1. INASC: Results of the Irish Study This project is funded by the Criminal Justice Programme of the European Union

2. Workstream 2 Methodology ► Ireland’s DPP prosecutes only the most serious DV cases ► Responsibility for prosecution of most DV cases lies with An Garda Síochána ► Garda Commissioner declined to participate ► Victim-centred methodology ► Personal interviews with 40 victims ► Mixed quantitative and qualitative questions

3. Methodology, cont. ► Participants had to meet certain criteria: ► Had experienced IPV ► Had reported at least one incident of DV to Gardai between 2010 and 2013 ► Were aged 18 at the time of that report ► Had sufficient understanding of English to answer questions

4. Limitations of this Methodology ► No corroboration of assertions made ► Unrepresentativeness of the sample ► Good geographical spread ► Low number ► Drawn exclusively from victims in contact with DV agencies ► Victims unable to recall details concerning court outcomes with sufficient reliability

5. Demographic Profile of Participants ► Age range = 20-62 (half in their twenties); 95% had children ► 35 were Irish/EU + 3 “Green Card” ► 7 were in a minority ethnic/racial group; 3 were in a minority religious/political group ► Better educated than their abusers ► Over half working in the home – 2/3 dependant on social welfare payments ► Married to, and cohabiting with, abusers were equally represented

6. Severity of the Violence ► Beginning of violence = 21 months on average ► Participants’ average age = 28; abusers’ = 32 ► Physical and emotional/psychological violence occurring daily = 30% and 35%, respectively ► 50% reported a serious risk indicator as part of first incident Form% % Physical90Emotional98 Sexual43Verbal98 Imprisonment45Financial75 Harassment50Children73 Threats78Coercion83

7. Continuation of Violence

8. Garda Response ► Garda Domestic Violence Policy 1996 ► Came to incident location = 53% ► Very little in the way of needs/risk assessment ► Reluctance to arrest abuser, even for breach of DVO ► Participant assessment of gardaí = mixed ► High praise: ► “Very good, very helpful”; ► “They were perfect”; ► “The [Garda] is after giving me faith”; ► “I felt I wasn’t on my own”

9. Garda Response II ► Some strong criticism: ► “[T]here was no bit of … fire in them”; ► “It’s like you’re taking them away from their dinner or something”; ► “And then he asked me what I’d done to upset [the abuser]”; ► “I didn’t want to call the Garda at all, because I didn’t have any help”; ► “I forgive [the abuser] for everything he done to me, but I will never forgive that Guard until the day I die”.

10. Workstream 3 Methodology This project is funded by the Criminal Justice Programme of the European Union Semi-structured Interviews Using adapted version of Workstream 3 Guidelines with Judges, Senior Gardai, Public Prosecutors, State Solicitors, Probation Officers, Court Services Staff, Prosecuting Barristers, Women’s Support Services

11. Main Findings: This project is funded by the Criminal Justice Programme of the European Union IPV is not treated as a serious criminal matter. ►Most of the cases are prosecuted by the gardai. ►IPV cases and breaches of DVO are mostly heard in the District Court / lower court because cases are processed more quickly ►Legal professionals had very little experience of IPV cases in the Criminal Court, including for breaches of DVO

12. Main Findings, cont. This project is funded by the Criminal Justice Programme of the European Union There is a reluctance to investigate IPV offences ►Gardai will generally not prosecute a case without a DVO. ►Most legal professionals view women as reluctant to pursue cases for a variety of emotional and psychological reasons. In contrast Women’s support Services said women mainly wanted to avoid the ordeal of court. ►All legal professionals commented on the need for good investigation and evidence to make good cases. ►Women’s Support Services reported that in some cases they are asked by gardai to gather evidence e.g. photos of injuries.

13. Main Findings, cont. This project is funded by the Criminal Justice Programme of the European Union Repeat Victimisation is not addressed ►Levels of intimidation were identified by all professionals as high in IPV cases, yet there is no formal risk assessment ►There is little evidence of special measures being applied, other than interpreter services. ►There is no requirement on judges to make a connection between the Family court and Criminal court hearings ►Much of DV is dealt with on a case by case basis, often for minor offences, so the pattern of DV is not recognised.