“Let me not die before my time”

A powerful new report on the impact of domestic abuse, and violence against women in West Africa has just been published by the International Rescue Committee, called ‘Let me not die before my time’.  You can download it at http://www.rescue.org/sites/default/files/resource-file/IRC_Report_DomVioWAfrica.pdf  The report stresses how violence in the home increases in post conflict societies.  

To quote from the introduction: “Women speak of domestic violence as impacting every aspect of their lives over a period of time, keeping them afraid and isolated from their friends and family and dependent on men who abuse them. Women want programs that confront this multifaceted reality. They want to be healthy (both physically and emotionally), to be financially independent, to have supportive communities that speak out against violence, and to have options for securing their safety whether through the police, a traditional chief, or a local women’s group.”

It sounds like while local realities may be very different, the wishes and needs of women suffering violence and abuse are universal.  You could have written almost exactly the same for women living in this country.

 

It’s time a defendant’s right to freedom was superseded by the victim’s right to safety”

I spent a few days in the North West last week and was lucky to have dinner with Penny and John Clough, parents of Jane Clough who was murdered by her ex-partner Jonathan Vass in 2010.  The title of this post comes from her father’s words – spoken after the House of Lords debate on their proposed change to the bail laws.  Last week’s Queen’s Speech brought closure to one part of their campaign – to give the prosecution the right to appeal bail decisions to the High Court in Crown Court cases.  Some of you will have heard them speak and I am sure will share my respect at their courage and dignity in striving to make things better for other women who might find themselves in Jane’s position in future.  If there was ever any doubt why we do our work, dinners like this remove it.  This is a potentially important change to the law and so all IDVA’s should be aware of it.

Their achievement has been quite extraordinary – to campaign for a change in the bail laws and see it get onto the statute books within 2 years of the death of their daughter reflects both the need for the change, and their extraordinary courage and determination in not taking no for an answer.  They are an inspiring couple.

After Jane’s death, they found her diary which predicted what would happen if Vass was released on bail.  She explains very eloquently her thoughts and you can watch them reading from Jane’s diary at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11709694

You can follow their campaign at www.justiceforjane.co.uk

I have included below an excerpt from the ObiterJ blog (www.obiterj.blogspot.com ) which gives the technical details of the changes.  They are one of the few good things in the Legal Aid Act (LASPO).

Chapter 2 – Bail - comprises section 90 which will bring into force Schedule 11.  This brings about various amendments to legislation dealing with bail.  The result is that the Bail Act 1976 becomes even more convoluted than it already is.  Surely, it is time for a new Act addressing bail.  A fresh start so-to-speak ! 

It was the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993 which introduced prosecution appeals (to the Crown Court) against grants of bail (by Magistrates’ Courts) to defendants.  The 1993 Act will be amended so that where a judge of the Crown Court grants bail to a person who is charged with, or convicted of, an offence punishable by imprisonment, the prosecution may appeal to the High Court against the granting of bail.  However,  an appeal may not be made where a judge of the Crown Court has granted bail on an appeal.

As originally enacted, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 section 25 prevented courts granting bail at all for defendants charged with or convicted of homicide or rape after previous conviction for such offences.  However, the original enactment was not compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights and the section was amended so as to permit courts to grant bail where the court “is satisfied” that there are exceptional circumstances.  A further amendment – in LASPO Schedule 11 – will replace the words “is satisfied” with “is of the opinion.”  The new wording is preferable but will perhaps make little practical difference.

Feedback on MARACs and GPs

I got some really interesting ideas following my last post through from Sheila Brookes, Domestic Abuse Strategy Team Leader for Cheshire West and Chester which I have reproduced below.  Do note the consultation from the Institute of Health Equity on the role of the NHS Workforce in addressing the social determinants of health.  I would just add that we do not really expect to see many referrals from GPs to MARACs – our aspiration at this stage is rather to ensure that proportionate information is shared in both directions so that all have the clearest picture of risk and can respond safely and appropriately.  I am still very glad to hear from anyone else with good practice examples that we can put into the discussion, ahead of publishing our toolkit which will have a few options in it.

“We have  a slot on an annual  Child Health Promotion Course through the Safeguarding Consultant and Safeguarding GP Lead on the LSCB which enables newly qualified doctors on rotation as GPs & hospital  staff to hear about what issues patients might present in relation to domestic abuse, what they can do, what the MARAC process is, what further training is available locally through our core DA training courses (including practice using the CAADA DASH RIC,  learning about agency roles in MARAC  and where they can refer onto). We have also run  workshops for the local Clinical Commissioners Group at  GP/Practice Nurse Half Day Rolling Programme  Education events (elective workshop). A local Safeguarding Nurse  (MARAC rep) completed the MARAC Champion training and cascades to health visitors  staff and offers advice to GPs

 

Our core training programme has been used as an example of good practice by the Institute of Health Equity (IHE) in their recent paper which is out for consultation (http://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/projects/what-a-nhs-workforce-can-do-to-tackle-health-inequalities)

 

However locally responses from GPs are still dependent on individual responses – currently their information is presented through the Lead Safeguarding Nurse but they make very few direct referrals“

 

Developing our MARAC thinking – what is the role of GPs?

Some of you will have read in our e-News about the work that is going on in relation to supporting MARACs around the country.  The joy of having a blog is that I can sometimes sneak out information about what we are doing before it is 100% official.  It is a habit that makes me universally popular with my colleagues!

As you will know by now, we see working more effectively with health practitioners as a key way of helping to address domestic abuse and achieving our goals of halving the number of high risk victims from 100,000 to 50,000 and halving the time it takes to get effective help from 5 to 2.5 years. Lots of people ask us about how they can be engaging GPs with their local MARAC as a way to reach just about everyone who experiences DV.  We were really fortunate to be able to hold a small workshop last week with some of the dedicated MARAC practitioners who faithfully advise on these sorts of practical issues as well as the IRIS team who have done such great work engaging with GPs in relation to DV.

The short answer is that there is a huge range of practice occurring from no contact at all with the local MARAC in most areas, to regular GP referrals in a handful of areas.  Some safeguarding nurses are actively liaising with GPs ensuring that relevant information is shared both with the MARAC and from the MARAC.

Our plan is to hold another similar event in Bristol in a few weeks and then draft a toolkit which will give a few different care pathways – hopefully offering everyone something realistic and helpful for their area.

Do you have any practical ideas to share?  If so, do let me know – either via the blog comments, or to our help desk at marac@caada.org.uk – thank you.

Striking the Balance – Guidance for Caldicott Guardians about MARAC

I can’t count how many times we have been asked about what information health practitioners can share at a MARAC meeting.  There have been real variations in practice around the country but now this could all change.  Perhaps not exciting for everyone, but for the hardened MARAC anoraks (not sure that sounds very pleasant) the news that the Dept of Health has published guidance for all Caldicott Guardians about what information they can and cannot share with a MARAC is really important.  We cannot stress enough the importance of the contribution of health practitioners to a MARAC and it is essential that they are able to act with confidence in this setting.  You can find it here Striking the Balance: Practical Guidance on the application of Caldicott Guardian Principles to Domestic Violence and MARACs

We are glad to have been able to contribute to the guidance and really hope it will help all of you who work with MARACs.  It can now sit with the guidance for the other former information sharing riddle, namely requests for disclosure from the Family Courts.  It reflects lots of dedication from Chris Fincken, until recently Chair of the Caldicott Guardian Council who wrote the guidance and attended his local MARAC for several years.

You call it a U-turn. I call it Common Sense.

So Ken Clarke announced a ‘U turn’ last night in relation to the eligibility of victims of domestic abuse to Legal Aid in private law cases.  Common sense prevailed and a statement from a GP that someone has experienced domestic abuse will now be acceptable evidence, as will evidence that a woman has been to refuge.  We can fret about awareness among GP’s about domestic abuse – but it is certainly a material step in the right direction.

Equally importantly, the time period within which this ‘new’ evidence (along with a criminal investigation, MARAC case or injunction) will be acceptable has been extended from one year to two years.  Again, we can all think of cases where several years later abuse is still continuing and where facing an abusive partner in court could be both terrifying and dangerous – but it is better than Plan A.

Which just leaves us worrying about those children in private law cases where perhaps parents have mental health or other issues which prevent them representing themselves properly.  What happened to common sense there?

The Public Services – Social Value Act – Will it make any difference?

The post below is ‘honestly stolen from’ the CAF Giving Thought Blog (http://giving-thought.tumblr.com/).  Like the author, I have been meaning to write about this for a while….but I would never have been as clear, nor would I have found such a good photo!  All I would add, is that our work with our Insights service (http://www.caada.org.uk/dvservices/insights-for-domestic-abuse-services.html )and trying to measure outcomes that matter to victims, practitioners, funders and commissioners should all contribute to doing this kind of analysis better in future.  We talk at CAADA about the silver thread of data that links victims to commissioners.  So with that, I will hand over now to the CAF blogger…

“I have been thinking for a little while about doing a blog post on the new Public Services (Social Value) Act, and when I came across an article on the topic by former NAVCA CEO Kevin Curley it finally spurred me to action. Curley discusses some of the potential issues with the Bill and the way it will be implemented, and many of his thoughts echo ones I have been mulling over myself.

The Act sets out a new requirement that “public authorities to have regard to economic, social and environmental well-being in connection with public services contracts; and for connected purposes.” This has been well received by many in the civil society sector, who have been arguing for a long time that charities and social enterprises have been at a disadvantage when competing for public service contracts because they are unable to make the most of all the benefits they can offer. It is hoped that this bill could improve the situation.

The Victims and Witnesses Consultation – ‘Getting it Right’

I attended (most) of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Victims and Witnesses yesterday where the new consultation ‘Getting it Right’ was debated.  This is a very important consultation for our sector.   The main point of contention was the use of local commissioning for victim services, in particular Violence against Women services.   There was some eloquent input from Javed Khan, CEO of Victim Support and Sheila Coates, from Rape Crisis, both of whom argued strongly that there should be national direction for the commissioning of services for victims with local implementation. They argued that the current system works well and should not be amended.  To be fair, the Minister, Crispin Blunt, confirmed that services related to homicide would be commissioned nationally, most other victim services would be commissioned locally and that the consultation document did not specify where violence against women services should sit–suggesting that there is an opportunity to influence this.

Given the focus on localism, the advent of police and crime commissioners, and in the wake of the new social value bill which puts the responsibility of local authorities to consider social value (let’s call it social impact) when commissioning, it seems that an element local commissioning is something that we are very unlikely to avoid.

It would be great to share ideas about how local commissioning can be made to work well and examples of good practice that we can showcase, as well as debating the merits of national commissioning.   If you can send over your experience from your area, it would be much appreciated. Thanks for your help.

Important Progress on Stalking

After many years of campaigning to change the law, Tricia Bernal and Carol Faruqui, both of whose daughters were killed by stalkers, are now on their way to achieving their goal.  I have met Tricia and Carol many times – they are tremendously courageous and positive – dedicated to avoiding for others, the terrible fate that befell their daughters.  They have spent many hours patiently explaining to me why this is so important. And slowly, slowly, I have caught up.  The Prime Minister announced this morning that the law will be changed to introduce a specific offence of stalking, with a potential custodial sentence of up to 5 years.

I think that there are a few reasons why this is important.  The first is about risk.  Many, many people are stalked and we are all familiar with how much easier it is to stalk someone now via email, Facebook, Twitter etc.  Of course, not every stalker is truly dangerous – although they might all be truly frightening.  But this focus on stalking will help highlight the types of stalking behaviour that are truly dangerous.  These include constant/obsessive phone calls, texts or emails; uninvited visits to home, workplace etc or loitering. It includes where someone destroys or vandalises property; pursues the victim after separation, or where the stalker threatens suicide/homicide to victim and other family members.  Other examples include where there are threats of sexual violence or involvement of others in the stalking behaviour.  Friends, family and professionals need to acknowledge the degree of risk involved in such behaviours because they are the ones that could result in a murder.

Secondly, the proposed changes to the legislation don’t limit who the stalker is and what relationship the victim has with them. Those of us working in the domestic abuse field have been heard to say: “It isn’t stalking, it is just part of the domestic abuse, part of the controlling behaviour.”  Whether we are right or wrong doesn’t matter – what is more important is that we must talk to victims and their families in language that they recognise.  Even in the most extreme controlling situations with many different forms of abuse, victims will very rarely describe themselves as suffering domestic abuse.  Stalking is language that we can all relate to – I very much hope that this helps to give people the confidence to come forward and seek help.  It is likely that a large percentage of cases will involve a current or former partner.  The current Protection from Harassment Act is the only piece of legislation in our field that recognises the impact of a course of conduct.  This is so important and it is really positive that we can build on it.

Finally, the proposed changes from the Select Committee include psychiatric assessments for stalkers.  Certainly, many of the cases I have looked at include what looks like someone with mental health problems to an untrained eye.  Combined with the stronger sentencing guidelines, these assessments appear crucial.

We have seen a huge surge in the use of restraining orders in cases of domestic abuse, and increasing use of the harassment legislation. Whoever the stalker is, let’s hope that these revisions will meet Tricia and Carol’s goals to keeping more victims safe in future.

Reflections from the Centre for Court Innovation

In view of the current discussion about reducing the age for recognising domestic abuse to 16, or even lower, I thought that this email from Greg Berman at the Centre for Court Innovation was interesting and relevant, as we are likely to be finding more perpetrators of domestic abuse who are also under 18.  This example relates to drug offences, but perhaps some of the same considerations need to be taken into account for domestic abuse.

Dear Friends: At his annual state of the judiciary address, New York State Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman unveiled a plan to re-engineer how the court system handles 16- and 17-year-old youths charged with minor offenses.Judge Lippman called for a hybrid approach to these cases that would combine the advantages of Family Court with the due process protections of Criminal Court. “This approach puts first and foremost an emphasis on rehabilitation for adolescents, rather than incarceration,” Judge Lippman said. “The present punitive approach turns children into hardened criminals and must be changed.” To demonstrate the kind of change Judge Lippman hopes to achieve statewide, the court system has created pilot adolescent diversion courts in nine counties, including all five boroughs of New York City.