APPENDIX 24
Memorandum submitted by the Association
of Chief Police Officers Domestic Abuse Portfolio
1. This report should be read
in conjunction with the separate but complementary ACPO submissions
relating to "Honour-based Violence" and "Stalking
& Harassment".
2. The main points of this
report are sharing information, Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences
(MARACs), Multi-Agency Risk Management, Joining—up Criminal
and Civil Law, Domestic Violence Homicide Reviews and the Relevance
of Age.
3. We contend that much progress
has been made by the police service and other agencies in respect
of improving the effectiveness of criminal justice agencies in
managing domestic abuse. However, we are not convinced that these
changes and improvements are nationally consistent and comprehensively
available to agreed standards. We are concerned that lives continue
to be endangered unnecessarily because of the absence of legally
mandated requirements which cause agencies to properly fulfil
their obligations to keeping victims safe and perpetrators held
to account.
SHARING INFORMATION
4. For risk management to
be effective, relevant information must be available from all
agencies and used to inform the process of risk identification,
assessment and management. We do not believe that this is occurring
with adequate rigour.
5. It must said that the law
(Data Protection Act, Human Rights Act and Common Law duty of
confidentiality) does not inhibit information sharing and if there
was a prevailing culture disposed to sharing information then
we would not need to raise this issue with the Committee. However,
that culture does not exist across the relevant agencies. The
law is only permissive and places no obligation upon agencies
to share information. Whilst there are notable exceptions to this
statement, it remains the view of the police service that some
agencies, notably Health, are reluctant to share information even
in forums (such as MARACs) designed to facilitate such exchange.
Concerned professionals frequently site their obligation to patient
confidentiality as the basis for their reluctance. There is no
evidence of which we are aware (though we are aware of the arguments)
which suggests that the health and well-being of domestic abuse
victims would be undermined by greater engagement by health professionals
in the risk management process.
6. We would welcome the opportunity
to expand on our concerns in respect of the complex and emotive
subject of information sharing. The position remains that the
ability of the Authorities to protect victims will always only
be as strong as the willingness of each agency to share relevant
information. We are not convinced that present arrangements are
adequate and suggest that the law is reviewed to clarify responsibilities
and to introduce the concept of a "sliding scale of obligation"
to provide greater clarity to agencies than the present permissive
approach offers.
7. A joint ACPO/Home Office
Working Group sitting since 2006 has been unable to resolve the
situation to the satisfaction of all stakeholders and for this
reason, we suggest that evidence on the issue should be heard
and considered by the Committee.
MULTI-AGENCY
RISK ASSESSMENT
CONFERENCES (MARACS)
8. Whilst the views expressed
above regarding information sharing relate to all persons at risk
of harm or who pose a risk to others, the concerns expressed are
particularly relevant to the position of domestic abuse victims.
If the law is not changed to provide an obligation to share information
in respect of victims and perpetrators of all kinds of violence,
then we suggest this obligation should be placed on particular
violence types, notably domestic abuse which is amenable to positive
risk management.
9. As stated, risk identification
and assessment are fundamental to removing, mitigating and managing
the potential for future harm. We are therefore very pleased to
see the advent of MARACs as the available evidence gives cause
to be optimistic about their value.
10. We express reservations
in two regards, however. Firstly, that MARACs are developing on
a voluntary basis across the country. Some areas are electing
to have them and some or not. We do not consider it acceptable
that effective public protection systems should be left to the
whims of local agencies to decide upon. Recognising the plethora
of requirements and initiatives which many local bodies are confronted
with (and sometimes distracted by), there is a clear requirement
that all areas shall have in place MARAC capability by a date
to be determined. This is likely to require legislation.
11. We have listened to the
arguments which suggest that the near-duty upon local authorities
to "have regard" to MARACs is adequate. We are not convinced.
Whilst we commend the sterling efforts of the Home Office in taking
this agenda forward, it is nevertheless taking too long for MARACs
to be rolled out and we can see no mandated programme approach
to implementation. We repeat our view that it cannot be acceptable
for matters of such importance to be left to local discretion.
12. Our second issue of concern
relates to the consistency of engaged membership. We cannot say
with confidence that the make-up of MARACs is consistent and the
engagement of all agencies (particularly Health) is all that could
be desired. We are not convinced that this position will change
without a statutory requirement being placed upon all areas and
agencies to implement and maintain MARACs to an agreed standard.
This is the position we commend.
13. We are aware of the view
of some Home Office officials that a requirement to implement
MARACs in those areas which do not have them presently could be
construed as amounting to "new business" and which therefore
place an additional financial burden upon the sponsoring Department.
We are not persuaded by this argument.
MULTI-AGENCY
RISK MANAGEMENT
14. Despite the centrality
of information sharing, risk identification and assessment to
effective risk management, there is no single risk "tool"
available to guide all the agencies which have a part to play
in keeping people safe from domestic abuse. This situation compounds
the problems outlined above in terms of deficiencies in information
sharing and the lack of mandated risk management forums.
15. ACPO is presently working
with partners to identify a common tool particularly in identifying
critical risk factors (ie those which are predictive of more serious
violence rather than those which indicate the potential for less
serious violence). Having regard to the complexity of the subject
and the personal, professional and financial investment of individuals
within agencies in "their" approach, we do not underestimate
the difficulties of the task we face.
16. Advancing our current
knowledge of risk—particularly about the salient criminogenic
features of domestic abuse—may require capability and capacity
beyond that currently available to us. We are unlikely to be clear
about scale and nature of the "gap" for some time. The
crucial test will be whether agencies are prepared to migrate
from an existing approach to risk to that commended following
the analysis.
17. The Committee is again
asked to consider whether an overall strategy for public protection
which relies for its effectiveness on the lowest common denominator
of co-operation (rather than mandate) is the preferred approach.
JOINING-UP
CRIMINAL AND
CIVIL LAW
18. We have long been concerned
about the high levels of attrition of domestic abuse cases in
the Criminal Justice System (CJS). There are many reasons for
this which range from the complex effects of the relationship
between domestic abuse victims and perpetrators to the timeliness,
relevance and effectiveness of the CJS to the victim's fears and
needs. We believe that it is somewhat unrealistic to suggest that
the cjs will close this gap despite the many improvements which
we are pleased to note. Therefore, the goal of protecting victims
from future harm should remain the primary goal of the CJS.
19. There is not presently
automatic referral to civil jurisdiction of cases which do not
meet the exacting standards of the CJS. We would welcome the design
and implementation of an approach which would see the immediate
and automatic referral of all material gathered during a criminal
investigation of domestic abuse to inform the application for
a civil order to protect a victim. "Immediate" means
whilst the perpetrator is still in police custody following arrest
but at the point where it is clear that the CPS will not prefer
a charge. We envision circumstances where the reviewing CPS lawyer
at that point contacts a locally available civil lawyer, refers
the statements and other material gathered to the civil lawyer
who makes application that day to a civil court for protection,
eg an injunction. Clearly, the wishes of the victim will be relevant
but it is more likely than not that where the case has proceeded
to the point of statements being taken, the victim will be willing
to pursue a civil route to protection where the criminal law avenue
is no longer available.
20. The CPS and police are
in early dialogue about developing such approach, but deliberations
would be informed and assisted by the interest of the Committee.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
HOMICIDE REVIEWS
21. ACPO has been one of the
agencies consulted regarding the proposal to implement DVHRs.
Whilst we do not object in principle to the proposition, we have
expressed concerns to the Home Office about the focus of the process.
22. As we have indicated,
there has been significant progress made by many agencies so we
do not approach the subject of domestic homicides as from a blank
sheet of paper. We already possess considerable knowledge about
the causes of failings and indeed we have raised a number of them
already in this submission. The identified failings tend to arise
as a result of one or more of the following:
— Inadequate arrangements for
information sharing.
— Inadequate arrangements for
risk identification, assessment and management.
— Inadequate training for the
role.
— Inadequate supervision of
those performing the role.
23. We are therefore concerned
to a degree that the DVHR process will continue to flag-up the
same issues whilst the real causes (see above) go unresolved as
we have argued in this submission. We contend that DVHRs should
be used to identify to expand and develop knowledge about what
we don't know rather than merely reinforcing what we already know.
For example, much less is known about perpetrators than victims
from a research and risk perspective. Developing our knowledge
in this area would be of genuine benefit to risk management overall
and would dissipate focus rather less than routine reviews in
all cases will do. Similarly, the role of drugs or alcohol or
culture is less well understood and emphasis on learning from
these cases would be a greater benefit to all.
24. We are not convinced that
there exists a strategic repository for the learning from DVHRs
and one which properly interfaces with "serious case reviews"
in child fatality cases. Also, we are not clear how "lessons
learned" will inform policy development in the future.
THE RELEVANCE
OF AGE
25. The ACPO definition (also
adopted by the Home Office and a number of criminal justice agencies
including the CPS and Courts) of domestic violence is:
"any incident of threatening behaviour,
violence or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial
or emotional between adults, aged 18 and over, who are or have
been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender
or sexuality" (Family members are defined as mother, father,
son, daughter, brother, sister and grandparents, whether directly
related, in-laws or step family) [We have underlined the section
relating to adults for emphasis].
26. There is increasing comment
directed to us from practitioners and professionals that by excluding
persons under 18, vulnerable young people in abusive relationships
are being deprived of the expertise and resources available to
adults in similar circumstances. Whilst we believe that a pragmatic
view is being taken by the caring agencies to this potential lacuna
and young people are not generally disadvantaged, it is a question
of fact that there are no specialist domestic violence courts
that try under 18 offenders, or that there is specialist training
for prosecutors and magistrates operating in existing juvenile
courts.
27. In early dialogue with
the Youth Justice Board (YJB) it is apparent that these concerns
are shared by that Board. The costs of making changes to existing
service provision to incorporate "domestic abuse" standards
is not known at present, however, ACPO, Home Office and YJB intend
to discuss the implications.
28. It remains the intention
of ACPO to consult further with a view to varying the existing
definition to include persons over the age of 16 who are or have
been intimate partners and adults (ie over 18 years) in other
familial relationships as in the existing definition. The Committee
may wish to consider the effect upon the public interest of this
proposal and the implications of change if this suggestion is
implemented.
1 October 2007
| 
