Clare's Law A Practitioners Guide to the Domestic Abuse Disclosure Scheme Right to Ask & Right to Know

Coroner’s Inquest 2011 “...consideration should be given to the disclosure of such convictions and their circumstances to potential victims in order that they can make informed choices about matters affecting their safety and that of their children.” Background to Clare's Law The legislation is named after Clare Wood, who was murdered by her ex-boyfriend George Appleton in Clare had met Appleton on Facebook and was not aware of his horrific history of violence against women, including repeated harassment, threats and the kidnapping at knifepoint of one of his ex- partners. Appleton strangled her and set her on fire before taking his own life in Salford, Greater Manchester

386 applications for a disclosure across pilot areas 231 Right to Ask requests initiated by members of the public 155 Right to Know requests initiated by police and statutory or voluntary services. The majority of applications requested information about the previous history of a woman's male partner. The most common reported trigger for requesting a disclosure was due to the behaviour of a partner. Of the 386 applications, 29%, (111 applications) resulted in a disclosure. Right to Know applications were more likely to result in a disclosure (34%) compared to Right to Ask applications (26%). Possible forecast numbers for MPS? GMP DVDS 'applications' in 15 months, so bearing in mind their population and force size is 1/4 of the Met, if uptake was similar we might expect a year across all BOCUs – Dependant on Home office launch/press coverage/publicity. As a result the Home Office implemented 15 month pilot to test DVDS across four force areas of Gwent, Wiltshire, Greater Manchester and Nottinghamshire The figures:

Aim of DVDS Introduce recognised and consistent procedures for disclosing information which will enable a partner of a previously violent individual to make informed choices about whether and how to take forward that relationship. Focused on disclosure and risk management where the Subject is identified as having convictions for violent offences, and/or information held about behaviour which reasonably lead the police and other safeguarding agencies to believe that the Subject poses a risk of harm to the Person at Risk. Underpinning Principles Intimate relationship – means a relationship between two people which may be reasonably characterised as being physically and emotionally intimate. Immediate safeguarding of the person at risk is paramount / criminal offences Authentic applications Assumption that disclosure will be to the person at risk. Timescale of no more than 35 days

Legislation? Common Law Police have common law powers to disclose information relating to previous convictions or charges where there is a pressing need for disclosure to prevent further crime. Section 325 of the Criminal Justice Act requires “responsible authorities” (police probation, prison service) to establish “arrangements” for the purpose of assessing and managing the risks posed by relevant sexual and violent offenders Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARAC) Overview of DVDS ‘Right to ask’ - where a person makes a direct application to the police for information ‘Right to know’ - the police receive indirect information or intelligence about the safety of a Person at Risk and where, after appropriate checks are made, the police judge that a disclosure should be made to safeguard that person. Lawful, necessary and proportionate to protect the potential victim from further crime.

Right to ASK & Right to KNOW – Process stages MPS Stage 1 within 24HStage MPS Stage 2 within 10 daysStage MPS Stage 3/4Stage MPS Stage 5 within 35 DaysStage

MPS DVDS Decision Making Forum (DMF) – Home Office NOT prescriptive in guidance as to what this will look like at a local level. This is beneficial to MPS where across 32 BOCU’s workloads and current stakeholder input varies. Each CSU will need to utilise the network of bodies already engaged with Marac and involve them in the decision making process of the disclosure scheme. What will this look like? Likely to be ongoing process of liaison and information sharing amongst partners. Ultimately, Police will hold majority of relevant intelligence and will be best placed to decide on there being concern and a pressing need to disclose. Liaison with Marac partners will decide whether any disclosure is lawful, necessary and proportionate and if so, decide whom to disclose the information to and set up a safety plan tailored to the needs of the potential victim. It is expected only the latter stages will be ‘rubber stamped’ at Marac, minimising impact on caseload. Disclosures/Non disclosure can be decided outside Marac. Expectation however is that there will have been discussion prior to decision or as soon as practicable afterwards. Quantity of applications will shape how each BOCU develops this process.

Decision Making Forum Three Principles to follow: 1.Disclosure test conclude that disclosure to the applicant is necessary to protect the Person at Risk from being the victim of a crime; pressing need for such disclosure and That interfering with the rights of the Subject to have information about his/her previous convictions kept confidential is necessary and proportionate for the prevention of crime. 2. Disclosure is in accordance with Data Protection Act 3. Informing Subject of the Disclosure Consideration must also be given as to whether the Subject should be told that information about him/her may be disclosed to the applicant

BackBack to process map MPS DVDS This final stage concerns the disclosure/non-disclosure and safety plan. Consider – Specific wording and sufficient detail to enable the recipient to make informed choice and use information appropriately. The disclosure must include a safety plan and follow up support post-disclosure. Decide WHO will make the disclosure – IDVA, Social Worker, CSU, multi/joint agency? To whom? Usually to person at risk unless appropriate to involve third party in order to protect/support person at risk of abuse. Disclosure to be made IN PERSON at time/place suited to recipient. Likewise IN PERSON where non-disclosure decided. DVDS07 form used – No written copy disclosure provided, however recipient must sign form. Person disclosing reads out declaration. Likewise read out DVDS08 (non) ADMIN: FOD/Scan all docs to single case file under cris ref and e-store locally. CRIS flag: Service Flags DJ for disclosure made, DK for non-disclosure.

Concern Outcome A “concern” occurs if the Person At Risk is at risk of harm from the Subject based on a balanced profile: has convictions related to domestic violence that may be disclosed under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 ('unspent' therefore able to be disclosed) and/or the Subject is a serial perpetrator of domestic violence and/or there is intelligence known about the previous violent offending of the Subject which may include: cases not proceeded with; and/or intelligence concerning violent offences; and/or previous concerning behaviour towards previous partners. This may include a pattern of behaviours that the Subject has exercised coercive control over previous partners. and/or there is concerning behaviour by the Subject demonstrated towards the person at Risk. This may include a pattern of behaviours that indicate that the Subject is exercising coercive control over the person at Risk.

No Concern A “No Concern” occurs where:  no convictions for an offence related to domestic violence that may be disclosed under the terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974; ie: only 'spent' convictions and/or  there is no other intelligence that indicates that the Subjects behaviour may cause harm to the Person at Risk; and/or  there is insufficient intelligence or information to register a concern. No Information to Disclose Applicant must be told this does not mean there is no risk of harm Ensure safeguards in place where applicable RTA - Police need to decide Concern or No Concern within 5 days of Stage 2

Consideration to appraise 'subject' that he is subject of a disclosure request. Following a ruling from the High Court in March 2013 on the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme, the DVDS guidance was amended so that, at the point where a decision is being made on whether to make a disclosure, consideration is also given on whether to seek representations from the subject of the disclosure request before the disclosure is made. However, consideration should also be given on whether there are good reasons not to seek a representation, such as the need to disclose information in an emergency or where seeking the representation might put the potential victim at risk. DECISION TO BE DOCUMENTED ON CRIS This scheme does not replace existing arrangements for Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks, Subject Access or Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, or the proposed new Disclosure and Barring Service. If it is identified at the initial contact that the request is one of these other types of enquiry then it should be directed down the existing route for this type of request. Further issues of note

End DVPN and DVPO guidance to follow Projected launch June 2014 Thank You.