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

2. 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)

3. 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

4. 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).

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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) →

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

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

18. 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

19. Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit
Thank you!
Nicole Nicola
Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit