Domestic homicide reviews and male victims Nicole Jacobs and Nicola Sharp-Jeffs 9 June, 2016

Why undertake analysis? Increasing interest in understanding the national picture on DHRs Lessons Learned (Home Office, 2013) document drew out common themes from the first 54 cases Although useful, the themes presented within the document provided ‘limited insights’ (HMIC, 2014) Described as an ‘inadequate response to the complex findings that have emerged from DHR reports across the country’ (Neville & Sanders-McDonagh, 2014)

Methodology Sample made up of 32 DHR reports chaired by STADV Some finalised and published, some still underway DHRs anonymised and assigned numbers from 1-32 Each case had a specific set of circumstances but purpose was to identify common learning across the sample Six key themes emerged from qualitative analysis of the DHR reports and were selected for further exploration

Interpretation of findings “Coercive control is a concept developed to make sense of the many subtle and not so subtle ways in which men impose their will in heterosexual relationships, and it draws on cultural norms about both masculinity and femininity.  This cannot be simply read across into other relationships which are often generational, in which the issues of gender and sexuality play out differently” (Kelly & Westmarland, 2014).

Overview of cases Intimate partner homicide (IPH) made up three-quarters (n=24) of the cases 22 of the victims were women and two victims were men Adult Family Homicide (AFH) made up the remaining quarter (n=8) of cases 5 cases involved sons killing mothers (matricide); 2 cases involved sons killing fathers (patricide); and 1 case involved a brother killing his brother (fratricide)

Intimate Partner Homicide (IPH) Case one: older male victim believed he was in a relationship with younger male perpetrator who told professionals he was his carer. Case two: older male victim (66) murdered by his female ex-partner/now carer

IPH, case one GP and hospital did not ask questions about IPV despite injuries and depression The victim’s many falls were attributed to alcohol misuse Action was not taken even when the victim disclosed he was being abused by his IP on three separate occasions His IP was believed to be only his carer

What did informal networks know? Perpetrator controlled the victim’s access to the phone The victim was physically assaulted by the perpetrator The perpetrator was financially exploiting the victim

IPH, case two Victim and perpetrator had previously been in a relationship (not characterised by IPV) but perpetrator was caring for the victim when he was murdered Perpetrator had a long history of mental ill health and substance misuse Carer assessment undertaken: perpetrator wanted additional support but victim declined it Panel concluded that no single agency had a full understanding of the situation and in particular the perpetrator’s historic and current mental health

Issues arising across the two IPH cases Protected characteristics: gender, age, sexuality, ethnicity Substance misuse (victim/perpetrator) Depression and other mental ill-health (victim/perpetrator) Caring responsibilities

Adult Family Homicide (AFH) Case one: male victim killed by his brother Case two: male victim killed by his adult son Case three: male victim killed by his adult son

AFH, case one Victim was depressed, misused alcohol and presented with minor injuries but questions not asked by GP Perpetrator also misused alcohol Physical fight between brothers a month before murder and victim attended local hospital Perpetrator was also a perpetrator of IPV – this had gone to MARAC

AFH, case two Perpetrator had diagnosed schizophrenia and was being cared for by the victim, however he refused to involve his father in his relapse prevention planning Deterioration in the behaviour of the perpetrator was noted by the perpetrator’s mother and sibling in the lead up to the murder but he was not violent Concern that the perpetrator was not taking his medication and his risk level to others had been raised by the psychologist

AFG, case three Perpetrator had mental ill-health and misused drugs and alcohol Perpetrator was homeless following setting fire to a hostel; had been living with his sister and her children despite expressing hostility towards her during a mental health assessment

Police called after perpetrator smashed down door of mother’s house with a hammer, smashed contents and threatened to kill them all Two weeks before the murder the perpetrator moved into his father’s home The risk that the victim’s son posed on him was assessed on two occasions on two consecutive days; standard and then medium but no secondary risk assessment (high may have been more appropriate) →

Hospitalisation had been recommended by a number of professionals but the Approved Medical Health Professional (AMHP) decided against this

Issues arising across three AFH cases Mental ill health (3) Violence towards other family members (2) Caring responsibilities (2) Substance misuse (1)

Issues for discussion Similarities across IPH and AFH cases Differences across IPH and AFH cases Implications for service provision? Implications for risk assessment? Other issues? There is a 8 Anyone who possesses IIOC poses a risk of committing contact sexual offences against children. 8 The risk each offender poses needs to be assessed on an individual basis using appropriate risk assessment models backed by professional judgement. Individual offenders may view images as part of a continuum of offending culminating in a contact offence, as a diversion from contact offending or as a result of experiencing a sexual interest in children. There is a need, therefore, to consider in every case what other offending may accompany the possession offending and where that offending may lead some contact offenders abuse children before they engage in viewing IIOC, some view IIOC to increase sexual arousal before committing a contact offence whilst others may view IIOC to fuel fantasy which may escalate to contact offending

Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit Thank you! Nicole Jacobs, STADV n.jacobs@standingtogether.org.uk @STagainstDV @nicolejacobsST Nicola Sharp-Jeffs, CWASU n.sharp@londonmet.ac.uk @CWASULonMet @nicolajanesharp Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit