Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
The Criminal Justice System response to domestic violence
by Marianne Hester1
I. INTRODUCTION
This report examines the criminal justice approach to domestic violence in England,
exploring victimised women’s perceptions and experiences of the system, as well as criminal
justice professionals’ and other agency responses. The report is based on the findings from
research on women’s use of the criminal justice system in the North East of England, during
the period from 2001 to 2009, providing evidence of the mechanisms and difficulties
involved in ensuring women’s safety through such an approach. The report uses data from
three linked studies in the North East of England (the ‘attrition study’ – Hester, 2006; the
‘profile of perpetrator’ study – Hester et al., 2006; and the ‘gender of perpetrators study’ –
Hester, 2009), all of which were commissioned by the Northern Rock Foundation. The UK
Home Office part funded the ‘profile of perpetrator’ study (Hester et al., 2006). The attrition
study provides the main data for the report, while supplementary data and a more
longitudinal picture are provided by the ‘profile of perpetrator’ and ‘gender of perpetrator’
studies. The data for the report included:
1. Attrition study: representative sample of 356 cases of which 291 had power of
arrest; analysis of Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) case files for 12 cases and court
observations of 25 cases in Magistrates and Crown Court; interviews with 73 female
victims of domestic violence of whom 50 were obtained via the police; interviews
with 26 police officers and civilian police staff, three CPS domestic violence co-
ordinators, two defence solicitors, and 30 staff from other agencies.
1 University of Bristol
2
2. Profile of perpetrator study: representative sample of 692 cases tracked over three
years; interviews with 62 male domestic violence perpetrators.
3. Gender of perpetrators study: representative sample of 64 domestic violence cases
with women victimised by male partners, tracked over six years.
The size of the problem – domestic violence in England
According to the British Crime Survey there were over 1 million female victims of domestic
abuse in England and Wales in 2008/9, within an overall population of 54 million (men and
women and children) (Smith et al., 2010). The vast majority of domestic violence is
perpetrated by men on women: “In 2009/10, women were the victim of over seven out of
ten (73%) incidents of domestic violence” (Home Office, 2011).
The financial and social costs of domestic violence are high, a factor that has spurred UK2
governments to devise strategies to tackle the problem. Walby (2004) calculated that in the
early 2000s the direct cost to the economy of domestic violence in England and Wales in
one year was £6 billion, with the human and emotional costs estimated at £17billion. She
found that there had been a reduction by almost 30% in the overall cost of domestic
violence between 2001 and 2008, from £23bn to less than £16bn, possibly resulting from
the increase in effective intervention by criminal justice and other agencies during this
period (Walby, 2009).
The criminal justice context and domestic violence in England
During the past thirty years there has been increasing emphasis in England and the UK more
generally on the need for protection of women against violent male partners, with
recognition of domestic violence as a crime, and significant shifts towards seeing domestic
violence as a social and public problem. Feminists in the UK (as elsewhere) have, since the
1970s, been at the forefront of pushing for these changes. Criminalisation of domestic
violence, in providing a symbolic and normative condemnation of domestic violence where
it is seen as any other violent crime, has provided a strategy that has in many respects been
2 The UK government is the national legislative body for all of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern
Ireland. Some policy and legislation covers the UK as a whole, and some is devolved to the four national regions. The terms ‘UK’ and ‘England’ will be applied as appropriate.
3
successful in enabling the shift towards seeing domestic violence as a social and public
problem. This has resulted in a move away from emphasising a woman’s own responsibility
to solve the problem towards a view of domestic violence as an unacceptable crime which
both state and non-governmental agencies should try to prevent.
It is important to note, however, that the criminalisation of domestic violence by is no
means straightforward and is increasingly contested (at least in the US and the UK) as an
effective approach to tackling domestic violence. A basic problem is that the criminal justice
system in England uses an incident focused approach, where decisions about arrest, charges
and prosecutions are assessed in relation to individual incidents of mainly physical violence
(Buzawa and Buzawa, 2003; Hester, 2006). In contrast, domestic violence is a pattern of
behaviour over time, and emotional and psychologically abusive behaviours are important
aspects (see e.g. Stark, 2007). Others have argued that an adversarial criminal justice system
cannot in any case deal with crimes where the victim and perpetrator know each other, as
with domestic violence (Cretney and Davis, 1995). Feminists have also highlighted the
tension between a focus on individualised criminal justice interventions and the potential
detriment to women’s empowerment and understandings of gender inequality that may
result (Mills, 2003; Skinner et al., 2005; Stark, 2006).
There are also specific questions about the outcomes of using a criminal justice approach.
Research in the 1980s in the United States initially indicated that use of arrest helped to
reduce repeat offending in relation to domestic violence (Sherman et al., 1992). Later work
was less clear cut, and has increasingly shown that, while arrest may act as a deterrent for
some domestic violence perpetrators, it does not appear to have such an effect on the more
chronic domestic violence offenders (Hanmer et al., 1999; Maxwell et al., 2001; Buzawa and
Buzawa, 2003). The more limited research on court outcomes appears to indicate that
conviction, especially where it involves jail or probation rather than fines, may reduce
repeat offending. However, the proportion of domestic violence cases resulting in
conviction tends to be very small (Hester and Westmarland, 2005; Ventura and Davis, 2005).
Generally, research indicates that criminal justice interventions are unlikely to be effective
on their own, and are most effective when carried out in a context of wider support and
4
advocacy for those victimised (Taylor-Brown, 2001; Buzawa and Buzawa, 2003; Robinson,
2006; Hester and Westmarland, 2005).
The developing policy response to domestic violence
While interventions to tackle domestic violence in the UK were initiated and developed by
feminists and others from the early 1970s, the period since the early 1990s has seen more
rapid mainstreaming of services and related legislative changes. The availability of civil
protection, first established in 1976, has expanded to include a wider range of individuals
and criminal sanctions for breach (Hester et al, 2008). Since the 1990s there has also been a
plethora of policy initiatives aimed at developing criminal justice approaches to domestic
violence, in particular via pro-arrest and increases in prosecution and conviction. For
instance Home Office Circular 19/2000, aimed at the police, emphasised positive policing,
including focus on arrest and evidence gathering. This was echoed again in the Association
of Chief Police Officers guidance (Centrex, 2004). These documents require police in England
and Wales to take positive action in all domestic violence cases by exercising any powers of
arrest where they exist and where it is necessary and proportionate in order to carry out an
effective investigation and/or prevent further offences. More detailed and comprehensive
guidance about every aspect of the police process in domestic violence cases was issued in
2008 (NIAP, 2008).
In order to deal with domestic violence in the same way as with any other violent crime, and
to overcome the evidential problem where victims withdraw their statements, the Crown
Prosecution Service (CPS) received new ‘Guidance on prosecuting cases of domestic
violence’ in 2001 (Crown Prosecution Service, 2001). This emphasised the construction of
cases, where possible, on evidence other than that of the victim, and use of section 23(3)b
of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which enables cases to be presented in court when the
victim is unwilling or unable to appear to provide oral evidence. Since that time there have
more instances where prosecutors have relied less on victims, and the approach has also
been underpinned by case law. For instance, in the case of R. v C [2007] EWCA Crim 3463
(CA (Crim Div)) a woman made an emergency call to the police, and gave a statement to the
police that she had been punched by her male partner. The police saw that she had facial
injuries. The woman subsequently withdrew her statement because “she did not want the
5
defendant to be in trouble” (Willis, 2008: 2), but the prosecution went ahead on the basis of
the emergency call, and the evidence from police officers who had attended. When
contested in the appeal court the Judges decided that this had indeed been the correct
approach.
Criminal justice and other agencies have also been encouraged to increase partnership
working, working across a number of agencies such as women’s support services, public
housing and social care services, to support and provide safety for victims (Home Office,
2000). The (English) Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004) further emphasised
domestic violence as a crime, with strengthening of protection orders and prosecution of
breaches, and has made common assault an arrestable offence3. By the mid to late 2000s
Government reports were identifying domestic violence as a serious public health and
criminal justice problem, and to reduce the most serious domestic violence was stated as a
Priority Action by the Home Office in October 2007 (see Povey et al., 2008).
During the period of the Labour Government, 1997-2010, developments in work on
domestic violence were particularly rapid, including attempts at more ‘joined up’
approaches both within and outside the state, and a series of government strategy
documents and detailed action plans (Skinner et al., 2005; Home Office, 2003; Home Office,
2009; Home Office, 2010). Particularly important was the Labour Government’s proposals
on domestic violence in 2003, entitled Safety and Justice, which outlined the three core
elements for tackling domestic abuse as prevention, protection, justice and support (Home
Office, 2003), linked to a Co-ordinated Community Response model4 with a multi-agency
approach. Key to the government approach has been Specialist Domestic Violence Courts
(SDVCs), Independent Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVAs), and Multiagency Risk
Assessment Conferences (MARACS). Specialist Domestic Violence Courts (SDVCs) are
criminal courts at Magistrates level where cases involving domestic violence are clustered
together or fast-tracked, and handled by personnel – court staff, Magistrates, the Crown
Prosecution Service (CPS), police – with special training in domestic violence issues. Most
areas of England now have SDVCs and data from those SDVCs that have been operating in
the longer term, such as in Hammersmith and Fulham, continue to show that the rate of
3 It should be noted that prior to 2006 common assault was not an arrestable offence, although is one of the
commonest grounds for arrest in domestic violence cases (Hester et al., 2008; Hester, 2006) 4 Based on the approach developed in Duluth, Minnesota, US.
6
conviction from charge is increasing (Borsi, 2006; data supplied by Standing Together, 2011).
The government part-funded an increasing number of IDVAs to support high risk victims and
to guide them through the criminal justice system, so-called Independent Domestic Violence
Advisors (IDVAs). The establishment of (MARACs) was another element with government
funding, aimed at increasing safety of high risk victim-survivors and managing perpetrators
through sharing information among local agencies (Home Office, 2007). In 2007, the Labour
government announced a £1.85 million investment in MARACs, alongside the expansion of
Specialist Domestic Violence Courts (SDVCs) and IDVAs (Home Office, 2007: 11).
The new Conservative-Liberal Coalition UK Government that came into power in 2010,
continued some of the previous work, while developing its own approach and Strategy on
Women and Girls (Home Office, 2010). While the Coalition has continued to part fund IDVAs
and MARACs the new focus on ‘localism’ (rather than central state support) combined with
extensive cuts to local government funding means, however, that it has also become more
difficult to fund IDVAs at the local level5, and there has been a reduction in the number of
Magistrates courts as well as Legal Aid.
II. THE ENGLISH CRIMINICAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Criminal and Common Law Remedies
There is no specific crime of domestic violence in England, so arrests and charges are made
for general assault and other relevant crimes, in particular violence against the person and
public order offences. Crimes for which police have powers of arrest in domestic violence
situations include the offences under the Violence Against the Person Act (1861): common
assault, assault, actual or grievous bodily harm (ABH OR GBH), unlawful wounding,
attempted murder, threats to kill, criminal damage and harassment. The actual offences
applied have been found to vary between police force areas (Hester, 2006; Hester et al.,
2008). For instance, a study comparing two areas of England, Croydon in London and South
Tyneside in the North East (Hester et al., 2008) found that South Tyneside used a narrower
range of offences than Croydon (15 offences compared with 24). Also, South Tyneside relied
mostly on the public order offence of Breach of the Peace, followed by the violence against
the person offences of Actual Bodily Harm (S47 assault), criminal damage and common
5 To obtain the central government funding for IDVAs local areas need to provide ‘match funding’ and
apply competitively.
7
assault; while Croydon used mainly violence against the person offences: Actual Bodily
Harm (S47 assault), followed by common assault, criminal damage and harassment.
Criminalisation and civil law approaches
As part of the overall ‘criminalisation’ of domestic violence in the UK there has also been an
increasing criminalisation of some aspects of civil remedies, in particular with regard to
enforcement. Issuing non-molestation orders without any power of arrest has long been
criticised as ‘not worth the paper they’re written on’ by those working with domestic
violence victims (Barron, 1990). The Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act (2004) and
created a new (criminal) offence of breaching a non-molestation order, thereby amending
the existing non-molestation order in Part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996. This offence is
subject to a maximum of five years in prison .
Domestic Violence Protection Order
A further development of in civil law within a context of criminal justice has been the
Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO)6, enacted as part of the Crime and Security Act
2010. The approach of the DVPO is new for the UK in that it is not a civil injunction that has
to be pursued by the victim/survivor, but instead provides specific powers for the police to
remove a domestic violence perpetrator for up to fourteen days without requiring the
woman’s consent. The approach has, when coupled with intensive advocacy, been found to
provide women with space and time without the perpetrator enabling her to make
decisions about safety and leaving their abusive relationship. Unfortunately the
requirement of advocacy (which underpins the success of the approach in Austria and
Germany), is not stipulated in the English law. As this report is being written the DVPO is in
process of being piloted and evaluated in three areas of England.
III. WOMEN’S EXPERIENCES
Women’s use of the criminal justice system
This section examines women’s use, views and experiences of the criminal justice system
based on interviews with the 73 women in the ‘attrition study’, the profiles of cases from
6 Originating in Austria and Germany.
8
the ‘profile of perpetrators study’, and the nature of violence and police response
highlighted via the six year longitudinal ‘gender of perpetrators’ study.
Fifty of the women interviewed were contacted directly for the study by the police, and we
were also able to analyse the progression of their cases as recorded on the police database.
In 37 of the 50 cases (72%) the male perpetrator was arrested by the police, and 20 (44%) of
these cases were charged by the Crown Prosecution Service with 8 resulting in conviction
(16% of the 50 cases, 23% of arrests, 40% of those charged). The arrests and charges were
for a wide range of domestic violence related offences: breach of the peace, actual bodily
harm 7, grievous bodily harm or grievous bodily harm with intent, rape, murder, attempted
murder, threats to kill, threatening behaviour, kidnap, harassment, criminal damage,
blackmail, malicious communication, racially aggravated behaviour, child cruelty, child
destruction, witness or juror intimidation, weapons offences, breach of bail, drunk and
disorderly.
Threat to witnesses when they act as witnesses in the courts or provide other evidence for
use in prosecution has previously been cited by victims as a reason not to pursue a case.
14% of the 50 perpetrators related to the women interviewed were arrested for
intimidating witnesses or juror. Child contact issues (i.e. access post-separation) have also
been identified as an important factor associated with whether or not to pursue a
prosecution (Hester, 2006; Radford and Hester, 2006). This issue appeared important for the
women, with nearly one in five (9 women, 18%) mentioning contact issues in statements to
the police.
Women’ contacts with the police
The interviews with female victim/survivors indicate that the vast majority of the women
knew how to contact the police, and that they did so in an attempt to secure their
immediate safety. While women’s expectations of the police varied, most expected the
police to protect them and to make the violence stop. In many respects the police
approach could be seen as ‘victim-led’, and deemed to be empowering (Hoyle, 1998).
However, the emphasis on doing what it was thought the women wanted also led in some
7 It should be noted that at that time s39, common assault, was not an arrestable offence, and only became so
after January 2007. s47, actual bodily harm was at times used instead and the charge later reduced to s39
(Hester, 2006)
9
instances to the women – rather than the police or others involved with the criminal justice
process – being seen as responsible for not pursuing charges. (Hester 2006: 82).
Women’s knowledge and understanding of what the police could do, the scope and
limitations of their role and criminal justice systems in general varied, but was, overall,
somewhat limited. Women often expressed a lack of understanding of ‘what would happen
next’ following a police visit or the perpetrator’s arrest (see also Cretney & Davis, 1997).
From the interviews with women, it was apparent that their perception of the ability of the
different actors and processes of the criminal justice system to provide safety was key in
their decisions about all aspects of the criminal justice process, whether contacting the
police, ‘staying in’ or ‘dropping out’ of the system. The analysis revealed two main, and
overlapping, categories of need:
1. For the immediate violence to be stopped and the situation to be calmed down.
2. The need for longer-term protection and measures to be put in place to ensure the
violence did not continue.8
The women in the first category tended to be more satisfied with the police intervention
because the police had arrived quickly, because they had been effective in calming the man
down and/or had separated the two of them. They were less likely to want to take the case
further through the criminal justice system, and attrition (‘dropping out’) can in this sense
be seen as positive where these women were concerned. Some of the women in this
category saw the police as a useful part of their ‘management’ of their partner’s violence.
Some were also experiencing the chaotic and ongoing violence linked to excessive alcohol
use. This was the situation, for example, for Ada:
Ada’s partner had been drinking, and beat her up. She rang the police and they took
him away. She did not want him charged. This pattern had happened a few times, and
Ada felt the police had been very supportive – there when she needed them. She has
now been able to give her partner an ultimatum to stop drinking or she would leave.
(Summary from interview with Ada, in Hester, 2006: 87)
The women in the second category, needing longer-term protection and measures
put in place to ensure the violence did not continue, expected their cases to be taken
further through the criminal justice system, with conviction and some form of punishment
8 Similar categories were also identified in interviews with the police.
10
or constraint on the perpetrator resulting. As conviction was very highly unlikely, and where
conviction did occur likely to involve mainly fines, the women tended not to be satisfied and
often found the court process and outcomes derisory. (Hester, 2006: 86-87). These women
were likely to be experiencing domestic violence from ‘dedicated repeat’9 and ‘all-round
repeat’10
perpetrators (Hester et al., 2006).
Who contacted the police
It was mainly the women victim/survivors who contacted the police, and usually
following many incidents of physical and other forms of violent events.11
Of the 64
women victim/survivors in the gender of perpetrator’s study, 45 (70%) had been the
ones to contact the police. However, women were not the only ones to contact the
police. In a small number of cases, especially those relating to women from Black and
minority ethnic communities, the police were contacted through support agencies
(also reflected in more recent studies – see Howarth et al., 2009; Coy & Kelly, 2010).
Sometimes it was women’s children, friends, or neighbours who called the police to
intervene. As women interviewed outlined:
� My son called the police because we were arguing, parents always argue you know,
but he was a bit upset and so he called the police. (Annie)
� So when he pulled the telephone out in the kitchen I kept him talking in the kitchen
and (daughter) came in here and called the police and when he realised what she
was doing of course he became really agitated. (Wanda)
� Yes, no actually I didn’t, me friend did (call the police) because she actually phoned us
and he wouldn't let her speak to us and so she called the police from where she was.
(Carly)
9 Recorded more than once by the police for domestic violence related offences.
10 More than one domestic violence and also other offences recorded by the police.
11 This is echoed in other research in England. For example, Coy and Kelly (2010) found in a study of advocacy
projects that more than three quarters (n=52, 78.8%) of women had reported the incident that happened just
before contact with projects to the police and similar numbers (77.8%) had attempted to seek help by calling the
police on at least one occasion, with half (51.4%) contacting them a few or several times.
11
� The neighbours had called [the police] out a couple of times and they didn’t actually
get here til he had left and then it was too late to go and find him or see where he
had went. (Arlene)
Previous research (see Hester, 2012) has found that men who are primary aggressors may
ring the police first in order to pre-empt women asking for help. Women also gave examples
of this in the interviews:
� Then he said he was going to break my arms, and tried to twist my arms behind me,
by which time all three children were screaming and yelling and he let go, and he
phoned the police! He thought they were going to come and tell me that I had to let
him stay. But the police came round and arrested him, you know. (Deirdre)
A few women talked specifically of how their partners were contacting the police so that
they (the woman) would be seen as the problem:
� You see, usually we have a row and eventually make it up. But for the last 18
months, for some reason he’s been calling the police and bringing the police to the
house, saying he wants me out of his property…It was his house, yes. And although
we were only married 2 years ago, I’ve lived here 12 years with him. So, when the
police come, one of us has to be removed to stop the arguing. Recently it’s been me.
(Cressida)
When were the police contacted?
The women were sometimes too frightened to contact the police, and would only contact
them after years of experiencing violence and/or only once they had left the violent partner.
This indicates that women involved the police only once they thought the violence had
reached what they themselves saw as unacceptable and especially dangerous levels. As
some of the women outlined:
� I told my family after the first few incidents but it wasn’t until a year afterwards that
I told the police. (Annie)
� I didn’t phone the police to start with. The police started getting involved after it
started happening on a regular basis. (Nicky)
� My partner had been violent through most of our relationship, but after my little girl
was born (now 3), it seemed to get worse and worse. We finally separated just
12
before Christmas last year, because I couldn’t take any more violence. Then in
February he came round and attacked me and I was really badly beaten up and
frightened and I called the police. (Fiona)
The women interviewed talked about calling the police numerous times. In the ’profile of
perpetrators’ cases tracked over three years, women who experienced repeated domestic
violence from partners who were ‘dedicated repeat’ offenders had police involvement at
least twice and up to 6 times. Where their partners also had criminal records for other types
of crimes (the ‘all round repeat offenders’) there was involvement by the police up to a
staggering 43 times. When such cases were tracked for up to six years (in the ‘gender of
perpetrator’ study), 83 per cent of the women were in situations where the police had
recorded that they had intervened in at least two incidents, many a lot more than that, and
one male partner had perpetrated 52 incidents within the six year tracking period. As the
women interviewed explained:
• There are several incidents; the police have been out loads of times. He's been
arrested seven times. (Greta)
• There have been so many times – I’ve called the police hundreds of times to come
and take him away. It’s difficult for me to remember just one particular time. (Stina)
The domestic violence events/situations connected with police involvement
The women who called the police were often facing very extreme and ongoing experiences
of control, violence and threats that included threats with knives. Many of the incidents
were post-separation. The data from the six year tracking of individuals in the ‘gender of
perpetrators’ study provides an overview of the types of violent events recorded by the
police in the domestic violence cases. The violence and abuse used by the male
perpetrators was described in the police records as involving often a range of behaviour, of
which the most frequently mentioned was verbal abuse followed by physical violence.
Threats and harassment were also frequently mentioned (see Table below). The men’s
violence was regularly described as creating a context of fear and related to that, control,
and thus reminiscent of the ongoing pattern of fear and coercive control in ‘archetypal’
domestic violence (or ‘intimate terrorism’), which will usually involve frequent abuse, and is
likely to escalate and to result in serious injury (Johnson, 2006; Stark, 2007).
13
Types of domestic violence behaviour recorded by police
Of male perpetrators %
Verbal abuse 94
Physical violence 61
Threat 29
Harassment 29
Damage to partner’s
property
30
Use of weapon 11
Damage to own
property
6
The interviews with the women indicated the multi-faceted nature of the men’s abusive
behaviour and how the women sometimes had to take chances to call the police or get
others to call the police on their behalf.
� I had an injunction order on him at the time of the broken foot and the time he tried
to slash [me] with the Stanley blade, and as soon as he left the house that day - he
was with two of his friends, luckily he was with two of his friends otherwise he would
have done it – I phoned the police straight away, but nothing came of it. (Nicky)
� He was on one of these drinking binges and he was being really horrible. And he
asked me to go down to the shop, downstairs from where we live, and get him some
more alcohol. And I asked them in the shop if they would help me, ‘cos I didn’t want
to go back to him and they took me in the back and called the police. (Alessandra)
� (Asian women’s agency worker interpreting for an Asian woman): It just got worse
and then she was raped and she called the police. He tried to strangle her that night.
He threw her out a couple of times…She called the police that night and they took her
out and I think they have a centre where they take women… From there she was
referred to PANAH (Asian women’s refuge) and we took her in. I think the police had
to break the door down cos he was strangling her at that point, she called the police
he was kicking her and beating her up and they had to break the door down and they
found him strangling her. (about Fatma)
The men’s behaviour included extreme threats, and women interviewees described both
direct and indirect threats to kill them. For instance:
14
� He didn’t hit me he threatened me. He sharpened the knife in the kitchen waiting for
me to come home because I went out to do my friends hair…I sat down to eat but
before that I said how come the knife is so sharp? He said ‘well I sharpened it’…I
started getting a bit shaky then cos we had an argument before I left the house so I
was trying to make things cool…Well erm when he said put the baby down I said ok …
He said ‘you sleep with this guy Gospel’ … and he said ‘right I’m going to call Gospel
and if Gospel tell me that he slept with you watch what’s gonna happen in here
tonight’…and he left and went inside for the phone just to call the guy. So while he’s
in there I just got to the back door and take the key and close it … So the next door
neighbour came out and told me to come in but I asked them to give me their mobile
so I call 999. (Fawcett)
Police intervention and women’s expectations
Women’s expectations of the police varied, and appeared to be linked to previous
experiences of the criminal justice system, whether they had used the system before, and
the level of protection required. Women with previous experience of the police and the
criminal justice system seemed to have rather low expectations of what action would be
taken, whilst women who had never used the criminal justice system expected more. Those
wanting immediate safety and nothing else often expressed satisfaction with the police
response (though not always), but those wanting longer term protection from the criminal
justice system and/or justice often expressed dissatisfaction with the system.
The women were asked in the interview: ‘When you first called out the police, do you think
you had any particular expectations of them?’ The following reflects the variety of
responses as well as the focus on need for immediate help:
• I don’t think so, it was just: ‘Come and help me.’ That’s all I could think about,
somebody’s got to help me. (Toni)
• I just wanted them to come and save me, and they did. (Tara)
• For them to make it stop, to take him away for the night. (Carolyn)
• I don’t think so, it was just: ‘Come and help me.’ That’s all I could think about,
somebody’s got to help me. (Trudy)
15
• I just wanted them to take him away. I can’t say I was really even thinking, it was
more of an instinct. I had just had enough, and when he hit me in the face, it was
just a case of ‘Well, I’ll have to call the police.’ (Glenys)
Some women expressed the difficulty of making decisions when violence is taking place, but
also that following their initial involvement of the police they would in future involve the
criminal justice system to a greater degree if their partner’s were violent again:
• ... if it happened again, I would press charges. (Frances)
• The first time, I just wanted them to make him stop, to take him away and let me be
safe. The second time, I had had enough and wanted them to arrest him. (Wynona)
Women talked about the different outcomes they had wanted, and what actually took
place. Mostly the police would arrest the man and remove him for some hours or overnight.
Other women were concerned that the police did not turn up when called, or did not seem
to understand the seriousness of the attack and threat of further violence. Some women
wanted charges against the perpetrator to be pursued. However, others did not want
further criminal justice action to be taken, usually due to fear of further violence or other
recriminations, concern about children and/or guilt about being seen to take action against
the perpetrator (love for the perpetrator, or feeling sorry for him).
Having children with the offender had a marked impact on whether or not women decided
to drop out of the criminal justice process. This was apparent across all aspects of the
research data. Children were a particular reason the victimised women might not want the
offender arrested or to pursue charges. As one of the agency staff interviewed outlined:
…the presence of children makes a domestic violence situation much more difficult and
complicated. There is the fear that the children will be harmed if they leave of if they go,
or that the children will be abducted. There are also difficulties over contact
arrangements, often used as a way of an abusive man maintaining control over a women
even when she has left him. (Advice Agency Staff)
This was exemplified by the case of Bushra, a woman of South Asian descent, who had lived
apart from her husband for many years. He had always had a lot to do with the children,
coming to the house to see them. However he also continued to abuse her mentally, calling
her stupid, keeping her short of money and denying her a divorce. In the period before we
interviewed Bushra, he had become more physically violent, breaking her nose and kicking
16
her. She called police and wanted to press charges, but her son stopped her as he was
worried that his dad would no longer pay the school fees.
Women’s use and experience of prosecution and the courts
As outlined earlier, 20 (40%) of the 50 police sample women’s interview cases resulted in
prosecution, and eight (40%; 16% of all) of these resulted in conviction. Of the total police
database sample, cases resulting in prosecution tended to involve chronic domestic violence
offenders, with 70 per cent recorded on the police database as repeat offenders. Eighty-two
per cent of the initial police charges were continued by the Crown Prosecution Service. In
the majority of cases where the Crown Prosecution Service did not continue the initial
charge, further (usually lesser) charges were added, and these generally resulted in
conviction. Nearly all the cases proceeding to the courts were heard in the Magistrates’
Courts, with only five of the 20 cases heard in the Crown Court. The Crown Court cases were
predominantly related to charges of harassment (four of the five cases).
There was a tendency for the women to see the Crown Courts in a more positive light than
the (lower level) Magistrates’ courts. The Magistrates Courts were seen not to take
domestic violence seriously, and one of the Magistrates had laughed when the woman
concerned had brought her damaged clothes to be shown as evidence. This is an aspect that
has changed with the introduction of Specialist Domestic Violence Courts, and magistrates
are now more likely to be trained in domestic violence issues.
It was clear from the interviews with the women that advocacy and support was in many
instances crucial for them to go through with the court process. A range of individuals and
agencies might provide this support including the police, solicitors, other agencies and
relatives12
. Being told about the court process and how this worked was seen as part of this
support, as was being provided with a ‘safe waiting room’ in the court, and having someone
(solicitor, relative, advocate etc) with her in the court setting. The police – both core police
and domestic violence liaison officers – were also mentioned as providing essential support
leading up to and during the court case.
…and the police were there for me, they were very supportive and I've got to take my hat
off to them. I think if it hadn’t been for the police officers coming out, I don't think I
12
The interviews were carried out before the widespread use of IDVAs (Independent Domestic Violence
Advisors)
17
would have went [sic] ahead with the court case. I think I would have probably just left it
because I was scared anyway. (Lettie)
Even with support, some women were still unable to give evidence in court. Given the
centrality of the victims as key witnesses this meant that cases would not go ahead, or that
charges were reduced.
Women were generally bewildered and shocked by the plea bargaining and lowering of
sentences that tended to take place in court, and it made some of them reluctant to want to
pursue a case against the perpetrator again. Four of the offenders were merely fined,
despite ongoing violence and associated damage to property.
…generally I pressed charges, we went to … Crown Court. He was just fined. I was quite
shocked, because of the severity of my injuries. I was hoping, but I was so angry at the
time and because of the fact that it affected my whole life, this head injury and my
memory problems that I've got because of it, I didn't think that it was severe enough.
(Collette)
Feeling safe – impact on offender
Feeling safe as a result of the court outcome was very important for the women to
contemplate pursuing a case again. Whether the impact of the court process on the
offender was negative or positive varied very much between individuals. Some of the
women felt that the court process had merely angered their (ex)-partner further.
…[the impact of the conviction had made life] a lot more difficult because I had to get
away, I’ve had to move here to get away from him and he’s still trying to find me.
(Bridget)
For most, however, the court process had been positive. A couple of the women felt
stronger because of taking the cases through the courts and thus ‘standing up to’ their (ex)
partners, and this meant the men were less likely to be violent again. The men knew the
women would stand up to them again if anything further happened, and the next step might
be prison. For another couple of women the fact that the men had been sentenced by the
courts had also stopped the men’s violence to them because of an employer now knowing
about his behaviour, or because the ‘beer money’ was being paid in fines.
18
• …my husband knows now that if he keeps on with his behaviour like before, he will
go to prison. He knows I am stronger now and he can’t treat me like he did. He is
trying to sort himself out, for himself and the kids if not for me. (Lettie)
• he has had to like pay the fine and that's affected him like and he doesn't come
around here as much so I think it has had some effect aye. He finally realised that
he didn't have money for to get his drink so… (Lucinda)
Women withdrawing statements and ‘dropping out’ from the criminal justice process
The police data indicated that 25% of the 50 women interviewed also provided statements.
In addition, police records indicated that charges were still pursued in 14 instances where
statements were refused by the women, and that only one of these cases was eventually
discontinued. At the same time, the extent to which officers would follow up a statement
varied both between areas and between individuals. As indicated above, in interviews
women said that they would have pursued charges if contacted again by the police a few
weeks later - as did happen in some instances but not in others.
Some police officers thought the attrition point, or point when women ‘dropped out’,
appeared to have shifted so that more women were initially prepared to give a statement
and appeared keen to obtain a prosecution, but were more likely to withdraw statements
once the court process had begun:
…quite often it's into the court process where the accused is being charged and he's been
to court and the victim will come forward and say I don't wish to go any further. I think a
lot of the time it's actually the victim having reflected upon what's going to happen to
them if the husband the boyfriend the partner is no longer there, how are they going to
manage financially, where they are going to live, issues along those lines come very much
to the fore. (Police Officer)
Prosecutors also considered those victimised, and their decisions concerning relationships
and families, as the main point of attrition. They cited as the main grounds for attrition
retraction of statements, as well as parties being back together or wanting to make
arrangements for the children. Analysis of case files indicated that cases were more likely to
be pursued where the parties were no longer together, and the onus was on the women in
particular to stay out of the relationship. Where women retracted their statements,
information regarding the reason for this would be requested via the police. Where
19
information was obtained that the parties were seeing one another or were back together,
the victim-witness was deemed less reliable and cases were more likely to be discontinued.
This was also a focal issue for the defence solicitors interviewed. As one solicitor explained:
…if it looks as though they’re likely to get back together or for whatever reason she’s
likely to withdraw her statement, then I’ll probably advise him not to say anything.
(Defence Solicitor)
None the less a change in practice could be discerned. Crown Prosecutors and other agency
staff interviewed indicted that cases were now more likely to be pursued than had been the
situation in the past:
Of course, it’s getting more common now for a case to go ahead even if she retracts: the
CPS can summon a witness to appear, and even if she doesn’t turn up they may have
enough other evidence to go ahead and try to get a conviction. (Defence Solicitor)
This was also reflected to a limited extent in our sample. There were three instances where
it could be seen that women retracted their statements. Two of these retractions resulted
from pressure on or intimidation of victims by offenders. In one instance the case was
discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service, while in the remaining cases the
prosecution went ahead, and obtained convictions, on reduced charges. Moreover, in a few
instances those being victimised were summonsed in Crown Court trials when there were
no alternative witnesses, although none in our sample were compelled to attend.
Overall the interviews with women indicated that if women were reticent to make
statements or to press charges, or if they withdrew statements or decided not to attend
court, this was frequently because they feared the consequences of this action or felt it
would not have a positive or beneficial outcome for themselves or their children, or because
they simply did not think it would make a difference. Women tended to see processes
through in the criminal justice system if they felt confident this would improve their lives
and make them safe in the short and long-term. Unsurprisingly, if they did not feel
confident this would happen, they tended to withdraw from the system or only used the
system for immediate protection. This was also reiterated by some of the agency staff
interviewed, whose work involved supporting victim/survivors. As one outlined:
... one client in particular went through years, at least two years, of [saying]I’m going to
follow through with the charges, follow through with the charges. The perpetrator
started harassing friends and witnesses that were going to be involved in the court
20
process, and really at the last minute she pulled out. She felt absolutely terrible that she
had let me down, she’d let the police down, she’d let all these people down, but at the
end of the day what she was thinking about was her daughter’s safety, her friends safety,
like the witness safety and herself. .... I had her sit down with the police, to discuss what
would happen if, or what would happen if not, things like that, she had all the
information. She still decided that that’s what she wanted to do was withdraw the
charges. ... I think a month after, he was back on the phone laughing, saying “ha-ha, got
you now!”, those kinds of things. The harassment started again and so she charged him
with harassment and said “great I made this mistake, I’m not going to make it a second
time.” .... So it’s really difficult, and I just had to respect her decision. And just support
her whatever way I could. (Support agency staff)
Also, timing appeared to be an important issue in relation to women feeling willing and able
to make statements to the police, as well as needing ongoing and consistent support to see
the process through. A number of women talked about needing a combination of time,
space and appropriate information to make a decision about making a statement or
pressing charges. For instance:
The woman and children can be in a terrible state and that isn’t the time for the police
to be asking if you want to make a statement and things like that. You could do with
someone sympathetic just to help calm you down and listen to what you have to say,
and the children need help then too. Maybe the police should ask you about your
statement a few days later, when you’ve had time to think about it. (Arcadia)
Others talked about needing to go ahead with decisions to make a statement or press
charges when they still felt angry enough to respond to the perpetrator’s actions. Again the
issue of sustained and appropriate support to see these processes through was a vital
feature.
Some women in the interview sample thought about withdrawing their statements and
dropping out of the criminal justice process, but decided not to do so because they wanted
to make sure that the perpetrator learnt a lesson, and to get on with their lives:
• Interviewer: So at any time when this was going on, did you want to withdraw your
statement?
21
Toni: Oh, there were a few times I've thought of that. He went to my friend a couple
of times with letters. Basically … Letters apologising…But I did think a couple of times
about just dropping the charges and just getting on with my life, but I thought I
cannot do that anymore.
IV. POLICE PRACTICE
Shifts in police practice over time
The 50 victim/survivors interviewed in the attrition study, who all had experience of the
criminal justice system, generally highlighted the positive shifts in policing that had taken
place since the early/mid 1990s when some of them had first contacted the police. Many
were happy with the manner in which the police treated them, and usually perceived police
intervention at the scene of the domestic violence incident as very positive. This echoes the
findings from other studies carried out before and around the same time (Hoyle, 1998;
Hester & Westmarland, 2005).
Data from the later gender of perpetrators study indicated that the police were increasingly
following the Association of Chief Police Officers’ guidance, which urges officers to identify
the primary aggressor. They generally identified just one perpetrator and one victim in
relation to each incident. There was also increasing evidence of the police involving other
agencies and women’s support services with the female victims. Dual arrests, where both
partners are arrested at the same time in relation to the same incident, were made in only a
couple of incidents. In dual perpetrator cases, where each partner is recorded at some time
as a perpetrator (but not necessarily in relation to the same incident), the records often
provided indication of whom the police considered to be the primary aggressor. It appeared
that at least some of the police were using a gender sensitive approach to determining the
primary aggressor. Such an approach relied on consideration of context and pattern of
incidents over time, differentiating between initiator and retaliator, and thus pointing to a
primary aggressor. The data indicated that, while consideration of arrest and charges
continued to be dealt with in relation to individual incidents throughout the 2000s, by the
late 2000s the police were moving from a merely incident based to a more
contextualised/pattern based approach when considering the nature of a case. Cases with
incidents recorded in the latter part of the tracking period, were more likely to include
22
evidence of the police looking back and reflecting across incidents to assess overall risk, with
a summary in the police record to this effect.
An example where the man was clearly construed as the primary aggressor based on
acknowledgement of the gendered dynamics of domestic violence, involved potentially
more serious violence by the female partner. In this instance, the police saw the woman as
retaliating to protect herself. The incident record notes that “[Mr Yellow] seemed to be the
instigator on most occasions to the arguments”, while the police also comment that “he was
in fact at risk of becoming seriously injured as a result of [Mrs Yellow’s] methods of
retaliation”. The comment continues:
[Mr Yellow] would argue with [Mrs Yellow] and say something really hurtful thus
drawing her into the argument, male had on occasions punched and slapped her.
[Mrs Yellow] not having the physical strength to retaliate has in the past gone to the
kitchen, deliberately boiled the kettle and poured the boiling water over his feet, she
has stabbed him in the neck (scar injury noted) and used other kitchen utensils to
assault him with. (Police incident record)
None of these incidents were reported at the time and no sanctions resulted. However, the
police discussed and developed a safety plan with the couple so that both “agreed that if
there was tension brewing to try and avoid it by leaving the room and or house”. Mrs Yellow
also agreed that she would not continue to retaliate, but would involve the police instead:
“agreed that if [Mr Yellow] did become violent that she would not fight back but flee and
contact the police”.
V. ENGLISH COURT OBSERVATION
Over a period of nine months we made 25 observations in the Magistrates and Crown
Courts, and were able to follow five domestic violence cases during those observations. Of
the observed domestic violence cases, three were at the Crown Court and two at the
Magistrates courts. Developing the observation sample was complex, and involved regular
contact with nine separate courts in different parts of the North East region to ascertain
whether cases from the police database sample or other suitable cases were being heard
during the observation period. Fifteen cases from the police database sample could
potentially have been heard during the observation period. In the end it was only possible to
23
follow one case that was also part of the police database sample. The female victim/survivor
in that case had also been interviewed by us in the attrition study.
As might be expected, all the court cases involved allegations of very serious physical
violence. Throughout the cases a number of themes became apparent:
• When women are prepared to give evidence the men are more likely to plead guilty.
• The regular downgrading of charges.
• Use by defendants of contact with children.
• Pressure on victims from legal professionals and perpetrators.
• Convictions more likely to be successful if violence is against the police rather than
violence to female victims.
• Emphasis on victims as witnesses
• Differences in attitudes between staff at different courts.
• Gender as an issue, with women also using violence not deemed credible victims.
By way of example, we provide an outline of one of the cases that was heard in the
Magistrate’s court. In this instance the Magistrate’s panel (as is usual) consisted of three
magistrates, the chairman (a woman) and two others (men), who were hearing a series of
cases including the domestic violence case we were observing. The male perpetrator was
charged with possession of a kitchen knife, breach of the peace and common assault, which
were all related to his behaviour to the police when they intervened in a domestic violence
incident, rather than to the domestic violence. He pleaded guilty to all the charges.
According to the prosecutor, whom we spoke to after the trial, the perpetrator had
originally pleaded not guilty to the charges, but had changed his plea when he heard that his
ex-partner had arrived at the court and was ready to appear as a witness.
According to the prosecutor the perpetrator ran after his ex-partner when she was
returning home. Following an argument he grabbed her arm and pushed her hard up
against a wall. One of the children, seeing what was happening through a window, activated
the panic alarm, which had previously been installed by the police due to concerns about
the perpetrator’s ongoing violence. When two police officers arrived the perpetrator made
threatening gestures and shouted at them: ‘What the fuck is it to do with you? I’m just
fucking out of prison.’ He was then arrested for breach of the peace. He was taken way in a
24
police car, at which point it became clear he had a knife. While being interviewed at the
police station, he was extremely uncooperative and agitated and the interview had to be
suspended because of his behaviour. He was remanded in prison until the trial.
The perpetrator’s solicitor, providing the defence, focused on problems in relation to the
perpetrator’s contact with his children as the reason he had gone to his ex-partner’s house.
His point was that the perpetrator had got fed up with the length of time it was taking the
legal system to sort out contact, so had decided to take matters into his own hands. The
magistrates, following separate discussion, decided that the offences were so serious that
only a custodial sentence was justified, particularly as the incident had been witnessed by a
terrified child. Although the breach of the peace charge was dismissed the perpetrator was
given 5 months prison for each of the other offences (possession of knife and common
assault), to run concurrently.
CONCLUSION
The central concern for women victim/survivors is safety. Concerns about safety for
themselves and/or for their children shaped women’s decisions about contacting the police,
whether to press charges, and whether or not to continue their involvement with the
criminal justice system. Women would contact the police to stop immediate violence and
possibly to obtain longer term protection. They expected the prosecution and court process
to provide punishment and constraints on the perpetrators’ behaviour, but that was rarely
the outcome. Support was essential to enable women to engage more effectively with the
criminal justice system, and made it less likely that they dropped out.
Increasingly criminal justice policy in England and resultant changes in practice has begun to
take into account women’s experiences and concerns. This was particularly apparent with
regard to the police. Women saw police practice as especially positive and supportive where
they were experiencing ‘lower level’ violence. However, where the courts became involved,
female victim/survivors felt let down, and the enormous time and emotional ‘investment’
required by women to pursue a case was not echoed in the outcomes for perpetrators.
There appeared to be a greater need for pro-active and multi-agency intervention with
chronic male perpetrators as the criminal justice system is least likely to work in these cases.
25
REFERENCES
Barron, J. (1990) Not Worth the Paper…? The Effectiveness of Legal Protection for Women
and Children Experiencing Domestic Violence, Bristol: Women’s Aid.
Borsi, T. (2006) Briefing Paper 1: Data & Monitoring Report for the Specialist Domestic
Violence Court 2003-6. London: Standing Together
Buzawa, E. S. & Buzawa, C. G. (2003). Domestic Violence: The Criminal Justice Response.
London: Sage.
Centrex (2004) Guidance on Investigating Domestic Violence. Bramshill: Produced on behalf
of the Association of Chief Police Officers by the National Centre for Policing Excellence
Coy, M. & Kelly, L. (2011) Islands in the Stream: An evaluation of four London independent
domestic violence advocacy schemes. London, London Metropolitan University.
Cretney, A and Davis, G. (1995) Punishing Violence. London: Routledge.
Cretney, A. and Davis, G. (1997) ‘Prosecuting Domestic Assault: Victims Failing Courts, or
Courts Failing Victims?’ The Howard Journal. Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 146-157.
Crown Prosecution Service (2001), ‘Revised CPS policy on prosecuting cases of domestic
violence’, CPS Policy Directorate, London.
Gore, S. (2007) In Practice: The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 and Family
Law Act 1996 Injunctions, Family Law, 37, 739.
Hanmer, J. Griffiths, S. and Jerwood, D. (1999) Arresting Evidence: Domestic Violence and
Repeat Victimisation. Police Research Series Paper No. 104. London: Home Office.
Hester, M. and Westmarland, N. (2005) Tackling Domestic Violence – Effective Interventions
and Approaches, London: Home Office.
Hester, M. (2006) Making It Through the Criminal Justice System: Attrition and Domestic
Violence, Social Policy and Society, 5 (1), 1–12.
Hester, M, Westmarland, N., Gangoli, G., Wilkinson, M., O’Kelly, C., Kent, A. & Diamond, A.
(2006). Domestic Violence Perpetrators: Identifying Needs to Inform Early Intervention.
Bristol: University of Bristol in association with the Northern Rock Foundation and the Home
Office.
Hester, M., Westmarland. N., Pearce, J. and Williamson, E. (2008) Early evaluation of the
Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Act 2004. Ministry of Justice Research Series 14/08.
London: Ministry of Justice.
26
Hester, M. (2009) Who Does What to Whom? Gender and Domestic Violence Perpetrators,
Bristol, University of Bristol & Northern Rock Foundation.
http://www.bris.ac.uk/sps/research/projects/reports/2009/rj4843/whodoeswhat.pdf
Hester, M. (2012) Portrayal of Women as IPV Perpetrators, Violence Against Women.
Home Office (2000), ‘Domestic violence’, Home Office Circular 19/2000, Home Office,
London.
Home Office (2003) Safety and Justice: The Governments Proposals on Domestic Violence,
London: The Stationary office.
Home Office (2007) National Domestic Violence Delivery Plan – Annual Progress Report
2006/07. London, Home Office.
Home Office (2009) Together We Can End Violence Against Women: A Consultation Paper
Home Office, London.
Home Office (2010) Strategy on Women and Girls. London: Home Office.
Home Office 2011
Howarth, E., Stimpson, L., Barran, D., & Robinson, A. (2009) Safety In Numbers: A Multi-site
Evaluation of Independent Domestic Violence Advisor Services. London, The Hestia Fund and
The Henry Smith Charity.
Hoyle, C. (1998) Negotiating Domestic Violence: Police, Criminal Justice, and Victims. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Johnson, M. P. (2006). Conflict and Control: Gender Symmetry and Asymmetry in Domestic
Violence. Violence Against Women, 12, 1003-1018.
Maxwell, C., Garner, J. H., and Fagan, J. A. (2001), ‘The effects of arrest on intimate partner
violence: new evidence for the spouse abuse replication program’, US department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC.
Mills, L. (2003), Insult to Injury: Rethinking Our Responses to Intimate Abuse, Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
NIAP (2008) Guidance on Investigating Domestic Abuse. Wyboston: Produced on behalf of
the Association of Chief Police Officers by the National Policing Improvement Agency
Povey, D. (Ed.), Coleman, K., Kaiza, P., Hoare, J. and Jansson, K. (2008). Homicides, Firearm
Offences and Intimate Violence 2006/07 (Supplementary Volume 2 to Crime in England and
Wales 2006/07). Home Office Statistical Bulletin 3/08.
27
Radford, L. & Hester, M. (2006). Mothering Through Domestic Violence. London: Jessica
Kingsley
Robinson, A.L. (2006) Reducing Repeat Victimization Among High Risk Victims of Domestic
Violence. The Benefits of a Coordinated Community Response in Cardiff, Wales. Violence
Against Women, 12 (8), pp. 761-788.
Sherman, L.W., Schmidt, J.D. and Rogan, D.P. (1992) Policing Domestic Violence:
Experiments and dilemmas. New York: Free Press.
Skinner et al (2006)
Smith, K., Flatley, J. , Coleman, K., Osborne, S., Kaiza, P. and Roe, Stephen (2010) Homicides,
Firearms Offences and Intimate Violence 2008/09. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 01/10,
London, Home Office.
Stark, E. (2007) Coercive Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taylor-Brown
Ventura, L. A. and Davis, G. (2005), ‘Court case conviction and recidivism’, Violence Against
Women, 11, 2, 255–277.
Walby, S. (2004). The Cost of Domestic Violence. Women & Equality Unit: London.
Walby, S (2009) The Cost of Domestic Violence: Up-date 2009.
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/sociology/profiles/34/
Willis, P. (2008) Violence in the home - is the new law working?, Criminal Lawyer