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