility in capturing narratives can
prevent identification of different forms of interrelated violence and crucially the risks that exist or will emerge.
3. Secondly, we recommend that proper statutory guidance and compulsory training around that guidance, be provided to all statutory services such as social
services, police, housing authorities all of which appear to be extremely inconsistent, indifferent and frequently unlawful in their response to domestic violence.
4. Thirdly, if the new definition is to have any practical meaning for those in frontline practice, the government must provide adequate resources and funding to
actually tackle domestic abuse. This means ending the frustrating and pointless short funding cycles and commissioning cultures that favour large, generic (and
superficially cheaper) organisations over small, specialist ones. The VAWG sector is rapidly being de-skilled by the takeover by generic services. We address the
issue of commissioning of domestic violence services at question 64 below.
4 What impact do you think the changes to the age limit in the 2012 definition have had?
Very negative
Please explain your answer.:
1. We are seriously concerned about the impact of domestic violence and other forms of gender-related harm on young women and girls. In our experience,
young people, girls aged between 16 and 17 in particular, can be victims of domestic abuse and if from BME backgrounds, are often at risk of other forms of
harm, especially forced marriage, FGM, HBV and so on. However, in reality, we find that 16 -17 year old victims are falling between the safeguarding legislation
and framework for protection for children and the legal protection framework for vulnerable adults. Children’s social services take the view that this age group are
‘almost adults’ and therefore do not fall under the ‘jurisdiction’ of children’s services which results in a lack of protection and care for this age group. We are very
concerned for example that although some young girls are able to access all or some of the protection available to adult victims of abuse (for example by seeking
redress through the criminal justice system), most are not. The existing available support services are often inappropriate for women and girls from this age
category, who often have different needs and issues. For example, we need to see specific refuges and hostels for 16-18 year olds as they often face an entirely
different set of risks and dangers, such as sexual exploitation and online sexual grooming, than do older women. For example, our experience is that placing
young girls and women in refuges occupied by mainly older women can result in young girls experiencing further isolation and alienation accompanied by higher
incidences of mental health problems, self-harming, suicide attempts and sexual exploitation.
2. It is vital that specific vulnerabilities associated with this age group are therefore acknowledged and addressed. We do not agree that this age group should be
included in the domestic violence definition because they are then left without the enhanced support that is available for children under 16. The line drawn
between a 15 year old and a 16 year old for instance is arbitrary. Many of the young girls that we assist are financially and psychologically ill-prepared for
independent living, having run away from forced marriage or abuse in the family and have never conceived of themselves as independent or autonomous
persons. They often have complex needs and require considerable emotional and practical support and mentoring to overcome their acute lack of confidence and
fear of isolation. They need accommodation where mentoring and one to one support is available if they are to survive without family and community networks.
Example: RM, a young 18 year old Bangladeshi girl, feared that her father was going to take her to Bangladesh and force her into a marriage. She left home and
sought assistance in obtaining a Forced Marriage Protection Order (FMPO) and was temporarily placed in a refuge in another part of the country. However, as
someone who had never lived away from home, she could not get used to the acute isolation that she faced and she fell into depression. Unable to cope with her
isolation, she made contact with her elder sister and eventually moved back into the family home even though she faced even more risks and dangers. Once
back home, she then asked for the FMPO to be removed on the grounds that normal relations within the family had been re-established and she no longer feared
for her safety. However, the court remained concerned and ordered a thorough investigation as to the risks that remained for RM. SBS was instructed to carry out
a risk assessment to determine the wishes and feelings of RM in the light of her age and understanding; to consider whether RM was under duress to provide
certain wishes and feelings and to assess whether there were any risk to RM in relation to forced marriage. Our assessment concluded that she returned home
because she could not cope with the isolation that she experienced in a women’s refuge and did not have any one to one support. Had it not been for the court’s
intervention, she would have returned home without any kind of risk and needs assessment.
3. The above case highlights the point that even at the age of 18, young girls who have been abused and subject to coercive control, remain highly vulnerable
and in need of protection and intensive support, often of the same quality and level that is available to young children under the child protection framework. During
the 2012 consultations on including young persons aged 16-18 in the definition of domestic violence, we expressed concern that young people would fall between
the children and adult safeguarding frameworks. Our experience has borne this out.
5 We are proposing to maintain the current age limit of 16 years in the statutory definition – do you agree with this approach?
Strongly disagree
Please explain your answer.:
1. Please see above. Our view is that an arbitrary line is being drawn between those children under 16 and young people aged 16 -17 and even 18. It is our view
that 16-17 year olds are especially vulnerable to specific forms of abuse including online abuse, sexual grooming and exploitation. As we have stated above, in
our experience, this group is the most difficult and problematic age group to support because all too often children’s social services do not regard persons in this
age group to be in need of protection and yet these persons are often not able to support themselves financially and emotionally. This is particularly true for those
who have come from troubled backgrounds and have complex needs. Children’s services often apply the bare minimum child protection procedures to this group
if at all. They are treated as adults, which means that the basic safety nets that exist for children do not, in reality, exist for 15-18 year olds. The main statutory
bodies expect the voluntary sector to pick up the pieces in respect of support and protection, which is simply not satisfactory.
2. Our preferred recommendation is that 16-17 year olds should not be included in the definition of domestic violence. They should be able to avail themselves of
the wider and more extensive protection available to children, even if they are classified as young people. Our initial view is that (i) the definition should in fact be
changed so that it covers only those aged 18 and above, but (ii) this should be done in conjunction with reform of the child safeguarding framework and relevant
legislation so that it is clear that domestic abuse victims over 16 but under 18 are also caught by child protection legislation.
3. If 16 and 17 year olds are included in the definition then at the very least, specific statutory guidance must be drawn up so that they obtain the enhanced
protection and support that they desperately need.
Educating young people on relationships
6 In addition to the changes being made to how relationship education will be taught in schools, what else can be done to help children
and young people learn about positive relationships and educate them about abuse?
Please provide your answer in the box below::
1. We believe that education is essential to the academic, social, and personal development of girls in particular; to realise their potential and to give them the
tools they need to protect themselves from abuse and harm. Education is also a vital space where girls can learn how to be assertive and confident in seeking the
help and support they need to question societal or cultural practices which exacerbate gender inequality and encourage abuse.
2. However, contradictory state policies in other areas often undermine the rights of young people to access information and support from schools and colleges
that can help them to keep safe. We have been particularly alarmed by the growth and promotion of faith based schools because this has opened up educational
environments for influence and control by religious fundamentalists, to the detriment of women and girls’ rights.
3. Religious fundamentalists across the world often promote violence against women as a means of maintaining control over women. They create a climate
through the promotion of ultra-conservative attitudes about women that is conducive to violence against women and girls. They justify gender inequality on the
grounds of women’s inferiority or unsuitability for any role outside the private, family or domestic sphere. Almost 40 years of experience and a plethora of
research both in the UK and internationally, have shown us that there is a clear link between fundamentalism and regressive gender norms and violence against
women and girls. Yet, whilst the impact of fundamentalism in education has received much attention in the context of the rise of religious extremism and views,
there has been little or no scrutiny on the ways in which such ‘extremism’ manifests itself vis a vis gender equality and on the ways in which education has been
targeted as an arena through which to promote gender inequality. The aim and impact of religious fundamentalism, in our opinion, is to disempower BME girls in
particular and to reinforce their traditional roles.
4. The UN Special Rapporteur on Cultural Rights, Karima Bennoune, has stated that
“Fundamentalists everywhere target education in different ways. In some places, they kill teachers or carry out acid attacks on students. Elsewhere they attempt
to impose gender segregation in schools or to exclude women and girls altogether. In other places, they seek to change the content of education, removing sex
education from the curriculum or censoring scientific theories with which they do not agree.” (Report of the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights”, HRC,
Agenda Item 3, (UN General Assembly: January2017<http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/CulturalRights/A_HRC_34_56_EN.docx>, p.19, §90.)
5. In the UK we have seen the rise of religious fundamentalism in minority communities and its impact on the curtailment of women and children’s human rights.
This rise has benefited directly from the promotion of faith-based organisations through government policies on preventing violent extremism, cohesion and
integration. Under this agenda, religious leaderships and faith based organisations have been empowered to shape and direct public policy and the law on a
range of social justice and welfare issues (Patel, P and Sen, U (2009) Cohesion Faith and Gender: A report on the impact of the government's cohesion and faith
based approach on black and minority women in Ealing published by Southall Black Sisters and available at
http://www.southallblacksisters.org.uk/report-requests.html). This in turn has allowed fundamentalists within those religions to become more vocal and make
greater demands for ‘autonomy’ in areas such as education and family matters, including demands for the right to adjudicate such matters in accordance with
religious (sharia) ‘law’.
6. The state’s education policies for example, have encouraged all manner of religious groups to influence and shape educational policy. It would seem that the
demand made by many religionists, that the education system should not compromise issues of faith, appears to be heard. Increasing evidence suggests that
more and more parents are withdrawing children from certain aspects of edcuation deemed incompatible to their religious identity and beliefs. It therefore comes
as no surprise that education has become a battleground for fundamentalists. We have seen growing assertions over the years of a particularly orthodox,
patriarchal, Islamic identity and concordant demands for “Islamic” uniforms (including hijabs for 5 year old girls); the right to withdraw girls from dance, music,
swimming and PSHE lessons; for gender segregated lessons and sports activities, aimed at fulfilling the Islamic requirement for “female modesty”. Their success
will only encourage other religious fundamentalists in minority communities to follow suit.
7. A 2006 report based on a study on religion and gender published by SBS and The Working Lives Institute entitled ‘Multiculturalism in Secondary Schools’
documented the growing influence of religious ultra conservative and fundamentalist ideology in local state schools and the resulting restrictions on the rights of
BME girls. It highlighted how conservative and fundamentalist leaderships have mobilised parents in order to encourage parental withdrawal from school
assemblies, religious education and PSHE lessons and to influence the teaching of a number of subjects within schools including creationism in biology classes.
8. The SBS report shows how we are witness to a creeping accommodation of religion in state schools across a range of activities, which has the potential to
squeeze out the safe, inclusive and critical nature of educational spaces
(https://www.southallblacksisters.org.uk/reports/multiculturalism-in-secondary-schools-report).
9. The findings from the SBS report suggests that the ‘Every Child Matters’ agenda is not being applied when it comes to addressing the needs of minority girls.
The result is that their emotional development is curtailed and they are denied the opportunity to develop the social skills necessary to participate in the outside
world on an equal footing. The study also reveals that there are major contradictions in the way in which on the one hand, government policy places pressure
upon schools to tackle sexual abuse, teenage pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted infections but on the other hand, gives parents the right to
withdraw their children from these discussions. We consider this parental right of ‘opt out’ to be deeply problematic; it amounts to the prioritisation of the rights of
parents and the community over the welfare and rights of children, amounting to a violation of the right to education enshrined in international human rights law.
10. The findings from the SBS study are not merely of historic interest. We continue to hear examples from members of the public of girls being denied access to
fundamental knowledge. One teacher told SBS in February 2014 that
“all girls from one BME community at our school were removed from last SRE [Sex and Relationships Education lesson]. It was a lesson about periods. What a
thing to miss”.”
11. More recently, Amanda Spielman, Ofsted Chief Inspector, has also warned against the dangers of accommodating religious demands around female roles in
education during her speech at the Church of England Foundation for Educational Leadership, 1 February 2018:
“Ofsted inspectors are increasingly brought into contact with those who want to actively pervert the purpose of education. Under the pretext of religious belief,
they use education institutions, legal and illegal, to narrow young people’s horizons, to isolate and segregate, and in the worst cases to indoctrinate
impressionable minds with extremist ideology...schools must not be afraid to call out practices, whatever their justification, that limit young people’s experiences
and learning in school….it is undoubtedly true – and books we’ve found displayed in schools encouraging husbands to beat their wives are a sorry testament to
this – that there are segments of particular faiths who are determined to use our schools to promote beliefs and practices that are an anathema to British values.”
12. This is why Relationship and sex education (RSE) and Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) are so important. For some BME women their life
opportunities are severely limited through no choice of their own; often as a result of strict parental upbringing, poor educational opportunities and lack of access
to knowledge and life building skills at a young age. Almost 40 years of working with BME women and girls has shown us that if women and girls are denied
knowledge about their bodies, sex and relationships, they struggle to see themselves as autonomous beings rather than the property or dependents of men. They
are often psychologically ill-prepared to make independent choices and are less likely to question abuse and inequality that is embedded in patriarchal norms and
regressive cultural and religious practices. Many women and girls do not seek help when subjected to abuse because they do not recognise it as such or fear the
consequences of exit. This is why many internalise abuse, opting to kill themselves rather than exit from the abuse. The suicide rates for Asian women in the UK
for instance are three times the national average for women and girls up to the age of 35 (see for example, Husain, M.I., Waheed & Husain, N., (22 May 2006),
Self-harm in British South Asian women: psychosocial correlates and strategies for prevention, Annuals of General Psychiatry, available on
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/arti clerender.fcgi?arti d=1538599).
13. Evidence suggests that even in secular state schools, teachers often struggle to meet the needs of young BME girls when faced with some parents who use
schools for another agenda – to control their minds and sexuality. This is often compounded by the readiness of schools to accede to demands, which is
essentially an attempt to remove such girls from parts of the curriculum and public spaces, thereby restricting their access to knowledge and debate. Our concern
is that the situation is even more problematic in faith schools, where practices such as strict gender segregation are increasingly adopted for the purposes of
reinforcing the traditional roles of women as submissive and inferior to men.
14. It is against this background that SBS intervened as an interested party in a recent gender segregation case: HM Inspector of Schools, Children’s Services
and Skills v the Interim Executive Board of Al-Hijrah School (Secretary of State for Educations and others intervening) [2017] EWCA Civ 1426. The background to
this case is that in June 2016, the Al-Hijrah school was inspected by Ofsted, which raised concerns about a number of leadership failings involving gender
segregation, the absence of effective safeguarding procedures, and an unchallenged culture of gender stereotyping, homophobia and intolerance. Offensive
books promoting a culture of marital rape and violence against women were discovered in the school library. Some students had also complained anonymously
that sex segregation did not prepare them for social interaction and integration into the wider society. Consequently, Ofsted judged the school to be inadequate
and placed it in special measures.
15. The case concluded at the Court of Appeal in October 2017. It was found that the school’s policy of segregation was discriminatory since it had an adverse
impact on the quality and effectiveness of the education given to both the girls and boys but it was also acknowledged that the effect of sex segregation, in the
specific context of that particular school, was not gender neutral but informed by ‘particular precepts and practices amongst certain Muslim communities’ - in other
words by increasingly fundamentalist and ultra-conservative attitudes to women and girls. Gloster LJ’s dissenting judgment took judicial notice of the ways in
which sex segregation materially and symbolically disadvantages minority girls in situations where they face structural inequality, marginalisation, discrimination
and violence (See https://www.southallblacksisters.org.uk/news/court-of-appeal-finds-that-gender-segregation-can-amount-to-unlawful-sex-discrimination).
16. We would also highlight the fact that unregistered ‘schools’ are also increasingly becoming a problem. Such settings avoid the regulations around education
and safeguarding and are not subject to oversight. A number of such ‘schools’ investigated by Ofsted were faith schools, that were deliberately kept unregistered
to avoid regulations on the quality of education young people should receive. Such schools were frequently found by Ofsted to be teaching a very restricted
curriculum which left children unprepared for later life. Ofsted has stated that unregistered schools are difficult to detect because there is no requirement to notify
the local authority of a child who is being home educated or to co-operate with a home visit by the Local Authority (Ofsted Annual Report 2016/2017).
17. In view of the above, there are a number of areas where efforts should be focussed to help children and young people learn about positive relationships and
educate themselves about abuse. This must go hand in hand with an urgent wider review of state policies on education, since they enable fundamentalist and
conservative forces to have access to schools and schoolchildren, in ways that can create vulnerabilities and risks. In addition to this they are profoundly negative
and antithetical to the human rights of young people, especially girls from black and minority backgrounds.
18. Some steps that can be taken include:
a. Promoting a compulsory, holistic, and child-focussed system of Relationship and Sex Education (RSE) and Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) for
all primary and secondary school children, which takes a ‘whole school approach’;
b. Ending gender segregation and similar measures in all primary and secondary schools (regardless of whether they are faith schools or not);
c. Abolishing the right of parental withdrawal from any aspect of RSE and PSHE lessons, irrespective of the status of the school;
d. Promoting a child focused agenda in all schools based on a combination of human rights principles - the right to edcuation and the right to be free from
abuse/coercive control;
e. Promoting compulsory RSE and PSHE lessons that addresses issues such as healthy relationships; all forms of gender based violence, including cultural
practices such as polygamy, forced marriage, FGM etc; online safety; the meaning of consent and choice; gender stereotypes; equal representation of men and
women and women’s rights as universal human rights with a particular focus on sexual and reproductive rights and inequalities in the family and community.
f. Empowering Ofsted to robustly enforce gender equality and safeguarding policies across all schools irrespective of their status. Ofsted must have enforceable
powers to monitor and sanction schools that seek to undermine the principle of equality in all schools; this must include the right to prevent unregistered schools
from operating.
Reporting domestic abuse to statutory agencies
7 Which statutory agencies or groups do you think the UK Government should focus its efforts on in order to improve the identification of
domestic abuse? Please tick your top 3 from the list.
Other - please specify
If you selected other please add your response here::
1. We object to the ‘ranking’ of the above services. If the government is serious about tackling domestic abuse then all statutory agencies, public bodies, and
indeed private sector organisations and professionals, need to have a robust understanding of domestic abuse and how to identify the risk factors associated with
it. In our experience, victims present to any number of agencies including employers but are often failed by them, because the professional/agency lacks the
requisite skills or knowledge to identify them as being potentially at risk. In our experience, many women (indeed, most women, especially from BME
backgrounds) are often unable to identify themselves as victims of domestic abuse and therefore do not always recognise the risks they face. They often do not
recognise the abuse or certain types of abuse to which they are subjected, especially if it is of an economic, sexual or emotional in nature. The onus must be on
agencies/professionals to ‘spot the signs’ rather than expecting women to self-identify or self-report.
2. In addition, we would point out that in reality many women who are victims of abuse often present to agencies with seemingly practical issues – e.g. a needing
help for housing; welfare benefits; debts; additional educational support for their children; immigration concerns etc, rather than explicitly seek helping around
domestic abuse. Professionals in the statutory, voluntary and private sector need to be informed, trained and resourced so that they can look beyond the
immediate presenting issue and correctly identify women and children at risk. They need to ensure that such women are provided with the appropriate safety and
support measures or are sign-posted to the appropriate support agencies.
3. For this reason, we do not feel that ranking agencies according to priority is helpful. Through public information campaigns, all the listed services and others
including community organisations, must be the focus of the government. They must all be made aware of the pervasive nature of domestic and other forms of
violence against women.
8 In addition to improving training programmes and introducing guidance, what more can the government do to improve statutory
agencies’ understanding of domestic abuse?
Please explain your answer:
1. Training and guidance, especially in relation to emerging and specific forms of cultural abuse and harm, and the barriers faced in exiting from abuse in certain
cultures, is an essential part of improving the understanding of statutory agencies. However, simply ‘understanding’ what constitutes abuse is not enough to
ensure the safety of victims. Such understanding must be accompanied by robust risk assessments, comprehensive safety planning and action plans (with other
agencies if appropriate). ‘Improving understanding’ must also go hand in hand with consistency in institutional responses and the adoption of measures that
improve transparency and accountability in decision making. As our experience with the police and social services (set out below) demonstrates, inconsistency in
the quality of responses continues to be a major barrier to protection and rights. However, in our view such inconsistency in responses is to a large extent driven
by public spending cuts that have stretched statutory services to their limits and brought them to a crisis point. There must be adequate provision of resources to
ensure that once abuse is identified, victims and their children receive the appropriate help and protection.
2. We have also been concerned by the way in which victims with insecure immigration status are seen as potential 'illegals' rather than as victims of crime. This
is of course the product of the “hostile environment” towards immigration that has been created by successive government policies on immigration, to devastating
effect. There needs to be a far better understanding by statutory agencies of the way perpetrators use a victim’s immigration status as a tool of abuse, control or
coercion. We are very concerned that statutory services such as the police and social services are punitive in their response and prioritise the arrest, detention
and deportation of victims rather than the need to provide support and protection. Statutory guidance is needed so that statutory services adopt a humane, safety
first and protection-led approach to all victims of domestic abuse, rather than the punitive and disbelieving approach that is currently adopted towards those with
insecure immigration status.
3. Finally, statutory bodies need to be issued with clear guidance on standards that they are expected to achieve, backed by the existence of clear accountability
mechanisms for those who fall below the expected standards required.
Alternative ways to report domestic abuse
9 What further support can we provide to the public (employers, friends, family, community figures) so they can identify abuse and refer
victims to help effectively?
Please give answer below:
1. Whilst we support the need for a publicity campaign to improve public awareness of domestic abuse, and for better reporting mechanisms, these measures are
not enough to ensure the effective protection of victims. The publicity needs to be accompanied by ring-fenced funding to protect domestic abuse services,
especially specialist services for some of the most marginalised groups including BME, disabled and young women. There is little point in improving public
awareness so that the public is better able to identify abuse, if victims then have nowhere to go. We are extremely concerned with the combined impact of the
public sector spending cuts and funding commissioning cultures that are decimating specialist support services for women and girls. What is the point of better
identification if agencies have no (or no suitable) refuges or referral agencies in their local area to refer to, or if local abuse organisations simply lack the
resources or expertise to assist in any meaningful way. Our experience is that whilst identification and understanding of domestic abuse amongst the public and
professionals is in need of improvement, a much more significant problem is what happens to the victim once they have self-identified or been identified as
needing protection and support. We are wary of moves that build a culture of awareness and expectations that are then not fulfilled due to the lack of adequate
resources.
2. Example: The Women’s Aid ‘Nowhere to Turn’ report (2017) (commissioned to provide additional support to women facing difficulties accessing a refuge
space) showed that 74% of women supported by their project were unable to access suitable refuge accommodation. This research is mirrored by our own
casework experience. Many desperate women and girls contact us from all over the country because they have no services in their areas to turn to for advice and
assistance. Their accounts demonstrate the dangers they face when they cannot obtain safe housing and support to stay safe; they face homelessness, poverty
and destitution and remain vulnerable to further abuse and exploitation by their perpetrator/s. In addition, they experience growing and serious mental health
problems. Most women cannot begin to recover from their experiences of domestic abuse and trauma if they do not stable and safe accommodation and access
to the means of subsistence. Indeed, some women feel they have no choice but to return to the perpetrator. Sadly, we believe that the numbers of women left
without protection will rise as a result of the squeeze on funding and consequent lack of alternative safe accommodation and services.
3. The picture for women with complex needs is even bleaker. Most have high specialist support needs but face immense and insurmountable difficulties in
finding a refuge space that can meet those needs. For instance our front line advocates find it impossible to find refuge accommodation for women with ‘no
recourse to public funds’. Most refuges give a blanket refusal because they have no guarantees that the women will obtain leave to stay in the UK or obtain funds
to meet their subsistence costs. Others refuse because they have made no provision for women with ‘no recourse’ or do not have permission to accommodate
and financially support such women by their housing providers, for example, housing associations. Other refuges turn down women citing their lack of experience
and skills or resources needed to support women with immigration problems or complex needs. The consequence is that many are forced to stay with strangers
or relatives and others find themselves having to rely on religious institutions, many of which make women sleep in public spaces and/or encourage women to
return home in order to keep their marriage intact. In all cases, women are often exposed to the risk of further and serious harm. In one local domestic homicide
review in which we were involved, the lack of specialist services to meet the needs of a severely disabled and abused Pakistani women, led to her death at the
hands of her abusive husband who decapitated her.
4. We also have some concern about the government placing faith in “community and religious leaders” as the gatekeepers of communities with the expectation
that they will identify domestic violence and provide adequate support. In some communities, there is a significant disincentive for unelected and self-styled
‘community and religious leaders’ to expose the extent of domestic abuse within their community and to help women and children exit from abuse, as this
threatens existing patriarchal power structures. For example, in the same homicide review cited above, although the woman’s history of violence and abuse was
well known to the local mosque that she and her husband attended, the mosque leadership did not feel it was its business to intervene to advise and support her.
When questioned by the chair of the homicide review and SBS at a specially requested meeting, the mosque leaders remained cagey throughout the meeting and
tried to evade questions about their own role in failing to protect the victim. The interview also revealed that the mosque had no understanding of safeguarding
issues as there were no policies in place on safeguarding vulnerable children or adults.
5. What was really striking about the response from the mosque was not just the lack of concern shown by the mosque for the woman’s plight or violence against
women more generally - this is an all too familiar response within many religious institutions in our communities - but the readiness with which they were prepared
to hide behind the Prevent programme to evade institutional responsibility and accountability. The leadership of the mosque stated at the outset that they did not
want to engage with the review if it was part of the Prevent programme, even though the review had nothing to do with Prevent. Their overriding concern was with
state intervention rather than the need to contribute to the prevention of gender based homicide or violence in the community.
6. Whilst we have found that survivors at SBS often become empowered through careful, long term advocacy, therapy and support, this is very rarely the case if
they are entrusted to so-called community and religious leaders. The suggestion that family and community figures can be part of the solution to the problem of
domestic violence, must therefore be treated with great caution. Women who live in tight-knit minority communities where they are unrepresented and invisible
are less likely to be supported and more likely to become targets for isolation, further abuse and vilification from the community including its so-called leadership.
Improving support services for all victims of domestic abuse and their children
10 We are in the process of identifying priority areas for central Government funding on domestic abuse. Which of the following areas do
you think the UK Government should prioritise? Please select up to 3.
Other - please explain
If you selected other please add your response here:
1. We strongly object to ranking services according to priority in this way, when the reality is that most victims may require some or all of these services at any
given time. The more pressing need is to ensure that the victim is able to work with an advocate during a crisis and in the long term, who can also co-ordinate
access to, and liaise with, other services. There is also an urgent need to adequately fund specialist organisations that can effect long term change.
The need for advocacy combining short term intervention with long term work
2. We have found that the most successful approach to combatting violence is one adopts a holistic model of support within one organisation; combining
advocacy, therapeutic and practical support with long term help in dealing with interrelated issues that can be addressed simultaneously. Women require a
combination of short term, crisis-intervention (such as urgent safety and/or legal advice, help with accommodation and health intervention) as well as long term
support, therapy and advocacy to avoid repeat victimisation and to gain confidence and become self-sufficient. Our model of work (described below) has been
positively evaluated and encompasses a number of the suggestions in the multiple choice answer above. It is not possible to simply ‘choose’ three
interventions/services when the reality is that the correct intervention(s) will depend on individual women’s risk assessment and needs that are often interrelated
and complex.
3. Example: Our holistic model combines crisis intervention with advocacy at individual and community and state level through policy and campaigns that are
directly reflective of front line experience. This is vital at a time when most funding bodies seek only to fund crisis intervention work. Our experience shows that
this model does nothing to keep women and girls safe in the long term. It does not prevent repeat victimisation, the isolation that they face, or address complex
needs that deteriorate over time, precisely because of the lack of long term advocacy and practical and emotional support.
4. Our holistic model involves working with women over the short, medium and long term which can take up to a year or more. Each user is allocated an advocate
who will work with her on a one-to-one basis to access support and to help her resolve her problems through practical support involving accompanying women to
their appointments, facilitating access to key legal and welfare services (as opposed to just sign-posting) and helping to complete forms and facilitate access to
interpretation services if English is not the first language. As well as providing counselling, we offer on-site activity classes such as English classes and a weekly,
open-ended support group for our users with the aim of minimising their isolation and to encourage them to build friendships and broaden their skills. We use
therapeutic and creative activities to have discussions that educate and inform women about their rights and help them navigate school, work, welfare, health and
other spaces. Some of our users go on to be directly involved in, or even lead, our campaigns that largely focus on raising awareness about abuse at state and
community levels. They have also taken part in film-making, script writing or dramatic performances centred on their experiences. Such user engagement forms a
vital part of our work in raising awareness and in changing public and institutional culture on equality and BME women’s rights. More importantly, it encourages
women to take part in civic society rather than remain on the margins without a voice.
5. In addition to our work with individual women we also undertake community outreach work to raise awareness on violence against women and gender
inequality and encourage prevention. In 2010 we were part of a pilot project funded by Comic Relief that involved 6 organisations focused on tackling violence
against women and girls in schools. We developed a project for our local schools that was very successful in changing attitudes and behaviour amongst
secondary school children. A number of young BME women we worked with were identified as ‘ambassadors for change’ and took part in a series of short films to
highlight issues around violence against women and girls. As a result we developed the guide ‘Changing Hearts and Minds’, a unique, free education resource
pack specifically for teachers to undertake prevention work on violence against BME women and girls. This pack is now widely used by teachers, students and
many other professionals outside the schools setting. (See http://www.southallblacksisters.org.uk/changing-hearts-and-minds/)
6. We have also undertaken successful policy and legal advocacy work that raises issues of wider public importance in the areas of rape and violence against
women, forced marriage, immigration rules, legal aid and religious fundamentalism.
7. It is this strong combination of holistic service provision combining crisis intervention with long term support involving community outreach and policy that has
helped to empower individual women, as well as bring about more long term change in social attitudes and legal reform. Changing the cycle of abuse can only
come about through this kind of multidimensional advocacy and support work.
8. We have received positive feedback on our holistic model from a number of sources. For example, in 2010 the Department of Health Taskforce on the Health
Aspects of Violence Against Women and Girls’ subgroup on Harmful Traditional Practices and Human Trafficking recommended the work of SBS as a model of
best practice (Safe and Sane, SBS 2010 https://www.southallblacksisters.org.uk/reports/safe-and-sane-report):
“It is generally accepted that advocacy/interpretation services and specialist support can be effective or, in some cases, an essential part of care provision. It is
self-evident that a victim of honour based violence who is fearful and unable to communicate in English will need support to explain what has happened to her.
The work of organisations, such as SBS…can play an important part in helping victims to rebuild their lives” (Taskforce on the Health Aspects of Violence against
Women and Children: Report from the Harmful Traditional Practices and Human Trafficking sub-group, March 2010, pp14-15).
9. The Report from the Women’s National Commission focus group to the Department of Health Taskforce also recognised SBS’ work as being an example of
good practice and the Department of Health Taskforce’s domestic violence sub-group echoed some of the recommendations made by the Women’s Commission.
10. Research commissioned by the London Borough of Ealing also found that:
“Many women consulted with no recourse [to public funds] spoke about no other service other than SBS helping them. SBS were also mentioned in relation to
meeting women’s medium and long term support needs as well legal advice” (Thiara and Chung 2011)
11. What this illustrates is that the protection and empowerment of women cannot be effective unless a holistic model of working which combines advice,
advocacy, counselling, support and campaigning is developed. Such a model can simultaneously meet women’s multiple needs and effect long term change. This
means that it is not possible to identify some areas of priority and not others. Unless resources are made available to tackle individual need in a holistic way as
well address the causes and consequences of violence against women and girls, there will be no progress in changing hearts and minds.
Accommodation
12. We are not a refuge service but actively refer women to refuges and so work closely with the refuge network across the UK. Over almost 40 years of
existence, we have seen the demise and de-skilling of the refuge sector, which has now reached crisis point, particularly in relation to specialist refuges for BME
women who inevitably have more complex needs. We have referred to some of our experiences above at question 9 concerning the difficulties women face in
accessing refuges. We think it is important to identify the source of some of the difficulties. Many refuges have been taken over by either housing associations or
other types of non-specialist charities such as homeless and/or mental health organisations such as EACH. Their staff often lack the knowledge or experience of
supporting women facing domestic violence and related matters. Women are often simply viewed as homeless and treated as such, rather than as victims of
domestic violence whose problems are compounded by other related issues and trauma.
13. We are aware of cases where women’s needs in such refuges go unmet because they no longer have specific one-to-one support. Many refuges no longer
allocate key workers to work with women in a more holistic way. Many merely sign-post women to legal and other services rather than act as their advocates or
provide practical or emotional support. Yet our experience shows that the majority of abused women find it hard to navigate their way through legal, welfare and
housing systems that are more often than not hostile and indifferent in their responses; they find it difficult to assert their rights due to lack of knowledge,
confidence and low expectations. The result that is without adequate support, women become even more isolated, confused and traumatised. Some end up
returning to their abuser(s) and others expose themselves to other risks.
14. Many refuges also place increasingly onerous conditions on who they will take, which usually does not include women with immigration problems such as ‘no
recourse to public funds’. Many also refuse to accommodate such women because the advocacy and support work required to support such women is deemed
too demanding in terms of staff time and other resources, and their immigration condition too precarious.
15. Refuge spaces are in any event, at an absolute premium. BME specialist refuges are becoming increasingly rare and almost non-existent outside London,
often due to spending cuts, but also because of local funding commissioning cultures that favour large generic services over small specialist services because
they represent ‘value for money’. This has led to the closure of specialist BME services, which has in turn impacted on the availability of safe housing alternatives
and support for BME women. In light of this we are alarmed by the government’s proposed ‘solution’ to this problem which is to fund emergency and short-term
supported housing in England (Department for Communities and Local Government and Department of Work and Pensions, Funding Supported Housing: Policy
Statement and Consultation, October 2017). Rather than refuges being funded through housing benefit, the government’s proposal is that accommodation for
those suffering or at risk of suffering domestic abuse, will fall under a category labelled ‘short-term supported housing’ which will also cover people experiencing
homelessness with support needs; vulnerable young people (such as care leavers or teenage parents); offenders and ex-offenders; people with mental ill health;
people with drug and alcohol support needs; vulnerable armed forces veterans; and “other groups with emergency or short-term transitional support needs (such
as refugees with support needs)”. The entire category of ‘short-term supported housing’- made up of a disparate and extremely wide array of groups with their
own specific and complex needs - will be funded and commissioned locally by way of a ring-fenced block grant to local authorities. We fear this funding model will
essentially spell the end of the specialist refuge sector as well as the end of specialist support for the other vulnerable and abused women and girls as gender
neutral service provision becomes a condition of funding. This paves the way for the commissioning of yet more generic services to be provided by large
non-specialist advisors without a track record or experience of supporting domestic abuse victims. For all these reasons, it is vital that the decimation of women
only services, including specialist refuges, is halted.
16. The government must urgently review the commissioning model and instead ring-fence funding for specialist refuges and advocacy services that provide
holistic services for victims of domestic abuse.
11 What more can the Government do to encourage and support effective multi-agency working, in order to provide victims with full
support and protection? Please select up to 3.
Other - please specify
If you selected other please add your response here:
1. This question pre-supposes that multi-agency working is the best approach for supporting and protecting victims and that there are no lessons to be learnt from
current multi-agency practice.
2. Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARACs) are one example of a multi-agency model in relation to domestic abuse. Whilst there are some pockets
of good practice within MARACs, there are many worrying aspects that demonstrate that multi-agency working is not an ‘end’ in itself.
3. Article 15(2) of the Istanbul Convention anticipates “co-ordinated multi-agency co-operation to allow for a comprehensive and appropriate handling of referrals
in cases of violence covered by the scope of this Convention”.
4. We suggest that the multi-agency model must comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the Istanbul Convention if it is to achieve its aims of meeting the
needs of the victim; of prioritising the safety and wellbeing of victims and of facilitating a process for holding professionals and agencies to account in terms of
achieving these goals.
5. Some of the positive aspects of MARACs include:
a. Effective and confidential sharing of information in relation to both the victim and perpetrator/s;
b. Enabling all the relevant agencies to be in one place at the same time;
c. Encouraging agencies to be more transparent in their decision making and in taking responsibility for their actions or lack of action;
d. Where there are independent advocates who are critical and bold, MARACs can provide a good space and opportunity to hold agencies to account;
e. Allowing for greater collective ownership and participation of all agencies in decision making, but only when agencies are participating in not just their own
cases but those of other agencies. This can also lead to better learning outcomes. This is true of Ealing MARAC where all agencies are now required to remain at
the MARAC even after their cases are discussed so that they can contribute their expertise to the discussion of other cases. This way of working was established
as result of a demand for the SBS advocate to contribute to discussions on other cases which was deemed to be very helpful. As a result of SBS’ participation,
the Ealing MARAC become less of a ‘talking shop’ or ‘nodding exercise’ unlike MARACs in other areas;
f. Ensure that timely action is taken for those women who are referred to MARACs as opposed to those who do not come to the attention of MARAC. This can
result in better outcomes for women and more institutional accountability.
6. However, our experience also shows that there are a multitude of serious problems with the operation of MARACs that need to be urgently addressed:
a. Increasingly, due to public sector spending cuts, it is becoming more and more difficult to secure the participation of all relevant agencies. Many simply cannot
afford to allocate a member of staff to what is often a day-long meeting. At our local MARAC in Ealing there have been longstanding problems with engaging
representatives of mental health services and probation, who fail to attend;
b. Compulsory attendance throughout the duration of a MARAC is not a requirement and we are aware that at other MARACs, representatives often leave once
they have presented their cases. Even when representatives remain, we have seen how many lose interest and often fail to contribute to other cases even where
they may have relevant expertise/experience;
c. The volume of cases that MARACs deal with is incredibly high and increasing. In Ealing alone, the MARAC looks at approximately 27 cases on each occasion
which means that each meeting lasts for more than 8 hours. Nationally, the figure from SafeLives for the 12 months ending 31 December 2017 shows that there
were 90,482 MARAC cases across the UK. In the light of this, our view is that MARAC, and indeed any multi-agency approach, can only work if those agencies
individually and together are properly resourced including having the staffing capacity and funds to deal with the increasing and onerous volume of high risk work;
d. There is no effective statutory or other mechanism even within MARAC for ensuring accountability and responsibility of individual agencies. If agreed actions
are not followed through, there are no sanctions or effective follow up action. Even when actions are said to have been taken, there is no qualitative information
about the action taken;
e. There is evidence emerging from a number of London-based MARACs that agencies are referring cases to their local MARACs without managing the
immediate risks and safeguarding issues. We have certainly seen some examples of MARAC being used as a ‘dumping ground’ for cases by a referring agency
in order to avoid having to take responsibility by taking immediate steps that are necessary to safeguard and protect a victim;
f. Information provided to MARAC by referring agencies is not always complete or of good quality (sometimes referrals are missing monitoring information or even
basic information such as contact details) which lead to delays in cases being discussed – such delays can have serious consequences for the victim’s safety;
g. MARACs are limited to dealing with cases that have been identified at the point of referral as ‘high risk’. Yet we know that risk is a dynamic process that needs
to be carefully monitored. Our experience of Domestic Homicide Reviews shows that not all cases that result in domestic homicide are high risk. Most do not
come to the attention of MARAC. In many of the local homicide reviews in which we have participated, the victims would have been identified as no risk or low
risk and yet they went on to be killed. We fear that women not identified as high risk at any particular moment are excluded from the safety net of provision by
statutory agencies. The specialist women’s services to which such women might have presented are now non -existent or are so depleted that most victims are
unlikely to obtain the support they need. Yet as we have outlined above, specialist services are best placed to monitor risk over a period of time, especially if they
are able to eschew the target driven and time bound crisis intervention conditions that are placed on them by current funders and commissioning cultures.
h. We are also alarmed by the ways in which MARACs are also becoming an extension of the immigration enforcement mechanism. Our concern is that it will
deter some of the most marginalised women from coming forward for fear of being arrested, detained and deported for being ‘illegal’ even if they are not. As it is,
uncertain immigration status poses one of the most potent barriers to reporting amongst BME women. The co-option of MARAC into the surveillance and control
goals of the Home Office is extremely problematic because it not only deters BME women from coming forward but also subverts the key principle of MARAC – to
safeguard vulnerable victims and their children in the face of abuse and life threatening harm. This is itself a discriminatory response to BME women. Recently we
have become aware that the Home Office has written to some MARAC co-ordinators asking to have a representative attend the meetings. This is worrying given
that the Home Office does not have an obvious safeguarding role to play in such multi-agency arrangements. (For more details of the problem of the overlap
between domestic violence and immigration enforcement see below at questions 12, 15 and 37).
7. We therefore urge the government to conduct an urgent review of the existing multi-agency arrangements including MARACs for protecting all victims of
domestic violence and not just those that are deemed to be at high risk. The current, narrow focus on ‘supporting or encouraging’ multi-agency processes without
proper resourcing, and an audit of whether those processes are fulfilling the aim of ensuring safety for victims, is simply not satisfactory.
Supporting victims with specific needs
12 What more can the Government do to better support victims who face multiple barriers to accessing support?
Please give answer below:
1. In order to ‘better support’ victims, it is necessary for the government to first identify and understand what the ‘multiple barriers’ are and then to consider who is
best placed to address them.
2. SBS operates at the intersection of race, gender and class which means that we recognise that our users are likely to have multiple, overlapping and complex
needs.
3. Race impacts on how multiple strands of disadvantage can be experienced simultaneously which in turn heightens women’s experiences of poverty,
homelessness, discrimination and exclusion. For example, the overlap between uncertain immigration status and domestic abuse creates or exacerbates
particular forms of marginalisation and inequality. Our experience is that the multiple disadvantage and inequality faced by BME women in particular, is
compounded by government measures and policies. The Government’s recent Racial Disparities Audit reveals the disproportionate extent to which the BME
population as a whole is impacted by the above issues.
4. There is ample evidence not just from our casework experience but from wider research to underline the vulnerability faced by BME women in particular, who
are disproportionately impacted by poverty (e.g. Women’s Equalities Select Committee; Women’s Budget Group), homelessness, immigration problems and
mental health problems (see for example, Safe and Sane, SBS 2010 https://www.southallblacksisters.org.uk/reports/safe-and-sane-report);
5. Example: At least 60% of the women we work with at SBS who have been subject to gender based violence also have insecure immigration status. This group
of migrant women do not have the same right of access to safety and support when compared to other women who are victims of violence and abuse. Indeed, the
lack of an adequate safety net raises serious concerns about their exposure to high rates of domestic and sexual violence as well as harmful practices, sexual
and economic exploitation, domestic violence related homicide (including so called ‘honour’ killings) and suicide. Our experience and available research reveals a
close connection between domestic violence related homicide and suicide amongst women facing immigration problems, who suffer from a lack of access to key
services because of the existence of the ‘no recourse to public funds’ rule in immigration law. This is discussed in more detail below.
6. Another related barrier to safety for BME women is the state’s immigration enforcement policies, which only serve to instill fear and prevent already
marginalised women from coming forward and seeking help. They also become potent weapons of control and coercion in the hands of perpetrators who exploit
women’s fears of deportation, destitution and imprisonment, to continue their abuse and prevent women from exiting abuse.
7. Our concern is that when gender based violence overlaps with the immigration ‘everyday bordering’ agenda, it seriously undermines the protection and
non-discrimination principles and heightens the vulnerability of migrant women. It instils fear and confusion and adds to the trauma that these women have
already experienced due to domestic abuse and other forms of harm, amounting to state complicity and to what can be termed ‘secondary abuse’ by the State.
Many abused and destitute migrant women continue to have no safety net, and as a result, face differential treatment when attempting to escape violence and
abuse compared to other women in the UK. It is a discriminatory response that signifies the view that immigration controls should override the application of
normal democratic rule of law and human rights principles by which to protect and support victims of gender-based violence or hold perpetrators to account. It is
therefore imperative that all state agencies prioritise protection from domestic abuse over immigration enforcement.
8. Other specific barriers faced by BME women include:
a. Community generated feelings of shame and ‘dishonour’ and guilt;
b. Fear of poverty, homelessness and destitution;
c. Fear of racism from statutory agencies such as oppressive policing;
d. Lack of awareness of rights, services and English language skills;
e. Community and religious leaderships that encourage women to solve problems within the community (e.g. through mediation, religious councils/arbitration
forums) all of which seek to maintain cultures of silence and denial in relation to violence against women and girls.
9. BME women may experience some or all of these barriers but it is not beyond the ability of the state to remove or ameliorate these barriers, although much
depends on who the state forges partnerships with at local and national level. For example, it is well-evidenced that BME women find it easier to speak to
specialist women’s services (see for example Imkaan (2016) Capital Losses: The state of the specialist BME ending violence against women and girls sector in
London). Yet these services are the most vulnerable to cuts and closure due to current funding and commissioning decisions. Funding for specialist services must
be ring fenced if they are to survive and ensure that the most ‘hard to reach’ and marginalised women are included in the government’s strategy on combating
domestic abuse.
10. In addition, we urge the government to rethink and reject its ‘faith-based’ approach to engagement with communities as this involves forging partnerships with
the most conservative and fundamentalists leaderships that masquerade as ‘moderates’ but which seek to use the multi-faith approaches to encourage a ‘hands
off’ approach to internal family matters. Such an approach simply cements the internal barriers that BME women encounter when reporting abuse. Our
experience shows that vulnerable BME women and children suffer a wide range of significant harm and abuse when left to ‘community’ or religious forms of
dispute resolution.
11. It is necessary for the state to ‘make good’ its promise to protect all women and to leave no woman behind as signalled by its ratification of the Istanbul
Convention and its commitment to Goal 5 of the Sustainable Development Goals.
Supporting female offenders
13 How can we work better with female offenders and vulnerable women at risk of offending to identify their domestic abuse earlier?
Please select your top 3.
Other - please explain
If you selected other please add your response here::
1. Again, we find it troubling to be asked to be asked to ‘rank’ our response to this question in order of priority. This betrays a lack of understanding of a very
complex issue that requires a more considered response.
2. In order to answer the question about the steps that are necessary to support this group of vulnerable and marginalised women, it is important to examine how
women who suffer domestic abuse come into contact with the criminal justice system as offenders and how they are treated once within it.
3. Although the government’s background notes to this question suggests that around 60% of women in prison have experienced domestic abuse, the actual
figure is likely to be much higher due to under-reporting – the charity Women in Prison report that 79% of the women who use their services have experienced
domestic violence and/or sexual abuse (http://www.womeninprison.org.uk/research/key-facts.php).
4. What has been inadequately researched is the situation of women who attempt to access the system as complainants, but are then treated as perpetrators.
This can happen in two particular contexts.
5. The first is where the police are called by either the victim or perpetrator and cross allegations are made. Our casework has shown a number of instances
where the police fail to interrogate cross-allegations of domestic abuse by a perpetrator or his family and instead prioritise his/their allegations over those of the
victims and, alarmingly, arrest and charge them with domestic abuse against their perpetrator/s.
6. The second is in the context of battered women who kill or seriously injure their perpetrator, usually out of desperation and fear. These women may have been
unable to access assistance and help from the legal system or may have been actually or effectively prevented from accessing it due to a range of barriers
including fear and shame.
7. Our experiences of women as defendants is that they often face a disproportionately punitive response from the criminal justice system, especially when
compared to men who abuse and/or kill their female partners. Their experience is made worse by the lack of understanding of their cultural and religious contexts
as the examples below show:
a. in 1990, Kiranjit Ahulwalia was charged and convicted of murder for killing her violent husband. She was only released on appeal after years of campaigning
and the painstaking gathering of evidence to demonstrate both domestic violence and its link to her state of mind and how the defence of provocation had been
interpreted and defined in a way which privileged jealous men over battered wives;
b. in 1992 Zoora Shah poisoned the man who sexually abused and exploited her and who she suspected had designs on her young daughters, but was treated
by the courts as a cold blooded killer. Her appeal against her conviction for murder was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, who were not persuaded by the
extensive evidence of sexual and financial abuse, her physical and mental state which suggested a strong causal relationship with sexual abuse, the stranglehold
of shame and dishonour on her ability to escape, and the effects of abuse on her position and status in the community. Whilst in prison she struggled to
demonstrate ‘remorse’, mainly due to the failure of the prison authorities to provide her with culturally appropriate counselling and rehabilitation services, greatly
reducing her chances of getting parole. After years of campaigning by SBS, Zoora Shah’s tariff was eventually reduced from 20 years to 12 and she was freed in
2000.
8. Spending cuts to criminal legal aid (include cuts to the rates chargeable by expert witnesses) have also made it more difficult for defendants to find and instruct
specialist solicitors, or appropriately qualified experts such as psychologists or psychiatrists who can assist the court with understanding the mental state of a
woman, or the cultural considerations which should apply. This has a disproportionate impact on BME women in particular who often need the criminal justice
system to understand the cultural and religious dynamics that impact on their actions. Indeed, solicitors and specialist caseworkers need proper funding in order
to be able to do the work to identify the need for such a report.
9. Further, we have historically found it problematic for women offenders to access appropriate counselling and support services in prison; this is particularly
problematic for BME women as the services that are available are rarely culturally appropriate and tend to be time limited. An example is Zoora Shah’s case
referred to above. The prison service had failed to provide regular counselling to help Zoora’s rehabilitation, which also adversely affected her chances of parole.
As a result, SBS was compelled to intervene by providing a counsellor who undertook intensive counselling to enable her to overcome trauma and to come to
terms with her actions. Counselling was crucial to enable Zoora Shah to gain insight into her actions and predicament, express her thoughts in appropriate
language (there was considerable cultural misunderstanding about how she was expressing remorse) and learn to manage future risks and dangers. All of this
helped to show the parole board that she was fit to be released into the community. A report from the Prison Reform Trust (‘There’s a reason we’re in trouble’ –
Domestic abuse as a driver to women’s offending, 4 December 2017) also suggests that the availability of appropriate support and therapy for abused women in
prison continues to be a problem. It found that despite Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) producing detailed guidance for practitioners and
managers in prisons on effective working with women offenders affected by domestic abuse, programmes offering the chance of rehabilitation and support for
such offenders are not consistently available either in prison or in the community.
10. Through both the Zoora Shah case and further research undertaken by SBS (Safe and Sane, 2010), we have found that ‘traditional’ models of counselling
and therapy are not always effective or helpful for BME women who have suffered domestic abuse. Instead, we have with specialist input (as part of the Safe and
Sane project), developed a ‘hybrid’ model of psychotherapy which combines established humanistic, cognitive-behaviourist and psychodynamic therapies in a
fluid way, allowing for some relaxation of boundaries and flexibility in communication, using when necessary, some directional elements drawn from life coaching.
Our research has found that the hybrid model is effective in the treatment of Post -Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) developed as a result of suffering domestic
abuse.
11. Some of our experiences of BME women being treated unfairly in the criminal justice system are largely echoed by the recent Lammy Review, which found:
a. arrest rates were generally higher across all ethnic groups, in comparison to the white group – twice as high for Black and Mixed ethnic women;
b. of those women tried at Magistrates’ Court, Black women, Asian women, Mixed ethnic women and Chinese/Other women were all more likely to be convicted
than White women;
c. BME men and women reported higher rates of victimisation in prison as compared to their white counter parts
12. Our recommendations in response to this question are as follows:
a. The first step therefore is to ensure that the police and CPS take a robust, evidence-led approach to cross allegations and identify a primary perpetrator rather
than simply arresting both parties or recording them both as ‘victims’. An understanding of the dynamics of domestic abuse, particularly in BME communities, is
essential to this;
b. We would support equipping IDVAs with the resources, knowledge and skills to help different categories of vulnerable women. However, IDVA services need to
be independent and not just appear independent. For examples, IDVAs who are based in police stations cannot be said to have the appearance of independence,
particularly if a woman wishes to challenge the action taken by the police in a particular case;
c. There needs to be more and better-resourced women’s advocacy and resource centres to help women before they fall into offending behaviour as well as
support to help them post-conviction. These services need to be wrap-around and holistic. The services need to be provided by specialist workers over a long
period of time and not be artificially time-limited;
d. There also needs to be an urgent review of criminal legal aid and expert fees. Women who fall foul of the criminal justice system despite being victims
themselves need high quality representation from specialist solicitors and barristers, who have the ability to instruct appropriately qualified experts.
14 How can we make greater use of women-specific services to deliver interventions in safe, women-only environments? Please select
your top 3.
Other - please explain
If you selected other please add your response here::
We are not clear how some of suggestions these suggestions aim to support female offenders. Please see question 10 as to our model of working. We have
found that having a holistic, women only, secular service is a highly effective model.
Supporting those with difficulties getting financial support
15 In addition to reviewing who may be eligible for the Destitute Domestic Violence Concession, what other considerations could the
Government make in respect of protecting domestic abuse victims with no recourse to public funds?
Please give answer below:
1. We have been at the forefront of campaigns over the last 20 years to ensure that migrant women suffering domestic abuse do not face the appalling ‘choice’ of
staying in a violent relationship and risking their lives, or leaving to face destitution, deportation and further exploitation. As a result of years of campaigning, we
succeeded in introducing the Domestic Violence (DV) Rule in 2002 to allow women on spousal visas a route to apply for indefinite leave to remain if their
relationship broke down due to domestic violence. As a result of further lobbying, the Destitution and Domestic Violence (DDV) Concession was introduced in
2012 to allow DV Rule applicants the chance to access limited state benefits and housing whilst their application was being considered.
2. Whilst we welcome both the DV rule and DDV Concession, which have assisted thousands of women, the narrowness of the DV rule and DDV Concession
eligibility criteria still leaves many women without a route of exit from abuse without fear of deportation and destitution. The DDV Concession does not extend to
refugees, students; those who originally entered as visitors; domestic workers or trafficked women who are not accepted by the National Referral Mechanism. Nor
does it apply to women who were originally on spousal/partner visas but whose status has changed; for example women who are abandoned outside the UK and
have re-entered the UK through a different entry clearance regime. By way of illustration, in the year March 2017 to April 2018, 88/508 (17%) of our advocacy
service users had ‘no recourse to public funds’.
3. We therefore welcome the commitment from the government to review the DDV Concession and to consider extending it to protect all migrant women with ‘no
recourse to public funds’. Although, we also note with concern that the government has still not complied with the decision in A v Secretary of State for the Home
Department [2016] CSIH 38 in relation to the eligibility of spouses of refugees under the DV Rule and DDV Concession.
4. However, this commitment is not on its own a sufficient step to enact a sea change in relation to how the state currently deals with migrant women suffering
gender based violence including domestic abuse. These women are subject to many state-imposed restrictions that only serve to heighten their vulnerability to
abuse and violence. Many such women are abused physically, sexually, financially and emotionally. Their documents are taken away by their abusive
partners/in-laws/employers and they are deliberately kept uninformed about their status, as this is used as a way of controlling their behaviour and keeping them
vulnerable and dependent on them. As we have stated above, immigration laws and rules have become a potent weapon of control and coercion in the hands of
perpetrators, who know that their wives and partners have nowhere to go and no means of survival if they leave them. We have highlighted the particular
vulnerabilities and barriers such women face, in response to question 12 above.
5. It is also disingenuous of the government to say “women (with ‘no recourse’) have the right to work”. For migrant women who have young children, the lack of
childcare can be an absolute barrier to finding work. Free nursery provision is only available when a child reaches three years old, except in exceptional
circumstances. These women are typically isolated, impoverished and have no community or family support to take care of their children whilst they work, and no
money to pay for childcare. Those who are able to surmount this barrier will typically find themselves in low paid, unskilled jobs and subject to exploitation.
6. Given these barriers, our experience is that the ‘no recourse to public funds restriction’ leaves women destitute, desperate and at risk of their lives. It prevents
women from accessing social housing and welfare benefits (and, as a result, refuge accommodation), and in our experience prevents women having effective
access to statutory services and to their rights.
7. We also endorse the submission made by Rights of Women as to specific issues faced by EEA Nationals and their families in accessing benefits.
8. We urge the government to undertake not only to review eligibility criteria under the DDV Concession, but also restore the right of appeal for refused DV rule
applications, and extend the period for which the DDV Concession is available. The 3 month limit on the DDV concession is simply not enough time to help
women access immigration advice (particularly given the shrinking number of specialist immigration advisers in light of legal aid cuts), access specialist services,
or obtain other advice and the holistic support that they need to address their often complex problems.
9. We would also like to take this opportunity to highlight the particular problem that we face on a daily basis when trying to support women who have ‘no
recourse' and who have children. They are often unable to access support under s17 of the Children Act 1989 without a challenge from our advocates. This is
now a frequent occurrence and is in need of urgent attention by the government.
10. On an almost daily basis we have to deal with women and children being turned away by local children’s services that (sometimes deliberately and
disingenuously) send the family to another agency or another borough, without undertaking the requisite needs assessment. We frequently have to challenge
both their failure to carry out assessments and the poor quality of such assessments even when undertaken, as they often fail to take sufficient account of the
domestic violence suffered (or simply dismiss it). We have had multiple cases where children’s services have abrogated their responsibility in the following ways:
a. recommending that domestic abuse can be resolved by the mother returning to her home country (even where that is unsafe or she has a pending immigration
application);
b. recommending that mediation with the abuser for the purpose of reconciliation;
c. recommending that the children live with the perpetrator of domestic abuse or his family;
d. trying to (incorrectly) claim that because the family are not ‘habitually’ or ‘ordinarily’ resident in that borough they must return to where they lived before to seek
assistance – usually the area they fled from;
e. threatening to accommodate the children but not the mother; or some younger children but not older children;
f. trying to divert the mother to make an asylum claim (and therefore shift their responsibility to provide accommodation and financial support to the National
Asylum Support Service (NASS)), even where social services have no immigration qualifications or remit to recommend this course of action. It is to be noted that
often women are coerced/duped into making an asylum application when in fact they should be making a DV rule and DDV concession application. Our concern
is that the Home Office will view women who make different applications as lacking in consistency and credibility, therefore rendering such advice from children’s
services unsafe and seriously dangerous.
11. In some of the above instances, our users - vulnerable from their experiences, unfamiliar with the practices in this country and often not confident in speaking
English - often feel pressurised by social workers into seeking asylum or entering into a private arrangement to having their children looked after by the
perpetrator/his relatives, or sometimes enter into agreements under s20 of the Children Act 1989 to have only their children accommodated by children’s
services. Time and time again, we have seen that women are not properly advised that s20 is voluntary in nature, or of the need to seek legal advice before they
enter into such agreements. We are horrified at the cavalier approach that is taken by some social workers, since such action amounts to de facto removal of
children from their primary carer and is discriminatory and a breach of their human rights.
12. Our experiences are supported by research carried out Women’s Aid (referred to above) which found that social services failed to meet their duty of care to
32% of survivors which the Women’s Aid project was supporting; 26% of whom were fleeing with children. Of the 37 women failed by children’s services, 11 were
failed on more than one occasion.
13. More broadly, we have also found that severe cuts to children’s services budgets have led to a huge reduction in resources (including experienced social work
staff) available to safeguard children and to provide meaningful support for abused migrant women in order to avoid child protection measures/care proceedings,
as well as homelessness, poverty and destitution.
14. To compound the problem, specialist services which can help abused women navigate the system have either shut down due to funding cuts or are massively
under-resourced and overwhelmed and unable to meet demand.
15. However, we believe the problems encountered by domestic abuse victims who have ‘no recourse’ is part of a wider issue whereby the government’s
obsession with creating a “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants has led to abused migrant women being deprived of protection and safety in various ways.
Our concern is that a two-tier system of protection has developed whereby migrant women are denied access to safety and support when compared to other
victims of abuse. We have seen statutory services refuse to help these women, and in the case of the police, report domestic abuse victims to the Home Office
rather than help them. (We address this further in response to question 37). Our casework has shown that overall, migrant women in general face difficulties
accessing housing (social and private housing as well as refuge accommodation), healthcare, welfare benefits, protection and support. They also face obstacles
in becoming financially independent from perpetrators as some women with insecure status now face restrictions on opening bank accounts under the
Immigration Acts 2014 and 2016; and/or are simply unable to provide documents necessary to open accounts. Many leave their personal documents behind or
they are retained by perpetrators when they flee their matrimonial home due to the abuse.
16. We are also concerned that asylum seekers are often excluded from, or forgotten in, the discussion around women and gender-based violence. The current
approach to migrant and asylum seeking women who are victims of domestic abuse amounts to state complicity in abuse and exploitation. Perpetrators of
domestic violence feel increasingly confident in using their wife or partner’s dependency on their asylum status for instance, as a weapon of abuse, control and
coercion, safe in the knowledge that the victim will not leave because she will have nowhere to go.
17. Asylum seekers are entitled to financial support and housing from the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) under s96 of the Immigration and Asylum Act
1999 if they are otherwise destitute. “Destitution” is however considered by the Home Office in a very literal sense and we have experiences of users being
refused NASS support because they have an interest in marital assets or income, even if they have no actual access to the same. The level of NASS support too,
is extremely low. The financial support amounts to £36.95 per household member per week, with £3 extra available for pregnant women and children aged 1-3
and £5 extra for babies under 1. The absolute inadequacy of the financial provision is perhaps self-evident, but it is starkly demonstrated when looked at against
the Government’s survey of income poverty in the UK - ‘Households Below Average Income’. This sets the poverty line in the UK at 60 per cent of the median UK
household income. According to this measure, the poverty line for the UK for 2015 to 2016, is £1738 a month for a couple with two children and £1287 for lone
parent with two children, excluding housing costs (the weekly figure would therefore be £401/£297). This means that those who are supported by NASS are living
well below even the official poverty line as measured by the government.
18. Perhaps our greatest concern in relation to abused asylum seeking women is that NASS housing can be provided anywhere in the country and a refusal of
accommodation (however justified) will mean that no further offer of accommodation will be made. This means that such women face the ‘choice’ of
homelessness if they refuse NASS accommodation, or if they refuse to be dispersed to an unfamiliar part of the country at short notice. Dispersal is often
resisted, because it destroys what support networks victims have been able to form, often rendering them unable to continue obtaining support from specialist
services such as SBS. Most are fearful of being left isolated and made even more vulnerable to hostility in unfamiliar surroundings or to violence, exploitation and
mental health problems. In most of our cases, dispersals can be extremely damaging and catastrophic for asylum seeking women who often either have no family
support in the UK or have been rejected and ostracised by their community for defying community norms upon marriage and divorce. For these women, specialist
organisations represent a critical lifeline because they offer short and long term assistance that addresses complex and overlapping needs for legal, practical and
emotional support. Removal from such support services compounds the acute trauma, vulnerability and isolation faced by such women.
19. We believe that the whole approach to migrant women who are suffering domestic violence needs to radically change. There is an urgent need to have one
coherent, overarching policy of protection and rights for all migrant women suffering gender-based violence (including women with insecure immigration status
and asylum seeking women). Such a policy should aim at a minimum, to address the following demands:
a. Abolish the ‘no recourse to public funds’ restriction for all migrant women and children subject to gender-based violence;
b. Extend the DV Rule and DDV concession to include all migrant women and children irrespective of their visa status and extend the DDV Concession beyond
the current three month leave;
c. Reform housing and social security laws and policies to prevent abused migrant women and children from being plunged into poverty and destitution. Refuge
places for all migrant women suffering domestic abuse with access to a specialist, properly resourced link advocates must be guaranteed;
d. Provide clear statutory guidance to the police, social services and health services to protect and assist victims of domestic abuse and their children, regardless
of immigration status. This means de-linking immigration enforcement from the protection principle underpinning such services;
e. Develop safe and confidential reporting systems for victims with insecure immigration status;
f. End the inhumane practice of detention for women who have suffered domestic abuse and other forms of gender-based violence either in the UK or in their
countries of origin;
g. End the policy of dispersal for abused female asylum seekers;
h. Ensure greater inclusion of foreign spouses in the visa application process, at both the stage of application and curtailment, so that they are aware of their
rights;
i. Provide temporary visas for women who have entered the UK on spousal visas and are taken to another country and abandoned there so they can come back
into the UK to exercise their rights;
j. Institute ring-fenced funding for specialist BME services and refugees based on history and track record of working to further equality and human rights of
women.
Keeping victims safe – creating a new domestic abuse protection order
16 Do you agree that the Domestic Abuse Protection Notice issued by the police should operate in broadly the same way as the existing
Domestic Violence Protection Notice (except that it would also be able to be issued in cases of abuse which do not involve violence or the
threat of violence)?
Yes
Please explain your answer.:
1. We agree, although we would note that we have not seen any domestic violence protection notices (DVPNs) issued by the police in recent months in our
cases. We understand from senior local police officers that securing a Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO) involves a disproportionate use of already
scarce police resources (sometimes taking half a day to prepare the application) which they would rather expend on investigating the offence in order to charge
the perpetrator, if possible. These officers have questioned what additional value a DVPN/DVPO adds to the protection they are already able to offer through
pre-charge bail conditions. Indeed, even when DVPO applications are being made, courts are refusing to make an order as the same effect could be achieved via
bail conditions. Further, on a national level; police data showed that between March 2014 (when DVPNs and DVPOs were introduced) to 31 December 2014,
3,337 DVPNs had been authorised, with 3,072 DVPOs granted by magistrates. 565 (18%) of DVPOs had been breached. Data from the 17 police forces that
submitted returns from 1 January 2015 to 31 July 2015 showed that a further 1,384 DVPOs were granted during this period (House of Commons briefing paper,
Domestic Violence in England and Wales, 21 June 2017). Given the prevalence of domestic abuse according to the Crime Survey for England and Wales, this
would seem to suggest an under-use of DVPN and DVPOs.
2. We think it is important to understand why this should be the case before extending/changing the scheme of protection.
17 Which of the following individuals/organisations should be able to apply for a Domestic Abuse Protection Order? Please select all that
apply.
The victim, The police (following the issue of a Domestic Abuse Protection Notice or at any other time), Relevant third parties, who would be specified by
regulations, on behalf of victims (see Question 18 for further details), With permission of the court, any other person or organisation
If you selected other please add your response here::
In our view, the primary duty for obtaining these orders should lie with the police or a relevant third party (not a family member of relative) since it is vital that the
interests of the victim are safeguarded. However, if the victim, other third parties or those with permission from the courts are the applicants, it must be clear that
such orders will be enforced by the police even if the police are not the applicants. Furthermore, we are concerned that there appears to be no indication as to
whether legal aid or other funding would be available when other third parties or persons with permission are applying for such orders. In the interests of justice,
legal aid must be available for women seeking to apply for such orders themselves or through third parties or others. There is plentiful evidence about how the
increasing number of unrepresented parties in family and civil (and increasingly criminal) courts is causing a huge strain on the justice system, undermining
protection for the victim and causing further trauma and distress.
18 Which persons or bodies should be specified by regulations as ‘relevant third parties’ who can apply for a Domestic Abuse Protection
Order on a victim’s behalf? Please select all that apply.
Local authority safeguarding or social care professionals, Providers of probation services, Specialist domestic abuse advisers/ Independent Domestic Violence
Advisers (IDVAs), Specialist non-statutory support services (for example refuge support staff)
If you selected other please add your response here::
We repeat our above concerns about funding, the availability of resources and enforceability.
19 We propose that there should be multiple routes via which an application for a Domestic Abuse Protection Order can be made,
including:
Yes
If you chose Yes or No, please explain your answer::
The aim is to increase options by which a victim and or her children can be rendered safe but this pre-supposes that there is a uniform definition of domestic
abuse across all statutory services and the courts and a shared understanding of abuse, how it manifests in different cultures and is impacted by factors such as
age, class, disability and sexuality. More needs to be done to ensure consistency of understanding and approach to gender related violence across the statutory
services and courts.
20 Do you agree that family, civil and criminal courts should be able to make Domestic Abuse Protection Orders of their own volition
during the course of any proceedings.
Yes
If you selected Yes or No, please explain your answer:
This would mitigate some of our concerns about funding as well as remove the onus from the victim to request protection and bear all the responsibility for her
own safety.
21 Do you agree that courts should be able to impose positive requirements as well as prohibitions as part of the conditions attached to
the proposed order?
Yes
If you selected Yes or No, please explain your answer:
1. We agree that further positive requirements should be introduced as responsibility for protection and safety needs to shift from the victim to the perpetrator. At
present, there is a disproportionate focus on what the victim is expected to do to keep safe (rather than explore the ways in which the perpetrator can be made
accountable for his actions). However, this measure presupposes that there are sufficient well-resourced perpetrator programmes and other specialist services
including for mental health problems and substance abuse etc. Perpetrator programmes also lack other expertise, for example having an awareness and
experience of dealing with those from BME backgrounds and being alert to cultural and religious constraints and risks faced by BME women. We are not aware of
any programmes that specialise in addressing BME perpetrators.
2. Another problem is that most criminal cases do not even make it to court and those that do are discontinued (due to a lack of sufficient evidence to meet the
criminal burden of proof). There needs to be more clarity as to how perpetrators are likely to be diverted to these services following acquittals or discontinuance of
proceedings and how such positive requirements will be imposed; i.e. which other agencies will be involved? Who will pay for the perpetrators to attend treatment
programmes? Will the perpetrator be able to attend any programme or only (for example) RESPECT accredited perpetrator programmes? (We recommend the
latter only). Who will be responsible for monitoring and enforcement? How will they work with also supporting the victim if there are no specialist services involved
or available in their area?
22 Do you agree that courts should be able to require individuals subject to a domestic abuse protection order to notify personal details to
the police?
Yes
If you selected Yes or No, please explain your answer::
This is a necessary measure given that in our experience, many domestic abuse offenders are likely to be repeat offenders and such information will be
necessary to assess risk. It is vital however that the police do not abuse such information (i.e. for immigration enforcement purposes - see our response to
question 37 below) or to violate civil liberties.
23 If you selected 'Yes' to question 22 what personal details should the courts be able to require individuals to provide to the police?
Select all that apply.
Name/change of name, Home address/change of home address, Formation of new relationship with an intimate partner, Change of circumstances relating to
household - including where a new child is born or otherwise joins the household, Details of child arrangements orders for where and with whom a child is to live
and with whom a child is to spend time or otherwise have contact.
If you selected other please add your response here::
We repeat that the sharing of information must be subject to a robust civil liberties assessment.
24 Do you agree that breach of the proposed order should be a criminal offence?
Yes
If you selected Yes or No, please explain your answer:
1. We believe that enforcement of the breach of an order should not be left to the victim under any circumstances. In any event and by way of comparison,
although in theory non-molestation orders can be dealt with as a contempt of court matter, legal aid is not always available for committal proceedings. This means
that potentially a victim has to either pay privately for representation or represent herself. This is too onerous a responsibility for abused victims to shoulder; it may
actually deter those women who are fearful of repercussions, are too traumatised or lack the confidence and skills to do so. Placing the burden of enforcement on
the victim is simply not acceptable as delay in enforcement may prove to be serious and even fatal.
2. We are not aware of any evidence to show that the criminalisation of breach of non-molestation orders leads to a drop in the reporting of such breaches. But
our view is that there should be a consistent approach to the issue of the breach of protective orders. At present there is no consistency in how such orders are
enforced. (We note for example that breach of an occupation order is not of itself an arrestable offence since a power of arrest needs to be separately attached).
For this reason, it is vital that any breach of all protection orders obtained either through criminal or civil proceedings are enforceable as a criminal matter and that
they are actually enforced by the police.
25 If you do agree that breach of the proposed order should be a criminal offence, should it be possible for breach to alternatively be
punished as a contempt of court?
Yes
If you selected Yes or No, please explain your answer:
We would answer yes to provide a ‘backstop’ remedy for the victim where the police are unwilling or unable to pursue the enforcement of the breach as a criminal
matter. Sadly, this is all too often a reality when women report a breach of a non-molestation order. To improve police accountability, we suggest that the onus
should be on the police to provide the victim reasons for not pursuing the breach as a criminal offence.
26 Do you agree that courts should be given an express power to impose electronic monitoring as a condition of a Domestic Abuse
Protection Order?
Yes
If you selected Yes or No, please explain your answer:
Whilst on balance we agree that, in theory, this is a useful ‘tool’ to add to the court’s powers and can send a strong message to perpetrators about the
consequences of abusive behaviour, a great deal more thought is needed in relation to (1) the potential for a breach of the perpetrator’s civil liberties and human
rights; (2) funding of such a scheme (3) monitoring of the scheme and (4) the overall effectiveness of electronic monitoring in ensuring the safety of victims.
27 Which particular statutory safeguards relating to the use of electronic monitoring with Domestic Abuse Protection Orders should be
put in place?
Please give your answer below:
Anonymous registration
28 How much easier do you think it will be for domestic abuse victims to register to vote anonymously, once the changes summarised
above happen?
Easier
29 What further support could survivors receive to prove their safety would be at risk if their name and address appeared on the electoral
register? Please put forward one suggestion.
Please give your answer below:
In our experience, many victims do not disclose domestic abuse to any agency/professional. This is especially true of BME women faced with additional cultural
and religious constraints and with uncertain immigration status. In these circumstances the broad range of evidence accepted in relation to evidencing domestic
abuse for the purposes of a DV Rule applications and the DDV Concession in immigration cases, should also be accepted for the purpose of registration for
anonymous voting. In addition, there should be scope for the victim to provide a statement which should be regarded as evidence. It cannot be emphasised
enough that there needs to be consistency across various agencies as to the type of evidence deemed acceptable for the purposes of such registration.
30 Do you have any further comments or suggestions on how to make it easier for domestic abuse survivors to anonymously register to
vote?
Please provide your answer:
Please see above. Regarding the list of those able to formally certify the risk to a victim, there must be consistency between this list and the list of those able to
provide evidence of domestic abuse in relation to (for example) legal aid applications, immigration (DV Rule) applications and so on. We favour a wider inclusive
list (acknowledging that women come into contact with a wide range of different agencies/professionals) which is applied across the board, as well as there being
provision for a victim to provide her own evidence (see our response to question 29).
31 Aside from anonymous registration, how else can we keep victims’ addresses safe?
Please provide your answer in the box below::
More consideration needs to be given to the ways in which key bodies such as the police and social services and those working in welfare benefits and national
insurance systems adhere to codes of confidentiality. It is now well established that perpetrators of forced marriage and honour based violence for example, have
been able to use informers in these agencies to help track down young girls who have run away from forced marriage and other forms of abuse.
The Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme
32 Before reading this consultation, were you aware of the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (Clare's Law)?
Yes
33 Do you agree the guidance underpinning the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme should be put in to law?
Strongly agree
Please explain your answer:
We are concerned about the lack of awareness of Clare’s Law amongst the police. For example, recently, one of our advocates accompanied a woman to the
police station and explained to the officer that they were seeking disclosure of the victim’s partner’s history under Clare’s Law. The officer’s response was “who’s
Clare?” There needs to be greater consistency of awareness and application of this law across all police forces.
34 How do you think we can best promote awareness of the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme amongst the public?
Other - please explain
Use this box to explain your answer or if you selected 'other':
Potentially all the above methods are appropriate. However many victims are very isolated and do not have access to the internet and their access to television
and newspapers may be limited. Victims may not have English as a first language or are unable to leave their homes. Posters and leaflets in different languages
available at GP surgeries, post offices, community centres, nurseries/schools, supermarkets and other locations to which women are more likely to have access
to would also be helpful. It would be also be useful if such information (and indeed wider information about domestic abuse and rights) was made available as
part of a generic welcome pack given to migrant women who are entering the country (whether as spouses, partners or under any other category) and also as
part of the ‘Life in the UK’ test preparation process. This would also ensure that information reaches the more marginalised women.
Economic abuse
35 What practical barriers do domestic abuse victims face in escaping or recovering from economic abuse and how could these be
overcome?
Please give your answer below:
1. In our experience, the following are some of the key barriers that victims of abuse face when trying to recover from economic abuse:
a. Immigration insecurity and ‘no recourse to public funds’ - these compound women’s financial dependency on perpetrators;
b. Lack of legal and institutional awareness of economic and financial abuse on the physical and mental well-being of victims;
c. Lack of legal aid to pursue legal remedies to recover marital assets;
d. Poverty and homelessness;
e. Lack of English and knowledge of rights;
f. Lack of recognition of economic forms of abuse including dowry practices amongst statutory agencies, police and courts;
g. Austerity and spending cuts.
2. We elaborate on some of the key barriers that women face below.
3. In our experience, the ‘no recourse’ rule is one of the most serious and frequent barriers to exit and rehabilitation faced by abused women subject to this rule.
We have described at question 15 above, how the ‘no recourse’ restriction preserves the economic dependency of abused women on violent spouses/partners or
relatives. Many of the women who attend SBS echo similar stories of domestic servitude, imprisonment, starvation and the most horrific physical, sexual and
emotional violence imaginable. Needless to say, mental health problems, depression and suicide attempts also feature strongly in such cases. These women are
also often denied access to essential documents to open bank accounts; denied access to wages if working and deprived of their wedding gifts, dowries and
marital assets. The restriction prevents a significant number of women from escaping violence and plunges those women who manage to escape into destitution
and homelessness thus compounding the economic abuse that they already face. Other worrying trends include abusers abandoning women in their countries of
origin, following a marriage. In their country of origin, such women are left to face social isolation, discrimination, destitution and further physical and sexual
violence and persecution without any hope of adequate state protection or support. The ‘no recourse’ restriction therefore provides an enabling environment for
perpetrators to economically and financially abuse women with impunity.
4. Almost all women need safe accommodation and financial assistance to meet their basic needs, without which they cannot pursue their right to protection and
justice. Many want their abusers to be held accountable through prosecutions or civil court injunctions but find that without security of accommodation and
financial help, they have no option but to remain with their abuser. This often results in the withdrawal of allegations and the end of any criminal proceedings. The
government has acknowledged that welfare benefits and access to housing are essential prerequisites for all victims wishing to escape domestic violence as
these provide an initial safety net. Yet this recognition is denied to women who have an insecure immigration status and in doing so, the government puts them
outside the scope of the protection afforded by domestic violence legislation and policies. The most severe indictment of the current policy on ‘no recourse’ is that
it aggravates a woman’s sense of dependency, worthlessness and humiliation. Women are stripped of their human dignity and are forced to feel grateful for
protection that should be their right.
5. At present, it is virtually impossible for women to evidence economic abuse and/or persuade an agency/professional that economic abuse constitutes domestic
violence. This is a particular problem for BME women who need to report the retention of dowries (consisting of wedding gifts, money and jewellery) and other
matrimonial assets by perpetrators. The police refuse to recognise such retention as theft and instead divert women to the civil justice system which cannot be
accessed if women cannot obtain legal aid to pursue civil proceedings.
6. Even if women try to obtain justice in the civil or family courts, there are significant gaps in understanding how the practice of dowry and abuse are connected.
There is a need to plug the ‘justice gap’ in England and Wales for women who have been unable to recover their dowries. The courts should give proper
recognition to the unique status of dowry as women’s property when addressing divorce and financial matters. We have addressed this at length in our article;
Patel, P., Handa, R., Anitha, S., Jahangir S. (December 2016) 'Emerging issues for international family law: Part 3: Transnational marriage abandonment and the
dowry question', Family Law Journal, p. 1443.
7. Finally, the overall impact of austerity cannot be under-estimated since it forms part of a continuum of economic abuse that abused women face. We are
witness to an unprecedented attack on the welfare state and legal aid services- services that were historically set up to address poverty and inequality. At SBS,
we see on a daily basis the suffering that punitive austerity measures have caused to the women who arrive at our door. Vulnerable women who are trying to
recover from domestic violence must also now cope with the prospect of rising poverty and destitution. Benefits cuts (including the imposition of the ‘bedroom tax’
and the benefits cap) have financially affected many women who are forced into poverty after fleeing abuse and need to rely on housing and other welfare
support. Other changes, such as the ‘rape clause’ in relation to child tax credits, actively victimise women who experience domestic violence. The cuts have a
disproportionate impact on all women but they have had a specifically dangerous impact on marginalised and vulnerable black and minority ethnic women who
need protection from violence, abuse and persecution a the hands of wider family and community members. This is also demonstrated by a report by the
Women’s Budget Group, which states that austerity and spending cuts since 2010 have disproportionately affected BME women, especially the poorest BME
women (Women’s Budget Group and others, Intersecting Inequalities: the impact of austerity on BME women in the UK, 10 October 2017). Specialist refuges and
other BME services are disappearing fast and those concerned with social justice have to fight harder than ever to preserve the scarce resources that they have
struggled for.
Online threats and the role of technology in domestic abuse
36 What more can we do to tackle domestic abuse which is perpetrated online, or through control of technology?
Other - please explain
Use this box to explain your answer or if you selected 'other':
1. We are of the view that online abuse and social media crimes for women must be located within a wider continuum of violence against women. It forms part of
a spectrum of violence that women experience; ranging from emotional and sexual abuse and harassment at one end, to gender related and honour based
violence and murder at the other more extreme end. It is only by understanding the problem of social media crimes as a gendered phenomenon and as part of the
continuum of violence experienced by women and girls that we can hope to develop effective mechanisms for protection and safety.
2. In our casework, we are seeing a growing number of cases of domestic violence and abuse, in which the use or dissemination (or threatened
use/dissemination) of intimate images of women and girls is a central feature. Whilst the issue of “revenge porn” has received a great deal of media and legal
attention in the last few years, the impact of this issue on BME women specifically has received little acknowledgement and recognition.
3. The misuse of intimate and personal images (whether taken with or without the consent of the victim) is often deeply distressing and intrusive for all women,
regardless of race, religion or sexuality. However, in our experience, the impact on BME women is significant because of its interrelation with the often rigid
cultural and religious values and norms concerning gender roles and sexuality in minority communities. Such an interface can and does produce heightened risks
and dangers for some women and girls. Many BME families and communities often adhere to strict patriarchal structures of power and privilege, in which the
concept of ‘honour’ and ‘shame’ is embedded. These twin concepts largely serve to regulate and control women’s sexuality and behaviours. Women are deemed
responsible for upholding the honour of the family and if they transgress, they are punished in ways that range from being ostracised, to violence and even death.
The codes of ‘honour’ and ‘shame’ are enforced by men but can also involve wider family and community members including women.
4. Social media crimes therefore are particularly problematic for many BME women, especially in a context where their sexuality is under immense cultural and
religious scrutiny and regulation. Generally, irrespective of the reality, women are often perceived to be inviting or encouraging sexual advances, (whether
through their behaviour, clothing or relationships.) Many are considered ‘bad’, ‘shameful’ and ‘dishonourable’ if they break with strict social taboos concerning
sexuality. For example, a woman who is sexually assaulted or raped is frequently blamed for having ‘brought it upon herself’ by her ‘transgressive’ behaviour.
Rape and sexual assault are very rarely viewed from a woman’s point of view. For example, within many BME communities, rape within marriage is not
recognised as rape because of the prevailing view that a married woman’s body is her husband’s property. Many BME communities consider sex to be necessary
marital duty and expect a ‘good’ or ‘decent’ wife to accede to sexual demands made by her husband. It is also assumed that no ‘decent’ or ‘dutiful’ woman,
whether married or not, would be involved in sexual relationships or activity outside of marriage. Those women, who are deemed to break with such codes of
conduct, are likely to face intense social stigma and severe sanctions.
5. In view of such social, cultural and religious contexts, a woman who has taken intimate images of herself, or who appears to have consented or even
acquiesced to having intimate images taken, is considered immoral and ‘dishonourable’. Her dishonour or shame, and by extension that of her family and wider
kinship group, is compounded if the images are shared or distributed. A woman whose body has been seen by other men – whether or not she consented to it - is
likely to be considered ‘unmarriageable’ and ‘tainted’. In our experience, in communities where the codes of ‘honour’ and ‘shame’ are central features of family
and community life, often the only way in which honour can be restored is through submission to absolute control (whether through marriage or other restrictions)
or through the elimination of the offender (through murder or encouragement to commit suicide).
6. We have dealt with cases where for example, a woman’s partner or husband has taken intimate images of her as part of an ongoing pattern of abuse, with the
aim of controlling her behaviour and forcing her to submit to his will. Even if these images are not ultimately shared, the possession of these images by a partner
often acts as a powerful deterrent, preventing women from speaking out against their abuse. The use of social media in this context constitutes a powerful
bargaining or blackmailing tool. It is often utilised to great effect by abusive partners and husbands to completely silence and control women and to prevent them
from exiting an abusive relationship.
7. Example:
Ms N married her British national husband in Pakistan. In February 2014, she then came to the UK to join her husband. Following her arrival, Ms N went to live
with her husband and in-laws but was subjected to considerable violence and abuse. Ms N was required to undertake all the domestic chores from early in the
morning until late at night. Her husband would reprimand her if she did anything without his or his mother’s permission. This extended to even getting a haircut
without permission. She was required to hand her wages from her full-time job to her mother-in-law and was not given any money for her personal needs. She
was kept isolated and confined to the home other than being permitted to go to work. After a few months, Ms N discovered that her husband had been taking
photographs of her getting dressed without her consent. He also began to sexually abuse her and raped her on several occasions. He filmed himself sexually
assaulting and raping her, using his mobile phone. When Ms N questioned him, he said he wanted to keep the images to ‘look at’. As the relationship
deteriorated, he would say to her ‘you better remember that I have got a memory card of photos of you’. He would threaten to show the photos to her family in
Pakistan, if she disobeyed him or her in-laws. Ms N was terrified of the prospect of the photos being shown to her family and community; she feared that they
would reflect badly on her and bring acute shame on her. For these reasons, she tolerated the abuse to which she was subjected. Eventually in June 2015, Ms N
was permitted to visit her father in Pakistan who was unwell. Her brother became aware of the ill-treatment that she was experiencing at the hands of her
husband and in-laws and referred her to SBS. SBS assisted Ms N in reporting her experiences to the police and although they investigated her allegations of
rape, their only interest in the photos and videos that her husband had taken of her was to support her allegations of rape; they did not consider the act of taking
those photos as constituting domestic abuse or as part of a pattern of controlling and abusive behaviour perpetrated by her husband.
8. Cases likes the above, show just how pernicious social media crimes can be in communities where the mere hint of female transgressions can have
devastating consequences. This is precisely why perpetrators frequently threaten to share personal and intimate images of women and girls not just with family
members but also family, relatives, friends, colleagues and community and religious leaders. Although the actual dissemination of such images may be caught by
existing criminal offences, we fear that for most women, mere threat will be enough to control and subjugate them. The civil law can offer some protection but
many women will not be able to access this protection because of the restricted availability of legal aid.
9. We consider that some women will not be protected by a stringent application of the current law and guidelines, because of the many different forms of abuse
involving social media that can take place. Prosecutors will not only need to be aware of the different forms of such abuse but also locate this with a continuum of
violence, coercion and control. They will also need to take account of the cultural and religious contexts that are so significant for BME women. In addition,
prosecutors will also need to be vigilant and robust in taking decisions to prosecute in what appear to be ‘novel’ cases.
10. We are also concerned by the prevalence of online hate speech against women, especially those who dissent from cultural and religious norms. Policing of
female sexuality is often ‘justified’ in the name of religion but its intention is to subjugate women and girls and censor their right to speak. There is evidence,
including from Girl Guiding UK, about the impact of this on young women’s confidence and willingness to voice their views. This must be addressed so that girls
are not inhibited from free speech and from full and equal participation in civic life.
11. We therefore recommend further guidance and training to police, prosecutors and judges on the area of online abuse, as well as a reflection in sentencing
guidelines of the particular harm/risk/damage that may have been caused to a BME victim due to the particular cultural constraints of honour and shame.
12. In addition we think online abuse (including online hate speech) needs to be a key feature of Relationships and Sex Education and Personal Social and
Health Education in schools.
Improving the police response
37 How can we continue to encourage and support improvements in the policing response to domestic abuse across all forces and
improve outcomes for victims?
Please give your answer below:
1. We think it is important to highlight some of the most commonly encountered difficulties we face with the police. Our casework shows that BME women face
significant barriers in reporting abuse to the police. A more recent problem encountered is the inability of victims in Ealing to access a police station, due to the
new ‘triage’ system whereby in some areas there is one police station per borough which is not locally accessible for many women.
2. Example: We recently encountered a woman who fled abuse in her nightgown and slippers in the evening and went to the local police station as she was
aware of its existence and location. However, when she arrived, she found that it was shut down. By chance she was told about SBS by a passer-by and she was
able to find her way to our service and obtain the assistance that she needed. But most women will not be in such a fortunate position. Destitute women and
those who are new to the country and do not speak English or lack the confidence to seek help, will not be able to report their abuse to their local police.
3. Even when women do report, they experience the following failures and challenges which we also highlighted in our submission to the 2014 review by Her
Majesty’s Inspectorate of the Constabulary on the police response to domestic violence:
a. Failure to treat BME women with respect and sensitivity; indeed some of our cases revealed explicit racism towards the victims;
b. Failure to identify and record domestic violence accurately;
c. Failure to keep the victim informed of any delays in police response and developments in investigations and bail conditions;
d. Failure to link previous incidents or history of domestic incidents, therefore viewing incidents in isolation;
e. Failure to investigate even where serious injuries as a result of domestic violence had occurred;
f. Readily accepting cross-allegations from perpetrator/s without any proper investigation. The police often take them at face value which results in victims being
charged and criminalised instead of the perpetrators. Our local police have reported an increase in cross allegations at the interview stage and also when the
matter goes to court. We are also aware of perpetrators making cross allegations to undermine women’s right to stay in the UK;
g. Failure to adequately supervise interpreters. We have had instances where the interpreters arranged by the police have failed to interpret correctly, have
breached confidentiality and given inappropriate advice. On some occasions, they have refused to interpret whilst our advocates are present and the police have
failed to challenge this. We have also had instances of interpreters being left to take a statement unsupervised and instead directing clients on the contents of
their statement and deciding what to include or leave out of a statement;
h. Failure to gather and preserve crucial evidence;
i. Failure to understand and recognise the role of domestic violence advocates/caseworkers and instead perceiving them to be a threat to their work;
j. Failure to communicate the progress of an investigation to the victim (or those acting on her behalf) including providing reasons for discontinuing an
investigation, which is often routine;
k. Failure to follow proper protocols for referring to the Crown Prosecution Service (‘CPS’) and failure to provide accurate information following such referrals;
l. Failure to take seriously allegations of breaches of bail conditions and civil court protection orders;
m. Being overly preoccupied with immigration enforcement rather than providing protection or pursuing criminal charges where a victim has, or appears to have,
insecure immigration status. We fear that this practice has increased in light of the provisions of the Immigration Bill 2016, with its emphasis on surveillance by
statutory agencies. This seriously undermines the protection principle within the police and other services charged with the overriding duty to protect vulnerable
adults and children. We focus below on this issue.
4. Whilst in the past the police have recognised that the lack of secure immigration status is a risk factor in domestic abuse and whilst there is guidance from the
Home Office and the College of Policing about how immigration status can be used as a tool of abuse, control and coercion by perpetrators, we find that there is a
serious lack of understanding within the police of the impact of the overlap of immigration with domestic violence. The guidance such as it is, is not applied or
understood by officers on the ground. Their overriding objective appears to be to report those who are potential ‘illegals’ to the Home Office at the expense of all
else.
5. Example: In one case, SBS has been compelled to challenge a local police decision to prioritise the need to police immigration status above the need to ensure
protection in a domestic violence case involving a migrant woman. In this case, the police and Chair of the local MARAC made clear to SBS that vulnerable and
abused women with insecure immigration status should not call the police even in emergencies where they fear for their lives or that of their children. They argued
that the police are duty bound to arrest and report them to the immigration authorities if they are flagged up on their data base as ‘illegal immigrants’, irrespective
of whether or not they are taking steps to secure their status, based on their right to apply to remain in the UK as victims of domestic violence under the Domestic
Violence Rule.
6. Yet there is no evidence to suggest that there is any legal duty on the police mandating them to share information on a victim’s immigration status with the
Home Office. Even if such a ‘duty’ could be identified, we would suggest that it may well conflict with the state’s obligations (including those of the police) under
the Human Rights Act to prevent a breach of articles 2,3 and 14 ECHR (the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment, and the right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of Convention rights).
7. Many other women’s organisations with whom we work have also provided anecdotal evidence of the police seeking to investigate a domestic violence victim’s
immigration status or give advice such as “you have no rights”, rather than protect victims or pursue potential criminal offences committed by perpetrators.
8. Recently, responses to Freedom of Information requests made by the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire programme of 45 police forces in England and Wales have
confirmed that 27 of these share victims’ details with the Home Office for immigration control purposes. Only three responded that they do not share victims’
information. The rest of the forces responded with neither a ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ or stated that they did not have enough information to respond. The responses show that
there is no clear police guidance or policy on this issue. Some forces advised that victims would only be handed over if they posed a ‘significant risk’, while others
said it was the responsibility of individual police officers to identify who should be referred.
9. The reply by West Mercia Police and Warwickshire Police to the FOI was as follows:
“The two force Alliance apply the interim guidance issued on 20th December 2017 jointly by Chief Constable Shaun Sawyer, Chief Constable Andy Cooke QPM,
and Chief Constable Simon Bailey, the National Police Chief Council respective leads for Modern Slavery & Human Trafficking, Serious & Organised Crime, and
Vulnerability. This interim guidance states: ‘Where a person has reported to police that they are a victim of crime, particularly ones of significant vulnerability,
police forces will treat them as victims first and foremost. Where the investigating officer considers it appropriate to enquire as to their immigration status due to
reasonable doubts about their legal status in the UK, immediate arrest will not be made. Only where there is intelligence or information, either from police
databases or immigration Enforcement, that the person poses an immediate risk of harm to a specific individual or a wider group of people, should an immediate
arrest be made’.”
10. Replies by the Northamptonshire and Northumbria police forces to the FOIs request on the other hand showed that they were not following the above
guidance; both forces stated that they do refer domestic violence victims to the Home Office. Indeed, Northumbria police’s reply to the Freedom of Information
request said: "Basically, we have embedded Immigration Enforcement Officers (part of the home Office) working within the Force and they become aware of the
status of victims due to our work with them."
11. These responses are extremely concerning. Most police forces shared information with the Home Office, whilst others remained silent on the issue. Moreover,
although the responses of West Mercia and Warwickshire Police, appear to be sensitive to the need to put a victim’s safety first, they also confirms that they do
refer victims to the Home Office if there are doubts about their status. However, it is the responses of the Northamptonshire and Northumbria police forces that
are particularly disturbing since they have actually taken the step to embed immigration enforcement officers within their force which throws into doubt their
motives when assisting abused women with insecure status.
12. Such responses are troubling for a number of reasons:
a. Victims of domestic violence are not going to be reassured by the claim that they will ‘only’ be arrested if an officer feels it is necessary. Such use of discretion
by an officer is clearly problematic, given the lack of clarity as to what is the main priority when an officer is faced with a victim at risk of abuse who also has
insecure status;
b. It is evident that not all police forces are following the guidance such as it exists;
c. the guidance does nothing to reduce the general climate of fear and hostility that all immigrants face which reinforce the message that policing immigration
status is the overriding duty of police officers.
This view is also echoed by the Mayor’s 2018-2021 VAWG strategy. Apart from one line acknowledging that illegal or uncertain immigration status can lead to
lower levels of reporting, the strategy completely fails to deal with protection of migrant women and indeed the Mayor has previously defended the actions of the
police in handing victims over to the Home Office (http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2017/11/28/woman-reports-rape-to-police-and-is-arrested-on-immigration);
d. The interim police guidance, at best, still equates immigration control with the protection of victims and gives both equal importance (rather than prioritising
protection). The problem is that this adds to the lack of clarity and allows the police discretion on the matter;
e. Even taking into account the interim guidance, current practice still creates a two tier system of protection for victims – a victim who had insecure status is still
treated as less worthy of protection and is still at risk of being arrested.
Recommendations
13. In light of this, we would like to see complete consistency in the understanding and approach to domestic violence and other forms of gender-based harm
across the police forces as well as more accountability and transparency in decision making. This involves ensuring that the new Independent Office of Police
Complaints, new police complaints procedure and the super-complaints processes, are transparent, effective, deliver accountability and operate in a manner
consistent with the state’s human rights obligations.
14. There is also an urgent need to address the blurring of police roles in respect of protection and immigration enforcement. There must be a ‘firewall’ between
immigration enforcement and policing so that there is no connection between the police and Home Office in matters to do with domestic abuse. Anything else will
constitutes a significant departure in policy and practice in respect of protecting abused women who have insecure status; it amounts to what can only be
described as a highly discriminatory response to those women who have insecure immigration status. such a response also amounts to a breach of human rights
laws and standards and is therefore unlawful. The following are some of the key violations that occur in law:
a. a breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty enshrined in the Equality Act 2010;
b. a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 (which includes the duty to take action and to safeguard the human rights of all victims including the right to life, the
right not to be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to liberty and security of person);
c. a breach of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW);
d. a breach of the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention) and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. (UDHR).
15. In the case of women fleeing violence in the UK, the police must act with due diligence to protect women’s right to life and the right to be free from torture,
cruel and inhuman and degrading treatment. This means that agencies must ensure that all women, including women without regular immigrations status, have
access (without fear) to the police and other welfare services necessary to help them regain their liberty, security and human dignity.
Improving victims experiences of the justice system
38 Do you think creating a legislative assumption that all domestic abuse victims are to be treated as eligible for assistance on the
grounds of fear and distress (if the victim wants such assistance), will support more victims to give evidence?
Yes
If you selected Yes or No, please explain your answer:
Yes. In our experience special measures are vital to ensure that victims have confidence in the criminal justice system and view it as a viable route by which to
seek accountability and justice. Historically the criminal justice system has been slow to acknowledge women’s experiences of abuse and to divest itself of
assumptions and stereotypes that are built around male norms of behaviour. This has allowed a culture of silence, denial and complicity to develop which has
been difficult to shift. The result is that many abused women are afraid to engage with a system that brings them face to face with their perpetrator/s, who also
often use the criminal justice system to further their harassment and persecution of women. Whilst special measures that enable victims to have a voice, to
engage with the process and feel confident in the system are vital, they can only work if they are a part of a wider package of ‘end to end’ support. This means
ensuring that there is adequate support both before and after criminal proceedings. In this context, it is vital that the role of IDVAs is not limited to crisis
intervention only but also extended to the provision of long term holistic support, including providing essential help with practical matters such as childcare support
to allow women to fully participate in criminal proceedings. Our experience of homicide reviews also point to the need to improve communication between the
victim and police so that the victim is kept fully informed of developments in the proceedings.
39 Is there more this government could do to explain the range and remit of existing measures for victims to help support them in the
criminal justice process?
Yes
If you selected Yes, please explain your answer:
Awareness raising campaigns and better information is always helpful but as mentioned above, the range of measures cannot just be limited to what is available
in court but has to include ‘wrap around support’ for women at every stage of the criminal justice process including before, during and after criminal proceedings.
40 Do you know of instances in criminal proceedings when an application to prevent cross-examination of a victim by an unrepresented
defendant has been denied in a domestic abuse case?
No
If you selected Yes, where possible, please provide evidence or details of the experience to support your answer.:
41 Do you think extending the prohibition on cross-examination in criminal proceedings would support more domestic abuse victims to
give evidence?
Yes
If you selected 'Yes' or 'No' please explain your answer:
Yes. This is a necessary, but not a sufficient step. An extension of the prohibition must also be accompanied by wider measures that increase the support
available to victims. This includes providing secure funding that guarantees the survival of specialist women’s organisations and independent advocates that are
not connected to statutory services including the police and local authorities. (See our response to question 38 above).
Prosecution without victim's evidence
42 Do you have suggestions for how we can better support prosecutions through to conclusion, including providing better support for
witnesses who currently disengage from the process?
Yes
If you selected 'Yes' please explain why and, where possible, providing evidence or details of the experience to support your answer.:
1. The key problem for many victims is the lack of support for victims prior to, during and after criminal proceedings. This is mainly due to the focus of IDVAs and
the police on crisis intervention only. Specialist organisations such as SBS are exceptional in providing long term wrap-around holistic services but it is clear that
without practical, emotional, legal and more crucially advocacy support, few victims are likely to initiate or stay engaged in the criminal process. The situation is
often exacerbated by the lack of communication between various agencies and between the agencies and the victim, delays in court hearings and the lack of
adequate facilities in court.
2. Example: in one case, a local DHR report concluded that a major contributory factor to a domestic homicide was the lack of communication between the local
authority and its IDVA service, the Witness Care Unit in the court and the police. The victim’s abuser had been arrested for previously assaulting her and two
police officers. He was bailed with conditions not to contact her directly or indirectly and not to attend the family home. She was also referred to a local authority
IDVA service. The victim was never made aware of the outcome of the trial (her abuser was acquitted of assaulting her but found guilty of assaulting police
officers nor of any restraining orders having been sought by the police prior to his acquittal. He went to her home and killed her pending a hearing on sentencing.
The report said:
“Between the IDVA service, the Police Officer in Case and the Witness Care Unit, Charlotte should have received regular updates and contact in relation to the
trial following the incident in November 2013. In fact she had almost no contact, and no support was provided… The Review was unable to establish whether
Charlotte received support from the Witness Service at the Court on the day of the trial… it is clear that Charlotte did not understand what had taken place at the
trial. She did not know why Preston had been found not guilty of the assault on her, and she did not know the outcome of the overall trial (in relation to the
assaults on the police officers).”
3. A key recommendation of the review was the need for the Witness Care Unit to take the lead in maintaining contact with the victim/witness around the trial.
Another recommendation was the need for police officers in charge to be proactive in their contact with the victim/witness, particularly in relation to Restraining
Orders.
4. These recommendations also point to the urgent need to have IDVAs that are not simply limited to crisis intervention but can support women for longer periods
of time, at least until the successful resolution of civil and criminal matters.
5. We also ask that consideration be given to allowing victims to have legal aided access to specialist legal advisers in criminal law, so that they can be better
informed of the criminal process, and to enable them to remain engaged in proceedings. For too long, victims of sexual and domestic abuse are left to their own
devices when supporting prosecutions at a time when they are traumatised, confused and fearful. The right to a domestic and sexual violence legal adviser and
representative is likely to produce better criminal justice outcomes in cases of abuse.
6. Finally, there can be no substitute for the proper funding of specialist and independent women’s advocacy services since they are well placed to work with the
victims, to take responsibility for risk assessments and action plans and to meet individual needs in a holistic way providing the space and support that victims
need to contemplate and remain engaged in the criminal justice process. Increased and properly resourced services, especially those for BME and other
marginalised women, are desperately needed across the UK. The right to access advocacy must be enshrined in the new law.
43 What more can police, witness care units and the Crown Prosecution Service do to support victims through the justice process from
the point of report onwards?
Where possible, please provide evidence or details of the experience to support your answer.:
See above. There is an urgent need to improve co-operation between the police, CPS, Witness Care Units and independent advocacy services. The latter are
essential in coordinating engagement between the victim and the criminal justice process, and in ensuring accountability from the key criminal justice services,
but for this to happen, they must maintain independence from the statutory services.
44 Are there other aspects of the criminal court treatment of vulnerable people which the family court could learn from?
Yes
If you selected Yes, please explain why:
1. If there is genuine will in tackling domestic abuse then the lack of focus on the family justice system in this consultation (which vulnerable victims of domestic
abuse are actually far more likely to come into contact with than the criminal justice system) is simply inexcusable and shameful. For too long family justice has
been the poor relation of the criminal justice system. Reform of the way the family justice system protects victims of domestic abuse is desperately needed and
appallingly overdue. For instance, whilst practical special measures are important, there is also an urgent need to re-examine key legal presumptions such as
shared parental responsibility and involvement, and the emphasis on ‘making contact work’, since it is now well established that contact with children often
provides perpetrators with the opportunity to continue their harassment and intimidation of victims.
2. One example of the lack of official understanding of how the family justice system can be used as an arena of abuse is the ongoing discussion in the House of
Commons about whether grandparents should have greater “rights” to see their grandchildren (essentially by removing the requirement under section 10 of the
Children Act 1989 for grandparents and certain others to seek leave of the court to make an application). Nowhere in this debate was there a demonstrated
understanding of the fact that there may be occasions where grandparents may be amongst the perpetrators of domestic abuse against the children’s mother and
may not have benign motivations in their application. This is often the case in BME communities. (House of Commons on 2 May 2018 -
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-05-02/debates/4532C0A2-3EDC-4113-BB87-C303A16763BC/AccessRightsToGrandparents)
3. We are of the view that a review of the family justice system is now urgently required given that this Bill is proposing to recognise harm to children in domestic
violence contexts as an aggravated offence.
4. The report on vulnerable witnesses (Hedley J and Russell J) – July 2014 – gave a number of recommendations which would assist victims of domestic abuse
as well as other vulnerable witnesses, but work on their implementation seems to have completely stalled.
7. In relation to the issue of cross examination of women by unrepresented perpetrators; the Prisons and Court Bill 2017 (now abandoned due to the 2017
general election) included a provision giving courts the power to prevent perpetrators from cross examining a witness in certain contexts: where the perpetrator
had been charged or convicted of an offence against that person; where the witness was protected by an injunction taken out against the perpetrator; or where it
is in the interests of justice to prevent cross examination because either the quality of the witness’ evidence would be diminished or they would suffer significant
distress. We see absolutely no reason why these recommendations cannot be considered for the purposes of this Bill. In our experience, women who have been
cross examined directly by their perpetrator, find the process devastating. They suffer a loss of confidence, panic attacks, and find themselves unable to respond
to questioning. They describe ‘breaking down’ leading to further trauma. Their experience in our view amounts to secondary abuse perpetrated by the state. In the
recent family case of JY v RY [2018] EWFC B16, the judge lamented the fact that neither the father nor the mother (who made allegations of sexual abuse
including rape against the father) had legal representation with the consequence that ultimately the mother felt unable to complete her evidence. This is a stark
demonstration of the consequences for vulnerable women and children due to the government’s inexplicable and continued failure to reverse harmful legal aid
cuts and to legislate on this matter. Cross examinations of victims by unrepresented perpetrators must be banned in family courts.
8. There also needs to be consistency of understanding of abuse- its causes and consequences – and of responses, across all the key players in the family court
system – from judges to CAFCASS officers. Some 18 years on from the seminal case of Re L (Contact: Domestic Violence) [2000] 2 FLR 334, we find that a
nuanced understanding of abuse and its effects on women and children is thin on the ground.
9. Special measures to protect vulnerable women are frequently not available in family courts, for example, separate entrances and waiting rooms, secure
conference rooms, screens, support with travel and child care costs, video links etc. In some family courts there are no visible staff let alone security to prevent
perpetrators harassing or abusing their victims whilst at court. Special measures must be guaranteed in all cases of abuse in the family courts and better support
must be guaranteed to victims of abuse.
10. Our experience also shows that victims greatly benefit from the presence of domestic violence advocates in the court rooms. At present, the private nature of
family proceedings means that advocates that victims rely on for emotional support and to help them process the proceedings, are often excluded from the court
room. Too frequently we are told by the victim’s legal representative (and sometimes the judge) that advocates are not allowed in court even where the victim
wants such support. Yet the reality is that many victims appreciate such support and have described how having their advocate sitting next to them in court gives
them confidence and reassurance in what is clearly a hostile and intimidating environment. In our view, advocates must be treated as a special measure and be
allowed in court hearings so that victims feel supported and protected in family courts.
11. We also endorse a recent report by Women’s Aid following their recent research on child contact and abuse, which echoes many of our above comments and
observations. The findings from Women’s Aid research illustrates a) the ways in which policies, procedures and guidance around domestic abuse and child
contact in the family courts are inconsistent with human rights legislation and b) the lack of action in recognising and addressing underlying institutional gender
discrimination due to knowledge gaps among family court professionals around domestic abuse and human rights. The report makes a series of
recommendations that echo our recommendations and suggestions above. In addition, the report calls for an independent inquiry into the handling of domestic
abuse by the family courts, to which we wholeheartedly agree.
Coercive or controlling behaviour offence
45 Do you think there is further action the government could take to strengthen the effectiveness of the controlling or coercive behaviour
offence?
Yes
Please give further detail.:
1. The most significant problem with the coercive control offence is that there is little understanding within the police and other statutory agencies as to what
constitutes coercion or that it can be financial, sexual and emotional in nature as well as physical. This is symptomatic of a much wider problem – the lack of
understanding about domestic abuse, its causes, consequences and dynamics or its interrelation with other systems of control such as immigration rules. The
immigration system for instance, is a particular weapon used by perpetrators to maintain coercive control over victims and to preserve their dependency on the
perpetrators but this is not well understood across the board (see our answers to questions 12 and 15). There is guidance from the College of Policing stating that
uncertain immigration status is in fact a domestic abuse risk indicator. The Home Office Controlling or Coercive Behaviour in an Intimate or Family Relationship -
Statutory Guidance Framework (December 2015) also explicitly acknowledges this: “Those subject to immigration control may face additional barriers when
attempting to escape domestic abuse. These circumstances may make them more reluctant to come forward and report abuse. Such circumstances may also be
exploited by perpetrators to exert control over victims, for example, by threatening to inform immigration authorities, or to no longer support their stay”.
2. Yet there appears to be no recognition of this form of coercion and no action is taken by statutory bodies including the police and CPS in relation to pressing
criminal charges for such behaviour. Instead, Home Office practice, proactively seeks to draw statutory agencies charged with protecting vulnerable people into
the net of immigration surveillance and control. Thus shifting the focus away from protection towards immigration enforcement.
3. It is not merely a question of training but of providing clear statutory guidance on the legal duty of key statutory bodies to protect vulnerable people which
cannot be trumped by other considerations such as immigration enforcement.
Aggravating factors in sentencing
46 Do you think the current approach of using sentencing guidelines, as per guidelines issued in February 2018 is effective in ensuring
sentences imposed reflect the seriousness of domestic abuse when it involves children?
Don’t know /no answer
If you selected Yes or No, please explain why.:
1. Whilst we welcome the new sentencing guidelines, they are not unproblematic either in relation to guidance on domestic abuse generally, or in relation to the
protection of children, specifically.
2. One problem with answering this question is that these guidelines will only come into force on 24 May 2018; we cannot therefore comment on their
effectiveness.
3. However, we are concerned with the continued reference to vulnerability in the new sentencing guidelines which lists key aggravating factors. The guidelines
state:
“Victim is particularly vulnerable (all victims of domestic abuse are potentially vulnerable due to the nature of the abuse, but some victims of domestic abuse may
be more vulnerable than others, and not all vulnerabilities are immediately apparent)” (p.5).
4. In our view, this comment relies too heavily on the understanding of judges and magistrates as to what constitutes ‘vulnerability’ since it is often based on
prejudices, assumptions and misconceptions. It is therefore vital that there is statutory guidance on what is meant by this together with a list of factors that cause
vulnerability.
5. Example: Last year, the case of R v Mustafa Bashir (Unreported, Manchester Crown Court 7 April 2017) attracted widespread media attention; following the
defendant’s guilty plea to assault occasioning harm (ABH) against his wife (including hitting her with a cricket bat and forcing her to drink bleach). The presiding
judge seemed to suggest that the BME victim was not “particularly vulnerable” when compared to “...a woman who comes to the UK from a foreign country to live
with her husband or partner, leaves her friends and family behind, makes few if any friends here and struggles with the language, with the result that she
becomes effectively trapped in a violent relationship”. The judge described the victim as “plainly an intelligent woman with a network of friends who had graduated
from university with a 2:1 degree and a Masters – although this has had an ongoing affect on her.” The judge later clarified this in subsequent sentencing remarks
as being an explicit reference to the considerations set out by the (then) Sentencing Guidelines. (https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-mustafa-bashir) However, it
is clear that the judge considered that the victim’s education, employment and intelligence made her less vulnerable than other BME migrant women. The judge’s
views betrayed the reality that domestic abuse victims come from all walks of life irrespective of class, education, religion, ethnicity and race. Our experience and
a wealth of evidence that exists, also shows that education and violence against women are often treated by the state as mutually exclusive. Whilst this case
pre-dates the new sentencing guidelines, the new guidelines do nothing to ameliorate the problem of victim stereotyping as they continue to use the phrase
“particularly vulnerable”.
6. Example: In a local DHR meeting, the local authority IDVA services were challenged for making the fallacious assumption about an African woman who was
working as a nurse was deemed to be capable of taking responsibility to protect herself and was denied the assistance and support that she desperately needed.
She was eventually killed by her perpetrator.
7. These cases provide further evidence of the widespread existence of misunderstandings about vulnerability and victimhood based on stereotypes about victims
and how they should behave.
8. With regards to children; there is actually very little detail in the guidelines about how domestic abuse harms children or the ways in which perpetrators
indirectly and directly involve children in domestic abuse. Nor is there any recognition that child contact arrangements can and are frequently used by perpetrators
to abuse both the children and their mother. There is also no reference to the need to consider the welfare of any children involved. (Whilst we appreciate this is
not the paramount consideration in the criminal court, we maintain it should nonetheless be an important consideration to which courts are directed when
sentencing in relation to domestic abuse offences involving children). The current list of aggravating factors directs the court to consider the impact on children
(p.5) but it does not mention the fact that the impact of abuse on any children may not be readily apparent or may not manifest itself until a significant period of
time after the offence has been committed.
9. The guidelines also do not sufficiently direct the court to consider the future impact on children of domestic abuse (rather than how they were affected in the
past by the abuse which was the subject of the conviction). For example, there is still potential for defendants to argue in mitigation that a custodial sentence will
negatively affect their relationship/contact arrangements with their children (paragraph 12 of the guidelines). There is little guidance for judges and magistrates to
assist them in understanding how continued contact with a convicted perpetrator of domestic abuse can be positively harmful to a child and increase the risk of
further abuse to both the mother and child (and should therefore be considered an aggravating factor).
10. Finally, it makes no sense to reflect the devastating impact of domestic abuse on children as an aggravating factor in sentencing guidelines if at the same time
there is no change to the law and practice in the family courts. In our view, the presumption under s.1(2A) of the Children Act of shared parental involvement in
the child’s life ‘unless the contrary is shown’ is insufficient in protecting children against the ongoing harm of contact with an abusive parent and does not sit well
with Practice Direction 12J: Child Arrangements Orders: Domestic Abuse and Harm which explicitly recognises the need to consider the impact of domestic
abuse on children. As explained above, child contact and residence arrangements are often a major site of abuse and control by perpetrators following separation
and divorce. It is therefore imperative that at the same time, there is a review of how domestic violence is addressed in the family courts. There is an urgent need
for a joined up and consistent approach to abuse in both family and criminal courts, without which, perpetrators will continue to find spaces in which to abuse.
47 Is a statutory aggravating factor needed in order for the court to reflect the seriousness of offences involving domestic abuse and
children in sentencing?
Yes
If you selected Yes or No, please explain why.:
Whilst a statutory aggravated feature would ‘send a message’ about the seriousness of domestic abuse involving children (whether those children are affected
directly or indirectly), it does not in and of itself solve the problems referred to above. There is a need for a deeper and more nuanced understanding within the
professional and lay judiciary, of domestic abuse and how it affects both women and children from different backgrounds and circumstances. Detailed guidelines
on the meaning of vulnerability in the context of coercion and control must also be considered.
48 Please share any other views on how to ensure domestic abuse and its impact on children are taken into account in sentencing?
Please provide you answer below:
Please see our answer to questions 46 and 47 above. There needs to be consistency of approach in relation to the protection of children across the family, civil
and criminal justice systems. There needs to be better awareness amongst the judiciary (lay and professional) about domestic abuse generally and specifically its
impact on children. This could be done through education and professional training. In addition, when faced with a plea in mitigation from the defendant
concerning the ‘impact on the children’, there should be a process by which the criminal court can request and share information with any family court on the
question of arrangements for the children. This may help both with ensuring the criminal court is not misinformed about what the arrangements for the children
actually are; moreover it may assist both jurisdictions in making decisions which are victim and child - welfare focused. Where there are no family court
proceedings, the victim should be consulted on what the contact arrangements are or are likely to be in the future. The Family Liaison Officer should also direct
the victim to seek legal advice from specialist family solicitors or a suitable legal charity or advice agency where appropriate.
The Istanbul Convention
49 Do you agree that taking extraterritorial jurisdiction over these offences is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Convention?
No
50 If you answered 'No' to question 49 what additional offences do you think we should take extraterritorial jurisdiction over and why?
Please provide your answer below:
1. Article 1a of the Istanbul Convention states that one purpose of the Convention is to protect women against all forms of violence, and prevent, prosecute and
eliminate violence against women and domestic violence. Article 12(2) requires parties to take the necessary legislative and other measures to prevent all forms
of violence covered by the scope of this Convention by any natural or legal person. Whilst the Convention sets out certain specific offences which must be
criminalised by State parties (including attempts or aiding/abetting these offences) at articles 33-39; (including psychological violence, stalking, physical violence,
sexual violence and rape, forced marriage, FGM, forced abortion and sterilisation), it is evident that they are only examples. The Convention does not simply
require that state parties to legislate only in respect of those offences but to consider all measures that comply with the overall objective of the Convention.
2. The Convention sets out a comprehensive scheme for tackling offences of violence against women and domestic abuse, setting up extra territorial jurisdiction
in respect of the same. But it would appear the Government has simply compiled a list of offences which meet the minimum requirements in respect of extra
territorial jurisdiction, by limiting extra-territorial jurisdiction only to the specified offences at articles 33-39 of the Convention. The Government should follow the
spirit, not just the letter, of the Istanbul Convention. Extra territorial jurisdiction should be extended to all serious cases of violence against women committed
abroad by British nationals or residents of the UK. Our view is that it is illogical to have an artificial distinction between categories of crimes of violence against
women which often have the same motives and impact. This stance goes against the aims and objectives of the Istanbul Convention to which the government is
committed and to its own Strategy on Violence Against Women and Girls.
3. A key omission is that some of the crimes that would fall under the umbrella of domestic abuse or ‘honour based violence’ such as kidnapping, false
imprisonment and blackmail are not included.
4. But the most serious omission from this list is the issue of domestic violence related homicide. The Government has said that the common law offence of
murder is already subject to extra territorial jurisdiction, however, as explained below, the current criminal law only extends extra-territorial jurisdiction to crimes
committed by a British national or subject and not British residents.
5. We set out below why the existing criminal law and the provision for extra territorial jurisdiction in respect of murder is insufficient, impacting as it does
disproportionately on BME women, thus rendering the current law ineffective and discriminatory.
6. Our concern is based on the issues highlighted by our casework experience including our current case of Seeta Kaur. We set out below the background to the
case and explain why the issue of extra-territorial jurisdiction must extend to all forms of gender-based violence including ‘honour killings’ and domestic violence
related homicide committed abroad by British citizens or British residents on British nationals or residents.
7. Example: The Seeta Kaur case. On 31 March 2015, whilst on a family trip to India, Seeta (Saini) Kaur – a 33 year old British national of Indian origin and the
mother of four young British children – died in highly suspicious circumstances at the home of her husband, Pawan Saini and her in-laws.
8. In the UK, Seeta had endured years of domestic violence: she refused her husband (an Indian national), and his family’s continuous demands to give up one of
her sons to her husband’s brother and his wife in India, who were childless and wanted a male heir. Seeta’s husband viewed the matter as a question of honour:
to fulfil a promise made to his brother and sister-in-law that they could adopt one of his sons. Seeta’s refusal led to violence and abuse inflicted by her husband
and his family and ultimately, to her death.
9. There is considerable evidence showing that Seeta was killed in India for disobeying her husband and in-laws. He told her family that she had a ‘sudden heart
attack’; but she was only 33 years old and had no heart condition or associated health problems; and there is no official medical confirmation as to the cause of
her death. When her family flew to India, they saw her body wrapped in thick blankets (an unusual practice in their culture and religion) lying in a coffin. Having
insisted on uncovering her, they saw considerable bruising around her neck and upper chest: this fuelled their suspicion that she had been strangled to death.
Seeta’s family made clear to her husband and in-laws that they intended to take her body back to the UK, but without their knowledge, Seeta’s body was taken
out of the house during the night or early hours of the morning and cremated in their absence. Seeta’s family was deeply shocked and distressed when they
discovered what had happened: they were deprived of the opportunity to pay their last respects or arrange a post-mortem to establish her cause of death. More
details of Seeta’s history can be found here: https://www.southallblacksisters.org.uk/campaigns/justice-for-seeta-campaign
10. Seeta’s family has struggled to understand the events that transpired. They have repeatedly turned to the Indian and British authorities to have her death
properly investigated, but to little avail. The Indian authorities have failed to investigate the matter and the British authorities have stated that they have no
jurisdiction to investigate the murder in the UK, despite the fact that Seeta and her children are British nationals and her husband was resident in the UK for over
10 years and has indefinite leave to remain in the UK. They say that Section 9 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA) creates a legal bar to
prosecuting a non-British national for crimes committed abroad.
The issue of extra-territoriality raised by the Seeta Kaur case
11. Section 9 of the OAPA, ‘ Murder or manslaughter abroad’ states:
Where any murder or manslaughter shall be committed on land out of the United Kingdom, whether within the Queen’s dominions or without, and whether the
person killed were a subject of Her Majesty or not, every offence committed by any subject of Her Majesty in respect of any such case, whether the same shall
amount to the offence of murder or of manslaughter . . . may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined, and punished . . . in England or Ireland . . .: Provided,
that nothing herein contained shall prevent any person from being tried in any place out of England or Ireland for any murder or manslaughter committed out of
England or Ireland, in the same manner as such person might have been tried before the passing of this Act.
12. Case law has clarified that a ‘subject of Her Majesty’ should be construed as a ‘British citizen’, a British subject within the meaning of the British Nationality
Act 1981 or a ‘protected person’ under that Act.
13. So despite the extensive years of residency and links to the UK, Seeta’s husband can escape justice because he is not a British citizen but a resident.
14. The criminal law is clearly outdated insofar as it does not take account of globalisation, the movement of people and links to countries abroad through
marriage. Existing criminal laws on gender-based violence contain serious loop holes in respect of protection; they not only fail to protect BME women in
particular, but they also have discriminatory outcomes for them. These women are more likely to be taken back to their countries of origin by abusive perpetrators
whether the perpetrators are British nationals or not, and they enjoy near impunity for their crimes because the criminal justice system in those countries is often
poor and inadequate and in Britain, the lack of jurisdiction is a bar to the prosecution of such murders.
15. The current criminal laws in relation on prosecutions for gender-based violence are therefore inconsistent and lack clarity. Whilst section 9 of OAPA bars the
prosecution of non-British national perpetrators who commit crimes abroad, we would observe that there have been a number of piecemeal legislative exceptions
created to allow for extra-territorial jurisdiction to be exercised for certain offences committed on British national women abroad even where the perpetrators are
not British nationals, namely forced marriage and female genital mutilation. Numerous other examples including: hostage taking (Taking of Hostages Act 1982);
torture (Criminal Justice Act 1988) and terrorism (Terrorism Act 2000):
a. Forced marriage: Section 121 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 creates an offence of forced marriage. S121(7) provides that an
offence is committed if
(a) the person or the victim or both of them are in England or Wales,
(b)neither the person nor the victim is in England or Wales but at least one of them is
habitually resident in England and Wales, or
(c)neither the person nor the victim is in the United Kingdom but at least one of them
is a UK national.
This expressly foresees the possibility of prosecuting a foreign citizen for a crime of forced marriage committed abroad.
b. Female Genital Mutilation (FGM): s1(1) – (3) of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 creates the offences of FGM and aiding/abetting FGM. Section 4
expressly provides that an offence is committed when the relevant prohibited act is committed outside the UK by either a UK national or a UK resident. Moreover,
the offence is treated as if committed in England or Wales. Once again, a person who has foreign citizenship but UK residency, may be prosecuted for crimes
committed abroad.
c. Murder or manslaughter committed in the UK or country party to the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism 1977: section 4 (read with
Schedule 1, paragraphs 1 and 2) provides that a person who commits an act in any Convention country, which would amount to an offence of murder or
manslaughter if committed in the UK, shall be guilty of murder/manslaughter in the UK. The section expressly provides that this is the case whether the person is
a citizen of the UK or any of the Convention countries or not. It also applies to nationals of Convention countries committing murder or manslaughter anywhere in
the world (even non-Convention countries). Further, we understand that the Secretary of State can order that section 4 apply to non-Convention countries if
certain conditions apply (and has so ordered in the case of the USA). We understand that a prosecution under section 4 requires the consent of the Attorney
General, but that there is no need for the offence to be in any way terrorism related. We understand one such recent case was R v Rimas Venclovas [2013]
EWCA Crim 2182 - which involved a Lithuanian man prosecuted in England for his (Lithuanian) wife’s murder. Her body was discovered in Poland but it was
unclear in which European country the murder had actually occurred.
16. It seems to us to be an absurd anomaly, contrary to the principles of justice and equal protection before the law, that a British national woman has no legal
redress if she is taken abroad in order for a crime of serious domestic abuse or honour based violence (other than forced marriage or FGM) to be perpetrated
against her – unless her perpetrator happens to be a British citizen! There seems to be no logical reason why perpetrators of domestic violence related homicides
and honour killings (as opposed to victims of forced marriage and FGM) should be excluded from prosecutions in the UK by the British state. The absence of law
covering extra-territorial jurisdiction for murder related to domestic and honour based violence only serves to legitimise violence and abuse against women,
particularly BME women, in transnational spaces where perpetrators can seriously harm and kill women with impunity.
17. We therefore urge the inclusion of a new provision in the DV Bill to cover the question of jurisdiction and extra territoriality in relation to all crimes of
gender-based violence and homicides committed abroad on British nationals or residents by British nationals or residents. For example, a provision that amends
s9 of the OAPA to amend ‘subject of her Majesty’ could read ‘…or person resident in the UK’.
51 Do you agree that relying on the civil law remedy in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is sufficient to satisfy the sexual
harassment requirements of the Convention?
No
52 If you answered 'No' to question 51, what do you think is necessary to satisfy those requirements?
Please provide your answer below:
1. We do not agree.
2. Article 40 of the Istanbul Convention provides that “Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that any form of unwanted verbal,
non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person, in particular when creating an intimidating, hostile,
degrading, humiliating or offensive environment, is subject to criminal or other legal sanction”. The drafting suggests that it is intended to cover one-off as well as
repeated incidents, whereas the Protection from Harassment Act specifically refers to the need for a ‘course of conduct’. The Protection from Harassment Act
would not therefore provide a remedy for the victim of ‘stranger harassment’ or to the victim of an isolated – but nonetheless serious – incident of sexual
harassment.
3. In addition, whilst legal aid is (theoretically) available for civil injunctions under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, we understand from specialist family
law practitioners that applying for and obtaining legal aid is not a straightforward process and this can impact on victim’s right to protection, with devastating
effect.
4. We would additionally note that a joint report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate for the Constabulary (HMIC) and Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service
Inspectorate (HMCPSI) found that harassment and stalking were often missed or misunderstood by both the police and CPS when dealing with a report of abuse
(Living in fear - the police and CPS response to harassment and stalking, 5 July 2017) and that none of the 112 cases cited in the report, were dealt with
satisfactorily overall. The report made a number of recommendations including a review of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. We do not therefore think it
is the correct to only rely on the Protection from Harassment Act to fulfill the Istanbul Convention requirement, when its efficacy in protecting victims of stalking
and harassment has been questioned so recently.
5. The ratification of the Istanbul Convention provides an opportunity for the law on stalking and harassment to be clarified and possibly consolidated (rather than
being spread across several statutes), and for police and CPS practice around stalking and harassment to be rapidly improved.
Preventing reoffending
53 Do you agree we should explore (with the Crown Prosecution Service) further controlled and monitored use of conditional cautions
with rehabilitation programmes than is currently permitted for lower-level, normally first time domestic abuse incidents?
Don’t know /no answer
If yes, please explain your answer suggesting what procedures should be in place to ensure a conditional caution would only be given in appropriate
cases with appropriate conditions attached.:
We consider it necessary to explore all disposal options for first-time, low level domestic abuse incidents but this presupposes a rigorous risk assessment and an
adequate investigation process being in place. Our experience shows that currently within the criminal justice system, there is too much inconsistency in the
understanding of what constitutes domestic abuse and how it impacts on victims. We are also particularly concerned about the growing trend to arrest and
prosecute victims of domestic abuse based on cross allegations made by perpetrators. Our experience shows that BME women who do not know their rights, lack
English or the confidence to navigate the criminal justice process, have often been cautioned by the police even when they have been the victims of domestic
abuse. There must be safeguards against this, since a caution can impact on a victim’s mental health and rights in other areas, including in family, children and
immigration proceedings.
If you answered No please explain your answer.:
54 Do you have any additional evidence on current conditional caution practice which we should consider in relation to this issue?
No
If you answered Yes, please explain your answer.:
Managing serial and repeat offenders
55 What changes to current policies or procedures would help police and other agencies to better manage serial and repeat abusers, in
particular those who are not subject to a sentence of the court?
Please give your answer below:
It cannot be emphasised enough that a more holistic approach to domestic abuse, aimed at reducing and managing risk is desperately needed. This requires a
shift away from a sole focus on the criminal justice system to one that also recognises the need for a wrap-round support service for all victims (including those
with uncertain immigration status) centred around the provision of adequate refuge and second tier housing options, access to welfare benefits, timely and
long-term advocacy, counselling and therapeutic support as well as specialist perpetrator programmes. At present, there are no specialist programmes for
perpetrators from black and minority communities which means that many of the existing perpetrator programmes are unable to address the specific cultural and
religious values and dynamics in minority communities that are create the conditions conducive to gender-based violence.
Working with perpetrators to change their behaviour
56 What more could be done to work with perpetrators in prisons, particularly offenders who receive a sentence of less than 12 months
and do not have sufficient time to complete a domestic abuse programme in custody?
Please give your answer below:
57 What more could be done to work with perpetrators in the community (convicted or non-convicted) to change their behaviour?
Please give your answer below:
Improving performance using data
58 Please select which of the following you believe should be priorities for improving data collection. Please choose up to 3.
Other - please explain
If you selected 'Other' please add your response here::
1. In our view, data collection needs to comply with the Istanbul Convention requirements as set out in Article 11 below:
Article 11– Data collection and research
1) For the purpose of the implementation of this Convention, Parties shall
undertake to:
a. collect disaggregated relevant statistical data at regular intervals on cases of
all forms of violence covered by the scope of this Convention;
b. support research in the field of all forms of violence covered by the scope of
this Convention in order to study its root causes and effects, incidences and
conviction rates, as well as the efficacy of measures taken to implement this
Convention.
2) Parties shall endeavour to conduct population-based surveys at regular
intervals to assess the prevalence of and trends in all forms of violence covered
by the scope of this Convention.
3) Parties shall provide the group of experts, as referred to in Article 66 of this
Convention, with the information collected pursuant to this article in order to
stimulate international co-operation and enable international benchmarking.
4) Parties shall ensure that the information collected pursuant to this article is
available to the public.
2. One of the most obvious gaps in data collection at present is the lack of solid data on BME women and their experiences of abuse. Much of the data that is
collected at present is not disaggregated according to race, age, disability etc, yet this is essential if we are to obtain an accurate picture of how gender-related
harm manifests amongst different groups of women, what similar and different risks are generated and how they are to be addressed.
3. Another problem is that the shift towards gender neutrality in addressing gender-based violence runs the danger of skewing data on the matter by suggesting
that more men are victims of abuse than is the case. For example, the lack of recognition of the gendered basis of domestic abuse affects the understanding and
implementation of laws and policies by statutory services such as the police. Our experience shows that often when a report of domestic abuse is contradicted by
a perpetrator who makes a counter allegation of abuse by the victim, the police either treat both parties as ‘victims’ or record the incident as a ‘domestic dispute’
or ‘no crime’. In some instances, based on counter-allegations alone, the actual victims of domestic abuse have themselves been arrested and charged with
various criminal offences. The rationale often given by the police for doing so is that in the absence of other immediate corroborating evidence they have no
means of assessing the credibility of the allegations and cross allegations that are made. They argue that in these circumstances, they have ‘no choice’ but to
record an incident as a ‘domestic dispute’ or to record both parties as ‘victims’ of domestic abuse. The significant failing in this approach is that no attempt is then
made to examine the credibility of the cross allegations made in the light of the entire circumstances surrounding an incident and within a prior history of domestic
violence towards the victim, including a history of coercive and controlling behaviour by the perpetrator, which more often than not exists. The police fail to gather
or rigorously assess relevant evidence that might support an initial report of domestic abuse by a victim and can lead to the rejection of a cross allegation.
4. We do not dispute that some men may be victims of violence in the home, but we dispute that it is a significant problem given that statistics in the UK and
worldwide show that domestic abuse is a gendered phenomenon impacting overwhelmingly on women and children. Recording men who make cross allegations
as ‘victims’ of domestic abuse contributes to statistical evidence purporting to show that men both men and women experience domestic violence equally. The
statistics then feed into and shore up a gender neutral understanding and response to the problem of domestic abuse. This is not a problem confined to the police
alone. Other statutory agencies such as local authorities are also increasingly making the same mistakes.
Establishing a Domestic Abuse Commissioner in law
59 Do you agree with the proposed model for a Domestic Abuse Commissioner outlined above?
Disagree
Please explain your answer.:
1. We have set out above at question 1 why it is imperative that the Bill focuses on the gendered nature of domestic abuse and its inter-relatedness to many other
forms of abuse and harm, thus forming part of a wider continuum of gender-based violence. With this is mind, we believe the title of role should be changed to
that ‘Violence Against Women and Girls Commissioner’, reflecting both the government’s own strategy and action plans on violence against women and girls and
the mission and aims of the Istanbul Convention. The role must have a broad and overarching remit that is backed by adequate resources and powers of
enforcement so that it is effective. Without this, the role will become purely cosmetic and meaningless in tackling VAWG and gender - based injustice and
inequality.
2. In our view, there are two models that this role could be based upon: that of the Children’s Commissioner and that of the National Adviser for Wales (referred to
in the notes to this question). In the light of these roles, we suggest that the VAWG Commissioner’s role should be set out in statute and should include (but not
limited to) the following:
a. Advising ministers, government officials and civil servants, as well as relevant stakeholders such as the senior judiciary, police commissioners, Director of
Public Prosecutions, Directors of Social Services (etc) on VAWG issues and make recommendations on the improvement of policy and practice;
b. Advocating on behalf of all victims of VAWG, with a particular duty to raise issues on behalf victims who face additional barriers to reporting and seeking help
such as BME and other marginalised sub-group;
c. Taking up cases of violations of women’s rights in relation to VAWG;
d. Looking into complaints of infringements of women’s rights in relation to VAWG;
e. ‘Screening’ all relevant proposed legislation, including family, criminal, housing and immigration laws and policies for its VAWG and equality impact and make
recommendations for amendments or further legislation;
f. Undertaking research and publish reports;
g. Consulting regularly with victims of VAWG as well as organisations supporting them (including specialist services);
h. Having the power to compel public bodies to provide information and data on VAWG issues;
i. Ensuring state compliance with international and domestic laws and norms on VAWG and human rights, including the Istanbul Convention;
j. Monitoring local provision of VAWG services to avoid a ‘postcode lottery’ on services;
k. Monitoring funding regimes regarding VAWG services at local and national levels to safeguard these services and to roll back the decimation of specialist
services;
l. Strengthening girls' and women’s voices and participation in decision making on VAWG, especially those that are marginalised and excluded.
3. The Commissioner must be victim-focused and be accountable, but above all, she must to be guaranteed independence from government interference. The
recent resignation of the Anti-Slavery Commissioner underlines the dangers of not doing so. We agree with the warning given by the former commissioner on
social mobility, Alan Milburn, who resigned out of frustration about his lack of power to make a difference:
“The worst position in politics is to set out a proposition that you’re going to heal social divisions and then do nothing about it”.
60 Of the proposed powers and resources, which do you consider to be the most important for a Domestic Abuse Commissioner? Please
choose up to 3.
Other
If you answered other please state other functions the commissioner should fulfil.:
We are at a loss to understand why there is such a tick box approach to what could potentially be an important role. In our view, all of the above functions and
more (see our response to question 59 above) are important if the role is to be effective. Anything less smacks of a cynical exercise on the part of this
government to appear to be making a difference but without actually doing so.
61 What would be the practical implications of complying with the proposed Domestic Abuse Commissioner's powers?
Please give your answer below:
Learning from Domestic Homicide Reviews
62 One proposal is that the Domestic Abuse Commissioner could routinely collate, quality assure and share lessons learnt from DHRs.
What more could be done to increase awareness of the learning from DHRs?
Please give your answer below:
1. We have emphasised above the view that the role of Domestic Abuse Commissioner cannot be limited to simply routinely collating and sharing lessons from
DHRs. However, if this is to be one of the Commissioner’s functions, then we also suggest that the first task of the Commissioner is to take account of the
recommendations made by the Standing Together (June 2016) report on the operations of DHRs (referred to at question 1 above). Amongst other things, the
report recommends that there be a central ‘repository’ of reports; an annual conference; a strategic responsibility to ‘cascade’ the learning from DHRs; and using
the reviews as case studies for further training. This would sit firmly within the responsibility of the Commissioner along with her role in co-coordinating better
training for all relevant professionals and statutory bodies.
2. However, the above presupposes that DHRs are the most appropriate means of holding the state to account for failing to protect victims. In our view, there is a
fundamental problem at the heart of DHRs which need urgent attention. The critical question is how to ensure effective state investigation into deaths resulting
from domestic violence, rather than simply ascertaining what lessons can be learnt by state agency failures. Having had experience of DHRs, we do not believe
that they are necessarily a satisfactory forum for such an investigation since this involves combining an investigation into the circumstances of a domestic
violence related death with a thorough examination of the failure of state intervention as required by Article 2 ECHR. In this respect, we wholly endorse the
submission and recommendations made by the Police Action Lawyers group (PALG) on this matter.
3 In addition, we set out below key areas of concern based on our experience of DHRS:
a. There is a lack of effective independent legal advice given to families who engage with the DHR process. Our concern is that families are only spoken to on a
private basis by the Chair of the DHR and are often led to believe that the DHR is their only means of redress in circumstances where there has been clear
statutory failure to protect the victim where the risk has been known or ought to have been known. In our experience families are not informed that they should
also seek legal advice and representation or that they have a right to an inquest or seek other routes to justice at the same time as engaging with the DHR
process. This is extremely concerning given that often the deaths under review reveal clear breaches of Articles 2 ECHR. The DHR is not meant to be a
substitute for an inquest which is often necessary to satisfy Article 2 investigations. The two should not be mutually exclusive. There therefore needs to be a
thorough review of how families have access to legal advice and representation during the DHR process so that it does not effectively deny them the right to an
inquest or other options of legal redress in order to ensure compatibility with Article 2. Indeed when DHRs were first established, Home Office guidance made
clear that DHRs were not intended to be ECHR compatible in relation to investigating deaths:
‘Domestic homicide reviews are not inquiries into how the victim died or who is culpable. That is a matter for coroners and criminal courts’. (Page 7 Guidance for
Domestic Homicide Reviews under the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. Home Office June 2006.)
b. At DHRs, agencies tend to present their own evidence of involvement (through IMRs) without there having been any proper scrutiny of such evidence. This
means that there is no real effective scrutiny of their involvement;
c. Statutory bodies in particular tend to let themselves off the hook in terms of failures by referring to new practices and policies that have since been put into
place to ensure that such mistakes never happen again. This means that they are never really held to account for their failures since they have always taken
place in the past;
d. More often than not, DHRs conclude with the fact that despite what are often systemic and multiple failures, the deaths were not preventable.
Recommendations that are made are often merely about tightening up procedural matters, for example having regard to improving awareness through training
and better communication between agencies. However, in our view this does not substitute for a robust inquiry into what happened and who knew what and
when;
e. Agencies are often pushed for time and resources which means that they often attend and participate only in respect of their own agency involvement. This
does not allow for a proper and effective scrutiny of all agency responses.
4. More generally, our fear is that the focus of homicide reviews is very much on preventative accountability and this bypasses the need for agencies to publicly
acknowledge their duty to protect and to account for that duty when they fail. In addition, we are concerned that due to lack of funding and expertise, there are
variations in homicide reviews in respect of quality across the UK. The implementation of recommendations made by DHRS are also severely hampered by the
lack of adequate resources. It has also been explicitly stated that the costs of the reviews would be absorbed into the daily working routines of the relevant
agencies but in this climate of austerity and public spending cuts, our fear is that this is not occurring leading to delays in implementation and, monitoring and
even result in the shelving of recommendations.
5. One possible way forward is to adopt a more appropriate model for the investigation of adult deaths which meets the twin objectives of conducting a robust
Article 2 compliant and extracting the lessons to be learnt. The current framework of investigation which exists in relation to the deaths of children is one such
model. At present where a child dies, there is the possibility of an inquest, a serious case review or an inquiry, ordered by the Secretary of State to safeguard
children’s welfare. It is this mode of investigation - the inquiry – which may provide the most effective and satisfactory tool of investigation into adult deaths
resulting from domestic violence since it has the potential to be both Article 2 compliant and meet other objectives concerned with preventative accountability.
6. Another possibility is to strengthen the inquest system by attaching a domestic violence committee to the coronial office as is the case in Ontario, Canada,
which reports to a chief coroner. This requires a reform to the current coronial system. One main advantage of this option is that this can and ought to lead to a
more pro-active role on the part of coroners to ensure that any recommendations made by a domestic violence committee are followed up by the agencies
involved.
63 How can areas best hold their own local agencies to account in terms of monitoring delivery against DHR action plans?
Please give your answer below:
See above.
Sharing best practice across government
64 How can the government better share and promote effective practice on domestic abuse across all public services both in regard to
commissioning and delivery of services?
Please give your answer below:
Commissioning
1. We are extremely concerned with the direction of travel in respect of the commissioning and delivery of services which has been profoundly affected by
‘localism’ and austerity measures.
2. The current model for commissioning and delivery needs a radical overhaul. It is a model that favours corporatised, generic services that provide short term ‘six
week crisis intervention’ and often not even that, over specialist services that take a holistic, long term approach. The latter are often multidimensional in respect
of supporting individual needs of abused women and girls for as long as necessary to bring about rehabilitation, reduce victimisation, secure access to rights as
well as enact long term changes in law, policy and practice. (See our response to question 10 above). Such a model has been proven to add social value in the
long term and to reduce economic costs to society as a whole in respect of addressing VAWG. We are extremely concerned about the way in which funding and
commissioning policies are forcing specialist refuges and advocacy centres to become gender-neutral and to deliver services that are time bound and target
driven. We are worried that women’s complex needs are not being met and instead they are simply seen as mere homeless units by housing associations or
other corporate type organisations that have no experience in addressing VAWG and no interest in effecting long term change. Despite the success of specialist
women’s organisations in meeting the needs of women with complex needs and in bringing about awareness and change on issues such as forced marriage,
honour based violence, transnational marriage abandonment, dowry related violence, child abductions, polygamy, gender segregation, sharia and religious laws
etc, many BME organisations and refuges have closed or been absorbed by larger providers. BME organisations have been disproportionately affected by
competitive tendering processes and commissioning practices that favour quantity over quality, experience and track record.
3. Although partnership working is a key part of the VAWG strategy, BME organisations often feel coerced into partnerships with unworkable arrangements with
larger organisations where resource sharing and decision-making processes are unequal and autocratic. Some organisations have also complained that larger
mainstream partners often claim to be able to provide specialist provision, thus leaving the specialist organisation to ‘fight for scraps’ whilst BME women are
routed into the mainstream service.
4. The current funding and commissioning environment favours larger organisations which can offer lower cost and ‘speak the language of the state’, as opposed
to smaller, BME organisations that frequently have to challenge the state to bring about effective change. The decimation of specialist services at the local level is
truly alarming which is why there have been demands for ring fenced funding for specialist or BME service provision although they have gone unheeded by the
government. The report by Imkaan ‘Capital Losses: The state of the specialist BME ending violence against women and girls sector in London’ highlights the
crises facing the BME specialist service sector (Imkaan, April 2016).
5. In view of the current crisis facing the BME WAVG sector, we make the following recommendations:
a. Institute ring-fenced funding for specialist BME services and refuges based on a history and track record of working to further equality and human rights of
women;
b. End the commissioning of domestic violence services and instead return to a grants based system that emphasises quality and not quantity of outcomes;
c. We agree with the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls that any shift towards a localism agenda should come with safeguards and
guarantees that local authorities will operate within human rights framework and in compliance with international obligations when addressing VAWG issues (UN
Special Rapporteur April 2014)
65 What role should local areas play in sharing good practice?
Please give your answer below:
See above.
1