Written evidence from the Paladin National Stalking Advocacy Service (DVB0052)

Laura Richards, BSc, MSc, MBPsS, Founder Paladin National Stalking Advocacy Service

Former Head of the Violent and Volume Crime Intelligence Unit, Homicide Prevention Unit and the Sexual Offences Section, New Scotland Yard

The Bill has the potential to create real change for victims and survivors.

We welcome the legal definition of domestic abuse, which includes coercive control and economic abuse, the Istanbul Convention being ratified, as extra powers are needed to hold perpetrator’s to account, abusers not being able to cross-examine victims in court and the strengthening of Clare’s Law.

However, the draft Bill does not go far enough. For example, it does not include measures on stalking. Research shows that in 94% of domestic homicides coercive control and stalking preceded the murder (University of Gloucestershire 2017). Despite the fact most of these murders are committed by serial abusers and stalkers, the Bill does not include identifying and targeting stalking or serial abusers, which is a glaring and dangerous omission.

Currently, there is no existing framework which can track or monitor serial stalkers and domestic violence perpetrators. Instead police rely on a series of victims to report multiple crimes and often it is the victims who are forced to modify and change their behaviour, flee their homes and disappear themselves in order to stay safe.  This is the reason why refuges are in demand and victims continue to be moved around the country. Multi-agency risk assessment conferences (MARACs) also tend to focus on the victim too rather than the perpetrator. We track victims when they move but not the problem – the perpetrator.

This needs to change. It is the perpetrator’s behaviour that is the problem. There needs to be a positive obligation on them to change their behaviour and take responsibility. They are the ones who need to be tracked, supervised and managed and not the victim.

We want perpetrators’ offending behaviour and histories to be joined up and placed on one system - and that system already exists and it is called the Violent and Sex Offenders Register (ViSOR). We are not asking for a separate, stand alone system, as Baroness Williams keeps suggesting.

We want the police focus to change along with their attitude and processes and to focus firmly on the perpetrator. Call me radical and old fashioned, but they are the ones committing the crime. The draft Domestic Abuse Bill does little to tackle this much needed cultural shift.

If a registered sex offender goes to a school and one of the restrictions is not to, the police do not ask the teacher why they let the children out into the playground. They hold the offender to account and arrest them. However, currently if there is a restraining order in place and the victim calls the police and tells them the offender is outside their home, the police tell the victim not to go out there. When the victim does, the police blame the victim despite the fact it is not the victim that is being restrained. This is what happened in Jeanette Goodwin’s in Essex and she was subsequently murdered. The police deprioritised her call, even though she was a high-risk victim and told her not to go outside. They restrained her and did not arrest Martin Bunch who was outside her house. Victims should not be restrained, blamed or shamed for what an abuser does. Yet sadly this happens in many cases. This needs to change and placing serial stalkers and abusers on ViSOR will change the culture and ensure their risk is understood, the focus is on the perpetrator and that they are managed via MAPPA – the correct multi-agency framework for them.

The Bill does include further measures relating to the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (DVDS), better known as Clare’s Law. However, this process yet again places the onus on the victim. They have to ask about abuser’s history. Why should the onus be on them and them alone? It’s good this is available, however, the police have a duty to protect victims and they it should be mandated to proactively identify and manage serial stalkers and abusers and share relevant information with a victim. These are, after all, the most dangerous of cases and it will save lives and money.

Case Study

Greater Manchester Police (GMP) did not share information with Ann-Marie Nield despite the fact they knew Howarth was a serial offender who had abused multiple women before her. She made repeated calls to GMP, he tried to kill her by strangling her, which they did not crime either nor did they assess her risk as being high risk. They did not take her seriously and he escalated to murder. More ‘lessons to be learned’:https://bhattmurphy.co.uk/files/documents/Press%20Release%20Anne%20Marie%20Nield.pdf

Domestic abuse and stalking murders committed by serial abusers who are allowed to escalate their behaviour is at epidemic levels. At least two women a week are murdered at the hands of their current or ex-partner and many others take their own lives due to the war of attrition. Many were stalked prior to their murder. This number of women being killed has remained static for the last two decades. Analysis of the Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) reveal that when domestic violence, stalking and coercive control co-occur, these are the most dangerous of cases, where women and children are more likely to be killed.

Analysis of DHRs also show that many of the perpetrators have a history of abuse, including stalking, and have damaged multiple victims across their life course and yet the links arte still not being made. Many have breached conditions and orders put in place and they have been allowed to escalate their behaviour and, in some cases, the history only becomes apparent at court or at a DHR, which is far too late.

Case Study:

Jayden Parkinson murdered by Ben Blakeley Ben Blakeley murdered his pregnant ex-girlfriend 17 year old Jayden Parkinson. Blakeley strangled and buried Jayden in his uncle’s grave in December 2013. He has a history of serial abuse. The Prosecution Lawyer stated how Blakeley was violent and controlling during all his relationships. Kirsty Penford was 16 years old in 2007 when she dated Blakeley. When she was seven months pregnant he threw her down the stairs in the flat. He threatened to stab her in the stomach to kill the baby. He then moved onto Katie Gale and she described in court that he “punched me, kicked me in the head, bit my face. To teach me... he would cling onto my cheeks to leave marks." He told Katie he had killed her cat; she reported the abuse but was too afraid to file a formal complaint as she did not wish to ‘get him into trouble’.

Case Study:

Tracey Morgan was stalked by Anthony Burstow Tracey Morgan was stalked by a work colleague Anthony Burstow for nine years. He planted listening devices, broke into her home and persistently followed her wherever she went. Tracey lost her confidence, her marriage and her social life. Burstow has been in prison since 2001 for the attempted murder of another woman, who he had been stalking simultaneously. He also changed his name by Deed Poll.

Case Study:

Caroline Finegan murdered by Ryan Ingham On July 7 2014 Ingham was sentenced to a 16 year minimum sentence for murdering his fiancée Caroline. A few months before Caroline died Ingham attacked her so badly she needed hospital treatment. He killed her by pushing her to the ground and punching her in public at a bus station in January. However, it was only at court, the victim’s family learned he had 23 convictions, many for violence towards other partners dating back to his teenage years. Ingham had first been charged with common assault in 2005 when he punched an ex-girlfriend in the face and body. Later that year he attacked the same woman who was just 17 at the time. Three years later he was charged with common assault on his own parents along with another partner. He was convicted twice more of attacking and ‘harassing’ her, including threats to kill her unborn child and holding a knife to her neck. But Caroline would not have been able to learn about his history using the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme - Clare’s Law – because he was using a false name. However, Caroline would not have been able to learn about his history using Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme - Clare’s Law – enabling police to warn victims about violent partners, because he was using a false name.

We know through research, including current DHRs, that many domestic violence and stalking perpetrators are serial, moving from one abusive relationship to another (Richards 2004) and such offenders have often used or threatened violence towards two or more unconnected victims (ACPO 2009). Police research shows that out of 356 perpetrators who re-offend, 18% did so against a different partner (Hester and Westmarland 2007).

Many studies document the links between different forms of abuse and violence including the links between domestic violence and stalking (Sheridan and Davies 2001), domestic abuse and child abuse (Hester, Pearson, Harwin and Abrahams 2007; Richards, 2004; Plotnikoff and Woolfson, 1998), domestic rape and stranger rape (Richards, 2004; Scully 1990), forced marriage and intimate partner violence (Home Office, FCO and ACPO, 2005).

Domestic violence is about power and control and if it gets the perpetrator what they want they will continue their abusive behaviour. This means that more and more primary, secondary (children) and tertiary (future) victims accumulate and the cost is counted in both lives destroyed and damages and financial costs. This also places a huge financial burden on services and the Criminal Justice System.

The ACPO (2009) paper entitled ‘Tackling Perpetrators of Violence against Women’ concluded that currently no perpetrator order exists which deals with the full range of offences against women and girls; affords protection to future victims; and imposes a positive obligation on a perpetrator (e.g. to change their behaviour, notify police of change of address or move and/ or attend treatment programs).

The All Party Parliamentary Stalking Law Reform Inquiry report (2012) also recommended a register for serial stalkers. The Inquiry heard evidence from police, probation, victims, victim’s families, the National Stalking Helpline, Women’s Aid, the Victim’s Commissioner and other key professionals across 15 months and resulted in Prime Minster David Cameron announcing on March 8 2012 that stalking would become a criminal offence.

Case Study:

Jane Clough was murdered by Jonathan Vass. Jane was an A&E nurse who warned police that her violent ex-partner that Vass was going to kill her when she separated from. He had raped her repeatedly and assaulted her. She was terrified when he was bailed and moved into her parents house with her baby. He started stalking her on Facebook. He waited for her to return to work at the hospital and stabbed her 71 times in the car park. Yet again, he had a history of abusing women which was not joined up.

HMIC (2014) found that despite our knowledge, research base and understanding increasing about domestic violence and stalking, there was very little evidence across police services of proactive targeting and risk management of these perpetrators. Sadly, this picture has not changed since 2014 and yet the Government recommend another paper be written about serial offenders.

There are few crimes the police can make worse but stalking and domestic abuse are two of them. 55 women were murdered AFTER reporting the abuse to police in the last three years, a VICE and Paladin #UnFollowMe report recently revealed. https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/9kmy3a/49-women-killed-stalkers-abusers-reported-police-uk

Zoe Dronfield, who was attacked and almost killed - victim fifteen of serial abuser Jason Smith - has been spearheading our campaign alongside John Clough MBE, the father of Jane Clough, highlighting that police forces rarely make the links of serial offending in their own police region, and give little or no consideration to what a perpetrator may be doing elsewhere.

And then there is Cassandra McDermott who was stalked and murdered by Mario Celaire. He was initially acquitted and six years later, when Kara Hoygt separated from him, he stalked her and attacked her with a hammer. She fortunately survived. It took her one year to recover and she eventually named Celaire as her attacker. He had raped a young girl when he was fifteen and had a history of violence against women that had not been joined up.

Despite continuous effort by subject matter experts (Richards 2003, 2004; Richards, Letchford and Stratton 2008) as well as ACPO, who have highlighted this over the years very little is happening practice, too many perpetrators are getting away with it and still the murders continue.

We do not need yet more evidence highlighting serial abusers are allowed to act with impunity and the links are not being made. In the time it will take to draft yet another paper highlighting the gaps and inertia, more lives with be damaged, ruined and taken. We need action.

The Stalking Protection Bill had its second reading on Friday 18 January and we welcome new provisions, which have a preventative intention. However, a reality check is needed, and I don’t like to be the bearer of bad news, but any type of protection order only works for those who play by the rules, and where there is no previous history of abuse. Most stalkers do not play by the rules and there is almost always a history. The stark reality is that pieces of paper do not protect victims from a fixated and obsessive stalker. We know this from our cases. Restraining orders are continuously breached by stalkers and breached multiple times and not enforced.

The CPS fail to charge for breaches in addition to the stalking too. Our report ‘Stalking Law Two Years’ published in March 2015 found that 47% went on to re-offend when charged with a breach. Cultural change is desperately needed to ensure that the perpetrator is placed at the centre of the investigation and risk management plans and strategies and not the victim. We continually see this in practice as well the Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC). This has been identified by HMIC, ACPO and the Domestic Violence Law Reform Campaign team (Paladin, Women’s Aid and Sara Charlton Charitable Foundation http://paladinservice.co.uk/harassment-legislation/domestic-violencecampaign/ ) and we believe the legislative framework needs to be addressed to ensure this cultural change happens.

The orders may work if there is a proactive registration approach and  targeting of offenders. The police routinely identify the top organised criminals and prominent robbers, burglars and so on. Yet this is where women and girls are more likely to be killed and they do not take a proactive approach to targeting the perpetrators. In fact, they routinely do not believe women and girls when they report and they dismiss them. We have seen this over and over again across the decades including Tara Newbold in Nottingham, Emma Baum in North Wales, Sinead Wooding in Leeds, Janet Scott in Nottingham, Molly McLaren in Kent, Katrina O'Hara in Dorset, Shana Grice in Sussex, Alice Ruggles in Northumbria, Hollie Gazzard in Gloucestershire, Claire and Charlotte Hart in Lincolnshire and Anne-Marie Birch in Kent, Clare Wood, Linzi Ashton, Katie Boardmand and Anne-Marie Nield in Manchester, Katrina Makunova in London and the list goes on.

Murders are costly in many ways. The human cost is devastating. The financial cost is astronomical. It costs between £1.54-2m to investigate a murder. This does not include the trial. It is hugely costly regarding trust and confidence issues RIP - reputation in pieces - when agencies are named in the paper and getting it wrong, not to mention the associated costs with all the reviews to ‘learn the lessons’. A recent case in Wales had 11 associated reviews. This is again costly not to mention resource intensive. However, what really happens with the learning? Very little in real and practical terms. The learning rarely impacts on the frontline professionals, their attitude, aptitude and ability to ask the right questions about risk based behaviour and serial abusers.

Furthermore, in practice the DVDS is reactive and slow. Months go by before victims and their family members receive relevant information, if at all. In this time a victim, their family member and/or member of the public may be further abused and/or killed. The DVDS is dependent on a victim and/or family member or member of the public asking the police about someone’s “history of violence.” Alarmingly, there is no infrastructure to support the scheme nor is there a duty on the police to identify serial abusers, input the information about serial perpetrators or manage the abuser once that information is shared.

So let’s return to the fact that at least two women are brutally murdered each week and 10 more attempt suicide due to abuse at the hands of serial abusers. Significantly, this figure has remained static for more than a decade and will no doubt continue given the fact we ask questions of the wrong people and abusers continue to remain invisible in the system.

Again, this is why a radical cultural shift is needed with a serious consequence for the perpetrator - a ‘you must proactively check and investigate’ philosophy. Including them on ViSOR and managing them via MAPPA would create that systemic change. Questions would be asked about the abuser, and not of the victim.

It’s estimated that there are 25,000 serial perpetrators in England and Wales. 20% of them would go on ViSOR, the Violent and Sexual Offenders Register and be managed via MAPPA. A new serial perpetrator order should be introduced and operate like sex offender orders https://paladinservice.co.uk/serial-perpetrator-register-and-order/

It would cost £1.4million for the first three years, which would be offset by reducing offending and preventing murders. If one murder were prevented, the money would be recouped immediately.

In addition, many have spoken out in support of this including both Victim’s Commissioners and our campaign has been supported by many domestic abuse services and trusts including the Hollie Gazzard Trust and Alice Ruggles Trust as well as The Mirror and Vice. Just under 166, 000 have signed the petition for serial abusers to be placed in ViSOR and managed via MAPPA. More here https://www.change.org/p/rt-hon-theresa-may-mp-create-a-stalkers-register

It makes practical and financial sense to make the links and include serial abusers on a database that already exists. It is not the perfect system but it allows relevant information from home visits to be inputted and shared.

I have been capturing murder cases for the last two decades and  following my work at New Scotland Yard (See Getting Away with it: A profile of the domestic abuse sexual offenders, 2004) we brought proactive targeting into the Met Police in 2002 and our Assistant Commissioner, Steve House, took it up to the Scottish forces and implemented it there. Sadly England and Wales have now been left behind.

I believe it is necessary to establish a National Domestic Abuse Task Force as well as a National Domestic Abuse Co-ordination Unit with specialist Domestic Abuse Units in every local policing division, and police-led Multi Agency Tasking and Coordination Groups set up to target serious and serial perpetrators.

Furthermore, the extension of special measures to all victims in criminal courts are not mirrored in the family courts and they should be. Family courts are still shrouded in secrecy and there is no join up with the criminal court. Victims and their children are often put further at risk by professionals who are not trained in coercive control and stalking and the family and civil courts are used to further control and stalk victims. See the case of Christine and Shania Chambers, stalked and murdered in Essex by David Oakes and Claire Throssell, a domestic abuse survivor from Sheffield, was cross-examined by her husband, Darren Sykes, at two separate hearings. Sykes was granted unsupervised contact with their sons, despite a history of aggressive behaviour towards his family. Sykes went on to murder both children, aged nine and 12, and take his own life. Children’s safety should be at the centre of all decision making. I have written and published a paper on Family courts and can submit it if it would be helpful.

The additional conditions for perpetrators released on licence are limited to those serving sentences of at least 12 months. Many violent offenders get off with light touch sentences, which means a significant proportion of violent offenders will not be subject to these additional measures, as the majority of domestic violence cases do not get to court and, for those that do the majority are dealt with in the magistrates courts which have limited sentencing powers. Judges and Magistrates must receive specialist-led training so that longer sentences result. Light touch sentences are being handed out for coercive control and stalking, which does not send a preventative message.

I believe we should change Section 76 the coercive control legislation so that it reflects stalking law. Rather than ‘repeatedly and continuously’ engaged in behaviour, proof of a course of conduct should be used involving abuse on at least two occasions.

While the Bill proposals are welcomed, there is widespread and significant concern about the funding to specialist support services for survivors of violence and abuse including stalking. Specialist advocates like Independent stalking advocacy case workers (ISACs) and independent domestic violence advisers (IDVAs) are urgently needed and should be funded in services like Paladin, hospitals and courts. They may be the only voice of the victim. However, there have been significant cuts and without proper funding and adequate resources many of the lofty ambitions of the bill will not be realised.

Legislative change cannot on its own lead to improvements. Whatever laws we have will be only as effective as those who enforce, prosecute and apply them. And training is vital as is specialist service provision, improving these practices – through education, training and embedding best practice and domestic abuse expertise - is likely to be more effective alongside legislation, yet the College of Policing is not rolling out effective training to all forces to upskill them on domestic abuse, coercive control and stalking.

Rather, they appear hell bent on a project on risk assessment that is doomed to success. Standardised risk assessment tool for all agencies when assessing risk of serious harm and homicide is vital, no one agency can do this on their own and it’s important that there is a shared language about risk to keep victims safe. This was the intention of DASH, which is slowly being undone. Half the questions are about coercive control. However, training and investment has been patchy.

Mandatory training on risk identification, assessment and management for all of those working with victims of domestic abuse and stalking should be enforced.

Our research and knowledge has increased about risk. Research (Richards, 2003 and Ingala Smith 2016) shows 76% of domestic homicides happen on separation, and 34% in the first month, which further underscores how narrow the window of opportunity can be to identify coercive control and stalking and take effective action.

Threats to kill must be taken seriously. We know that 1 in 2 of domestic stalkers, if they make a threat, will act on it. These are the most dangerous of cases and yet they are still not being taken seriously. Training should be mandatory – it will save lives and money. This research needs to get out there amongst professionals and the public. It’s clear it is not making contact with the real world.

We fear much of the good work on risk assessment is being undone and we are going backwards with College of Policing attempting to create a new risk tool. Despite a project board recently being set up there is no spirit of collaboration with partners or apparent will to build on past learning. This process is confusing and distracting to forces and it feels like we are moving deck chairs on the Titanic.

This Bill offers the opportunity to get it right for victims, replacing the existing piecemeal and fragmented legislation and policies and improving both prevention efforts and responses to domestic violence. However, there is a risk that it will become a missed opportunity if the government does not go further in their efforts to protect victims and ensure there are adequate, properly funded services to enforce the provisions of this Bill and importantly focus on and hold perpetrators to account.

15 February 2019